[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6970-6996]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260 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. 1735.
  Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reed) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1929


                     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. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 
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. Reed (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, 
amendment No. 17 printed in House Report 114-112 offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. McCaul) had been disposed of.


              Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

     SEC. 12XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS RELATING TO DR. SHAKIL AFRIDI.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The attacks of September 11, 2001, killed approximately 
     3,000 people, most of whom were Americans, but also included 
     hundreds of individuals with foreign citizenships, nearly 350 
     New York Fire Department personnel, and about 50 law 
     enforcement officers.
       (2) Downed United Airlines flight 93 was reportedly 
     intended, under the control of the al-Qaeda high-jackers, to 
     crash into the White House or the Capitol in an attempt to 
     kill the President of the United States or Members of the 
     United States Congress.
       (3) The September 11, 2001, attacks were largely planned 
     and carried out by the al-Qaeda terrorist network led by 
     Osama bin

[[Page 6971]]

     Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahiri, after which Osama bin 
     Laden enjoyed safe haven in Pakistan from where he continued 
     to plot deadly attacks against the United States and the 
     world.
       (4) The United States has obligated nearly $30 billion 
     between 2002 and 2014 in United States taxpayer money for 
     security and economic aid to Pakistan.
       (5) The United States very generously and swiftly responded 
     to the 2005 Kashmir Earthquake in Pakistan with more than 
     $200 million in emergency aid and the support of several 
     United States military aircraft, approximately 1,000 United 
     States military personnel, including medical specialists, 
     thousands of tents, blankets, water containers and a variety 
     of other emergency equipment.
       (6) The United States again generously and swiftly 
     contributed approximately $150 million in emergency aid to 
     Pakistan following the 2010 Pakistan flood, in addition to 
     the service of nearly twenty United States military 
     helicopters, their flight crews, and other resources to 
     assist the Pakistan Army's relief efforts.
       (7) The United States continues to work tirelessly to 
     support Pakistan's economic development, including millions 
     of dollars allocated towards the development of Pakistan's 
     energy infrastructure, health services and education system.
       (8) The United States and Pakistan continue to have many 
     critical shared interests, both economic and security 
     related, which could be the foundation for a positive and 
     mutually beneficial partnership.
       (9) Dr. Shakil Afridi, a Pakistani physician, is a hero to 
     whom the people of the United States, Pakistan and the world 
     owe a debt of gratitude for his help in finally locating 
     Osama bin Laden before more innocent American, Pakistani and 
     other lives were lost to this terrorist leader.
       (10) Pakistan, the United States and the international 
     community had failed for nearly 10 years following attacks of 
     September 11, 2001, to locate and bring Osama bin Laden, who 
     continued to kill innocent civilians in the Middle East, 
     Asia, Europe, Africa and the United States, to justice 
     without the help of Dr. Afridi.
       (11) The Government of Pakistan's imprisonment of Dr. 
     Afridi presents a serious and growing impediment to the 
     United States' bilateral relations with Pakistan.
       (12) The Government of Pakistan has leveled and allowed 
     baseless charges against Dr. Afridi in a politically 
     motivated, spurious legal process.
       (13) Dr. Afridi is currently imprisoned by the Government 
     of Pakistan, a deplorable and unconscionable situation which 
     calls into question Pakistan's actual commitment to 
     countering terrorism and undermines the notion that Pakistan 
     is a true ally in the struggle against terrorism.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     Dr. Shakil Afridi is an international hero and that the 
     Government of Pakistan should release him immediately from 
     prison.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to 
H.R. 1735, a sense of the Congress that Dr. Afridi, a hero of freedom 
and decency, is imprisoned and that Pakistan should release him from 
prison immediately.
  Last year, this very same amendment was adopted by the House but 
stripped during the House-Senate conference negotiations process. Yes, 
a short note of acknowledging this amendment was included in the fiscal 
year '15 NDAA Joint Explanatory Statement, but that amendment itself 
was nevertheless stripped. I intend to request a recorded vote to 
demonstrate solid bipartisan support for Dr. Afridi so that future 
conferees will take this language more seriously and include it in the 
final fiscal year '16 NDAA.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to make a statement in support of this American 
and international hero against terrorism. We need to support Dr. 
Afridi. If we abandon this friend, we put ourselves at great risk 
because he put himself at great risk for us. No amount of aircraft 
carriers will make us secure if we abandon our friends who stand with 
us.
  Dr. Afridi is the Pakistani medical doctor who helped pinpoint the 
location for Osama bin Laden, the terrorist coward who masterminded the 
massacre of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
  Because of his cooperation with the United States, Dr. Afridi was 
tried and imprisoned by Pakistan's corrupt and oppressive government. 
That should be considered a hostile act by Pakistan against the people 
of the United States. Worse, after years of effort on the part of the 
United States to free him, Dr. Afridi continues to languish in a 
Pakistan dungeon. Yes, it is shameful we have abandoned such an heroic 
friend. All the while, of course, we continue to provide weapons and 
cash to his captors. Since 9/11 we have given Pakistan over $25 
billion, the majority of which goes to the military and security 
services which they use to murder and oppress their own people, people 
like the heroic Baloch people or the Sindhis, who are struggling for 
their freedom under Pakistan oppression.
  It is a grotesque charade to suggest that our aid is buying 
Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terror or anything else. So long 
as Dr. Afridi remains left to suffer this brutal imprisonment, no 
Pakistani promise of cooperation means anything if they cannot get 
themselves to release such an heroic person who never should have been 
arrested and who risked his life for us. How can we believe they are 
not supporting or even arming or supplying the world's worst and most 
bloodthirsty terrorists? Pakistan has taken us for fools, and shame on 
us for being so stupid for financing a regime that so blatantly 
despises us.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment will remind the Government of Pakistan and 
our own government that we have not forgotten Dr. Afridi nor his 
courageous actions, and it will remind other brave allies of freedom as 
well as intelligence assets throughout the world that the United States 
will not forget them if they risk their lives for us. We will not turn 
our back and leave them to suffer a terrible fate because they were 
loyal to us.
  Save Dr. Afridi. I ask my colleagues to join me in that statement, 
and Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although 
I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Rhode Island 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers, so at this time, I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just remind all of us as we try to decide how 
much money we are going to be spending on the military, let's remind 
ourselves that we can arm ourselves to the teeth, we can make sure that 
we have rockets, aircraft carriers, and new airplanes, but if the 
people around the world cannot trust us, if people put themselves in an 
alliance with the United States, if we lose those people who can be 
intelligence assets, who will fight battles against terrorists like up 
in Erbil, which is going on right now, we have no chance at peace.
  We can't carry the load ourselves. I just voted against that added 
aircraft carrier because what we need to do is to make sure that we are 
enlisting the people around the world to carry their part of the load. 
The American people can't do this alone. But I will tell you, if we 
abandon our friends like this, if we abandon Dr. Afridi, we are putting 
ourselves at risk for it.
  It is shameful that we couldn't even get a statement in legislation 
last year supporting this heroic man who risked his life to finger 
Osama bin Laden, the murderer, the man who slaughtered 3,000 Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to join me in this noble endeavor 
to send a message to Dr. Afridi, and send a message to our adversaries, 
the brutal terrorists around the world, that we will stand with those 
free people who are willing to stand with us and not forget them.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.

[[Page 6972]]


  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Lamborn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, No. 27.
  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 XII, add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. LIMITATION ON FUNDS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW 
                   START TREATY.

       (a) Limitation.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2016 
     for the Department of Defense may be used for implementation 
     of the New START Treaty until the President certifies to the 
     appropriate congressional committees that--
       (1) the armed forces of the Russian Federation are no 
     longer illegally occupying Ukrainian territory;
       (2) the Russian Federation is respecting the sovereignty of 
     all Ukrainian territory;
       (3) the Russian Federation is no longer taking actions that 
     are inconsistent with the INF Treaty;
       (4) the Russian Federation is in compliance with the CFE 
     Treaty and has lifted its suspension of Russian observance of 
     its treaty obligations; and
       (5) there have been no inconsistencies by the Russian 
     Federation with New START Treaty requirements.
       (b) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term 
     ``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
       (A) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Foreign Relations of the Senate; and
       (B) the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
       (2) CFE treaty.--The term ``CFE Treaty'' means the Treaty 
     on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, signed at Paris 
     November 19, 1990, and entered into force July 17, 1992.
       (3) INF treaty.--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, commonly referred to as the 
     Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, signed at 
     Washington December 8, 1987, and entered into force June 1, 
     1988.
       (4) New start treatu.--The term ``New START Treaty'' means 
     the Treaty between the United States of America and the 
     Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and 
     Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, signed on April 8, 
     2010, and entered into force on February 5, 2011
       (c) Effective Date.--This section takes effect on the date 
     of the enactment of this Act and applies with respect to 
     funds described in subsection (a) that are unobligated as of 
     such date of enactment.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
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.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. We should not implement a 
treaty--the New START treaty in this case--unless we believe the other 
party to the treaty is trustworthy and will uphold their end of the 
bargain. Now, if you don't trust Vladimir Putin, then you should vote 
for this amendment, and let me explain why.
  Right now, I don't believe the Russians are trustworthy. We know that 
they are already violating three major agreements: the INF Treaty, the 
CFE Treaty, and the Budapest Memorandum. Mr. Putin also continues to 
deny that Russian forces are engaged in combat in Ukraine.
  Because this amendment deals with treaties, let me expand on the 
details of these three treaties. First, in 1994, Russia, Ukraine, the 
United Kingdom, and the United States signed the Budapest Memorandum. 
This agreement included a commitment to ``respect''--and I have got a 
copy right here--``respect the independence and sovereignty and the 
existing borders of Ukraine'' and a commitment to ``refrain from the 
threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political 
independence of Ukraine.''
  Clearly, the recent invasions of Crimea and eastern Ukraine show that 
the Russian Federation is in violation of the Budapest Memorandum.
  Second, in 1987, Reagan and Gorbachev signed the Intermediate-Range 
Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF Treaty. Last year, the State Department 
released its annual compliance report which states--and I have a copy 
of it right here--``the United States has determined that the Russian 
Federation is in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty.''
  Third, in 2007 President Putin announced that he was suspending 
Russian participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, or 
the CFE Treaty. This came after years of Russian violations of that 
treaty. Today, as we speak, the Russian military continues to occupy 
Ukrainian territory.
  Russian noncompliance with treaties cannot be disputed. My amendment 
would prevent the continued reduction of our nuclear weapons as 
required by the New START treaty unless the President can certify to 
Congress that the Russian Federation is no longer occupying Ukrainian 
territory and also certifies that the Russian Federation is abiding by 
their obligations under these three treaties.
  So if you think that the Russian Federation might not be trustworthy, 
then please support this amendment. We should not unilaterally disarm 
and blindly assume that the Russians will do their part. If the 
President can certify that the Russians are doing their part on these 
treaties, then the funding to implement the New START treaty will be 
released.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I stand second to no one in my dislike of Vladimir 
Putin. I think most everyone in this body hates Vladimir Putin. We 
despise his territorial aggression vis-a-vis Ukraine, but this is not 
the right way to get back at Putin and Russia. The gentleman is a very 
senior and distinguished member of the committee. He is my friend. I 
don't recall the gentleman offering this amendment in the Armed 
Services Committee markup. Did the gentleman offer this amendment?
  Mr. LAMBORN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COOPER. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. LAMBORN. No.
  Mr. COOPER. May I ask why?
  Mr. LAMBORN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, I thought that 
it was better timing to do it in this particular venue because we had 
other things going on in committee.
  Mr. COOPER. But we spent some 18 hours in committee. We considered 
hundreds of amendments. But the gentleman did not offer our committee, 
the Armed Services Committee, the opportunity to discuss this 
amendment.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I didn't want it to be 18\1/2\ hours.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would call this 
amendment by my friend from Colorado the boomerang amendment because it 
does not hit the intended target. Instead, it comes back and hits us.
  How does it do this? His amendment, as proposed, would amount to a 
unilateral U.S. treaty violation. This would effectively blind the 
United States when it comes to looking at things like the number of 
Russian nuclear weapons on deployed intercontinental ballistic 
missiles, the number of deployed submarine-launched ballistic missiles, 
counting nuclear weapons onboard or attached to deployed heavy bombers, 
and confirming weapons systems conversions. These are the things that 
the New START treaty allows us to do with Russia. We need the continued 
ability to look at those Russian weapons systems. By cutting off 
funding for these essential national security activities, the gentleman 
has hit the wrong target here. That is why this is the boomerang 
amendment.

[[Page 6973]]

  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman pointed out that Russia is despicable in 
so many ways. They probably violated the INF Treaty, the CFE Treaty, 
and the Budapest Treaty. But the gentleman is using the New START 
treaty to get back at those violations. He has picked the wrong target. 
So I have the highest regard for the gentleman, but he proposed this 
last year, and it was dropped in conference. Instead, it was 
substituted. We had an inquiry to the Pentagon to get their opinion on 
this, and they wrote us back, and they said that the New START treaty 
facilitates conditions to make the United States more secure, and its 
continued implementation remains in the national security interests of 
the Nation.
  The Pentagon went on to say that the New START treaty sustains 
effective deterrence and increases stability in the U.S.-Russian 
nuclear relationship at significantly lower levels of strategic 
delivery systems and warheads. Finally, the report said that the New 
START treaty provides the United States a vital window into the Russian 
strategic nuclear arsenal.
  Let's not blind the United States. The gentleman had a chance in the 
committee to offer this. The gentleman offered this last year, and this 
is the response of the Secretary of Defense, who is strongly against 
the gentleman's amendment; the Joint Chiefs of Staff are strongly 
against the gentleman's amendment. And I would suggest that, Mr. 
Chairman, this amendment is not in the national security interests of 
the United States. For the gentleman to propose a unilateral treaty 
violation, a solemn obligation of this country, is a serious 
undertaking, and we need more than 10 minutes to debate such a serious 
breach.
  This is a treaty, after all, only entered into in 2010, but it was 
entered into by a solid vote of the United States Senate, 71-26. I know 
many of us here wish that we were Senators, but we are not. The Senate 
entered into that treaty solemnly. This would be a grave mistake for 
this body to accept the gentleman's amendment.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose the Lamborn 
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to say it is not 
the right time to continue to unilaterally disarm under the terms that 
we would be facing in the face of these violations.
  At this time, Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Alabama, Representative Mike Rogers, the distinguished chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the 
distinguished vice chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee for 
this amendment and for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, the New START treaty is the only bilateral arms control 
treaty I am aware of that only requires one party to reduce its nuclear 
weapons, and that is the United States, while the other party, Russia, 
increases its stockpile.

                              {time}  1945

  I have a prediction here for you today. If this truly is fully 
implemented by the United States prior to the 2018 deadline, we will 
see Russia cheating on the treaty immediately thereafter. Mark my 
words, unless there is a U.S. President in office at the time Putin 
respects, he will cheat on this treaty as soon as he gets a chance.
  The Russians have no respect for the agreements they make. They have 
no respect for international law or sovereignty. They respect one thing 
and one thing alone: strength.
  I urge support of this prudent amendment.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to my distinguished 
friends and colleagues, this should have been offered in committee 
where Members are more conversant with these issues.
  This is not the right way to get back at Putin and Russia, for the 
United States to commit a unilateral treaty breach. The gentleman has 
not even alleged that the Russians have violated the New START treaty. 
This is one treaty that they actually seem to be adhering to. Now, we 
may question the wisdom of that treaty, but the Senate voted to confirm 
it, to ratify the treaty. It would be a grave mistake for this lower 
body to challenge that judgment.
  The key point is this: Why blind the United States to counting the 
number of Russian nuclear weapons? Why defund those activities? Don't 
we want to know how many ICBMs are in their silos, how many nuclear 
armed submarines they have? Why don't we want to know what is really 
going on in Russia?
  I think the gentleman is mistaken by proposing this as an appropriate 
way to get back at Putin. We need more insight into what the Russians 
are doing, not less. This is a boomerang amendment; it attacks the 
wrong target. In fact, it comes back and hits us.
  I would urge the defeat of the Lamborn amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I would just conclude by saying that we 
are being taken for suckers if we are expected to keep up one end of a 
bargain and we are dealing with a country that, in so many cases, is 
not keeping their end of the bargain. That is why this amendment is 
proposed, not to get back at them, but to protect ourselves.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  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.


               Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 1407 and insert the following:

     SEC. 1407. REPEAL OF NATIONAL SEA-BASED DETERRENCE FUND.

       (a) Repeal.--Section 2218a of title 10, United States Code 
     is repealed.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 131 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 2218a.

     SEC. 1408. ELIMINATION OF TRANSFERRED FUNDS FOR NATIONAL SEA-
                   BASED DETERRENCE FUND.

       (a) Increase.--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, as specified in the corresponding funding 
     table in section 4201, for Navy, Advanced Component 
     Development and Prototypes, Advanced Nuclear Power Systems 
     (Line 045) is hereby increased by $419,300,000.
       (b) Increase.--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, as specified in the corresponding funding 
     table in section 4201, for Navy, Advanced Component 
     Development and Prototypes, Ohio Replacement (Line 050) is 
     hereby increased by $971,393,000.
       (c) Reduction.--Notwithstanding the amounts set forth in 
     the funding tables in division D, the amount authorized to be 
     appropriated in section 4501 for the National Sea-Based 
     Deterrence Fund, as specified in the corresponding funding 
     table in section 4501, for National Sea-Based Deterrence Fund 
     is hereby reduced by $1,390,693,000.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It would move 
the funding authority for the Navy's next submarine--the Ohio class 
replacement--out of the so-called national sea-based deterrence fund 
and

[[Page 6974]]

put it back where it belongs, in the Navy's shipbuilding budget.
  The amendment would not reduce funding for this project. It is a 
vote, however, for sound budget process because the sea-based 
deterrence fund is no different than using any other sleight of hand 
oversea contingency operations, some sort of slush fund, to get around 
the cost caps for other programs.
  This fund was created in the last defense authorization because the 
Navy could not afford to simultaneously build back up a 300-plus 
surface fleet and procure the 12 Ohio class replacement nuclear 
submarines.
  The problem with the deterrence fund is that it doesn't solve how we 
pay for all of this. It simply would shift that burden onto the 
Pentagon in some magic way.
  That is why the appropriators refused to put money into the account 
after it was authorized. It doesn't take an accountant to understand, 
if you buy the same amount of goods but charge them on two different 
credit cards, your debt will be the same amount.
  This fund will only lead to increased costs for the program and 
decrease transparency stability for manufacturers. The increased costs 
come from untethering the program from the Navy's shipbuilding budget, 
thereby reducing scrutiny and discipline, the tradeoffs that we expect.
  Shipbuilders will face increased uncertainty because no one has yet 
answered the question about where that funding will come from, setting 
them up for dramatic cuts once reality catches up with the budgetary 
gimmick.
  I ask my colleagues if this is, in fact, a national priority, then 
make the case to amend the restrictions. Find the room to pay for the 
program through the traditional means.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, the Armed Services Committee and especially the 
Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee is probably the most 
bipartisan committees in Congress. We work very, very carefully to make 
sure that we are defending and protecting the United States of America.
  That is why we will have bipartisan opposition to this amendment. If 
you are against nuclear deterrence, you should vote for this amendment; 
but, if you are for it, you should vote against this amendment because 
this sea-based deterrence fund begins us down the path to fund the Ohio 
class replacement.
  Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind this body that these 12 
submarines will carry 70 percent of the nuclear capacity of our 
deterrence for the United States of America. To not have this 
deterrence fund would be absolutely irresponsible. It is something we 
have worked for, and, while it is true it is not the complete solution, 
it puts us on the road to that solution. That is why I hope we will 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Courtney), ranking member on the Seapower and Projection Forces 
Subcommittee, who has worked very, very hard for this fund and done 
great work on it.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Mr. Chairman, again, I thank the chairman who, it is 
true, over the last 3 years, we have worked together, as well as our 
predecessors going back to Gene Taylor and Roscoe Bartlett, who started 
this discussion about the challenge of funding the Ohio replacement 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, when President Obama signed the New START treaty on 
April 8, 2010, after ratification by the U.S. Senate, one thing became 
crystal clear: the U.S. Navy's nuclear strategic mission became even 
more critical than ever.
  Why? Because, as the chairman said, the implementation of a nuclear 
arsenal in the post-New START era will rest even more heavily on 
ballistic submarines--in fact, two-thirds of the triad in the post-New 
START era will be sea-based, and that is why every strategic review 
going back to Secretary Gates has identified construction of the Ohio 
replacement program as one of the top--if not the number one--defense 
priority of the country.
  Let's be clear, the Ohio program will be built. That is not in 
debate. The question for Congress is whether we will let this once in a 
multigenerational cost suffocate the rest of the Navy shipbuilding 
account. The Seapower report in the underlying bill provides a solution 
to this problem, which will provide help both for our fleet and the 
industrial base.
  The underlying bill activates the national sea-based deterrence fund 
passed last year on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to fund the design 
and engineering work for the Ohio replacement program and is a 
responsible way to support construction of the Ohio replacement fleet.
  Sponsors of this amendment call the fund a gimmick and a shell game. 
It is not a gimmick, and there is a clear precedent for this. In fact, 
Congress has supported the construction of defense and Navy sealift 
ships through a similar fund called the national defense sealift fund, 
which was created in 1993, and to this day pays for construction of new 
oilers, troop transport ships, supply ships, and the like outside of 
the Navy shipbuilding account. We have done it before to protect 
recurring upgrades to our fleet, and we should do it again.
  Vote ``no'' on this amendment to protect our shipbuilding fleet and 
account and also to protect America's shipbuilding industrial base.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), my friend.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I rise as well in opposition to the Blumenauer amendment and echo the 
comments of the chairman and the ranking member.
  The national sea-based deterrence fund is crucial to the future of 
our national security. It provides space outside the shipbuilding fund 
for the most survivable piece of our national deterrence, a bill that 
last came due in the eighties and the Reagan defense buildup.
  These boats are absolutely essential. This is not just a Navy issue. 
As Secretary of Defense Carter has said, ``This is a national 
priority.''
  The deterrence fund allows us to treat it accordingly and avoid 
pressuring the Navy out of badly needed investment in other ships and 
capabilities. Unless Congress acts, these boats will consume half of 
the projected shipbuilding funding for a decade, causing crippling 
shortages that would echo in our fleet for decades thereafter.
  Congress has already acknowledged these problems ahead, and last 
year, this body took a bipartisan, bicameral step, modeled on existing 
funding mechanisms to help.
  This amendment does nothing to address the fundamental challenges at 
stake and simply moves us backward in policy as time marches on.
  I urge this amendment's defeat.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oregon has 3 minutes remaining. 
The gentleman from Virginia has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Who has the right to close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has the right to close.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, this is by no stretch of the 
imagination a vote on whether or not one believes in nuclear 
deterrence.
  The United States has in its possession now and will continue to have 
far more nuclear firepower than is necessary to deter anybody in the 
world. We have not only the submarine-based weapons, we have 450 land-
based missiles, and we have the bomber fleet.
  It has been acknowledged repeatedly by studies at the Pentagon that 
we can effectively reduce the amount of nuclear armaments we have by a 
third or

[[Page 6975]]

more without jeopardizing our deterrence, our ability to destroy any 
country in the world many times over.
  The question is: How do we pay for what we have and where we are 
going? An amendment that I had, which was not ruled in order, I am sad 
to say, would have requested a CBO study for what our costs are over 
the course of the next 25 years.
  Most estimates are that we are in a pattern of spending $1 trillion 
or more over the course of these 30 years. That is big money, no matter 
how you cut it.
  We are in the process of hollowing out our military. We have got 
problems in terms of compensation and benefit. We have a military that 
has been strained, stretched, and damaged by the ill-advised adventure 
in Iraq.
  Now, we are embarking upon, without doing the tough decisionmaking 
about setting priorities, we are launching down a road here that would 
allow us to bypass the budgetary process and make appropriate 
tradeoffs, whether it is within the Department of Defense overall, but 
I would argue that it ought to be within the Navy budget.
  My amendment wouldn't stop going forward. The money involved would go 
into submarine construction, but it would inject a little bit of 
discipline here.
  Now, this doesn't tell us where the money is going to come from for 
the project and their account, this sleight of hand, doesn't make it 
easier to finance, but it makes it harder to track, and it eliminates 
the discipline, as I say, by forcing the Navy and then the Pentagon to 
be able to deal with it openly, honestly, and know where we are at. 
There is no reason to go down this path.
  I hope some day we have a spirited debate on the floor of the House 
about how much deterrence is enough. Are the Pentagon experts right 
that we can reduce it? Or do we need to go down a path spending $1 
trillion over the course of the next 30 years?
  The truth is we are going to have to face some very difficult 
budgetary decisions. This proposal doesn't help us do that. It helps us 
to evade it.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, the sponsor of this amendment would suggest 
that we need to pick priorities. This is not just a priority--it is the 
national strategic priority. If you ask the CNO of the Navy, he would 
tell you that this is his top priority.
  As far as being open and transparent, how much more could we be than 
to lay out this fund now and to begin to fund it now instead of waiting 
until midnight when we need it and say, ``We need $95 billion''?
  Mr. Chairman, I close where I began: if you are against nuclear 
deterrence, then vote for this amendment and take away the capacity 
that we have for ships that will carry 70 percent of our nuclear 
deterrence. If you believe, as a bipartisan group of people in the 
Armed Services believes, that this fund is valuable, that this fund is 
important, and that these votes are vital to the national security of 
this country, we should reject this amendment. I hope we will vote 
``no'' on it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORBES. 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 Oregon will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mrs. Lummis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. 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:

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

     SEC. 1657. PROHIBITION ON DE-ALERTING INTERCONTINENTAL 
                   BALLISTIC MISSILES.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the Sense of Congress that--
       (1) the responsiveness and alert levels of intercontinental 
     ballistic missiles are a unique feature of the ground-based 
     leg of the United States nuclear triad;
       (2) such responsiveness and alert levels are critical to 
     providing robust nuclear deterrence and assurance; and
       (3) any action to reduce the responsiveness and alert 
     levels of United States intercontinental ballistic missiles 
     would be contrary to longstanding United States policy, and 
     deeply harmful to national security and strategic stability 
     in a crisis.
       (b) In General.--
       (1) Prohibition.--None of the funds authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act or otherwise made available for 
     fiscal year 2016 shall be obligated or expended for reducing, 
     or preparing to reduce, the responsiveness or alert level of 
     United States intercontinental ballistic missiles.
       (2) Clarification relating to maintenance, safety, 
     security, etc.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any of the 
     following activities:
       (A) Maintenance or sustainment of intercontinental 
     ballistic missiles.
       (B) Ensuring the safety, security, or reliability of 
     intercontinental ballistic missiles.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman 
from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Wyoming.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, I rise in support of the Lummis-Zinke-Cramer-Smith amendment: 
to prohibit the unilateral decrease of the alert status of our Nation's 
ICBM force.
  Nuclear deterrence is based on the fundamental belief that a nuclear 
attack on the United States would cause us to retaliate. Reducing the 
alert status would change the time needed to retaliate from as few as 
30 minutes to 3 days. This makes it much easier for an enemy to strike 
first, wiping out the U.S. nuclear force before it can retaliate. For 
this reason, Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke), my 
colleague and a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment 
that prohibits reducing the alert posture of the ICBM forces.
  What has changed? Are we safer today than yesterday?
  Dr. Kissinger, former Secretary of State, testified before Congress, 
stating:

       The United States has not faced a more diverse and complex 
     array of crises since the end of the Second World War.

  On top of the threats that Dr. Kissinger was referring to, we have 
seen since: the framework of a nuclear agreement with Iran that may 
give a legal pathway to a nuclear weapon; Russia has announced it will 
lift its ban and sell advanced missile systems to Iran; and just this 
past week, there were reports that North Korea has tested a submarine-
launched ballistic missile.
  Mr. Chairman, this is no time to gamble with our safety and with the 
security of the United States. I support this amendment, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Cramer). He lives in the State that houses Minot Air 
Force Base.
  Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I thank my 
colleagues who have helped cosponsor this important amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think that the author of the amendment did a great 
job in discerning between 3 days and 30 minutes, as 30 minutes is 
hardly what some have called a ``hair trigger.'' Clearly, we want to be 
at a strategic advantage, and we would be at a tremendous strategic 
disadvantage should we have to take 3 days. Anybody who has been to one 
of these bases, as many of us have--anybody who has been in the bunkers 
and has seen the control system--knows that the protocols that are in 
place are anything but a hair trigger. We can be confident that we have 
the ability to respond quickly but not the ability to respond too 
quickly.

[[Page 6976]]

  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise 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 4 minutes.
  While I applaud my colleagues for their attention to the ICBM force, 
I think their attention is in the wrong place. First of all, the 
amendment is unnecessary, and no one is even proposing reducing alert 
levels at this time.
  My concern here is that investigations, DOD reviews, and press 
articles over the past few years have revealed that we have had 
significant problems in the ICBM force, including the nearly 100 
officers involved in cheating on tests, the possession of narcotics, 
security violations, pervasive morale issues, an instance of an ICBM 
officer who was later found to have been a gang member, a two-star 
general in charge of all U.S. ICBM who was stripped of his command for 
going on a drinking binge during an official visit to Russia, an ICBM 
wing at Minot Air Force Base failing a safety and security test, and 
reported narcotics by which launch control officers violated security 
regulations designed to protect the ICBM firing keys.
  Mr. Chairman, these are problems rising to the level of congressional 
attention, but instead of focusing on those very real issues affecting 
national defense, we are spending time on parochial concerns, quite 
frankly.
  There are no near-term plans, as I said in my opening, to reduce 
alert levels, and there are no FY16 funding requests to do so. This is 
a solution, quite frankly, in search of a problem and is a dangerous 
example of micromanaging in the area of our national defense in which 
very small actions, considered rationally and in isolation, reduce the 
strategic flexibility of the Commander in Chief. In no other area is 
the possibility for cataclysmic error so real. Let's not make 
deterrence harder.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, in recognition of the fact that the 
concern here is the unilateral decrease of the alert status, I now 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Rogers), the chair of the Armed Services Committee's Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentlewoman for her amendment, and 
I urge its passage.
  As chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, I understand the 
responsiveness of our ICBMs as their most critical feature and their 
most significant contribution to our nuclear triad. The U.S. has had 
ICBMs on alert since the early 1960s. This amendment ensures that there 
is no change to the longstanding, bipartisan U.S. defense posture that 
ICBMs are kept on high alert levels.
  In recent weeks, the usual groups who want to disarm the United 
States have been calling on the U.S. to de-alert ICBMs. We should 
continue to pay no attention to these tired, repetitive voices who long 
for the nuclear freeze days of the cold war when they were relevant. 
Instead, Admiral Haney, the current commander of U.S. Strategic 
Command, said just last week he ``fundamentally disagrees'' with these 
calls to de-alert U.S. ICBMs.
  Finally, this amendment ensures the administration follows its own 
stated policy. In an April 2015 hearing before my subcommittee, the DOD 
witnesses told us that the administration explicitly examined and 
rejected de-alerting our ICBMs.
  Those who are arguing against the amendment are even further to the 
left on nuclear weapons than our global zero President. This is not 
just a missile state issue--this is a profound national security issue. 
De-alerting our ICBMs is a terrible idea. I urge a ``yes'' vote on my 
colleague's amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I do appreciate the gentleman from Rhode Island for 
setting the context here.
  Mr. Chairman, we ought to be concerned about what is going on. My 
understanding is that they found out about the widespread cheating 
among the missileers because they were investigating the drug abuse.
  There are things that ought to concern us, not something that to this 
point is, as they just testified, a proposal on behalf of the 
administration, but, rather, the notion that somehow any action to 
reduce responsiveness is contrary to longstanding policy and is deeply 
harmful to national security and strategic stability in a crisis. There 
may well come a time when we are able to make some changes that would 
remove a little bit of the hair trigger. I don't think that is 
something that we should prejudge.
  In the meantime, if people care about these missiles, they ought to 
make sure that they are managed in an effective fashion, that we take 
care of the longstanding abuses, and that we deal with the point that I 
made a moment ago: when we are launching on a $1 trillion program over 
the next three decades, we ought to find out how much we need and how 
we are going to pay for it.
  Mrs. LUMMIS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I will just close by saying, as I said in 
the beginning, that this amendment is a solution in search of a 
problem, and I would say it is not necessary at this time. No one is 
proposing reducing the alert levels at this time, and I would ask my 
colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Lummis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 3 consisting of amendment Nos. 37, 39, 42, 44, 
45, 46, 51, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, and 66 printed in House 
Report No. 114-112, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:

            amendment no. 37 offered by mr. haRdy of nevada

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

     SEC. 28__. USE OF MILITARY OPERATIONS AREAS FOR NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY ACTIVITIES.

       The expansion or establishment of a national monument by 
     the President under the authority of chapter 3203 of title 
     54, United States Code (commonly known as the Antiquities Act 
     of 1906; 54 U.S.C. 320301 et seq.), after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act on land located beneath or associated 
     with a Military Operations Area (MOA) shall not be construed 
     to prohibit or constrain any activities on or above the land 
     conducted by the Department of Defense or other Federal 
     agencies for national security purposes, including training 
     and readiness activities.


            amendment no. 39 offered by mr. Zinke of Montana

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

     SEC. 28__. RENAMING OF THE CAPTAIN WILLIAM WYLIE GALT GREAT 
                   FALLS ARMED FORCES READINESS CENTER IN HONOR OF 
                   CAPTAIN JOHN E. MORAN, A RECIPIENT OF THE MEDAL 
                   OF HONOR.

       (a) Renaming.--The Captain William Wylie Galt Great Falls 
     Armed Forces Readiness Center in Great Falls, Montana, shall 
     hereafter be known and designated as the ``Captain John E. 
     Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve 
     Center''.
       (b) References.--Any reference in any law, map, regulation, 
     map, document, paper, other record of the United States to 
     the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall be 
     considered to be a reference to the Captain John E. Moran and 
     Captain William Wylie Galt Armed Forces Reserve Center.


        amendment no. 42 offered by mr. Costello of pennsylvania

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

     SEC. 1__. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLE 
                   PROTECTION KITS.

       It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) Army personnel face an increasingly complex and 
     evolving threat environment

[[Page 6977]]

     that requires advanced and effective technology to protect 
     our soldiers while allowing them to effectively carry out 
     their mission;
       (2) the heavy tactical vehicle protection kits program 
     provides the Army with improved and necessary ballistic 
     protection for the heavy tactical vehicle fleet;
       (3) a secure heavy tactical vehicle fleet provides the Army 
     with greater logistical tractability and offers soldiers the 
     necessary flexibility to tailor armor levels based on threat 
     levels and mission requirements; and
       (4) as Congress provides for a modern and secure Army, it 
     is necessary to provide the appropriate funding levels to 
     meet its tactical wheeled vehicle protection kits acquisition 
     objectives.


          amendment no. 44 offered by mr. collins of new york

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

     SEC. 226. COMMERCIAL-OFF-THE-SHELF WIDE-AREA SURVEILLANCE 
                   SYSTEMS FOR ARMY TACTICAL UNMANNED AERIAL 
                   SYSTEMS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--Congress finds that--
       (1) unmanned aerial systems provide the military services 
     with high-endurance, wide-area surveillance;
       (2) wide-area surveillance has proven to be a significant 
     force multiplier for intelligence gathering and dismounted 
     infantry operations;
       (3) currently fielded wide-area surveillance sensors are 
     too heavy to be incorporated into tactical unmanned aerial 
     systems; and
       (4) the growing commercial market for unmanned aerial 
     systems with full-motion video sensors may offer a 
     commercial-off-the-shelf solution suitable for use on the 
     military services' tactical unmanned aerial systems.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Army shall submit 
     to the congressional defense committees a report that 
     contains the findings of a market survey and flight 
     assessment of commercial-off-the-shelf wide-area surveillance 
     sensors suitable for insertion into Army tactical unmanned 
     aerial systems.
       (c) Elements.--The market survey and flight assessment 
     required by subsection (b) shall include--
       (1) specific details regarding the capabilities of current 
     and commercial-off-the-shelf wide-area surveillance sensors 
     utilized on the Army unmanned aerial systems, including--
       (A) daytime and nighttime monitoring coverage;
       (B) video resolution outputs;
       (C) bandwidth requirements;
       (D) activity-based intelligence and forensic capabilities;
       (E) simultaneous region of interest monitoring capability;
       (F) interoperability with other sensors and subsystems 
     currently utilized on Army tactical unmanned aerial systems;
       (G) sensor weight;
       (H) sensor cost; and
       (I) any other factors the Secretary deems relevant;
       (2) an assessment of the impact on Army tactical unmanned 
     aerial systems due to the insertion of commercial-off-the-
     shelf wide-area surveillance sensors; and
       (3) recommendations to upgrade or enhance the wide-area 
     surveillance sensors of Army tactical unmanned aerial 
     systems, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary.
       (d) Form.--The report required under subsection (b) may 
     contain a classified annex.
       (e) Definition.--In this section, the term ``Army tactical 
     unmanned aerial systems'' includes, at minimum, the MQ-1C 
     Grey Eagle, the MQ-1 Predator, and the MQ-9 Reaper.


          amendment no. 45 offered by mr. hunter of california

       Page 58, after line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 226. REPORT ON TACTICAL COMBAT TRAINING SYSTEM INCREMENT 
                   II.

       (a) Report to Congress.--Not later than January 29, 2016, 
     the Secretary of Navy and the Secretary of the Air Force 
     shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report 
     on the baseline and alternatives to the Navy's Tactical Air 
     Combat Training System (TCTS) Increment II.
       (b) Contents.--The report required by subsection (a) shall 
     include the following:
       (1) An explanation of the rationale for a new start TCTS II 
     program as compared to an incremental upgrade to the existing 
     TCTS system.
       (2) An estimate of total cost to develop, procure, and 
     replace the existing Department of the Navy TCTS architecture 
     with an encrypted TCTS II compared to upgrades to existing 
     TCTS.
       (3) A cost estimate and schedule comparison of achieving 
     encryption requirements into the existing TCTS program as 
     compared to TCTS II.
       (4) A review of joint Department of the Air Force and the 
     Department of the Navy investment in live-virtual-
     constructive advanced air combat training and planned 
     timeline for inclusion into TCTS II architecture.
       (5) A cost estimate to integrate F-35 aircraft with TCTS II 
     and achieve interoperability between the Department of the 
     Navy and Department of the Air Force.
       (6) A cost estimate for coalition partners to achieve TCTS 
     II interoperability within the Department of Defense.
       (7) An assessment of risks posed by non-interoperable TCTS 
     systems within the Department of the Navy and the Department 
     of the Air Force.
       (8) An explanation of the acquisition strategy for the TCTS 
     program.
       (9) An explanation of key performance parameters for the 
     TCTS II program.
       (10) Any other information the Secretary of the Navy and 
     Secretary of the Air Force determine is appropriate to 
     include.
       (c) Limitation.--The Secretary of the Navy shall not 
     proceed with the approval or designation of a contract award 
     for TCTS II until 15 days after the date of the submittal of 
     the report required by subsection (a).


         amendment no. 46 offered by mr. palazzo of mississippi

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

     SEC. 226. IMPROVEMENT TO COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION OF 
                   DEFENSE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES.

       (a) In General.--Section 2364 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following 
     new subsection:
       ``(a) Coordination of Department of Defense Research, 
     Development, and Technological Data.--The Secretary of 
     Defense shall promote, monitor, and evaluate programs for the 
     communication and exchange of research, development, and 
     technological data--
       ``(1) among the Defense research facilities, combatant 
     commands, and other organizations that are involved in 
     developing for the Department of Defense the technological 
     requirements for new items for use by combat forces;
       ``(2) among Defense research facilities and other offices, 
     agencies, and bureaus in the Department that are engaged in 
     related technological matters;
       ``(3) among other research facilities and other departments 
     or agencies of the Federal Government that are engaged in 
     research, development, and technological matters;
       ``(4) among private commercial, research institution, and 
     university entities engaged in research, development, and 
     technological matters potentially relevant to defense on a 
     voluntary basis; and
       ``(5) to the extent practicable, to achieve full awareness 
     of scientific and technological advancement and innovation 
     wherever it may occur, whether funded by the Department of 
     Defense, another element of the Federal Government, or other 
     entities.'';
       (2) in subsection (b), by striking paragraph (3) and 
     inserting the following new paragraph:
       ``(3) that the managers of such facilities have broad 
     latitude to choose research and development projects based on 
     awareness of activities throughout the technology domain, 
     including within the Federal Government, the Department of 
     Defense, public and private research institutions and 
     universities, and the global commercial marketplace;''; and
       (3) in the section heading, by inserting ``and technology 
     domain awareness'' after ``activities''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of chapter 139 of such title is amended by striking 
     the item relating to section 2364 and inserting the 
     following:

``2364. Coordination and communication of defense research activities 
              and technology domain awareness.''.


          amendment no. 51 offered by mr. farenthold of texas

       At the end of title III (page 77, after line 21), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 3__. ACCESS TO WIRELESS HIGH-SPEED INTERNET AND NETWORK 
                   CONNECTIONS FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.

       Consistent with section 2492a of title 10, United States 
     Code, the Secretary of Defense is encouraged to enter into 
     contracts with third-party vendors in order to provide 
     members of the Armed Forces who are deployed overseas at any 
     United States military facility, at which wireless high-speed 
     Internet and network connections are otherwise available, 
     with access to such Internet and network connections without 
     charge.


            amendment no. 53 offered by mr. loebsack OF IOWA

       Page 77, after line 21, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 334. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY TO EXTEND CONTRACTS AND LEASES 
                   UNDER THE ARMS INITIATIVE.

       Contracts or subcontracts entered into pursuant to section 
     4554(a)(3)(A) of title 10, United States Code, on or before 
     the date that is five years after the date of the enactment 
     of this Act may include an option to extend the term of the 
     contract or subcontract for an additional 25 years.


          amendment no. 54 offered by mr. fleming of louisiana

       At the end of title IV (page 83, after line 16), add the 
     following new section:

[[Page 6978]]



     SEC. 422. REPORT ON FORCE STRUCTURE OF THE ARMY.

       (a) Report Required.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report containing the following:
       (1) An assessment by the Secretary of Defense of reports by 
     the Secretary of the Army on the force structure of the Army 
     submitted to Congress under section 1066 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Public Law 
     112-239; 126 Stat. 1943) and section 1062 of the National 
     Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 
     113-291).
       (2) An evaluation of the adequacy of the Army force 
     structure proposed for the future-years defense program for 
     fiscal years 2017 through 2021 to meet the goals of the 
     national military strategy of the United States.
       (3) An independent risk assessment by the Chairman of the 
     Joint Chiefs of Staff of the proposed Army force structure 
     and the ability of such force structure to meet the 
     operational requirements of combatant commanders.
       (4) A description of the planning assumptions and scenarios 
     used by the Department of Defense to validate the size and 
     force structure of the Army, including the Army Reserve and 
     the Army National Guard.
       (5) A certification by the Secretary of Defense that the 
     Secretary has reviewed the reports by the Secretary of the 
     Army and the assessments of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
     of Staff and determined that an end strength for active duty 
     personnel of the Army below the end strength level authorized 
     in section 401(1) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) will be adequate to 
     meet the national military strategy of the United States.
       (6) A description of various alternative options for 
     allocating funds to ensure that the end strengths of the Army 
     do not fall below levels of significant risk, as determined 
     pursuant to the risk assessment conducted by the Chairman of 
     the Joint Chief under paragraph (3).
       (7) Such other information or updates as the Secretary of 
     Defense considers appropriate.
       (b) Form.--The report required by subsection (a) shall be 
     submitted in unclassified form, but may include a classified 
     annex.


       amendment no. 55 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia

       At the end of subtitle B of title V (page 96, after line 
     22), add the following new section:

     SEC. 5__. ELECTRONIC TRACKING OF OPERATIONAL ACTIVE-DUTY 
                   SERVICE PERFORMED BY MEMBERS OF THE READY 
                   RESERVE OF THE ARMED FORCES.

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


          amendment no. 56 offered by mr. crowley of new york

       Page 179, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 539. SENSE OF CONGRESS RECOGNIZING THE DIVERSITY OF THE 
                   MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) The United States military includes individuals with a 
     variety of national, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds that 
     have roots all over the world.
       (2) In addition to diverse backgrounds, members of the 
     Armed Forces come from numerous religious traditions, 
     including Christian, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, non-
     denominational, non-practicing, and many more.
       (3) Members of the Armed Forces from diverse backgrounds 
     and religious traditions have lost their lives or been 
     injured defending the national security of the United States.
       (4) Diversity contributes to the strength of the Armed 
     Forces, and service members from different backgrounds and 
     religious traditions share the same goal of defending the 
     United States.
       (5) The unity of the Armed Forces reflects the strength in 
     diversity that makes the United States a great nation.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that 
     the United States should--
       (1) continue to recognize and promote diversity in the 
     Armed Forces; and
       (2) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious 
     traditions who have made sacrifices in serving the United 
     States through the Armed Services.


          amendment no. 57 offered by mr. takano of california

       Page 226, after line 13, insert the following:
       (C) A comparison of the pilot program to other programs 
     conducted by the Department of Defense and Department of 
     Veterans Affairs to provide unemployment and underemployment 
     support to members of the reserve components and veterans.
       Page 226, line 14, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.


           amendment no. 59 offered by mr. israel of new york

       Page 227, after line 19, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 569. REPORT ON CIVILIAN AND MILITARY EDUCATION TO 
                   RESPOND TO FUTURE THREATS.

       (a) In General.--Not later than June 1, 2016, the Secretary 
     of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense 
     committees a report describing both civilian and military 
     education requirements necessary to meet any threats 
     anticipated in the future security environment as described 
     in the quadrennial defense review. Such report shall 
     include--
       (1) an assessment of the learning outcomes required of 
     future members of the Armed Forces and senior military 
     leaders to meet such threats;
       (2) an assessment of the shortfalls in current professional 
     military education requirements in meeting such threats;
       (3) an assessment of successful professional military 
     education programs that further the ability of the Department 
     of Defense to meet such threats;
       (4) recommendations of subjects to be covered by civilian 
     elementary and secondary schools in order to better prepare 
     students for potential military service;
       (5) recommendations of subjects to be included in 
     professional military education programs;
       (6) recommendations on whether partnerships between the 
     Department of Defense and private institutions of higher 
     education (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001(a))) would help meet 
     such threats; and
       (7) an identification of opportunities for the United 
     States to strengthen its leadership role in the future 
     security environment and a description of how the 
     recommendations made in this report contribute to 
     capitalizing on such opportunities.
       (b) Updated Reports.--Not later than 10 months after date 
     of the publication of each subsequent quadrennial defense 
     review, the Secretary of Defense shall update the report 
     described under subsection (a) and shall submit such report 
     to the congressional defense committees.


        amendment no. 63 offered by mr. keating of massachusetts

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

     SEC. 5__. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON DESIRABILITY OF SERVICE-WIDE 
                   ADOPTION OF GOLD STAR INSTALLATION ACCESS CARD.

       It is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of each 
     military department and the Secretary of the Department in 
     which the Coast Guard is operating should--
       (1) provide for the issuance of a Gold Star Installation 
     Access Card to Gold Star family members who are the survivors 
     of deceased members of the Armed Forces in order to expedite 
     the ability of a Gold Star family member to gain unescorted 
     access to military installations for the purpose of obtaining 
     the on-base services and benefits for which the Gold Star 
     family member is entitled or eligible;
       (2) work jointly to ensure that a Gold Star Installation 
     Access Card issued to a Gold Star family member by one Armed 
     Force is accepted for access to military installations of 
     another Armed Force; and
       (3) in developing, issuing, and accepting the Gold Star 
     Installation Access Card--
       (A) prevent fraud in the procurement or use of the Gold 
     Star Installation Access Card;
       (B) limit installation access to those areas that provide 
     the services and benefits for which the Gold Star family 
     member is entitled or eligible; and
       (C) ensure that the availability and use of the Gold Star 
     Installation Access Card does not adversely affect military 
     installation security.


            amendment no. 64 offered by ms. meng of new york

       Page 247, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. 596. ANNUAL REPORT ON PERFORMANCE OF REGIONAL OFFICES OF 
                   THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

       Section 7734 of title 38, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in the first sentence, by inserting before the period 
     the following: ``and on the performance of any regional 
     office that fails to meet its administrative goals'';
       (2) in paragraph (2), by striking ``and'';
       (3) by redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4); and
       (4) by inserting after paragraph (2) the following new 
     paragraph (3):
       ``(3) in the case of any regional office that, for the year 
     covered by the report, did not meet the administrative goal 
     of no claim pending for more than 125 days and an accuracy 
     rating of 98 percent--
       ``(A) a signed statement prepared by the individual serving 
     as director of the regional office as of the date of the 
     submittal of the report containing--
       ``(i) an explanation for why the regional office did not 
     meet the goal;

[[Page 6979]]

       ``(ii) a description of the additional resources needed to 
     enable the regional office to reach the goal; and
       ``(iii) a description of any additional actions planned for 
     the subsequent year that are proposed to enable the regional 
     office to meet the goal; and
       ``(B) a statement prepared by the Under Secretary for 
     Benefits explaining how the failure of the regional office to 
     meet the goal affected the performance evaluation of the 
     director of the regional office; and''.


        amendment no. 66 offered by ms. adams of north carolina

       Page 302, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 723. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH 
                   COUNSELING FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES AND 
                   FAMILIES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) It has been shown that some members of the Armed Forces 
     struggle with post-traumatic stress and other behavioral 
     health disorders from traumatic events experienced during 
     combat.
       (2) It has also been shown that emotional distress and 
     trauma from life events can be exacerbated by traumatic 
     events experienced during combat.
       (3) Members of the Armed Forces who struggle with post-
     traumatic stress and other behavioral health disorders are 
     often unable to provide emotional support to spouses and 
     children, causing emotional distress and the risk of 
     behavioral health disorders among the dependents of the 
     members.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
       (1) the Department of Defense should continue to support 
     members of the Armed Forces and their families by providing 
     family counseling and individual counseling services that 
     reduce the symptoms of post-traumatic stress and other 
     behavioral health disorders and empowers members to be 
     emotionally available to their spouses and children;
       (2) such services should be readily available at branches 
     of the Department and military bases;
       (3) the Department should rely on industry standards 
     established by the medical community when developing 
     standards for their own practice of family and individual 
     counseling; and
       (4) the Department should conduct a five-year study of the 
     progress of members of the Armed Forces that are treated for 
     mental health disorders, including with respect to--
       (A) difficulty keeping up with treatment;
       (B) familial status before and after treatment; and
       (C) access to mental health counseling at Department 
     facilities and military installations.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  In this en bloc package, which I hope Members will support, there are 
a total of 16 amendments. Nine of them have been sponsored by 
Republican Members of the House, and seven of them have been sponsored 
by Democratic Members of the House. They cover a variety of very 
important topics related to our country's national defense.
  With all of the hard work that went into writing and now adopting, 
hopefully, these amendments, I hope that all Members who sponsored 
these amendments will see their work to its logical conclusion, and 
that is in their adoption in a bill that passes the House, for it would 
seem fruitless to me to go through all of the work on these amendments 
and not have those amendments as part of a bill that passes.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Nevada (Mr. Hardy).
  Mr. HARDY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment was inspired by the Obama 
administration's proposal to establish a national monument in the Basin 
and Range area of Nevada, directly under the airspace of the Nevada 
Test and Training Range.
  My amendment is not about disputing land ownership. My amendment is 
about protecting America's national security, and that means ensuring 
that our military has guaranteed access to land located beneath--or 
associated with--military operations areas for essential training and 
readiness activities. These activities are often tied directly to 
flight operations and can include anything from tactical ground 
parties, SERE, pararescue training, ground instrumentation maintenance, 
and the list goes on and on.
  My amendment elevates national security above politics and legacy 
projects, and it gives our military the certainty it needs to 
adequately train and prepare for current and future conflicts.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
  Ms. TITUS. I thank my colleague for the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to bring attention to a provision that is 
included in this package that, besides being completely unnecessary, 
may have far-reaching impacts on the management of our Nation's public 
lands. Specifically, this package contains language that would allow 
the Department of Defense to utilize certain public lands designated as 
national monuments for whatever purpose it chooses.
  Our national monuments are part of America's story. Sixteen 
Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, from Teddy Roosevelt to 
George Bush to President Obama, have utilized their authority under the 
Antiquities Act to designate land as national monuments. These 
designations have protected iconic parts of our Nation, such as Chimney 
Rock in Colorado, San Juan Islands in the Puget Sound, and the ancient 
flint quarries in the Texas Panhandle. In each and every case, careful 
consideration and collaboration with other Federal agencies, including 
the Department of Defense, occurred.
  Now, representing southern Nevada, I have an acute understanding of 
the importance of our armed services and the training necessary to 
support national security missions, but the language included in this 
package ignores the fact that today's military operations continue at 
our national monuments.
  Just look to Oregon Mountain-Desert Peaks National Monument in New 
Mexico, which was created with clear exceptions for military overflight 
operations, or the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Arizona, 
designated by President Clinton, which abuts the Barry Goldwater Range 
and to this day continues to serve as an example of how our national 
security and conservation goals can coexist.
  Closer to home, the recently designated Tule Springs Fossil Beds 
National Monument north of Las Vegas was designed in coordination with 
the needs of neighboring Nellis and Creech Air Force bases. If this 
provision were to become law, it would essentially cede national 
monuments to the Department of Defense, dismissing the long history of 
the armed services working to conserve our sensitive lands while 
protecting the mission.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. TITUS. So instead of having the DOD at the table to evaluate and 
inform the monument creation process on a case-by-case basis, this 
provision would grant a virtual veto over any future designations.
  Mr. Chairman, as this legislation moves forward, I hope that we can 
remove unnecessary provisions such as this one that are really just 
solutions in search of a problem.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Zinke), a member of the Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of my amendment, 
which will rename the Armed Forces Reserve Center in Great Falls, 
Montana, to the Captain John E. Moran and Captain William Wylie Galt 
Armed Forces Reserve Center.
  As many of you may know, Montana has a strong heritage of military 
service, with more veterans per capita than almost any other State in 
the Union. Captain Moran and Captain Galt are an inspiration to every 
Montanan, myself included. Both Captain Moran and Captain Galt received 
the Medal of Honor, one in the Spanish-American War and one in World 
War II.
  Memorializing these two heroes by renaming the Armed Forces Reserve

[[Page 6980]]

Center will provide a daily reminder to us all in Montana of the 
service and sacrifice Captain Moran and Captain Galt made to this 
country and Montana.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Keating).
  Mr. KEATING. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, most of us in this Chamber have had the honor to meet 
and to get to know Gold Star families, those families who have lost 
loved ones in the service in defense of our country. Most of us on 
those occasions also told those families, if there is anything we can 
ever do to help you in any way going forward, please let us know.
  Gold Star families in my district came to me on an issue that really 
was something that was quite difficult for them at times and 
bothersome, and that is the issue that the access they had while their 
loved ones were alive was no longer there for military installations. 
The military installations would often have memorials to those that 
served. They would have survivor workshops, and things that could help 
them. They would have military exercises and ceremonies that they would 
want to participate in that had greater meaning to them than perhaps 
any other group of people.
  They told me how, gaining access many times, they had to relive the 
story by again explaining who they were and why they wanted to come. I 
investigated this and found that the Army had a pilot program that 
provided an access card for these institutions, these military 
institutions, and that that made the process so much easier for them.
  This amendment simply expands the pilot program and demonstrates 
Congress' support for expanding these programs beyond the pilot stage 
and to all services. I hope we can move forward and actually see the 
implementation of this occur.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support 
of this amendment en bloc, and I want to express, I think, the 
sentiment of our entire body to really be there in something that is a 
modest request, but an important one for our Gold Star families.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Costello).
  Mr. COSTELLO of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, the Army faces an 
increasingly complex threat environment and must be prepared to rapidly 
deploy soldiers with the most advanced and effective vehicle armor 
critical to the safety and mobility of our soldiers.
  The tactical wheeled vehicle protection kits program provides our men 
and women in uniform the adaptable armor protection that minimally 
impacts performance. The Army needs this proven program in order to 
improve ballistic protection for the tactical wheeled vehicle fleet. 
This program enables greater logistical flexibility and allows our 
soldiers to tailor armor levels based on the threat level and mission 
requirements.
  Lastly, the use of these armor kits will allow the Army to greatly 
extend vehicle service life and reduce maintenance costs. It is 
important that Congress provide the necessary funding levels for the 
Army to meet their tactical wheeled vehicle protection kits acquisition 
objectives. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.
  I also wish to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for 
their efforts in providing the necessary and critical funding for our 
Nation's defense.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I have no speakers. I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Farenthold).
  Mr. FARENTHOLD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in favor of my 
amendment encouraging the Department of Defense to provide free WiFi 
access to our military members deployed overseas.
  Communications with family members back home is critical not only for 
the mental health and well-being of our servicemembers but also for 
their families who support them while they defend our great Nation. Our 
military members sacrifice time with their spouses and children and 
their loved ones they leave behind when they proudly serve our Nation. 
Giving them the ability to stay in touch with their family through 
Skype and FaceTime so they can watch those important moments, birthdays 
or children's first steps, makes it easier for servicemembers to cope 
with the physical and emotional distance deployment brings.
  Family members play a crucial role in helping our servicemembers 
persevere through tough times and manage through long deployments. 
Right now military members have to pay $60, sometimes $100 a month just 
to stay in touch with their families. I am encouraging the Department 
of Defense to strongly consider working internally and with third-party 
vendors to remove this burden from servicemembers and urge support of 
this entire en bloc amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have no additional speakers at this 
time. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time 
just to say I hope that all 16 Members who have amendments in this en 
bloc package will support this package as well as the logical 
conclusion of their efforts, which would be to support final passage of 
this legislation.
  With that, 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.


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Lucas

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. LUCAS. 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 823, after line 20, insert the following:

     SEC. __. IMPLEMENTATION OF LESSER PRAIRIE-CHICKEN RANGE-WIDE 
                   CONSERVATION PLAN AND OTHER CONSERVATION 
                   MEASURES.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Candidate conservation agreements.--The terms 
     ``Candidate Conservation Agreement'' and ``Candidate and 
     Conservation Agreement With Assurances'' have the meaning 
     given those terms in--
       (A) the announcement of the Department of the Interior and 
     the Department of Commerce entitled ``Announcement of Final 
     Policy for Candidate Conservation Agreements with 
     Assurances'' (64 Fed. Reg. 32726 (June 17, 1999)); and
       (B) sections 17.22(d) and 17.32(d) of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of 
     this Act).
       (2) Range-wide plan.--The term ``Range-Wide Plan'' means 
     the Lesser Prairie-Chicken Range-Wide Conservation Plan of 
     the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, as 
     endorsed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service on 
     October 23, 2013, and published for comment on January 29, 
     2014 (79 Fed. Reg. 4652).
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.
       (b) Prohibition on Treatment as Threatened or Endangered 
     Species.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any prior action by the 
     Secretary, the lesser prairie chicken shall not be treated as 
     a threatened species or endangered species under the 
     Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 
     before January 31, 2021.
       (2) Prohibition on proposal.--Beginning on January 31, 
     2021, the lesser prairie chicken may not be treated as a 
     threatened species or endangered species under the Endangered 
     Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) unless the 
     Secretary publishes a determination, based on the totality of 
     the scientific evidence, that conservation (as that term is 
     used in that Act) under the Range-Wide Plan and the 
     agreements, programs, and efforts referred to in subsection 
     (c) have not achieved the conservation goals established by 
     the Range-Wide Plan.
       (c) Monitoring of Progress of Conservation Programs.--The 
     Secretary shall monitor and annually submit to Congress a 
     report on progress in conservation of the lesser prairie 
     chicken under the Range-Wide Plan and all related--
       (1) Candidate Conservation Agreements and Candidate and 
     Conservation Agreements With Assurances;

[[Page 6981]]

       (2) other Federal conservation programs administered by the 
     United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land 
     Management, and the Department of Agriculture;
       (3) State conservation programs; and
       (4) private conservation efforts.

     SEC. __. REMOVAL OF ENDANGERED SPECIES STATUS FOR AMERICAN 
                   BURYING BEETLE.

       Notwithstanding the final rule of the United States Fish 
     and Wildlife Service entitled ``Endangered and Threatened 
     Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for 
     the American Burying Beetle'' (54 Fed. Reg. 29652 (July 13, 
     1989)), the American burying beetle shall not be listed as a 
     threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Today, I offer an amendment that will de-list the lesser prairie 
chicken from the list of threatened species over a period of at least 5 
years. This time will allow the five States in the prairie chicken's 
range to implement their joint rangewide plan, which has been endorsed 
by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
  Again, this does not permanently de-list the lesser prairie chicken. 
If in 5 years' time the Department of Interior thinks this plan hasn't 
worked, they can begin the process of re-listing the chicken. I am 
confident, however, though, that the rangewide plan will be effective 
not only in maintaining but in increasing the population of the lesser 
prairie chicken.
  The second portion of my amendment would de-list the American burying 
beetle. Since being deemed endangered in the 1980s, the beetle's 
population has skyrocketed well beyond the targets set in the Fish and 
Wildlife's own recovery plan.
  Military installations are among the entities that have to ensure 
their new development projects do not infringe on the habitats of these 
endangered species. Any military exercises that would take place on 
critical habitat also must meet those requirements before they can 
commence. It is highly inappropriate for such exercises critical to 
national defense readiness to be dependent on a bureaucratic process, 
especially given the large populations and State-level plans for these 
two species. There are numerous military bases in the lesser prairie 
chicken's range and dozens more in the ever-larger estimated range of 
the American burying beetle that are affected. This amendment would 
help many of our military bases to perform the critical functions that 
comprise our national readiness. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).
  Ms. TSONGAS. This amendment attempts to add yet another completely 
unrelated Endangered Species Act rider to the underlying bill. 
Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the lesser prairie chicken 
and the American burying beetle from being listed as endangered species 
under the Endangered Species Act. The lesser prairie chicken was listed 
as threatened under the ESA in March 2014, and the American burying 
beetle was listed as endangered in 1989.
  Given the very broad language of this amendment, it is clear that DOD 
lands are not the primary driver of this attack on the Endangered 
Species Act. If the sponsors really wanted to protect DOD activities 
and military readiness, they would have written the language as such. 
In fact, the amendment does not make a single reference to military 
readiness.
  The Department of Defense does not believe this amendment is 
necessary. DOD has given no indication that the listings of these 
species has negatively impacted military readiness, for good reason. 
Since being listed, neither the lesser prairie chicken nor the burying 
beetle have had critical habitat designated on DOD lands. Just look at 
this map. There is virtually no overlap between our military 
installations, which are in red, and the lesser prairie chicken's 
range. In fact, if you look, they are separated in most instances by 
hundreds of miles, with the green areas representing the current range 
of the species and the red areas our military installations.
  For the record, DOD also does not believe that the language already 
included in the bill regarding the greater sage grouse is necessary to 
protect military readiness, either.
  The Endangered Species Act has been successful in preventing the 
extinction of species since its enactment 40 years ago. Congress should 
allow the Fish and Wildlife Service to make species-listing decisions 
in accordance with the law and the best available science. Congress 
should not further delay these scientific decisions by micromanaging 
the process on a species-by-species basis, especially in the context of 
the NDAA.
  The administration has already indicated they would strongly consider 
vetoing this bill, in part because of the nongermane provisions that 
would delay listing of the greater sage grouse for 10 years. Adoption 
of this amendment would add another provision to their list of 
objections. The Senate has already agreed that harmful Endangered 
Species Act riders do not belong in the NDAA, instead referring the 
matter to the Environment and Public Works Committee.

                              {time}  2030

  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. TSONGAS. I urge my colleagues to reject this misguided amendment 
and vote to protect the scientific integrity of the Endangered Species 
Act, as well as the integrity of the NDAA.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Mullin).
  Mr. MULLIN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate everybody's concerns that may 
or may not live around the area, but the truth is, I do, and no one 
wants to protect the habitat more than I do.
  I have worked on this issue since arriving in Congress because I 
believe we must protect our job creators and ensure the military has 
the ability to prepare itself against threats at home and overseas.
  Matters of national defense and readiness should not be subject to 
the schedule of agency bureaucrats. It is inappropriate that military 
bases within the proximity of these two species must consider its 
habitat before developing new facilities or even planning training 
exercises.
  The people living in the States that contain the lesser prairie 
chicken and the American burying beetle know how to best conserve the 
species, while protecting military preparedness, jobs, and land rights; 
and they have already taken steps to do so.
  I urge you to support this amendment and delist the lesser prairie 
chicken and the American burying beetle and support our military 
readiness.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Rhode Island has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman from Rhode Island for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, one of our most solemn duties in Congress is dealing with 
emerging national security threats. We eliminated bin Laden. We are 
making process in weakening ISIL.
  Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have 
alerted us to a new threat emerging deep in the heart of the Western 
United States, a sort of feathery sleeper cell that just can't wait to 
disrupt our way of life. What is inspiring so much fear? It is the 
lesser prairie chicken.

[[Page 6982]]

  Listening to this debate, you would think that the lesser prairie 
chicken was single-handedly providing aid and comfort to the enemy, not 
just living on the prairie and doing the occasional little dance; but, 
as with its unfortunate relative, the greater sage grouse, my 
colleagues across the aisle are trying to use the NDAA to do a little 
dance of their own around the science of the Endangered Species Act.
  The prairie chicken has not attacked our citizens, threatened our 
allies, or disrupted our military operations. Listing the prairie 
chicken as endangered is a scientific decision not within the purview 
of Congress and will have absolutely no effect on Department of Defense 
operations.
  The worst that anyone can say about the prairie chicken is that it is 
really not a chicken, but a grouse.
  This amendment has no place in the NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to 
oppose it.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from the 
great State of Kansas (Ms. Jenkins), where they are working very 
diligently on a State level to repopulate the species.
  Ms. JENKINS of Kansas. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of this amendment which would 
delist the lesser prairie chicken under the Endangered Species Act. I 
have long opposed this listing for many reasons because the rules 
unnecessarily restrict and hamper defense operations on Federal land 
under the species' habitat.
  In Kansas, we have a proud military tradition and a number of 
important installations, including Fort Riley. An enormous benefit to 
Fort Riley is its huge training areas which have no encroachment issues 
and are some of the largest and most cost effective in the Nation.
  Any similarly ill-advised listing affecting Fort Riley would 
potentially complicate this vital training area, amounting to nothing 
more than an overreach of the Endangered Species Act because it would 
imperil the actions taken by our military and hamper our local 
economies which these installations complement.
  Preservation efforts do not have to come at a cost to our national 
defense preparedness, and I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce), from another one of those States working very 
diligently to increase the population of these species in a very 
scientific way.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Mr. Lucas' amendment.
  Contrary to what was said, New Mexico has Cannon Air Force Base, and 
the listing of the prairie chicken falls right in the bombing regions 
held by Cannon.
  For those people who say it is just alarmist, remember 1999 and 2000, 
when almost all of Camp Pendleton was shut completely down? The marines 
had to push their boats on the beach, but they couldn't get out because 
of the endangered species. They, instead, flew their boats over to 
Utah, set up stakes where the water would have been, and offloaded them 
there.
  When we talk about the effect of the Endangered Species Act, we have 
to remember the past. Remember that it was the spotted owl that shut 
down 85 percent of the timber logging in this country, only to have the 
Fish and Wildlife Service say a couple of years ago: Oh, never mind. It 
wasn't logging that was causing the spotted owl to go extinct.
  The Fish and Wildlife Service shut down 23,000 jobs in California 
because of a species.
  We want our national defense to reign supreme.
  Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Natural Resources 
Committee and an individual who has worked diligently on preserving all 
of our environment.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, whether one is talking about the 
sage grouse, which is yet to be listed, or the prairie chicken, which 
has been listed, it is true that each of those does have an impact on 
the readiness of our military. It does have an impact, and each branch 
of the military has actually said so.
  On one Army base alone, they are spending $1.5 million a year to 
manage 250 birds. That is the cost that goes to that, as well as to the 
readiness of this Nation.
  It would be nice--and one would presume--that each department would 
be talking to each other about the impacts of their decisions. As 
chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, I am going to say that did 
not happen. It should.
  I urge adoption.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LUCAS. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. 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 Rhode Island 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois). It is now in order 
to consider amendment No. 41 printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike section 3121.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill section 3121, 
which attempts to undermine our efforts to destroy unnecessary nuclear 
weapons that have already been retired and scheduled for dismantlement.
  Section 3121 of the bill was a last-minute addition to the NDAA that 
is both totally unnecessary and counterproductive to our long-term 
national security goals. Our Armed Forces and National Nuclear Security 
Administration, or NNSA, firmly oppose this provision to limit the 
dismantlement of surplus nuclear weapons.
  Section 3121, which my amendment would strike, does three things.
  First, it caps at $50 million a program that is scheduled to cost 
about $50 million, thereby having no practical impact whatever.
  Second, the section prohibits for 5 years the scheduled dismantlement 
of the W84 nuclear warhead. The W84 warhead was retired back in 2007, 8 
years ago, and was recently retired again in favor of keeping the W80 
for the long-range standoff option. There is no reason to keep the W84 
around longer than necessary. Storing and securing unneeded and retired 
nuclear weapons wastes a large amount of money in maintaining them.
  Third, there is a large queue of warheads waiting for dismantlement. 
There are approximately 2,500 retired nuclear warheads scheduled for 
dismantlement. Storing these warheads costs money. Why would we want to 
slow down the process of dismantlement of retired warheads?
  We have about 5,000 active nuclear warheads, and 2,000 would suffice 
to destroy the entire world. Why waste money maintaining retired 
warheads beyond the 5,000 active warheads sufficient to destroy the 
world two and a half times over?
  In fact, by seeking to limit nuclear dismantlement, this section of 
the bill sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about the 
value of nuclear weapons, and it undermines our efforts at nuclear 
nonproliferation. We have promised, as part of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty, to reduce our nuclear warheads eventually to 
zero. The other nuclear nations have made the same promise. On that 
basis, the nonnuclear nations have undertaken not to develop nuclear 
weapons.

[[Page 6983]]

  By delaying dismantlement of retired weapons, we are sending the 
wrong message of nonadherence to the nonproliferation treaty.
  Contrary to the claims of the authors of section 3121, this section 
of the bill is not about unilateral disarmament. All of these weapons 
have already been retired and are scheduled to be dismantled.
  This section, by delaying dismantlement by 5 years, would simply 
waste a large sum of taxpayers' money, would not contribute at all to 
national security--because having retired weapons in the storage bin 
doesn't help national security--and would send the wrong message on 
nonproliferation. It is a total waste of money for no useful purpose 
whatsoever.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment to strike section 
3121. We must not needlessly restrict the Defense Department's ability 
to determine the appropriate rate of warhead dismantlement of retired 
and surplus warheads.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I strongly oppose this amendment because it strikes a section that 
helps us set priorities in defense spending. Dismantling U.S. nuclear 
weapons is not a priority. Getting nuclear modernization done is the 
priority.
  Two weeks ago, Secretary of State Kerry announced at the NPT review 
conference that the U.S. would accelerate its dismantlement of nuclear 
warheads by 20 percent. While Russia continues to make overt nuclear 
threats to the U.S. and our allies, we accelerate unilateral nuclear 
disarmament. This is insane.
  Let's be clear about one point in particular. Section 3121 of the 
underlying bill does not contradict any U.S. treaty obligations. 
Current arms control treaties do not require the U.S. to dismantle any 
nuclear warheads.
  In the FY16 budget request, NNSA detailed its plan to focus the next 
5 years of dismantlement work on warheads retired prior to 2009. 
Section 3121 provides them enough money to do so, and it does not 
restrict this work on pre-2009 warheads.
  Section 3121 allows the administration to carry out the dismantlement 
plan it described in the FY16 budget request. It simply prevents the 
unilateral disarmament and acceleration proposed by Secretary Kerry, 
which is a misguided attempt to appease those who would disarm the 
United States.
  Section 3121 also prohibits dismantlement of certain U.S. nuclear 
cruise missile warheads for 5 years. This is a prudent measure because 
Russia is in plain violation of the INF Treaty through its flight 
testing and deployment of ground-launched, intermediate-range cruise 
missiles.
  Simply put, we should not unilaterally disarm the United States 
cruise missile warheads when Russia is building and deploying its own 
cruise missiles in direct violation of the INF Treaty.
  As Russia continues to make nuclear threats against the U.S. and our 
allies, accelerating the U.S. nuclear weapon dismantlement by 20 
percent is exactly the wrong message to send.

                              {time}  2045

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 90 seconds 
remaining. The gentleman from Alabama has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee, I oppose this amendment as wrong policy.
  Why would we rush headlong into unilateral disarmament at the same 
time Russia has not lived up to its treaty obligations with the INF 
treaty?
  Section 3121 wisely prohibits the disarmament of nuclear warheads for 
5 years, enough time to see if actually Russia will live up to its 
agreement.
  If you are actually going to get rid of a weapons system, for 
heaven's sakes, get something for it. Unilateral disarmament gets us 
nothing. That is why this is the wrong policy with the wrong message 
that would go to our potential adversaries but, more importantly, the 
wrong message that would go to our allies, who are waiting to see if 
the United States will retreat from a position of leadership.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, the central flaw in the argument against 
this amendment is that we are not talking about disarmament, unilateral 
or otherwise. Retired weapons do not add security. All they do is waste 
money to maintain them.
  What this amendment says is do not prohibit the administration from 
dismantling already-retired weapons.
  Now, talking about the threat from Russia, okay. There is a threat 
from Russia. I don't deny that. Modernization of nuclear weapons maybe 
should be a priority. That is a separate issue; but dismantling retired 
weapons doesn't weaken us versus Russia, doesn't help us--in fact, 
maybe it helps us by freeing up money for modernizing weapons. It is 
simply a waste of money to retain retired weapons.
  If we should have more active weapons, that is a different question; 
but, once we have retired the weapon, it costs money to maintain it. It 
also is a potential target for a terrorist to grab it or get the 
plutonium out of it or whatever. Retired warheads should be dismantled, 
regardless of the threat elsewhere. The question is: How many active 
warheads do we need? That is a separate topic.
  A retired warhead does not protect us. Dismantling a retired warhead 
just saves money. A retired warhead doesn't help us against the 
Russians or anybody else. It is simply a question of not wasting money.
  If modernization is a priority, fine. I don't agree with that, but 
spend money on modernization. Why waste money on keeping retired 
warheads in the storage bins?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), the vice chairman of the Strategic Forces 
Subcommittee.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the subcommittee.
  President Obama is doing something that much of the country, 
including myself and many of us on this side of the aisle, are really 
disturbed about, and that is using his pen and his phone to go around 
Congress and do things by executive order, or unilaterally, if you 
might agree with that.
  To take that same approach with our nuclear stockpile, our strategic 
defense, is not a good idea. I totally want to resist this amendment. I 
urge everyone to vote ``no'' on it.
  Secondly, as has been pointed out earlier this evening, the New START 
treaty is, I believe, flawed; but what it does is require us to reduce 
our stockpile and Russia to increase its stockpile. Countries like 
China are not even included in that treaty.
  When we are already on a path to seriously reduce the number of our 
warheads and then to consider unilaterally even cutting them further, 
that is the height of folly, Mr. Chairman. We should resist this 
amendment and vote ``no.''
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), chairman of the full committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I appreciate the distinguished chairman of the 
Strategic Forces Subcommittee for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is in my district where this dismantlement occurs, 
and I think we are missing one key point, but Mr. Rogers raised it 
earlier.

[[Page 6984]]

  We have a limited number of facilities, a limited number of people, 
and a limited number of dollars. We can use them to take things apart, 
or we can use them to help modernize our existing stockpile so it can 
be more effective, so it can be safe, so it can be reliable in 
providing that nuclear deterrence that we depend upon.
  The concern is, based on what Secretary Kerry said 2 weeks ago, that 
this administration is going to put more money and people and 
facilities into taking things apart than they should. They have got 
their priorities wrong. This amendment or the underlying provision of 
the gentleman from Alabama tries to set those priorities straight, and 
that is what is important.
  We can't do everything. We have got to set priorities, and the 
priority ought to be defending the country, especially in light of what 
Russia and China continue to do: building nuclear weapons.
  I think this amendment should be rejected and the underlying 
provision supported.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. 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 New York 
will be postponed.


              Amendment No. 52 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 52 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. 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 77, after line 21, insert the following:

     SEC. 334. ASSESSMENT OF OUTREACH FOR SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS 
                   OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY WOMEN AND MINORITIES 
                   REQUIRED BEFORE CONVERSION OF CERTAIN FUNCTIONS 
                   TO CONTRACTOR PERFORMANCE.

        No Department of Defense function that is performed by 
     Department of Defense civilian employees and is tied to a 
     certain military base may be converted to performance by a 
     contractor until the Secretary of Defense conducts an 
     assessment to determine if the Department of Defense has 
     carried out sufficient outreach programs to assist small 
     business concerns owned and controlled by women (as such term 
     is defined in section 8(d)(3)(D) of the Small Business Act 
     (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(D))) and small business concerns owned 
     and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged 
     individuals (as such term is defined in section 8(d)(3)(C) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(d)(3)(C))) that are 
     located in the geographic area near the military base.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman of the full committee, the 
gentleman from Texas; and the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Washington; and the manager who is managing, my dear friend from Rhode 
Island, for their leadership on many, many issues.
  All of us have encountered the very energetic small business 
community. Included in that, of course, are women and minority-owned 
businesses. They are a vital part of our community.
  In the State of Texas, we are very much engaged with our military 
bases. Over the years, we have had any number of them, very large 
facilities. In my own community, we have the Ellington base that we 
have retrofitted and improved and added a number of assets.
  This amendment speaks to the compatibility between the Department of 
Defense and its needs and the small and minority and women-owned 
businesses and asks the Secretary of Defense to outreach to these 
minority and women and small businesses, as a way of ensuring the 
growth of their businesses and the utilization of their services for 
that of the DOD.
  The Jackson Lee amendment will help the United States maintain the 
most talented, diverse, effective, and powerful workforce in an 
increasingly globalized economy.
  Why? Because our small businesses located in our neighborhoods and 
our communities are there to create opportunity and to create jobs--as 
a practical matter, the Department of Defense has the discretion to 
choose whether a contract can be insourced or outsourced. We would ask 
that they look at the minority businesses in the area as they make 
those determinations.
  Since March of 2009, it is understood that certain Federal contracts 
that were formerly completed by civilian contracts would be looked at 
in a different way. We ask that the assessment of the value of small 
businesses be considered and, in particular, be considered on how many 
jobs are created and also the importance of a healthy and diverse small 
business community.
  I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment and just want to 
particularly say that, in my home city of Houston, Texas, it is home to 
more than 60,000 women-owned businesses and more than 60,000 African 
American-owned businesses and thousands upon thousands of Hispanic 
businesses.
  In fact, just this past week, I visited two of my manufacturing 
companies, one of them a member of the Houston Hispanic Chamber of 
Commerce.
  I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk; it is listed as #55 on 
the roster.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to 
conduct outreach for small business concerns owned and controlled by 
women and minorities prior to the outsourcing of military contracts 
related to local military bases.
  I would like to thank both Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member 
Smith for their dedication and hard work on this important piece of 
legislation which ensures that our men and women in uniform have the 
resources they need and deserve.
  Throughout my tenure in Congress, I have sponsored legislation that 
promotes economic opportunity and inclusion for women, veterans, and 
minority businesses.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment will help the United States maintain the 
most talented, diverse, effective, and powerful workforce in an 
increasingly globalized economy.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment requires the Department of Defense to 
consider the impact that changes to current outsourcing guidelines will 
have on small minority and women owned business by requiring them to 
engage with these businesses.
  Promoting diversity is more than just an idea; it requires an 
understanding that there is a need to have a process that will ensure 
the inclusion of minorities and women in all areas of American life.
  As a practical matter the Department of Defense has the discretion to 
choose whether a contract should be in-sourced or out-sourced.
  Since March of 2009 it is understood that certain federal contracts 
that were formerly completed by civilian contractors would be returned 
to federal employees.
  It is important to find balance between contracts that should be 
conducted by the federal government versus civilian contractors.
  As it stands the policies implemented by the DOD has the unintended 
consequence of harming small minority and women owned businesses by 
taking away civilian contracts that are not inherently serving a 
federal government purpose such as janitorial services, painting 
buildings, mowing lawns and related activities.
  These service contracts which tend to be the bread and butter for 
minority and women owned business are slowly being withdrawn and 
returned to the federal government.
  I have worked hard to help small business owners to fully realize 
their potential.
  That is why I support entrepreneurial development programs, including 
the Small Business Development Center and Women's Business Center 
programs.
  These initiatives provide counseling in a variety of critical areas, 
including business plan development, finance, and marketing.
  My amendment would require the Department of Defense to utilize a 
similar outreach program prior to outsourcing.
  Outreach is key to developing healthy and diverse small businesses.
  There are approximately 6 million minority owned businesses in the 
United States, representing a significant aspect of our economy.

[[Page 6985]]

  According to the most recent available Census data, minority owned 
businesses employ nearly 6 million Americans and generate $1 trillion 
dollars in economic output.
  Women owned businesses have increased 20% between 2002 and 2007, and 
currently total close to 8 million.
  My home city of Houston, Texas is home to more than 60,000 women 
owned businesses, and more than 60,000 African American owned 
businesses.
  The Department of Defense (DOD) estimates that during the Vietnam 
War, the ratio of contractors to soldiers was 1 in 10.
  This rate increased to about 1 contractor for every soldier during 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  These contracts generate billions of dollars in revenue for the 
companies to which they are awarded.
  A mandatory DOD outreach program would make women and minority owned 
businesses aware of all of the contract opportunities available to 
them.
  Small businesses deserve a fair shot at federal contracts.
  They have a chance to compete for overseas contracts with the 
Department of Defense as well as access to international contracts with 
the United States Agency for International Development.
  In addition, I believe that work needs to be done to modernize key 
contracting developmental programs designed to increase opportunities 
for women, minorities and low-income individuals.
  Programs like the Outreach Program that I support through my 
amendment will reduce the current barriers and ensure small businesses 
have access to perform federal contracts.
  This can save taxpayer dollars, because the increased competition for 
government contracts will lead to better prices and better quality.
  The vibrancy of our economic prosperity depends on the ability of our 
nation's small business community to adapt to opportunities at home and 
aboard.
  Outreach programs that are properly designed and implemented, 
strengthen the national community, promote its economic well-being, and 
maximize the benefits of our great diversity.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment ensures that the Department of Defense 
reaches out to small minority and women owned business to hear their 
concerns and recognizes the important role they play in revitalizing 
our economy.
  I urge all members to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the 
time in opposition, although I am not opposed to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the Chairman for his kindness.
  May I ask the Chairman how much time is remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas has 2 minutes remaining.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Polis).
  Mr. POLIS. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Texas for bringing 
forth this amendment. This is tremendous talent and the entrepreneurial 
spirit across this country.
  Mr. Chair, to ensure that we have the ability to take advantage of 
that great diversity, which is America's asset, it is so important to 
make sure that women entrepreneurs, minority entrepreneurs, are able to 
be in a position to supply and work with our United States military.
  I am proud of the steps that the military, itself, has taken with 
regard to diversity, but we can do better on the entrepreneurial and 
business side.
  As a former entrepreneur myself, I know how important it is to make 
sure that we develop the next great generation of American companies, 
American suppliers, that reflects not only the diversity of the 
military, but the diversity of the American people. That is the 
strength of our country, to make sure that women entrepreneurs, 
minority entrepreneurs, are empowered.
  That is something that I know is a cause that the gentlewoman from 
Texas holds dear. It is a cause that I hold dear, and I hope that we 
can adopt this amendment to further that end.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me conclude by first thanking the 
gentleman from Colorado.
  I think, Mr. Chairman, it evidences that the appreciation for small 
businesses reaches from States like Texas to New York to California to 
Missouri to Colorado and Florida and many other places. I would ask my 
colleagues to support this important amendment investing in our small 
businesses, women-owned and minority businesses of America.
  Mr. Chairman, I conclude by saying I want to also thank my colleagues 
for my amendment being in en bloc amendment No. 4, and I will later 
include a statement into the Record regarding amendment No. 75.
  With that, I ask for support of amendment No. 52.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this 
amendment and just mention to my colleagues that there are a number of 
provisions in the underlying bill that try to help encourage small 
businesses to participate with the Department of Defense because I 
completely agree with the statements that were made.
  That is where much of the innovation occurs in this country, and the 
bureaucracy, the difficulty in our acquisition system makes it very 
hard sometimes--many times--for small businesses to contribute.
  I think that idea and especially the small businesses targeted by the 
gentlewoman's amendment is appropriate.
  I hope, Mr. Chairman, that all Members, the supporters of this 
amendment and those who are concerned about small businesses having 
some greater opportunity to participate in Department of Defense 
procurement, will support not only this amendment, but also final 
passage of the bill because that is the only way that this amendment 
actually can become law.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 4 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 4 consisting of amendment Nos. 58, 60, 61, 65, 
67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, and 82 printed in House Report 
No. 114-112, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:


             amendment no. 58 offered by mr. hurd of texas

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

     SEC. 5__. AVAILABILITY OF CYBER SECURITY AND IT 
                   CERTIFICATIONS FOR DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                   PERSONNEL CRITICAL TO NETWORK DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Section 2015 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``to obtain'' and inserting ``and when 
     appropriate, other Department of Defense personnel, to 
     obtain''; and
       (B) by adding ``or industry recognized'' between 
     ``professional'' and ``credentials''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) The authority under paragraph (1) may be used to pay 
     the expenses of a member of the active Air Force, Army, Navy, 
     Coast Guard, the reserve components, defense contractors, or 
     civilians with access to information systems and identified 
     as critical to network defense to obtain professional and 
     industry recognized credentials related to information 
     technology and cyber security functions.''.
       (b) Construction.-- No additional funds are authorized to 
     be appropriated to carry out the amendments made by this 
     section, and such amendments shall be carried out using 
     amounts otherwise made available for such purposes.


            amendment no. 60 offered by mr. stivers of ohio

       At the end of subtitle H of title V (page 234, after line 
     12), add the following new section:

     SEC. 5__. POSTHUMOUS COMMISSION AS CAPTAIN IN THE REGULAR 
                   ARMY FOR MILTON HOLLAND.

       (a) Posthumous Commission.--Milton Holland, who, while 
     sergeant major of the 5th Regiment, United States Colored 
     Infantry,

[[Page 6986]]

     was awarded the Medal of Honor in recognition of his action 
     on September 29, 1864, during the Battle of Chapin's Farm, 
     Virginia, when, as the citation for the medal states, he 
     ``took command of Company C, after all the officers had been 
     killed or wounded, and gallantly led it'', shall be deemed 
     for all purposes to have held the grade of captain in the 
     regular Army, effective as of that date and continuing until 
     his separation from the Army.
       (b) Prohibition of Benefits.--Section 1523 of title 10, 
     United States Code, applies in the case of the posthumous 
     commission described in subsection (a).


           amendment no. 61 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin

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

     SEC. 584. SENSE OF CONGRESS SUPPORTING THE DECISION OF THE 
                   ARMY TO POSTHUMOUSLY PROMOTE MASTER SERGEANT 
                   (RETIRED) NAOMI HORWITZ TO SERGEANT MAJOR.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
       (1) Naomi Horwitz was born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin in 1916.
       (2) In 1942, Ms. Horwitz marched into the Army recruiters 
     office and asked to join.
       (3) Ms. Horwitz served with the Women's Army Auxiliary 
     Corps, the Women's Army Corps, and the Reserves.
       (4) Ms. Horwitz served from 1942 until 1946 and reenlisted 
     a few years later.
       (5) On October 24, 1965, one of the proudest moments of her 
     military career, Ms. Horwitz's was promoted to the rank of 
     Sergeant Major in the U.S. Army Reserve.
       (6) As women were only eligible to hold the rank of 
     Sergeant Major since 1960, Ms. Horwitz was one of only a 
     handful of women to hold such rank during that time period.
       (7) Despite her promotion, Ms. Horwitz was not allowed to 
     hold the rank of Sergeant Major.
       (8) Ms. Horwitz retired from the military in 1976 at a 
     lower rank.
       (9) After her retirement from the military, Ms. Horwitz was 
     a tireless veteran's advocate serving for decades with AMVETS 
     Post 60, Jewish War Veterans, the American Legion Milwaukee 
     Women's Post 448, the Allied Veterans Council of Milwaukee 
     and the Veterans Day Parade Committee.
       (10) Ms. Horwitz was named Veteran of the Year in Milwaukee 
     County in 2004.
       (11) In October 2014, Ms. Horwitz died at the age of 98.
       (12) One of Ms. Horwitz's final wishes was that one of the 
     proudest moment of her Army career be reflected on her 
     gravestone.
       (13) In March 2015, the Secretary of the Army corrected 
     this injustice and approved a request to posthumously promote 
     Sergeant Major Horwitz.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
       (1) joins the Army and our Nation in expressing our 
     gratitude to Sergeant Major Naomi Horwitz for her 26 years of 
     honorable military service and continued civilian service; 
     and
       (2) supports the decision of the Army to posthumously 
     promote Master Sergeant (retired) Naomi Horwitz to Sergeant 
     Major.


        amendment no. 65 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia

       Page 298, line 12, insert ``in the pilot program'' after 
     ``beneficiaries''.
       Page 298, beginning line 13, strike ``pursuant to section 
     1074g(f) of title 10, United States Code'' and insert 
     ``through its Prime Vendor contracting process''.
       Page 298, line 17, strike ``be comprised of small business 
     pharmacies'' and insert ``include small business pharmacies 
     (as defined by the Small Business Administration)''.
       Page 298, line 19, insert before the semicolon the 
     following: ``provided there are sufficient number of small 
     business pharmacies willing to participate in the pilot 
     program''.
       Page 299, line 11, insert after ``(a)'' the following: 
     ``and shall work with small business pharmacies to 
     participate in the pilot program''.
       Page 299, line 25, insert after ``Secretary'' the 
     following: ``shall give preference to regions with high small 
     business pharmacy participation rates and''.
       Page 300, after line 21, insert the following new paragraph 
     (and redesignate the subsequent paragraphs):
       (2) retail pharmacies;


           amendment no. 67 offered by mr. grayson of florida

       Page 302, after line 18, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 723. PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION OF DEPENDENT PATIENTS 
                   RELATING TO OBSTETRICAL ANESTHESIA SERVICES.

       Section 1040(a)(2) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking subparagraph (F).


        amendment no. 68 offered by mr. austin scott of georgia

       Page 314, line 1 (in section 804), after ``any requirement 
     under'' insert ``subsection (a)(3) or''.


            amendment no. 69 offered by mr. cole of oklahoma

       Page 359, line 8, strike ``regulations and practices'' and 
     insert ``regulations, practices, and sustainment 
     requirements''.
       Page 359, line 14, insert before the period the following: 
     ``and each Center of Industrial and Technical Excellence 
     (described in section 2474 of title 10, United States 
     Code)''.


         amendment no. 70 offered by ms. foxx of north carolina

       Page 359, line 8, insert ``(1)'' before ``Department''.
       Page 359, line 10, insert before the period the following: 
     ``; and (2) Department of Defense practices related to the 
     procurement, management, and use of intellectual property 
     rights to facilitate competition in sustainment of weapon 
     systems throughout their life-cycle''.


            amendment no. 71 offered by mr. bost of illinois

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

     SEC. 8__. ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
                   IN THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION; PETITIONS 
                   FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SIZE STANDARDS.

       (a) Establishment of an Office of Hearings and Appeals in 
     the Small Business Administration.--
       (1) In general.--Section 5 of the Small Business Act (15 
     U.S.C. 634) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(i) Office of Hearings and Appeals.--
       ``(1) Establishment.--
       ``(A) Office.--There is established in the Administration 
     an Office of Hearings and Appeals--
       ``(i) to impartially decide matters relating to program 
     decisions of the Administrator--

       ``(I) for which Congress requires a hearing on the record; 
     or
       ``(II) that the Administrator designates for hearing by 
     regulation; and

       ``(ii) which shall contain the office of the Administration 
     that handles requests submitted pursuant to sections 552 of 
     title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to as the 
     `Freedom of Information Act') and maintains records pursuant 
     to section 552a of title 5, United States Code (commonly 
     referred to as the `Privacy Act of 1974').
       ``(B) Jurisdiction.--The Office of Hearings and Appeals 
     shall only hear appeals of matters as described in this Act, 
     the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 661 et 
     seq.), and title 13 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
       ``(C) Associate administrator.--The head of the Office of 
     Hearings and Appeals shall be the Chief Hearing Officer 
     appointed under section 4(b)(1), who shall be responsible to 
     the Administrator.
       ``(2) Chief hearing officer duties.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Chief Hearing Officer shall--
       ``(i) be a career appointee in the Senior Executive Service 
     and an attorney licensed by a State, commonwealth, territory 
     or possession of the United States, or the District of 
     Columbia; and
       ``(ii) be responsible for the operation and management of 
     the Office of Hearings and Appeals.
       ``(B) Alternative dispute resolution.--The Chief Hearing 
     Officer may assign a matter for mediation or other means of 
     alternative dispute resolution.
       ``(3) Hearing officers.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Office of Hearings and Appeals shall 
     appoint Hearing Officers to carry out the duties described in 
     paragraph (1)(A)(i).
       ``(B) Conditions of employment.--A Hearing Officer 
     appointed under this paragraph--
       ``(i) shall serve in the excepted service as an employee of 
     the Administration under section 2103 of title 5, United 
     States Code, and under the supervision of the Chief Hearing 
     Officer;
       ``(ii) shall be classified at a position to which section 
     5376 of title 5, United States Code, applies; and
       ``(iii) shall be compensated at a rate not exceeding the 
     maximum rate payable under such section.
       ``(C) Authority; powers.--Notwithstanding section 556(b) of 
     title 5, United States Code, a Hearing Officer--
       ``(i) shall have the authority to hear claims arising under 
     section 554 of such title;
       ``(ii) shall have the powers described in section 556(c) of 
     such title; and
       ``(iii) shall conduct hearings and issue decisions in the 
     manner described under sections 555, 556, and 557 of such 
     title, as applicable.
       ``(D) Treatment of current personnel.--An individual 
     serving as a Judge in the Office of Hearings and Appeals (as 
     that position and office are designated in section 134.101 of 
     title 13, Code of Federal Regulations) on the effective date 
     of this subsection shall be considered as qualified to be, 
     and redesignated as, a Hearing Officer.
       ``(4) Hearing officer defined.--In this subsection, the 
     term `Hearing Officer' means an individual appointed or 
     redesignated under this subsection who is an attorney 
     licensed by a State, commonwealth, territory or possession of 
     the United States, or the District of Columbia.''.
       (2) Associate administrator as chief hearing officer.--
     Section 4(b)(1) of such Act (15 U.S.C. 633(b)) is amended by 
     adding at the end the following: ``One such Associate 
     Administrator shall be the Chief Hearing Officer, who shall 
     administer the Office of Hearings and Appeals established 
     under section 5(i).''.

[[Page 6987]]

       (3) Repeal of regulation.--Section 134.102(t) of title 13, 
     Code of Federal Regulations, as in effect on January 1, 2015, 
     (relating to types of hearings within the jurisdiction of the 
     Office of Hearings and Appeals) shall have no force or 
     effect.
       (b) Petitions for Reconsideration of Size Standards for 
     Small Business Concerns.--Section 3(a) of the Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 632(a)) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(9) Petitions for reconsideration of size standards.--
       ``(A) In general.--A person may file a petition for 
     reconsideration with the Office of Hearings and Appeals (as 
     established under section 5(i)) of a size standard revised, 
     modified, or established by the Administrator pursuant to 
     this subsection.
       ``(B) Time limit.--A person filing a petition for 
     reconsideration described in subparagraph (A) shall file such 
     petition not later than 30 days after the publication in the 
     Federal Register of the notice of final rule to revise, 
     modify, or establish size standards described in paragraph 
     (6).
       ``(C) Process for agency review.--The Office of Hearings 
     and Appeals shall use the same process it uses to decide 
     challenges to the size of a small business concern to decide 
     a petition for review pursuant to this paragraph.
       ``(D) Judicial review.--The publication of a final rule in 
     the Federal Register described in subparagraph (B) shall be 
     considered final agency action for purposes of seeking 
     judicial review. Filing a petition for reconsideration under 
     subparagraph (A) shall not be a condition precedent to 
     judicial review of any such size standard.''.


           amendment no. 72 offered by mr. hanna of new york

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

     SEC. 8__. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE AUCTIONS.

       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that, 
     when used appropriately, reverse auctions may improve the 
     Federal Government's procurement of commercially available 
     commodities by increasing competition, reducing prices, and 
     improving opportunities for small businesses.
       (b) Limitations on Reverse Auctions.--The Small Business 
     Act (15 U.S.C. 631 et seq.) is amended--
       (1) by redesignating section 47 (15 U.S.C. 631 note) as 
     section 48; and
       (2) by inserting after section 46 the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 47. LIMITATIONS ON REVERSE AUCTIONS.

       ``(a) Prohibition on Using Reverse Auctions for Covered 
     Contracts.--In the case of a covered contract described in 
     subsection (c), a reverse auction may not be used if the 
     award of the contract is to be made under--
       ``(1) section 8(a);
       ``(2) section 8(m);
       ``(3) section 15(a);
       ``(4) section 15(j);
       ``(5) section 31; or
       ``(6) section 36.
       ``(b) Limitations on Using Reverse Auctions.--In the case 
     of the award of a contract made under paragraphs (1) through 
     (6) of subsection (a) that is not a covered contract, a 
     reverse auction may be used for the award of such a contract, 
     but only if the following requirements are met:
       ``(1) Decisions regarding use of a reverse auction.--
     Subject to paragraph (2), the following decisions with 
     respect to such a contract shall be made only by a 
     contracting officer:
       ``(A) A decision to use a reverse auction as part of the 
     competition for award of such a contract.
       ``(B) Any decision made after the decision described in 
     subsection (A) regarding the appropriate evaluation criteria, 
     the inclusion of vendors, the acceptability of vendor 
     submissions (including decisions regarding timeliness), and 
     the selection of the winner.
       ``(2) Training required.--Only a contracting officer who 
     has received training on the appropriate use and supervision 
     of reverse auctions may use or supervise a reverse auction 
     for the award of such a contract. The training shall be 
     provided by, or similar to the training provided by, the 
     Defense Acquisition University as described in section 824 of 
     the Carl Levin and Howard P. `Buck' McKeon National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291).
       ``(3) Number of offers; revisions to bids.--A Federal 
     agency may not award such a contract using a reverse auction 
     if only one offer is received or if offerors do not have the 
     ability to submit revised bids with lower prices throughout 
     the course of the auction.
       ``(4) Technically acceptable offers.--A Federal agency 
     awarding such a contract using a reverse auction shall 
     evaluate the technical acceptability of offers only as 
     technically acceptable or unacceptable.
       ``(5) Use of price rankings.--A Federal agency may not 
     award such a contract using a reverse auction if at any time 
     during the award process the Federal agency misinforms an 
     offeror about the price ranking of the offeror's last offer 
     submitted in relation to offers submitted by other offerors.
       ``(6) Use of third-party agents.--If a Federal agency uses 
     a third party agent to assist with the award of such a 
     contract using a reverse auction, the Federal agency shall 
     ensure that--
       ``(A) inherently governmental functions (as such term is 
     used in section 2303 of title 41, United States Code) are not 
     performed by private contractors, including by the third 
     party agent;
       ``(B) information on the past contract performance of 
     offerors created by the third party agent and shared with the 
     Federal agency is collected, maintained, and shared in 
     compliance with section 1126 of title 41, United States Code;
       ``(C) information on whether an offeror is a responsible 
     source (as defined in section 113 of title 41, United States 
     Code) that is created by the third party agent and shared 
     with the Federal agency is shared with the offeror and 
     complies with section 8(b)(7) of this Act; and
       ``(D) disputes between the third party agent and an offeror 
     may not be used to justify a determination that an offeror is 
     not a responsible source (as defined in section 113 of title 
     41, United States Code) or to otherwise restrict the ability 
     of an offeror to compete for the award of such a contract or 
     task or delivery order.
       ``(c) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) Contracting officer.--The term `contracting officer' 
     has the meaning given that term in section 2101(1) of title 
     41, United States Code.
       ``(2) Covered contract.--The term `covered contract' means 
     a contract--
       ``(A) for design and construction services;
       ``(B) for goods purchased to protect Federal employees, 
     members of the Armed Forces, or civilians from bodily harm; 
     or
       ``(C) for goods or services other than those goods or 
     services described in subparagraph (A) or (B)--
       ``(i) to be awarded based on factors other than price and 
     technical responsibility; or
       ``(ii) if awarding the contract requires the contracting 
     officer to conduct discussions with the offerors about their 
     offer.
       ``(3) Design and construction services.--The term `design 
     and construction services' means--
       ``(A) site planning and landscape design;
       ``(B) architectural and interior design;
       ``(C) engineering system design;
       ``(D) performance of construction work for facility, 
     infrastructure, and environmental restoration projects;
       ``(E) delivery and supply of construction materials to 
     construction sites;
       ``(F) construction, alteration, or repair, including 
     painting and decorating, of public buildings and public 
     works; and
       ``(G) architectural and engineering services as defined in 
     section 1102 of title 40, United States Code.
       ``(4) Reverse auction.--The term `reverse auction', with 
     respect to procurement by an agency, means an auction between 
     a group of offerors who compete against each other by 
     submitting offers for a contract or task or delivery order 
     with the ability to submit revised offers with lower prices 
     throughout the course of the auction.''.


          amendment no. 75 offered by ms. jackson lee of texas

       Page 384, line 8, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 384, line 13, strike the period and insert a 
     semicolon.
       Page 384, after line 13, insert the following new 
     subparagraphs:
       ``(C) to evaluate commercial off-the-shelf business systems 
     for security, resilience, reliability, interoperability, and 
     integration with existing interrelated systems where such 
     system integration and interoperability are essential to 
     Department of Defense operations;
       ``(D) to work with commercial off-the-shelf business system 
     developers and owners in adapting systems for Department of 
     Defense use;
       ``(E) to work with commercial off-the-shelf business system 
     developers and owners where necessary to evaluate the 
     feasibility of making the necessary changes where needed to 
     adapt systems for Department of Defense use;
       ``(F) to perform Department of Defense system audits to 
     determine which systems are related to or rely upon the 
     system to be replaced or integrated with commercial off-the-
     shelf business systems;
       ``(G) to include data mapping as a step in the testing of 
     commercial off-the-shelf business systems prior to 
     deployment; and
       ``(H) to perform full backup of systems that will be 
     changed or replaced by the installation of commercial off-
     the-shelf business systems prior to installation and 
     deployment to ensure reconstitution of the system to a 
     functioning state should it become necessary.


          amendment no. 79 offered by mr. connolly of virginia

       At the end of title VIII (page 400, after line 23), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 865. EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND 
                   INDUSTRY.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall 
     prescribe a regulation making clear that agency acquisition 
     personnel are permitted and encouraged to engage in 
     responsible and constructive exchanges with industry, so long 
     as

[[Page 6988]]

     those exchanges are consistent with existing law and 
     regulation and do not promote an unfair competitive advantage 
     to particular firms.


          amendment no. 80 offered by mr. connolly of virginia

       At the end of title VIII (page 400, after line 23), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 865. STRENGTHENING PROGRAM AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT 
                   PERFORMANCE.

       (a) Plan on Strengthening Program and Project Management 
     Performance.--Not later than 180 days following the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 
     Management and Budget, in consultation with the Director of 
     the Office of Personnel Management, shall submit to the 
     relevant congressional committees a plan for improving 
     management of IT programs and projects.
       (b) Matters Covered.--The plan required by subsection (a) 
     shall include, at a minimum, the following:
       (1) Creation of a specialized career path for program 
     management.
       (2) The development of a competency model for program 
     management consistent with the IT project manager model.
       (3) A career advancement model that requires appropriate 
     expertise and experience for advancement.
       (4) A career advancement model that is more competitive 
     with the private sector and that recognizes both Government 
     and private sector experience.
       (c) Combination With Other Cadres Plan.--The Director may 
     combine the plan required by subsection (a) with the 
     acquisition human capital plans that were developed pursuant 
     to the October 27, 2009, guidance issued by the Administrator 
     for Federal Procurement Policy in furtherance of section 
     1704(g) of title 41, United States Code (originally enacted 
     as section 869 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense 
     Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417; 
     122 Stat. 4553)), to address how the agencies are meeting 
     their human capital requirements to support the timely and 
     effective acquisition of information technology.


           amendment no. 81 offered by mr. farr of california

       Page 400, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 8___. SYCHRONIZATION OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION CURRICULA.

       Section 1746(c) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by striking ``The'' and inserting ``(1) The''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) The President of such University shall also convene a 
     review board annually with faculty representatives from 
     relevant professional schools and degree-granting 
     institutions of the Department of Defense and military 
     departments, such as the service academies, the Naval 
     Postgraduate School, and other similar schools and 
     institutions, in order to review and synchronize defense 
     acquisition curricula across the entire Department of 
     Defense.''.


           amendment no. 82 offered by mr. farr of california

       Page 400, after line 23, insert the following:

     SEC. 8__ RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS OF DEFENSE ACQUISITION POLICY.

       Section 1746(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended 
     by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
       ``(2) research and analysis of defense acquisition policy 
     issues from academic institutions, such as the Naval 
     Postgraduate School and other Department of Defense schools, 
     that offer in-depth analysis of the entire defense 
     acquisition decision support system from both a business and 
     public policy perspective and from an operational and 
     information sciences perspective.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this point to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Bost).
  Mr. BOST. I thank the chairman for yielding and this opportunity to 
offer my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, when the Small Business Administration sets a size 
standard for a small business, it is determining whether that company 
can qualify for loans, Federal contracts, and other development 
assistance.
  Unfortunately, there are times that the SBA sets an inappropriate 
size standard, wrongly classifying a small business as a large 
business, which can deny them critical access and assistance and 
contract opportunities.

                              {time}  2100

  My bipartisan amendment, offered with the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Connolly), builds upon previous efforts to improve the SBA size 
standards process. This will empower America's job creators to appeal 
directly to the SBA when they believe they have received an 
inappropriate designation. This change will spare small businesses from 
having to engage in expensive and time-consuming lawsuits to make their 
voice heard.
  Our amendment is supported by the National Small Business 
Association, the National Defense Industrial Association, and other 
small business organizations.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, again, let me offer my appreciation to 
the chairman and ranking member for including my amendment, No. 75, in 
en bloc amendment No. 4.
  I want to thank, also, my good friend from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin). Both of us serve on the Committee on Homeland Security. He 
serves on the Armed Services Committee, but we see that there are 
overlapping issues.
  My amendment simply makes an important contribution to the bill by 
ensuring that changes made to DOD computing systems using software 
bought and modified for agency operations will not result in the 
disruption of DOD operations.
  I would like to offer this amendment in recognition of a great unsung 
hero of the modern computing age, Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper, who 
was one of the first programmers, who invented the first compiler for a 
computer programming language and was a visionary who worked to make 
machine-independent programming languages possible. Rear Admiral Grace 
Murray Hopper is not very well known outside of the world of computing, 
but I salute her work in advancing the science of advanced computing 
systems while she served as a member of the armed services.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. The Jackson Lee amendment will provide the 
Department of Defense chief privacy officer with the tools it needs to 
plan and execute updates and changes to the DOD computer networks.
  In this world of hacking and the importance of securing our 
infrastructure of cybersecurity, I believe that this amendment will 
contribute to the improvement of the DOD and protect against cyber 
attacks.
  Again, I thank the chairman and ranking member for including my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for 
their work on this bill and their devotion to the men and women of the 
Armed Forces.
  I also thank them for including in En Bloc Amendment #4 the Jackson 
Lee Amendment (No. 125), which makes an important contribution to the 
bill by ensuring that changes made to DOD computing systems using 
software bought and modified for agency operations will not result in 
the disruption of DOD operations.
  I would like to offer this amendment in recognition of a great unsung 
hero of the modern computing age.
  Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper who is one of the first programmers 
who invented the first compiler for a computer programming language, 
and was the visionary who worked to make machine-independent 
programming languages possible.
  Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper is not very well known outside of 
the world of computing, but I salute her work in advancing the science 
advance computing systems while she served as a member of the armed 
services.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment will provide the Department of Defense 
Chief Information Officer with the tools it needs to plan and execute 
updates and changes to DOD computer networks.
  There is no entity like the Department of Defense so the agency will 
need all of the resources necessary to prepare to transition its 
computing networks using software and components purchased and modified 
for specialized purposes.
  The importance of DOD functions for the security of our nation makes 
the importance of modernizing their computing systems of value to the 
nation and the demands they will face today and into the future.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 125 will ensure that changes made to DOD 
computing

[[Page 6989]]

systems using software bought and modified for agency use will not 
result in disruption of DOD operations.
  I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for including this amendment 
in this En Bloc Amendment #4 and I encourage all Members to support it.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hurd).
  Mr. HURD of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment, 
No. 58.
  As chairman of the Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on 
Information Technology, over the past 5 months, one thing has become 
painfully clear to me: the IT infrastructure of the Federal Government 
is behind the times, and those who maintain our already-outdated 
systems have a difficult job due to red tape and bureaucratic hurdles. 
Compounding this issue and making it worse is the fact that there is a 
shortage of high-skilled labor in IT security both in the public and 
private sectors.
  My amendment would modify existing law to allow all personnel 
identified as critical to network defense within DOD and DHS who have 
received the appropriate training to take the necessary exams, backing 
their skills with certification.
  A large number of these individuals receive the valuable training 
needed to protect our networks and defend cyber domains, but their 
skills are not always backed by certification. This not only means 
there is little accountability in the system, but also that those who 
choose to leave the Federal Government have a hard time explaining 
their qualifications to potential employers.
  This amendment solves both of these issues by providing 
internationally recognized certification to individuals in critical 
roles. More importantly, this amendment would not seek any additional 
funding to implement this policy change.
  This change will enhance U.S. national security, ensure value of 
taxpayer investments in IT training, and even help our veterans 
transition their hard-earned skills to civilian employment once their 
service has ended.
  I thank the chairman for his support and commend him for his work on 
this bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, since there are no additional speakers on 
my side, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to note that 
there are 15 amendments in this en bloc package, 8 sponsored by 
Republicans and 7 by Democrats. There truly was bipartisan 
participation in formulating this package, and I hope all the sponsors 
of these 15 amendments will support this bill on final passage.
  I urge adoption of the en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


      Amendments En Bloc No. 5 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I 
offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 5 consisting of amendment Nos. 62, 73, 74, 77, 
78, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, and 100 printed in 
House Report No. 114-112, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:


        Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania

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

     SEC. 5__. PRELIMINARY MENTAL HEALTH SCREENINGS FOR 
                   INDIVIDUALS BECOMING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                   FORCES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 31 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 520d. Preliminary mental health screenings

       ``(a) Provision of Mental Health Screening.--Before any 
     individual enlists in an armed force or is commissioned as an 
     officer in an armed force, the Secretary concerned shall 
     provide the individual with a mental health screening.
       ``(b) Use of Screening.--(1) The Secretary shall use the 
     results of a mental screening conducted under subsection (a) 
     as a baseline for any subsequent mental health examinations 
     of the individual, including such examinations provided under 
     sections 1074f and 1074m of this title.
       ``(2) The Secretary may not consider the results of a 
     mental health screening conducted under subsection (a) in 
     determining the promotion of a member of the armed forces.
       ``(c) Application of Privacy Laws.--With respect to 
     applicable laws and regulations relating to the privacy of 
     information, the Secretary shall treat a mental health 
     screening conducted under subsection (a) in the same manner 
     as the medical records of a member of the armed forces.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding after the item 
     relating to section 520c the following new item:
       ``520d. Preliminary mental health screenings.''.
       (c) Reports.--
       (1) Initial report.--
       (A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the National Institute of Mental 
     Health of the National Institutes of Health shall submit to 
     Congress and the Secretary of Defense a report on preliminary 
     mental health screenings of members of the Armed Forces.
       (B) Matters included.--The report under subparagraph (A) 
     shall include the following:
       (i) Recommendations with respect to establishing a 
     preliminary mental health screening of members of the Armed 
     Forces to bring mental health screenings to parity with 
     physical screenings of members.
       (ii) Recommendations with respect to the composition of the 
     mental health screening, evidenced-based best practices, and 
     how to track changes in mental health screenings relating to 
     traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and 
     other conditions.
       (C) Coordination.--The National Institute of Mental Health 
     shall carry out subparagraph (A) in coordination with the 
     Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Health and 
     Human Services, the surgeons general of the military 
     departments, and other relevant experts.
       (2) Reports on efficacy of screenings.--
       (A) Secretary of defense.--Not later than one year after 
     the date on which the Secretary of Defense begins providing 
     preliminary mental health screenings under section 520d(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), the 
     Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the efficacy 
     of such preliminary mental health screenings.
       (B) Comptroller general.--Not later than one year after the 
     submittal of the report under subparagraph (A), the 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall submit to 
     Congress a report on the efficacy of the preliminary mental 
     health screenings described in such subparagraph.
       (C) Matters included.--The reports required by 
     subparagraphs (A) and (B) shall include the following:
       (i) An evaluation of the evidence-based best practices used 
     by the Secretary in composing and conducting preliminary 
     mental health screenings of members of the Armed Forces under 
     such section 520d(a).
       (ii) An evaluation of the evidence-based best practices 
     used by the Secretary in tracking changes in mental health 
     screenings relating to traumatic brain injuries, post-
     traumatic stress disorder, and other conditions among members 
     of the Armed Forces.
       (d) Implementation of Preliminary Mental Health 
     Screening.--The Secretary of Defense may not provide a 
     preliminary mental health screening under section 520d(a) of 
     title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), 
     until the Secretary receives and evaluates the initial report 
     required by subsection (c)(1).
       (e) Report on Efficacy of Physical Examinations for Certain 
     Members of the Armed Forces Upon Separation From Active 
     Duty.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall 
     submit to Congress a report on the efficacy of the mental 
     health components of the physical examinations provided under 
     paragraph (5) of section 1145(a) of title 10, United States 
     Code, to members of the Armed Forces who are separated from 
     active duty as described in paragraph (2) of such section.
       (2) Evaluation of effectiveness.--The report required by 
     paragraph (1) shall include an evaluation of the 
     effectiveness of the physical examinations described in such 
     subsection in--
       (A) identifying members of the Armed Forces with traumatic 
     brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other 
     mental health conditions; and
       (B) ensuring that health care is provided for such members.


          Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Russell of Oklahoma

       Page 376, after line 4, insert the following:

     SEC. 844. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON PROCUREMENT OF FIRE HOSES.

       (a) Findings.--
       (1) The General Services Administration has historically 
     procured specialized fire hoses designed for combating 
     wildfires used by the Forest Service.

[[Page 6990]]

       (2) A memorandum of agreement was signed on February 5, 
     2014, by the Administrator of General Services and the 
     Director of the Defense Logistics Agency designating the 
     Defense Logistics Agency as the integrated material manager 
     and source of supply for such fire hoses.
       (3) While the intent of this agreement was to secure 
     efficiencies in procurement and cost savings for the 
     Government, the transfer of procurement authority to the 
     Department of Defense had the unintentional effect of 
     requiring all suppliers of such fire hoses to comply with the 
     domestic sourcing requirements of section 2533a of title 10, 
     United States Code, also known as the Berry Amendment.
       (4) There is currently only one known provider of such fire 
     hoses and that provider is not fully compliant with the 
     domestic sourcing requirements of the Berry Amendment.
       (5) As a result of the designation of the Defense Logistic 
     Agency as the integrated material manager for the procurement 
     of such fire hoses and the new requirement for compliance 
     with the Berry Amendment, the Forest Service does not 
     anticipate the ability to procure the necessary number of 
     fire hoses before the fire season begins in early June and is 
     currently facing a shortfall of 56,000 hoses out of the 
     93,000 required. According to the Chief of the Forest 
     Service, this shortfall represents a critical risk to a 
     number of States that are likely to experience a season of 
     above average wildfire activity.
       (6) During the period of May 1, 2014, through May 5, 2015, 
     less than 9 percent of quantities of such hoses purchased by 
     the Defense Logistics Agency were procured for the purposes 
     of the Department of Defense.
       (b) Sense of Congress.--Based on the findings in subsection 
     (a), it is the sense of Congress that procurement authority 
     for specialized fire hoses for the United States Forest 
     Service should be reestablished as an activity of the General 
     Services Administration.


       Amendment No. 74 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Page 379, after line 20, insert the following
       (e) Limitation.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to a 
     covered item as defined in subparagraphs of (B), (C), (D), or 
     (E) of section 2533a(b)(1) of title 10, United States Code.


        Amendment No. 77 Offered by Mr. Walker of North Carolina

       At the end of title VIII (page 400, after line 23), add the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 865. STANDARDS FOR OROCUREMENT OF SECURE INFORMATION 
                   TECHNOLOGY AND CYBER SECURITY SYSTEMS.

       (a) Assessment Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall 
     conduct an assessment of the application of the Open Trusted 
     Technology Provider Standard to Department of Defense 
     procurements for information technology and cyber security 
     acquisitions and provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed 
     Services of the House of Representatives not later than one 
     year after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (b) Elements.--The assessment and briefing required by 
     subsection (a) shall include the following:
       (1) Assessment of the current Open Trusted Technology 
     Provider Standard to determine what aspects might be adopted 
     by the Department of Defense and where additional development 
     of the standard may be required.
       (2) Identification of the types or classes of programs 
     where the standard might be applied most effectively, as well 
     as identification of types or classes of programs that should 
     specifically be excluded from consideration.
       (3) Assessment of the impact on current acquisition 
     regulations or policies of the adoption of the standard.
       (4) Recommendations the Secretary may have related to the 
     adoption of the standard or improvement in the standard to 
     support Department acquisitions.
       (5) Any other matters the Secretary may deem appropriate.


            Amendment No. 78 Offered by Mr. Young of Alaska

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

     SEC. 8__. MODIFICATIONS TO THE JUSTIFICATION AND APPROVAL 
                   PROCESS FOR CERTAIN SOLE-SOURCE CONTRACTS FOR 
                   SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS.

       (a) Repeal of Simplified Justification and Approval 
     Process.--Section 811 of the National Defense Authorization 
     Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (Public Law 111-84; 123 Stat. 2405; 
     41 U.S.C. 3304 note) is repealed.
       (b) Requirements for Justification and Approval Process.--
       (1) Defense procurements.--Section 2304(f)(2)(D)(ii) of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by inserting ``if 
     such procurement is for property or services in an amount 
     less than $20,000,000'' before the semicolon at the end.
       (2) Civilian procurements.--Section 3304(e)(4) of title 41, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``or'' at the end;
       (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ``or section 8(a) of 
     the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).'' and inserting 
     ``; or''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(E) the procurement is for property or services in an 
     amount less than $20,000,000 and is conducted under section 
     8(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 637(a)).''.


         Amendment No. 84 Offered by Mr. Palazzo of Mississippi

       Strike section 1053 and insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1053. LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN AH-64 APACHE 
                   HELICOPTERS FROM ARMY NATIONAL GUARD TO REGULAR 
                   ARMY AND RELATED PERSONNEL LEVELS.

       Section 1712 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
     Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b), by striking ``March 31, 2016'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2016''; and
       (2) in subsection (e), by striking ``March 31, 2016'' and 
     inserting ``June 30, 2016'' both places it appears.


       Amendment No. 85 Offered by Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina

       Page 474, after line 17, insert the following:

     SEC. 1060. LIMITATION ON USE OF FUNDS TO DEACTIVATE 440TH 
                   AIRLIFT WING.

       None of the funds authorized to be appropriated in this Act 
     or otherwise made available for the Department of Defense may 
     be used to deactivate the 440th airlift wing, or to move the 
     personnel or aircraft of the 440th airlift wing, or to 
     otherwise degrade the capabilities of the 440th airlift wing 
     until the Secretary of Defense certifies that the 
     deactivation of the 440th airlift wing will not affect the 
     military readiness for the airborne and special operations 
     units stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.


           Amendment No. 86 Offered by Mr. Katko of New York

       Page 485, after line 2, add the following new section:

     SEC. 10__. REPORT ON OPTIONS TO ACCELERATE THE TRAINING OF 
                   REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT PILOTS.

       Not later than February 1, 2016, the Secretary of the Air 
     Force shall submit to the congressional defense committees a 
     report addressing the immediate and critical training and 
     operational needs of the remotely piloted aircraft community. 
     The report shall include the following:
       (1) An assessment of the viability of using non-rated, 
     civilian, contractor, or enlisted pilots to execute remotely 
     piloted aircraft missions.
       (2) An assessment of the availability and existing 
     utilization of special use airspace available for remotely 
     piloted aircraft training and a plan for accessing additional 
     special use airspace in order to meet anticipated training 
     requirements for remotely piloted aircraft.
       (3) A comprehensive training plan aimed at increasing the 
     throughput of undergraduate remotely piloted aircraft 
     training without sacrificing quality and standards.
       (4) Establishment of an optimum ratio for the mix of 
     training airframes to operational airframes in the remotely 
     piloted aircraft inventory necessary to achieve manning 
     requirements for pilots and sensor operators and, to the 
     extent practicable, a plan for fielding additional remotely 
     piloted aircraft airframes at the formal training units in 
     the active, National Guard, and reserve components in 
     accordance with optimum ratios for MQ-9 and Global Hawk 
     remotely piloted aircraft.
       (5) Establishment of optimum and minimum crew ratios to 
     combat air patrols taking into account all tasks remotely 
     piloted aircraft units execute and, to the extent 
     practicable, a plan for conducting missions in accordance 
     with optimum ratios.
       (6) Identification of any resource, legislative, or 
     departmental policy challenges impeding the corrective action 
     needed to reach a sustainable remotely piloted aircraft 
     operations tempo.
       (7) An assessment, to the extent practicable, of the direct 
     and indirect impacts that the integration of remotely piloted 
     aircraft into the national airspace system has on the ability 
     to generate remotely piloted aircraft crews.
       (8) Any other matters the Secretary determines appropriate.


          Amendment No. 87 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas

       At the end of subtitle F of title X (page 485, after line 
     2), add the following new section:

     SEC. 1067. EXPEDITED MEETINGS OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON 
                   THE FUTURE OF THE ARMY.

       Section 1702(f) of the National Defense Authorization Act 
     for Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3665) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new sentence: 
     ``Section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. 
     App. I) shall not apply to a meeting of the Commission unless 
     the meeting is attended by five or more members of the 
     Commission.''.


           Amendment No. 88 Offered by Mr. Heck of Washington

       At the end of title V (page 247, after line 20), add the 
     following new section:

[[Page 6991]]



     SEC. 5__. REPORT REGARDING NEW RULEMAKING UNDER THE MILITARY 
                   LENDING ACT AND DEFENSE MANPOWER DATA CENTER 
                   REPORTS AND MEETINGS.

       (a) Report on New Military Lending Act Rulemaking.--After 
     the issuance by the Secretary of Defense of the regulation 
     issued with regard to section 987 of title 10, United States 
     Code (commonly known as the Military Lending Act), and part 
     of 232 of title 32, Code of Federal Regulations (its 
     implementing regulation), but before the relevant compliance 
     date for any provisions of such regulation that relate to the 
     identification of a covered borrower under the Military 
     Lending Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report 
     that discusses--
       (1) the ability and reliability of the Defense Manpower 
     Data Center in meeting real-time requests for accurate 
     information needed to make a determination regarding whether 
     a borrower is covered by the Military Lending Act; or
       (2) an alternate mechanism or mechanisms for identifying 
     such covered borrowers.
       (b) Defense Manpower Data Center Reports and Meetings.--
       (1) Reports on accuracy, reliability, and integrity of 
     systems.--The Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center 
     shall submit to Congress reports on the accuracy, 
     reliability, and integrity of the Defense Manpower Data 
     Center systems used to identify covered borrowers and covered 
     policyholders under military consumer protection laws. The 
     first report is due six months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, and the Director shall submit 
     additional reports every six months thereafter as necessary 
     to show improvements in the accuracy, reliability, and 
     integrity of such systems.
       (2) Report on plan to strengthen capabilities.--Not later 
     than six months after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     the Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center shall submit 
     to Congress a report on plans to strengthen the capabilities 
     of the Defense Manpower Data Center systems, including 
     staffing levels and funding, in order to improve the 
     identification of covered borrowers and covered policyholders 
     under military consumer protection laws.
       (3) Meetings with private sector users of systems.--The 
     Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center shall meet 
     regularly with private sector users of Defense Manpower Data 
     Center systems used to identify covered borrowers and covered 
     policyholders under military consumer protection laws to 
     learn about issues facing such users and to develop ways of 
     addressing such issues. The first meeting pursuant to this 
     requirement shall take place with three months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.


          Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Crawford of Arkansas

       Page 528, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 1092. SITUATIONS INVOLVING BOMBINGS OF PLACES OF PUBLIC 
                   USE, GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, PUBLIC 
                   TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS, AND INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 18 of title 10, United States 
     Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``Sec. 383. Situations involving bombings of places of public 
       use, Government facilities, public transportation systems, 
       and infrastructure facilities

       ``(a) In General.--The direct participation of members of 
     the Armed Forces assigned to explosive ordnance disposal 
     (EOD) units providing support to civilian law enforcement 
     agencies does not involve search, seizure, arrest or other 
     similar activity. Upon the request of the Attorney General, 
     the Secretary of Defense may provide such assistance in 
     Department of Justice activities related to the enforcement 
     of section 2332f of title 18 during situations involving 
     bombings of places of public use, Government facilities, 
     public transportation systems, and infrastructure facilities.
       ``(b) Mutual Aid Agreement.--The Secretary of Defense, 
     through mutual aid agreement with the Attorney General shall, 
     in the interest of public safety, waive reimbursement on 
     military EOD support of Department of Justice activities 
     related to the enforcement of section 2332f of title 18 for 
     situations involving bombings of places of public use, 
     Government facilities, public transportation systems, and 
     infrastructure facilities.
       ``(c) Rendering-safe Support.--Military EOD units providing 
     rendering-safe support to Department of Justice activities 
     relating to the enforcement of section 175, 229, or 2332a of 
     title 18 emergency situations involving weapons of mass 
     destruction shall be consistent with the provisions of 
     section 382 of this title.
       ``(d) Definitions.--In this section:
       ``(1) The term `explosive ordnance'--
       ``(A) means--
       ``(i) bombs and warheads;
       ``(ii) guided and ballistic missiles;
       ``(iii) artillery, mortar, rocket, and small arms 
     ammunition;
       ``(iv) all mines, torpedoes, and depth charges;
       ``(v) grenades demolition charges;
       ``(vi) pyrotechnics;
       ``(vii) clusters and dispensers;
       ``(viii) cartridge- and propellant- actuated devices;
       ``(ix) electroexplosives devices;
       ``(x) clandestine and improvised explosive devices (IEDs); 
     and
       ``(xi) all similar or related items or components explosive 
     in nature; and
       ``(B) includes all munitions containing explosives, 
     propellants, nuclear fission or fusion materials, and 
     biological and chemical agents.
       ``(2) The term `explosive ordnance disposal procedures' 
     means those particular courses or modes of action for access 
     to, recovery, rendering-safe, and final disposal of explosive 
     ordnance or any hazardous material associated with an EOD 
     incident, including--
       ``(A) access procedures;
       ``(B) recovery procedures;
       ``(C) render-safe procedures; and
       ``(D) final disposal procedures.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:
       ``383. Situations involving bombings of places of public 
           use, Government facilities, public transportation 
           systems, and infrastructure facilities.''.


           Amendment No. 92 Offered by Mr. DeFazio of Oregon

       Page 528, after line 2, insert the following:

     SEC. 1092. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING TECHNICAL CORRECTION.

       It is the sense of Congress that a technical correction to 
     the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon National Defense 
     Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 
     128 Stat. 3881) should be enacted in order to expeditiously 
     carry out the intent of such section 3095.


         Amendment No. 93 Offered by Mr. Lynch of Massachusetts

       In division A, at the end of title X, insert the following:

     SEC. 1092. OBSERVANCE OF VETERANS DAY.

       (a) Two Minutes of Silence.--Chapter 1 of title 36, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 145. Veterans Day

       ``The President shall issue each year a proclamation 
     calling on the people of the United States to observe two 
     minutes of silence on Veterans Day in honor of the service 
     and sacrifice of veterans throughout the history of the 
     Nation, beginning at--
       ``(1) 3:11 pm Atlantic standard time;
       ``(2) 2:11 pm eastern standard time;
       ``(3) 1:11 pm central standard time;
       ``(4) 12:11 pm mountain standard time;
       ``(5) 11:11 am Pacific standard time;
       ``(6) 10:11 am Alaska standard time; and
       ``(7) 9:11 am Hawaii-Aleutian standard time.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 
     1 of title 36, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
     the end the following new item:
       ``145. Veterans Day.''.


          Amendment No. 95 Offered by Mr. Connolly of Virginia

       At the end of subtitle A of title XII (page 544, after line 
     16), add the following:

     SEC. 12XX. MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF OVERSEAS 
                   HUMANITARIAN, DISASTER, AND CIVIC AID PROGRAMS 
                   OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

       (a) In General.--Of the amounts authorized to be 
     appropriated by this Act to carry out sections 401, 402, 404, 
     407, 2557, and 2561 of title 10, United States Code, up to 5 
     percent of such amounts may be made available to conduct 
     monitoring and evaluation of programs conducted pursuant to 
     such authorities during fiscal year 2016.
       (b) Briefing.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall provide 
     a briefing to the appropriate congressional committees on 
     mechanisms to evaluate the programs conducted pursuant to the 
     authorities listed in subsection (a). The briefing shall 
     include the following:
       (1) A description of how the Department of Defense 
     evaluates program and project outcomes and impact, including 
     cost effectiveness and extent to which programs meet 
     designated goals.
       (2) An analysis of steps taken to implement the 
     recommendations from the following reports:
       (A) The Government Accountability Office's Report entitled 
     ``Project Evaluations and Better Information Sharing Needed 
     to Manage the Military's Efforts''.
       (B) The Department of Defense Inspector General Report 
     numbered ``DODIG-2012-119''.
       (C) The RAND Corporation's Report prepared for the Office 
     of the Secretary of Defense entitled ``Developing a Prototype 
     Handbook for Monitoring and Evaluating Department of Defense 
     Humanitarian Assistance Projects''.
       (c) Definition.--In this section, the term ``appropriate 
     congressional committees'' means the following:
       (1) The congressional defense committees.
       (2) The Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 
     Senate.


       Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island

       At the end of subtitle B of title XII (page 550, after line 
     26), add the following:

[[Page 6992]]



     SEC. 12XX. REPORT ON EFFORTS TO ENGAGE UNITED STATES 
                   MANUFACTURERS IN PROCUREMENT OPPORTUNITIES 
                   RELATED TO EQUIPPING THE AFGHAN NATIONAL 
                   SECURITY FORCES.

       Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State 
     shall submit to Congress a report on efforts of the 
     Secretaries to engage United States manufacturers in 
     procurement opportunities related to equipping the Afghan 
     National Security Forces.


           Amendment No. 98 Offered by Ms. Sinema of Arizona

       Page 557, after line 3, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent provisions accordingly):
       (6) the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
     Secretary of State, shall continue to pursue efforts to shut 
     down ISIL's illicit oil revenues;
       Page 559, after line 6, insert the following (and 
     redesignate the subsequent provisions accordingly):
       (F) A detailed description of the resources required by the 
     Secretary of Defense to counter ISIL's illicit oil revenues


         Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon

       In the section heading for section 1216, strike ``sense of 
     congress regarding'' (and conform the table of contents 
     accordingly).
       In section 1216, strike ``It is the sense of Congress'' and 
     insert the following:
       (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress
       At the end of section 1216, add the following:
       (b) Special Immigrant Status for Certain Afghans.--Section 
     602(b) of the Afghan Allies Protection Act of 2009 (8 U.S.C. 
     1101 note) is amended--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A)(ii)(II), by striking 
     ``International Security Assistance Force'' each place such 
     term appears and inserting ``International Security 
     Assistance Force, the Resolute Support Mission, or any 
     successor organization'';
       (2) in paragraph (3)(F)(i), by striking ``September 30, 
     2015;'' and inserting ``December 31, 2015;''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(15) Additional report.--Not later than 60 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this paragraph, and every 2 years 
     thereafter, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of 
     State jointly shall submit a report to the Committee on Armed 
     Services and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services and the 
     Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate containing the 
     following:
       ``(A) The number of citizens or nationals of Afghanistan 
     employed in Afghanistan by, or on behalf of, entities or 
     organizations described in paragraph (2)(A)(ii).
       ``(B) A prediction of the number of such individuals who 
     will be so employed on the date that is 2 years after the 
     date used for the count under subparagraph (A).''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. 
Langevin) 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 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Stefanik), a colleague on the Armed 
Services Committee who is also vice chair of the Subcommittee on 
Readiness.
  Ms. STEFANIK. Mr. Chairman, while I will support this en bloc 
package, I stand in opposition to the provision to delay the transfer 
of Apaches from the National Guard to the Active Army.
  In committee, Chairman Wilson of South Carolina and I worked very 
closely to authorize a congressional review, no less than 60 days, 
following the Commission's report release. The gentleman from 
Mississippi's (Mr. Palazzo) provision would scratch this and limit our 
review time.
  More importantly, this amendment would have devastating impacts on 
the Army's combat aviation brigades and on States like New York, 
Kansas, Hawaii, Arizona, and California.
  As the Representative of Fort Drum, home of the 10th Mountain 
Division, any delay would cause this high operational tempo unit to be 
left without an aviation brigade. Let me be clear. Any Apache delay 
will have grave consequences on Army's readiness, deployment schedule, 
and dwell time.
  And to clarify, in exchange for the Apaches, the National Guard is 
set to receive fully modernized Blackhawks. However, derailing, 
delaying, or limiting Apache transfers would halt Blackhawk 
modernization and would, consequently, inhibit lift and rescue 
operations, which are critical to a State's emergency response.
  Mr. Chairman, while I will not vote against this package, I will 
continue to fight for an on-time transfer of the Apaches from the 
National Guard to the Army.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I want to thank the 
chairman of the Armed Services Committee for his bipartisan cooperation 
in arriving at this en bloc package.
  I have no speakers at this point, so I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Rothfus).
  Mr. ROTHFUS. I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, since its establishment, the National Guard has 
persistently answered the call to defend our Nation and respond in 
times of national crises.
  After September 11, 2001, the National Guard was, once again, called 
on to stand to post, deploying for months on end, leaving loved ones 
behind.
  Unfortunately, the Army's Aviation Restructuring Initiative, or ARI, 
is set to have a devastating impact not only on the National Guard in 
Johnstown, Pennsylvania, but on the entire National Guard, leaving the 
force less combat capable and less able to provide operational depth.
  Last year, Congress wisely created the National Commission on the 
Future of the Army to offer a deliberate approach to addressing force 
structure issues and ARI. We need to allow the Commission to do its 
work and ensure that Congress has sufficient time to consider the 
Commission's report and recommendations before the Army takes any 
further harmful and irreversible actions.
  The amendment I have offered Representatives Palazzo and Walz will 
ensure that Congress has that opportunity, and I would urge your 
support.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from North Carolina (Mrs. Ellmers).
  Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman 
Thornberry and the committee staff for continuing to work with me on 
issues facing Fort Bragg, including the deactivation of the 440th 
Airlift Wing.
  My amendment is simple. I am demanding accountability for what I 
believe to be a terribly misguided and shortsighted decision. The 
airborne and special operations units the 440th supports are unique 
because there are paratroopers within the Global Response Force who are 
on call 24/7, packed and ready to deploy anywhere in the world within 
hours. It is safe to say that the level of readiness required for these 
forces is unparalleled.
  In the midst of global uncertainty, the idea of deactivating such a 
vital element is simply baffling to me. I see this as dangerous to our 
paratroopers, and I demand accountability for this ill-advised 
decision. As the Representative of Fort Bragg, I will not stand idly by 
when I see a decision that negatively impacts the brave men and women 
serving our country.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko).
  Mr. KATKO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 86 to 
bring awareness to an issue that greatly affects the future of our Air 
Force, and it can be boiled down to one specific fact: we need more 
remotely piloted aircraft pilots.
  As many of you know, the military has increasingly emphasized the use 
of unmanned aerial systems to support military operations around the 
world. We should continue providing the assets necessary to protect and 
enable our servicemembers to do their job.
  Air Force leadership has recently made several remarks, stating the 
need for 300 annually trained RPA pilots. However, we can only muster a 
fraction of that number at this time.
  I stand before this body today to ask support for a report to 
Congress that

[[Page 6993]]

requests clarification on how the Department of Defense--specifically, 
the Air Force--plans on solving this problem.
  I ask my colleagues to not restrict the operational needs of our Air 
Force and ask for strong support of this amendment.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas for his time, and I urge adoption of 
my amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased at this point to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an 
amendment on behalf of our Nation's servicemembers. This amendment is 
verbatim to a bill that the gentleman from Ohio, Congressman Tim Ryan, 
and I introduced earlier this year, H.R. 1465, the Medical Evaluation 
Parity for Servicemembers Act of 2015. This amendment will help the 
military identify behavioral health issues and improve suicide 
prevention by instituting a mental health assessment for all incoming 
military recruits.
  A recent Army study confirmed the need to address mental health 
issues in a timely manner, finding that ``nearly one in five Army 
soldiers enter the service with a psychiatric disorder, and nearly half 
of all soldiers who tried suicide first attempted it before 
enlisting.''
  The amendment is respective of servicemembers' privacy, and the 
mental evaluation cannot be used in determining promotion. This 
amendment will simply ensure that we have a better baseline for the 
mental health of a servicemember during his or her military career.
  These brave men and women put their lives on the line every day in 
the service of our Nation, and it is our responsibility to offer 
everything in our power to guarantee they return home safely, both 
physically and mentally.
  This amendment has strong bipartisan support and the support of a 
large number of military and mental health advocacy groups which 
understand our troops deserve as much support as we can provide them.
  Mr. Chairman, 108 of our military took their own lives between 
October and December of 2014 by suicide. Let's stop this tragedy.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica) for the 
purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding 
and also for entering into this colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in concern to a potential Air Force 
determination under section 2667 of title 10, referencing an enhanced 
used lease agreement offered by the Canaveral Port Authority for use of 
Department of Defense lands directly adjacent to the Canaveral Harbor's 
deepwater port.
  As you know, the Canaveral Port Authority is, in fact, an independent 
governmental agency established by the Florida Legislature back in 
1939. Therefore, the Canaveral Port Authority is a public organization. 
And under section 2667 of title 10, it could be determined by the 
Secretary of the Air Force that public interest would be served as a 
result of the enhanced use leave agreement that is being offered and 
that competitive procedures are not compatible with the public benefit 
served by this public interest.
  Thusly, it is in the public interest to deal with a public entity. 
The competitive procedures for selection of leases under this section 
should allow the Air Force to negotiate solely with the Canaveral Port 
Authority.

                              {time}  2115

  Mr. THORNBERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MICA. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. I fully agree that section 2667 of title 10 provides 
the Secretary of the Air Force the flexibility to enter into a lease 
with the Canaveral Port Authority. I further understand that such lease 
would be at full market value. So along with the gentleman, I look 
forward to hearing from the Secretary of the Air Force as to her 
determination on this particular case.
  Mr. MICA. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers on my side, so I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remainder of my time 
just to mention that in this en bloc package there are amendments from 
nine Republicans and eight Democrats. We have heard discussed over the 
last two en bloc packages a number of important issues such as 
cybersecurity and about equipping and training our National Guard. 
Again, Members from both sides have contributed to this product. But to 
make their contributions count, this bill is going to have to pass, and 
I hope that all the Members who offered these 17 amendments of this en 
bloc and the other packages will support the final passage not only of 
this en bloc package but the final of the entire bill.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of 
the Armed Services Committee for including the Lynch-Boustany Amendment 
in this en bloc amendment.
  This amendment would add the text of the bill, H.R. 995, the 
``Veterans Day Moment of Silence Act'' to the NDAA. Last year, this 
language was incorporated into the House-passed FY 15 NDAA. 
Unfortunately, it was not included in the final Defense Authorization 
Conference Report.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment calls for the national observation of two 
minutes of silence every Veterans Day in honor of all our veterans, 
past and present. It sets a time where all Americans can pause, come 
together, and reflect on the service of generations of brave American 
men and women in uniform.
  Our nation is facing difficult challenges and we have strong 
disagreements over how to address them. However despite such 
differences, support for, and gratitude to, our veterans is something 
that we can all agree on. This silent tribute lets us set aside our 
differences, and come together as one nation, to say to our veterans 
that we appreciate everything they have done and sacrificed to keep us 
safe.
  I would like to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Boustany, for 
cosponsoring this amendment with me, and for being an original 
cosponsor of H.R. 995.
  Mr. Chair, again I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed 
Services Committee for their cooperation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chair, I thank the Ranking Member for yielding me 
this time and for his leadership on so many national security and 
defense issues. I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member 
Smith for supporting my efforts to bring this amendment to the floor 
for debate and making it part of this en bloc amendment.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment will maintain the current simplified 
acquisition threshold--or SAT--for a wide variety of items, including 
textiles, tents, tarpaulins, flags, clothing, apparel, footwear, head 
gear, a wide variety of cotton, wool, silk and synthetic yarns, and the 
list goes on.
  But most importantly, this amendment ensures that small and medium-
sized American companies, with American workers, using American-made 
content will continue to have the opportunity to do business with the 
Pentagon and provide textiles, clothing, apparel and other such 
materials to our service men and women at good prices.
  In Dorchester, Massachusetts, AbilityOne provides employment 
opportunities for people who are blind or who have significant 
disabilities. They manufacture Berry-compliant items, including 
uniforms, chemical protective garments, tents, tarpaulins, hats, caps 
and other clothing and textile items. This amendment protects their 
jobs and their relationship with the DOD. It means textile, footwear 
and apparel manufacturers in North Brookfield, Fall River and elsewhere 
in Massachusetts can continue to support our troops with their high 
quality products and materials.
  The current language in the NDAA would raise the SAT from $150,000 to 
$500,000. My amendment simply maintains the $150,000 threshold. Now the 
difference between $150 and $500,000 might not sound like much. But

[[Page 6994]]

if that threshold had been raised in FY 2014, then 6,813 contracts 
totaling over $337 million in textile and clothing alone would have 
been exempt from the Berry amendment. This amendment keeps the Berry 
Amendment strong, and it keeps America strong.
  Mr. Chair, this amendment is a compromise. The original amendment 
that I submitted to the House Rules Committee would have also 
maintained the current SAT on food and on specialty metals, hand tools, 
measuring tools, and so forth. Chairman Thornberry did not support 
maintaining the current SAT on those items, and in the spirit of 
compromise we narrowed the scope of the amendment to textiles, 
clothing, apparel and related materials. I hope as the NDAA moves 
through the legislative process that the scope of my original amendment 
will be reinstated.
  This amendment is supported by a broad array of national textile and 
manufacturing organizations, and I urge my colleagues to support this 
amendment and the en bloc amendments in total.

                                                     May 14, 2015.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Members of Congress: The undersigned nine trade 
     associations ask for your vote in support of McGovern 
     Amendment #74 under the rule (see H. Res. 260). It will be in 
     order during consideration of FY 2016 National Defense 
     Authorization Act (H.R. 1735) today.
       Offered by Cong. Jim McGovern Amendment #74 fixes a 
     provision in Section 854 of H.R. 1735 that would seriously 
     harm the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry.
       As written, Section 854 would increase the Simplified 
     Acquisition Procedure threshold (SAT) from $150,000 to 
     $500,000. This change would exempt contracts up to $500,000 
     from compliance with both the Berry Amendment and the Kissell 
     Amendment.
       An increase of this magnitude will cause significant strain 
     on the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear supply chain by 
     reducing contracting opportunities for manufacturers, large 
     and small, covered under the Berry Amendment. Analysis of 
     DOD-funded contracts under the SAP attached as Addendum 1 on 
     page 4.
       McGovern Amendment #74 solves this problem by lowering SAT 
     back down to $150,000 for fiber, textile, apparel, footwear, 
     and other textile products covered by the Berry Amendment at 
     10 USC 2533a.
       With fierce competition for contracts, the Berry Amendment 
     has spurred substantial innovation in the area of military 
     textiles, apparel, and footwear by domestic manufacturers. 
     Weight-saving carbon fibers, ballistic-resistant fabrics used 
     in personal protective equipment, fire resistant fabrics, 
     medical fabrics, and collapsible fuel bladders are among the 
     thousands of products developed for the military that also 
     have commercial applications. These innovations have helped 
     America's textile manufacturers stay at the forefront of 
     technical textiles, enhancing safety and boosting employment 
     and exports.
       Substantial capital investment, including a $500 million 
     ballistic-resistant fiber plant built in South Carolina 
     within the last five years, illustrates the industry's 
     commitment to the technical fiber/fabric industrial base. 
     Thanks to the U.S. government's longstanding policy with 
     respect to military procurement encompassed in the Berry 
     Amendment, that plant had a ready-made market, an important 
     factor in calculating the risk when deciding to make that 
     investment.
       Also, it is important to note that some textiles used by 
     the military do not have a commercial market. For national 
     security reasons, DOD does not allow certain textile 
     technologies to be exported. Classified dyeing and finishing 
     techniques used to reduce heat signatures or to create a 
     secure environment for electronic communication are just two 
     examples of U.S. investments made to develop military-
     specific textile products exclusively for DOD use.
       Congress enacted the Berry Amendment in 1941 (USC, Title 
     10, Section 2533a) to ensure that a strong U.S. defense 
     industrial base is always ready to meet the needs of the 
     troops. It requires the Department of Defense (DOD) to 
     procure certain products such as food, specialty metals, hand 
     measuring tools, and textiles made with 100 percent U.S. 
     content and labor. Since then, Congress has reaffirmed its 
     support for the Berry Amendment by strengthening its 
     provisions, recognizing that textiles and clothing are 
     indispensable to our warfighter's safety and ability to 
     execute their missions.
       Understanding the need for periodic adjustments in the SAP, 
     Congress enacted Public Law 108-375 which allowed for 
     inflation adjustments to the SAP every five years.
       However, further increase in the SAT beyond what is 
     currently proscribed by Public Law 108-375 will seriously 
     erode the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear industry's 
     ability to supply the defense industrial base, compromise 
     U.S. investment in textile manufacturing operations, put at 
     risk highly skilled and good paying textile jobs, and inhibit 
     the domestic industry's competitive advantage in commercial 
     markets.
       As the House works on this important legislation, we urge 
     that McGovern Amendment #74 be adopted so that the FY 2016 
     NDAA does not erode the important value that the Berry 
     Amendment brings to the U.S. textile, apparel, and footwear 
     industry and our warfighters.
       Again, please ensure that America continues to strength its 
     domestic textile, clothing, and footwear supply chain. Vote 
     for McGovern Amendment #74.
       Thank you for your consideration of our views.
           Sincerely,
         Auggie Tantillo, President, National Council of Textile 
           Organizations; Gifford Del Grande, Chairman, Narrow 
           Fabrics Institute; Juanita D. Duggan, President & CEO, 
           American Apparel and Footwear Association; Sarah Y. 
           Freidman, Executive Director, SEAMS, the National 
           Association for the Sewn Products Industry; Marc 
           Fleischaker, Rubber & Plastic Footwear Manufacturers 
           Association; Paul O'Day, President, American Fiber 
           Manufacturers Association; Bret Kelley, Chairman, 
           United States Industrial Fabrics Institute; Tom 
           Dobbins, President, American Composites Manufacturers 
           Association; Gary Adams, President/CEO, National Cotton 
           Council.
                                  ____



             Analysis of DOD-funded contracts under the SAP

       Below is an analysis of DOD-funded contracts for FY 2014 
     from USASpending.gov with respect to Federal Supply 
     Classification 83 (textiles, tents, flags, etc.) and Federal 
     Supply Classification (FSC) 84 (clothing and individual 
     equipment etc.) as pertaining to the Simplified Acquisition 
     Procedure (SAP) threshold.
       The current SAP threshold is $150,000. Language in the 
     chairman's FY 2016 NDAA mark in Section 844 proposes to raise 
     that figure to $500,000. Contracts less than the threshold 
     are not subject to the Berry Amendment's domestic sourcing 
     requirements.


                               Key Points

       Dollar amount exempted from Berry would almost double.
       Almost one dollar in five would be exempt from Berry.
       Almost 92 percent of contracts would be open to imports; 
     hurts small businesses.
       If the threshold would have been $500,000 in FY 2014, 6,813 
     contracts would have been subject to the SAP totaling 
     $337,086,946;

                           DOD-FUNDED PRIME CONTRACT AWARDS FOR FSC 83 & 84 IN FY 2014
                                   [Rounded to nearest million or percentage]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Contracts
                          Category                                $ in         % of       Awarded    % Contracts
                                                                Millions     Dollars      (Actual)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All.........................................................        1,804          100        7,438          100
More than $500k.............................................        1,467           81          625            8
$150k to $500k..............................................          157            9          549            7
Less than $150K.............................................          180           10        6,264           84
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                     
                                  ____
                                                   April 29, 2015.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, House of 
         Representatives Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: On 
     behalf of the Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition 
     (WPRC), I write to express our concerns regarding a provision 
     to raise the simplified acquisition threshold from the 
     current level of $150,000 to $500,000. This substantial 
     change would have an immediate negative impact on the 
     domestic industrial base that comprises WPRC membership.
       The WPRC is an industry association of leading 
     manufacturers and distributors of Berry Amendment-compliant 
     protective gear, tactical equipment and clothing. Leading 
     American manufacturers and suppliers to the U.S. military 
     represent an industrial base capability critical to national 
     security delivering superior equipment, apparel, armor, and 
     technology to the modem warfighter and peacekeeper.
       Section 844 of the FY2016 National Defense Authorization 
     Act (NDAA) Chairman's Mark

[[Page 6995]]

     would create a significant challenge and irreparable harm to 
     WPRC member companies. Increasing the simplified acquisition 
     threshold to $500,000 would not only create unintended 
     contracting confusion but also exempt contracts up to 
     $500,000 from compliance with the Berry Amendment.
       WPRC members are, in many cases, the final remaining 
     domestic manufacturers of critical components for safety and 
     survival products for our servicemen and women. Over the past 
     five years, declining resources and commodity based 
     procurement practices have jeopardized efforts to modernize 
     and innovate our industry. This proposal creates another 
     unnecessary obstacle to our member companies and 
     significantly limits the number of fair and open competitions 
     they can compete for.
       While we applaud your efforts to review significant defense 
     acquisition reform, Section 844 creates unintended 
     consequences for the domestic industrial base this effort was 
     designed to assist. The Berry Amendment was adopted to 
     promote the purchase of American-made goods and to sustain a 
     warm industrial base ready to meet the immediate needs of the 
     U.S. military.
       By removing the requirement for Berry Amendment-compliance 
     for contracts under $500,000, the Committee is jeopardizing 
     the future of the domestic military industrial base and 
     inviting the introduction of low quality, inconsistent 
     products to our Armed Forces. I respectfully request that the 
     Committee reconsider Section 844 and the true impact of this 
     action on our member companies.
       Thank you for your consideration and for your continued 
     service on behalf of our military.

                                               David Costello,

                                               Executive Director,
     Warrior Protection and Readiness Coalition.
                                  ____

                                                     May 12, 2015.
     Hon. Mac Thornberry,
     Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Adam Smith,
     Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith: On 
     behalf of the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM), I 
     write to express our concerns with Section 854 of the House 
     FY16 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1735), which 
     would increase the threshold for applicability of certain 
     domestic content preferences applicable to Pentagon spending, 
     including the Berry Amendment and the Specialty Metals 
     Amendment. We strongly urge the removal of Section 854 from 
     the NDAA.
       Section 854 would increase the Simplified Acquisition 
     Procedure (SAP) threshold from $150,000 to $500,000, thus 
     exempting a large number of contracts from compliance with 
     domestic content preferences that ensure a strong supply 
     chain of U.S. producers to equip our military. Making this 
     change will increase the Pentagon's reliance on foreign 
     nations for the goods needed to defend the American people 
     and ensure mission readiness. Potential political or military 
     conflicts with foreign supplier nations that have no duty to 
     our national defense priorities can disrupt the timely 
     delivery of goods needed to keep our service men and women 
     safe at home and on the battlefield.
       A healthy U.S. manufacturing sector and a robust defense 
     industrial base are essential to our national security. 
     Preferences for the procurement of American-made goods by our 
     military bolster the strength and long-term viability of 
     countless companies whose mission is to produce high-quality 
     goods to defend the American people and our Soldiers. It is 
     with great regard for our preparedness and national security 
     that we urge the removal of Section 854 from the NDAA.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Scott N. Paul,
                                                        President.

  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Chair, thank you Chairman Thornberry and Ranking 
Member Smith for your leadership on national security and for accepting 
my amendment.
  Terrorism is an undeniable threat to our country's security and 
global stability. Terrorist networks constantly develop new ways to 
finance their deadly operations and threaten America.
  To keep our country safe, we must be one step ahead of them, cutting 
off their funding and stopping their efforts.
  The Islamic State (I-S) is one of the world's most violent, dangerous 
and well financed terrorist groups. In 2014, ISIL generated 
approximately $1 million per day, predominantly through the sale of 
smuggled oil.
  My amendment directs the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with 
the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury and other 
agencies involved in this effort, to pursue efforts to shut down ISIL's 
oil revenues and report on resources needed for these efforts.
  As a member of the Task Force to Investigate Terrorism Financing, I'm 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to keep money out 
of the hands of terrorists and find solutions, like this amendment, 
that strengthen America's security.
  Again, I thank Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member Smith for your 
leadership and support.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 83 Offered by Mr. Burgess

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 83 
printed in House Report 114-112.
  Mr. BURGESS. 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 426, after line 6, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 1004. REPORT ON AUDITABLE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

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

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the recognition. My 
amendment today reflects the frustration that many in Congress have 
felt for some time over the Department of Defense's lack of real 
progress on being able to produce a full accounting of where the money 
that has been given to them over the years has been spent.
  In 1990, Congress passed the Chief Financial Officers Act requiring 
every department and every agency in the Federal Government to produce 
verifiable financial statements which could be fully audited. To date, 
each major agency has been able to complete this task except one--the 
Department of Defense--and Congress has allowed the Department of 
Defense to continue to not comply with this law for now going on 25 
years. It is time for that to end.
  While the Department of Defense might claim it has taken steps toward 
completing an audit, purportedly to be accomplished by 2017, Congress 
has little verifiable proof that this will actually occur.
  The amendment that I offer today with Barbara Lee of California asks 
the Department of Defense to rank--in order from most ready to be 
audited to least ready to be audited--every entity within the 
Department which is required to provide financial statements for the 
overall efforts of the departmentwide audit. Congress needs to know 
which offices within the Department of Defense are making significant 
strides toward this goal and which offices are not.
  The amendment requires no additional analysis, no additional 
explanation, simply a list. If Congress is serious about exercising its 
oversight role through the power of the purse, then this is the least 
we should expect the Department to provide to Congress, a pulse-check 
to show Members where the audit truly stands.
  Ms. Lee, Ms. Schakowsky, and I are not the only ones who have been 
concerned about the Pentagon's lack of progress in this arena. In 2013, 
the Government Accountability Office--Congress' eyes and ears on the 
ground for keeping the Federal Government accountable--stated that it 
could not complete an audit of the entire Federal Government because 
the Department of Defense could not produce verifiable documents. The 
GAO stated at the time: ``The main obstacles to a GAO opinion on the 
accrual-based consolidated financial statements were: serious financial 
management problems at the Department of Defense that made its 
financial statements unauditable.'' A GAO source was reported to have 
stated that the Pentagon routinely postponed meetings at the last 
minute with GAO pertaining to the audit. This

[[Page 6996]]

is unacceptable, and the body should not accept it.
  Besides being necessary for the proper separation of powers role that 
Congress continues to assert in overseeing how taxpayer money is spent, 
this amendment represents good governance. It is for this reason that 
our amendment today is endorsed by the Americans for Tax Reform, 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the National Taxpayers Union.
  Mr. Chairman, Congress must stand up for taxpayers and tell the 
Pentagon that it must justify how it spends every dollar that it is 
given. Congress has been complacent for too long on this issue. With 
today's vote perhaps that will end.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and his staff for 
working with my office on this. I look forward to working on this issue 
as the deadline approaches, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE. I claim the time in opposition, although I am not opposed to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentlewoman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. LEE. First, let me thank Mr. Burgess for his very diligent and 
hard work on this amendment. It is a pleasure to work with the 
gentleman to bring transparency and accountability to Pentagon spending 
so taxpayers know where their hard-earned dollars are going. I also 
want to thank Congresswoman Schakowsky for her support and work on this 
very important amendment. I am pleased to be working with Congressman 
Burgess and Congresswoman Schakowsky to build upon the work that we are 
doing with our bipartisan Audit the Pentagon Act, H.R. 942.
  Mr. Chairman, I have offered an Audit the Pentagon amendment since 
2011, and this work continues now with Representatives Burgess and 
Schakowsky. This is a commonsense amendment to ensure audit-readiness 
at the Pentagon, something that Congress mandated I think it was 25 
years ago; yet two-plus decades later, Pentagon officials continue to 
tell Congress that audit-readiness is still years away. This is simply 
unacceptable.
  So our amendment is simple. It would require a report ranking all 
military departments and Defense agencies in order of how advanced they 
are in achieving audit-readiness. Taxpayers deserve to know how and 
where their hard-earned dollars are being spent.
  Pentagon spending accounts for more than half of Federal 
discretionary spending and totals more than half a trillion dollars. 
The fact that any part of the government cannot pass an audit is 
unacceptable, let alone a department that spends more than $600 billion 
annually. That is, frankly, outrageous. I bet you the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development can't get away with this.
  Now, I am a former small-business owner, 11 years, and I can tell you 
one thing. I know the importance of having one's books in order. 
Whether it is in the private sector or the public sector, it is 
critical to success. In fact, we all demand that all individuals, 
families, organizations, and companies be able to pass an audit. Why in 
the world should the Pentagon be any different?
  Taxpayers deserve better than black-box budgeting and two decades of 
``we will get on with this'' rhetoric, and they keep postponing and 
saying ``we will get to it later.'' That is unacceptable when it comes 
to ending waste, fraud, and abuse. I remember several years ago there 
were reports from The New York Times, and subsequently these reports 
were substantiated, that taxpayer dollars--cash money--in suitcases 
were being passed out in Afghanistan. What in the world are we doing? 
We have no clue where that money went or how much it was. It was cash 
money.
  So we need to take this action, and I thank Mr. Burgess and Ms. 
Schakowsky for this. If you ask me, I think we need to take bolder 
actions to address the Pentagon's failure to achieve audit-ready status 
and somehow at some point penalize them if they don't do that because 
we all would be penalized if in fact our books were not in order. So 
this amendment, I just have to say, is a major step in the right 
direction.
  Mr. Chairman, the American people deserve to know how the Pentagon is 
spending their hard-earned tax dollars. We must end waste, fraud, and 
abuse at the Pentagon. We need to achieve audit-readiness. Once again, 
none of us could get away with this, none, no Federal agency could get 
away with this. So we must begin this process for accountability and 
transparency. It is important that the public know exactly how their 
money is being spent. There is no way the Pentagon should get away with 
this.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this amendment because 
unauditable is unacceptable. I thank Mr. Burgess, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the chairman of the full 
committee.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I rise just 
to make two points. Number one, unfortunately, there are a lot of 
Federal agencies that can't pass an audit, and I hope that all the 
other committees of the Congress are as diligent as our committee is 
about making sure they get their agencies to where they can.
  Our committee in particular, led by CPA Mr. Conaway of Texas, we have 
pushed this issue, held many oversight hearings, and will continue to 
push this issue. I think the gentleman's amendment helps that effort. 
But I want to be really clear that this is a high priority of the 
committee, and it needs to be a high priority for the other departments 
besides the Department of Defense as well.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, at this point I am prepared to yield back, 
but I do want to thank the chairman of the full committee for hearing 
our amendment this evening. I also want to thank him for what I know is 
a significant amount of work and challenge to get this bill to the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I look forward to its speedy passage tomorrow, and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Loudermilk) having assumed the chair, Mr. Rodney Davis of Illinois, 
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. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 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.

                          ____________________