[Pages H3181-H3206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the 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 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

[[Page H3182]]

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.
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.

[[Page H3183]]

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.
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.

[[Page H3184]]

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 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

[[Page H3185]]

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 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:

[[Page H3186]]

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.
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,

[[Page H3187]]

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:

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 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).

[[Page H3188]]

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:

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;

[[Page H3189]]

(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;
``(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.

{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

[[Page H3190]]

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
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.

[[Page H3191]]

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;
(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).

[[Page H3192]]

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.
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.

[[Page H3193]]

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.
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

[[Page H3194]]

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.
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

[[Page H3195]]

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.
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

[[Page H3196]]

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, 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

[[Page H3197]]

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).''.
(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

[[Page H3198]]

a regulation making clear that agency acquisition personnel
are permitted and encouraged to engage in responsible and
constructive exchanges with industry, so long as 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.''.

{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 Privacy 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 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

[[Page H3199]]

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.
(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

[[Page H3200]]

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:

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.--

[[Page H3201]]

(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:

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

[[Page H3202]]

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 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

[[Page H3203]]

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,is 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 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 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 Member 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,

[[Page H3204]]

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 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

[[Page H3205]]

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 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

[[Page H3206]]

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.

____________________