[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 78 (Tuesday, May 17, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2677-H2698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Thornberry
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Rothfus). It is now in order to consider
amendment No. 11 printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. THORNBERRY. 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 IX, add the following new
section:
SEC. 9__. REFORM OF NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The National Security Council has increasingly
micromanaged military operations and centralized
decisionmaking within the staff of the National Security
Council. The size of the staff has contributed this problem.
(2) As stated by former Secretary of Defense Robert M.
Gates, ``It was the operational micromanagement that drove me
nuts of White House and [National Security Council] staffers
calling senior commanders out in the field and asking them
questions, second guessing commanders'', and by another
former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, ``[B]ecause of that
centralization of that authority at the White House, there
are too few voices being heard in terms of the ability to
make decisions and that includes members of the cabinet.''.
(3) Gates stated, ``You have 25 people working on a single
military problem... They are going to be doing things they
shouldn't be doing,'' and Panetta noted, ``The National
Security Council has grown enormously, which means you have a
lot more staff people running around at the White House on
these foreign policy issues.''.
(4) Press reports indicate that National Security Council
micromanagement has included selecting targets in ongoing
military operations, specifying detailed parameters and
limitations on military operations, and managing military
planning and the execution of plans.
(5) As stated in section 101(a) of the National Security
Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(a)), the ``function of the
Council shall be to advise the President with respect to the
integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies
relating to the national security so as to enable the
military services and the other departments and agencies of
the Government to cooperate more effectively in matters
involving the national security''.
(6) As stated in the November 1961 staff reports and
recommendations on ``Organizing for National Security''
submitted to the Committee on Government Operations of the
Senate by the Subcommittee on National Policy Machinery,
``The Council is an interagency committee: It can inform,
debate, review, adjust, and validate... The Council is not a
decisionmaking body; it does not itself make policy. It
serves only in an advisory capacity to the President, helping
him arrive at decisions which he alone can make.''.
(7) As noted in the 1987 Report of the President's Special
Review Board (commonly known as the ``Tower Commission
Report''), ``As a general matter, the [National Security
Council] staff should not engage in the implementation of
policy or the conduct of operations. This compromises their
oversight role and usurps the responsibilities of the
departments and agencies.''.
(8) As noted in the ``Addendum on Structure and Process
Analyses: Volume II - Executive Office of the President,''
accompanying the February 2001 U.S. Commission on National
Security/21st Century (commonly known as the ``Hart-Rudman
Commission''), ``[T]he degree to which the [National Security
Council] gets involved in operational issues raises a
question of congressional oversight. Today there is limited
congressional oversight of the [National Security Council]...
Assigning the [National Security Council] greater operational
responsibility would likely result in calls for more
congressional oversight and legislative control...''.
(9) According to analysis from the Brookings Institution's
National Security Council Project, the size of the National
Security Council staff from the early 1960s to the mid-1990s
remained consistently under 60 personnel. Since then, it has
grown significantly in size.
(10) As former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew
Brzezinski, wrote in ``The NSC's Midlife Crisis'' in Foreign
Policy, Winter 1987-1988, ``There is no magic number, but it
would appear that for successful strategic planning and
policy coordination 30-40 senior staff members are probably
adequate. However, to ensure effective supervision over
policy implementation as well, the size of the staff should
be somewhat larger. An optimal figure for the senior staff
probably would be about 50 senior staff members.''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the function of the National Security Council,
consistent with the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C.
3001 et seq.), is to advise the President as an independent
honest broker on national security matters, to coordinate
national security activities across departments and agencies,
and to make recommendations to the President regarding
national security objectives and policy, and the size of the
staff of the National Security Council should be
appropriately aligned to this function;
(2) the President is entitled to privacy in the Office of
the President and to a confidential relationship with the
National Security Advisor and the National Security Council;
and
[[Page H2678]]
(3) however, a National Security Council, enabled by a
large staff, that assumes a central policymaking or
operational role is no longer advisory and should be publicly
accountable to the American people through Senate
confirmation of its leadership and the activities of the
Council subject to direct oversight by Congress.
(c) Amendments to National Security Act of 1947.--Section
101 of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021), is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (5), by striking ``and'';
(B) in paragraph (6), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding after paragraph (6) the following new
paragraph:
``(7) the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs.'';
(2) in subsection (c), by striking ``shall receive
compensation at the rate of $10,000 a year.'' and inserting
``shall report to, and be under the general supervision of,
the Assistant to the President for National Security
Affairs.'';
(3) by redesignating subsections (d) through (l) as
subsections (e) through (m), respectively; and
(4) by inserting after subsection (c) the following new
subsection:
``(d)(1)(A) Except as provided by subparagraph (B), the
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
shall be appointed by the President.
``(B) If the staff of the Council exceeds 100 covered
employees at any point during a term of the President, and
for the duration of such term (without regard to any changes
to the number of such covered employees), the Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs shall be
appointed by the President, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate.
``(2)(A) Beginning on the date on which the staff of the
Council exceeds 100 covered employees, the person appointed
as the Assistant under paragraph (1)(A), the person nominated
by the President to be appointed the Assistant under
paragraph (1)(B), or any other person designated by the
President to serve as the Assistant in an acting capacity,
may serve in an acting capacity for no longer than 210 days.
``(B) If the person nominated by the President to be
appointed the Assistant under paragraph (1)(B) is rejected by
the Senate, withdrawn, or returned to the President by the
Senate, the President shall nominate another person and the
person serving as the acting Assistant may continue to
serve--
``(i) until the second nomination is confirmed; or
``(ii) for no more than 210 days after the second
nomination is rejected, withdrawn, or returned.
``(3) The President shall notify Congress in writing not
more than seven days after the date on which the staff of the
Council exceeds 100 covered employees.
``(4) In this subsection, the term `covered employees'
means each of the following officers and employees (counted
without regard to full-time equivalent basis):
``(A) Officers and employees occupying a position funded by
the Executive Office of the President performing a function
of the Council.
``(B) Officers, employees, and members of the Armed Forces
from any department, agency, or independent establishment of
the executive branch of the Government that are on detail to
the Council performing a function of the Council.''.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--Section 3(12) of the
International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 U.S.C.
6402(12)) is amended by striking ``section 101(i)'' and
inserting ``section 101(l)''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment goes to an issue that relates to the
ability of Congress to do its job under the Constitution and the
appropriate balance of powers because I think everybody agrees that a
President ought to have advisers, and that there ought to be a zone, a
protected zone for those advisers to offer advice to the President.
But the problem is when those advisers do more than advise, when they
direct, and when they, in fact, get into the operational military chain
of command, that is a problem.
What we have seen in recent years is a tremendous increase in the
number of staff at the National Security Council. And what we have also
seen is an astonishing increase in micromanagement and direction of
military forces that come from these NSC staffers.
In effect, they insert themselves into the military chain of command
and, yet, they are not confirmed by the Senate, nor is their
supervisor, and they never have to come testify to us about the
direction they give the military.
That is the reason that there has developed an imbalance in the
balance of powers as constructed under the Constitution.
Every previous Secretary of Defense in the Obama administration has
complained about this. Typical are the comments of Secretary Gates: It
was the operational micromanagement that drove me nuts of the White
House and national security staffers calling senior commanders out in
the field second-guessing commanders.
Secretary Panetta and Secretary Hagel have said similar things, as
has former Under Secretary Michele Flournoy.
So my amendment does not tell the President how many people he can
have. He can have 10,000 if he wants, but if he goes above a certain
number, they are not just advising, they are directing, and the
National Security Adviser must then be confirmed by the Senate.
This will not affect President Obama. It is the next President. But
the next President will have a choice. Do you have a relatively small
or the historically average number of advisers? If you do more, you
have to get confirmed by the Senate.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
The problem is--just two quick points here--first of all, as we have
discussed throughout the conversation about the Department of Defense
authorization bill this year, the threat environment has grown much
more complex, and the rise in the size of the national security staff
is a reflection of that, of the various different challenges that are
throughout the world.
They have tried to find expertise in all of these different areas,
and limiting them to 100, at this point, given the responsibilities
that they have, would basically take it all the way down to the point
where the admin staff would be the most that they could put in place.
They have needs for the number of people that they have.
Now, the second problem that Mr. Thornberry points out, I think, is a
very legitimate problem. The thing is, whether you have 100 or 400, the
President's NSC staff can do the same thing; they can not pay attention
to the Department of Defense to the degree that they should. That has
nothing to do with how many people there happen to be at the NSC. I
agree with Mr. Thornberry that that has been a problem.
Certainly we would like Commanders in Chief to be more in touch with
the Department of Defense and with the commanders in the field, and not
be overridden by the NSC, but that is a problem that exists, regardless
of the numbers or even what you call the President's staff.
So I think this amendment would significantly hamper the ability of
the National Security Council to do the job that it was appointed or
created to do, which is to keep the President advised of all the
various different threats that are out there. And to give them the
ability to do that, they are going to need more than 100 people.
So I will oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Chaffetz), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform.
Mr. CHAFFETZ. Mr. Chair, I stand in whole support of what Chairman
Thornberry is proposing.
Section 101 of the National Security Act of 1947 says: ``The function
of the Council shall be to advise the President . . . ''
Obviously, we want the President to get the best advice possible,
but, historically, the National Security Act designated--they had
between 50 and 60 people between the 1960s and the mid 1990s. But now
it has grown to hundreds of people. We are talking about literally 400
people, by some counts, and we have got an NSC that is now not
necessarily accountable. I would like to see the Senate confirmation if
it moves about 100.
What we see is the NSC is not only engaging in direction on the
field, but also engaging in public relations battles and doing things
well outside, I think, the scope that was originally put forward.
[[Page H2679]]
Mr. Chairman, today we had a hearing. We had called Ben Rhodes to
come testify to this hearing. But then, claiming executive privilege,
Neil Eggleston, the General Counsel, said this person could not come.
Ben Rhodes goes and talks to the media, he talks to his echo chamber.
Ben Rhodes will go out and do public speaking. He will do everything
except come testify in front of Congress, and then hides behind this
shield that does not allow for openness and transparency.
We want an NSC that helps make policy and direct operations and
should be publicly accountable, if that is what they are going to be
doing.
The President has a choice. Keep the NSC small and advisory to
maintain the status quo. That is what it was originally intended to do,
but it has gone far more than that. It has become a public relations
machine. It has become something that is problematic at every level.
I think Chairman Thornberry is exactly right. I think all of our
colleagues should support this amendment. It is the right thing to do,
and I stand in whole support of it.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).
Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Chair, H.L. Mencken once said that for every human
problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Thornberry's amendment and for what
is behind it.
He talks about micromanagement. Micromanagement goes back to the very
founding of the National Security Council. You think that Richard
Nixon's Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense didn't think Henry
Kissinger micromanaged when he was the National Security Adviser?
He surreptitiously altered the U.S. policy to China, on his own, with
his staff at NSC.
There is a long tradition of micromanagement and interference, and I
have no doubt that Mr. Thornberry is right. Every Secretary of Defense
and every Secretary of State would have a similar complaint. Of course
they would, and they might be right.
To elevate this job over 100 people, to Senate confirmation, actually
aggravates the problem. Now you are going to codify the
micromanagement. You are actually going to make this a policymaking
apparatus, in direct competition with the very department you are
trying to help, the Department of Defense and the Department of State.
It is the wrong answer to the growing size of an NSC.
I don't remember Republican complaints about the growth of the NSC
under the previous administration, and maybe we can work together in
the future to try to make sure that we have a more manageable size.
I applaud, certainly, the fact that the current NSC administrator has
reduced the NSC by 12 percent. I know we can do better. But I don't
think this amendment is the way to do it, respectfully.
{time} 1700
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that I
have no further speakers and am prepared to close on this side if the
gentleman is.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of
my time just to reiterate the argument.
The National Security Council was formed for the very specific
purpose of allowing the President to have that type of confidential
advisement where people could speak frankly and give the President the
advice that he needs to make decisions on matters of national security.
Regrettably, our national security environment has grown more complex.
I will point out that the current National Security Adviser has
actually shrunk the size of the National Security Council since she
took over. It was 411, and it is now down to 365. So they are making
efforts to get that under control. But to shrink this to 100 and, as
Mr. Connolly pointed out, to make it subject to Senate confirmation
would simply lock it in as a competing force to the very entities that
the sponsor of this amendment would like to see have a greater voice,
and therefore it would be counterproductive and would not achieve its
goal even though, again, I certainly agree that there should be greater
transparency.
I don't think there is a Member of Congress who has not complained at
some point throughout the history about the lack of transparency
between the White House and Congress on matters of national security.
That battle will continue whether this amendment passes or not. I don't
think this amendment will advance the interests of national security,
and, therefore, I oppose it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not require any President to do
anything. There is a choice, and the choice that any President will
face is, if you go above a certain number, then I think common sense
tells us that these folks are doing more than advising; they are in
operations.
As a matter of fact, the former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy
in the Obama administration Pentagon, Ms. Flournoy, has testified that,
as the staffs grow, they tend to get more into operational details and
tactical kinds of oversight. Historically, when you have had smaller
national security staffs--for example, the Scowcroft era--they had a
very clear understanding of what their role was.
This is a matter of common sense. Absolutely, there are no
guarantees. You might have one person who would try to direct; but,
generally, the more people you have got, the more stuff they are going
to try to micromanage.
So I don't prevent a President from doing anything with this
amendment. I simply say that it is a choice. You can have 100 people or
fewer and not go before the Senate. If you have more than that, you
have got to get Senate confirmed like the Director of OMB is now. I
think that is what makes sense. I hope Members will support the
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Nadler
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
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 sections 1032 and 1033.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, 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 sections 1032 and 1033 of
the bill, which prohibit the use of funds to transfer detainees from
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States or to construct or expand
any facility in the U.S. to house any individual currently detained at
Guantanamo.
Simply put, the section is designed to prevent the closure of the
detention facility at Guantanamo and to make it as difficult as
possible to transfer detainees to a different facility. My amendment is
intended to do the opposite and to finally bring to a close a shameful
chapter of American history.
The President's Statement of Administration Policy says the
following: ``The administration strongly objects to several provisions
of the bill that relate to the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. As the administration has said many times before, operating this
facility weakens our national security by draining resources, damaging
our relationships with key allies and partners, and emboldening violent
extremists. In February, the administration submitted a comprehensive
plan to safely and responsibly close the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and to bring this chapter of our history to a
close. Rather than taking steps to close the facility, this bill aims
to extend its operation. Sections 1032 and 1033 would continue to
prohibit the use of funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the
[[Page H2680]]
United States or even to construct or modify any facility in the United
States to house detainees. These restrictions would limit the ability
of the executive branch to take the steps necessary to develop
alternative locations for a detention facility, and from fulfilling its
commitment to close the facility at Guantanamo.''
Mr. Chairman, it is truly astonishing that in 2016 the United States
continues to hold people indefinitely who have not been charged, let
alone convicted, of any crime and who, in some cases, have been judged
not to pose any threat to the United States. By continuing to hold
prisoners indefinitely without charging them and without trial is
inconsistent with our professed support of liberty.
Now, I know some will say the detainees are dangerous terrorists, and
some undoubtedly are. But some of them are not. They are merely people
who were captured in some way but who have not been charged or judged
as terrorists. Some of them are simply victims of the fact that the
United States paid bounties to people in Afghanistan years ago to turn
in people who they said were terrorists. The Hatfields turned in the
McCoys because--why not? We were giving them a bounty of a few thousand
dollars a head.
For the truly dangerous, we ought to prosecute them and, if
convicted, punish them appropriately. We have, for those who need it,
supermax prisons in the United States from which no one has ever
escaped. There is no reason to spend so much money in Guantanamo and
have this continuing shame on the reputation of the United States.
Speaking of money, GTMO is the world's most expensive prison by far.
We are spending about $2.9 million annually per prisoner. It costs us
less than $35,000 per prisoner to hold someone in a supermax facility
in the United States. Frankly, they don't deserve the spending. We
should be spending that money here in the United States, not on
terrorists, but on teachers or maybe on defense. No one will argue that
that money could not be spent better somewhere else.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter signed by
more than 30 retired generals urging the Congress to responsibly close
the detention facility at Guantanamo. They quote President George Bush
when he said that the facility had become a ``propaganda tool for our
enemies.''
March 1, 2016.
Senator John McCain,
Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee, Russell Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
Senator Jack Reed,
Ranking Member, Senate Armed Service Committee, Russell
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Representative Mac Thornberry,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Representative Adam Smith,
Ranking Member, House Armed Services Committee, Rayburn House
Office Building. Washington, DC.
Dear Chairmen and Ranking Members: For over seven years we,
a group of retired flag and general officers of the United
States Armed Forces, have advocated the responsible closure
of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. We have done
this because it is what is best for our country. It is in our
national security interests, and above all, it is about
reestablishing who we are as a country.
Last week the administration presented its plan for closing
the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. As the chairmen and
ranking members of the House and Senate Armed Service
Committees, yours is a solemn responsibility. We write to
encourage you to use this plan as a foundation to come
together and find a path to finally shutter the detention
facility. This should not be a political issue. Former
President George W. Bush determined that Guantanamo should be
closed because, in his words, ``. . . the detention facility
had become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a
distraction for our allies. I worked to find a way to close
the prison without compromising security.'' The current plan
similarly seeks to achieve that objective, following the
advice of our nation's top military, intelligence, and law
enforcement leaders.
Closing Guantanamo will not be easy, but it is the right
thing to do, and we call on you to work together to
accomplish it. We take heart that our nation has elected
people who will exercise their conscientious judgment, but
who will not allow politics to obscure courage. Compromise
for the common good is the true exercise of leadership and
courage.
Sincerely,
General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret); Vice Admiral Richard H.
Carmona, USPHS (Ret.); Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard,
Jr., USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General Richard L. Kelly, USMC
(Ret.); Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.);
Lieutenant General Keith J. Stalder, USMC (Ret.); Major
General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral John D. Hutson,
JAGC, USN (Ret.); Major General Michael R. Lehnert, USMC
(Ret.); Major General Eric T. Olson, USA (Ret.); Major
General Walter L. Stewart, Jr., USA (Ret.); Major General
Margaret Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General David M.
Brahms, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA
(Ret.).
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.); Lieutenant General
John Castellaw, USMC (Ret.); Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN
(Ret.); Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.);
Lieutenant General Norman R. Seip, USAF (Ret.); Major General
Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.); Rear Admiral Don Guter, JAGC, USN
(Ret.); Major General Carl B. Jensen, USMC (Ret.); Major
General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.); Major General Thomas J.
Romig, USA (Ret.); Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA
(Ret.); Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret.); Brigadier
General Stephen A. Cheney, USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General
Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.).
Brigadier General Alan K. Fry, USA (Ret.); Brigadier
General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General
Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.); Brigadier General Daniel P.
Woodward, USAF (Ret.); Brigadier General Leif H. Hendrickson,
USMC (Ret.); Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.);
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.); Brigadier
General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.).
Mr. NADLER. So, again, for all these reasons--it weakens our
security, it drains our resources, it emboldens our enemies, and it is
contrary to liberty and everything that we stand for--I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment and to lift these restrictions on
closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. If people must be
kept in prison, then they can be kept here a heck of a lot more cheaply
and without subjecting us to the continued propaganda against
Guantanamo.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), a distinguished member of the Armed
Services Committee.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take particular issue with a point made by
the gentleman from New York. He is saying we can't afford to keep
Guantanamo open. I stand here today and declare to you that we can't
afford to close it.
Let's look at the numbers. According to SOUTHCOM, which runs the
detention facility, the annual operating cost is just over $100
million. However, according to this administration's own figures, the
cost to renovate a facility in the United States is nearly half a
billion dollars, not including the annual operating costs.
Mr. Chairman, what is the life of an American worth? Is the gentleman
from New York willing to stand here and have that conversation? I don't
think so.
This is a misguided amendment that would not make Americans safer. It
is in the best interests of our national security to keep Guantanamo
Bay open, and, as the numbers show, it is also in the best interests of
the American taxpayer.
I just also want to respond to another quick comment over here where
he talked about some of those people are just merely detained. I just
want to remind us in this Chamber that these are the worst of the
worst. These are the most hardened terrorists the world has ever seen,
and, more importantly, they have the blood of Americans on their hands
and should be kept in a safe facility where they are.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues reject this amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
[[Page H2681]]
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard again the mantra from the other side:
These people are the worst of the worst. They have American blood on
their hands.
Some of them may, but many of them don't. They have not been tried. I
don't know with what authority you say they are the worst of the worst;
they have American blood on their hands. True of some, not of others.
What kind of system is it for the United States to simply take
people, not try them, not accuse them, and hold them indefinitely
because somebody says that they are the worst of the worst? On what
authority and on what proof?
As for the funding, it costs between $3 million and $5 million--$2.9
million here in 2013, closer to $5 million now--per person per year. It
costs $35,000 to hold someone in a supermax facility. I don't know why
we have to build new supermax facilities, but if we do, we should. The
point is it is incredibly expensive to keep them there for no reason.
Again, some of those people ought to be tried and sentenced to life
imprisonment or whatever, some of them ought to be freed. Some of them
have been judged not to be, have already been found not to be a danger
to the United States. Simply repeating over and over again that they
are all the worst of the worst, they all have American blood on their
hands, when it is simply not true--some of them yes, some of them no--
does not make the case.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) of the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Nadler
amendment because the amendment would allow detainees currently housed
at Guantanamo to be transferred to the United States. Why? Why do you
want to do that, to endanger our communities? That is what I ask, Mr.
Chairman.
I served at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We were attacked three, four
times a week. Why? To try to release these prisoners. We have seen that
our enemy is capable of planning and, in some instances, launching
attacks within the United States.
Currently, this move is not allowed. We asked the President for
details on a plan. It was said that it was comprehensive. It didn't say
where they would be housed or what the housing would entail or how much
it would cost the taxpayer. This was not a serious plan.
What we do need, however, is a consistent policy on how to deal with
future terrorist detainees. I would agree with that. Guantanamo remains
our best option right now. It is a safe and appropriate location to
hold detainees. It is secure and distant from our homeland.
Guantanamo also provides humane conditions for the detainees. They
have appropriate access to health care, the same as our troops have
there. They have recreational activities, culture, and religious
materials.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo), who serves on the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Nadler
amendment as well. These are, in fact, the worst of the worst. The
detainees that remain now, well under 100, are not cooks and bottle
washers, but serious men who meant to do serious harm to the United
States.
I want to spend the time that I have talking about a particularly
pernicious argument that has been made in favor of closing this
facility. It is an argument that says that these men attacked America
because of the existence of Guantanamo Bay. It is inaccurate, it is
false, and the facts don't support that claim.
Indeed, we have evidence, 34 translated messages from al Qaeda, from
terrorists, talking about the reasons for their attacks, and only 7
times was Guantanamo Bay ever mentioned. It was mentioned in each case
as a glancing issue. Iraq, Afghanistan, and even the Crusades were
mentioned hundreds of times, but Guantanamo Bay is not the reason that
they attacked America.
I can tell you that we wrote a letter to the Director of National
Intelligence, Mr. Clapper. He, too, confirmed that this is not a
motivation for the attacks. We should remember that these attacks began
well before the existence of Guantanamo Bay.
The fact that Guantanamo Bay acts as an agent to promote terrorism is
false and must be rejected, as must this amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Coffman), who is a member of the House
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to this
amendment. The Obama administration's efforts to close the prison at
Guantanamo Bay are both irresponsible and dangerous.
A report from January of this year by the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence indicates that the number of Guantanamo detainees
released by the Obama administration and suspected of returning to the
battlefield has doubled since the last recidivism report in 2015.
Those who remain in Guantanamo Bay are the worst of the worst; so it
is safe to presume that, if released, an even higher percentage of them
would remain a threat to our national security. These are not U.S.
citizens. They are foreign, unlawful enemy combatants that have
directly supported hostilities against the United States and our
allies.
{time} 1715
Mr. Chairman, I have and will continue to oppose any attempt to
transfer these detainees to my home State of Colorado or to any other
State. They must be kept at Guantanamo Bay.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. THORNBERRY. I yield the gentleman an additional 10 seconds.
Mr. COFFMAN. Congress has a responsibility to the American people to
ensure that these unlawful enemy combatants are not brought to the
United States. Mr. Chairman, these congressional restrictions must
remain in place.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, how much time does the other
side have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 45 seconds remaining.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), the chair of the Oversight
and Investigations Subcommittee.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Mr. Chairman, it is reckless to propose this
amendment. Not only does it allow them to come here on our own shores
and live in our own neighborhoods, but the administration has estimated
it would cost potentially $475 million just to move them here.
It also removes the prohibition that these detainees could be
transferred to Somalia, Libya, and Syria. We do not want these
terrorists released back onto the battlefield where they could kill our
soldiers.
This is a reckless amendment. It needs to be defeated. We need to
keep them at GTMO, use our taxpayer dollars wisely, and ensure the
safety of our neighborhoods.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chair, 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. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mrs. Walorski
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of subtitle E of title X, add the following:
[[Page H2682]]
SEC. 10__. APPLICATION OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT TO
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
(a) In General.--Section 552(f)(1) of title 5, United
States Code (commonly referred to as the Freedom of
Information Act), is amended by inserting ``and the National
Security Council'' after ``the Executive Office of the
President''.
(b) Effective Date; Application.--
(1) Effective date.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall take effect on the date on which the first Assistant to
the President for National Security Affairs is appointed by
the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, pursuant to section 101(d)(1)(B) of the National
Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3021(d)(1)(B)), as added by
title IX of this Act.
(2) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a)
shall apply with respect to any record created by the
National Security Council on or after the date specified in
paragraph (1).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today to offer an amendment which addresses both the
incredibly important role played by the President's National Security
Council, but also the concerning trend of consolidation of authority in
the White House.
Over the past two administrations, the NSC has transformed from
simply a coordination and advisory body to something else entirely.
We recently heard from President Obama's three former Secretaries of
Defense--Gates, Panetta, and Hagel--each outlining the challenges they
faced in trying to manage the Defense Department and combat operations
in the face of a more intrusive NSC.
Most notably, Secretary Gates said: ``It was the operational
micromanagement that drove me nuts of White House and NSC (National
Security Council) staffers calling senior commanders in the field . . .
second guessing commanders.''
The NSC was never intended to operate in this manner. It was intended
to be an advisory body and interagency coordination center for the
President. However, its size has exploded from roughly 100 staffers
under President Clinton, to 200 under President Bush, and now 400 under
President Obama.
Moving decisionmaking away from the departments undermines the
authority of Secretaries and General officers who have been confirmed
by the Senate and concentrates power with unelected, unconfirmed, and
unaccountable bureaucrats who care more about optics and narratives.
This is best illustrated in the recent profile of Deputy National
Security Advisor Ben Rhodes, who has a master's in creative writing and
no practical experience in foreign policy.
Mr. Chairman, the National Security Council has moved far beyond its
original advisory role to one in which NSC staffers make critical
operational decisions.
My amendment simply restores accountability to this operational
organization by requiring the NSC to participate in the Freedom of
Information Act, or FOIA, upon coordination of the National Security
Advisor by the Senate.
Bringing the NSC under FOIA is not without precedent. The NSC
actually maintained a FOIA program and complied with requests under
Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton. However, a 1996
court case ruled that, since it was an advisory body, it did not need
to participate.
The NSC is not simply an advisory body anymore. It is time to bring
it back under FOIA and shine light on its activities.
This amendment fits well into Chairman Thornberry's broader NSC
reform efforts. I thank him for making this a priority in this year's
NDAA.
As the chairman outlined earlier, these provisions will make it clear
to future administrations that the NSC cannot continue to just grow in
size and mission without consequential oversight measures.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry), the
esteemed chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman makes the point very well that, at a
certain point, you get enough people that the institution of the
National Security Council staff takes on different characteristics.
When it has those different characteristics, then you have to comply
with FOIA, then you have to be confirmed by the Senate, and then you
have to be able to come before Congress and justify the decisions that
you have made.
That is the point with both of our amendments, that there comes a
point that basic nature changes and there are implications of that,
including the one that is related to the gentlewoman's amendment.
I support her amendment, and I hope Members will support it.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his strong
support.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
Zinke), my friend and colleague on the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support my colleague from
Indiana's amendment.
The amendment is simply about restoring public accountability and
transparency to the National Security Council.
As a former Deputy Commander of Special Operations in Iraq, I have
personally seen what happens. Oftentimes, our rules of engagement that
dictate how we fight are politicized and it diminishes our ability to
fight. I have seen it. It is time to change.
If they move out of an advisory role to a role where they are
commanding and interpreting commands, then we need FOIA. America
deserves accountability. America deserves our ability to look at who is
calling the shots and why.
This is not a hit on the administration. This is an American issue.
When a role is advisory and comes from advisory to command, then that
command needs to be held accountable. That is what we do.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Montana.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, none of what has been said really
changes under these amendments. What all this really is is an argument
to get rid of the NSC, to say that this group of folks should not
exist. As we argued before, the reason the National Security Council
was created was to offer the President close and confidential advice.
Now, that National Security Council, as was pointed out by other
people who have made arguments about this, has consistently been
criticized by the other Departments, going all the way back, I imagine,
to when the NSC was formed. Whether there is 100, 200, or 300 of them,
that really doesn't change that basic conflict.
Do you believe the President needs these confidential advisers? If
you do, then you should oppose these amendments. They should get rid of
the NSC. If you are going to take away the advice and their ability to
do that, then we should just have the DOD and the President shouldn't
have these advisers.
But there is a reason the NSC was created in the first place, to give
the President those close advisers. Further restricting it in this
manner effectively eliminates the NSC.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely not an amendment to
get rid of the NSC. This just simply brings accountability and
transparency into a very important agency, into a White House that has
taken this to no longer just an advisory agency role on behalf of the
American people who we serve.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendments En Bloc No. 2 Offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, I
offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
[[Page H2683]]
Amendments en bloc No. 2 consisting of amendment Nos. 19, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38 printed in part B of House Report
114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry of Texas:
amendment no. 19 offered by mr. calvert of california
At the end of title XI, add the following new section:
SEC. 1112. REPORT ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE
PERSONNEL AND CONTRACTORS.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) A large, disproportionate, and duplicative civilian
work force coupled with bureaucratic, structural
inefficiencies has detracted from the Pentagon's production
of combat power and its ability to modernize.
(2) The recent uniformed military drawdown has not been
accompanied by an equivalent reduction of either the civilian
or contractor work force. Right sizing the civilian workforce
must be statutory in number but implemented with executive
discretion. Across-the-board cuts to the defense civilian
workforce are not the answer.
(3) Spending on contract services is over 50 percent of all
Department of Defense purchases even as the total defense
budget has dropped. Expenditures in services contracting lack
appropriate oversight, accountability, and scrutiny.
(b) Reports.--
(1) In general.--The Secretary of Defense shall submit a
preliminary report within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, and a final report within 180 days
after such date, to the congressional defense committees
detailing the structure and number of the civilian workforce
and contractors of the Department of Defense.
(2) Contents.--Except as provided in paragraph (3), each
report shall include the following for each of fiscal years
2017 through 2020, including a breakdown in location, job
function, General Schedule (GS) level, and date of when the
job was created for the following individuals:
(A) The total number of full time equivalent employees,
including each of the following:
(i) The total number of Senior Executive Service employees
and their assignments.
(ii) The total number of civilian employees of the
Department of Defense within the military health care system.
(iii) The total number of civilian employees of the
Department employed at depots, arsenals, and ammunition
facilities.
(B) The total number of civilian contractors of the
Department of Defense, including each of the following:
(i) The total number of civilian contractors for weapons
acquisitions.
(ii) The total number of civilian contractors for services
or labor for non-weapon systems acquisitions.
(iii) The total number of civilian contractors employed at
depots, arsenals, and ammunition facilities.
(3) Preliminary report.--The preliminary report provided
under this subsection--
(A) shall cover the contents described in paragraph (2) in
as much detail as is ascertainable within 90 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act; and
(B) shall include an explanation of any impediments to
developing a complete and final report by 180 days after such
date of enactment.
amendment no. 28 offered by mr. collins of new york
At the end of subtitle B of title III, insert the following
new section:
SEC. 3__. ALTERNATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR MUNITIONS DISPOSAL.
In carrying out the disposal of munitions in the stockpile
of conventional ammunition awaiting demilitarization and
disposal (commonly referred to as munitions in the ``B5A
account'') the Secretary of the Army shall consider using
cost-competitive technologies that minimize waste generation
and air emissions as alternatives to disposal by open
burning, open detonation, direct contact combustion, and
incineration.
amendment no. 29 offered by mr. russell of oklahoma
At the end of title III, add the following new section:
SEC. 3__. MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PERFORMANCE AND SAFETY
TECHNOLOGY.
(a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
the Secretary of Defense, acting through the commander of the
United States Transportation Command, should reassess the
guidelines for the evaluation of motor carrier safety
performance under the Transportation Protective Services
program taking into consideration the Government
Accountability Office report numbered GAO-16-82 and titled
``Defense Transportation; DoD Needs to Improve the Evaluation
of Safety and Performance Information for Carriers
Transporting Security-Sensitive Materials''.
(b) Evaluation of Safety Technology.--To avoid catastrophic
accidents and exposure of material, the Secretary shall
evaluate the need for proven safety technology in vehicles
transporting Transportation Protective Services shipments,
such as electronic logging devices, roll stability control,
forward collision avoidance, lane departure warning systems,
and speed limiters.
amendment no. 30 offered by mr. costa of california
At the end of title III, add the following new section:
SEC. 3__. BRIEFING ON WELL-DRILLING CAPABILITIES OF ACTIVE
DUTY AND RESERVE COMPONENTS.
(a) Briefing Required.--Not later than 180 days after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense
shall provide to the Committees on Armed Services of the
Senate and the House of Representatives (and other
congressional defense committees on request) a briefing on
the well-drilling capabilities of the active and reserve
components.
(b) Elements.--The briefing under subsection (a) shall
include a description of--
(1) the training requirements of active and reserve units
with well-drilling capabilities;
(2) the locations at which such units conduct training
relating to well-drilling; and
(3) the cost and feasibility of rotating the training
locations of such units to areas in the United States that
are affected by drought conditions.
amendment no. 31 offered by mr. mckinley of west virginia
At the end of subtitle B of title V (page 119, after line
18), add the following new section:
SEC. 515. 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. 32 offered by ms. meng of new york
At the end of subtitle E of title V, add the following:
SEC. 568. REPORT ON COMPOSITION OF SERVICE ACADEMIES.
(a) Report.--Not later than one year after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United
States shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the
House of Representatives and the Committee on Armed Services
of the Senate a report on the demographic composition of
service academies that includes--
(1) an analysis of--
(A) the demographic composition of each service academy's--
(i) recruits;
(ii) nominees;
(iii) applicants;
(iv) qualified applicants;
(v) admits;
(vi) enrollees;
(vii) graduates; and
(viii) graduate occupation placement;
(B) how such composition compares to the demographic
composition of--
(i) the United States;
(ii) enlisted members of the Armed Forces;
(iii) officers of the Armed Forces; and
(iv) other institutions of higher education (as defined in
section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C.
1001(a)); and
(C) the demographic composition of each quintile of
academic ranking for each service academy's graduating class;
(2) a description of the considerations given to
demographic composition in each service academy's--
(A) recruitment efforts (including funding decisions made
to further such efforts);
(B) qualification decisions; and
(C) admissions decisions; and
(3) recommendations for best--
(A) recruitment practices;
(B) nominating practices;
(C) qualification decision practices; and
(D) admissions practices.
(b) Definition.--In this section the term ``service
academy'' means each of the following:
(1) The United States Military Academy.
(2) The United States Naval Academy.
(3) The United States Air Force Academy.
(4) The United States Coast Guard Academy.
(5) The United States Merchant Marine Academy.
(c) Scope of Report.--The report required by this section
shall examine each service academy class admitted following
the date of enactment of section 543 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public Law 103-160).
amendment no. 33 offered by mr. palmer of alabama
At the end of subtitle G of title V (page 162, after line
20), add the following new section:
SEC. 585. AUTHORIZATION FOR AWARD OF DISTINGUISHED-SERVICE
CROSS TO FIRST LIEUTENANT MELVIN M. SPRUIELL
FOR ACTS OF VALOR DURING WORLD WAR II.
(a) Waiver of Time Limitations.--Notwithstanding the time
limitations specified in section 3744 of title 10, United
States Code, or any other time limitation with respect to the
awarding of certain medals to persons who served in the Armed
Forces, the Secretary of the Army may award the
Distinguished-Service Cross under section 3742 of such title
to First Lieutenant Melvin M. Spruiell of the Army for the
acts of valor during World War II described in subsection
(b).
(b) Acts of Valor Described.--The acts of valor referred to
in subsection (a) are the actions of First Lieutenant Melvin
M. Spruiell
[[Page H2684]]
on June 10 and 11, 1944, as a member of the Army serving in
France with the 377th Parachute Field Artillery, 101st
Airborne Division.
amendment no. 34 offered by ms. sewell of alabama
Page 143, line 3, add after the period the following: ``The
cyber institute may place a special emphasis on entering into
a partnership under this subsection with a local educational
agency located in a rural, underserved, or underrepresented
community.''.
amendment no. 35 offered by mr. takano of california
Page 150, after line 4, 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 150, line 5, strike ``(C)'' and insert ``(D)''.
amendment no. 36 offered by mr. grayson of florida
At the end of subtitle E of title V (page 153, after line
9), add the following new section:
SEC. 568. INCLUSION OF ALCOHOL, PRESCRIPTION DRUG, OPIOID,
AND OTHER SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNSELING AS PART OF
REQUIRED PRESEPARATION COUNSELING.
Section 1142(b)(11) of title 10, United States Code, is
amended by inserting before the period the following: ``and
information concerning the availability of treatment options
and resources to address substance abuse, including alcohol,
prescription drug, and opioid abuse''.
amendment no. 37 offered by mr. bost of illinois
At the end of subtitle F of title V insert the following:
SEC. ____. IMPACT AID.
Notwithstanding section 5(d) of the Every Student Succeeds
Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1806), the amendment made
by section 7004(1) of such Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat.
2077)--
(1) for fiscal year 2016, shall--
(A) be applied as if amending section 8003(a)(5)(A) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as in effect
on the day before the date of enactment of the Every Student
Succeeds Act (Public Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1802); and
(B) be in effect with respect to appropriations for use
under title VIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as in effect on the day before the date of
enactment of the Every Student Succeeds Act; and
(2) for fiscal year 2017 and each succeeding fiscal year,
shall be in effect with respect to appropriations for use
under title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (Public
Law 114-95; 129 Stat. 1802).
amendment no. 38 offered by ms. delbene of washington
At the end of subtitle F of title V (page 156, after line
23), add the following new section:
SEC. 573. ELIMINATION OF TWO-YEAR ELIGIBILITY LIMITATION FOR
NONCOMPETITIVE APPOINTMENT OF SPOUSES OF
MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.
Section 3330d(c) of title 5, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(3) No time limitation on appointment.--A relocating
spouse of a member of the Armed Forces remains eligible for
noncompetitive appointment under this section for the
duration of the spouse's relocation to the permanent duty
station of the member.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, each of these amendments have been
coordinated with both sides of the aisle. I urge Members to support
this en bloc package.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me the
time in today's debate.
Mr. Chairman, as part of the Department of Defense's Innovative
Readiness Training, a mission that provides military training and
resources and supports local communities throughout the country, there
are four National Guard teams that are currently practicing the fine
art of well drilling in the United States prior to deploying abroad.
Clearly, we know in parts of the Middle East having the water resources
available to support our troops is absolutely essential.
My amendment has the potential to help areas, though, in our country
today as part of this training program. Regions throughout the country
have experienced devastating droughts. Those in the area that I
represent, the San Joaquin Valley of California, have experienced a
loss of drinking water supplies as a result of these serious drought
conditions they have had to face.
In California alone, there have literally been thousands and
thousands and thousands of households that have been without access to
drinking water.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. O'ROURKE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman.
This amendment would try to respond to those thousands of households
that have lost their source of drinking water. This amendment would
require the Department of Defense to provide a report to Congress on
the well drilling capabilities of military units and the feasibility of
rotating their training locations so that they can do their training in
areas where the devastating droughts have impacted to the greatest
degree, primarily in western States.
I think this is a commonsense amendment. I ask that it be adopted.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chair, I rise to note my reservations about
the characterization of civilian employees in the Calvert amendment to
the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Although I
believe it is important that we have a good assessment of the number
and location of our civilian and contractor personnel who work at the
Department of Defense, I believe it is also important that we
accurately reflect the critical role that our federal civilians play in
ensuring the military readiness of our nation.
I have the distinct privilege of representing Hill Air Force Base in
Ogden, Utah and serving on the House Armed Services Committee,
Subcommittee on Readiness. As such, I have had a front row seat
reviewing our nation's combat power and the role played by the civilian
workforce in generating and supporting combat power. I can tell you
that our civilian workforce does not detract from combat power, but
serves as a force multiplier and as part of the backbone of military
readiness. Without the men and women who serve at the Ogden Air
Logistics Complex at Hill Air Force Base, as well as the other Air
Logistics Complexes and military depots around the country in all of
the services, we would have mission failure in any number of military
aircraft on a daily basis, failing our warfighters, and costing lives.
It is time that we stand up and salute our nation's federal civilians
who work at the Department of Defense. Their work is valuable and their
contributions are numerous.
I think we need to tread very carefully in asserting Congressional
findings that would cast a wide-net of negative aspersions on thousands
of defense civilians who directly support the war fighter, and often
make substantial sacrifices to do so. I am concerned that they are not
unfairly pegged as being wasteful or superfluous to readiness. Yes,
let's conduct oversight and study the defense civilian workforce, but
let's hold off making such findings until after the facts are in and
the defense committees have had adequate time to review and analyze the
results. To do otherwise puts the cart before the horse, and is frankly
unfair to thousands of my constituents who have suffered under this
Administration's illegal decision to direct furloughs of working
capital fund employees without pay. We cannot continue to treat our
depot civilians in this manner without profound negative consequences
to hard working families and ultimately to the warfighter.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with only certain
aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the second
en bloc of amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act. I respect my colleague from California and his
attempt to catalogue the numbers of civilians and contractors
performing work for the Department of Defense; however, I object to the
characterization of civilian employees and their role in the military
structure.
I have the great privilege of representing the men and women who
serve our nation at Tinker Air Force Base and Fort Sill. There is no
finer group of people anywhere in the world. They are patriots. And
they serve as the backbone of military readiness for the U.S. Air Force
and for the United States military. Without the work performed at
Tinker, located in Oklahoma City, many of our most complex aircraft
simply would not be mission ready. The aircraft could not be flown and
our nation's defense would be greatly degraded. Therefore, to find that
our civilian workforce is disproportionate, duplicative and is
detracting from combat power is incorrect. Civilian employees are
essential to the operations and readiness of our military. We simply
cannot do the mission without them.
[[Page H2685]]
I agree with the finding that across-the-board cuts to the defense
civilian workforce are not the answer. However, it is important to
note, that all areas of the workforce do not need additional cuts. For
example, depots had already taken a greater percentage cut than the
military and now we find ourselves in the unfortunate position that for
military readiness purposes--for the absolute necessity of supporting
our warfighter--we are in the position of requiring some of our Air
Logistics Complexes to hire over 1,000 additional personnel per year
for a 2 year period. In fact, this bill contains a provision which will
provide direct hire authority so that the services can hire the people
they need, quickly and efficiently. Sometimes in our zeal to limit or
cut our civilians, we lose sight of the mission and make assumptions
that are not rooted in fact.
Again, I want to commend and thank our outstanding civilian workforce
and particularly those who live and work in the great State of Oklahoma
for their skill and their dedication to the military mission. Their
contributions to our great country should be acknowledged and
commended.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chair, Chairman Mac Thornberry, and Ranking Member
Adam Smith, I rise in support of Rules Amendment Number 161 to H.R.
4909, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal year
2017. However, I would first like to thank you for your thoughtful
approach in writing this year's bill; it was not an easy task. The
particular focus on end-force readiness restoration is to be commended;
we cannot ask members of the armed forces to defend their country and
democracy without adequately outfitting and training the soldier, unit
and force. Additionally, I am pleased to see the NDAA's approach toward
much needed acquisition reform, healthcare reform, Goldwater Nichols
reform and more.
However, as we debate today it is incumbent on us as Members of
Congress to continue the discussion about the right mix of active duty,
civilian and contractors at the Department of Defense.
The recent uniformed military drawdown has not been accompanied by an
equivalent reduction of either the civilian or contractor work force as
in drawdowns in the past.
A large, disproportionate, and duplicative work force coupled with
bureaucratic, structural inefficiencies has detracted from the
Pentagon's production of combat power and its ability to modernize.
Right sizing the civilian workforce must be multifaceted, statutory
in number, and implemented with executive discretion. Across the board
cuts to the defense civilian workforce are not the answer.
Spending on contract services is over 50 percent of all Department of
Defense purchases even as the total defense budget has dropped.
Expenditures in service contracting lack appropriate oversight,
accountability, and scrutiny.
However, no proper approach to addressing the civilian workforce may
be accomplished without first understanding who these civilian workers
are, where they are located, and what jobs they are performing. My
amendment, Rules Committee Number 161, seeks a report by the Department
of Defense on the total civilian workforce picture. In the past,
reports have been requested but are fragmented in nature. The report I
am requesting will require a projection from fiscal years 2017 through
2020 of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) and contractor employees broken down
into several sub-categories including location, job function, General
Schedule (GS) level, and date of when the job was created.
As we debate the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA), it is incumbent on us as Members of Congress to continue the
discussion about the right mix of active duty, civilian and contractors
at DoD.
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise to express my concern with certain
aspects of the Calvert amendment that is included in part of the en
bloc amendments to the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization
Act that we will pass by voice vote. My colleague from California has
every right to attempt to catalogue the quantity of civilian and
contractors within the Department of Defense. But I must object to his
characterization of our civilian defense employees' roles.
I am lucky enough to represent nearly 80,000 federal employees, many
of whom work at the Pentagon, Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, Fort
Belvoir, or one of the myriad Department of Defense installations
around Northern Virginia. This includes ground breaking work at the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, important work to keep us
safe at Defense Threat Reduction Agency, and the jobs supplying our
military with the tools it needs at the Defense Logistics Agency. Our
nation, its people, and its defenses would not by possible without the
dedicated work of these individuals.
Mr. Calvert's effort to categorize these civilian defense employees
as disproportionate or duplicative undermines the incredible work they
do every day to keep our military running. The ability to produce
combat power, modernize, and keep our troops healthy and safe are
critical functions at the Department of Defense. Moreover, they are
critical functions performed by highly intelligent, accomplished, and
dedicated civilian employees.
Our civilian workforce has already weathered years of uncertain
budgets, pay freezes, a government shutdown, and sequester furloughs.
We should not further demean the important work they do with this
amendment.
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. 14 Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 394, after line 5, insert the following:
SEC. 1048. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT TO FEDERAL AND
STATE AGENCIES.
Section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Preference for Border Security Purposes.--(1) In
transferring the personal property described in paragraph (2)
under this section, the Secretary of Defense shall give
preference to Federal and State agencies that agree to use
the property primarily for the purpose of strengthening
border security along the southern border of the United
States.
``(2) The personal property described in this section is--
``(A) surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles, including the
MQ-9 Reaper (also known as the `Predator B') and the Aerostat
radar system;
``(B) night-vision goggles; and
``(C) high mobility multi-purpose wheel vehicles (commonly
known as `humvees').''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Poe) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
amendment No. 14 be modified in the manner that I have placed and filed
at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
modification to amendment no. 14 offered by mr. poe of texas
Page 394, after line 5, insert the following:
SEC. 1048. REQUIREMENT RELATING TO TRANSFER OF EXCESS
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE EQUIPMENT TO FEDERAL AND
STATE AGENCIES.
Section 2576a of title 10, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(g) Preference for Border Security Purposes.--(1) In
transferring the personal property described in paragraph (2)
under this section, the Secretary of Defense may give first
preference to the Department of Homeland Security and then to
Federal and State agencies that agree to use the property
primarily for the purpose of strengthening border security
along the southern border of the United States.
``(2) The personal property described in this section is--
``(A) unmanned aerial vehicles;
``(B) the Aerostat radar system;
``(C) night-vision goggles; and
``(D) high mobility multi-purpose wheel vehicles (commonly
known as `humvees').''.
Mr. POE of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous
consent that the modification be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the modification?
There was no objection.
{time} 1730
Mr. POE of Texas. I thank the chairman of the full committee.
Mr. Chair, this amendment is very similar to amendments that have
been on this House floor before, presented by me and others, and is
similar to an amendment that passed unanimously in the FY 2015 NDAA. It
is called the SEND Act. It addresses the process of sending excess
military equipment, which is not being used, to our border security
folks to help them secure the border. That is the purpose of previous
[[Page H2686]]
amendments and legislation that started all the way back in 2011.
One way that the Department of Defense helps the Border Patrol is
through the transfer of equipment that it deems to be in excess to its
needs. Under current law, the transfer of this excess equipment gives
some preference to counterdrug, counterterrorism, and some border
security activities.
This amendment simply takes that preference a step further, giving
border security preference for a few specific pieces of equipment which
are particularly useful for border security applications: unmanned
surveillance vehicles, including aerostat blimps that are now being
used, night vision goggles, and Humvees.
The Border Patrol, as we all know, is the first and last line of
defense against criminal gangs that come into the United States. In my
home State of Texas, I have been to the border numerous times, and we
have the same issue that other border States have with the criminal
drug cartels, which are involved in not only bringing drugs into the
United States, but in trafficking humans for sex slavery, labor
slavery, and other purposes.
After talking with them about many, many issues, we found out the
situation on the border regarding equipment. A Texas ranger once told
me that the drug cartels outman, outgun, out-finance, and out-equip the
Border Patrol and those who are on the border who are trying to protect
us from those criminal gangs that are coming into the United States.
One of the issues the last time I was down at the border 2 or 3 weeks
ago was that the Border Patrol was actually excited about these
aerostats that are being used. That is a blimp that they put up in the
sky, and it helps in surveillance along the border. They need more of
those on the border. Of course, this amendment does exactly that. It
gives a preference to those specific items that are mentioned in the
amendment for the Border Patrol to use for border security purposes.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself 3 minutes.
This amendment is a solution in search of a problem. In fact, I think
it will exacerbate some of the security problems we already have.
As the gentleman knows, the border security agencies can already
apply for this excess military equipment, but I ask those
representatives who represent the people who live on the U.S. side of
the U.S.-Mexico border--cities like San Diego, California; Nogales,
Arizona; El Paso, Laredo, and Brownsville, Texas--whether they want
UAVs, or unmanned aerial vehicles, which could also be MQ-9 Reapers,
flying over their homes, their schools, their neighborhoods, prying
into their backyards each and every day.
This is at a time when we are already spending $18 billion a year to
secure our border with Mexico and when we are seeing less than zero
migration from Mexico itself. In the year 2000, we had 1.6 million
apprehensions. This last year, we didn't even reach 400,000
apprehensions.
Of any border of which we are told by the Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center, by the Director of the FBI, by the Secretary
of Homeland Security that there has never been nor is there now a
terrorist, a terrorist organization, or a terrorist plot that is
seeking to exploit the border with Mexico, what this does is further
takes our eye off the ball where we have known risks and known threats
to this country and to the homeland. It stokes fear and anxiety and, in
some cases, hatred towards our neighbor to the south, towards those
communities on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border--communities
like my own El Paso, Texas, which happens to be the safest city in the
United States today.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment that
does not solve any problems and, I argue, would make some of the
security issues that we already have worse.
Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, the first thing is that this amendment
does not include the MQ-9 Reaper that the gentleman mentioned. It does
not make a preference for that. I also take exception to the ``hatred''
comment that was made here.
Look, the border security in the United States has issues. The Border
Patrol says we need to help find those illegal gangs that are coming
into the United States. This is not about the surveillance of Americans
and spying on Americans. It is on the border.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Cuellar), who represents part of the Texas border, the city of Laredo.
Mr. CUELLAR. Mr. Chair, I do support Mr. Poe's amendment.
With all due respect to my good friend, we do want to secure the
border. We just want to do it in the right way.
While some people are talking about securing the border with a wall--
a 14th century solution--I think if we use the aerostats, we can
provide coverage and surveillance to make sure that we secure the
border. In fact, in south Texas, including in my district, we have five
of those aerostats right now. The communities support them. The Border
Patrol certainly supports them. In fact, in appropriations, I am asking
for five new aerostats so we can go ahead and secure the border. Each
aerostat covers about 20 miles. So if you want to cover the border--
1,954 miles of border--divided by 20, with about 97 or 98 aerostats,
minus the 5 that we already have in place, we will secure the border in
an electronic way.
This also helps us secure the border on the Mexico side. In talking
to the Border Patrol, they have used some of that information because
they can go 20 miles into Mexico, and already we have coordinated some
of those activities with the Mexican law enforcement officials to stop
those drug gangs before they come over to the U.S. You turn the camera
20 miles into Mexico, and with about 97 aerostats, we can secure the
whole border.
Again, I support this amendment, and I thank the gentleman very much
for yielding.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I inquire as to how much time remains on my
side.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke) has 3
minutes remaining.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the Poe amendment.
This amendment would expand the military's authority under the 1033
program to flood our streets with surplus battle-ready military
equipment straight from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Specifically, this amendment would allow the Defense Department to
transfer equipment, such as the MQ-9 Reaper drone, to Federal and State
law enforcement agencies. This is a cynical attack, cloaked in the name
of border security on President Obama's executive order, that limits
the proliferation of military equipment within the borders of America.
Typically, the 1033 program feeds more than $4.3 billion in surplus
military grade weaponry, including armored vehicles and tanks, into the
United States annually. Now we have Republicans looking to expand the
type of weaponry that is distributed to law enforcement under the 1033
program to include military drones.
While border security should remain at the forefront of our political
discourse, the use of Grim Reaper drones and other military equipment
to track and hunt down human beings is not the answer. An increase in
manpower, training and facilities, not MQ-9 Reapers, is the way that we
should go about our efforts in protecting our borders without
sacrificing our values of respect for basic human rights and dignity.
Moreover, allowing military equipment, such as predator drones, into
America's airspace puts Americans at risk. Federal agencies have
already lost hundreds of guns and grenade launchers that have been
donated to police departments, and many of these weapons have shown up
for sale on eBay or have been reported stolen. I don't want to see this
happen with equipment, such as military drones, being doled out to
border security.
[[Page H2687]]
Further, the militarization of our State and Federal border security
agencies will make the border more volatile and not safe. Therefore, I
rise in opposition, and I ask my colleagues to support me in my
opposition.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, how much time remains on my side?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. POE of Texas. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, the gentleman from Texas says that the MQ-9
Reaper is not specifically addressed in this amendment. However, UAVs
are--unmanned aerial vehicles--and the MQ-9 is one of them.
The point that I am trying to make is that we do not need to further
militarize the border at a time when it is safer than it has ever been
and when, in fact, U.S. cities on the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico
border are far safer than the average city in the interior of this
country. If we need to send surplus military equipment elsewhere, let
it be prioritized based on need, based on known threat. When we send
security resources where we don't have proven threats, we take them
away from where we do. That makes this country less safe.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The government already has a plan to send excess equipment to law
enforcement. What this bill does is prioritize that equipment to the
Border Patrol. For those concerned about national spying that takes
place in the United States, which they claim, they would support this
because its priority is to the border. It is not to other agencies.
The gentleman from Laredo said it best. Mr. Chair, believe it or not,
we cooperate with the Mexican Government, and they get information from
us when we use those aerostats over the border, and they capture the
bad guys before they come into the United States.
We need to support this amendment, prioritize it, and give them the
equipment that they need.
And that is just the way it is.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment, as modified, offered by the gentleman
from Texas will be postponed.
Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Page 462, after line 13, insert the following:
SEC. ___. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR DESTRUCTION
OF CERTAIN LANDMINES AND REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT
OF REPLACEMENT ANTI-PERSONNEL LANDMINE
MUNITIONS.
(a) Limitation.--Except as provided in subsection (b), none
of the funds authorized to be appropriated by this Act or
otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for the
Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the
destruction of anti-personnel landmine munitions before the
date on which the Secretary of Defense submits the report
required by subsection (c).
(b) Exception for Safety.--Subsection (a) shall not apply
to any anti-personnel landmine munitions that the Secretary
determines are unsafe or could pose a safety risk if not
demilitarized or destroyed.
(c) Report Required.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall
submit to the Congress a report that includes the following:
(A) An assessment of the current state of research into
operational alternatives to anti-personnel landmines.
(B) Any other matter that the Secretary determines should
be included in the report.
(2) Form of report.--The report required by paragraph (1)
shall be submitted in unclassified form, but may include a
classified annex.
(d) Anti-personnel Landmine Munitions Defined.--In this
section, the term ``anti-personnel landmine munitions''
includes anti-personnel landmines and sub-munitions as
defined by the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines
and on their Destruction, as determined by the Secretary.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I rise in strong support of
amendment No. 16, to prohibit the use of funds to dismantle the U.S.
stockpile of anti-personnel landmines, APLs, unless the Secretary of
Defense submits a report to Congress on the operational alternatives to
APLs.
Further, my amendment contains an exception for the destruction of
APLs that would be unsafe to store. This amendment would effectively
renew the ban that was passed by the full Congress and signed into law
by the President in Public Law No. 114-92, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
Mr. Chair, our military commanders have spoken clearly regarding the
value and the need for APLs. On March 6, 2014, the United States'
highest ranking military officer, Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, called anti-personnel landmines an important
tool in the arsenal of the United States.
{time} 1745
When he was head of the U.S. European Command, General Wesley Clark
agreed, saying that ``our field commanders count on APLs to protect the
force, influence, maneuver, and shape the battle space, and mass combat
power for decisive engagement.'' He also added that the need for APLs
was increasing.
Furthermore, two major studies, one conducted by the National
Research Council and the other by NATO, have concluded that APLs
provide crucial tactical advantages on the battlefield.
Yet on September 29, 2014, President Obama announced that outside of
the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. would not use APLs in order to
``underscore its commitment to the spirit and humanitarian aims of the
Ottawa Convention.'' The President's actions were, by his own
admission, taken to move the U.S. towards full compliance with a
treaty, commonly known as the Ottawa Convention, to which the Senate
has not given its advice and consent. Moreover, this was created by an
NGO-led process that openly sought to ``push aside the central feature
of state sovereignty.''
The process that created the treaty was bad. The treaty has not been
approved by the Senate, not signed by the President, and our senior
military officials state that it would deprive us of an important
weapon. Yet the Obama administration seeks to move us forward in
compliance with it.
The U.S. has taken action on APLs. We give more funding for APL
clearance than any other nation in the world. We are party to amended
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the CCW,
which requires U.S. APLs to be designed to deactivate or self-destruct.
Our APLs meet those standards. U.S. APLs are not killing civilians.
Like all weapons, APLs can be used rightly or wrongly. When used
responsibly, as U.S. APLs are, they protect our forces, the forces of
our allies, and civilians alike.
Landmine opponents, like the administration, state that the Ottawa
Convention ``shows our leadership'' and that it is reducing the threat
of landmines around the world. That is simply not true. Many IEDs,
legally speaking, are APLs. From February 2015 to January 2016, the
Pentagon's own Joint Improvised-Threat Defeat Agency recorded over
50,000 worldwide casualties as a result of IED attacks.
The Ottawa Convention isn't solving the landmine problem; it is
simply disarming the good guys. In this environment, we need weapons
that can protect camps, cities, roads, and bases
[[Page H2688]]
from insurgent attack. Today, one of those weapons is the APL.
Unless we have an alternative to APLs that is equal to or better than
APLs at keeping our troops safe, we should not, and dare not, get rid
of our stockpile of APLs. The safety of our sons and daughters in
uniform is of the utmost importance.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Thornberry and his staff for
working with my office on this important issue.
I urge adoption of this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in
opposition.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I oppose this amendment because it restricts, the President
restricts, the Department of Defense from taking actions that they feel
are necessary in the best interest of the national security of our
country by prohibiting their ability to get rid of the landmines that
they wish to get rid of.
The problem with landmines and the reason there was such an
international outcry is, after conflicts, they tend to be left in the
areas of conflict; and throughout the world, many innocents have wound
up being killed by these landmines that are left over. They are a
weapon that can indiscriminately hit civilians.
I think the IED example is an excellent example of how pernicious
these weapons are. They do attack, indiscriminately, civilians and
military personnel alike.
What the President is attempting to do is to get us to the point we
are in compliance with the treaty that was reached. It has not been
confirmed by the Senate, that is true. But as Commander in Chief, the
President has the authority to decide what weapons we should or should
not have.
And it is important that they do maintain the exception of Korea,
where we have the very specific threat from North Korea, to make sure
that we preserve that option. Outside of that, the President and our
commanders at the Department of Defense have determined that this
option is not one that we need to provide for national security, and it
is one that the international community has condemned.
We have had attempts--the Geneva Convention and others--at limiting
the carnage given by warfare. One of the ways to limit that would be to
limit the amount of landmines that are available. That is what the
President is attempting to do. This amendment, I believe, would
unfairly restrict him in his ability to do that. He has the ability, as
Commander in Chief, to make those decisions in consultation with the
DOD. This restricts him in a way that I do not support, and I urge this
body to oppose the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I respect the gentleman's
opinion. I understand the President is the Commander in Chief, but I
also understand that the APLs, the ones that we use, protect our
forces, our friends, and our allies.
As far as the danger of them, we lead on landmine clearance, and we
have lived up to all the international obligations we have accepted.
The landmine ban treaty disarms us, not our enemies. Dismantling our
APLs is not showing leadership. Instead, it would be the height of
irresponsibility.
I know that sometimes in this House we get to the point where
politics takes precedence over policy. If, at the end of the day, this
House can't do everything possible to protect our daughters and sons in
uniform and our allies and friends around the world--we are the most
responsible user of APLs. We are doing more than anybody else to disarm
IEDs.
The problem comes down to where does the United States stand. We need
to stand, and we need to be resolute behind our Armed Forces. That is
why I stand strong on this amendment.
Make sure the APLs stay in place.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close.
We are going to make the responsible decisions about what is best to
protect our Armed Forces, and I believe the President will do that.
This restricts him in one specific area that has not been shown--yes,
we are the most responsible users of landmines, but that is not exactly
a high bar to jump over. No matter how you use them, no matter where
you use them--yes, we are trying to clear them, and I think that is
great. But if we didn't put them out there in the first place, we
wouldn't have to worry about, then, going in there and clearing them.
What has been determined by the Department of Defense and by the
President is that there are other, better ways to protect our troops
that do not unnecessarily endanger civilian populations. That is why
the President is going down the path that he is going down. I think he
is right to do it, and I think we should reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kelly).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Walorski
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mrs. WALORSKI. 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 appropriate place in title X, add the following:
SEC. 10__. REQUIREMENT FOR MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
REGARDING TRANSFER OF DETAINEES.
Section 1034(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2016 (Public Law 114-92; 129 Stat. 969; 10
U.S.C. 801 note) is amended--
(1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (3);
(2) by striking the period and inserting ``; and'' at the
end of paragraph (4); and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(5) the United States Government and the government of
the foreign country have entered into a written memorandum of
understanding regarding the transfer of the individual and
such memorandum of understanding has previously been
transmitted to the appropriate committees of Congress.''.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentlewoman
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Indiana.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My amendment is very common sense. It is as simple in its concept as
it is in requirements. My amendment simply increases the transparency
and accountability surrounding transfers from Guantanamo Bay by
requiring the U.S. and the foreign government receiving the detainee to
sign a written memo of understanding outlining the terms of the
transfer and to provide copies of that memo to Congress. These
transfers are too significant and the stakes are too high for a simple
handshake or verbal agreement.
As Paul Lewis, the President's own Special Envoy for Guantanamo
Detention Closure, recently confirmed, detainees that were released
have returned to the battlefield and killed Americans. The
administration, itself, estimates the recidivism rate of detainees at
nearly one out of three.
In my 4 years on the Armed Services Committee, I have consistently
been disappointed by the lack of transparency surrounding these
transfers. In its plan for closure of the Guantanamo Bay detention
facility that was released in February, the administration insisted it
received security assurances and humane treatment assurances from
countries receiving detainees. This includes travel restrictions,
monitoring, and information sharing. However, in December last year,
reports began surfacing that a detainee who was released to Sudan in
July 2012 was now in Yemen operating as a senior leader of al Qaeda in
the Arabian Peninsula, AQAP.
Setting aside the fact that a dangerous terrorist was transferred to
Sudan in the first place, a state sponsor of terrorism, I requested a
classified briefing to find out exactly what type of assurances the
administration received from the Sudanese Government that they would
keep an eye on this detainee and what punitive measures they took
against the Sudanese
[[Page H2689]]
when it was discovered they let him out of their sight. Mr. Chairman, I
came away from that briefing with more questions than answers.
That is why I am offering this amendment today. A written memo of
understanding between the U.S. and the foreign country receiving the
detainee will provide a greater degree of transparency and
accountability than exists right now.
Mr. Chairman, one American casualty is too many. We must do more to
ensure that every precaution is taken if and when individuals are
transferred from GTMO. By providing this memo to the relevant oversight
committees of this body, we take one more step toward real
accountability for both the administration and for the foreign nation
accepting these detainees.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke) for his
cosponsorship. I would also like to commend the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. Cotton) for his work in offering this same requirement in the
Senate bill.
I include in the Record the letters I sent to the administration
requesting information on the transfer of detainees, which are the
basis for this amendment.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, December 15, 2015.
President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Obama: I write with grave concerns about
statements you made regarding the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba during a recent interview with Yahoo
News. In particular, I was troubled by your comments on
recidivism and on the process for selecting detainees for
release.
In the interview, you said of released detainees re-
entering the fight: ``Out of four-, five-, six-hundred people
that get released.. .a handful of them are going to be
embittered and still engaging in anti-US activities.''
However, the Director of National Intelligence identified 196
former detainees as either being confirmed or suspected of
returning to the battlefield in its September 2015 Report on
the Reengagement of Detainees Formerly Held at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba. That's a recidivism rate over 30 percent--this is
hardly a handful.
At the heart of the issue, however, is not the rate of
recidivism, but rather its intensity. One of the 196 is
Ibrahim al-Qosi. He was released in July 2012 to his home
country of Sudan, a country designated as a State Sponsor of
Terrorism by the State Department. Since his release, he has
become a senior leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
(AQAP), which took credit for the attack on Charlie Hebdo in
Paris in January 2015. A month later, Vincent Stewart, the
Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, testified before
Congress that AQAP ``remains committed to attacking the
West.'' We may disagree over what constitutes a handful, but
we cannot underestimate the difference another set of hands
can mean to these terrorist organizations.
The fact that al-Qosi was released to live in a US
government-designated State Sponsor of Terrorism is troubling
enough, but comments you made in the interview concerning the
release vetting process prompts more questions than it
answers. On that topic, you said:
``The judgment that we're continually making is: are there
individuals [in Guantanamo] who are significantly more
dangerous than the people who are already out there who are
fighting? What do they add? Do they have special skills? Do
they have special knowledge that ends up making them a
significant threat to the United States?''
Accordingly, I would like to request a classified briefing
on how the administration has been evaluating the remaining
detainees for release. Specifically, I would like the
briefing to address:
1. What criteria, quantifiable or otherwise, are used to
determine if a detainee is more or less dangerous than those
currently on the battlefield
2. The groups or specific individuals currently on the
battlefield that detainees are being compared to in order to
make those determinations
a. If the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) or its
leaders are part of this set, please also detail how the
weight given to the threat they pose has changed since
January 2014
3. Flow the special skills and knowledge are defined and
quantified
4. Any additional scrutiny given to detainees being
released to State Sponsors of Terror
It is disturbing that your administration seems to continue
underestimating the danger posed by former Guantanamo
detainees returning to the fight. One more terrorist on the
battlefield is too many because one more terrorist can be all
it takes to cause more death and destruction. I strongly urge
you to reconsider such consistent downplaying of this threat
and I look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Jackie Walorski,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, March 1, 2016.
President Barack Obama,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Obama: I am writing to follow up on a letter
I sent on December 15, 2015 regarding your policy on the
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and questions
surrounding the problem of recidivism. I am extremely
disappointed that, two-and-a-half months later, I have not
received any response. I am also troubled by the lack of
detail in your recent Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay
Detention Facility released last week, which provided no
clarity on the issues raised in the letter either.
Last week alone, Hamed Abderrahaman Ahmed, a former
detainee that was transferred to Spain, was arrested on
Tuesday, February 23 for recruiting fighters for the Islamic
State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Two days later, Ibrahim al-
Qosi, a former detainee that was transferred to Sudan,
released a message on Thursday encouraging jihad in Somalia.
He had also urged his followers to carry out attacks on New
Years Eve celebrations, particularly in New York City and
Paris. Recidivism is clearly a very real issue, but seems to
be underestimated by your administration.
In my December 15 letter, I had specifically raised the
case of Ibrahim al-Qosi who is now a senior leader of al
Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which took credit for
the attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris in January 2015. He was
also, curiously, transferred to a country that is designated
as a State Sponsor of Terrorism by the U.S. State Department.
The recently-released Plan for Closing the Guantanamo Bay
Detention Facility states that the U.S. government obtains
security assurances and humane treatment assurances from a
country before transferring a detainee. Among the security
assurances are restrictions on travel, monitoring of the
detainee, and periodic information sharing. However, al-Qosi
is currently operating out of Yemen. Obviously, there was a
breakdown in these security assurances.
Thus, I want to reiterate my request for a classified
briefing that covers the questions raised in my December 15
letter, which I am enclosing. I would also like the briefing
to address these additional questions:
1. Security assurances your administration received from
the government of Sudan before the transfer of Ibrahim al-
Qosi
2. The frequency and type of monitoring agreed to by the
government of Sudan on Ibrahim al-Qosi and measures taken by
the U.S. government to verify that this monitoring was taking
place
3. The frequency and type of information shared by the
government of Sudan on Ibrahim alQosi, his whereabouts, and
his activities after his transfer
4. The date that the government of Sudan informed the U.S.
government that Ibrahim alQosi was no longer in Sudan
5. Any punitive measures taken against the government of
Sudan or members of the government in connection with its
failure to live up to its commitments regarding the transfer
of Ibrahim al-Qosi
6. Humane treatment assurances your administration received
from the government of Sudan, whose head of state, Omar al-
Bashir, has an arrest warrant pending with the International
Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity,
before the transfer of Ibrahim al-Qosi
7. Questions 1, 2, 3, and 6 as they pertain to the two
other detainees your administration transferred to Sudan:
Noor Uthman Muhammed and Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris
8. Questions 4 and 5 as they pertain to Noor Uthman
Muhammed and Ibrahim Othman Ibrahim Idris if they are no
longer in Sudan
9. Any extra security and humane treatment assurances your
administration seeks from countries that are on the U.S.
State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism
10. Any ongoing negotiations with the governments of Iran
and Sudan regarding future transfer of Guantanamo detainees
Transferring Guantanamo detainees--known terrorists--to
countries that are State Sponsors of Terrorism is an
incredibly dangerous and misguided policy. No reasonable
person should trust these governments to follow through on
any promises they make to ensure detainees do not rejoin the
battle. I strongly urge you not to complete any future
transfers to these countries and I look forward to your
timely response to my request for a briefing.
Sincerely,
Jackie Walorski,
Member of Congress.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There are 80 detainees left at Guantanamo. A number have been
transferred. Of those 80, I could be wrong, but I believe it is
somewhere in the neighborhood of 34 of them have been cleared for
transfer, basically deemed not to be
[[Page H2690]]
risks to the United States. Restricting their ability to be transferred
simply drives up the cost of Guantanamo unnecessarily.
We have transferred a great many detainees out of Guantanamo. The
statistics cited go all the way back to the Bush administration when,
regrettably, we did let people go without proper vetting.
We, through this bill, in past years, have put a number of provisions
in place that require national security certifications that the people
being transferred are not a risk to the United States. That is already
required. This simply makes it more difficult to do that for no good
reason.
The recidivism in recent years has been drastically lower. It has
been less than 10 percent, nowhere near the 33 percent figure cited.
And the ones that are left to be transferred, like I said, are ones
that have been determined not to be a risk.
Now, we take our time in transferring these people to make sure that
we have a place to transfer them, that it is safe and secure, willing
to accept them and all of that. There are already multiple provisions
in law to try and make sure that we don't take any chances.
Unfortunately, when you release people, there are always risks; but
detaining people forever without charge and after you have determined
that they are not a risk is also a risk. Basically, it goes against the
very values of the United States of America. We could just never
release anyone from prison in the United States under these standards,
under the fact that, well, they might commit another crime. And they
might. So why don't we just lock them up forever?
We have a process, a very careful process, that has been worked out
in a bipartisan fashion to determine who needs to be held and who can
be released. Then, after we determine they can be released, even then,
we go through a process of where they are released to and work with the
host country and try to determine what the best and safest available
alternative is. This piles on to the bureaucracy and makes it more
difficult to do transfers that are in the best interest of the national
security of our country.
I oppose the amendment for those reasons.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Zinke), a cosponsor of this amendment.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chair, well, how soon we forget why they are there.
How soon we forget.
Why are they there? Go to New York and look at the names engraved of
the ladder men, the commercial pilots, the innocent.
I did a lot to put them there. I don't remember reading Miranda
rights or warrants. Yet some people want to bring them back to the
United States under U.S. law where rules of evidence and Miranda rights
would apply. Yet that is ignored.
Now we are asking for tighter controls overseas because one-third go
back to the battlefield. Is it a risk we should incur? The answer is
no. Why? Because what is left is the bottom. These are the guys that
are not hanging around evil. These are the guys that are evil. They are
absolutely evil, and we have seen it.
So putting more controls, more restrictions to protect American lives
is what we must do in Congress. This is not a Democratic or Republican
issue. This is an American issue.
{time} 1800
Mr. SMITH of Washington. Mr. Chair, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
I think that is the question: Why are they there? In the case of 26
of them, they are there because mistakes were made in picking them up.
This happened with many people at Guantanamo, particularly in the early
days, and these people have been there for a long time, where we
basically weren't taking any chances on whom we picked up. We threw out
a wide net and brought people in.
Now, there are estimated to be 44 of the folks there who are the
baddest of the bad, who we have direct connections to active terrorism,
who we know are a threat to the United States of America, and I am not
proposing whatsoever that we should release those.
But the question of why are they there is absolutely right, and it is
not for the reasons that the previous gentleman stated in the cases of
at least 26 of these inmates. They are there through a combination of
mistakes, misidentification, misinformation, many different reasons why
they were picked up, and the problem is, now: How do we transfer them
out? How do we find a home country to send them to?
I totally agree, if you are talking about incredibly dangerous people
who have done what the previous speaker said, we have got to keep those
people to protect America, but that is not the case with some of the
inmates at Guantanamo. That is why we have been working to return these
inmates to countries where they can be safely returned.
It is not everybody at Guantanamo who falls into that category. That
is the reason I oppose this amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Indiana has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Chairman, I guess in answer to the questions that
have been asked here, again, back to the fact that I think this is a
very commonsense amendment, this is talking about transparency and
accountability.
How did a detainee go from Sudan to Yemen? Because the rules are too
loose.
Let's just bring accountability and transparency into this issue so
the American people can see and so there is some accountability in this
country on where these people end up.
These are the worst of the worst. They have American blood on their
hands. The ones we are talking about from this point forward continue
to have unbelievable issues, unbelievably dangerous criminal attached
to their title. I am just simply asking for accountability and
transparency.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendments En Bloc No. 3 Offered by Mr. Thornberry
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, 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. 22, 24, 39, 40,
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, and 50 printed in part B of House
Report No. 114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry:
amendment no. 22 offered by mr. turner of ohio
At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12XX. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON JULY 2016 NATO SUMMIT IN
WARSAW, POLAND.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been
the cornerstone of transatlantic security cooperation and an
enduring instrument for promoting stability in Europe and
around the world for over 65 years.
(2) NATO currently faces a range of evolving security
challenges, including Russian aggression in Eastern Europe,
and instability and conflict in the Middle East and North
Africa. In the face of these varied challenges, NATO must
deter threats and, if necessary, defend NATO member states
against adversaries.
(3) Since NATO's 2014 summit in Wales, NATO member states
have made progress in implementing a Readiness Action Plan to
enhance allied readiness and collective defense in response
to Russian aggression. However, much work remains to be done.
(4) NATO's solidarity is strengthened by the bolstering of
NATO's conventional and nuclear deterrence, increased defense
spending by NATO member states, and continued enlargement of
the Alliance.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) at the July 2016 NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland and
beyond, the United States should--
(A) welcome Montenegro's accession to NATO;
(B) continue to work with aspirant countries to prepare
them for entry into NATO;
(C) continue supporting a Membership Action Plan (MAP) for
Georgia;
(D) encourage the leaders of Macedonia and Greece to find a
mutually agreeable solution to the name dispute between the
two countries;
(E) seek a Dayton II agreement to resolve the
constitutional issues of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
[[Page H2691]]
(F) work with the Republic of Kosovo to prepare the country
for entrance into the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program;
(G) take a leading role in working with NATO member states
to identify, through consensus, the current and future
security threats facing the Alliance; and
(H) take a leading role to work with other NATO member
states to ensure the alliance maintains the required
capabilities, including the gains in interoperability from
combat in Afghanistan, necessary to meet the security threats
to the Alliance;
(2) in Warsaw, NATO member states should build upon the
progress made since the 2014 Wales Summit, by committing
additional resources to NATO's Readiness Action Plan and
related measures to enhance allied readiness and deterrence;
(3) NATO member states should review defense spending to
ensure sufficient funding is obligated to meet NATO
responsibilities, including to allocate at least 2 percent of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to defense spending, and to
devote at least 20 percent of defense spending to defense
modernization and new equipment;
(4) the United States should commit to maintaining a robust
military presence in Europe as a means of promoting allied
interoperability, providing visible assurance to NATO allies,
and deterring Russian aggression in the region; and
(5) the United States reaffirms and remains committed to
the policies enumerated by NATO member states in the
Deterrence and Defense Posture Review, dated May 20, 2012,
and the Wales Summit Declaration of September 2014, including
the following statement: ``Deterrence, based on an
appropriate mix of nuclear, conventional, and missile defence
capabilities, remains a core element of our overall
strategy.''.
amendment no. 24 offered by mr. hanna of new york
In the table of contents for bill, insert after the item
pertaining to section 1867 the following:
Sec. 1868. Role of small business development centers in cyber security
and preparedness.
Sec. 1869. Additional cyber security assistance for small business
development centers.
Sec. 1870. Cybersecurity outreach for small business development
centers.
Sec. 1871. GAO study on small business cyber support services and small
business development center cyber strategy.
Sec. 1872. Prohibition on additional funds.
Page 832, insert after line 5 the following:
SEC. 1868. ROLE OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS IN
CYBER SECURITY AND PREPAREDNESS.
Section 21 of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648) is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ``and providing
access to business analysts who can refer small business
concerns to available experts:'' and inserting ``providing
access to business analysts who can refer small business
concerns to available experts; and, to the extent
practicable, providing assistance in furtherance of the Small
Business Development Center Cyber Strategy developed under
section 1871(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017:''; and
(2) in subsection (c)--
(A) in paragraph (2)--
(i) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``and'' at the end;
(ii) in subparagraph (F), by striking the period and
inserting ``; and''; and
(iii) by adding at the end of the following:
``(G) access to cyber security specialists to counsel,
assist, and inform small business concern clients, in
furtherance of the Small Business Development Center Cyber
Strategy developed under section .''.
SEC. 1869. ADDITIONAL CYBER SECURITY ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL
BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
Section 21(a) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 648(a))
is amended by adding at the end the following:
``(8) Cyber security assistance.--The Department of
Homeland Security, and any other Federal department or agency
in coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, may
provide assistance to small business development centers,
through the dissemination of cybersecurity risk information
and other homeland security information, to help small
business concerns in developing or enhancing cyber security
infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, and cyber training
programs for employees.''.
SEC. 1870. CYBERSECURITY OUTREACH FOR SMALL BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT CENTERS.
Section 227 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C.
148) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (l) as subsection (m); and
(2) by inserting after subsection (k) the following:
``(l) Cybersecurity Outreach.--
``(1) In general.--The Secretary may provide assistance to
small business development centers, through the dissemination
of cybersecurity risk information and other homeland security
information, to help small business concerns in developing or
enhancing cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat
awareness, and cyber training programs for employees.
``(2) Definitions.--For purposes of this subsection, the
terms `small business concern' and `small business
development center' have the meaning given such terms,
respectively, under section 3 of the Small Business Act.''.
SEC. 1871. GAO STUDY ON SMALL BUSINESS CYBER SUPPORT SERVICES
AND SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CENTER CYBER
STRATEGY.
(a) Review of Current Cyber Security Resources.--
(1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall conduct a review of current cyber security
resources at the Federal level aimed at assisting small
business concerns with developing or enhancing cyber security
infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, or cyber training
programs for employees.
(2) Content.--The review required under paragraph (1) shall
include the following:
(A) An accounting and description of all Federal Government
programs, projects, and activities that currently provide
assistance to small business concerns in developing or
enhancing cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat
awareness, or cyber training programs for employees.
(B) An assessment of how widely utilized the resources
described under subparagraph (A) are by small business
concerns and a review of whether or not such resources are
duplicative of other programs and structured in a manner that
makes them accessible to and supportive of small business
concerns.
(3) Report.--The Comptroller General shall issue a report
to the Congress, the Small Business Administrator, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and any association
recognized under section 21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business
Act containing all findings and determinations made in
carrying out the review required under paragraph (1).
(b) Small Business Development Center Cyber Strategy.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the issuance
of the report under subsection (a)(3), the Small Business
Administrator and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall
work collaboratively to develop a Small Business Development
Center Cyber Strategy.
(2) Consultation.--In developing the strategy under this
subsection, the Small Business Administrator and the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall consult with entities
representing the concerns of small business development
centers, including any association recognized under section
21(a)(3)(A) of the Small Business Act.
(3) Content.--The strategy required under paragraph (1)
shall include, at minimum, the following:
(A) Plans for incorporating small business development
centers (hereinafter in this section referred to as
``SBDCs'') into existing cyber programs to enhance services
and streamline cyber assistance to small business concerns.
(B) To the extent practicable, methods for the provision of
counsel and assistance to improve a small business concern's
cyber security infrastructure, cyber threat awareness, and
cyber training programs for employees, including--
(i) working to ensure individuals are aware of best
practices in the areas of cyber security, cyber threat
awareness, and cyber training;
(ii) working with individuals to develop cost-effective
plans for implementing best practices in these areas;
(iii) entering into agreements, where practical, with
Information Sharing and Analysis Centers or similar cyber
information sharing entities to gain an awareness of
actionable threat information that may be beneficial to small
business concerns; and
(iv) providing referrals to area specialists when
necessary.
(C) An analysis of--
(i) how Federal Government programs, projects, and
activities identified by the Comptroller General in the
report issued under subsection (a)(1) can be leveraged by
SBDCs to improve access to high-quality cyber support for
small business concerns;
(ii) additional resources SBDCs may need to effectively
carry out their role; and
(iii) how SBDCs can leverage existing partnerships and
develop new ones with Federal, State, and local government
entities as well as private entities to improve the quality
of cyber support services to small business concerns.
(4) Delivery of strategy.--Not later than 180 days after
the issuance of the report under subsection (a)(3), the Small
Business Development Center Cyber Strategy shall be issued to
the Committees on Homeland Security and Small Business of the
House of Representatives and the Committees on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs and Small Business and
Entrepreneurship of the Senate.
SEC. 1872. PROHIBITION ON ADDITIONAL FUNDS.
No additional funds are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out sections 1868 through 1871 or the amendments made
by such sections.
amendment no. 39 offered by mr. bera of california
At the end of subtitle H of title V, add the following new
section:
SEC. __. REPORT ON AVAILABILITY OF COLLEGE CREDIT FOR SKILLS
ACQUIRED DURING MILITARY SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs,
Education, and Labor, shall submit to Congress a report on
the transfer of skills into equivalent college credits or
technical certifications for members of the Armed Forces
[[Page H2692]]
leaving the military. Such report shall describe each the
following:
(1) Each skill that may be acquired during military service
that is eligible for transfer into an equivalent college
credit or technical certification.
(2) The academic level of the equivalent college credit or
technical certification for which each such skill is
eligible.
(3) Each academic institution that awards an equivalent
college credit or technical certification for such skills,
including--
(A) whether each such academic institution is public or
private and whether such institution is for profit; and
(B) the number of veterans that applied to such academic
institutions who were able to receive equivalent college
credits or technical certifications in the last fiscal year,
and the academic level of the credits or certifications.
(4) The number of members of the Armed Forces who left the
military in the last fiscal year and the number of those
individuals who met with an academic or technical training
advisor as part of their participation in the Transition
Assistance Program.
amendment no. 40 offered by mr. mcgovern of massachuetts
Page 173, after line 2, add the following new section:
SEC. 599A. ATOMIC VETERANS SERVICE MEDAL.
(a) Service Medal Required.--The Secretary of Defense shall
design and produce a military service medal, to be known as
the ``Atomic Veterans Service Medal'', to honor retired and
former members of the Armed Forces who are radiation-exposed
veterans (as such term is defined in section 1112(c)(3) of
title 38, United States Code).
(b) Distribution of Medal.--
(1) Issuance to retired and former members.--At the request
of a radiation-exposed veteran, the Secretary of Defense
shall issue the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the veteran.
(2) Issuance to next-of-kin.--In the case of a radiation-
exposed veteran who is deceased, the Secretary may provide
for issuance of the Atomic Veterans Service Medal to the
next-of-kin of the person.
(3) Application.--The Secretary shall prepare and
disseminate as appropriate an application by which radiation-
exposed veterans and their next-of-kin may apply to receive
the Atomic Veterans Service Medal.
amendment no. 41 offered by mr. grayson of florida
Page 243, strike lines 14 and 15 and insert the following:
``chapter--
``(A) in a more effective, efficient, or economical manner;
and
``(B) at a level of quality at least comparable to the
quality of services beneficiaries would receive from a
military medical treatment facility; or''
amendment no. 42 offered by mr. carter of texas
At the end of subtitle C of title VII, add the following
new section:
SEC. 7__. USE OF MEFLOQUINE FOR MALARIA.
(a) Mefloquine.--In providing health care to members of the
Armed Forces, the Secretary of Defense shall require--
(1) that the use of mefloquine for the prophylaxis of
malaria be limited to members with intolerance or
contraindications to other chemoprophylaxis;
(2) that mefloquine be prescribed by a licensed medical
provider on an individual basis, and
(3) that members prescribed mefloquine for malaria
prophylaxis be counseled by the medical provider about the
potential side effects of the drug and be provided the Food
and Drug Administration-required patient information
handouts.
(b) Process and Review.--
(1) Process.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, in providing health care to members of
the Armed Forces, the Secretary shall develop a standardized
process to document the screening for contraindications and
patient education, including a prior authorization form, to
be used by all medical providers prescribing mefloquine for
malaria prophylaxis.
(2) Annual review.--The Secretary shall conduct an annual
review of each mefloquine prescription at all military
medical treatment facilities to evaluate the documentation of
the assessment for contraindications, justification for not
using other chemoprophylaxis, and patient education for the
safe use of mefloquine and its side effects.
(c) Adverse Health Effects of Mefloquine.--The Secretary of
Defense shall expand the missions of the Hearing Center of
Excellence, the Vision Center of Excellence, the Defense
Centers of Excellence for Psychological Health and Traumatic
Brain Injury (including the Deployment Health Clinical
Center), and the Center for Deployment Health Research to
include, as appropriate, improving the clinical evaluation,
diagnosis, management, and epidemiological study of adverse
health effects among members of the Armed Forces following
exposure to mefloquine.
amendment no. 43 offered by mr. wilson of south carolina
Section 825 is amended by inserting at the end of
subsection (f) (page 304, after line 12) the following:
(3) Termination of report requirement.--The requirement to
submit a report under this subsection shall terminate on the
date occurring five years after the date of the enactment of
this Act.
amendment no. 44 offered by mr. wilson of south carolina
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:
SEC. 843. REVISION OF EFFECTIVE DATE FOR AMENDMENTS RELATING
TO UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR BUSINESS
MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION.
Section 901(a)(1) of the Carl Levin and Howard P. ``Buck''
Mckeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3462; 10 U.S.C. 132a
note) is amended by striking ``February 1, 2017'' and
inserting ``February 1, 2018''.
amendment no. 45 offered by mr. beyer of virginia
At the end of title VIII, add the following new section:
SEC. 843. PROMOTION OF VALUE-BASED DEFENSE PROCUREMENT.
(a) Statement of Policy.--It shall be the policy of the
Department of Defense to avoid using lowest price technically
acceptable source selection criteria in inappropriate
circumstances that potentially deny the Department the
benefits of cost and technical tradeoffs in the source
selection process.
(b) Requirement for Solicitations.--For new solicitations
issued on or after the date that is 120 days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, lowest price technically
acceptable source selection criteria shall be used only in
situations in which--
(1) the Department of Defense is able to comprehensively
and clearly describe the minimum requirements expressed in
term of performance objectives, measures, and standards that
will be used to determine acceptability of offers;
(2) the Department would realize no, or minimal, value from
a contract proposal exceeding the minimum technical or
performance requirements set forth in the request for
proposal;
(3) the proposed technical approaches will require no, or
minimal, subjective judgment by the source selection
authority as to the desirability of one offeror's proposal
versus a competing proposal;
(4) a review of technical proposals of offerors other than
the lowest bidder would result in no, or minimal, benefit to
the Department; and
(5) the contracting officer has included a justification
for the use of a lowest price technically acceptable
evaluation methodology in the contract file, if the contract
to be awarded is predominately for the acquisition of
information technology services, systems engineering and
technical assistance services, or other knowledge-based
professional services.
(c) Avoidance of Use of Lowest Price Technically Acceptable
Source Selection Criteria in Procurements of Information
Technology and Auditing.--To the maximum extent practicable,
the use of lowest price technically acceptable source
selection criteria shall be avoided when the procurement is
predominately for the acquisition of information technology
services, systems engineering and technical assistance
services, audit or audit readiness services, or other
knowledge-based professional services.
(d) Reporting.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter for 3
years, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the number of
instances in which lowest-price technically acceptable source
selection criteria is used, including an explanation of how
the criteria was considered when making a determination to
use lowest price technically acceptable source selection
criteria.
amendment no. 46 offered by mr. burgess of texas
At the end of subtitle A of title X (page 370, after line
17), insert the following new section:
SEC. 1003. 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.
amendment no. 47 offered by mr. turner of ohio
Add at the end of subtitle F of title X the following new
section:
SEC. 10__. BRIEFING ON CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING LOCATIONS OF
AIR FORCE INSTALLATION AND MISSION SUPPORT
CENTER HEADQUARTERS.
(a) Briefing.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Air Force
shall provide a briefing to the Committee on Armed Services
of the House of Representatives on the Department of the Air
Force's process and reasoning for using proximity to primary
medium commercial hub airports as part of the mission
criteria for the Air Force Installation and Mission Support
Center headquarters strategic basing process.
(b) Contents of Briefing.--The briefing under subsection
(a) will specifically address the rationale behind the
distance categories used to allocate points under this
mission criteria referred to in subsection (a), and shall
provide references to any existing government guidance that
supports use of these distance categories. In addition, the
briefing
[[Page H2693]]
shall include an analysis regarding the reasons why the
Department did not consider commuting times as a more
equitable way of determining proximity to commercial hub
airports that would account for the impact of different
traffic conditions across the candidate locations.
amendment no. 49 offered by ms. frankel of florida
Page 462, after line 13, insert the following new section:
SEC. 1098. SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING AMERICAN VETERANS
DISABLED FOR LIFE.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) There are at least 3,600,000 veterans currently living
with service-connected disabilities.
(2) As a result of their service, many veterans are
permanently disabled throughout their lives and in many cases
must rely on the support of their families and friends when
these visible and invisible burdens become too much to bear
alone.
(3) October 5, which is the anniversary of the dedication
of the American Veterans Disabled for Life Memorial, has been
recognized as an appropriate day on which to honor American
veterans disabled for life each year.
(b) Sense of Congress.--Congress--
(1) expresses its appreciation to the men and women left
permanently wounded, ill, or injured as a result of their
service in the Armed Forces;
(2) supports the annual recognition of American veterans
disabled for life each year; and
(3) encourages the American people to honor American
veterans disabled for life each year with appropriate
programs and activities.
amendment no. 50 offered by mr. beyer of virginia
Page 462, after line 13, insert the following:
SEC. 1098. STUDY ON MILITARY HELICOPTER NOISE.
(a) In General.--The Secretary of Defense, in coordination
with the Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration, shall--
(1) conduct a study on the effects of military helicopter
noise on National Capital Region communities and individuals;
and
(2) develop recommendations for the reduction of the
effects of military helicopter noise on individuals,
structures, and property values in the National Capital
Region.
(b) Focus.--In conducting the study under subsection (a) ,
the Secretary and the Administrator shall focus on air
traffic control, airspace design, airspace management, and
types of aircraft, to address helicopter noise problems and
shall take into account the needs of law enforcement,
emergency, and military operations.
(c) Consideration of Views.--In conducting the study under
subsection (a), the Secretary shall consider the views of
representatives of--
(1) members of the Armed Forces;
(2) law enforcement agencies;
(3) community stakeholders, including residents and local
government officials; and
(4) organizations with an interest in reducing military
helicopter noise.
(d) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to
Congress a report on the results of the study conducted under
subsection (a).
(2) Availability to the public.--The Secretary shall make
the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, each of these amendments in this en
bloc package has been worked on both sides of the aisle. I believe this
package deserves Members' support.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the chairman from Texas
for adding my amendment to this en bloc.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment today would require the Defense Department
and FAA to study the impact of military helicopter noise in the
national capital region and to develop recommendations to reduce the
effect of noise on people and property.
The airspace around Washington, D.C., is more restricted and more
highly congested than in any other part of the country. On average, 144
helicopter operations take place here every day, 75 percent of which
are military, encompassing all types of military aircraft. One recent
addition to our airspace is the V-22 Osprey, a hybrid helicopter and
airplane with the width of an 8-story building. It has been deployed to
war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan, rescue missions in Haiti and the San
Juan Mountains, and now the peaceful communities of northern Virginia.
As most of my colleagues probably know, the Osprey can transition
from a turboprop plane to a conventional helicopter, all while hovering
at a low altitude. This noisy transition takes place directly over the
Fairlington neighborhood in my district in Arlington, Virginia.
Mr. Chairman, the communities in my district are realistic about the
noise helicopters generate and are sensitive to the operational needs
of the military, but the routes and altitude caps dictated by the FAA
follow best practices for public and private aircraft, not military
aircraft designed for a conflict zone.
A total quieting of the skies in northern Virginia is not possible or
even practical; but given the military's insistence on using such
heavy, loud aircraft, it is only right that they work with the FAA to
reexamine the existing route structure and offer some possible
solutions.
I urge my fellow Members to support this amendment en bloc.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would inform the gentleman that I
have no speakers on this amendment at this point, so I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I have no speakers at this time.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the chairman for his graciousness.
Mr. Chair, I rise in favor of the McGovern-Pompeo amendment, which is
part of this en bloc, to create a medal honoring the service of atomic
veterans or their surviving family members.
Between 1945 and 1962, over 200,000 servicemembers conducted hundreds
of nuclear weapons tests and were exposed to dangerous levels of
radiation. Sworn to secrecy, they couldn't even tell their doctors.
Presidents Bill Clinton and George H. W. Bush recognized their
service by providing specialized care and compensation, but this isn't
enough.
Joe Mondello, a constituent of mine from Shrewsbury, Massachusetts,
and other atomic veterans helped bring this issue to my attention. It
is long past time to honor their service.
Last year, with the help of the chairman, in the DOD authorization
bill we included this amendment, but then the Department of Defense
insisted the Senate remove it. Their explanation? We don't have a medal
and don't want to create one. Congress should find another way to honor
these veterans. That is no excuse. In fact, that is insensitive, it is
dismissive, and it is ungrateful. We should be appalled.
Tragically, many of these atomic veterans have already died without
receiving recognition. They kept a code of silence that likely led to
many of them passing away too soon. We must right this wrong. Support
this amendment. I urge the Senate to do the same thing.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers.
I urge adoption of the en bloc package.
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. 4 Offered by Mr. Thornberry
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to House Resolution 732, 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. 48, 51, 52, 53,
54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, and 61 printed in part B of House Report No.
114-569, offered by Mr. Thornberry:
amendment no. 48 offered by mr. zeldin of new york
Page 423, after line 3, insert the following:
SEC. 1070. REPORT ON TESTING AND INTEGRATION OF MINEHUNTING
SONAR SYSTEMS TO IMPROVE LITTORAL COMBAT SHIP
MINEHUNTING CAPABILITIES.
(a) Report to Congress.--Not later than April 1, 2018, the
Secretary of the Navy shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report that contains the findings of an
assessment of all operational minehunting Synthetic Aperture
Sonar (hereinafter referred to as ``SAS'') technologies
suitable to
[[Page H2694]]
meet the requirements for use on the Littoral Combat Ship
Mine Countermeasures Mission Package.
(b) Elements.--The report required by subsection (a) shall
include--
(1) an explanation of the future acquisition strategy for
the minehunting mission package;
(2) specific details regarding the capabilities of all in-
production SAS systems available for integration into the
Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasure Mission Package;
(3) an assessment of key performance parameters for the
Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures Mission Package
with each of the assessed SAS technologies; and
(4) a review of the Department of the Navy's efforts to
evaluate SAS technologies in operation with allied Navies for
future use on the Littoral Combat Ship Mine Countermeasures
Mission Package.
(c) System Testing.--The Secretary of the Navy is
encouraged to perform at-sea testing and experimentation of
sonar systems in order to provide data in support of the
assessment required by subsection (a).
amendment no. 51 offered by mr. trott of michigan
At the end of subtitle C of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12XX. UNITED NATIONS PROCESSING CENTER IN ERBIL, IRAQI
KURDISTAN, TO ASSIST INTERNATIONALLY-DISPLACED
COMMUNITIES.
The President shall instruct the United States Permanent
Representative to the United Nations to use the voice and
vote of the United States at the United Nations to seek the
establishment of a United Nations processing center in Erbil,
Iraqi Kurdistan, to assist internationally-displaced
communities.
amendment no. 52 offered by mr. vela of texas
At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12XX. REPORT ON VIOLENCE AND CARTEL ACTIVITY IN MEXICO.
The Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional
defense committees a report on violence and cartel activity
in Mexico and the impact of such on United States national
security.
amendment no. 53 offered by mr. thornberry of texas
At the end of subtitle E of title XII, add the following:
SEC. 12XX. UNITED STATES POLICY ON TAIWAN.
(a) Findings.--Congress finds the following:
(1) For more than 50 years, the United States and Taiwan
have had a unique and close relationship, which has supported
the economic, cultural, and strategic advantage to both
countries.
(2) The United States has vital security and strategic
interests in the Taiwan Strait.
(3) The Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C.
3301 et seq.) has been instrumental in maintaining peace,
security, and stability in the Taiwan Strait since its
enactment in 1979.
(4) The Taiwan Relations Act states that it is the policy
of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a
defensive character and to maintain the capacity of the
United States to defend against any forms of coercion that
would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic
system, of the people on Taiwan.
(b) Statement of Policy.--The Taiwan Relations Act (Public
Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et seq.) forms the cornerstone of
United States policy and relations with Taiwan.
(c) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than February 15, 2017, the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State shall jointly
submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that contains a description of the steps the United States
has taken, plans to take, and will take to provide Taiwan
with arms of a defensive character in accordance with the
Taiwan Relations Act (Public Law 96-8; 22 U.S.C. 3301 et
seq.).
(2) Appropriate committees of congress defined.--In this
subsection, the term ``appropriate committees of Congress''
means--
(A) the congressional defense committees; and
(B) Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the
Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives.
amendment no. 54 offered by mr. nolan of minnesota
At the end of section 1504, page 599, line 3, add the
following new subsection:
(c) Condition on Use of Funds for Syria Train and Equip
Programs.--Amounts authorized to be appropriated by this
section for the Syria Train and Equip programs, as specified
in the funding table in section 4302, may not be provided to
any recipient that the Secretary of Defense has reported,
pursuant to a quarterly progress report submitted pursuant to
section 1209 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2015 (Public Law 113-291; 128 Stat. 3541), as
having misused provided training and equipment.
amendment no. 55 offered by mr. aguilar of california
At the end of subtitle C of title XVI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 16__. PILOT PROGRAMS ON DIRECT COMMISSIONS TO CYBER
POSITIONS.
(a) Authority.--The Secretary of the Army and the Secretary
of the Air Force shall each carry out a pilot program to
improve the ability of the Army and the Air Force,
respectively, to recruit cyber professionals.
(b) Elements.--Under the pilot program, the Secretaries
shall each allow individuals who meet educational, physical,
and other requirements determined appropriate by the
Secretary to receive original appointments as commissioned
officers in a cyber specialty.
(c) Consultation.--In developing the pilot program, the
Secretaries may consult with the Secretary of the Navy with
respect to a similar program carried out by the Secretary of
the Navy.
(d) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that
Congress supports the direct commission of individuals
trained in cyber specialties because the demand for skilled
cyber personnel outstrips the supply of such personnel, and
there is great competition for such personnel with private
industry.
amendment no. 56 offered by mr. dold of illinois
In the table in section 2207(b) of division B (relating to
the Extension of 2014 Project Authorizations for the Navy),
insert after the projects relating to Hawaii a new item as
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois................................ Great Lakes.............. Unaccompanied Housing..... $35,851,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
amendment no. 57 offered by ms. judy chu of california
Page 798, line 22, strike ``and''.
Page 799, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
Page 799, insert after line 2 the following:
(VI) the population density of the area to be served by the
women's business center.
amendment no. 58 offered by mr. perlmutter of colorado
Add at the end of subtitle D of title XXVIII the following:
SEC. 28__. MODIFICATION OF LAND CONVEYANCE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.
Section 5(d)(1) of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National
Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-402; 16 U.S.C.
668dd note) is amended by adding at the end the following new
subparagraph:
``(C)(i) Notwithstanding clause (i) of subparagraph (A),
the restriction attached to any deed to any real property
designated for disposal under this section that prohibits the
use of the property for residential or industrial purposes
may be modified or removed if it is determined, through a
risk assessment performed pursuant to the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), that the property is
protective for the proposed use.
``(ii) The Secretary of the Army shall not be responsible
or liable for any of the following:
``(I) The cost of any risk assessment described in clause
(i) or any actions taken in response to such risk assessment.
``(II) Any damages attributable to the use of property for
residential or industrial purposes as the result of the
modification or removal of a deed restriction pursuant to
clause (i), or the costs of any actions taken in response to
such damages.''.
amendment no. 59 offered by mr. pompeo of kansas
Page 384, after line 15, insert the following:
SEC. 1038. DECLASSIFICATION OF INFORMATION ON PAST TERRORIST
ACTIVITIES OF DETAINEES TRANSFERRED FROM UNITED
STATES NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA.
(a) In General.--Not later than 120 days after the date of
the enactment of this Act, the Director of National
Intelligence shall--
(1) complete a declassification review of intelligence
reports prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center
prior to Periodic Review Board sessions or detainee transfers
on the past terrorist activities of individuals detained at
United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were
transferred or released from United States Naval Station,
Guantanamo Bay; and
(2) make available to the public any information
declassified as a result of the declassification review; and
(3) submit to the appropriate congressional committees,
consistent with the protection of sources and methods, a
report setting forth--
(A) the results of the declassification review; and
(B) if any information covered by the declassification
review was not declassified pursuant to the review, a
justification for the determination not to declassify such
information.
(b) Past Terrorist Activities.--For purposes of this
section, the past terrorist activities of an individual shall
include the terrorist activities conducted by the individual
before the transfer of the individual to the detention
facility at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
including, at a minimum, the following:
(1) The terrorist organization, if any, with which
affiliated.
(2) The terrorist training, if any, received.
(3) The role in past terrorist attacks against the
interests or allies of the United States.
(4) The direct responsibility, if any, for the death of
citizens of the United States or members of the Armed Forces.
(5) Any admission of any matter specified in paragraphs (1)
through (4).
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
[[Page H2695]]
(1) the congressional defense committees;
(2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of
Representatives;
(3) the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate;
(4) the Permanent Committee on Intelligence of the House of
Representatives; and
(5) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate.
amendment no. 61 offered by ms. mcsally of arizona
Page 384, after line 15, insert the following:
SEC. 1038. PROHIBITION ON ENFORCEMENT OF MILITARY COMMISSION
RULINGS PREVENTING MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
FROM CARRYING OUT OTHERWISE LAWFUL DUTIES BASED
ON MEMBER GENDER.
(a) Prohibition.--No order, ruling, finding, or other
determination of a military commission may be construed or
implemented to prohibit or restrict a member of the Armed
Forces from carrying out duties otherwise lawfully assigned
to such member to the extent that the basis for such
prohibition or restriction is the gender of such member.
(b) Applicability to Prior Orders, etc..--In the case of an
order, ruling, finding, or other determination described in
subsection (a) that was issued before the date of the
enactment of this Act in a military commission and is still
effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, such
order, ruling, finding, or determination shall be deemed to
be vacated and null and void only to the extent of any
prohibition or restriction on the duties of members of the
Armed Forces that is based on the gender of members.
(c) Military Commission Defined.--In this section, the term
``military commission'' means a military commission
established under chapter 47A of title 10, United States
Code, and any military commission otherwise established or
convened by law.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Thornberry) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, this additional en bloc package No. 4
consists of a number of amendments that have been worked with both
sides of the aisle. I believe that this en bloc package deserves the
support of all Members.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, at this time I do not have a speaker, so
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, there are a number of subjects that are covered in this
en bloc package, and I think it exemplifies the work that goes into
creating this defense authorization bill.
If you look at the size of the bill, it is very large. As a matter of
fact, it is over 1,200 pages when you look at the legislation. Of
course, one of the reasons this bill is so large this year is that it
includes five major packages of reforms, including: acquisition reform,
healthcare reform, commissary reform, organizational reform, and
Uniform Code of Military Justice reform.
All of these things have been worked with Members on both sides of
the aisle. I understand that not all Members may agree with every
provision. I certainly don't. But the point is this bill supports the
men and women who risk their lives to serve our country, so that is the
time when all of us should put aside whatever differences we have with
this provision or that or this approach or that and come together on
what has been for 54 years, and continues to be this year, a bipartisan
product.
For all of the amendments that are included in this en bloc package,
I believe they deserve the support of the House. I hope they will be
adopted.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Chairman, the Small Business
Administration's, or SBA's, Women's Business Centers, the WBCs, fill a
critical gap in our economy.
Despite being more than 50 percent of the population, women own just
30 percent of all businesses, and the same obstacles that keep some
from starting a business keep others from growing theirs.
By providing specialized resources, Women's Business Centers are
designed to make sure women-owned businesses succeed. That is why it is
imperative that female entrepreneurs are able to access these resources
in a convenient way.
The reality is that in large, densely populated areas, the need for
these centers is greater due to the higher concentration of women
entrepreneurs. In fact, Los Angeles County was home to more women-owned
businesses than any other county in the entire country in 2012, yet
some women had to wait weeks or months or were forced to travel long
distances in order to visit a WBC because the center closest to them
was unable to meet the demand.
My amendment would address this reality by ensuring that the SBA
considers the population density of the area to be serviced when
reviewing and selecting eligible organizations for the Women's Business
Center grants. We must continue to work to ensure that these centers
are convenient and accessible for all women because, when women
succeed, America succeeds.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Chairman, among the amendments in this en bloc package is one by
Mr. Nolan of Minnesota that prohibits funding for the Syria Train and
Equip programs to recipients that the Secretary of Defense has reported
as having misused that training or equipment.
This amendment comes from a Democratic Member, but I think it is very
important for all of us to do what we can to ensure that training and
weapons provided to forces we are assisting in Syria not be misused,
that they not get in the hands of terrorists. Just to take that one
example, where I believe a good amendment has been accepted by both
sides of the aisle, that helps ensure that the goals we all share--in
this case, for the Syria Train and Equip program--are met. That is an
example of the bipartisan nature of this bill.
Similarly, there is an amendment here by Mr. Aguilar of California
creating a pilot program to improve the ability to recruit cyber
professionals, a new domain of warfare, an enormous challenge for the
government to compete with Silicon Valley, the Austin-San Antonio
corridor, and other places that are recruiting cyber professionals, but
a good and valued step. Those are examples of the amendments in this en
bloc package.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chair, I have no other speakers on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of the amendment.
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.
{time} 1815
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Larsen of Washington
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. LARSEN of WASHINGTON. 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 995, line 2, strike ``to be new and emergency in
nature'' and insert ``will significantly reduce the nuclear
threat''.
Page 995, line 9, insert ``and'' after the semicolon.
Page 995, strike lines 13 through 17.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Larsen) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, this amendment aims to remedy
a provision in the base text that could unnecessarily hamstring the
vital work of preventing terrorists from obtaining nuclear material.
Section 3115 of the NDAA prohibits collaboration with Russia on
atomic energy defense activities, but provides the Secretary of Energy
with waiver authority.
However, the Secretary of Energy can only exercise the waiver if
there is a new emergency and if we completely eliminate the backlog of
physical security maintenance work at DOE defense nuclear sites in the
U.S.
I stand with my colleagues in opposition to Russian aggression in
Crimea,
[[Page H2696]]
Ukraine, Syria, and threatening activity in the Baltics and elsewhere.
However, I believe that the terms of this waiver are wrong and would
be, frankly, impossible to execute. If we give the Secretary of Energy
a waiver, it should be achievable.
That is why my amendment improves the standard to a simple one: the
Secretary must certify that this cooperation will significantly reduce
the nuclear threat.
It is no secret that nuclear material in Russia is vulnerable to
theft and smuggling. According to Harvard University's Managing the
Atom project, Russian nuclear material is at risk from both insiders
and outsiders. Nuclear material stolen in Russia does not have to
remain in Russia and, therefore, could be a threat to the homeland.
Currently, we do not do any nuclear threat reduction work with
Russia. If the opportunity presented itself and it was in the interest
of national security, why not at least have that option?
So I encourage Members to support my amendment so our government can
protect Americans from nuclear terrorism, regardless of where that
material originates.
Mr. Chairman, I urge people to support this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the points raised by the distinguished
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
As a matter of fact, I remember very well that one of my early
speeches on the floor of the House was on a motion to recommit--
supporting a Democratic motion, actually--regarding our efforts to help
the Russians get control of their nuclear material. That certainly has
been an important priority.
It is also true that, since I was in the well in the mid-1990s on
that, things have changed. What we see is Russia spending an incredible
amount of money modernizing a variety of weapons systems, including
their nuclear weapons. It includes submarines and bombers and a whole
variety of things, but it includes new nuclear weapons.
Yet, on the other hand, we have enormous backlogs of deferred
maintenance, we call it, in our nuclear infrastructure, in our nuclear
weapons complex.
Deferred maintenance is a euphemism, Mr. Chairman, because even in my
own district we have folks working in deplorable conditions. We are
talking about engineers and others working in conditions that no one
should have to work in because we have neglected our infrastructure
throughout the nuclear complex.
So I think the purpose of the underlying provision is that we
shouldn't spend money doing what Russia has the money to do for itself,
especially when our own nuclear infrastructure is in such disrepair.
Now, there is a waiver provision. If there is something crucial,
then, obviously, another arrangement can be made. But the basic premise
is Russia has changed. They are behaving not only more aggressively,
but modernizing their military. Meanwhile, we have neglected ours. It
is time for us to catch up.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the
distinguished gentleman from Texas that Russia has changed. The threat
of loose nuclear material has not changed. Nuclear material in Russia
is far more vulnerable than in the United States, and stolen nuclear
material anywhere is a threat to Americans.
Now, on a bipartisan basis, this committee has increased funding for
domestic physical security improvements. However, at current funding
levels, that backlog will exist for years.
If Congress is going to establish a waiver process, it should be an
achievable one. Right now we do not do any of this work in Russia, but
we have the opportunity to reduce the nuclear threat, and we should
keep that option available. I would ask this body to support my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate the importance that
the gentleman places on securing nuclear material. I share his view. I
still am very concerned, for example, that terrorists will obtain--and
we know they would use--nuclear material if they have the opportunity.
The concern here is that we are doing things for Russians with
American taxpayer dollars so they need not do it for themselves. In
fact, what they do for themselves is build more capability that
threatens us. We can't continue down that road.
I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to do likewise.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment No. 26 Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. 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 XXXI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 31__. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY.
(a) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated
or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017 for the
Department of Energy for the Office of the Secretary of
Energy, not more than 50 percent may be obligated or expended
until the date on which the Secretary submits to the
appropriate congressional committees the report under
subsection (b).
(b) Report.--Not later than 15 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the
appropriate congressional committees the full report, and any
related materials, titled ``U.S. Nuclear Deterrence in the
Coming Decades'', dated August 15, 2014.
(c) Appropriate Congressional Committees Defined.--In this
section, the term ``appropriate congressional committees''
means--
(1) the congressional defense committees; and
(2) the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the
House of Representatives and the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Rogers) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I offer a simple amendment to
defend congressional prerogatives and ensure Congress is getting full
information from the administration regarding one of our Nation's
highest priority defense missions: nuclear deterrence.
Several years ago the Secretary of Energy tasked the Nation's nuclear
weapons labs to produce a study on the future of nuclear deterrence.
That study was finalized in August of 2014, almost 2 years ago.
The Secretary made a personal commitment to senior members of the
Armed Services Committee that he would send over the report resulting
from that study. Now, 2 years later, we still have not received that
report.
This amendment will ensure DOE acts to fulfill the Secretary's
commitment to provide this report to Congress, ensure Congress can
conduct appropriate oversight and has visibility into matters as
important as the future of nuclear deterrence, which the Secretary of
Defense has called the Nation's highest priority defense mission, and
it fences only a couple million dollars in administrative funds within
the Office of the Secretary. This will be enough to ensure we receive
this report and will not impact the DOE's mission at all.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Tennessee is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chair, I appreciate my friendship with the gentleman
from Alabama, but I think this amendment goes way too far.
To fence half the funds of the Office of the Secretary of Energy is
overkill.
[[Page H2697]]
Secretary Moniz has done an excellent job. This is really a punishment,
though, that will go to the next Secretary, a man who is not in any way
responsible for this delay.
Has there been a delay? It is my information that the chairman of the
full committee has had access to this report. Access to this report has
been offered to the gentleman from Alabama and to myself.
Without having read the report, we do not know what issues of
classification or bureaucracy are involved in this. But this is among
the Nation's most precious and most classified secrets. To me, to use a
sledgehammer like this against a good person and against that good
person's successor, whoever that may be, is really a crude way to
handle a breakdown in communications.
Surely there is a better way to solve this problem. His office is
just down the street. We get along with him just fine. He has been
fully communicative and extremely able in every aspect. But to have a
delayed report merit a sanction like this is pretty extraordinary.
So I would urge my friend, the gentleman from Alabama, to reconsider
and not have what I consider to be a staff-driven tiff escalate into
something much greater than it should be.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend's
remarks, and I agree. I like Mr. Moniz. I think the Secretary is a fine
man and he is trying to do the right thing.
I have had a conversation with the ranking member earlier today, but
I haven't had a chance to follow up with him. I have been on the floor
doing a lot.
The only problem I have with withdrawing the amendment is we need
this report between now and the time we go to conference to take what
is yielded from it and visit with the appropriators.
Just me reading the report with you in private would not give me the
documentation to take what it says--what I believe it says--and produce
some policy that will deal with what the report says is a threat to our
country.
{time} 1830
For that reason, I would like to urge my colleagues to vote for the
amendment, and reassure my friend and the Secretary that if, in fact,
the report is forthcoming, and we are going to have a few months
between now and the time we go to conference, I will be happy, in
conference, to ask that this provision be withdrawn.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman from Alabama. I would
just urge that both he and other Members not use this in any way as a
precedent. It is one thing to fence an appropriate amount of money over
a worthy disagreement, but this is overkill in this case, at least in
my opinion.
So we probably will not prevail on the vote, but we need to establish
precedents that will work for the strongest possible defense for that
country, and a minimum of bureaucratic conflict.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from
Tennessee, and I urge my friends in the House to vote ``yes.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Zinke
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 60
printed in part B of House Report 114-569.
Mr. ZINKE. 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 D of title XVI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 16__. REQUESTS FOR FORCES TO MEET SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND-BASED NUCLEAR FORCES.
(a) Certification.--Not later than five days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff shall certify to the congressional defense
committees that the Chairmans has approved any requests for
forces, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of a
commander of a combatant command to meet the security
requirements of land-based nuclear forces.
(b) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017
for the travel and representational expenses of the Secretary
of Defense, not more than 75 percent may be obligated or
expended until the date on which the Secretary certifies to
the congressional defense committees that there is a
competitive acquisition process in place to ensure the
fielding of a UH-1N replacement aircraft in fiscal year 2018.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No.
60 be modified by the form that I have placed at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
modification to amendment no. 60 offered by mr. zinke of montana
At the end of subtitle D of title XVI, add the following
new section:
SEC. 16__. REQUESTS FOR FORCES TO MEET SECURITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR LAND-BASED NUCLEAR FORCES.
(a) Certification.--Not later than five days after the date
of the enactment of this Act, the Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff shall certify to the congressional defense
committees that the Chairman has approved any requests for
forces, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, of a
commander of a combatant command to meet the security
requirements of land-based nuclear forces.
(b) Limitation.--Of the funds authorized to be appropriated
by this Act or otherwise made available for fiscal year 2017
for the travel and representational expenses of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics, not more than 75 percent may be obligated or
expended until the date on which the Under Secretary
certifies to the congressional defense committees that there
is a competitive acquisition process in place to ensure that
a UH-1N replacement aircraft is under contract in fiscal year
2018.
Mr. ZINKE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the reading be dispensed with.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Montana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the original request of the
gentleman from Montana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 732, the gentleman
from Montana (Mr. Zinke) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Montana.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that will
ensure that our servicemembers in the nuclear security forces have the
ability to do their job.
Each and every day, these men and women are tasked with the
protection of our nuclear weapons. This is not a mission that we can
fail, and, thankfully, they have performed their mission successfully
for over half a decade.
Unfortunately, despite the gravity and importance of this mission,
these men and women must use Huey helicopters, UH-1s, that are in the
Vietnam-era. They must be able to respond anywhere in a 32,000-square-
mile area, larger than the State of Maine, while using these
helicopters that are over 50 years old.
Air Force demonstrations performed at Minot Air Force Base have shown
time and time again that critical security shortages exist using these
Hueys, and they are problematic in mission success.
The Air Force and the Department of Defense have known this for over
a decade but, unfortunately, have consistently kicked the can down the
road.
My amendment ensures the replacement of the Huey aircraft is done
now. The mission of protecting our forces is too important to delay yet
again, and the Air Force and DOD, by their own tests, have proven its
vulnerability.
This amendment ensures a full and open competition, but does not
allow the Air Force to further delay replacement.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment, although I am not opposed to it.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. O'ROURKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Schweikert).
[[Page H2698]]
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Chairman, we had a technical issue earlier, and
we had reached out to my friend's office. I congratulate your staff.
They understood the mechanical issue. It was a procurement timing. It
has been taken care of with the amendment to the amendment, and so I
want to make sure anyone that is listening, that the concerns that were
being brought up from my office have been dealt with.
We now are fully in support of the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and I am as
frustrated as anybody that we are having to be here today.
Secretary Carter has often said, and I agree with him completely,
that the nuclear deterrent priority is our number one national security
mission. But, unfortunately, that rhetoric has not matched up with the
decision on this issue coming from the Secretary's office.
The UH-1N fleet that is used by the Air Force Security Forces for the
ICBM field security consist of Vietnam-era helos.
The UH-1N program is a case study in a failed DOD acquisition
process:
The first move to replace the helos was in 2004. The Joint Staff
validated a military requirement in 2010;
The Air Force canceled the replacement program in 2011;
And the SecDef recently overruled the SecAF in conducting a sole
source replacement program, proposing instead a competition in 2018.
Admiral Haney, Commander, USSTRATCOM, stated in February, 2016:
``Maintaining the security of our nuclear weapons requires a modern
helicopter with sufficient capabilities to counter both today's and
future threats. The UH-1N does not fully meet the current ICBM complex
security requirements as outlined by DOD and USSTRATCOM.''
We have been warned, colleagues. Let me be clear. This is the
security of nuclear weapons here at home. There is no higher priority.
If we are going down the path of competition, that is fine; but we have
no more time to waste.
I want to urge the gentleman's amendment be adopted.
Mr. ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say thank you to everyone
for working on this bill and doing slight amendments to ensure that we
have a fair and open competition but yet not delay the problem.
I think we can all understand that we need to replace the Hueys. The
Hueys are inaccurate. They have been inaccurate for a long time. The
acquisition process yet again, as we have identified, is broke.
So I thank my colleagues from both sides of the aisle to place this
in importance. Our nuclear weapon and our arsenal needs to be
protected. We face an asymmetrical enemy, and ensuring that they are
safe at all times is part of what this Congress should be doing.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment, as modified,
offered by the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Zinke).
The amendment, as modified, 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.
Zinke) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hultgren, 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. 4909) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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.
____________________