mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, pursuant to h.res. 260i offer amendments en bloc. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendments en bloc. the clerk: en bloc number two amendments 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31 33, 34, 40, 43, 47, 48, 49 and 50 printed in house report 114-112 offered by mr. thornberry of texas. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 260 the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry, and the gentleman from washington, mr. smith, will each control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, in this en bloc package, which i encourage all members on both sides of the aisle to adopt, there are 14 total amendments. six of those amendments are from my democratic colleagues, eight are from my republican colleagues. there are a lot of important subjects that are in these amendments. as members on both sides of the aisle make contributions to

mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, we don't have any speakers either. the chair: does the gentleman wish to reserve? mr. thornberry: we reserve. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. langevin: if there are no additional speakers on our side, i yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry: i yield myself 30 seconds to note there are 15 amendments in this en bloc package, eight sponsored by republican and seven by democrats this truly is bipartisan participation in this -- in formulating this package. i hope that all the sponsors of these 15 amendments will support this bill on final passage. i urge adoption of the en bloc and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment. -- on the 5e789s en bloc offered by the gentleman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. for

mr. thornberry: mr. chairman the committee is not in order. the chair: the gentleman is correct. the committee will be in order. the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i'm proud to bring to the floor h.r. 1735, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2016. this measure was reported by the armed services committee by a vote of 60 members voting for and two members voting against. of the two members there was one from each party. this bill follows the bipartisan tradition of the committee working collaboratively with an integrated staff to support the men and women who serve and protect our nation. all members of the committee have contributed to this product and i'm very grateful for all of their efforts throughout the year. i'm especially grateful to the efforts of the ranking member mr. smith, for not only for his contributions and for his partnership in the committee but doing so at a time where he's been dealing with surgeries and a variety of things. but it has been

mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, i yield myself 30 seconds. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: mr. chairman, this en bloc package consists of 17 total amendments, nine of them have been offered by republicans, eight of them have been offered by democrats. they cover a variety of very important topics for our national security, including cooperation with india evacuations of u.s. persons from yemen, the impact of u.s. troop levels on nato and violence in mexico. i believe these are important subjects and important additions to our bill. i hope members will support this en bloc package and i hope that all members who make these contributions will support the final version so that their contribution has a chance to become law. with that, mr. chairman, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg. the chair: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. walberg: thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you to the chairman for the effort

mr. thornberry: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 1735. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 260 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 1735. will the gentleman from texas mr. poe kindly please take the chair? the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration on the bill h.r. 1735 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities of the department of defense and for military construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on wednesday, may 13, 2015, all time for general debate pursuant to house resolution 255 h

mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke. mr. zinke: i rise to express one soldier's thoughts on closing gitmo. i have no doubt that closing this jeopardizes the safety and security of the united states and our citizens abroad. if the success or the failure of the mission at gitmo is based on the number of attacks against the united states after 9/11, i'm confident everyone in this room would join me in judging the mission has been successful. intelligence collection and national security have been strengthened as a result of gitmo and america remains a safer place thanks to the men and women serving there. coaching dangerous terrorists in a military prison and away from american families is the way it should be done. to me, closing gitmo is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the remaining part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to another speaker to even the time. i'm happy to y

mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. thornberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke. mr. zinke: i rise to express one soldier's thoughts on closing gitmo. i have no doubt that closing this jeopardizes the safety and security of the united states and our citizens abroad. if the success or the failure of the mission at gitmo is based on the number of attacks against the united states after 9/11, i'm confident everyone in this room would join me in judging the mission has been successful. intelligence collection and national security have been strengthened as a result of gitmo and america remains a safer place thanks to the men and women serving there. coaching dangerous terrorists in a military prison and away from american families is the way it should be done. to me, closing gitmo is simply not an option. thank you, mr. chairman. i yield the remaining part of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas reserves. mr. thornberry: i'm happy to yield to another speaker to even the time. i'm happy to y

mr. thornberry: i -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thorn brother: i yield one -- mr. nberry: i yield one minute to mr. zinke.

mr. ordinaries class. that ms. thornberry's class. guest: this is a good question. we want to thank those teachers out there because the types of lessons we receive on this show are a reflection of the great work of the teachers doing the classrooms -- were asking about specific rational acts. the specific congressional acts. that will not be the focus of this test. use them as much as you can by way of examples. examples can be hypothetical. as long as you are describing in the area that would be true about the -- don't get hung up on the exact name of the law. there are some laws we should recognize. the civil rights act of 1964 the voting rights act of 1965 come along with court cases as well. host: another question. let's quiz hanna from st. louis, missouri. good morning to you. which of the following offices directly elected -- were directly elected? caller: [indiscernible] host: you are going in and out. we will try to get hanna back on the line. guest: i can answer that. and important lesson about how our government is changed and evil over time. when the con

mr. thornberry of texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered. or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. record votes on postponed questions will be taken later. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. members are asked to remove their conversations from the house floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. smith: mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill, h.r. 874, the american supercomputing leadership act. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: union calendar number 87. h.r. 874, a bill to amend the department of energy high end computing revitalization act of 2004 to improve the high end computing research and development program of the department of energy and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman fro

mr. spear, 157 on sexual assault and ms. spear 201 on sex i'm -- 257 to strike the provision on retirement reform. the clerk will call the role. >> thornberry? >> no. >> mr. smith? >> mr. smith votes no. mr. jones? >> no. >> mr. jones votes no. >> ms. sanchez? gibson? no. >> mr. forbes? >> no. mr. brady? mr. brady votes no. mr. miller? mr. miller votes aye. ms. davis? no. mr. wilson? >> no. >> mr. larson? mr. larson? mr. bishop? mr. bishop? mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper? mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner? mr. turner votes no. mr. cline? mr. cline votes no. mr. courtney? votes no. mr. frank? mr. frank votes no. >> mr. shuester? no. mr. johnson? mr. johnson votes no. ms. spear? ms. spear votes no. mr. lanborn? mr. lanborn votes no. mr. caster? mr. caster votes no. mr. hunter? mr. hunter votes no. mr. peters? mr. peters votes no. dr. flemming? dr. flemming no. mr. gibson? mr. gibson votes aye. mr. walls? mr. walls votes aye. mr. o'rourke? mr. o'rourke, no. mr. norcroft? mr. corcroft, no. mr. brooks? mr. brooks notes no. mr. nugent >> aye. >> mr. cook? mr. cook votes no. mr. ashford? mr. ashford votes no. mr. multon? mr. multon votes no. mr. bu

mr. ordinaries class. that ms. thornberry's class. guest: this is a good question.e want to thank those teachers out there because the types of lessons we receive on this show are a reflection of the great work of the teachers doing the classrooms -- were asking about specific rational acts. the specific congressional acts. that will not be the focus of this test. use them as much as you can by way of examples. examples can be hypothetical. as long as you are describing in the area that would be true about the -- don't get hung up on the exact name of the law. there are some laws we should recognize. the civil rights act of 1964 the voting rights act of 1965 come along with court cases as well. host: another question. let's quiz hanna from st. louis, missouri. good morning to you. which of the following offices directly elected -- were directly elected? caller: [indiscernible] host: you are going in and out. we will try to get hanna back on the line. guest: i can answer that. and important lesson about how our government is changed and evil over time. when the const

thornberry. also with us chief white house correspondent from politico, mike allen. mr. being with us. let's talk about the defense bill. there have been a lot of concerns about the caps put on the defense bill because of spending limits. is that a concern to you or do you side step hose spending caps? >> well, the caps are a concern but we found a way to add to the overseas contingency account so that we in the house budget and the defense bill on the floor right now meet exactly the amount that the president last asked for. it's $611.9 billion. and we meet it exactly. so there are differences in how some of those funds get categorized, but the total, there is no difference. and so to have members of the president's party say they will vote against it even though we match exactly what the president asked for is a little disheartening. >> $611 billion pentagon budget. i know a lot's changed since i was there and working along side you and the armed services committee, but that's double what we used to spend. why do we need as a country to spend $611 billion on national s