[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 97 (Friday, June 20, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5563-H5571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  0915
             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks 
and to include extraneous material on further consideration of H.R. 
4870, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Texas). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 628 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4870.
  Will the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) kindly take the 
chair?

                              {time}  0916


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4870) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
purposes, with Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Thursday, 
June 19, 2014, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through 
page 141, line 4.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, as we move towards the finish line 
and consider the last amendments to our Defense Appropriations bill, 
large thanks should be extended to the remarkable staff that make up 
the Defense Subcommittee. I know I join with my ranking member, Mr. 
Visclosky, and wanted to take time to thank the bipartisan staff of our 
committee: our clerk, Tom McLemore, whose counterpart is Paul Juola on 
the minority side. Recognition and thanks go to all of our staff: Tim 
Prince, Sherry Young, Jennifer Miller, Walter Hearne, Paul Terry, B G 
Wright, Brook Boyer, Adrienne Ramsay, Megan Rosenbusch, Maureen 
Holohan, Collin Lee, and Becky Leggiere; from my personal office: Nancy 
Fox, Steve Wilson, Katie Hazzlett; from Mr. Visclosky's office: Joe 
DeVot and Jake Whiteside; and all the Appropriations staff and House 
staff that have made this bill move so smoothly.
  I also want to thank all of the Members of the House for their active 
participation and patience over the last few days. We do not always 
agree on the substantive issues, but I appreciate the spirit in which 
all of us debated a variety of issues.
  In this regard, I know Mr. Visclosky and I would like to extend our 
thanks to three members of the Defense Subcommittee who are working on 
their final bill with us: Mr. Owens of New York, Mr. Kingston of 
Georgia, Mr. Moran of Virginia. Their service and contributions have 
been enormous and their assistance has been deeply appreciated.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman taking the time and would 
also join him in thanking all of the staff of the subcommittee as well 
as the full committee. People ought to appreciate the discerning 
judgment that they bring to their work, their knowledge, their tireless 
work ethic, and the fact that they are fun to be around. They also are 
very selfless as far as providing for the protection of our Nation, to 
ensure also that it is done in as cost-effective a manner as possible.
  I appreciate that the chairman enunciated the names of all of our 
staff because on this subcommittee it is a very seamless and 
indistinguishable process. The staff understand they are here to help 
every member of the subcommittee, the full committee, and of this 
House, whether we agree or not, to ensure that our legislative process 
and product is as good as it can be.
  The final thing I will note is to thank personally the chairman for 
his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to public service. My 
father always told me it took a very strong man to be a gentleman. Mr. 
Chairman, you are the consummate gentleman, and I thank you for that 
and for your friendship.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Well, sir, you indeed are a gentleman, too, and it 
has been a pleasure to work with you. We are blessed with a remarkable 
staff that has met the needs of every Member of Congress, regardless of 
political party. We have considered their amendments, and to the extent 
that we could, we have acted upon them. Thank you so much for your 
support and all of us. We appreciate the work of our great staff.

[[Page H5564]]

  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be provided to Pakistan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chairman, my amendment would prevent any funds 
appropriated by this bill from being provided to the Government of 
Pakistan.
  It is reprehensible that our government is still willing to provide 
military assistance to a known terrorist-supporting state like 
Pakistan. Since 9/11, Pakistan has received over $28 billion from the 
United States. This should not continue. It is a farce to believe that 
our aid, sometimes deceptively labeled as ``reimbursements,'' is buying 
Pakistan's cooperation in hunting down terrorists.
  It was the Pakistani establishment that sheltered Osama bin Laden for 
years. They continue to jail Dr. Afridi, the man, the heroic man, who 
helped the CIA locate bin Laden. Why would Pakistan do that if they 
were on our side?
  The abysmal human rights record of the Pakistani Government is 
shameful. It is even worse because American money contributes to 
strengthening the security forces which kill and persecute minority 
groups who are denied their own right of self-determination. This is 
especially true of the Baloch and Sindhi, two large ethnic minority 
groups in Pakistan. Our tax dollars equip the Pakistani military, which 
brutally oppresses the aspirations of both of these people, and both of 
which have a long history separate from Pakistan.
  Pakistan is not an ally, and any assistance we send them only 
strengthens their ability to act against their own people, against us, 
and against Afghanistan as we withdraw our military. We cannot buy the 
friendship of a government whose strategic interests are not aligned 
with ours. They are allied with terrorists. The Pakistanis, thus, are 
allied with the terrorist elements and our own ever more dangerous 
adversary, Communist China. At a time of tight budgets, we should 
reserve our aid to true friends and allies.
  Furthermore, the Appropriations Committee didn't even put an exact 
dollar figure in this bill for the money that will be going to 
Pakistan. Instead, they have inserted a placeholder because we have not 
yet received a formal figure from the administration.
  What will happen when we get this formal figure? Well, will we simply 
serve as a rubber stamp for the administration and insert the number 
requested into a conference report? Well, I would hope not.
  It is our duty as elected Members of the House of Representatives to 
determine how much and to whom tax dollars will be appropriated. I 
implore my colleagues to send a message today that we will not send 
another dime to Pakistan as long as they continue to act belligerently 
toward the United States and to promote terrorism and repress their own 
people.
  The policy which has us funding Pakistan's military is wrong, and the 
fact that we can't even debate a precise dollar figure is absurd. It is 
insane for us to continue to borrow large sums of money from China in 
order to give to Pakistan, our enemy and a friend of terrorism.
  I ask my colleagues to support my amendment and to end this 
counterproductive use of our limited resources, which has continued for 
far too long.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, the gentleman is correct in one 
respect: the House does not have, nor does our bill show, any specific 
amount for Pakistan, but we anticipate the administration will come 
forward with a figure which may be similar to last year.
  There are good reasons that we have invested in what is called the 
Coalition Support Fund. It allows the Secretary of Defense to reimburse 
any key cooperating nation for logistical and military support, 
including access, specialized training to personnel, and procurement 
and provision of supplies and equipment provided by that nation in 
connection with the U.S. military operations in Enduring Freedom. 
Pakistan is one of those nations.
  Receipts for reimbursements are submitted by Pakistan and other 
cooperating nations and are fully vetted by the Pentagon and follow 
strict criteria to meet the standard for reimbursement. All payments 
are made in arrears and follow notification to Congress as to what the 
money has been spent for.
  Specifically regarding Pakistan, the Coalition Support Fund remains a 
critical tool to enable Pakistan to effectively deal with the future 
challenges emerging from the U.S. drawdown. There will be challenges, 
no matter what the troop number, and the President has set a troop 
number at approximately 9,500.
  It would be cost-effective. It is a cost-effective tool for the U.S. 
to remain engaged in the region. We can't turn our back on Pakistan and 
Afghanistan, particularly because Pakistan is a nuclear-capable nation. 
We need to keep a functioning relationship with Pakistan. That is 
essential.
  I would be pleased to yield to my ranking, Mr. Visclosky, for any 
comments that he might make.
  This money is essential, and Pakistan has been an ally in getting 
after some of the worst terrorists in certain parts of Pakistan. They 
need that assistance, and we should, I think, continue to give it to 
them.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would emphasize the chairman's very 
first point, and the reason there is not a discrete figure within the 
legislation is we continue to await that request in the overseas 
contingency operation fund from the administration.
  I will simply add a couple of comments to the points the chairman 
raised. One, if the funds were prohibited, I believe it would also 
affect our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan since we traversed 
through Pakistan's ground lines of communications to transport our 
equipment back home.
  I also think the withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize 
Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within 
their military and their government generally, and in addition to 
counterterrorism activity, the fact that Pakistan's nuclear weapons 
capability provides, I believe, an ample reason for the U.S. to 
continue to be positively engaged.
  I would not disagree with the gentleman that this is a very difficult 
relationship. There are significant problems with Pakistan--all the 
more reason to continue to be engaged.
  I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I 
appreciate the chairman yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time I 
have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has 
1 minute remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam Chair, when I first came to Congress, I was 
perhaps Pakistan's best friend in Congress. At that time, of course, we 
were in the middle of the cold war and the Pakistanis were on our side 
and India was on the side of the Russians.
  Today, the cold war is over and Pakistan has become the friend of our 
enemies, whether they are radical terrorists or whether it is Communist 
China. For us now to be borrowing money from China in order to give to 
Pakistan--because we are still going into debt $500 billion a year. We 
need to make sure. We have to borrow that money, much of which comes 
from China, then pass that on to Pakistan, who is basically supporting 
our enemies.
  They still have Dr. Afridi, the man who helped us finger Osama bin 
Laden, a hero who risked his life for us to

[[Page H5565]]

bring justice to the man who slaughtered 3,000 Americans. For us to 
continue to give that government who holds Dr. Afridi in a dungeon, as 
we speak, is immoral and is stupid and is counterproductive. We should 
cut military assistance to Pakistan.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.

                              {time}  0930

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, we need to keep a relationship with 
Pakistan. There are some issues that have divided us.
  When Mr. Visclosky and I were in Pakistan earlier this year, we made 
it quite evident that we were concerned about some of the things that 
occurred, including the holding of that doctor whose assistance helped 
us kill one of those who killed so many of us.
  But we need to recognize that holding Pakistan close to us as an ally 
gives our troops some extra protection, and we need to have that access 
to Pakistan to make sure that our deployed troops and others there get 
the assistance they need.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment and yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Madam 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 California 
will be postponed.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Stockman

  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to destroy Department of Defense equipment or 
     ammunition in Afghanistan without such equipment or 
     ammunition first being offered to independent states of the 
     former Soviet Union and major non-NATO allies that are 
     willing to pay for transportation of such equipment or 
     ammunition to such states or allies.
       (b) For purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``independent state of the former Soviet 
     Union'' has the meaning given the term in section 3 of the 
     FREEDOM Support Act (22 U.S.C. 5801); and
       (2) the term ``major non-NATO ally'' has the meaning given 
     the term in section 644(q) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (22 U.S.C. 2403(q)).

  Mr. STOCKMAN (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent that the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, we are pulling out of Afghanistan. We are 
chopping up billions and billions of dollars of equipment into little 
tiny pieces. At the same time, our government is purchasing military 
equipment for our allies.
  This is a terrible waste of money. Our allies have expressed they 
want to come pick up the equipment. They are paying for it. We don't 
have to do anything. We don't have to chop it up. We can allow our 
allies to have it. This is a shameful waste of taxpayers' money. It is 
in the billions of dollars. I personally think this is a huge waste of 
money.
  I would ask that the Congress would consider this as reasonable. At 
the same time we are cutting up billions of dollars to military 
equipment, we turn around in this appropriation and buy the same 
equipment for our allies.
  I would ask that this would be considered and that the point of order 
that is being proposed, I ask also jurisdiction on why the point of 
order is in order.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment imposes additional duties.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  If not, the Chair will rule.
  The Chair finds that this amendment imposes new duties on the 
Department of Defense.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Stockman

  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement of weapon systems that contain 
     rare earth materials, metals, magnets, parts, or components 
     that are produced in Cuba, North Korea, the People's Republic 
     of China, or Venezuela.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, currently, right now we have a situation 
in which some of the countries which we deal with militarily are 
restricting the rare earth metals--and particularly China. They are 
asking that we build our sensitive equipment in their country in order 
to acquire these rare earths.
  I would object to that kind of thinking and that kind of ability for 
our non-friends, in terms of military assistance, to actually have it 
and develop our own rare earths here in the United States. It is a 
major mistake, I think, to pursue a policy in which we allow our non-
friends to have control over our top secret and also over our rare 
earths.
  I ask a ruling of the Chair for adjudication on that too, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 
of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination of the country of origin of certain parts or components.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Stockman

  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for any activity that would grant de jure or de facto 
     support of

[[Page H5566]]

     territorial, maritime, or airspace claims made by the 
     People's Republic of China on the international waters or 
     territories of other sovereign nations in the South China, 
     East China, and Yellow Seas.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order against 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STOCKMAN. Madam Chair, with the ever-expanding territorial claims 
by China and our allies in the areas of Philippines, Japan, and South 
Korea, I think this amendment would not violate the rules. All it says 
is that we shouldn't spend money helping Chinese to expand a 
territorial claim. I think it is reasonable. I also think that it is 
something we should do. We need to express more concern.
  The current leadership in the White House has not really done much in 
terms of foreign policy. This would be an example to the rest of the 
world that Congress can speak up and stand up for our allies in the 
region, particularly those countries surrounding Japan right now where 
they are having great difficulty with the ever-expanding and, I would 
suggest, imperialistic attitude of some in the country of mainland 
China.
  This amendment I do not believe violates the rules. I ask the ruling 
of the Chair to also adjudicate why this is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I make a point of order against the 
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes 
legislation in an appropriation bill and, therefore, it violates clause 
2 of rule XXI.
  The rule states in pertinent part:
  ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order 
if changing existing law.''
  The amendment requires a new determination.
  I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point 
of order?
  The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new 
determination by a relevant agency of the effects of its activities.
  The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of 
clause 2 of rule XXI.
  The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into any contract after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act for the procurement or production of 
     any non-petroleum based fuel for use as the same purpose or 
     as a drop-in substitute for petroleum.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman from Arizona and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a cost-saving amendment 
to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 
2015.
  This is a straightforward amendment that will help bring defense 
spending priorities in line with the fiscal realities that the United 
States currently faces.
  Specifically, this amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense 
from wasting precious taxpayer dollars on the purchase of more 
expensive fuels made out of biofuels that are not cost competitive.
  When our country is more than $17 trillion in debt, and every year 
the Federal Government continues to spend nearly $1 trillion more than 
it actually has, it is incumbent upon this Congress to get this 
reckless spending under control and to carefully scrutinize every 
dollar that is spent.
  The Department of Defense has been purchasing biofuels to substitute 
traditional petroleum-based fuels to run its ships, aircraft, and other 
vehicles.
  The problem is that currently, these fuels are more expensive than 
traditional fuels.
  Until a time when biofuels are cost competitive without any Federal 
subsidy, no Federal entity should be utilizing this fuel source.
  Let me be clear: I support a true all-of-the-above energy strategy 
which includes renewable energy sources like wind and solar, as well as 
traditional resources like natural gas and clean coal.
  I have nothing against biofuels that do not need significant Federal 
subsidies to exist in the open market.
  Unfortunately, the Department of Defense and other Federal agencies 
continue to waste precious taxpayer dollars to prop up this industry.
  Last year, the Defense Logistics Agency wanted to buy almost 15,000 
gallons of biofuel. This year, the Defense Logistics Agency is seeking 
up to 37 million gallons of biofuel.
  Biofuels without Federal subsidies are nearly 15 times more expensive 
than conventional jet fuel.
  The biggest problem with this year's solicitation of nearly 37 
million gallons is there is a $27.2 million Federal subsidy to make the 
biofuel blends ``cost competitive with their conventionally-derived 
counterparts.''
  The purchase of biofuels which are not cost competitive has been so 
wasteful that a popular news site recently listed the practice on its 
list of ``Five Insanely Wasteful Projects the Pentagon is Spending Your 
Money On.''
  I will read a brief excerpt from the article:

       In a nod toward sustainability, the U.S. Navy has been 
     attempting to create a ``green fleet'' by adopting 
     alternative biofuels.
       The catch is that the cleaner fuel costs $26 per gallon, 
     which is much more expensive than the $2.50 the Navy pays for 
     each gallon of petroleum.
       Despite reports that there isn't a clear long-term cost 
     benefit of adopting biofuel, the Department of Defense has 
     spent millions on private companies that are developing 
     alternative fuels.

                              {time}  0945

       And green projects aren't confined to a single branch of 
     the military; last year, the Air Force paid for 11,000 
     gallons of biofuel at a rate 10 times higher than the price 
     of regular jet fuel.

  Using the military as a vehicle to spend hundreds of millions of 
dollars on unproven green experiments is clearly a wasteful use of 
taxpayer money that must be stopped. We all must understand that the 
number one priority of the United States military--and, indeed, the 
Federal Government at large--is to defend the Nation from security 
threats.
  I would also like to bring up Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He stated in July of 2010 that:

       The biggest threat that we have to our national security is 
     our debt.

  Therefore, it is essential that we scrutinize every dollar we 
appropriate to ensure we are spending our limited resources prudently 
and judiciously. This amendment will help accomplish this goal.
  Madam Chairman, this amendment was carried last year by our newly 
elected majority whip, Steve Scalise; and it was adopted by this body 
by unanimous consent.
  As the Defense Logistics Agency is now proposing to purchase almost 
2,500 times more fuel than last year, it only makes sense this 
agreement is agreed to yet again.
  Think about it. Last year, they wanted 15,000 gallons. This year, 
they want 37 million gallons of Federally subsidized fuel sources, just 
to meet an unnecessary mandate. This defies common sense, and we should 
not be wasting millions of dollars of taxpayer money in this manner.
  I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5567]]

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, this is perhaps the fourth or fifth 
debate we have had on biofuels and their limitation relative to the 
Department of Defense, but I do feel compelled to continue to remind my 
colleagues that we do have an energy problem in the United States.
  I would, I guess, start at the dueling admirals' statements. The 
gentleman quoted Admiral Mullen from 2010. I would suggest that Admiral 
Locklear, who is commander of the Pacific Command, stated this year 
that the most destabilizing problem that we face in the Pacific Basin 
is climate change and the impact it has on the people and the national 
security in that part of the world.
  I continue to emphasize that we need to keep our options open for the 
Department of Defense and, I would suggest, for this great Nation.
  Indiana, the State in which I live--and have lived all of my life--is 
a coal State. More steel is produced in the district I represent than 
any State in the United States. I am very proud of that.
  You need carbon to make steel. What we need is a matrix--not only 
carbon-based fuels, but other types of fuels, including renewables: 
wind, tidal, solar, hydro, and biofuels.
  I would also reference Senator Lugar, who I continue to have a 
profound respect for. Senator Lugar suggested that energy is a problem 
economically in the United States. Senator Lugar suggested that it is 
an environmental problem in the United States.
  He said, fundamentally, energy is, most importantly, a national 
security problem, which is why we ought not to limit the options for 
the Department of Defense to expand the use of biofuels.
  For those reasons, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I think in my statement it is all about 
balance. When we are talking about 37,000 times more biofuels at this 
time, I think that is out of whack.
  I think the gentleman also has to understand that some of the 
pollutants that actually are created by some of these biofuels may 
actually be even worse than what we see with carbons.
  The emerging technology shows that the pollutants actually created by 
burning these may be more insolvent than what we see in petroleum.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, this is common sense. Balance is everything. 
We have a balance of problems with spending. We have acknowledged that 
we want to see a proper balance in all the utilizations of energy.
  This country can be energy independent. What it means is not picking 
winners and losers, but actually using a conservative type of balance.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Kildee

  Mr. KILDEE. Madam 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 the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 1034 of title 10, Untied 
     States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Chair, this is an amendment that is actually quite 
simple. I will only take a moment to explain it.
  It simply requires that the use of funds in this legislation not be 
utilized in contradiction to existing U.S. law. Let me specifically 
point out the problem that I am trying to make sure is very clear.
  As Members of Congress, we are elected to represent our constituents. 
That includes our constituents that serve in the Armed Forces, so I 
have been very concerned about reports and experience within my own 
office that some in the military have reacted unfavorably when 
servicemembers reach out for assistance from their Member of Congress, 
and as I said, we have experienced this in my own office.
  I know that this is not Department of Defense policy, and I know and 
am certain that this behavior is being exercised by a very small 
minority of staff people, but it is entirely unacceptable.
  I know for me, if somebody in government--any department--has a 
problem with me and the communications I have with my own constituents 
over issues they are having navigating the bureaucracy of government, 
if anybody has a problem with that, they can talk to me directly. My 
office is listed. They can call me.
  I just want to make sure that this amendment makes it clear that no 
money can be spent in violation of 10 USC 1034. This is the statute 
that specifically makes it illegal to retaliate against members of the 
military for speaking to their Members of Congress.
  I want to just reiterate this is based on real experiences that I am 
having in my office. I have talked to other Members. There have been 
similar experiences. I don't think it is pervasive, but I want to make 
the message clear that members of the military and any other 
constituent has an opportunity to reach out to Members of our Congress. 
It is important for our constitutional role, our oversight role.
  I think this amendment, while perhaps redundant, would speak to that 
directly.
  I hope the House would consider it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong 
support of his amendment. The committee has a tradition of protecting 
whistleblowers. In fact, we have accepted, during consideration of the 
bill, an amendment to do so 2 days ago.
  I think most Members probably have encountered an individual who has 
come into their office and said: I would like to provide you with 
information that, hopefully, would make our government more efficient 
and better, but I don't want to get into trouble.
  That is who you have in mind. I appreciate that very much and rise in 
support of it.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. KILDEE. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me associate myself with the ranking member's 
comments. Whether somebody comes through our office or if we visit a 
military installation in the Middle East and somebody comes up with an 
issue that affects them personally--or their families--they have a 
right, and we have always put these protections in our bill.
  So I commend you. I think it is very much in order.
  Mr. KILDEE. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman and the ranking 
member. I know when to quit when I am ahead.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise for two reasons. First of all, I want to express my agreement 
with Mr. Moran and with members of the committee--perhaps on both sides 
of the aisle--with respect to our continuing Guantanamo policy.
  Guantanamo Bay continues to weaken, in my view, America's standing at 
a time when we need every tool necessary to protect America's interests 
around the world, which include promoting democracy and the rule of 
law.
  Our courts, in my view, are more than capable of trying and 
convicting even the most hardened terrorists--and

[[Page H5568]]

have shown themselves fully able to do so.
  Civilian courts have convicted 533 individuals on terrorism charges, 
compared to eight convictions in military commissions; yet on the floor 
of this House, we continue to deal with this issue as if, somehow, it 
is keeping Americans safer. At the same time, it undermines American 
values.
  That is not a good policy. Hundreds of terrorists are being held 
securely in maximum security prisons here in the U.S. I won't list 
them, but I will include them in the Record at a later time.
  Keeping these detainees at Guantanamo makes no financial sense. One 
of my Republican colleagues mentioned a cost of $500,000 per year, per 
detainee. At a time when we want to be efficient and effective in our 
use of resources, that seems not to be either.
  I now want to speak to a broader issue that concerns me that we have 
not dealt with in this bill and we did not deal with in the 
authorization bill.
  We need--as a Congress, as a country, as a people--to have the 
courage to come to grips with rationally passing a defense 
appropriation bill consistent with the advice of our military 
leadership and consistent with our willingness to pay the price for 
what we buy.
  I have been in this body 33 years and have always supported funding 
our military at necessary levels to maintain our security and our 
freedom, and I will continue to do so.
  I have worked with the ranking member for almost all those years. He 
hasn't been here quite as many years, but almost all those years.
  I congratulate the chairman. I am proud of the chairman of the 
Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I 
had the opportunity of serving with him for a number of years on the 
committee. He is a responsible, patriotic, good Member of this House, 
and will chair this subcommittee in a very responsible fashion. I 
congratulate him for that.
  I have great respect for my dear friend, the ranking member, for his 
intellect and for his focus and hard work on behalf of making sure our 
country is strong.
  Madam Chair, the ladies and gentlemen of this House and Mr. and Mrs. 
America should know that we cannot and will not be able to continue to 
maintain the security of this country if we continue to pass bills with 
the pretense that we can pay a lot of attention to acquisition and not 
nearly as much attention to manforce and training and equipping, unless 
we want to jettison the sequester.
  We have to stop pretending that national security, education, 
infrastructure, or health care can somehow be magically created and 
maintained without having a physically sustainable overall policy or 
that we can pretend, both in this appropriation bill and in the 
authorization bill, that we can simply fund that which the Department 
of Defense says we don't need and is no longer relevant; but yes, it 
has consequences for every one of us, including me, if we cut those 
programs.
  So I would urge us, as we pass this bill--and I will vote for this 
bill--to do so in a context of committing ourselves to having the 
courage and the wisdom in the years to come to propose and to pass 
rational security bills.
  Madam Chair, I rise for two reasons. First of all to express my 
agreement with Mr. Moran and with members of the Committee, perhaps on 
both sides of the aisle, with respect to our continuing Guantanamo 
policy.
  Guantanamo Bay continues to weaken, in my view, America's standing at 
a time when we need every tool necessary to protect America's interests 
around the world, which include promoting democracy and the rule of 
law. Our courts, in my view, are more than capable of trying and 
convicting even the most hardened terrorists and have shown themselves 
fully able to do so.
  Civilian courts have convicted 533 individuals on terrorism charges, 
compared to eight convictions in military commissions. Yet on the Floor 
of this House we continue to deal with this issue as if somehow it is 
keeping Americans safer. At the same time, it undermines American 
values. That is not a good policy. Hundreds of terrorists are being 
held securely in maximum security prisons here in the U.S. I won't list 
them, but I'll include them in the Record. They include: Faizal 
Shazhad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; and 
Zacharias Moussaoui, the convicted September 11 conspirator.
  Keeping these detainees at Guantanamo makes no financial sense. My 
Republican colleagues mentioned the cost of over $2 million per year 
per detainee. At a time when we want to be efficient, effective in our 
use of resources, that seems not to be either.
  I now want to speak to a broader issue that concerns me that we have 
not dealt with in this bill and we did not deal with in the 
authorization bill. We need as a Congress, as a country, as a people, 
to have the courage to come to grips with rationally passing a defense 
appropriations bill consistent with the advice of our military 
leadership and consistent with our willingness to pay the price for 
what we buy. I have been in this body thirty-three years and have 
always supported funding our military at necessary levels to maintain 
our security and our freedom. And I will continue to do so. And I 
worked with the Ranking Member for almost all those years. He hadn't 
been here quite as many years, but almost all those years.
  I congratulate the Chairman. I'm proud of the Chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee, my friend, Mr. Frelinghuysen. I had the 
opportunity to serve with him for a number of years on the Committee. 
He is a responsible, patriotic, good member of this House and will 
chair this Subcommittee in a very responsible fashion. I congratulate 
him for that. And my dear friend, the Ranking Member, for whom I have 
great respect, for his intellect and for his focus and hard work on 
behalf of making sure our country is strong.
  But Ladies and Gentlemen of this House, Mr. and Mrs. America, Mr. 
Speaker, should know that we cannot and will not be able to continue to 
maintain the security of this country if we continue to pass bills with 
the pretense that we could pay a lot of attention to acquisition and 
not nearly as much attention to man-force and training and equipping 
unless we want to jettison this sequester. We have to stop pretending 
that national security or education or infrastructure or health care 
can somehow be magically created and maintained without having a 
fiscally sustainable overall policy. Or that we can pretend on a basis 
both in this appropriations bill and in the authorization bill that we 
can simply fund that which the Department of Defense says we don't 
need, is no longer relevant, but, yes, it has consequences, for every 
one of us, including me, if we cut those programs.
  So I would urge us, as we pass this bill--and I'll vote for this 
bill--but, as we do so, we do so in a context of committing ourselves 
to having the courage and the wisdom in the years to come to propose 
and to pass rational security bills.

                              {time}  1000

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I 
especially lend my agreement to his comments relative to the situation 
at Guantanamo Bay.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 153 at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to the following entities or in 
     contravention of title 18 U.S.C. section 2339-B:
       (1) The Government of Iran.
       (2) The Government of Syria.
       (3) The Palestinian Authority.
       (4) Hamas.
       (5) The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise to offer a commonsense amendment to 
the Department of Defense Appropriations Act which will further hold 
accountable foreign terrorist organizations in addition to those 
foreign governments that support their efforts.
  I will be brief as the cases made against these entities and 
governments are well-documented.
  Iran is possibly the largest known state sponsor of terrorism in the 
world, and the Obama administration is throwing out the baby with the 
bathwater in its negotiations with Iran on its nuclear aspirations. 
Syria has been listed as a state sponsor of terrorism since the State 
Department list was created in 1979. The ongoing atrocities on the 
ground in Syria should be more than enough to prohibit foreign 
assistance to this nation.
  Before moving forward, let me say that I recognize that these two 
nations are already ineligible for most forms of foreign assistance 
already, but we have seen the Obama administration's track

[[Page H5569]]

record in terms of following the letter of the law. It enforces only 
the laws it agrees with.
  Now, speaking to the prohibition of assistance to the Palestinian 
Authority, on June 2, the Palestinian Authority announced a new unity 
government, which was supported by the Islamic militant group Hamas.
  To quote recent reports:

       The merger also appears to skirt, barely, U.S. prohibitions 
     on aid to a Palestinian Government that has ``undue'' Hamas 
     presence or influence.
       The Obama administration has worked behind the scenes to 
     suggest terms for the new coalition government that would not 
     trigger the U.S. ban, reasoning that the money helps preserve 
     American leverage.
       Republican Senators Mark Kirk and Marco Rubio have called 
     for a suspension and review of U.S. aid, saying the 
     Palestinian announcement shows that Israel ``does not have a 
     viable partner for peace.''
       The unity government is an ``end run'' around U.S. 
     restrictions, they said.

  I agree with those statements.
  With so much blood on its hands, this newly founded coalition of the 
Palestinian Authority and Hamas is not worthy of U.S. assistance. Just 
to be clear as day, I have included the Islamic State of Iraq and 
Syria--again, already listed as a foreign terrorist organization--to 
this list, in addition to all organizations currently designated by the 
Secretary of State.
  I understand the law, and I understand that the U.S. already has laws 
to prevent the transfer of assistance to these foreign terrorist 
organizations. It is just that I am not convinced that the President, 
his Attorney General, or any other member of his Cabinet Secretaries 
understands the laws of this Nation the way that I do or will follow 
those laws as U.S. citizens must. This is just one more attempt to 
double down on the letter of the law.
  I can only hope that the President sees the dangerous ways in which 
he has jeopardized our Republic's system of checks and balances and 
that he submits to the rule of law as do all Americans. It is long past 
time that this Congress checks this President and balances the powers 
of our national government.
  I urge the passage of this amendment, which will hold accountable 
those governments which are most hostile to the United States, Israel, 
and their allies.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, the gentleman has enumerated a number of 
terrorist organizations in countries, and I don't think there is a 
Member of Congress who would suggest that they are up to any good at 
any moment in time, but the amendment attempts to treat these countries 
and these organizations with a one-size-fits-all approach. Our Nation's 
involvement with each one of these entities is reflective of each 
country's reality and state of affairs, our Nation's interests, 
national security concerns or lack thereof. I would just provide one 
example.
  If this amendment were to pass, the Department of Defense could 
provide that the options for any actions in Syria relative to the 
removal of chemicals and materials of mass destruction would be 
inhibited, because these moneys are provided through the cooperative 
threat reduction account, which works to ensure the destruction of 
Syria's chemical weapons' stockpile, and by necessity, we end up having 
to work with that government to do this very good work.
  For that reason, the practical nature of this begs it, and I am 
opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), 
the chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, I want to make it clear that we are not giving any funds 
and assistance to the Governments of Iran and Syria. When and if the 
chemical weapons leave Syria, there may be a third party that we are 
assisting in terms of getting those chemical weapons out of the region, 
which I think is a good idea. We are not supporting the Assad regime, I 
can assure you, and we are certainly not supporting what has been 
happening in Iran over the last decade.
  I do support the continuation of the United States' participation in 
the Middle East peace efforts. I think we need some progress, and I 
think this amendment would send the wrong signal to our commitment to 
that process and would undermine that which we are trying to bring--
lasting peace to the area. I think it would be ill-advised, but I can 
assure you that we are not sending any money to Syria and Iran, so I 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman's remarks.
  Madam Chair, again, I would emphasize my opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I want to remind the gentleman as to the 
``one size.'' Really, one size? Terrorism is one size. There is a right 
and a wrong, and it all starts with big money. There has to be 
consequences for actions. Therefore, I ask for the adoption of this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Franks of Arizona

  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer or divest the Electronic Proving Grounds 
     at Fort Huachuca, Arizona.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, my amendment would not allow 
funds to be used to transfer or divest the mission at the Electronic 
Proving Grounds, or EPG, at Fort Huachuca in Arizona.
  EPG is the U.S. Army's primary Command, Control, Communications, 
Computers, Cyber and Intelligence--or C5I--Developmental Tester. EPG 
plans, conducts, and analyzes the results of technical tests for C5I 
systems, signal intelligence, and electronic combat and electronic 
warfare equipment. EPG has an available area of operation that includes 
more than 9,000 square miles of public and private lands in and around 
Fort Huachuca, and its unique interference-free electromagnetic 
environment makes it the prime location for electronic testing.
  Madam Chair, EPG, the Electronic Proving Ground at Fort Huachuca, is 
a national strategic asset. It can accomplish, in a real open-air 
environment, what others can only simulate in a closed laboratory 
environment. EPG gives our C5I systems a place to be tested and 
simulated in real-world environments, leaving our warfighters with the 
best tested and the most advanced functioning systems available. 
Further, this amendment saves money in this fiscally constrained 
environment as the Department would have to spend millions of dollars 
to transfer such a mission. There is no reason, therefore, that we 
should even consider moving such an asset into a closed laboratory.
  Madam Chair, I believe this is a commonsense amendment and that it 
preserves the strategic asset, and it is, ultimately, in the best 
interests of the national security of the United States of America.
  I thank the committee for its time and support of this amendment, and 
I thank the chairman especially for his indulgence.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5570]]

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. At the outset of my remarks, Madam Chair, I would not 
in any way dispute the value or the good work done at the proving 
grounds in Arizona or the good work of the military and civilian 
personnel who are there. I would concur in the gentleman's remarks. 
That is true, though, of the military and civilian employees throughout 
the Department of Defense, both in our country and around the world.
  I would remind our colleagues that, despite the fact of including the 
overseas contingency account, this bill contains $569.6 billion, which 
is an astronomical amount of money. It is a finite amount of money 
despite, as I have also said repeatedly over the last 3 days, infinite 
amounts of demand.
  I do think the gentleman's amendment is contrary to what we are doing 
as far as conceptually in the bill in that we are trying to stay out of 
some of these decisions that the Department must make. In the 
committee, we had discussions about whether or not KC-10s should be 
moved or retired. We declined to become involved as far as the movement 
of one airlift wing from a State to another State. Also, I couldn't 
dispute the gentleman's assertion that we would save money if we didn't 
spend it on transferring, but I might parenthetically ask the question: 
perhaps we will save more in the long run in that the Department of 
Defense may not be wrong in its assertion.
  For those reasons, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, let me join with the ranking member. 
Reluctantly, I do oppose it.
  I agree that Fort Huachuca is a national asset, and we want to 
commend you for, obviously, reacting to, perhaps, news that might be on 
the wire service that there is oftentimes. Sometimes, actually, if 
there are people who are of the impression that they might be doing 
something, this is a pretty good way of bringing it to a halt. 
Traditionally, we oppose these, and, furthermore, there are no funds in 
the budget for anybody to accomplish this.
  For that reason, I am opposing it, but we salute your bringing this 
to our attention, and I think a message has probably been sent by your 
strong advocacy.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I appreciate the comments of both the ranking 
member and the chairman.
  I suppose, Madam Chair, it is important for me just to point out that 
the underlying predicate of this amendment is the need, in my mind, to 
protect this country against the potential use of the electromagnetic 
pulse as an offensive weapon against this country, and this facility in 
Fort Huachuca is one of our best ways to ascertain the dangers that are 
involved and to try to find ways to protect this country against that 
danger.
  It is very possible, Madam Chair, that the electromagnetic pulse has 
become one of the more significant short-term national security threats 
to this Nation. Enemies across the world are now starting to develop 
this capability, and I think it is very important for us to make sure 
that we understand it and that we have the kinds of facilities that can 
test our vulnerability to the electromagnetic pulse in real-world 
situations; and even though there are a few others, the Fort Huachuca 
facility is one of the few that can do that. I believe, in terms of the 
long-term costs, a major electromagnetic pulse attack on this country 
could prove astronomically expensive. For that reason, I would 
encourage a ``yes'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1015

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


             Amendment Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 10002.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used by the Defense Logistics Agency to implement the 
     Small Business Administration interim final rule titled 
     ``Small Business Size Standards; Adoption of 2012 North 
     American Industry Classification System'' (published August 
     20, 2012, in the Federal Register) with respect to the 
     procurement of footwear.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I rise today to offer an amendment that will ensure a fair and open 
bidding process to supply our men and women on the front lines one of 
the most indispensable pieces of equipment that they use every day: 
their boots, their footwear.
  My amendment would prohibit the use of funds by the Defense Logistics 
Agency to implement the 2012 Small Business Administration's interim 
rule in regards to footwear, preventing the Defense Logistics Agency 
from bidding the contract as a small business set-aside.
  When the SBA released this new rule back in 2012, there was 
significant concern that they did not go through the normal rulemaking 
and public comment processes, and, therefore, more specifically, did 
not perform due diligence on how the changes would actually affect the 
footwear industry and the military supply base, which the SBA has even 
acknowledged.
  This rule dramatically changed the competitive landscape amongst 
companies supplying those Berry-compliant footwear to the U.S. 
military.
  There are very few footwear manufacturers actually located in the 
United States, and even fewer that manufacturer Berry-compliant 
footwear for our troops. Any reduction in this industrial base calls 
for immediate action to rectify the unintended consequences resulting 
from the SBA's changes to the small business size standards categories 
governing domestic footwear manufacturing for the U.S. military.
  Congress has addressed the rule's impacts on defense procurement in 
the House report to the fiscal year '14 National Defense Authorization, 
which expressed concern that the SBA did not follow the normal 
rulemaking and public comment procedures and has not subsequently 
addressed the issue with footwear manufacturers.
  It then called on the Defense Logistics Agency to use its discretion 
to maintain the manufacturer base.
  This amendment would essentially codify the report language, ensuring 
that all businesses capable of supplying high-quality footwear to the 
Defense Department still can.
  This amendment promotes competition, and it promotes fairness and 
consistency in the defense procurement process. And most importantly, 
it ensures that our men and women in uniform have access, regardless of 
who makes it, to the best equipment available.
  I urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in 
opposition to the gentleman's amendment, despite the fact that I do not 
object to his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the recognition, and I appreciate the 
gentleman's emphasis on competition.
  I also appreciate the fact that he is concerned about the industrial 
base and manufacturing in the United

[[Page H5571]]

States of America. We have seen a collapse in manufacturing employment.
  I would just point out for my colleagues, though, that the emphasis 
relative to the standards the gentleman is concerned about is to try to 
build that small business base.
  I remain disappointed in the Department of Defense because, while 
they talk about building small businesses, improving that manufacturing 
base, I don't see many discernible results. In my own district, I had a 
firm that does very sophisticated technology work, a very small firm. 
They had to spend more than $1 million cash to go through the 
evaluation process so they could start to bid on military contracts.
  There are not many small businesses with less than 20 employees that 
have $1 million in cash to go through an approval process so they can 
start doing business with the Department of Defense, so I share his 
concerns.
  But I also just want to make note that we have to draw the 
Department's attention to small business manufacturing development in 
the United States.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan. Madam Chair, I would agree with that, those 
sentiments of my colleague. We do need to make sure that we are 
maintaining a manufacturing base of not just large, not just medium 
size, but small companies as well.
  I think, in this particular situation though, what we are trying to 
do is codify report language that identified a problem. The problem is 
that there is not a manufacturer that is going to be adequately able to 
supply that vital need of boots to our men and women in uniform, and 
that is why I put forward this amendment, and I urge passage of it as 
well.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Holding) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, 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. 
4870) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________