[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4117-H4127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303 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. 2685.
Will the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) kindly resume the
chair.
{time} 2331
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. 2685) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Mooney of West Virginia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had been postponed, and the bill
had been read through page 162, line 25.
Amendment Offered by Ms. McSally
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, 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 divest, retire, transfer, or place in storage or
on backup aircraft inventory status, or prepare to divest,
retire, transfer, or place in storage or on backup aircraft
inventory status, any EC-130H aircraft.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for including
funds to support our fleet of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft in this
bill. The underlying legislation restores $27.3 million to support 15
EC-130H aircraft next year.
My amendment today does not cost a dime. The chairman has already
provided full funding for our entire EC-130H fleet, and my amendment
simply ensures that the chairman's intentions are carried out, and that
the Air Force does not use backdoor means to try to retire these
important aircraft.
The Compass Call is the only dedicated U.S. Air Force electronic
warfare
[[Page H4118]]
aircraft. I can tell you in this unclassified setting that it can
perform electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defenses, and
offensive counterinformation operations.
It was successfully employed during Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom,
Enduring Freedom, and provided electronic warfare support in operations
in Kosovo, in Haiti, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan. It was the most
heavily-tasked special mission C-130 in operations in Afghanistan.
Despite plans to divest 50 percent of the fleet, the Air Force has
not identified a follow-on capability, and no other platform currently
performs this mission. In fact, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff
Lieutenant General James Holmes confirmed there are things that only
the EC-130H does and does best.
Right now, the Compass Call is currently deployed both in Afghanistan
and in the fight against ISIS. Divesting it without a replacement for
the unique capabilities it offers would be irresponsible, especially
given its high rate of deployment.
I restate that my amendment would not cost a dime, simply ensures the
chairman's decision to fund the fleet is carried out. This is a
critical capability, and we cannot afford to dispose it without a
replacement.
I want to thank the chair, and urge support of my amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. McSALLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are pleased to accept your amendment. May I
also say, we are proud of your service to our Nation. Thank you for the
time.
Ms. McSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
The amendment was agreed to.
Vacating Proceedings on Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of
Michigan
Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings
on the vote on amendment No. 2 be vacated to the end that the Chair put
the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the vote on the amendment is
vacated, and the Chair will put the question de novo.
There was no objection.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, 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), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization for
Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public
Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
Ms. LEE (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
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding pursuant
to the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force. And once
again I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues,
Representative Ellison and Grijalva.
Now, why is this amendment necessary?
Three years ago, mind you, President Obama declared that the Iraq war
was over. Since then, the President has stated a number of times that
the 2002 AUMF is no longer necessary, and that Congress should work to
repeal it. Yet, Congress has allowed this war authorization to remain
on the books indefinitely.
Now, we all are familiar with the report, and we know what is taking
place in Iraq, Syria, and across the Middle East as it relates to ISIL.
We all agree that they must be degraded and dismantled.
But just as with the 2001 resolution, the 2002 AUMF is completely
inappropriate to deal with this threat.
This is a new war, Mr. Chairman, not an old war. This is a new war,
which the people of this country have a right to have their Members of
Congress debate and vote on.
Even the President included a repeal of the 2002 AUMF in the proposed
authorization he sent to Congress in February. Yet, we can't even get
that authorization brought up for a debate and a vote.
So, simply put, the 2002 authorization is no longer necessary. We
need to come back to the drawing board and decide, based on what this
body wants to do, should we vote for a new authorization or not.
If we want to commit the United States to another war in Iraq, then
Congress must have that debate and decide whether or not to authorize
another war.
I am pleased that my sense of Congress resolution--it was an
amendment actually--affirming this was passed on a bipartisan basis in
committee and is included in this bill.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is common sense, and we cannot continue
to leave authorizations for the use of military force on the books
indefinitely. It is time for us to reassert our constitutional
prerogative to declare war or not, to debate and vote on any military
action in Iraq.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will just reiterate my comments in the gentlewoman's
last amendment and that is, after the passage of 13 years, things have
changed. And one of the changes we ought to make in this Chamber is to
have, again, that fulsome debate as to what the parameters of our
military involvement overseas is going forward from this point in time,
not the beginning of the previous decade. I appreciate the gentlewoman
offering the amendment.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes
remaining.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say with regard to this amendment,
Congress has a constitutional responsibility. It is our prerogative to
declare war or not. It is our prerogative to debate and vote on any
military action anywhere in the world. More than a prerogative, it is
our constitutional responsibility.
We represent the American people. The American people deserve to have
a voice in such grave matters. That is why the Constitution required
that. And for us not to do our job and to continue to rely on old
authorizations from 13 and 14 years ago really is an abdication of our
responsibility.
People did not elect us to Congress to duck and dodge the hard
questions and the hard issues. Some of us agree that we need to go to
war. Some of us don't agree. But that is not the issue, and that is not
what this amendment, nor my prior amendment, was about.
It was about doing our job here, laying out the pros and cons, making
some heavy-duty decisions--and that is what they are, but that is why
we are here--and then instructing our Commander in Chief what Congress
believes should be the appropriate course of action.
Many would vote for it; many would vote against it, but, again, not
to have this debate and vote when we are now 10 months into another war
is downright wrong. It is almost lawless. It is something that it is
hard to imagine getting away with this long.
So I hope that we get a good bipartisan vote on this. It is about
time that we do debate this again. If the Speaker did not like the
President's authorization that he brought forward, then let's get
another authorization. Let's write one ourselves. I have one. I know
other Members have one. Let's bring forth an authorization and debate
what we want to do moving forward. That is the wise thing to do. That
is the smart thing to
[[Page H4119]]
do. That is the right thing to do. We have troops in harm's way. They
need to know what their Members of Congress believe, what the
Constitution requires in terms of doing our job. They deserve us to do
better.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as I said a few minutes ago,
currently U.S. forces are conducting multiple airstrikes against ISIL
in Iraq and Syria. Without this authority, those campaigns would stop.
And certainly, much has happened since the authority was first given.
As a matter of fact, things are getting far worse than they have been
in the past.
Acceptance of this amendment would rob our country of one of the key
authorities our Commander in Chief needs and relies on to keep us safe
and to address these types of crises, which seem to occur all over the
Middle East. Therefore, I strongly reject and oppose the amendment and
urge others to do likewise.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Ms. LEE. 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 gentlewoman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. 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 in contravention of section 2483(b)(5) of title 10,
United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman from
New Jersey and just thank him for the wonderful job he has done
protecting our troops and our people around world and making sure that
the world remains a safer place than it would be otherwise without the
United States there.
{time} 2345
Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department
of Defense from increasing the prices paid by our troops and their
families, our veterans and their families at military commissaries,
especially overseas.
The commissary benefit is one of a number of benefits that our
servicemembers receive upon joining the military, and it is one that
our servicemembers and their families rely upon to maintain their
access to wholesome, affordable, and healthy food.
The Defense Commissary Agency, or DeCA, has embarked upon a poorly
researched plan to raise prices on commissary consumers as part of a
move towards what they call a ``commercial'' business model.
This amendment requires the Department of Defense to continue using
the existing model of produce sourcing for commissaries in Asia and the
Pacific unless and until the Secretary of Defense can certify that a
new sourcing model will not raise prices on the shelves. This maintains
the promised benefits that our warriors and their families expected to
receive when they raised their right hand and became a United States
sailor, airman, soldier, or marine.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Sablan
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, 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 new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to establish any live-fire range, training course, or
maneuver area within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands in contravention of section 801 of Public Law 94-241
or section 2663 of title 10, United States Code.
Mr. SABLAN (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from the Northern Mariana Islands?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from the Northern Mariana Islands and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, many of us in this Chamber share a concern
that the Federal Government has so much power and so many resources
that it can overwhelm and even intimidate smaller State and local
governments.
The amendment I am offering responds to that concern. It requires,
before any funds are expended in the Northern Mariana Islands for
expanded activities by the military, that the Secretary of Defense
reach agreement with the government of the Northern Mariana Islands on
the nature and scope of those activities.
My amendment levels the playing field between the very powerful
Federal Government and a very small territorial government.
A little history: in 1975, the people of the Northern Marianas
elected to become a part of the United States, and 78 percent of the
people voted for the negotiated agreement that defined our political
union. Part of that agreement includes the lease of two-thirds of our
island of Tinian to the U.S. military for 100 years and the lease of
the entire island of Farallon de Medinilla. The cost to the United
States--$175,000 a year. That is a Manhattan Island deal.
The people of the Northern Marianas committed those lands for the
purpose of national defense willingly because we understood that with
citizenship comes responsibility, and the United States recognized in
the agreement negotiated with us that we have very little land and that
any future acquisition, therefore, would be ``only the minimum area
necessary.''
Today, however, the U.S. military is proposing the takeover of
another entire island. It is called Pagan. One more out of only 14
islands in the Northern Marianas, when we have already given up all of
Farallon de Medinilla and two-thirds of Tinian--25 percent of our total
land area of only 183 square miles. The military is proposing to use
these lands for live-fire ranges, training courses, and maneuver areas.
I should explain that these are public lands and that decisions about
the use of public lands in the Northern Marianas rests in the hands of
the Governor and our legislators.
To lease lands to the military or not, what the terms and conditions
of any lease may be, those decisions are an exercise in local self-
government, and I will respect those local decisions. But as the
official in Congress representing the people of the Northern Marianas,
I want to be sure that the Federal Government also respects the
decisions of the government of the Northern Marianas.
Again, that is what my amendment would do. My amendment simply
assures that none of the funds we appropriate today will be used for
the activities the military is proposing for public lands in the
Northern Marianas without first obtaining the consent and the agreement
of the Northern Marianas government and actually obtaining an agreement
for the use of that land.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
[[Page H4120]]
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising
the issue. Obviously, he is a wonderful representative of the Mariana
Islands.
However, given the way this amendment is written, it is unclear to me
the impact that this may have on our military's future ability to
train. So, regretfully, I must oppose this amendment, but I look
forward to working with the gentleman to address his concerns.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands has
2 minutes remaining.
Mr. SABLAN. I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen very much.
Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way. You have a piece of property,
and it belongs to you in title. I come over; and without asking you if
I could use your land, I come in with a yardstick. I bring surveyors. I
bring architects and engineers to your land, and I start drawing up my
plans.
Would any person alive allow that to happen in the United States of
America? They won't. Two-thirds of Tinian they already have. They are
asking for an entirely new island, Mr. Chairman, and they would own 25
percent of the Northern Marianas.
They are going to fire howitzers in our community. They have claimed
that on this one island there are no inhabitants. I happen to live two
doors from these people. And that they are from Pagan. They live in
Pagan. They are residents of Pagan. Many of them are in Saipan for
work, just like many of us, 541 Members of Congress who come to
Washington to work and go home every break--except for one, the
Delegate from the District of Columbia. This is her home. All of us
come to D.C. to work. Some of us, even those who don't have homes in
our districts, claim that we go back to our districts because that is
our home.
Present Federal law says that the United States Government, the
military must first seek permission and obtain access to the property.
They don't have that access. And in the meantime, until they obtain
that access or an agreement for the use of that land, then they should
cease and desist from any plans that they are making for the use of an
island that they don't own.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SABLAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compassion and his
conviction and would join in wanting to work with you, as the chairman
has indicated, to see if there is some resolution to your concern.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't own the land. I am just bringing
out facts here and bringing out the sentiments of my constituents.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the Northern
Mariana Islands will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, 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
under the heading ``Iraq Train and Equip Fund'' may be used
to procure or transfer man-portable air defense systems.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, since August 8, 2014, in Iraq----
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The committee is prepared to accept your
amendment.
Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have another 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
under section 9014 for ``Assistance and Sustainment to the
Military and National Security Forces of Ukraine'' may be
used to procure or transfer man-portable air defense systems.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment.
Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, 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. 10003. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be expended by the Department of the Navy to divest or
transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer, any search and
rescue units from the Marine Corps.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would
preserve a very important component of the Marine Corps: its search and
rescue units.
According to the most recent Marine aviation plan, the Corps had
these units slated for a divestiture by the end of the calendar year. I
was glad to see that, after some public backlash on that plan, the
Corps decided to temporarily postpone those divestiture plans. But just
as easily as the Marines postpone their decision, they could also
recommence.
I still believe such actions would be a bad decision, and I am not
alone. That is why I am offering this bipartisan amendment with my
colleagues, Representatives Jones, Sinema, and Butterfield.
After many years, there were only two remaining search and rescue
units left: one at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and one at
MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.
Marine Corps Air Station Yuma search and rescue unit performed 72
rescue missions to aid surrounding communities from 2010 to 2014. Last
October, the Yuma unit facilitated the rescue of 28 Boy Scouts and four
chaperones who were lost during a canoe trip.
MCAS Cherry Point's search and rescue unit, known as VMR-1, performs
roughly 50 missions annually to help retrieve lost paddlers and hikers.
Just this past March, VMR-1 rescued a man who was reported missing
during a kayaking trip near Cedar Island, North Carolina. This was not
only a nighttime mission, but there was a heavy fog as well, so much so
that the first rescue helicopter, known affectionately as Pedro, had to
abort its first landing at a hospital in Morehead and ultimately travel
75 miles to Greenville, where the man was finally admitted for
treatment.
But none of us have yet heard a viable alternative to sustain the
mission of these search and rescue units. Law enforcement and first
responders do not have these capabilities, and, apparently, no
contractor does either. This proposed divestiture would literally cost
lives.
[[Page H4121]]
I ask: What would have happened to these Boy Scouts if these marines
didn't come to help? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment
which was meant to save lives.
I thank the chair and ranking member.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I rise in opposition
to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
The Marine Corps has an aviation plan calling for the orderly
transfer of this capability to other entities. The East Coast mission
will be assumed by the Coast Guard, while the West Coast mission will
be competitively contracted out, as I understand it, in fiscal year
2017.
While we respect the gentleman's concerns, this amendment takes a
rifle shot approach against the Department of Defense's force structure
plan, and we believe that this is not good policy. Therefore, I urge
opposition to the amendment and would appreciate the gentleman making
the case for his position.
I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking
member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I join with the chairman in expressing my
opposition.
Again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, but we have had a series
of amendments like this brought to the debate limiting transfers,
limiting consideration of any movement or decisions or changes at the
Department of Defense. At some point, we are going to have to allow the
Department of Defense to run itself as well and not to second-guess
that maybe sometime they actually will make improvements because of a
decision they make, and for that reason, I do support my chairman in
his opposition.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 0000
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the idea that the East Coast may be absorbed
may be one thing; but accordingly, from what I have heard down in Yuma,
there is no viable option or contractor that has been and will be found
for Yuma.
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. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer a flash-bang
grenade under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, on May 28, 2014, narcotics
agents, assisted by members of the Habersham County, Georgia, Special
Response Team, executed a no-knock search warrant on a home on a quiet
street. Officers terrified the sleeping family but did not find any
drugs when they entered the home.
During the raid, a 2-year-old child, baby Bou Bou, was badly burned
when the officers tossed a flash-bang grenade into his playpen which
was located in a darkened room. The officers justified their actions by
saying that their intelligence indicated that there would be no
children present.
Mr. Chairman, as an editorial in The Washington Post noted: ``A
flash-bang grenade is an explosive device that emits a deafening boom
and a blinding flash of light. It is designed to temporarily stun the
occupants of a building so that the armed men who deployed it can clear
the building. It is an instrument of war.''
My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of flash-bang
grenades from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement. The
Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort
the relationship between the police and the communities they serve by
allocating over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local
police, including flash-bang grenades. Nothing in current law prevents
the military from giving police, including school and university police
departments, flash-bang grenades. Allowing this loophole to exist puts
our communities at risk of increasing militarization.
Mr. Chairman, while we have real tensions across the country, our
police and their communities are not at war. Funneling free military
equipment to the police, however, helps to further deepen the divide in
our communities. The same Washington Post article I mentioned earlier
cited over a dozen incidents in recent years where police injured
themselves or others while using flash-bang grenades.
This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law
enforcement agencies should or should not have. Instead, it is about
whether this Congress should purchase flash-bang grenades for fighting
wars abroad and then allow these flash-bang grenades to be transferred
by the Department of Defense back to local law enforcement agencies for
use here at home.
Local governments, in consultation with law enforcement agencies that
they oversee, should decide what types of equipment the law enforcement
agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally
make that decision independent of civilian authority. The local
government can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use
by the agencies under their control through the local budgeting
process, and they can also seek financial assistance through Federal
grants.
This amendment doesn't touch grant money or State or local
governments' freedom to purchase the equipment they need. The local
budget process and Federal grant programs involve making choices based
on need and funding. The 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of
free equipment directly from the Pentagon to the law enforcement
agency. When the equipment is free and is plentiful and civilian
authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: why not accept
free gifts of military equipment. However, if acquiring this equipment
militarizes our police departments beyond comprehension, what kind of
community policing are we actually performing? Or are we just simply
occupying?
This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very common sense. We should
consider whether or not we want our country to move in this direction
of militarization, and we certainly need our civilian authorities to be
involved in that process. So the consequences are too dangerous to keep
proliferating this weaponry on our streets, and I would ask that my
colleagues support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and rise in
support of it. There is no question that every law enforcement officer
in our country is in possession of a very dangerous job.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). The time of the gentleman from Georgia
has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) to finish his remarks.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I do recognize
the very tough and dangerous job that
[[Page H4122]]
local enforcement officers have, every last one of them, and what an
important job they do. I certainly have been active over my career in
Congress working with the Department of Defense to transfer necessary
equipment to law enforcement agencies.
But I would agree with the assertion of the gentleman that we do have
to make a distinction with some of these types of materials between
civil law enforcement and military action.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. The Department of Defense excess property
program does provide valuable surplus equipment to State and local law
enforcement agencies for its use in counternarcotics and
counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety.
It has, on occasion, provided aircraft, including helicopters and
small planes, four-wheel-drive vehicles, pickup trucks, ambulances, and
mobile command vehicles. It has provided vests and helmets to protect
officers, all sorts of important protection equipment, including
binoculars, radios, clothing, and information technology.
In a time of declining budgets, at the Federal level but also at the
State and local level, this program is a good example of a Federal-
local partnership that ensures that we get the most out of each tax
dollar spent.
This amendment would restrict the Department's ability to put
equipment they no longer need to use protecting our citizens within our
local communities. We think it is a good program. It obviously ought to
be monitored, and things ought to be only put in proper hands.
{time} 0010
On occasion, horrible incidents do occur, but all in all, this
program has been a valuable thing to many communities across America.
I do rise in opposition to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, 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), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to procure any Army Aircrew Combat Uniforms.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a cost-saving
amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2016.
Last year, it was brought to my attention by numerous sources in my
district that in 2009, the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU-
27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army aircrew combat
uniform, also known as the A2CU.
Those constituents of mine--many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or
are friends and family of military personnel--have expressed a desire
for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform. There are
multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. The most
important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety and
efficiency.
To sweeten the deal when making the pitch to me, my constituents
explained that moving back to the CWU model would also save the
Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. All these
factors led me to offer this same commonsense amendment last Congress,
and it passed this body by a voice vote.
The CWU model has a proven track record of safety and practicality.
The CWU model is still authorized for Army special operation aviators,
all of the aviators in the other service branches of the U.S. military,
and most air forces and navies around the world.
Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and efficiency of the
CWU model, and the safety aspects are of paramount importance to our
Army aviators because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are
very high.
The CWU model flight suits have an antistatic fiber woven into them
to prevent sparks which, for obvious reasons, are not that desirable
when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile
jet fuel on board. The one-piece design of the CWU model is also
extremely important as it does not, in the event of fire, leave any
opportunities for exposed skin.
Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56
percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU was proven to wear out
faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the
camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions
more purchasing the new flight uniform.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this
amendment does not score as it is written, but, being that the intent
is to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should
actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the
Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it
were to move back to the CWU model.
Further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the CWU model
back into the supply system, as the rest of the service branches still
use them. In other words, there is no need to reboot the supply chain.
The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me, who was sent to
this town to rein in spending, but more importantly, I listen to these
Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer. Being
that they are the ones doing the training and flying, I am going to
have to take them at their word.
Given the safety and practicality applications and given that the
United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving
a few millions here and a few millions there in the name of safety and
practicality is something we should all strive to achieve.
I urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment
which cuts costs and improves safety.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from
Arizona on his interest in the safety of our Army aviation personnel.
This amendment would prohibit the Army from spending additional funds
to purchase the Army aircrew combat uniform. As an alternative, the
Army could resume using a previous flight suit, the CWU-27/P that has
not been authorized since 2009, except for special operators.
I understand this amendment is based on discussions with flight crews
during visits with airfields and tactical training sites. The old model
is a one-piece design. It is said to cost less and be more durable than
the current model Army aircrew combat uniform.
The committee is interested in providing our soldiers with the best
equipment possible; however, conclusions based on what appear--and I
want to say this respectfully--on somewhat anecdotal information and
brief discussions rarely lead to wise spending decisions.
I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I am pleased
to yield to Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would want to associate myself with
the chairman's remarks and again reiterate my previous comments that at
some point, we ought to trust some judgments being made down at the
Department of Defense and not just say no to everything. We ought to be
making some decisions.
I appreciate the chairman's explanation of the situation and join him
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the two individuals
that
[[Page H4123]]
the one-piece has been preferred by the aviators for the safety aspects
because of the woven cloth. I think sometimes we have to have the
administration start looking to the people that are actually in harm's
way in this regard.
With that, 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. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, 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), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the
Azov Battalion.
Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking Mr. Frelinghuysen and
Mr. Visclosky in conducting the amendments around these important
considerations.
This amendment that I propose this evening limits arms, training, and
other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.
Foreign Policy magazine has characterized the 1,000-man Azov
Battalion as ``openly neo-Nazi'' and ``fascist.'' Numerous other news
organizations, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and the
Associated Press have corroborated the dominance of White supremacist
and anti-Semitic views within the group; yet Ukraine's Interior
Minister recently announced the Azov Battalion will be among the units
to receive training and arms from Western allies, including the United
States.
Azov's founder, Andriy Biletsky, organized the neo-Nazi group the
Social-National Assembly in 2008. Azov men use neo-Nazi symbolism on
their banner.
{time} 0020
These groups run counter to American values, and once the fighting
ends, they pose a significant threat to the Ukrainian Government and to
the Ukrainian people. As we have seen many times, most notably within
the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, these groups will not lay down their
arms once the conflict is over. They will turn their arms against their
own people in order to enforce their hateful views.
I urge the support of my amendment and to make it U.S. law that we
will not equip this dangerous neo-Nazi militia.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for the committee in
suggesting that we accept the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the
fact that he wants to exercise care, as we do on the committee, to make
sure whoever is trained is someone who is, if you would, a person of
good intent, as opposed to someone who is not. I appreciate the
gentleman's concern and for his offering the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, 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 appropriated or otherwise made
available in this Act may be used to transfer a mine-
resistant ambush protected vehicle under section 2576a of
title 10, United States Code.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, sheriff's departments and local
police departments are local peace officers. They enforce the law and
maintain peace and order. Ideally, they are members of the communities
in which they serve.
The Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes
distort the relationship between police and their communities by
providing over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local
police, including armored vehicles and military grade weapons. Police
who patrol the streets and neighborhoods in armored MRAPs, while armed
to the hilt, can easily lose sight of their role, which is to protect
and serve, and, instead, take on the mindset of a paramilitary
occupation force. The routine showing of military authority on our
streets creates mistrust that only further deepens the divide between
law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect and serve.
My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of mine
resistant ambush protected vehicles, or MRAPs--for free--straight from
the Department of Defense to local law enforcement agencies.
This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law
enforcement agencies and police should not have. Instead, it is about
whether this Congress should purchase MRAPs for fighting wars abroad
and then allow the Department of Defense to give that equipment away to
civilian law enforcement here at home, for free, to use on the streets
of America.
Local governments, in consultation with the law enforcement agencies
they oversee, should decide what types of equipment their law
enforcement agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not
unilaterally make that decision independent of civilian authority. The
local governments can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary
for use by the agencies under their control through their local
budgeting process, and they can seek financial assistance to purchase
necessary equipment from Federal grant programs.
This amendment doesn't touch grant money or the State's or local
government's freedom to purchase the equipment it needs. The local
budget process and application for Federal grant programs involve
making choices based on need and funding, while the 1033 program is an
unregulated pipeline of free equipment directly from the Pentagon to
the law enforcement agency.
When the equipment is free and in plentiful supply and civilian
authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: Why not accept
free equipment? Why not obtain equipment based on desire rather than
need? However, if acquiring the equipment required the use of local
funds or involved applying for grant money, the decision would be more
deliberative and inclusive of civilian authority. Other factors would
be considered, including whether there is a need for such equipment,
how the equipment would be used, and whether the community consents to
being policed with such equipment.
This amendment simply shuts off the pipeline of military equipment
from the battlefield to our main streets. This amendment forces us to
consider whether MRAPs, designed and purchased for battle in the Iraqi
desert, are suitable for our local police. It forces us to consider
whether an ordinary American citizen would truly feel
[[Page H4124]]
comfortable in approaching an officer for help if the officer were
behind the wheel of a 15-ton armored vehicle that had just been
returned from combat in Afghanistan.
This amendment would end the transfer of these armored vehicles to
school systems and to universities across the country. Are our children
so unruly that order can only be maintained with the use of an MRAP?
Unless this amendment passes, a vote for the underlying bill will
ultimately fund the purchase of MRAPs, which will, one day, be
transferred back home for use against our constituents. The
consequences are too dangerous to continue this indiscriminate flow of
weaponry to the streets of this Nation. I urge support for this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Rather than repeat myself, I think the Department
of Defense excess property program does provide some very valuable
equipment to local law enforcement. Of course, it is invaluable if it
is used properly and with care. As a consequence, I oppose the
gentleman's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. Mr. 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 carry out a furlough (as defined in section
7511(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code) that--
(1) includes in the notice of the furlough made pursuant to
section 752.404(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations,
``sequestration'' as the reason for the furlough; and
(2) is of a civilian employee of the Department of Defense
who is paid from amounts in a Working Capital Fund Account
pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United States Code.
Mr. COLE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to
dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am offering a bipartisan amendment which prohibits the furlough of
civilian employees while funds remain in the defense working capital
fund. The services provided by working capital fund employees are
already fully funded apart from the appropriations process. In fact,
imposing furloughs actually costs the taxpayers more through delayed
production, overhead increases, and the need for overtime or the
transfer of workload to more expensive sources of work. The amendment
will prevent that from happening again as it did in 2013.
{time} 0030
If working capital fund employees are furloughed, as they were in the
last government shutdown, there will be no direct savings. Indeed, it
will actually cost the taxpayers more money.
The furloughs delay production, increase the overhead, and in some
cases transfer workload to more expensive sources of work. Indeed,
senior military officials have expressed publicly that working capital
fund employees, such as depot and shipyard workers, should be
considered for exemption from furloughs because the furloughs actually
hurt readiness and increase costs associated with production delays.
It is important to note that under this provision, DOD still has the
authority to furlough working capital fund employees for disciplinary
purposes. Further, working capital fund employees could be furloughed
if funded workload dried up due to budget cuts or downsizing.
Therefore, ending the threat of furloughs for these employees will save
money, improve military readiness, and prevent needless delays and cost
overruns from work that has already been funded.
I urge the support of the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole),
my good friend and a member of our subcommittee, puts me in a very
difficult position.
I complained in my opening remarks that some of our colleagues in the
Congress, as I said earlier in the day, delight every time a civilian
employee is furloughed. So I certainly appreciate the gist of the
gentleman's amendment. We have a much larger problem that we and the
administration need to address, and I know he feels the same way.
My concern with the particular amendment is we have other departments
as well, whether it be the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue
Service, EPA, Housing and Urban Development, and the list goes on, and
ought not to select one agency over the other. I don't think it is the
proper way to go.
We ought to collectively understand that the government actually does
many good things to help the people of this country. We ought to value
the work of each of our Federal employees, and we ought to block the
furlough of any of them in any agency, not a particular one.
So I certainly do not disagree with the intent of the gentleman. I
realize we are talking about the Department of Defense, but do believe
that we ought to be looking at the broader question.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly respond to my friend.
I share many of his sentiments. I certainly don't like to see anybody
furloughed. I was not in favor of previous government shutdowns. I
thought they were quite counterproductive.
This is, however, a unique case. The funds are already in existence.
There is no savings. We are literally taking people out of work when we
have funds set aside outside the appropriations process for them to
continue their work. So in this case they really deserve to be excepted
if we happen to make a mistake and stumble into a process like this
again.
Again, I don't disagree with my friend's sentiments about the larger
workforce. I have never found these things to be particularly
productive. Indeed, as I recall, in every case we have always gone back
and made everybody whole, so really the ultimate loser has usually been
the taxpayer because we paid for work, created uncertainty that our
Federal employees didn't deserve, but ultimately compensated them.
In this case, the funds are available. We should just keep people at
work. They are doing an important job for the national security. So
again, I would urge the passage of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, 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 a contract with any offeror or any of its
principals if the offeror certifies, pursuant to the Federal
Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of its
principal--
(1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has
been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it
for commission
[[Page H4125]]
of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining,
attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State,
or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or
State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of
offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making
false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax
laws, or receiving stolen property; or
(2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or
civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of
any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1); or
(3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has
been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount
that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains
unsatisfied.
Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
to waive the reading, please.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, the chairman of the committee has shown a
great deal of courtesy and kindness and consideration, so I am going to
try to keep this as short as possible.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment because
it is so incredibly reasonable.
Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, 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 new section:
Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used for Government Travel Charge Card expenses by military
or civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for
gaming, or for entertainment that includes topless or nude
entertainers or participants, as prohibited by Department of
Defense FMR, Volume 9, Chapter 3 and Department of Defense
Instruction 1015.10 (enclosure 3, 14a and 14b).
Mr. GOSAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Arizona?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer one final amendment to the
DOD Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2016.
Let me express again my sincerest thanks to Chairman Frelinghuysen
and Ranking Member Visclosky for their dedication.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we will be pleased to accept the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. GOSAR. 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 amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, 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), add the
following new section:
Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be
used to consult, as the term is used in reference to the
Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, in
contravention of the assurance provided in section
20(c)(1)(A) of the National Institute of Standards and
Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g3(c)(1)(A).
Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent
that we waive the reading, please.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to an
amendment offered last year that passed the House by voice vote. The
amendment seeks to prohibit the intelligence community from subverting
or interfering with the integrity of any cryptographic standard that is
proposed, developed, or adopted by NIST. I urge continued support for
this amendment by both sides of the aisle.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment. Frankly, we don't know its full impact. It could
have some unintended consequences. This amendment could hamper
legitimate communications between the intelligence community and NIST
regarding security standards. This amendment is very broadly drafted.
It could prevent NIST from consulting with other intelligence community
agencies about that agency's internal computer system.
I know it was reported that the 2006 NIST cryptographic standard had
a NASA back door. I want to make it clear that NIST says they did not
deliberately weaken cryptographic standards at the behest of other
government agencies. They assure us they will not do so in the future.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, given that
assurance.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and
would associate myself again with his remarks and objection to the
bill. We go to great pains on the subcommittee to protect the privacy
of the American people, and I would agree with the assertions the
chairman has made. I appreciate him yielding to me.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can try to allay some of
the concerns that have been expressed.
My amendment seeks to address a serious problem. A year-and-a-half
ago it was revealed that the National Security Agency deliberately
subverted American cryptographic standards. Cryptographic standards for
the national security community and the commercial software industry
are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,
known as NIST. These standards are intended to protect Americans from
foreign intelligence agencies, from cyber criminals, from industrial
espionage, and from privacy violations by those who wish us harm.
{time} 0040
They are embedded in software products which are used and sold
widely--in fact, almost universally--in this country and elsewhere.
Unfortunately, media reports have confirmed that the National
Security Agency successfully and deliberately weakened encryption
standards promulgated by NIST to further NSA surveillance goals at the
cost of privacy of ordinary U.S. citizens. This is extremely dangerous.
It leaves users of those standards vulnerable to anybody who is
familiar with those weaknesses, friend or foe.
As World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee put it:
It is naive to imagine that, if you deliberately introduce
a weakness into a system, you will be the only one to use it.
My amendment would seek to address this issue and resolve it once and
for all by prohibiting the intelligence community from subverting or
interfering with the integrity of any cryptographic standard that is
proposed, developed, or adopted by NIST.
To be clear about it, the intelligence community can continue to
provide advice. What the intelligence community
[[Page H4126]]
cannot do is deliberately set out to weaken cryptographic standards
because whatever it does in that regard will certainly be understood
and exploited by our enemies, as we saw just last week when we
witnessed the decryption of information regarding classified
information and U.S. employees.
It is only common sense that we should not want taxpayers' dollars
that are appropriated to one agency to be used to deliberately and
actively subvert the work of another agency.
Therefore, I respectfully request support for this amendment on both
sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
The amendment was rejected.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
June 10, 2015, on page H4126, the following appeared: gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Grayson). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. MCCLINTOCK
The online version should be corrected to read: gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Grayson). The amendment was rejected. AMENDMENT
OFFERED BY MR. MCCLINTOCK
========================= END NOTE =========================
Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk
replacing amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional Record.
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 carry out any of the following:
(1) Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(g), 3(c), 3(e), 3(f), or 3(g) of
Executive Order 13423.
(2) Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(f)(iii-iv), 2(h), 7, 9,
12, 13, or 16 of Executive Order 13514.
(3) Sections (3)(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(g), 7, 8, 9, 11,
12, 13, 14, or 15 of Executive Order 13963.
(4) Subsections (c)(4), (c)(9), (c)(10), (c)(12), or (e) of
section 2911 of title 10, United States Code.
(5) Sections 400AA or 400FF of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6374, 6374e).
(6) Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C.
13212).
(7) Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C.
15852).
Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment forbids scarce defense
dollars from being allocated to fund three executive orders and several
other provisions of law that require our military to squander billions
of dollars in so-called green energy. The House adopted this amendment
by a voice vote last year.
I would again remind the House that, just a few weeks ago, the so-
called defense hawks warned that our defense budget has been strangled
by sequestration, that every dollar wasted long ago had been wrung out
of the Pentagon budget, and that our national security was directly
imperiled as a result.
That argument carried the day, even though it will add billions of
dollars to the national debt; yet, although we were told we didn't have
enough money to adequately pay and supply troops in the field, it seems
that we do have plenty of defense money to indulge the ``green energy''
mandates that are imposed on our Armed Forces.
What truly troubles me is that this was all aired during debate on
the DOD Appropriations bill last year. The limiting amendments were
adopted by voice vote; yet we see the same waste being allowed in this
year's bill.
Let me refresh memories about the green energy mandates. The GAO
reports that these mandates have cost the Navy as much as $150 per
gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy was forced to purchase 450,000
gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60
per gallon, when conventional petroleum cost just $2.50 per gallon.
These mandates forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000
gallons of biofuel in 2012. That is 10 times more than regular jet fuel
costs.
It is not just biofuels. Last year, the Pentagon was required to
purchase over 1,000 Chevy Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000 each.
As Senator Coburn's office pointed out: ``Each one of these $40,000
Chevy Volts represents the choice not to provide an entire infantry
platoon with all new rifles or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot
be used for realistic training.''
These green energy mandates have required the Army and Navy to
install solar arrays at various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk,
for example, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar
array which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base
electricity.
According to the inspector general's office, this project will save
enough money to pay for itself in just 447 years. It is too bad solar
panels only last about 25 years.
We don't know exactly how much these mandates waste because, as the
GAO reports: ``There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which
Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy-related initiatives
and the types of initiatives they are implementing.''
Outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the Department of
Defense last year, a figure that is expected to grow in the future.
We are told this program is necessary for flexibility. Really?
Shouldn't ``flexibility'' free us to get cheaper and more plentiful
fuels, not more expensive and more exotic ones?
We are told the military should do its part for the environment as if
it is possible to fight an environmentally sensitive war. That, I fear,
is the real reason for this wasteful spending, to sacrifice our
military budget on the altar of climate change.
This is part of an ideological crusade imposed on our military that
will pointlessly consume billions of defense dollars mainly to keep
money flowing to politically well-connected ``green energy'' companies
that can't get anyone else to buy their products.
There is a reason that Admiral Mullen warned us that, in his
professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national
security is our national debt. We just increased that debt because of
assurances that we had stretched the defense budget to the breaking
point.
As long as this program continues to consume billions of our defense
dollars, that claim cannot be taken seriously.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would start my remarks by saying the gentleman from
California has me at a disadvantage because we just received a copy of
the final amendment that was offered in the House. Lines 7 and 8 are
new to the amendment and refer to Executive Order No. 13963, which is
in addition to other items that I am opposed to.
I am told that those sections in that executive order refer to
planning for sustainability, but I cannot confirm that to the Members
of the House.
I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He talks
about exotic items--exotic items. The Department of Defense would be
blocked from purchasing recycled paper. Let's not buy recycled paper at
the Department of Defense. Now, there is a great idea.
The Department would be blocked from generating renewable energy that
might include using tents with photovoltaic materials that generate
solar power onsite for our troops in God-forsaken places on this planet
with no other access to energy sources.
The Department would be blocked from considering sites for new
Federal facilities that are pedestrian friendly and accessible to, God
forbid, public transit. Perhaps we should move the Pentagon because it
is near a Metro stop.
The Department would be blocked from cooperating with the Department
of Energy's efforts to maximize the use of alternative fuels for our
Federal fleet.
The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of energy in the
United States of America. As a former member of the Congress, I have a
profound respect for Senator Dick Lugar from Indiana, as he
characterized energy. It is not an energy problem so much as it is a
national security issue, given where and how much energy we import.
The Department would also be blocked from advancing sustainable
acquisition by trying to procure either less toxic or more water-
efficient alternatives. My sense is that, in some portions of the State
of California and
[[Page H4127]]
other areas, they are desperate for a couple of extra drops of water,
but that might just be too exotic.
{time} 0050
These are programs and initiatives that make sense, both for the
environment and for fiscal responsibility. Moreover, the Department has
been a leader in spurring new technologies, and I thought that is what
drives the economy in America.
This amendment is terribly ill-advised, and I would strongly urge all
of my colleagues to oppose it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. The
military is the largest purchaser of energy in our economy. That is
exactly the point.
They should not be forced to purchase energy at vastly inflated
prices to soothe the ideological itch of the environmental left.
No one in his right mind would pull into a gas station to pay $26.60
per gallon for fuel when the gas station next door is selling it for
$2.50. That is exactly what these executive orders are requiring our
military to do. It is squandering billions of our dollars and making a
mockery of any claim that we are stretching our defense dollars to the
utmost.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.
Guinta) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bost, 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. 2685)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________