[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H4127-H4133]
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 Illinois (Mr. Bost) kindly resume the chair.
{time} 0053
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. Bost (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,
an amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock)
had been disposed of, and the bill had been read through page 162, line
25.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison
Mr. ELLISON. 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 in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with any person whose
disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in
section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the
Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System
include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act'' and such
disposition is listed as ``willful'' or ``repeated''.
Mr. ELLISON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the amendment be considered as read.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from State?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, no hard-working American should ever have
to worry that her employer will refuse to pay her when she works
overtime or takes money out of her paycheck, especially if she works
for a Federal contractor. This practice is known as wage theft.
Right now, Federal contractors who violate the Fair Labor Standards
Act are allowed to apply for Federal contracts. This amendment will
ensure that funds may not be used to enter into a contract with a
government contractor that willfully, and this is important, Mr.
Chairman, willfully or repeatedly violates the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
Other iterations of this amendment have simply identified any
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. This one identifies only
those contracts wherein the violator has been found to have been
willfully or repeatedly in violation.
Now, I hope that both Republicans and Democrats can agree that
willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act are
unacceptable; that we can find other contractors who do not violate the
Fair Labor Standards Act willfully and repeatedly. And this amendment
ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support.
It also ensures that honest, good contractors who do not willfully
and repeatedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act can have contracts.
Why shouldn't the Federal Government work with contractors who have
some modicum of respect for their employees and who do not willfully
and repeatedly violate the Fair Labor Standards Act?
This amendment relies upon the violations reported to the Federal
Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System.
Again, when a contractor applies for a Federal contract, there is
documentation they have to fill out, including the Federal Awardee
Performance and Integrity Information System, and that system looks
back to look at the prior 5 years worth of criminal, civil, or
administrative agency actions which have a final disposition.
None of these things are pending. None of these things are under
appeal. They have been decided.
And this amendment says that wherein violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act have been decided and determined conclusively, and only
in the category of those that have been willful and/or repeated, then
those particular contractors are contractors whom the U.S. Government
shouldn't be doing business with, at least for 5 years, until they
clean their act up.
Now, I hope that no one in this body would want to stand on the side
of the willful and repeated violators of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
It is impossible to me that any Member would want to do that,
particularly when we are trying to promote and do business with honest,
decent contractors, or at least average and mediocre contractors.
This one has gone to the, again, willful and repeated violators. Very
difficult to stand next to them, and I hope
[[Page H4128]]
no Member of this body would do such a thing.
The amendment would ensure that a single inadvertent violation would
not disqualify a contractor. And that is important. I have had some
people say, well, what if somebody just messes up one time?
Well, no, that particular individual wouldn't be hit by this
amendment. But the willful and repeated ones would.
So I think taxpayer money should be spent wisely. I think that as the
largest purchaser of goods and services, the Federal Government must
find a way to make sure funds are going to companies that treat their
workers fairly and give American families a chance to succeed.
This is a serious problem, Mr. Chairman. The Economic Policy
Institute found that ``In total, the average low-wage workers lose a
stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing as much as 15
percent of their earned income.''
A report by the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee of
the U.S. Senate revealed that 32 percent of the largest Department of
Labor penalties for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.
This is a problem. This is a situation that must be remedied.
{time} 0100
Similarly, the National Employment Law Project study found that 21
percent of Federal contract workers were not paid overtime, and 11
percent have been forced to work ``off the clock.''
Upholding the rule of law is a bipartisan issue. I think that we may
disagree on many things; taxes, spending, we disagree on that. There
have even been people in this body who disagree that any violator of
the Fair Labor Standards Act should get a contract, but I certainly
hope that those people who are repeated--let me repeat--repeated and
willful violators should be excluded at least for 5 years.
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. Mr. Chairman, we all agree that bad actors who
deny workers basic protections, including wage and overtime pay,
shouldn't be rewarded with government contracts funded by taxpayer
dollars, but this amendment is unnecessary.
There is a suspension and debarment process already in place under
the current law. If an employer has a history of bad behavior,
including ``willful'' and ``repeated'' violations of FLSA, the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Federal agencies know about it and have the
authority to deny that employer Federal contracts.
A report by the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office found
that litigation stemming from such claims continues to be a significant
problem.
These aren't all bad actors. Often, they are employers trying to do
the right thing, but are simply tripped up by an overly complex
regulatory system.
I may add, Mr. Chairman, this amendment was voted down in the
Transportation-HUD, Commerce-Justice-State, and Military Construction
and Veterans Affairs Subcommittees; and likewise, it should also be on
this floor.
I urge a ``no'' vote and yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Smith of Missouri
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. 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 provide for defense
counsel for any individual described in section 8101(c).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Missouri and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit
funds from being used to provide defense counsel to foreign terrorists
detained at Guantanamo Bay.
Simply put, Mr. Chairman, our tax dollars should not be going to
defend foreign terrorists. Hard-working taxpayers should not foot the
legal bill of noncitizen terrorists who plotted to kill innocent
Americans.
I recently visited Guantanamo Bay and learned firsthand of the
outrageous amount of time these detainees spend with their taxpayer-
funded counsel. I have asked the Department of Defense to provide me
with the exact amount they have spent in legal defense services for
detainees, but I have received no response. Mr. Chairman, I am sure
millions of dollars have been spent defending these foreign terrorists.
Legal resources provided by the Department of Defense should be
prioritized for American servicemembers. The pool of judge advocates
that represents detainees at Guantanamo is a stand-alone unit. They are
only assigned to act as defense attorneys for suspected terrorists.
Meanwhile, there is another pool of military lawyers to represent all
other American servicemembers.
Why should the DOD resources be assigned to defend foreign terrorists
when they could, instead, be used to defend our own men and women in
uniform? I am confident most Americans would agree that this money
could be better spent within the Department of Defense, perhaps by
making sure that our servicemembers are provided their legal counsel
ahead of noncitizen terrorists.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
gentleman's amendment.
We have a Constitution in this country. It contains language talking
about the right to be assisted by counsel, and there are many other
provisions relative to the protection of individual human beings from
the State.
We are a very large country with approximately 2 million people in
the military. I think one of the great foundational issues in the
United States is to protect any human being from that incredible amount
of power so that you avoid abuse.
We have seen enough instances of abuse because of allegations of
terrorists, many of whom are very real, mean, despicable people; but to
now say that no one should have protection to make sure that that
incredible power of the state is used justly and wisely is absolutely
wrong.
We have had any number of Members, our colleagues here yesterday and
today on this bill, offering amendments because they believe the
Department of Energy made a mistake on uniforms for airmen, the
Department of Defense made mistakes as far as whether or not we should
move helicopters from one base to another, we have made mistakes as far
as how we should have lifesaving rescue missions for various aspects of
the Department of Defense positioned throughout our great country.
What if, God forbid, all these allegations that the Department of
State may make mistakes from time to time would actually have an impact
on a human being, whoever they are, and that in the last instance, we
don't give them one iota of protection that we give to murderers and
rapists and burglar and arsonists in this country?
I think it is absolutely wrong for the gentleman to offer this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it simple.
This amendment is quite clear. If you don't want American tax dollars
being spent to protect foreign terrorists who plotted to attack and
kill innocent Americans, then vote ``yes.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H4129]]
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would just say that, if we are talking
about the protection of taxpayers dollars, we should be talking about
the protection of a human life and to make sure that that life, no
matter whose life it is, is protected from the arbitrary use of power.
I again strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment that I think is
just contrary to the foundational principles of the United States of
America. We don't torture people. We protect people's lives in the
United States, and now, to withdraw any protection for them is
absolutely wrong.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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 Indiana will
be postponed.
{time} 0110
Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee
Ms. JACKSON 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), insert the
following:
Sec. ___. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of the authority of the President
pursuant to Article II, section 2 of the Constitution.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, the responsibilities of the President
and the responsibilities of the Defense Department continue in this new
climate to grow. This has been a long journey in the Defense
Appropriations process and amendments on the floor, and I would like to
at this hour thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense
Appropriations Subcommittee for their patience and their participation
in the list of amendments that we have had the opportunity to present.
I am a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Therefore, I see a
lot of the new approaches.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I believe the committee would be delighted to accept
your amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am delighted, and I will finish up.
I thank the chairman and ranking member. The amendment deals with
countering violent extremism. I look forward to working on this issue.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member
Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their
devotion to the security of our country and the world.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment,
which is simple and straightforward:
Sec.___. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to
contravene the authority of the President under article II,
section 2 of the Constitution.
The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment 177 is to affirm the President's
authority under the Constitution.
Countering violent extremism and preventing the recruitment of
American youth into violent extremism and preventing them from becoming
foreign fighters for dangerous groups such as ISIL and other radical
groups around the globe is a national imperative.
Earlier this year, I introduced the ``No Fly For Foreign Fighters
Act,'' legislation that will help keep foreign fighters and terrorists
out of our country.
In introducing this legislation, I was particularly concerned about
terrorist groups recruiting our youth.
In fact, I was part of a special roundtable along with DHS Secretary
Johnson, in Houston, Texas on ``Youth Engagement and Countering Violent
Extremism''.
During the discussion, Secretary Johnson and I addressed the
importance of community engagement in preventing the recruitment of
young Americans into terrorist groups.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will help to prevent the recruitment of
American youth as foreign fighters, a phenomenon that is unfortunately
already taking root.
In March 2009, two-hundred schoolchildren in Britain (some as young
as thirteen) had been identified and reported by community members--
including parents, imams, and teachers--as being at risk of extremism
or of being ``groomed by radicalisers.''
At least six boys between the ages of 13 and 16 were captured by U.S.
Forces in Afghanistan in the initial fighting there.
In Iraq, U.S. forces detained more than 100 juveniles in the first
year following the invasion, and more than 600 to date.
In the last few years a number of Somali-American young men have
traveled to Somalia, possibly to train and fight with al-Shabaab.
At least one of these young men was killed during a suicide bombing
attack in northern Somalia in October 2008, which is the first known
instance of a U.S. citizen participating in a suicide attack.
Moreover, over 140 United States persons have traveled to Syria or
Iraq to fight alongside ISIL, the Nusra Front, and other terrorist
organizations.
Although there are no known instances of a U.S. person attempting to
return from the region after participating in conflict, we must be
vigilant against this prospect.
The Jackson Lee Amendment 177, seeks to protect youth and combat the
actions of terrorist groups like Boko Haram and others who are using
social media to bring them to their side.
The Jackson Lee Amendment is important because data shows that
individuals recruited as foreign fighters from nations in Africa,
Europe, and the Middle East have crossed borders and wreaked havoc and
committed terroristic acts including kidnapping of youth similar to
what Boko Haram has done.
Mr. Chair, the United States is committed to protecting our youth,
preventing and combating violent extremism, protecting our borders and
the globe from the scourge of terrorism and violent extremism.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will do just that.
Jackson Lee Amendment 177 prevents terrorism by ascertaining that
American youth are not seduced into becoming terrorists.
The Jackson Lee Amendment promotes the United States military's
unparalleled expertise and technological capability to combat and
defeat terrorists who hate our country and prey upon our children,
innocent persons, women and the elderly across the globe.
Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant
terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai
Peninsula are all global and national security threats that must be
stopped.
The Jackson Lee Amendment will support the Department of Defense's
efforts to prevent the recruitment of American youth into terrorism and
the recovery of the still missing Chibok girls from Nigeria.
I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Guinta
Mr. GUINTA. 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 propose, plan for, or execute a new or additional
Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from New Hampshire and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my amendment to the
Defense Appropriations bill to prevent any funds from being used to
conduct a new round of military base closures through a process known
as Base Realignment and Closure, also known as BRAC.
While President Obama continues to discuss the possibility of another
round of BRAC as a way to reduce defense spending, we know all too well
the negative impacts closing military bases have on our communities,
States, national security, and military preparedness.
For more than 200 years, the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has provided
thousands of Granite Staters with jobs and contributed millions in
revenue and military equipment for the United States Navy.
[[Page H4130]]
Today, Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has roughly 100 naval officers and
enlisted personnel assigned to the facility. In addition, the shipyard
employs roughly 4,700 civilian employees and offers an active
apprentice and engineer recruitment program in the communities
surrounding the facility. This base is more than just helpful to our
local economy and our military readiness. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is
absolutely essential to New Hampshire. Portsmouth Naval Shipyard is one
of only four shipyards remaining in the country. Each of these
facilities has a mission to overhaul, repair, and modernize our
Nation's submarine fleet. These services are vital toward maintaining
fleet readiness.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment to show our
unwavering support for our men and women in arms.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, 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. Mr. Chairman, while I claim the time in opposition to
the amendment, I wouldn't express it, if you would, that I will oppose
his amendment, but I do want to express some very serious concerns.
The concern I have is that we do need to begin to think about future
budgets for the Department of Defense; and as I have mentioned
repeatedly tonight, we are going to have to start making some hard
decisions, and changes will have to be made and cuts will have to be
made. I am very concerned about Congress' continued failure to confront
the challenges that we face at the Department of Defense and simply
saying no, no, no, and that we shouldn't even consider any possible
changes.
The Department of Defense has continuously proposed significant
initiatives to provide for future flexibility to meet our national
security strategy, and Congress has said no, no, no. I simply do not
think we should foreclose any options to consider in order to possibly,
God forbid, save money in the outyears.
A BRAC round is a reasonable approach that provides Congress a chance
to say yes or no, and I would make the observation again that we have
got to stop saying no to everything that the Department of Defense
considers. In this case, I am not even aware there is a proposal for a
BRAC, but let's say no anyway. I think we have to stop doing it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. GUINTA. Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's
concerns. While I certainly hope that there is no BRAC round, there are
concerns expressed by Members relative to the President's comments in
this area as a method of reducing defense spending.
We have gone through sequestration. I have seen firsthand the
concerns expressed by the civilian employees at the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard. They are the best and the brightest in the business, and I
feel very strongly that this is important to New Hampshire and
important to the defense of our Nation.
I certainly share the concern and welcome the opportunity to look at
the Department of Defense to try to find efficiencies and effectiveness
to make sure that our men and women are properly prepared, but I feel
that a BRAC realignment would be inappropriate at this time. I hope
that Members would support this amendment.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and the rest of the committee for
their hard work on this legislation.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Guinta).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie
Mr. MASSIE. 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.__. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of
the funds made available by this Act may be used by an
officer or employee of the United States to query a
collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under
section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person
identifier.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to queries for foreign
intelligence information authorized under section 105, 304,
703, 704, or 705 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805; 1842; 1881b; 1881c; 1881d), or title
18, United States Code, regardless of under what Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act authority it was collected.
(c) Except as provided for in subsection (d), none of the
funds made available by this Act may be used by the National
Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate
or request that a person (as defined in section 101(m) of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1801(m))) alter its product or service to permit the
electronic surveillance (as defined in section 101(f) of such
Act (50 U.S.C. 1801(f))) of any user of such product or
service for such agencies.
(d) Subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to mandates
or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance
for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).
Mr. MASSIE (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 Kentucky?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Kentucky and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the American people don't want to be spied
on by their own government. Our Founding Fathers included the Fourth
Amendment for a reason: to require probable cause and a warrant before
the government and government agents can snoop on anyone.
During the 113th Congress, the House of Representatives passed the
bipartisan amendment I am offering today by a 293-123 vote. This year,
our bipartisan group is reuniting once again to shut down
unconstitutional surveillance that does not meet the expectations of
our constituents or the standards required by our Constitution.
Our amendment shuts one form of backdoor surveillance by prohibiting
warrantless searches of government databases for information that
pertains to U.S. citizens.
The Director of National Intelligence has confirmed that the
government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of
emails and telephone calls without individual suspicion or probable
cause.
{time} 0120
At this time, I submit for the Record a letter from the Director of
National Intelligence, which confirms this warrantless spying.
Director of National Intelligence,
Washington, DC, March 28, 2014.
Hon. Ron Wyden,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide
Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from
2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to
query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign
Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person
identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been
conducted for the communications of specific Americans.
As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of
Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines issued Pursuant to
Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21,
2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers,
of communicatons lawfully acquired to obtain foreign
intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably
believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section
702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to
minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as
consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you
know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to
restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately
not adopted.
For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact
Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs.
Sincerely,
James R. Clapper.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the Director of the FBI has also confirmed
that he uses the information to build criminal cases against U.S.
persons, but the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI are not
above the Fourth Amendment, and this practice should end.
At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren), my colleague.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding in
[[Page H4131]]
support of the Massie-Lofgren amendment.
As mentioned, the declassified FISA court decision has indicated that
substantially more warrantless communications are collected through 702
than 215.
We had a bill up to recently, the USA FREEDOM Act, that alleged that
we were stopping bulk collection, but we didn't. During the markup of
that bill in the Judiciary Committee, we offered this amendment; and
everyone on the committee, including the chairman of the committee,
said they were for this provision, but it wasn't the right time. Well,
this is the right time.
That is why we have this broad support. It is the Massie-Lofgren-
Sensenbrenner-Conyers-Poe-Gabbard-Jordan-O'Rourke. It is broad; it is
bipartisan. It is supported by groups like the American Civil Liberties
Union, as well as the Campaign for Liberty, Demand Progress, as well as
FreedomWorks. This has broad bipartisan support.
The American people deserve this. When we have an interest in
querying the 702 database for American citizens, get a warrant. That is
what the Fourth Amendment requires.
Finally, this closes the opportunity to require backdoors on
technology. As has been mentioned earlier by technologists and
scientists, to do that just opens a door wide open for the bad guys and
the hackers to break in.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague stated, my amendment also
prohibits NSA and the CIA from placing backdoors into commercial
products.
This is important because, in December of 2013, it was reported that
a U.S. security company had received $10 million from the NSA to use a
flawed encryption method. Our government should strengthen technology
that protects our privacy, not take advantage of it.
At this time, 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, this amendment restricts the use of
section 702 of FISA, which is not currently up for reauthorization.
The law does not sunset until December of 2017. Any reform to this
authority should be fully vetted by the authorizing committees and not
inappropriately attached to our spending bill.
This amendment would impose greater restrictions on the intelligence
community's ability to protect national security and create an
impediment to our government's ability to locate threat information
already in our government's possession. Such an impediment would
potentially put American lives at risk of another terrorist attack.
Colleagues, the House recently passed H.R. 3361, the USA FREEDOM Act,
with overwhelmingly bipartisan support. It was signed into law last
week. This amendment seeks to relitigate an issue fully litigated in
the drafting of that legislation. A similar amendment was offered and
rejected by the House Judiciary Committee during its markup of that
bill.
The USA FREEDOM Act does include two reforms related to section 702
collection. These were reforms properly considered during the
authorization process, not slapped on an appropriations bill without
consideration and deliberation.
The first limits the government's use of information about U.S.
persons that is obtained under section 702 that the FISA court later
determines to be unlawful. The second provision requires the Director
of National Intelligence to report annually the number of U.S. person
queries under section 702.
Under current law, a U.S. person can only be the target of an
intelligence gathering under FISA pursuant to an individualized court
order based upon probable cause. The intelligence community is allowed
to query communications it legally collects from foreigners for
information about a U.S. person, so long as the query itself has
foreign intelligence value.
This is no different from traditional criminal law. If the government
has a legal wiretap on a drug dealer's cell phone and records a
conversation where a second drug dealer talks about committing a
murder, police can use that phone call as evidence against a second
drug dealer in a murder trial. What matters is that the initial
wiretap--or, here, the initial targeting of the foreign terrorist--was
legal.
Colleagues, this is an issue critical to our national security, and
it is complicated. Any changes to section 702 should be fully evaluated
and voted on using the authorization committee process, which is the
appropriate channel for considered review and debate on this critical
issue.
Unfortunately, this amendment has not benefited from the work of the
authorization process and would potentially put American lives at
greater risk for another terrorist attack. That is not a risk many of
us or certainly I am willing to take.
For this reason and many others, I strongly oppose this amendment,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. MASSIE. At this time, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The unclassified FISA court reported that the 702 search had, in
fact, scooped up vast amounts of wholly domestic information. How does
this work?
The upstream communications are tapped into by the NSA. In the
digital world, your digital information, your domestic information is
stored throughout the world. It is scooped up, and it is used.
The FBI has indicated it is used and the DNI has indicated it is used
for wholly domestic purposes without a warrant routinely thousands,
tens of thousands of times. It is in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
and it must stop.
I would just say, on the Judiciary Committee, every member of the
committee who declined to support this amendment said they were for the
amendment and said we should offer it to the DOD appropriations bill.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, now, it has been said here tonight that
this is not the time or the place to address these problems with 702,
but, look, we have a constitutional crisis, and this was the excuse we
were given in the Judiciary Committee when my colleague tried to get
the amendment allowed there.
It was the same excuse I was given in the Rules Committee when we had
an opportunity to address this, and I would maintain that 2017, 2 years
from now, is too long to go in this constitutional crisis situation
where we recognize something that illegal and/or unconstitutional is
occurring; yet we don't do anything about it. This is the time to do
something about it; this is the place to do something about it.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MASSIE. 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 Kentucky
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at
the desk.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentlewoman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
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 by this Act may be used to deactivate the 440th
airlift wing, or to move the personnel or aircraft of the
440th airlift wing, or to otherwise degrade the capabilities
of the 440th airlift wing.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman
from North Carolina and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
[[Page H4132]]
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from North Carolina.
{time} 0130
Mrs. ELLMERS of North Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to
continue my fight against the Air Force's misguided decision to shutter
the 440th Airlift Wing.
As I have stated time and time again, the removal of the 440th
Airlift Wing at Pope Army Airfield injects avoidable and unreasonable
risks to our military readiness. Given the instability and uncertainty
in the Middle East and around the world, I find it baffling that the
Air Force has chosen to close such an efficient airlift wing that
provides critical training to special operations forces and units such
as the 82nd Airborne's Global Response Force.
I have failed to see the true cost savings and any benefits
associated with this shortsighted proposal, and I will continue working
with my colleagues to pursue every option possible in order to prevent
the closure of the wing. Furthermore, I find it troubling that the Air
Force has made a concerted effort to hollow out this wing before
allowing congressional efforts to come to fruition.
Mr. Chairman, I simply lack the confidence that there will be no
negative impacts to the training of Fort Bragg paratroopers and special
operations forces. I will, therefore, continue to work with my North
Carolina colleagues to prevent its closure.
I believe that this is a necessary effort to preserve the 440th
Airlift Wing because of the vital and unique training mission that it
has at Fort Bragg with our paratroopers. Our paratroopers have to be
packed and ready at any given moment for their Global Response Force. I
have paratroopers who simply live day-to-day, ready to leave at a
moment's notice--within hours--around the world.
I believe that this is, again, a shortsighted, myopic decision on the
Air Force's part, and I believe we need to be protected.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law, and it
constitutes legislation on an appropriations bill. Therefore, it
violates clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriations 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?
If not, the Chair will rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination by the relevant Federal official of which actions would
degrade given capabilities.
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. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 in this Act may
be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
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. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to
H.R. 2685, which would prevent any funds in this bill from being
provided to Pakistan.
Over the last 15 years, the United States has provided Pakistan with
over $25 billion, the vast majority of which has gone to its military
and security services. With this money, which we are giving them at a
time when we are borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars, Pakistan is
using it to subsidize terrorists, some of whom are targeting Americans.
Just as bad, our largess enables Pakistan to repress its own
citizens. Our military aid is being used to murder and brutalize the
Baloch and Sindhi peoples, who are citizens of Pakistan. The Baloch
people are being slaughtered as part of a campaign by Pakistan, in
partnership with China, to steal the natural resources of the Baloch
people. With our money, the Pakistanis are, in fact, murdering and
repressing their own people, and they are aggressing upon their
neighbors in Afghanistan and in India.
They also have, as we have heard, a much hyped cooperation against
terrorism. I would suggest to my colleagues that this is a charade.
This is the same Pakistan establishment that gave shelter to Osama bin
Laden for years--Osama bin Laden, the mass murderer of Americans on 9/
11. The establishment of Pakistan gave him shelter and gave him a place
to hide all of those years, making a fool out of us as we provided them
money.
In case there is any doubt that they knew about Osama bin Laden's
hiding next-door, they rubbed our noses in their arrogance and
hostility when they arrested Dr. Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who
helped us find Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. As we talk
tonight, Dr. Afridi still painfully languishes in a Pakistani dungeon.
While Dr. Afridi is imprisoned, Pakistan should not get 1 cent of aid
from our country. This is an insult to us, and it is an insult to the
victims of 9/11 that we are even considering giving money to the
country which hid Osama bin Laden from us, much less giving them
borrowed money, perhaps, from China.
Now we see we borrow money from China and give it to Pakistan, which
then gives it to China. In exchange, of course, China is getting the
natural resources of Pakistan, of the Baloch people, and they are, in
fact, getting a pork facility in Qatar.
Our aid to Pakistan does not make us safer or the world more
peaceful. The Pakistanis and other enemies of ours see it as a weakness
on our part. This payoff we hope, of course, will bring more peace and
will pay the Pakistanis off. No. It emboldens the Pakistani
establishment in their criminal violence against their own people and
in their destabilizing violence against Afghanistan and India. Let us
note: if we want to have a peaceful situation in Afghanistan someday,
we cannot keep subsidizing the ISI and the military in Pakistan, which
is primarily responsible for that mayhem that is going on in
Afghanistan.
{time} 0140
The people of Afghanistan know that, and our own specialists know
that. We are just hoping if we pay people off, things will settle down.
It hasn't accomplished that mission. We have emboldened our enemies by
being stupid by giving money to a country like Pakistan, which
obviously hates our guts, when they hide the man who murdered thousands
of people on 9/11 and then suggest they didn't know it, and then arrest
the person who helped us find that murderer.
I would ask my colleagues to join me in prohibiting any more of our
money--especially borrowed money, as we are borrowing it today--from
going to these people in Pakistan, the leadership who are committing
crimes against us.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The amendment was rejected.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nugent
Mr. NUGENT. 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 retire conventionally armed air launched cruise
missiles (AGM-86 C/D).
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.
[[Page H4133]]
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a very simple amendment that would
help keep America's strategic forces strong and robust. My amendment
would make sure that the U.S. Air Force keeps the air-launched cruise
missile in their arsenal. That is the AGM-86 and its variants C and D.
The replacement missile, which I agree needs to happen, the long-
range standoff weapon, has faced continuous delays. At this point, the
replacement missile still remains years and years away from fielding.
I would like to applaud Chairman Frelinghuysen and the committee for
taking action in light of the numerous setbacks and delays of this
program by appropriately rephasing funds in the underlying bill.
With such development uncertainty, I am disappointed to say that
further delays are almost guaranteed.
In this high-threat environment, with heightened Russian aggression,
their violations of the INF Treaty, which are now public, and also
hostile Chinese adventurism in the South Pacific, we need to ensure
that this Nation's defense is without a gap.
We simply can't afford to take these weapons out of the arsenal at
this current moment until a replacement is up and operational. It is
critically important that we maintain our existing inventory.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman
from Florida for yielding.
Let me say, we admire his strong conviction and advocacy for this
program. We are prepared to accept his amendment with the understanding
that we will need to study and discuss it with the Air Force to
understand its full impact.
Mr. NUGENT. I absolutely appreciate the chairman doing that and would
love to work with him.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes
Mr. FORBES. 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. __ (a) Notwithstanding section 8005 and 9003, of the
unobligated funds authorized to be appropriated in fiscal
year 2016 and made available in this Act, $3,500,000,000 is
available to transfer to the National Sea-Based Deterrence
Fund established by section 2218a of title 10, United States
Code, as authorized by subsection (b) of section 1022 of
Public Law 113-291.
Mr. FORBES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that we waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, this is the second part of a two-part
amendment that deals with the sea-based deterrence fund. We began this
4 weeks ago when the Armed Services Committee put in this fund. We, at
that particular point in time, transferred $1.4 billion to the fund. In
addition to that, we gave authorities for additional moneys to be
transferred by the Department of Defense. Four weeks ago, we had 375
Members who voted in favor of that provision. When it was challenged on
the floor a few hours ago, we had 321 Members who have supported that.
All of the same individuals are supporting this fund that did so
earlier.
I could repeat all that, but we have already done that, so I would
just say all of the arguments we had earlier and all of the people who
supported it then continue to support it now. I hope the will of the
House will prevail and that the amendment will be accepted. If not, I
hope it will be adopted by the House.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
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.
Forbes) 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.
____________________