[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.

                          ____________________