[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3892-H3904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 783 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. 5293.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1807


                     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. 5293) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Carter of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 29, printed in House 
Report 114-623, offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), 
had been postponed.


                 Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Massie

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used for drug interdiction or 
     counter-drug activities in Afghanistan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, today my friend, Congressman Jones, and I are 
offering an amendment to end the DOD's involvement in and funding of 
the futile war on drugs in Afghanistan.
  In his most recent quarterly report from April 2016, the Special 
Inspector General for Afghanistan, Mr. John Sopko, said that the United 
States has provided a total of $8.5 billion in funding for 
counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan since 2002. But these efforts 
have failed. They have been a colossal failure.

[[Page H3893]]

  Afghanistan remains the world's leading opium supplier. It provides 
over 90 percent of the world's opium today, and since our efforts in 
Afghanistan to counter poppy production and opium production, would you 
believe that their production has doubled?
  That is right. We have spent over $8 billion in counternarcotics 
efforts in Afghanistan, and they have doubled their production in that 
period of time. If this isn't a measure of failure, I don't know what 
it is.
  Congress annually appropriates counternarcotics funds through the DOD 
drug interdiction and counterdrug accounts. It also appropriates drug 
interdiction funds via the State Department's International Narcotics 
Control and Law Enforcement account and through the Drug Enforcement 
Administration.
  My amendment would specifically end DOD funding for the Afghanistan 
drug war, which would substantially cut the United States overall 
spending on antidrug efforts there. Since 2002, Congress has 
appropriated a total of $3 billion, that is billion with a B, for the 
DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug activities fund.
  That is $3 billion that could have been spent here at our border on 
border control efforts or on antidrug efforts or counternarcotics 
efforts here in the United States.
  Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, for years, the production and 
trafficking of heroin in Afghanistan has provided an important source 
of revenue to the Taliban and other antigovernment forces in the 
region. It is estimated the Taliban receives between $70 million and 
$100 million per year from the illicit drug trade.
  Regional heroin trafficking is also fueling corruption and impeding 
legitimate economic activity critical for Afghans' continued 
development and stability.
  $140.8 million was requested to provide direct counternarcotic 
support for Afghanistan. It is badly needed. These activities directly 
support the activities of the Department of Defense Operation Freedom's 
Sentinel by building their capacity and neighboring countries' 
capacities, their counternarcotics force, to disrupt illicit 
trafficking and deny proceeds from being used to fund terrorists' 
insurgent activities.
  Funds support the training and equipping of special Afghan units, 
including their counternarcotics police as well as their national 
interdiction unit. It is important.
  Allowing more illicit narcotics cultivation and trade to continue, 
without any methods or action to counter or interdict it, would be a 
total disaster, a total mistake.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking member, for any comments he may wish to make.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and join with the 
chairman in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
  I would agree with the gentleman from Kentucky that it is hard at 
times to measure progress in Afghanistan. However, with the continued 
presence of 10,000 troops, with the sacrifice, both in terms of life 
and our treasury, that have been expended over the last decade and a 
half, I do not believe that it is now time to completely desist, 
particularly, as the chairman rightfully points out, that this is a 
profit center for one of our enemies. So I would ask my colleagues to 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, you know, in Congress, we often make the 
mistake of confusing activity with progress. And no doubt there has 
been a lot of activity--and the goals are noble--to cut off the funding 
for the Taliban. This is a source of income, opium production. And the 
activity has been there. We have spent $8 billion.
  The problem is they have doubled their production. Ironically, we 
have helped them with irrigation and better roads, their 
infrastructure. Something we are doing over there isn't working, unless 
our goal is to increase their profits, because they have tripled the 
acreage that they are growing of poppy fields over there.
  So we need to do something differently. What we are doing is not 
working. And throwing money at the problem will not solve it.
  What I am proposing today is to stop the war on drugs there. It has 
been ineffective.
  I would also remind folks--I probably don't need to remind any of my 
colleagues, there is a heroin epidemic here in the United States, and 
it is terrible in my district. My constituents are asking me, why are 
we throwing the money away in Afghanistan when we have the problems 
here? In Afghanistan, when we see no positive results--we see negative 
results--why don't we, instead, use that money to secure our border and 
prevent the influx of opium and heroin? Why don't we first focus our 
efforts on cleaning up our own streets, keeping our young people away 
from deadly drugs, versus throwing billions of dollars more away in 
Afghanistan on a program that has proven, by any objective measure, to 
be ineffective?
  We had a hearing on this in the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, and there was no evidence there that any of these efforts 
have curtailed the opium production in Afghanistan. That is why I am 
offering this amendment today with Congressman Jones. I encourage my 
colleagues to support me in this.

                              {time}  1815

  Stop throwing money away. Stop wasting it in foreign countries. Bring 
that money back home and spend it here domestically instead for our 
constituents.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, there has been progress 
in Afghanistan. As long as we have nearly 10,000 troops over there, 
this is one of the things we need to focus on because it has a lot to 
do with protecting those that are there fighting on our behalf doing 
the work of freedom.
  Mr. Chairman, 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 No. 31 Offered by Mr. Massie

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following 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.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.

[[Page H3894]]

  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers included the Fourth 
Amendment in our Constitution for a reason: to require probable cause 
and a warrant before the government and government agents can spy on 
any of its citizens. Our Founding Fathers were fed up, and, frankly, I 
think our citizens are fed up with being spied on by the government.
  I am here to offer an amendment today that would prevent warrantless 
surveillance of Americans. I am offering it with many of my colleagues. 
I want to mention that this amendment has passed this House, this body, 
twice previously: once by 293-123, and another time by 255-174. It 
enjoys broad bipartisan support.
  My cosponsors are Mr. Jordan, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Amash, Representative 
Pocan, Representatives Nadler, Gabbard, Farenthold, Ted Lieu of 
California, Issa, Butterfield, Labrador, Gosar, DelBene, Poe of Texas, 
Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren from California.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, warrantless bulk collection of U.S. person 
communications and information was not ended with the USA FREEDOM Act. 
Twice in the last 2 years the House voted overwhelmingly to close two 
loopholes, but House leadership blocked us. The first back door will be 
shut by prohibiting search of government databases for information 
pertaining to U.S. citizens without a warrant. You can get the 
information, but you have to get a warrant.
  In October of 2011, in a declassified FISA court decision, we learned 
that tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications--which are not 
even allowed to be collected under 702--have been collected. We need to 
make sure that, when you look for an American in that database, you get 
a warrant as the Fourth Amendment requires.
  The second door to be shut prohibits the government from coercing 
companies into weakening security protections by creating back doors in 
products to make surveillance easier.
  What is encryption? It is sophisticated computer code that is the 
most powerful tool we have for preventing outsiders from gaining entry 
into digital systems. Encryption protects the power grid, the air 
traffic control system, and your smartphone. Even if a weakness in 
encryption is promoted and created with good intentions, it is only a 
matter of time until a hacker finds and exploits it.
  Such flaws put data security of every person and business--and 
really, the security of the United States--at risk. Our government 
should strengthen the technology that protects our privacy, our 
businesses, and our country--not take advantage of it.
  The Massie-Lofgren amendment will make America safer, and it will 
defend the Fourth Amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge its adoption.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.
  May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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, this amendment would impose greater 
restrictions on the intelligence community's ability to protect our 
national security and create an impediment to the government's ability 
to locate threat information already in its possession. Such an 
impediment, therefore, would put a lot more American lives at risk both 
at home and abroad.
  Colleagues, as recent events have tragically reminded us, this issue 
is critical to our national security. Lawful queries can enable 
analysts to identify potential terror plots, to identify foreign 
nations trying to hack into our networks, to locate foreign 
intelligence officers spying within our borders, and, yes, to locate 
hostage victims.
  These authorities were fully considered, as they should be, and we 
will hear in a moment from Chairman Goodlatte during the development 
and the consideration of the USA FREEDOM Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time and simply 
associate myself with the chairman's remarks. I am opposed to the 
amendment. I do appreciate the seriousness of people's opinion on both 
sides of this issue.
  I am an appropriator. I don't have a complete allergic reaction to 
authorizing in an appropriation bill, but given the seriousness of this 
issue and the complexity of it, I don't think this is the right venue 
to make that decision. It should be done in the authorizing process.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that all 
this amendment basically does is reassert the Fourth Amendment to the 
Constitution. All of the tools currently available to our intelligence 
agencies and those that keep us safe in the United States would still 
be available.
  The only thing that changes after this amendment passes is that the 
warrant is required to search for information on Americans. It has been 
this way constitutionally since the beginning of our country. We are 
just trying to reassert that. Let them have all the tools they have 
today; just require a warrant if you want to search for information on 
Americans.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Stewart), a member of the Intelligence 
Committee.
  Mr. STEWART. Mr. Chair, I rise today to oppose the Massie amendment 
and the inaccurate accusations that underlie it. Let me restate that. 
The supposition of this amendment is based off a fundamental 
misunderstanding of intelligence operations.
  Contrary to rumor, it is illegal to use 702 surveillance authorities 
to spy on Americans. It is subject to multiple layers of oversight, and 
section 702 is an extremely powerful tool that has proven effective in 
disrupting terror plots, including, for one example, the 2009 plot to 
bomb the New York City subway. If this amendment were in effect today, 
the intelligence community would be unable to query the 702 database 
for the names of the Orlando nightclub attacker, for his wife, or even 
the nightclub itself.
  We should be focusing on thwarting terror attacks, not on thwarting 
the ability of intelligence professionals to investigate and to stop 
them.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to prioritize the safety of U.S. 
citizens and to reject false allegations. Let me say that one more 
time: false and irresponsible allegations of government spying on 
Americans. We can scarcely afford to hamstring our intelligence 
community as it investigates these horrific shootings and tries to 
prevent similar plots from reaching fruition.
  All of us want to protect our privacy and our constitutional rights. 
I want to protect our privacy and our constitutional rights. But 
objections to intelligence operations must be based on facts and not 
rumors or misunderstandings. Limiting access to critical law 
enforcement tools to stop these plots would directly put Americans in 
danger.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Director of National Intelligence that shows that Americans are being 
spied on without a warrant using the 702 program.

                            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

[[Page H3895]]

     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 communications 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, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, who has the right the close?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has the right to 
close.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, our government spies on Americans. 
Section 702 was designed to go after the bad guys overseas, but it is 
being used to collect communications of Americans in America without a 
search warrant under the Fourth Amendment.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Kentucky has introduced does 
something very basic. It says the Fourth Amendment will apply to a 
702(a). If you have got a search warrant, go see a judge like I used to 
be; and if you have probable cause, then let a judge sign it. If you 
don't have probable cause, then you don't get a warrant. That is all it 
does.
  It says the Constitution must apply to Americans, and fear tactics--I 
am sorry--on the other side don't change the facts. Get a warrant if 
you have probable cause. That is all the gentleman from Kentucky's 
amendment does.
  Mr. MASSIE. To the judge's point, I would say that this doesn't take 
any tools away from those who want to investigate what happened in 
Orlando, none whatsoever. That is a mischaracterization, a complete 
mischaracterization of this amendment. You obviously can get a warrant 
on the perpetrator of this crime. So it would be wrong to characterize 
it in the way it is being characterized. It is unfortunate that my 
colleagues would take advantage of that situation to try and motivate 
people to vote ``no'' against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. 
It doesn't take away any of the tools. Read the amendment; you will 
find out. Just get the warrant; do the search.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield my time, how much 
time remains on my side?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the House 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. Chairman, the tragic mass shooting in Florida Sunday morning is 
but the latest in a string of terror attacks here in America. Sadly, 
these plots have not been carried out by foreign terrorists but by 
Americans against Americans, on American soil.
  We are all searching for the same answer: What motivated Omar Mateen 
to kill?
  Investigators are still combing through evidence to determine whether 
Mateen was in contact with known or suspected terrorists. This 
amendment prohibits the government from searching data already in its 
possession, collected lawfully under section 702 of FISA, to determine 
whether Omar Mateen was in contact with foreign terrorists overseas.
  Despite the characterization by proponents of the amendment that a 
search could occur if the government has obtained a FISA or criminal 
probable cause-based order, the exception does not, in fact, authorize 
such a query. Section 702 and the other provisions of the FISA 
Amendments Act are not set to expire until December 31 of next year.
  The House Judiciary Committee shares the concerns of all here that we 
protect all Americans' rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United 
States Constitution. The committee has engaged and will continue to be 
engaged in robust oversight of the programs operated under the act.
  A floor amendment to a spending bill debated for 10 minutes is not 
the appropriate venue for Congress to alter our intelligence gathering 
capabilities. This complicated issue must be closely examined and 
appropriately vetted by the committees of jurisdiction.
  Sunday's deadly attack proves once again that the terror threat has 
not dissipated. The FBI has roughly 1,000 active ISIS probes in the 
United States, and these are probes into those we know about. Now is 
not the time to block the use of a critical investigative tool.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I 
thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. 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.

                              {time}  1830


               Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. McClintock

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 32 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to carry out any of the 
     following:
       (1) Section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(b)(iii), or 6(c) of Executive 
     Order 13653 (78 Fed. Reg. 66817).
       (2) Section 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15(b) of 
     Executive Order 13693 (80 Fed. Reg. 15869).
       (3) Paragraph (4), (9), (10), or (12) of subsection (c) or 
     subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United States 
     Code.
       (4) Section 400AA or 400FF of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6374, 6374e).
       (5) Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13212).
       (6) Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15852).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. McClintock) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment forbids scarce defense 
dollars from being spent to fund two executive orders and several other 
provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of 
dollars on so-called green energy.
  The House adopted this amendment by voice vote last year and the year 
before, and I hope it will do so again.
  We have been told this year that the defense budget is so tight that 
the Air Force has to scavenge museums for spare aircraft parts. Yet, it 
seems we have plenty of defense money to indulge the green energy 
mandates that are imposed upon our Armed Forces.
  The GAO reports that these mandates have cost the Navy as much as 
$150 per gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy was forced to purchase 
450,000 gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of 
$26.60 per gallon when conventional petroleum costs just $2.50 per 
gallon.
  These mandates forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 
gallons of biofuel in 2012--10 times more than regular jet fuel cost. 
And it is not just biofuels.
  Two years ago, the Pentagon was required to purchase over 1,000 Chevy 
Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000

[[Page H3896]]

each. As Senator Coburn's office pointed out, each one of these $40,000 
Chevy Volts represents the choice not to provide an entire infantry 
platoon with all new rifles, or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot 
be used for realistic training.
  These green energy mandates have required the Army and Navy to 
install solar arrays in various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, 
the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array, which will 
supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base's electricity. According 
to the Inspector General's Office, this project will save enough money 
to pay for itself in only 447 years. Too bad solar panels only last 25 
years.
  We don't know how much all of these mandates waste because, as the 
GAO reports, ``There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which 
Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy related initiatives 
and the types of initiatives they are implementing.'' But outside 
estimates are as much as $10 billion for the Department of Defense last 
year, a figure that continues to grow.
  We are told this program is necessary to maintain flexibility. Well, 
shouldn't flexibility free us to get cheaper and more plentiful fuels 
rather than more expensive and more exotic ones?
  We are told the military should do its part for the environment, as 
if it is possible to fight an environmentally sensitive war.
  I feel the real reason for this wasteful spending is part of an 
ideological agenda imposed on our military that will pointlessly 
consume billions of defense dollars, namely, to keep money flowing to 
politically well-connected green energy companies that can't get 
anybody else to buy their products.
  As long as this product continues to consume our defense dollars, we 
cannot say that we are stretching our defense budget to the utmost.
  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, I would point out to my House colleagues 
that the gentleman's amendment is very extensive and, for all practical 
purposes, will prohibit the Department of Defense in pursuing green 
energy initiatives. We have had previous debates today about the issue 
of climate change and the defense issues it presents to our Nation.
  The gentleman says no funds shall be used for a wide range of 
initiatives. It would prohibit sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6(b)(iii), or 6(c) 
of an executive order; sections 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 
15(b) of an executive order; paragraphs (4), (9), (10), or (12) of 
subsection (c) or subsection (e) of section 2911 of title 10, United 
States Code; section 400AA or 400FF of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act; section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992; and 
section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 under the last 
administration.
  As I mentioned earlier in my remarks, sometimes we are very good at 
doing nothing. This would essentially block the Department of Defense 
from buying recycled paper.
  The gentleman talked about solar arrays. Maybe if we continued to 
develop solar power and made them available to help in the field for 
tents, for example, we wouldn't have so many casualties in fuel 
convoys.
  And we do have, unfortunately, a Metro stop at the Pentagon. This 
would block considering sites for pedestrian-friendly or public 
transportation access. So I assume we should essentially close the 
Metro stop at the Pentagon.
  I think that this amendment is wrongheaded, unwarranted, and I am 
opposed to it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for pointing out 
just how much we are wasting in this program. If the Metro stop at the 
Pentagon cost us $10 billion a year, maybe we should close it; but that 
is not the point of this bill.
  We have to ask ourselves how serious we are about meeting the defense 
needs of our Nation. We have been constantly warned how poorly funded 
our military is. The program this amendment would end is an estimated 
$10 billion of sheer waste, grossly inflated energy costs that come 
directly out of our military preparedness--$10 billion. Divide that by 
the number of families in America, and it comes to about $80 per 
family. It makes a mockery of claims that we have cut the military to 
the bone and puts the lie to any claim that we are serious about 
meeting our basic defense needs without bankrupting our country.
  I would remind the House of Admiral Mullen's chilling warning that in 
his professional military judgment, our greatest national security 
threat is the national debt, because before we can provide for the 
common defense, we have to be able to pay for it, and waste like this 
robs us of our ability to defend our Nation and the Treasury upon which 
our defense depends.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, in his closing remarks, the gentleman 
suggested that if the Metro stop at the Pentagon costs $10 billion, 
perhaps we should close it. It doesn't. It doesn't cost $10 billion, 
and it doesn't cost that money to the Department of Defense.
  We can debate and we can disagree on facts. We should not use 
exaggeration during debate in the House.
  I am adamantly opposed to the gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  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 California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 33 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

         At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
         Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by title IX 
     may be used in contravention of section 101(a)(13) of title 
     10, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I am here, once again, to talk about the 
overseas contingency operations budget. My opinion of it by now should 
be no secret to anybody. I don't like it very much. There are other 
folks who agree with me. Unfortunately, not enough. But I will continue 
to come here and try to draw attention to what I believe to be a 
tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars.
  There are folks, by the way, who agree with me. I don't often come to 
this microphone and cite John McCain as somebody who agrees with me on 
something, but he has described it as a gimmick and thinks that we can 
do better. The CBO described it as a method of spending with 
``relatively little backup.'' Other folks in this Chamber from both 
parties have described as a slush fund. I happen to agree with all of 
those statements.
  In the past, I have come here, Mr. Chairman, to try and simply get 
rid of the OCO budget because of the weaknesses that I think it 
contains. We are not doing that today. We have tried something 
different. We have tried to drill down a little bit and be a little bit 
more detailed in how we address the OCO budget by simply trying to 
define what it means to be OCO. We call it the war budget, but we don't 
really know what it means.
  We tried today to figure out a way to define what it means. Lo and 
behold, we found out that in law, it is already defined. If you turn to 
title 10, section 101 of the U.S. Code, the definition of the Armed 
Forces section of the U.S. Code, General Military Law, Organization and 
General Military Powers, Chapter 1--Definitions, lo and behold, in 
section 13, the term ``contingency

[[Page H3897]]

operation'' is defined. It reads as follows:
  ``The term `contingency operation' means a military operation that:
  ``(A) is designated by the Secretary of Defense as an operation in 
which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in 
military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the 
United States or against an opposing military force; or
  ``(B) results in the call or order to, or retention on, active duty 
of members of the uniformed services . . . or any other provision of 
law during a war or during a national emergency declared by the 
President or Congress.''
  Contingency operations are defined in law, and have been for quite 
some time. Mr. Chairman, we have been ignoring that.
  My amendment is very simple. It puts a stop to that. My amendment 
simply says that none of the funds available under title IX of this 
bill should be used in contravention of section 101(a)(13) title 10 of 
the United States Code. That is it. That is all it does. It simply 
says, in layman's terms, the overseas contingency operations will be 
used for contingency operations. To change the words a little bit to 
the stuff that ordinary people can understand, what the amendment does 
is make sure that the war budget is used for warfighters in the war 
effort and is no longer used as a slush fund to hide government 
spending from the taxpayers.
  I urge my colleagues, even those who have opposed my efforts before, 
to completely discontinue the OCO budget, to bring some modicum of 
discipline to spending the war budget, making sure that it is spent on 
what the law provides, and not used on things that we have no idea 
where the money is being spent, which is so often the case.
  I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to talk 
about the important investments our bill makes in our military, 
investments that the President's request simply did not make.
  As I outlined in general debate, this bill shifts roughly $16 billion 
from the President's request for the overseas contingency account, 
which we call in our bill also the war on terror account, for their 
operations into critical investments in our personnel training and 
equipment by providing a bridge fund for our overseas operations 
through the end of April of next year.
  Need I remind my colleagues that we currently have the lowest manning 
level in the Army since before World War II. At this time when North 
Korea, Iran, Russia are threatening international stability, ISIS isn't 
drawing back, and other groups are actually on the attack across the 
Middle East in northern Africa.
  This legislation also boosts the Army and Marine Corps end strength 
to begin rebuilding our forces eroded in strength and morale by years 
of underinvestment. We also have the smallest Navy since before World 
War I--World War I. Let me assure my colleagues that Russia and China 
aren't slowing down their shipbuilding, and neither is Iran doing the 
same in terms of their Navy.
  The readiness level for all of our services are alarmingly low, 
seriously risking our ability to defend American interests when called 
to do so. This is simply an unacceptable risk. It is the highest 
priority of all of us, and has been, on our committee, which is 
entirely bipartisan, to ensure that we have a strong national defense.

                              {time}  1845

  We have corrected deficiencies to the best of our ability. With what 
the President has provided us, we have provided oversight and have 
promoted accountability. These dollars are well spent. I strongly 
oppose the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Gibson).
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I say that with 
very strong respect for the gentleman who offered it. I think his heart 
is in the right place. He wants to see that we spend in a very 
disciplined manner. Yet, in the way that the amendment is currently 
crafted, we are going to see a significant downsize to our readiness.
  As the chairman mentioned, we are on a path to having the smallest 
military since 1939. We just have a point of disagreement with the 
administration about that. We are trying to stop, roughly, 70,000 
troops from getting pink slips between now and 2018, and we are doing 
that in a manner that ensures they have the kit--all the modernization, 
the operations, and maintenance--that goes with it.
  I would suggest to the gentleman, if he withdrew his amendment and if 
he worked with us, that on my committee--the Armed Services Committee 
and the Appropriations Committee--there is a sentiment to begin to move 
and get it back. In fact, we even use language that it is designated 
for base requirements. To the gentleman's point, I would agree, but I 
would also say that, in the way the amendment is currently crafted, we 
will end up with the smallest military since 1939, and in this world, 
as described by the chairman, we cannot afford to do that.
  I have one last thing, Mr. Chair. This whole House is united in its 
support for veterans. Veterans have had to continually go overseas and 
come back at a rapid pace because of its being a small force, so one 
way of looking after our servicemen and -women and our veterans is to 
make sure that we have the right-sized force. That is why we must 
reject this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chair, again, with all due respect to my friend, 
the gentleman from New York, to suggest that if my amendment passes, 
that somehow readiness will go down admits that we are spending money 
in violation of the law. Contingency operations are not meant for 
readiness. That is what the base military budget is for. We should be 
doing that anyway. I share in the concern of my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle about the size of the military and our readiness, 
but that is not war. Readiness to go to war is not war. This is not 
supposed to be a replacement for the base budget. This should be, as my 
colleague from New York correctly pointed out, part of the war on 
terror. The OCO budget should be used to fight ISIS overseas, and it 
should be used to fight in Iraq and to fight in Syria. It should not be 
used for items that are not contingency operations.
  I go back to the example of the MILCON-VA bill that we had here a 
couple of weeks ago. We had no direction as to where money was being 
spent. I had a subcommittee chairman get up and say, ``Well, it is 
going to be a health facility in Djibouti.'' Nothing in law says that--
nothing. The only thing we passed out of this House was X number of 
dollars to be spent overseas before 2022. That is it. You could sit 
here and say, ``Well, this money is for the troops, or this money is 
for a base.'' No, it is not. This money is for whatever we decide we 
want to spend it on, and that is not right.
  The OCO budget came into existence for a good reason. We were caught 
in 2011 without the ability to fund a war on terror, and we started 
spending money off budget to solve that problem. It is no longer an 
emergency. We should be having this money for readiness in the base 
budget. We should pass this amendment so that the OCO budget returns to 
what it is meant to be.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise to tell the gentleman from South 
Carolina that, in my opening remarks, I said, as I have said in 
previous years, we should eliminate the reliance on OCO funding, in the 
first instance, and shift activities to the base budget. I also said in 
my opening remarks that I am concerned that other committees have 
placed our subcommittee in a very difficult position by authorizing 
this particular transfer, while not violative of the caps, in 
violation, from my perspective, of the budget agreement we made last 
year when we were to have certainty for 2 years in a row.

[[Page H3898]]

  I would point out that the one fallacy I see with the gentleman's 
amendment is that, under that agreement that, I believe, gave us 2 
years of predictability, there was an internal agreement that you could 
have that transfer of $5 billion of OCO to base, and because I was 
upset that that continuity of certainty was broken, I would have to 
oppose the gentleman's amendment, but he is on the right track.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, I strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MULVANEY. 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 South 
Carolina will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 34 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, as the designee of the gentleman from Kansas 
(Mr. Pompeo), I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to pay for any salaries or 
     expenses of the office or position of the Special Envoy for 
     Guantanamo Detention Closure or the Principal Director, 
     Detainee Policy.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, as we have seen with stark clarity recently, 
Islamic jihadists are on the march, not only abroad but here at home. I 
think, once we have individuals in our custody who we know are 
committed to this destructive ideology and to waging war against the 
United States--like we have almost 80 of them in Guantanamo Bay now--
they should remain in custody. We don't want to get into a situation in 
which we are transferring these detainees unwittingly simply because we 
are on an ideological mission to close Guantanamo Bay, and this 
facility is a key part of our strategy in fighting the war on terror.
  The Obama administration recently admitted that they were not seeking 
to use an executive order in order to close Gitmo's detention facility, 
and that is a welcome admission, because that was something that had 
been reported was being considered behind the scenes.
  Recent news reports, perhaps, shed light on why this is a nonstarter. 
Recent news reports have shown that at least 12 released Guantanamo 
detainees have attacked U.S. personnel or allied forces in Afghanistan, 
and they are responsible for killing at least six Americans. These are 
terrorists we had in our custody who were then released and who went 
out to kill a half dozen Americans, according to U.S. officials. This 
is totally unacceptable.
  This amendment, which I am cosponsoring with Congressman Pompeo, 
would ban funding to two DOD offices whose purposes are, simply, to 
close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
  The facts and the reality show that their mission is unwise and 
unneeded. My amendment would prohibit funds for salaries or expenses 
for the Office of the Special Envoy for Guantanamo Detention Closure 
and the Principal Director of the Office of Detainee Policy. The sole 
mission of the Principal Director of the Office of Detainee Policy is 
to end detainee operations at Guantanamo Bay. That means either 
transferring people to the United States or overseas, where we know 
many of them go back to the jihad once they are released. President 
Obama also established the Office of the Special Envoy for Guantanamo 
Detention Closure, which has the same objective.
  This amendment will eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and will help 
keep Americans safe. As President Obama himself begins to give up on 
his misguided campaign to close Gitmo, Americans, especially the people 
whom I represent, can rest assured that none of these terrorists will 
be brought to their States or, hopefully, will be transferred to 
countries that are not going to keep tabs on them.
  It is time we end the funding for these two offices and get back to 
protecting Americans and holding those hardened terrorists in a secured 
facility we already have that is located off our shores.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, this amendment is another amendment in a 
series we have seen today to prevent any movement toward closing the 
Guantanamo Bay facility, obviously, and it would prevent the 
expenditure for any officials who are trying to do that. A number of 
myths have been propounded as to why we should do this.
  One, we cannot bring terrorists to the United States. First of all, 
not everybody in Guantanamo is a terrorist. Some are. Some are not. 
There should be trials. There should be some form of due process. It is 
un-American to hold people there for life. Apparently, the people who 
are in favor of these amendments--this one included--want everyone in 
Guantanamo to be held forever because you can't spend any money to 
release them. You can't spend any money to close the prison. You can't 
spend any money to put them in a facility in the United States. You 
can't spend any money to do anything except to hold them in jail in 
Guantanamo forever and for $5 million a piece per year.
  Several reasons have been introduced for doing this.
  One, if they are brought to the United States and to a supermax 
prison, that is dangerous. No, it is not. No one has ever escaped from 
a supermax prison, and the executive director, Jim Gondles, of the 
American Correctional Association recently submitted a statement for 
the record to a House Homeland Security subcommittee stating that U.S. 
corrections systems, both military and civilian, already hold extremely 
dangerous people, including terrorists, and have done so for years. No 
matter how dangerous the detainees are, U.S. correctional systems 
professionals, military and civilian, have the ability, training, and 
capacity to take them on.
  Second, we are told that there is a risk if these people are 
released--and some of them should be because they are not guilty--that, 
at some point, they could return to terrorism, assuming they are all 
terrorists. The fact of the matter is the recidivism rate--now it is 
true--under the Bush administration was 20.9 percent. Twenty-one 
percent of the detainees who were released under the Bush 
administration have returned to some sort of combat or insurgent 
activity. They didn't do a great job in screening under the Bush 
administration. Under the Obama administration--in other words, for the 
last 7\1/2\ years--the figure is not 21 percent; it is a little under 5 
percent, 4.9 percent. The White House recently confirmed that no 
detainees who have been released in this administration--that is to say 
in the last 8 years--have been responsible for the death of any 
American. Let's get rid of that bogus point.
  It has also been misstated on this floor tonight that we don't want 
to bring Guantanamo prisoners to a supermax facility in the United 
States: A, because it is dangerous, which is nonsense; B, because they 
can radicalize other prisoners, which they can be kept apart from; and, 
C, because they would have more constitutional rights in the United 
States than in Guantanamo. The Supreme Court has ruled that prisoners 
at Guantanamo have exactly the same constitutional rights as prisoners 
who are held in the United States--no more, no less. The attempts to 
give them fewer constitutional rights are why every single conviction 
in the military tribunal in Guantanamo has been overturned on appeal so 
far.

  They should be brought to the United States or released, depending on 
the

[[Page H3899]]

case. They should be tried in a Federal court and put in a supermax 
prison forever if they are guilty, and if they are not guilty, they 
ought to be released. That is the American tradition. That is our way 
of life. It is what we are fighting to defend, at least presumably.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is, if you inject 
them into American prisons with the idea that you are going to be able 
to 100 percent segregate them and that they are not going to be able to 
radicalize any other inmates, why would you even want to run that risk?
  In terms of bringing them to trial, the problem is that these guys 
were not captured under civilian law. They were captured under the law 
of war. If you are expecting our troops to amass legal cases against 
people they are capturing in war zones, that is going to put more of 
our troops' lives at risk. If you are in a hot fire zone but if you 
need to get evidence to make sure that that could withstand a court of 
law, they should be held under the law of war, not under civilian laws 
under which Americans would be.
  I am sorry. I don't care if Bush released a detainee--or Obama. It is 
not about partisan games for me. If detainees are released in 
Afghanistan and they kill Americans, that is a bad thing, and I don't 
want to repeat that. The people who are there right now are some of the 
most radical detainees. These are people who have been reviewed for 
years, and no one would have ever thought that they should have been 
released. So why on Earth would you want to run the risk of putting 
more of these guys out into circulation given that we know Americans 
have already been killed?
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Number one, they can be segregated in Federal prisons in the United 
States, and maybe they should be. Number two, some of them are indeed 
great terrorists and some aren't. Number three, they may have been 
captured in war zones, but they weren't in uniform, which means some of 
them may not have been combatants. That is what has to be determined. 
If they were combatants, they can be held under the law of war; but if 
they weren't combatants and they haven't committed any crimes, they 
should be released.
  There has to be some due process. We can't hold people in prison 
forever with no trial, no due process because we think maybe--and 
remember, some of these people were. We offered bounties to tribes in 
Afghanistan. And like the Hatfields and the McCoys, the Hatfields 
turned in the McCoys, and we don't really know that all the McCoys were 
guilty of anything or engaged in combat.
  Before we can hold them under the laws of war, we ought to at least 
have some sort of review to find that out. It is not true that all of 
them are the most dangerous. Some are; some are not. We owe it to our 
own traditions to figure out the difference.
  Not to mention the fact that, to hold them in the United States, it 
costs $34,000 a year, and to hold them in Guantanamo costs $5 million a 
year, each. Who is the fiscally responsible party today?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chair, like a lot of these numbers, I mean, they 
get around-the-clock medical care and halal meals. I would be fine with 
curtailing that. If we could have paid that money to save those 
American troops, I would pay it every day, every single day.
  I am a little confused by this argument that we would actually reward 
people who were picked up in combat zones when they are not wearing 
uniforms. That is essentially rewarding these terrorists who are not 
wearing insignia and they are not following the laws of war. So to then 
give them a civilian trial where someone actually followed the laws of 
war, they would simply end up being held under Geneva III. To me, that 
totally skews the incentive.
  I think it is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. 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 Florida will 
be postponed.


                Amendment No. 35 Offered by Mr. Reichert

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out Executive Order 13688 entitled ``Federal 
     Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Reichert) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, tragically, as we saw in San Bernardino 
and most recently in Orlando, we are living in a time with increasing 
threats in our local communities. This leaves our law enforcement 
officers and first responders with the responsibility of fighting from 
the front lines against the war on terror.
  Not only is more being asked of our first responders, but as local 
budgets get cut, they are asked to undertake these tasks with fewer and 
fewer resources. This is why the Defense Logistics Agency transfer of 
excess military equipment to civilian law enforcement agencies, 
otherwise known as the 1033 Program, has been critical for first 
responders throughout the country and a necessity to keep our cities 
and neighborhoods safe.
  The name 1033, by the way, comes from a section of the 1997 National 
Defense Authorization Act that made that program permanent. However, 
the law enforcement officers who might be listening to this 
presentation tonight know that 1033 in the 10 code means ``officer 
needs help.'' As a former law enforcement officer for 33 years, I have 
had many occasions to use a 1033 call for officer needs help.
  Mr. Chairman, we are in, today, a world where our first responders 
are saying: 1033, we need help; we need support; we need you to stand 
by us and support us, provide us with the tools that we need to protect 
this country.
  This is a cost-neutral program that allows civilian law enforcement 
offices to acquire military equipment, giving them the tools to respond 
to the new and dangerous threats that America faces.
  For example, during the tragic San Bernardino terrorist attack in 
December 2015, the local police used an armored vehicle acquired 
through the 1033 Program for officers to take cover in while the 
attackers were shooting hundreds of rounds at them. They were then able 
to move the vehicle, to maneuver and eventually take down the 
attackers.
  Firefighters have also used the 1033 Program. In fact, in my own 
district, the Kittitas County Search and Rescue team has acquired a 
light military tactical vehicle that can access the mountain terrain in 
my district where wildfires constantly affect remote households. The 
Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue agency spent $65,000 for a $250,000 
machine that will be used to save lives in our community.
  The President's Executive Order 13688 prohibits our law enforcement 
officers from acquiring some of the equipment needed to carry out their 
critical missions of protecting our communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I have already said I served in law enforcement for 33 
years. I know, from my own experience and from speaking with members of 
the law enforcement community, that by not fully equipping our first 
responders, we expose the American people to dangers that they don't 
need to be exposed to, and we can't be there to help them.

[[Page H3900]]

  

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. REICHERT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair, law enforcement in my community, New 
Jersey sheriffs and police chiefs, are grateful for appropriate Defense 
Department equipment that allows them to do their jobs. It is all 
about, certainly, protecting the public, public safety, and allowing 
our law enforcement people to do their job on behalf of the people.
  I am proud to support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, 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 (Mr. Newhouse). The gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I don't think any of us are in 
disagreement in the Chamber that anything we can do, particularly as 
far as excess military equipment to help local law enforcement, is the 
right thing to do.
  Relatively recently, in my congressional district, we were successful 
in helping the community of Munster, Indiana, secure a wheeled armored 
tactical vehicle for the very purpose that the gentleman recognized: to 
help people safely egress a very dangerous situation or to ingress one.
  I do think, however, we need to make a distinction as to some of the 
types of help to be transferred to local communities. I don't think we 
can object--and the President's executive order allows it to take 
place--that those wheeled armored tactical vehicles continue to be 
transferred, or that, with justification, specialized firearms and 
ammunition be transferred to local authorities, or that explosives and 
pyrotechnics can be transferred under the executive order to local 
communities, or that riot equipment can be transferred to local 
communities under the executive order. There is broad discretion here.
  What can't be transferred under the executive order are tanks. What 
can't be transferred are grenade launchers. What can't be transferred 
are bayonets.
  So I do think there has to be some limit, and I am opposed to the 
gentleman's amendment. I think it was drafted overly broad.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, well, with respect to the gentleman's 
comments, I think it is important for us to remember that this 
equipment is required to be demilitarized. You can't acquire this 
equipment and have it still maintain a military component. You can't 
mount machine guns on top of the armored vehicles.
  I don't know of any police chief or sheriff in the country who has 
asked for grenade launchers or rocket launchers or explosives, Mr. 
Chairman. These are reasonable requests. And there is a process in 
place, a very restrictive process that has been in place prior to the 
President's executive order.
  The problem is that the President's executive order has created so 
much restriction now that it has essentially prevented law enforcement 
agencies and fire departments and rescue agencies across the country 
from acquiring the needed equipment that they so need to protect our 
communities.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this is a commonsense amendment, again, that 
really spells out the need for law enforcement to have this equipment. 
It has been used properly in the past. I myself have used this 
equipment as the sheriff in King County and as a SWAT team commander.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I suggest to my colleague we should be 
discerning and to recognize, again, under the executive order, that 
things like specialized firearms and ammunition, riot equipment, 
explosives, and pyrotechnics still can be transferred.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 36 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to provide assistance to 
     Pakistan.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member and the 
chairman for all of the hard work they are putting into this very 
important piece of legislation. It is part of the job that we must do 
in Congress.
  My amendment prohibits funds in the bill from being used to provide 
assistance to Pakistan. Since 9/11, we have given Pakistan well over 
$30 billion, the majority of which goes to military and security 
services of Pakistan. And Pakistan has used those services to murder 
and oppress their people, people like the heroic Baloch people or the 
Sindhis, who are struggling for freedom under Pakistani oppression.
  It is a grotesque charade for us to suggest that our aid is buying 
Pakistani cooperation in the war on radical Islamic terrorism or in 
anything else. The Pakistani Government is neither our friend nor 
shares a common interest with our country. They are hardcore, two-faced 
enemies of our country.
  If you don't believe that, then take a close look at what has 
happened to Dr. Afridi, a Pakistani medical doctor who helped pinpoint 
the location of Osama bin Laden and continues to languish in a 
Pakistani prison. This is because Dr. Afridi helped us bring to justice 
Osama bin Laden for the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
  Last year, I came here to speak on this same issue, and this has been 
something we have been calling on. If the Pakistanis wanted to show a 
sign of good faith that they really were our friends, they would have 
released Dr. Afridi a long time ago.
  While Dr. Afridi continues to remain in prison, we continue to 
provide weapons and cash to his tormenters. Arresting him and now 
keeping him in prison is a slap in the face to Americans and an insult 
to the families of those who died on 9/11.
  Given the miserable human rights track record of the Pakistani 
Government--as well as the ongoing struggle of the people of Pakistan, 
who are seeking their own self-determination and freedom, such as the 
Baloch and Sindhi minorities--this is morally wrong for us to continue 
to give weapons and assistance to this dictatorial and corrupt 
government.

                              {time}  1915

  Unless my amendment passes, our aid will continue to strengthen and 
bolster a government that has committed crimes against their own 
people, and we will be then basically giving money to a government that 
not only represses its own people but, through its support of terrorism 
and terrorist organizations, threatens the people of the United States 
as well as those peoples elsewhere.
  I would ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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. First of all, I would like to recognize the 
gentleman's passion and perseverance on this issue. I do want to pay 
tribute to the gentleman's perseverance and strong feelings. We engage 
in the elevator since we share the same third floor. I just want to 
recognize his passion about this issue.
  Let me say, whatever the failings of Pakistan, they have been one of 
our allies for over 30 or 40 years, and the Coalition Support Fund does 
remain a critical tool to enable Pakistan to effectively deal with 
present and future challenges that are coming, quite honestly, as a 
result of our drawdown. It is a more cost-effective tool than putting 
more of our troops on the ground.

[[Page H3901]]

  I respect the gentleman's passion, but I strongly oppose his 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Let me just note I respect the chairman's leadership 
and the hard work he is putting in on this as well as the ranking 
member. This is a needed piece of legislation, and I respect that. Our 
primary job is to watch out for the security of our country, and this 
bill is supposed to address that. That is one reason why I have decided 
that unless the Pakistanis prove to us that I am wrong by simply 
releasing Dr. Afridi, basically they are insulting us, they are 
insulting the victims and the families of 9/11, and the fact is they 
can't even do this.
  If they can't even do this, how do we expect them not to be 
supporting terrorism behind the scenes, which many of us believe the 
Pakistanis are guilty of? I suggest that what more can they do--who 
will trust us around the world if we let our friends like Dr. Afridi 
linger and let them sit there in a dungeon? Here is the man who helped 
us get Osama bin Laden, and the Pakistanis won't even let him out of 
jail. He is an American hero, for God's sake. What more can they do to 
us before we cut them off from all the billions of dollars of aid we 
have given them? I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
resolution, this moral resolution.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to Ranking Member 
Visclosky, let me say that Dr. Afridi needs to be freed. We certainly 
want to go on public record that Pakistan needs to free this man who 
did remarkable things. He needs to be recognized for his courage. He 
needs to get out of prison or jail, wherever he is. I think all Members 
of Congress feel very strongly that he needs to be released.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would associate myself with the 
chairman's remarks at this point in time. I do appreciate the 
gentleman's passion, his search for justice in this world, but I also 
do believe that the amendment is overly broad. The chairman of the 
committee certainly recognizes the difficulties we face in Pakistan. 
Hence, the inclusion of section 9017, which prohibits funds being spent 
unless there are certain certifications made. For that reason, I would 
be opposed and join with my chairman against the amendment. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, 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 question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. 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 California 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Walberg

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 37 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enforce, implement, or carry out the second 
     proviso in the paragraph designated ``Afghanistan Security 
     Forces Fund'' in Public Law 114-113.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Walberg) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the committee and 
the ranking member for the work that has been done, and I look forward 
to supporting this important appropriations, but I rise to offer a 
bipartisan amendment with the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen), the 
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Cicilline), the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Rigell), and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan) that works to 
ensure the appropriate use of American taxpayer dollars in Afghanistan.
  This amendment is in keeping with the clear position of the House, as 
we have voted several times in bipartisan fashion, to limit funds for 
the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund, a program which has been poorly 
run and is lacking in oversight. Last year, the House passed my 
bipartisan amendment that would have prevented the Department of 
Defense from redirecting $50 million in funds from the Afghanistan 
Security Forces Fund to the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund. 
Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2016 omnibus did not retain the House 
language and provided DOD the authority to obligate funds for the 
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund through the end of fiscal year 2017.
  My current amendment would turn off this authority. Mr. Chairman, we 
have spent billions of dollars toward rebuilding the infrastructure of 
Afghanistan. In fact, Congress has provided $1.3 billion to the 
Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund since it was created in 2011. However, 
funds have been slow to be spent, and as of March 31, 2016, $488 
million of these infrastructure funds have yet to be expended.
  SIGAR has already expressed reservations about the Afghans' ability 
to even operate and maintain these projects upon completion. So, Mr. 
Chairman, I ask with almost 50 percent of funds remaining to be 
expended, why take away from other programs and give to this one?
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank the gentleman for his amendment and 
his thoughtfulness and his concerns, which we share about a lot of 
projects we have invested in in Afghanistan.
  I understand the gentleman's intentions are well placed. There were a 
few projects that were initiated, and the Afghanistan Infrastructure 
Fund ran into hurdles, as construction projects do, and are yet to be 
completed. The construction hurdles are by and large complete. The 
Kandahar bridging solution--this is the plan to provide electrical 
power to Kandahar--should be completed soon. This was a top 
counterinsurgency priority.
  Initiated in fiscal year 2011, the Afghanistan Infrastructure Fund 
funded infrastructure projects in Afghanistan to lock in security gains 
and maintain stability by providing basic essential infrastructure to 
the people of Afghanistan. Our appropriations act enacted last year was 
not to extend funding or add any new projects but merely to have the 
authority to respond to out-of-scope adjustments on existing projects 
so they can be completed and functional for the Afghan people.
  We, of course, realize we have infrastructure needs here at home in 
the United States, but what message does it send to the Afghan people, 
yet to the world, that we would leave nine major power-generation 
projects unfinished, including the Kajaki Dam? Six of these projects 
are estimated to be completed by the end of the year, with only three 
completions remaining.
  May I say the committee opposes the amendment. They like to see these 
projects through so we can give the Afghani people a fighting chance. I 
am opposed to the amendment.
  I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I thank the gentleman. I do appreciate the sentiments 
of the gentleman who offered the amendment. As I said earlier in our 
debate this evening, it is very hard at times to measure progress in 
Afghanistan, but I would agree with the chairman that after the 
sacrifice that has been expended--we are towards the end--we ought to 
give them a chance to stand on their own and join with the chair in 
opposition to the amendment.

[[Page H3902]]

  

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman and ranking 
member's concerns, but 50 percent of the funds still remain to be used. 
They are there for that purpose. I think that is sufficient. Last year, 
233 of us voted in favor of this amendment in a bipartisan fashion. I 
think that directs also the will of the House.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), 
my good friend and colleague.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
rise in strong support of this amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan.
  We have enormous infrastructure needs here in our own country. And, 
in fact, the Federal Highway Administration estimates that we have $106 
billion of work to be done to our Nation's deteriorating bridges. As a 
country, it is absolutely critical that we make investments in 
repairing our own Nation's infrastructure.
  Instead, we continue to invest taxpayer money in the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Fund. To make matters worse, the Afghanistan 
Infrastructure Fund is notorious for inefficiencies and shortfalls. 
Several government watchdog groups have said that projects under this 
account have lagged significantly behind schedule, have lacked proper 
oversight, and have been poorly administered. There has been documented 
serious waste and fraud in this program.
  When this program was established in 2011, it was intended to 
identify a handful of infrastructure projects that were shovel-ready 
and able to be completed by the middle of 2013. According to the 
Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, projects 
funded under this account have been consistently over budget and behind 
schedule.
  Since 2003, the taxpayers of the United States have spent $1.3 
billion rebuilding Afghanistan. As of April of this year, the 
Department of Defense has yet to disburse nearly $500 million for this 
program. With so much funding still waiting to be spent, why should we, 
in fact, provide additional funds for this program in light of that?
  It is time that we put the needs of our own roads and bridges first. 
This amendment would prohibit funds from being reprogrammed for this 
very troubled program. I urge my colleagues to support this so that we 
can really refocus our attention on rebuilding our own country and put 
an end to this wasteful, inefficient program that has been fraught with 
fraud and waste.
  I thank my colleague for allowing me to cosponsor the amendment. I 
strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WALBERG. Mr. Chairman, in closing, I ask my colleagues to support 
this. I appreciate the sentiment and the concern of the ranking member 
and the chairman of the committee, but this is an issue that has 
weighed concerns for too long. It is time to give the infrastructure 
improvements our direction. Afghanis understand that, I believe. SIGAR 
has proved the concerns, so I ask for support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALBERG. 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 Michigan 
will be postponed.
  It is the understanding of the Chair that amendment No. 38 will not 
be offered.

                              {time}  1930


               Amendment No. 39 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to plan for, begin, continue, complete, process, or 
     approve a public-private competition under the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, with my compliments to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, as well as the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Indiana, I rise today to offer a bipartisan 
amendment which would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
conducting new A-76 studies, a process that both the GAO and the 
inspector general of the Department of Defense concluded could not 
demonstrate any savings to the taxpayer, and which has been subject to 
a congressional moratorium since the year 2010.
  Specifically, the A-76 process uses faulty methodology, not updated 
since 2003, to determine whether Federal civilian jobs should be 
outsourced. The DOD inspector general's report noted that this A-76 
process fails to keep track of costs and savings.
  A-76, Mr. Chairman, is unmoored from fact, incorporating an arbitrary 
12 percent overhead factor cost for Federal employees as opposed to 
contractors. The inspector general concluded that ``multimillion-dollar 
decisions are based, in part, on a factor not supported by data . . . 
Unless DOD develops a supportable rate or an alternative method to 
calculate a fair and reasonable rate, the results of future 
competitions will be questionable . . .''
  Making decisions based on such a faulty process is an irresponsible 
use of taxpayer dollars.
  Maintaining the moratorium on the A-76 process is particularly 
important to the bipartisan House Military Depot, Arsenal, Ammunition 
Plant, and Industrial Facilities Caucus. While statutory law currently 
shields the core work of depots from the A-76 process, this process 
could still subject a depot's non-core work to its flawed assumptions.
  Absent the protections of my amendment, significant depot workload, 
as well as arsenals, ammunition plants, and the rest of the organic 
industrial base operations, will be open to these flawed A-76 studies 
and eventual outsourcing.
  This risks disruption, putting at risk the critical skills needed to 
support our warfighters, and interrupting workflow just when our 
military is in great flux. This kind of disruption could lead to 
significant delays in providing weapons and equipment to our 
warfighters, reducing readiness and weakening our organic industrial 
base, as well as reducing jobs in our local communities.
  This body, this House, owes a duty to our warfighters and the 
taxpayers. Allowing A-76 studies to move forward would be a breach of 
both.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment to maintain 
the moratorium on A-76 studies, shielding our military readiness from a 
process in desperate need of drastic revision.
  I thank Representative Don Beyer, as well as Representatives Walter 
Jones and Rob Bishop across the aisle, for their support on this 
important amendment.
  Additionally, I would like to thank the American Federation of 
Government Employees for their support as well, especially the 
hardworking men and women at Tobyhanna Army Depot in my own district.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman offering his 
amendment. I believe it is a very good one, and I rise in support of 
it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H3903]]

  

  Mr. BEYER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Rep. 
Cartwright's Amendment to H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2017, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  Rep. Cartwright's amendment would keep in place a moratorium on the 
use of the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-76 
privatization studies at the Department of Defense. These studies use a 
faulty methodology to determine whether or not to outsource federal 
civilian jobs.
  It is wrong to jeopardize their livelihood in the name of 
privatization, especially when the tools to justify it are so faulty 
and biased against our federal workforce. Multiple reports, including 
by the Government Accountability Office and the Department of Defense 
Inspector General, criticized the A-76 process for failing to properly 
track costs and savings.
  A-76 studies improperly alienate our hard working civilian employees 
critical to the military. These personnel provide depot maintenance and 
equipment recapitalization, logistics capabilities, engineering 
expertise necessary for modernization, warfighter training, base 
support and facilities sustainment, medical care and treatment, and 
family care programs that are critical to our Soldiers, Sailors, 
Airmen, Marines and their families.
  We cannot afford to leave such costly decisions up to faulty data. A-
76 studies cost the Department of Defense money, at the expense of 
military readiness, troop safety, and our federal civilian workforce. 
We should not lift this moratorium.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Conyers

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 40 
printed in House Report 114-623.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer or authorize the transfer of any cluster 
     munitions to Saudi Arabia.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 783, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I urge the support of every Member in this 
body for this amendment to block the transfer of American-made cluster 
bombs to Saudi Arabia.
  This amendment is endorsed by the United States Conference of 
Catholic Bishops, as well as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, 
and a number of other organizations.
  American-manufactured cluster bombs are currently being used by the 
Saudi-led coalition that is bombing Yemen. That campaign has caused the 
deaths of over 900 children, 3,000 civilians, and has forced 2.8 
million people from their homes.
  In violation of American law, the Saudis have used cluster bombs in 
civilian areas, endangering innocent civilians and threatening 
agriculture and other industries in Yemen.
  Since the United States is supplying cluster bombs to the Saudis, and 
is a member of the coalition led by the Saudis, the United States could 
be held responsible for careless Saudi actions in this widely 
criticized bombing campaign.
  The Obama administration recently took unilateral action to stop the 
sale of some cluster bombs to the Saudis. This amendment would put that 
prohibition into law, and make it more transparent and accountable.
  I urge my colleagues to pass this reasonable amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Department of Defense strongly opposes this 
amendment. They advise us that it would stigmatize cluster munitions, 
which are legitimate weapons with clear military utility, and are 
effective weapons, providing distinct advantages against a range of 
targets, and can result in less collateral damage than unitary weapons.
  The United States should be encouraging other states, such as the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, to upgrade their cluster munitions stockpiles 
rather than making it more difficult for new sales and transfers.
  Advancements in Sensor Fuzed technology have enabled newer types of 
cluster munitions to select and engage individual targets, which are 
not possible with older types of cluster munitions. These advancements 
in precisions dramatically reduce the likelihood of unintended harm to 
civilians and civilian infrastructure from the use of cluster 
munitions.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this 
amendment.
  We have all seen the horrific reports coming from human rights groups 
on the ground in Yemen, where American-made cluster bombs are being 
used by Saudi Arabia against innocent bystanders--all under the guise 
of attacking Houthi rebels.
  Earlier this year, the Saudi-led coalition dropped cluster bombs in 
Yemen's capital of Sana'a, specifically targeting known civilian 
neighborhoods. One of the buildings hit was the Al Noor Center for Care 
and Rehabilitation for the Blind, which also has a school for blind 
children. The destruction of the school and the injuries sustained by 
the children was unbearably gruesome.
  This deliberate and reckless use of cluster munitions by Saudi Arabia 
highlights their complete disregard for the welfare of innocent people.
  These actions are unacceptable. There is something fundamentally 
wrong with preaching human and civil rights here at home while we 
export death abroad. We cannot ignore our duty to protect basic human 
rights and values here and around the world. Unfortunately, as long as 
we sell cluster munitions to Saudi Arabia, these outrageous violations 
will continue to occur.
  I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the 
gentleman's amendment.
  While I applaud the administration for their recent suspension of 
sales of these weapons to Saudi Arabia, as of May 23, the gentleman's 
amendment would add certainty to the administration's position. I do 
support him in his effort, and I appreciate him offering the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I continue to oppose the amendment.
  Relating to the newer munitions that I talked about a few minutes 
ago, with improved performance, Human Rights Watch stated that, in 
perhaps the greatest technological advance, Sensor Fuzed weapon 
munitions, known as Air Force tank busters, are capable of 
independently sensing and attacking specific targets, like armored 
vehicles.
  Without the Saudi order--this is a lot of what this is focusing on--
this U.S. production line will close in 2017, significantly impacting 
the industrial base and prevent future U.S. procurement. For the 
record, over 85 suppliers in 30 States will be shuttered.
  If the administration holds up or Congress blocks the sale, Saudi 
Arabia will likely purchase legacy cluster munitions from Russia, China 
and others, which, when used, will leave significant hazardous, 
unexploded munitions on the battlefield, further endangering civilians, 
as opposed to improve manufactured munitions.
  Therefore, for these and other reasons, I strongly reject this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by

[[Page H3904]]

the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.
  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. 
Carter of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Newhouse, 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. 
5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had come 
to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________