DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016
(House of Representatives - June 10, 2015)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

        
[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 10, 2015)]
[Pages H4117-H4127]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2016

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 303 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2685.
  Will the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mooney) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  2331


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2685) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2016, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Mooney of West Virginia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) had been postponed, and the bill 
had been read through page 162, line 25.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. McSally

  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to divest, retire, transfer, or place in storage or 
     on backup aircraft inventory status, or prepare to divest, 
     retire, transfer, or place in storage or on backup aircraft 
     inventory status, any EC-130H aircraft.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Arizona.
  Ms. McSALLY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman for including 
funds to support our fleet of EC-130H Compass Call aircraft in this 
bill. The underlying legislation restores $27.3 million to support 15 
EC-130H aircraft next year.
  My amendment today does not cost a dime. The chairman has already 
provided full funding for our entire EC-130H fleet, and my amendment 
simply ensures that the chairman's intentions are carried out, and that 
the Air Force does not use backdoor means to try to retire these 
important aircraft.
  The Compass Call is the only dedicated U.S. Air Force electronic 
warfare

[[Page H4118]]

aircraft. I can tell you in this unclassified setting that it can 
perform electronic warfare, suppression of enemy air defenses, and 
offensive counterinformation operations.
  It was successfully employed during Desert Storm, Iraqi Freedom, 
Enduring Freedom, and provided electronic warfare support in operations 
in Kosovo, in Haiti, Panama, Serbia, and Afghanistan. It was the most 
heavily-tasked special mission C-130 in operations in Afghanistan.
  Despite plans to divest 50 percent of the fleet, the Air Force has 
not identified a follow-on capability, and no other platform currently 
performs this mission. In fact, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff 
Lieutenant General James Holmes confirmed there are things that only 
the EC-130H does and does best.
  Right now, the Compass Call is currently deployed both in Afghanistan 
and in the fight against ISIS. Divesting it without a replacement for 
the unique capabilities it offers would be irresponsible, especially 
given its high rate of deployment.
  I restate that my amendment would not cost a dime, simply ensures the 
chairman's decision to fund the fleet is carried out. This is a 
critical capability, and we cannot afford to dispose it without a 
replacement.
  I want to thank the chair, and urge support of my amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. McSALLY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are pleased to accept your amendment. May I 
also say, we are proud of your service to our Nation. Thank you for the 
time.
  Ms. McSALLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Ms. McSally).
  The amendment was agreed to.


  Vacating Proceedings on Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of 
                                Michigan

  Mr. BOST. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the proceedings 
on the vote on amendment No. 2 be vacated to the end that the Chair put 
the question de novo.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the vote on the amendment is 
vacated, and the Chair will put the question de novo.
  There was no objection.


          Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Huizenga of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).
  The amendment was rejected.


                      Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee

  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

  Ms. LEE (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
that the reading be dispensed with.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit funding pursuant 
to the 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military Force. And once 
again I am proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues, 
Representative Ellison and Grijalva.
  Now, why is this amendment necessary?
  Three years ago, mind you, President Obama declared that the Iraq war 
was over. Since then, the President has stated a number of times that 
the 2002 AUMF is no longer necessary, and that Congress should work to 
repeal it. Yet, Congress has allowed this war authorization to remain 
on the books indefinitely.
  Now, we all are familiar with the report, and we know what is taking 
place in Iraq, Syria, and across the Middle East as it relates to ISIL. 
We all agree that they must be degraded and dismantled.
  But just as with the 2001 resolution, the 2002 AUMF is completely 
inappropriate to deal with this threat.
  This is a new war, Mr. Chairman, not an old war. This is a new war, 
which the people of this country have a right to have their Members of 
Congress debate and vote on.
  Even the President included a repeal of the 2002 AUMF in the proposed 
authorization he sent to Congress in February. Yet, we can't even get 
that authorization brought up for a debate and a vote.
  So, simply put, the 2002 authorization is no longer necessary. We 
need to come back to the drawing board and decide, based on what this 
body wants to do, should we vote for a new authorization or not.
  If we want to commit the United States to another war in Iraq, then 
Congress must have that debate and decide whether or not to authorize 
another war.
  I am pleased that my sense of Congress resolution--it was an 
amendment actually--affirming this was passed on a bipartisan basis in 
committee and is included in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is common sense, and we cannot continue 
to leave authorizations for the use of military force on the books 
indefinitely. It is time for us to reassert our constitutional 
prerogative to declare war or not, to debate and vote on any military 
action in Iraq.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. LEE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I will just reiterate my comments in the gentlewoman's 
last amendment and that is, after the passage of 13 years, things have 
changed. And one of the changes we ought to make in this Chamber is to 
have, again, that fulsome debate as to what the parameters of our 
military involvement overseas is going forward from this point in time, 
not the beginning of the previous decade. I appreciate the gentlewoman 
offering the amendment.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me just say with regard to this amendment, 
Congress has a constitutional responsibility. It is our prerogative to 
declare war or not. It is our prerogative to debate and vote on any 
military action anywhere in the world. More than a prerogative, it is 
our constitutional responsibility.
  We represent the American people. The American people deserve to have 
a voice in such grave matters. That is why the Constitution required 
that. And for us not to do our job and to continue to rely on old 
authorizations from 13 and 14 years ago really is an abdication of our 
responsibility.
  People did not elect us to Congress to duck and dodge the hard 
questions and the hard issues. Some of us agree that we need to go to 
war. Some of us don't agree. But that is not the issue, and that is not 
what this amendment, nor my prior amendment, was about.
  It was about doing our job here, laying out the pros and cons, making 
some heavy-duty decisions--and that is what they are, but that is why 
we are here--and then instructing our Commander in Chief what Congress 
believes should be the appropriate course of action.
  Many would vote for it; many would vote against it, but, again, not 
to have this debate and vote when we are now 10 months into another war 
is downright wrong. It is almost lawless. It is something that it is 
hard to imagine getting away with this long.
  So I hope that we get a good bipartisan vote on this. It is about 
time that we do debate this again. If the Speaker did not like the 
President's authorization that he brought forward, then let's get 
another authorization. Let's write one ourselves. I have one. I know 
other Members have one. Let's bring forth an authorization and debate 
what we want to do moving forward. That is the wise thing to do. That 
is the smart thing to

[[Page H4119]]

do. That is the right thing to do. We have troops in harm's way. They 
need to know what their Members of Congress believe, what the 
Constitution requires in terms of doing our job. They deserve us to do 
better.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as I said a few minutes ago, 
currently U.S. forces are conducting multiple airstrikes against ISIL 
in Iraq and Syria. Without this authority, those campaigns would stop. 
And certainly, much has happened since the authority was first given. 
As a matter of fact, things are getting far worse than they have been 
in the past.
  Acceptance of this amendment would rob our country of one of the key 
authorities our Commander in Chief needs and relies on to keep us safe 
and to address these types of crises, which seem to occur all over the 
Middle East. Therefore, I strongly reject and oppose the amendment and 
urge others to do likewise.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of section 2483(b)(5) of title 10, 
     United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. HUNTER. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman from 
New Jersey and just thank him for the wonderful job he has done 
protecting our troops and our people around world and making sure that 
the world remains a safer place than it would be otherwise without the 
United States there.

                              {time}  2345

  Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment that would prohibit the Department 
of Defense from increasing the prices paid by our troops and their 
families, our veterans and their families at military commissaries, 
especially overseas.
  The commissary benefit is one of a number of benefits that our 
servicemembers receive upon joining the military, and it is one that 
our servicemembers and their families rely upon to maintain their 
access to wholesome, affordable, and healthy food.
  The Defense Commissary Agency, or DeCA, has embarked upon a poorly 
researched plan to raise prices on commissary consumers as part of a 
move towards what they call a ``commercial'' business model.
  This amendment requires the Department of Defense to continue using 
the existing model of produce sourcing for commissaries in Asia and the 
Pacific unless and until the Secretary of Defense can certify that a 
new sourcing model will not raise prices on the shelves. This maintains 
the promised benefits that our warriors and their families expected to 
receive when they raised their right hand and became a United States 
sailor, airman, soldier, or marine.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sablan

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to establish any live-fire range, training course, or 
     maneuver area within the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
     Islands in contravention of section 801 of Public Law 94-241 
     or section 2663 of title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. SABLAN (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from the Northern Mariana Islands?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from the Northern Mariana Islands and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, many of us in this Chamber share a concern 
that the Federal Government has so much power and so many resources 
that it can overwhelm and even intimidate smaller State and local 
governments.
  The amendment I am offering responds to that concern. It requires, 
before any funds are expended in the Northern Mariana Islands for 
expanded activities by the military, that the Secretary of Defense 
reach agreement with the government of the Northern Mariana Islands on 
the nature and scope of those activities.
  My amendment levels the playing field between the very powerful 
Federal Government and a very small territorial government.
  A little history: in 1975, the people of the Northern Marianas 
elected to become a part of the United States, and 78 percent of the 
people voted for the negotiated agreement that defined our political 
union. Part of that agreement includes the lease of two-thirds of our 
island of Tinian to the U.S. military for 100 years and the lease of 
the entire island of Farallon de Medinilla. The cost to the United 
States--$175,000 a year. That is a Manhattan Island deal.
  The people of the Northern Marianas committed those lands for the 
purpose of national defense willingly because we understood that with 
citizenship comes responsibility, and the United States recognized in 
the agreement negotiated with us that we have very little land and that 
any future acquisition, therefore, would be ``only the minimum area 
necessary.''
  Today, however, the U.S. military is proposing the takeover of 
another entire island. It is called Pagan. One more out of only 14 
islands in the Northern Marianas, when we have already given up all of 
Farallon de Medinilla and two-thirds of Tinian--25 percent of our total 
land area of only 183 square miles. The military is proposing to use 
these lands for live-fire ranges, training courses, and maneuver areas.
  I should explain that these are public lands and that decisions about 
the use of public lands in the Northern Marianas rests in the hands of 
the Governor and our legislators.
  To lease lands to the military or not, what the terms and conditions 
of any lease may be, those decisions are an exercise in local self-
government, and I will respect those local decisions. But as the 
official in Congress representing the people of the Northern Marianas, 
I want to be sure that the Federal Government also respects the 
decisions of the government of the Northern Marianas.
  Again, that is what my amendment would do. My amendment simply 
assures that none of the funds we appropriate today will be used for 
the activities the military is proposing for public lands in the 
Northern Marianas without first obtaining the consent and the agreement 
of the Northern Marianas government and actually obtaining an agreement 
for the use of that land.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H4120]]

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising 
the issue. Obviously, he is a wonderful representative of the Mariana 
Islands.
  However, given the way this amendment is written, it is unclear to me 
the impact that this may have on our military's future ability to 
train. So, regretfully, I must oppose this amendment, but I look 
forward to working with the gentleman to address his concerns.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands has 
2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. SABLAN. I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen very much.
  Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way. You have a piece of property, 
and it belongs to you in title. I come over; and without asking you if 
I could use your land, I come in with a yardstick. I bring surveyors. I 
bring architects and engineers to your land, and I start drawing up my 
plans.
  Would any person alive allow that to happen in the United States of 
America? They won't. Two-thirds of Tinian they already have. They are 
asking for an entirely new island, Mr. Chairman, and they would own 25 
percent of the Northern Marianas.
  They are going to fire howitzers in our community. They have claimed 
that on this one island there are no inhabitants. I happen to live two 
doors from these people. And that they are from Pagan. They live in 
Pagan. They are residents of Pagan. Many of them are in Saipan for 
work, just like many of us, 541 Members of Congress who come to 
Washington to work and go home every break--except for one, the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia. This is her home. All of us 
come to D.C. to work. Some of us, even those who don't have homes in 
our districts, claim that we go back to our districts because that is 
our home.
  Present Federal law says that the United States Government, the 
military must first seek permission and obtain access to the property. 
They don't have that access. And in the meantime, until they obtain 
that access or an agreement for the use of that land, then they should 
cease and desist from any plans that they are making for the use of an 
island that they don't own.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SABLAN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the compassion and his 
conviction and would join in wanting to work with you, as the chairman 
has indicated, to see if there is some resolution to your concern.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I don't own the land. I am just bringing 
out facts here and bringing out the sentiments of my constituents.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from the Northern Mariana Islands (Mr. Sablan).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SABLAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the Northern 
Mariana Islands will be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under the heading ``Iraq Train and Equip Fund'' may be used 
     to procure or transfer man-portable air defense systems.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, since August 8, 2014, in Iraq----
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The committee is prepared to accept your 
amendment.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Yoho

  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     under section 9014 for ``Assistance and Sustainment to the 
     Military and National Security Forces of Ukraine'' may be 
     used to procure or transfer man-portable air defense systems.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. YOHO. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment.
  Mr. YOHO. I thank the chairman.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 10003.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be expended by the Department of the Navy to divest or 
     transfer, or prepare to divest or transfer, any search and 
     rescue units from the Marine Corps.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment which would 
preserve a very important component of the Marine Corps: its search and 
rescue units.
  According to the most recent Marine aviation plan, the Corps had 
these units slated for a divestiture by the end of the calendar year. I 
was glad to see that, after some public backlash on that plan, the 
Corps decided to temporarily postpone those divestiture plans. But just 
as easily as the Marines postpone their decision, they could also 
recommence.
  I still believe such actions would be a bad decision, and I am not 
alone. That is why I am offering this bipartisan amendment with my 
colleagues, Representatives Jones, Sinema, and Butterfield.
  After many years, there were only two remaining search and rescue 
units left: one at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, and one at 
MCAS Cherry Point, North Carolina.
  Marine Corps Air Station Yuma search and rescue unit performed 72 
rescue missions to aid surrounding communities from 2010 to 2014. Last 
October, the Yuma unit facilitated the rescue of 28 Boy Scouts and four 
chaperones who were lost during a canoe trip.
  MCAS Cherry Point's search and rescue unit, known as VMR-1, performs 
roughly 50 missions annually to help retrieve lost paddlers and hikers. 
Just this past March, VMR-1 rescued a man who was reported missing 
during a kayaking trip near Cedar Island, North Carolina. This was not 
only a nighttime mission, but there was a heavy fog as well, so much so 
that the first rescue helicopter, known affectionately as Pedro, had to 
abort its first landing at a hospital in Morehead and ultimately travel 
75 miles to Greenville, where the man was finally admitted for 
treatment.
  But none of us have yet heard a viable alternative to sustain the 
mission of these search and rescue units. Law enforcement and first 
responders do not have these capabilities, and, apparently, no 
contractor does either. This proposed divestiture would literally cost 
lives.

[[Page H4121]]

  I ask: What would have happened to these Boy Scouts if these marines 
didn't come to help? I ask my colleagues to support this amendment 
which was meant to save lives.
  I thank the chair and ranking member.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, respectfully, I rise in opposition 
to the gentleman from Arizona's amendment.
  The Marine Corps has an aviation plan calling for the orderly 
transfer of this capability to other entities. The East Coast mission 
will be assumed by the Coast Guard, while the West Coast mission will 
be competitively contracted out, as I understand it, in fiscal year 
2017.
  While we respect the gentleman's concerns, this amendment takes a 
rifle shot approach against the Department of Defense's force structure 
plan, and we believe that this is not good policy. Therefore, I urge 
opposition to the amendment and would appreciate the gentleman making 
the case for his position.
  I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), my ranking 
member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I join with the chairman in expressing my 
opposition.
  Again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern, but we have had a series 
of amendments like this brought to the debate limiting transfers, 
limiting consideration of any movement or decisions or changes at the 
Department of Defense. At some point, we are going to have to allow the 
Department of Defense to run itself as well and not to second-guess 
that maybe sometime they actually will make improvements because of a 
decision they make, and for that reason, I do support my chairman in 
his opposition.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0000

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, the idea that the East Coast may be absorbed 
may be one thing; but accordingly, from what I have heard down in Yuma, 
there is no viable option or contractor that has been and will be found 
for Yuma.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer a flash-bang 
     grenade under section 2576a of title 10, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, on May 28, 2014, narcotics 
agents, assisted by members of the Habersham County, Georgia, Special 
Response Team, executed a no-knock search warrant on a home on a quiet 
street. Officers terrified the sleeping family but did not find any 
drugs when they entered the home.
  During the raid, a 2-year-old child, baby Bou Bou, was badly burned 
when the officers tossed a flash-bang grenade into his playpen which 
was located in a darkened room. The officers justified their actions by 
saying that their intelligence indicated that there would be no 
children present.
  Mr. Chairman, as an editorial in The Washington Post noted: ``A 
flash-bang grenade is an explosive device that emits a deafening boom 
and a blinding flash of light. It is designed to temporarily stun the 
occupants of a building so that the armed men who deployed it can clear 
the building. It is an instrument of war.''
  My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of flash-bang 
grenades from the Department of Defense to local law enforcement. The 
Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort 
the relationship between the police and the communities they serve by 
allocating over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local 
police, including flash-bang grenades. Nothing in current law prevents 
the military from giving police, including school and university police 
departments, flash-bang grenades. Allowing this loophole to exist puts 
our communities at risk of increasing militarization.
  Mr. Chairman, while we have real tensions across the country, our 
police and their communities are not at war. Funneling free military 
equipment to the police, however, helps to further deepen the divide in 
our communities. The same Washington Post article I mentioned earlier 
cited over a dozen incidents in recent years where police injured 
themselves or others while using flash-bang grenades.
  This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law 
enforcement agencies should or should not have. Instead, it is about 
whether this Congress should purchase flash-bang grenades for fighting 
wars abroad and then allow these flash-bang grenades to be transferred 
by the Department of Defense back to local law enforcement agencies for 
use here at home.
  Local governments, in consultation with law enforcement agencies that 
they oversee, should decide what types of equipment the law enforcement 
agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally 
make that decision independent of civilian authority. The local 
government can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use 
by the agencies under their control through the local budgeting 
process, and they can also seek financial assistance through Federal 
grants.
  This amendment doesn't touch grant money or State or local 
governments' freedom to purchase the equipment they need. The local 
budget process and Federal grant programs involve making choices based 
on need and funding. The 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of 
free equipment directly from the Pentagon to the law enforcement 
agency. When the equipment is free and is plentiful and civilian 
authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: why not accept 
free gifts of military equipment. However, if acquiring this equipment 
militarizes our police departments beyond comprehension, what kind of 
community policing are we actually performing? Or are we just simply 
occupying?
  This amendment, Mr. Chairman, is very common sense. We should 
consider whether or not we want our country to move in this direction 
of militarization, and we certainly need our civilian authorities to be 
involved in that process. So the consequences are too dangerous to keep 
proliferating this weaponry on our streets, and I would ask that my 
colleagues support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman's amendment and rise in 
support of it. There is no question that every law enforcement officer 
in our country is in possession of a very dangerous job.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Bost). The time of the gentleman from Georgia 
has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Visclosky) to finish his remarks.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the chairman yielding, and I do recognize 
the very tough and dangerous job that

[[Page H4122]]

local enforcement officers have, every last one of them, and what an 
important job they do. I certainly have been active over my career in 
Congress working with the Department of Defense to transfer necessary 
equipment to law enforcement agencies.
  But I would agree with the assertion of the gentleman that we do have 
to make a distinction with some of these types of materials between 
civil law enforcement and military action.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. The Department of Defense excess property 
program does provide valuable surplus equipment to State and local law 
enforcement agencies for its use in counternarcotics and 
counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety.
  It has, on occasion, provided aircraft, including helicopters and 
small planes, four-wheel-drive vehicles, pickup trucks, ambulances, and 
mobile command vehicles. It has provided vests and helmets to protect 
officers, all sorts of important protection equipment, including 
binoculars, radios, clothing, and information technology.
  In a time of declining budgets, at the Federal level but also at the 
State and local level, this program is a good example of a Federal-
local partnership that ensures that we get the most out of each tax 
dollar spent.
  This amendment would restrict the Department's ability to put 
equipment they no longer need to use protecting our citizens within our 
local communities. We think it is a good program. It obviously ought to 
be monitored, and things ought to be only put in proper hands.

                              {time}  0010

  On occasion, horrible incidents do occur, but all in all, this 
program has been a valuable thing to many communities across America.
  I do rise in opposition to the amendment and urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to procure any Army Aircrew Combat Uniforms.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a cost-saving 
amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal 
year 2016.
  Last year, it was brought to my attention by numerous sources in my 
district that in 2009, the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU-
27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army aircrew combat 
uniform, also known as the A2CU.
  Those constituents of mine--many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or 
are friends and family of military personnel--have expressed a desire 
for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform. There are 
multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. The most 
important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety and 
efficiency.
  To sweeten the deal when making the pitch to me, my constituents 
explained that moving back to the CWU model would also save the 
Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. All these 
factors led me to offer this same commonsense amendment last Congress, 
and it passed this body by a voice vote.
  The CWU model has a proven track record of safety and practicality. 
The CWU model is still authorized for Army special operation aviators, 
all of the aviators in the other service branches of the U.S. military, 
and most air forces and navies around the world.
  Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and efficiency of the 
CWU model, and the safety aspects are of paramount importance to our 
Army aviators because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are 
very high.
  The CWU model flight suits have an antistatic fiber woven into them 
to prevent sparks which, for obvious reasons, are not that desirable 
when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile 
jet fuel on board. The one-piece design of the CWU model is also 
extremely important as it does not, in the event of fire, leave any 
opportunities for exposed skin.
  Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56 
percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU was proven to wear out 
faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the 
camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions 
more purchasing the new flight uniform.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this 
amendment does not score as it is written, but, being that the intent 
is to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should 
actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the 
Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it 
were to move back to the CWU model.
  Further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the CWU model 
back into the supply system, as the rest of the service branches still 
use them. In other words, there is no need to reboot the supply chain.
  The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me, who was sent to 
this town to rein in spending, but more importantly, I listen to these 
Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer. Being 
that they are the ones doing the training and flying, I am going to 
have to take them at their word.
  Given the safety and practicality applications and given that the 
United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving 
a few millions here and a few millions there in the name of safety and 
practicality is something we should all strive to achieve.
  I urge my colleagues to once again support this commonsense amendment 
which cuts costs and improves safety.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, let me commend the gentleman from 
Arizona on his interest in the safety of our Army aviation personnel.
  This amendment would prohibit the Army from spending additional funds 
to purchase the Army aircrew combat uniform. As an alternative, the 
Army could resume using a previous flight suit, the CWU-27/P that has 
not been authorized since 2009, except for special operators.
  I understand this amendment is based on discussions with flight crews 
during visits with airfields and tactical training sites. The old model 
is a one-piece design. It is said to cost less and be more durable than 
the current model Army aircrew combat uniform.
  The committee is interested in providing our soldiers with the best 
equipment possible; however, conclusions based on what appear--and I 
want to say this respectfully--on somewhat anecdotal information and 
brief discussions rarely lead to wise spending decisions.
  I reluctantly urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment, and I am pleased 
to yield to Mr. Visclosky.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would want to associate myself with 
the chairman's remarks and again reiterate my previous comments that at 
some point, we ought to trust some judgments being made down at the 
Department of Defense and not just say no to everything. We ought to be 
making some decisions.
  I appreciate the chairman's explanation of the situation and join him 
in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the two individuals 
that

[[Page H4123]]

the one-piece has been preferred by the aviators for the safety aspects 
because of the woven cloth. I think sometimes we have to have the 
administration start looking to the people that are actually in harm's 
way in this regard.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona will 
be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the 
     Azov Battalion.

  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I begin by thanking Mr. Frelinghuysen and 
Mr. Visclosky in conducting the amendments around these important 
considerations.
  This amendment that I propose this evening limits arms, training, and 
other assistance to the neo-Nazi Ukrainian militia, the Azov Battalion.
  Foreign Policy magazine has characterized the 1,000-man Azov 
Battalion as ``openly neo-Nazi'' and ``fascist.'' Numerous other news 
organizations, including The New York Times, The Guardian, and the 
Associated Press have corroborated the dominance of White supremacist 
and anti-Semitic views within the group; yet Ukraine's Interior 
Minister recently announced the Azov Battalion will be among the units 
to receive training and arms from Western allies, including the United 
States.
  Azov's founder, Andriy Biletsky, organized the neo-Nazi group the 
Social-National Assembly in 2008. Azov men use neo-Nazi symbolism on 
their banner.

                              {time}  0020

  These groups run counter to American values, and once the fighting 
ends, they pose a significant threat to the Ukrainian Government and to 
the Ukrainian people. As we have seen many times, most notably within 
the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan, these groups will not lay down their 
arms once the conflict is over. They will turn their arms against their 
own people in order to enforce their hateful views.
  I urge the support of my amendment and to make it U.S. law that we 
will not equip this dangerous neo-Nazi militia.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I think I speak for the committee in 
suggesting that we accept the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the 
fact that he wants to exercise care, as we do on the committee, to make 
sure whoever is trained is someone who is, if you would, a person of 
good intent, as opposed to someone who is not. I appreciate the 
gentleman's concern and for his offering the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we accept the amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


              Amendment Offered by Mr. Johnson of Georgia

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the 
desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to transfer a mine-
     resistant ambush protected vehicle under section 2576a of 
     title 10, United States Code.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, sheriff's departments and local 
police departments are local peace officers. They enforce the law and 
maintain peace and order. Ideally, they are members of the communities 
in which they serve.
  The Department of Defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes 
distort the relationship between police and their communities by 
providing over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local 
police, including armored vehicles and military grade weapons. Police 
who patrol the streets and neighborhoods in armored MRAPs, while armed 
to the hilt, can easily lose sight of their role, which is to protect 
and serve, and, instead, take on the mindset of a paramilitary 
occupation force. The routine showing of military authority on our 
streets creates mistrust that only further deepens the divide between 
law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect and serve.
  My amendment is simple. It would prohibit the transfer of mine 
resistant ambush protected vehicles, or MRAPs--for free--straight from 
the Department of Defense to local law enforcement agencies.
  This amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law 
enforcement agencies and police should not have. Instead, it is about 
whether this Congress should purchase MRAPs for fighting wars abroad 
and then allow the Department of Defense to give that equipment away to 
civilian law enforcement here at home, for free, to use on the streets 
of America.
  Local governments, in consultation with the law enforcement agencies 
they oversee, should decide what types of equipment their law 
enforcement agencies can acquire. Law enforcement agencies should not 
unilaterally make that decision independent of civilian authority. The 
local governments can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary 
for use by the agencies under their control through their local 
budgeting process, and they can seek financial assistance to purchase 
necessary equipment from Federal grant programs.
  This amendment doesn't touch grant money or the State's or local 
government's freedom to purchase the equipment it needs. The local 
budget process and application for Federal grant programs involve 
making choices based on need and funding, while the 1033 program is an 
unregulated pipeline of free equipment directly from the Pentagon to 
the law enforcement agency.
  When the equipment is free and in plentiful supply and civilian 
authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple: Why not accept 
free equipment? Why not obtain equipment based on desire rather than 
need? However, if acquiring the equipment required the use of local 
funds or involved applying for grant money, the decision would be more 
deliberative and inclusive of civilian authority. Other factors would 
be considered, including whether there is a need for such equipment, 
how the equipment would be used, and whether the community consents to 
being policed with such equipment.
  This amendment simply shuts off the pipeline of military equipment 
from the battlefield to our main streets. This amendment forces us to 
consider whether MRAPs, designed and purchased for battle in the Iraqi 
desert, are suitable for our local police. It forces us to consider 
whether an ordinary American citizen would truly feel

[[Page H4124]]

comfortable in approaching an officer for help if the officer were 
behind the wheel of a 15-ton armored vehicle that had just been 
returned from combat in Afghanistan.
  This amendment would end the transfer of these armored vehicles to 
school systems and to universities across the country. Are our children 
so unruly that order can only be maintained with the use of an MRAP?
  Unless this amendment passes, a vote for the underlying bill will 
ultimately fund the purchase of MRAPs, which will, one day, be 
transferred back home for use against our constituents. The 
consequences are too dangerous to continue this indiscriminate flow of 
weaponry to the streets of this Nation. I urge support for this 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Rather than repeat myself, I think the Department 
of Defense excess property program does provide some very valuable 
equipment to local law enforcement. Of course, it is invaluable if it 
is used properly and with care. As a consequence, I oppose the 
gentleman's amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia will 
be postponed.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Cole

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out a furlough (as defined in section 
     7511(a)(5) of title 5, United States Code) that--
       (1) includes in the notice of the furlough made pursuant to 
     section 752.404(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, 
     ``sequestration'' as the reason for the furlough; and
       (2) is of a civilian employee of the Department of Defense 
     who is paid from amounts in a Working Capital Fund Account 
     pursuant to section 2208 of title 10, United States Code.

  Mr. COLE (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to 
dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am offering a bipartisan amendment which prohibits the furlough of 
civilian employees while funds remain in the defense working capital 
fund. The services provided by working capital fund employees are 
already fully funded apart from the appropriations process. In fact, 
imposing furloughs actually costs the taxpayers more through delayed 
production, overhead increases, and the need for overtime or the 
transfer of workload to more expensive sources of work. The amendment 
will prevent that from happening again as it did in 2013.

                              {time}  0030

  If working capital fund employees are furloughed, as they were in the 
last government shutdown, there will be no direct savings. Indeed, it 
will actually cost the taxpayers more money.
  The furloughs delay production, increase the overhead, and in some 
cases transfer workload to more expensive sources of work. Indeed, 
senior military officials have expressed publicly that working capital 
fund employees, such as depot and shipyard workers, should be 
considered for exemption from furloughs because the furloughs actually 
hurt readiness and increase costs associated with production delays.
  It is important to note that under this provision, DOD still has the 
authority to furlough working capital fund employees for disciplinary 
purposes. Further, working capital fund employees could be furloughed 
if funded workload dried up due to budget cuts or downsizing. 
Therefore, ending the threat of furloughs for these employees will save 
money, improve military readiness, and prevent needless delays and cost 
overruns from work that has already been funded.
  I urge the support of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 
my good friend and a member of our subcommittee, puts me in a very 
difficult position.
  I complained in my opening remarks that some of our colleagues in the 
Congress, as I said earlier in the day, delight every time a civilian 
employee is furloughed. So I certainly appreciate the gist of the 
gentleman's amendment. We have a much larger problem that we and the 
administration need to address, and I know he feels the same way.
  My concern with the particular amendment is we have other departments 
as well, whether it be the Department of Labor, Internal Revenue 
Service, EPA, Housing and Urban Development, and the list goes on, and 
ought not to select one agency over the other. I don't think it is the 
proper way to go.
  We ought to collectively understand that the government actually does 
many good things to help the people of this country. We ought to value 
the work of each of our Federal employees, and we ought to block the 
furlough of any of them in any agency, not a particular one.
  So I certainly do not disagree with the intent of the gentleman. I 
realize we are talking about the Department of Defense, but do believe 
that we ought to be looking at the broader question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I just want to quickly respond to my friend. 
I share many of his sentiments. I certainly don't like to see anybody 
furloughed. I was not in favor of previous government shutdowns. I 
thought they were quite counterproductive.
  This is, however, a unique case. The funds are already in existence. 
There is no savings. We are literally taking people out of work when we 
have funds set aside outside the appropriations process for them to 
continue their work. So in this case they really deserve to be excepted 
if we happen to make a mistake and stumble into a process like this 
again.
  Again, I don't disagree with my friend's sentiments about the larger 
workforce. I have never found these things to be particularly 
productive. Indeed, as I recall, in every case we have always gone back 
and made everybody whole, so really the ultimate loser has usually been 
the taxpayer because we paid for work, created uncertainty that our 
Federal employees didn't deserve, but ultimately compensated them.
  In this case, the funds are available. We should just keep people at 
work. They are doing an important job for the national security. So 
again, I would urge the passage of the amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to enter into a contract with any offeror or any of its 
     principals if the offeror certifies, pursuant to the Federal 
     Acquisition Regulation, that the offeror or any of its 
     principal--
       (1) within a three-year period preceding this offer has 
     been convicted of or had a civil judgment rendered against it 
     for commission

[[Page H4125]]

     of fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, 
     attempting to obtain, or performing a public (Federal, State, 
     or local) contract or subcontract; violation of Federal or 
     State antitrust statutes relating to the submission of 
     offers; or commission of embezzlement, theft, forgery, 
     bribery, falsification or destruction of records, making 
     false statements, tax evasion, violating Federal criminal tax 
     laws, or receiving stolen property; or
       (2) are presently indicted for, or otherwise criminally or 
     civilly charged by a governmental entity with, commission of 
     any of the offenses enumerated in paragraph (1); or
       (3) within a three-year period preceding this offer, has 
     been notified of any delinquent Federal taxes in an amount 
     that exceeds $3,000 for which the liability remains 
     unsatisfied.

  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to waive the reading, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, the chairman of the committee has shown a 
great deal of courtesy and kindness and consideration, so I am going to 
try to keep this as short as possible.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GRAYSON. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We are prepared to accept your amendment because 
it is so incredibly reasonable.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used for Government Travel Charge Card expenses by military 
     or civilian personnel of the Department of Defense for 
     gaming, or for entertainment that includes topless or nude 
     entertainers or participants, as prohibited by Department of 
     Defense FMR, Volume 9, Chapter 3 and Department of Defense 
     Instruction 1015.10 (enclosure 3, 14a and 14b).

  Mr. GOSAR (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Arizona?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer one final amendment to the 
DOD Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2016.
  Let me express again my sincerest thanks to Chairman Frelinghuysen 
and Ranking Member Visclosky for their dedication.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, we will be pleased to accept the 
gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. GOSAR. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

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

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to consult, as the term is used in reference to the 
     Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, in 
     contravention of the assurance provided in section 
     20(c)(1)(A) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g3(c)(1)(A).

  Mr. GRAYSON (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
that we waive the reading, please.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is identical to an 
amendment offered last year that passed the House by voice vote. The 
amendment seeks to prohibit the intelligence community from subverting 
or interfering with the integrity of any cryptographic standard that is 
proposed, developed, or adopted by NIST. I urge continued support for 
this amendment by both sides of the aisle.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I claim time in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment. Frankly, we don't know its full impact. It could 
have some unintended consequences. This amendment could hamper 
legitimate communications between the intelligence community and NIST 
regarding security standards. This amendment is very broadly drafted. 
It could prevent NIST from consulting with other intelligence community 
agencies about that agency's internal computer system.
  I know it was reported that the 2006 NIST cryptographic standard had 
a NASA back door. I want to make it clear that NIST says they did not 
deliberately weaken cryptographic standards at the behest of other 
government agencies. They assure us they will not do so in the future. 
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, given that 
assurance.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding and 
would associate myself again with his remarks and objection to the 
bill. We go to great pains on the subcommittee to protect the privacy 
of the American people, and I would agree with the assertions the 
chairman has made. I appreciate him yielding to me.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, let me see if I can try to allay some of 
the concerns that have been expressed.
  My amendment seeks to address a serious problem. A year-and-a-half 
ago it was revealed that the National Security Agency deliberately 
subverted American cryptographic standards. Cryptographic standards for 
the national security community and the commercial software industry 
are developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
known as NIST. These standards are intended to protect Americans from 
foreign intelligence agencies, from cyber criminals, from industrial 
espionage, and from privacy violations by those who wish us harm.

                              {time}  0040

  They are embedded in software products which are used and sold 
widely--in fact, almost universally--in this country and elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, media reports have confirmed that the National 
Security Agency successfully and deliberately weakened encryption 
standards promulgated by NIST to further NSA surveillance goals at the 
cost of privacy of ordinary U.S. citizens. This is extremely dangerous. 
It leaves users of those standards vulnerable to anybody who is 
familiar with those weaknesses, friend or foe.
  As World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee put it:

       It is naive to imagine that, if you deliberately introduce 
     a weakness into a system, you will be the only one to use it.

  My amendment would seek to address this issue and resolve it once and 
for all by prohibiting the intelligence community from subverting or 
interfering with the integrity of any cryptographic standard that is 
proposed, developed, or adopted by NIST.
  To be clear about it, the intelligence community can continue to 
provide advice. What the intelligence community

[[Page H4126]]

cannot do is deliberately set out to weaken cryptographic standards 
because whatever it does in that regard will certainly be understood 
and exploited by our enemies, as we saw just last week when we 
witnessed the decryption of information regarding classified 
information and U.S. employees.
  It is only common sense that we should not want taxpayers' dollars 
that are appropriated to one agency to be used to deliberately and 
actively subvert the work of another agency.
  Therefore, I respectfully request support for this amendment on both 
sides of the aisle, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was rejected.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  June 10, 2015, on page H4126, the following appeared: gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Grayson). The amendment was agreed to. AMENDMENT 
OFFERED BY MR. MCCLINTOCK
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Grayson). The amendment was rejected. AMENDMENT 
OFFERED BY MR. MCCLINTOCK


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 



                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk 
replacing amendment No. 3 printed in the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out any of the following:
       (1) Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(g), 3(c), 3(e), 3(f), or 3(g) of 
     Executive Order 13423.
       (2) Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(f)(iii-iv), 2(h), 7, 9, 
     12, 13, or 16 of Executive Order 13514.
       (3) Sections (3)(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(g), 7, 8, 9, 11, 
     12, 13, 14, or 15 of Executive Order 13963.
       (4) Subsections (c)(4), (c)(9), (c)(10), (c)(12), or (e) of 
     section 2911 of title 10, United States Code.
       (5) Sections 400AA or 400FF of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6374, 6374e).
       (6) Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13212).
       (7) Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15852).

  Mr. McCLINTOCK (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from California?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 303, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, this amendment forbids scarce defense 
dollars from being allocated to fund three executive orders and several 
other provisions of law that require our military to squander billions 
of dollars in so-called green energy. The House adopted this amendment 
by a voice vote last year.
  I would again remind the House that, just a few weeks ago, the so-
called defense hawks warned that our defense budget has been strangled 
by sequestration, that every dollar wasted long ago had been wrung out 
of the Pentagon budget, and that our national security was directly 
imperiled as a result.
  That argument carried the day, even though it will add billions of 
dollars to the national debt; yet, although we were told we didn't have 
enough money to adequately pay and supply troops in the field, it seems 
that we do have plenty of defense money to indulge the ``green energy'' 
mandates that are imposed on our Armed Forces.
  What truly troubles me is that this was all aired during debate on 
the DOD Appropriations bill last year. The limiting amendments were 
adopted by voice vote; yet we see the same waste being allowed in this 
year's bill.
  Let me refresh memories about the green energy mandates. The GAO 
reports that these mandates have cost the Navy as much as $150 per 
gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy was forced to purchase 450,000 
gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60 
per gallon, when conventional petroleum cost just $2.50 per gallon.
  These mandates forced the Air Force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 
gallons of biofuel in 2012. That is 10 times more than regular jet fuel 
costs.
  It is not just biofuels. Last year, the Pentagon was required to 
purchase over 1,000 Chevy Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000 each. 
As Senator Coburn's office pointed out: ``Each one of these $40,000 
Chevy Volts represents the choice not to provide an entire infantry 
platoon with all new rifles or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot 
be used for realistic training.''
  These green energy mandates have required the Army and Navy to 
install solar arrays at various facilities. At Naval Station Norfolk, 
for example, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar 
array which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base 
electricity.
  According to the inspector general's office, this project will save 
enough money to pay for itself in just 447 years. It is too bad solar 
panels only last about 25 years.
  We don't know exactly how much these mandates waste because, as the 
GAO reports: ``There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which 
Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy-related initiatives 
and the types of initiatives they are implementing.''
  Outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the Department of 
Defense last year, a figure that is expected to grow in the future.
  We are told this program is necessary for flexibility. Really? 
Shouldn't ``flexibility'' free us to get cheaper and more plentiful 
fuels, not more expensive and more exotic ones?
  We are told the military should do its part for the environment as if 
it is possible to fight an environmentally sensitive war. That, I fear, 
is the real reason for this wasteful spending, to sacrifice our 
military budget on the altar of climate change.
  This is part of an ideological crusade imposed on our military that 
will pointlessly consume billions of defense dollars mainly to keep 
money flowing to politically well-connected ``green energy'' companies 
that can't get anyone else to buy their products.
  There is a reason that Admiral Mullen warned us that, in his 
professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national 
security is our national debt. We just increased that debt because of 
assurances that we had stretched the defense budget to the breaking 
point.
  As long as this program continues to consume billions of our defense 
dollars, that claim cannot be taken seriously.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would start my remarks by saying the gentleman from 
California has me at a disadvantage because we just received a copy of 
the final amendment that was offered in the House. Lines 7 and 8 are 
new to the amendment and refer to Executive Order No. 13963, which is 
in addition to other items that I am opposed to.
  I am told that those sections in that executive order refer to 
planning for sustainability, but I cannot confirm that to the Members 
of the House.
  I do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He talks 
about exotic items--exotic items. The Department of Defense would be 
blocked from purchasing recycled paper. Let's not buy recycled paper at 
the Department of Defense. Now, there is a great idea.
  The Department would be blocked from generating renewable energy that 
might include using tents with photovoltaic materials that generate 
solar power onsite for our troops in God-forsaken places on this planet 
with no other access to energy sources.
  The Department would be blocked from considering sites for new 
Federal facilities that are pedestrian friendly and accessible to, God 
forbid, public transit. Perhaps we should move the Pentagon because it 
is near a Metro stop.
  The Department would be blocked from cooperating with the Department 
of Energy's efforts to maximize the use of alternative fuels for our 
Federal fleet.
  The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of energy in the 
United States of America. As a former member of the Congress, I have a 
profound respect for Senator Dick Lugar from Indiana, as he 
characterized energy. It is not an energy problem so much as it is a 
national security issue, given where and how much energy we import.
  The Department would also be blocked from advancing sustainable 
acquisition by trying to procure either less toxic or more water-
efficient alternatives. My sense is that, in some portions of the State 
of California and

[[Page H4127]]

other areas, they are desperate for a couple of extra drops of water, 
but that might just be too exotic.

                              {time}  0050

  These are programs and initiatives that make sense, both for the 
environment and for fiscal responsibility. Moreover, the Department has 
been a leader in spurring new technologies, and I thought that is what 
drives the economy in America.
  This amendment is terribly ill-advised, and I would strongly urge all 
of my colleagues to oppose it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is absolutely right. The 
military is the largest purchaser of energy in our economy. That is 
exactly the point.
  They should not be forced to purchase energy at vastly inflated 
prices to soothe the ideological itch of the environmental left.
  No one in his right mind would pull into a gas station to pay $26.60 
per gallon for fuel when the gas station next door is selling it for 
$2.50. That is exactly what these executive orders are requiring our 
military to do. It is squandering billions of our dollars and making a 
mockery of any claim that we are stretching our defense dollars to the 
utmost.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Guinta) having assumed the chair, Mr. Bost, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2685) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2016, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________