to help the inspector general better understand how these decisions are made and to help us prepare lessons learned reports intended to avert the waste of u.s. taxpayer dollars and funds in the future, please provide a detailed accountability of all the elements of the security assistance office review boats with proceedings which led to that decision, including transcripts, testimony and exhibits. by letter today, i've also requested the department of navy to provide their plans for disposition of these boats. i wholeheart lid agree with the inspector general and not another penny of federal taxpayer dollars should be spent on these boats that cost $3 million to produce, were never utilized and have been sitting in storage since 2011. these boats neither -- either need to be put in the water or resold for federal law. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the passage of my commonsense amendment that will ensure better use of taxpayer money and with that i reserve the balance of my time.

the chair: does any member seek time in opposition? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. >> i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk. this is lee 34 printed in the congressional record. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentlewoman from california and a member opposed each will control five

minutes. ms. lee: my amendment is co-sponsored by congressman broun of georgia, it will prohibit any funding in this ill pursuant to the use of military force. this date is the official end of operations in afghanistan. it gives the president and congress sufficient time to determine what if any funds that would be needed to replace the 2001 aumf. the fact of the matter is, the world has changed dramatically in the aftermath of the horrific tragedy of september 11, 2011. i could not vote for an authorization, because i knew then that that would provide a blank check to wage war any time, anywhere for any purpose.

and for any length. 13 years later, this authorization is still on the books. now according to the congressional research service, there are over 30 known instances in the executive branch to engage in hostilities or deploy. we list 30 instances where the aumf has been invoked by president bush and president bama to deploy troops in orgia and a conduct military commissions, which this resolution served as the legal yuves for. not president bush, not president obama nor future president can be handed such broad authority to wage war with no oversight. president obama has stated he

looks forward to engage in congress and the american people in efforts to repeal the aumf mandate. he will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate. we need to take up the president's suggestion. there was very little debate. year after year, i have introduced legislation to repeal this legislation. long past time for congress to have a meaningful debate. i remember that night there were five or six members on the floor but probably an hour's debate that we need to have a debate about our constitutional role about declaring law and conduct accountability and to demand transparency and accountability to the american people for their tax dollars. i ask members to support this

amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman from california reserves. mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition. i oppose the amendment. this amendment is an attempt to put in place a major policy change that does not belong in our bill. it would repeal the 2001 authorization of use of military force. let me be clear what this amendment does. it cripples our ability to conduct operations against terrorists who pose a threat to u.s. persons. in my judgment, it assumes that the terrorist threat from al . eda and its affiliates the terrorist today is no less real and in many ways more daunting than it was when congress gave to president bush

and to president obama, the authority to protect us against those who want to do us harm. while some would argue that core al qaeda has weakened in yemen and yirke, we know that al qaeda 's awe filliates are on the rise. this amendment would end our ability to conduct any operations at the end of this year. inconceivable. core al qaeda isn't the only threat. caulk out of yemen is the greatest threat. this amendment would effectively limit the the president's bility from like-minded groups from the horn of africa and elsewhere. if adopted, this would send terrorists the message that they

just need to wait out the military authority to conduct counterterrorism authorities. the president himself has reafffirmed the need for this continued authority and uses it. i can assure you each and every day. it would be a mistake to tie the hands of our commander in chief, our military by removing this authority that protects u.s. citizens and our country from terrorists threats. i strongly oppose this amendment and urge others to do so as well and retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey retapes the balance of his time. ms. lee: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison. mr. ellison: i want to thank the gentlelady. no. repealing the aumf will not

leave america vulnerable to terrorism. what it will do is put this u.s. congress in a position to debate the legitimate or not so legitimate, in some cases, justification for further military action. it will update the debate and put us in a position to really drill down and find out whether there is a national security interest that will justify military force in the situation moving forward. members of congress, this is over a decade old and it has gone far afield from its original purpose. this aumf has been using more than 30 times to take our nation into conflict, nations that are thousands of miles away from where it was originally intended. it is time for a new debate. it is time for a new

authorization for use of force, if we should have one. it is nothing more than a scare tactic to say that it will leave our country vulnerable. the president has authority to protect the interests of the united states. this aumf has brought us in a direction that was not contemplated. the representatives of the people of the united states, that's us, should have a say on the future of where military conflict might be conducted. that meeps we repeal this aumf and get rid of it and if there is a legitimate national security interest going forward, but that is the direction we should go in. it is time to repeal the aumf. and i yield to the gentlelady. the chair: the gentleman

reserves the balance of his time. ms. lee: let me say, mr. chairman, i don't know how much time, how much more time the opposition to this memo wants to see this authorization on the books and to continue to fund it. there's no reason that a 13-year authorization should continue to be funded. this -- and i want to read you is as i close, what this authorization said 13 years ago which totally abdicated our constitutional authority. not going back to the drawing back and debating any further efforts as it relates to military force. the president is authorized to use appropriate force against those persons he deems planned, nd authorized the attacks in

2001. the congressional research service has noted 30 instances. once again, we timely need to come back and have a debate. we need to talk about how far removed now we are from 2001, if we think this needs to be brought up to date but we need to stop the funding. the chair: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman yields back. the question on this amendment -- the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will every

read the amendment. the clerk: section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to implement the treaty of open skies and entered into january 1, 1992. the chair: the gentleman from alabama and a member opposed will control 10 minutes. mr. rogers: and i regreet i have to bring this amendment today. the treaty on open skies. n the f.y. 15 budget, we included a bipartisan provision to require certification of the national security implications for russian federation proposals to implement new sensors. these aircraft are allowed to

conduct surveillance flights. r and are not to collect collections. n a 325-98 vote, the administration ignored the concerns of a bipartisan concern of senators and approve a russian request to implement its centsor platform. the administration did this without russia's invasion of the ukraine. and did it without regard to the treaty and the administration did it without regard to russia's come plipes to the new start treaty. the administration did it without regard that it did without the treaty. and the administration did this without concerns to the department of defense and other government agencies. how did russia respond?

the "new york times" this will past weekend answered, quote, rebels claimed to have shot down a plane on june 6, 2014, the june 6 episode was of physical concern because it was destruction of the planes that ukraine used to monitor open skies treaties. when we -- when will we learn we cannot respond? putin responded as he always does by taking our concession and having shock troops in ukraine shoot down an airplane. we cannot continue to ignore russia. we continue for russia to ms. use the treaties. we cannot continue to forment and continue continue to ignore

the concerns of our military just to make russia feel good. i urge support of my amendment to send a message to russia and safeguard our national security. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: does any member seek opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from alabama. mr. rogers: i urge my colleagues to accept the amendment. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from alabama. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment s agreed to.

for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: will the gentleman please send his amendment to he desk? the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. murphy of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following new section. section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to maintain -- mr. murphy: i ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read. the chair: there's an objection. the clerk: none of the funds made available by this act may be used to maintain or improve department of defense rural property with a zero percent utilization rate according to the database, except in the case of maintenance of an

historic property as required by the national historic preservation act, 16, u.s.c., 470, or maintenance to prevent a negative environmental impact as required by the national environmental policy act of 1969, 42, u.s.c., 4321. the chair: the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to offer an amendment to the department of defense appropriations bill that would eliminate wasteful spending on unused and underutilized facilities. with the federal government being the largest holder of land in the country, management of these properties must be economically responsible. unfortunately our government continues to misuse taxpayer dollars, maintaining vacant and underutilized properties. this miss management must be addressed so that -- mismanagement must be addressed so taxpayer money is no longer squanledered on these unused

facilities. that's why i'm introducing this commonsense amendment as i have withs bills and will continue to do -- with previous appropriations bills and will continue to do so until wastefulness is rooted out of our government. this proposal is an extension of the bipartisan save act i put forward that would cut $230 billion in government spending by rooting out waste and mismanagement such as this. i am proud that my amendment is endorsed by broad coalition, including the project on government urban site and the national taxpayers union. i thank them for their support of this commonsense measure to save taxpayers money by making our government more efficient. the department of defense alone has hundreds, possibly thousands, of buildings and structures that it has rated as zero percent utilization. yet the federal government continues to maintain these unused facilities at an incredible cost to taxpayers. as a c.p.a. this just doesn't add up. it is unacceptable that taxpayers are on the hook for maintaining these unused

facilities. putting an end to this misuse of resources could save tens of millions of dollars a year, smart savings we should all support regardless of party affiliation. mr. chair, when i came to congress, i promised my constituents that i would scrutinize the federal budget so their money was not wasted, promoting sharter -- smarter governor. this is a simple solution to do just that. this was passed by the house last year with bipartisan support and i ask my colleagues to again support this measure that can save american taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in this year alone. let's come together to show the american people that we can work together to promote better government and smarter spending. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. frelinghuysen: will the gentleman yield? we're pleased to accept your endment and i yield to mr. visclosky if you care to make any comments. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i appreciate the fact that the gentleman's looking to be very cost effective and avoiding the expenditure of unnecessary

funds and strongly support his position. appreciate his offering the amendment. appreciate the gentleman yielding. mr. frelinghuysen: thank you for yielding. mr. murphy: thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment, 148, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to procure any army air crew combat uniforms. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 6 , the gentleman from arizona and a member -- 62, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona for naive minutes -- for five minutes. mr. gosar: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a commonsense cost-saving

amendment. it has been brought to my attention from numerous sources within my district that in 2009 the department of army fully phased out the c.w. 27-p army aviation flight uniform and moved to the army air crew combat uniform also known as the a--c-u. constituents of mine, many of whom are active duty, retired or friends and family of military personnel, have expressed a strong desire for the army to go back to the cw- 27-p uniform. there are multiple reasons to switch back to the cwu uniform. the most important reason is to switchback are safety and efficiency. but to sweeten the deal, when making the pitch to me, my constituents explain that moving back to the c.w. model would also save the department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. talk about hitting two birds with one stone. first and foremost, let's touch , model, w.'s model true proven track record.

the model is still authorized for army special aviations aviations -- aviators, all of the aviators and other service branches of the u.s. military, s d most air forces and navy around the world. these points are testament to the safety and efficiency of the c.w. model and these safety aspects of are paramount importance to our army aviators because the chance of a fire in an aviation crash are very high. the c.w. model flight suits have antistatic fiber wovegen in them to prevent sparks which for obvious reasons are not desirable when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet fuel onboard. the one-piece design of the c.w. model is also extremely important as it does not in the event of a fire leave any opportunities for exposed skin. cannot at the a-2-c-u offer the same amounts of protection. moreover, the a 2--- other is

cut to a looser standard, creating the potential for more items of closing to -- clothing to snag on controls in the cockpit. the a-2-cu model costs an average of 56% more than the c.w. model and the a-2-cu has proven to wear out faster than the c.w.u. 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 c.w. model to my knowledge are usually only one color per 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 c.w.u. model, the effects of the policy should 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 c.w. model. further, it should not cost anything to reintroduce the c.w. model back into the supply system as the rest of the

service branches still use them. in other words, there's no need to reboot the supply chain. further, the army could replace the a-2-cu's with the c.w.u.'s as they are exchanged by soldiers without the upfront cost of refitting each soldier. 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 and being that they are the ones doing the training and fighting, i will take them at their word. given that the safety and practicality applications and given the united states is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, savings a few million here and there in the name of safety and practicality is something we should all strive to achieve. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which cuts costs and improves safety and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves the balance of his time. does anyone rise in opposition claiming the time in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. who seeks recognition? does any member seek recognition? who seeks recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will eport the amendment. the gentleman will please submit his amendment to the esk.

the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available in this act may be used to enter into a contract with any person who disclosures of a proceeding with a deposition listed in sections 2313-c-1 of title 41, united states code, in the federal awardee performance and integrity and information system includes a term fair labor standards act. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 628, the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, if there's one thing i think democrats and republicans can actually agree on, it's that if a penny is earned, that penny must be paid

. this amendment is very straightforward, in fact a version of it has already passed the house of representatives. what it says is that if there is a federal contractor who has been found to engage in wage theft, that they may not benefit from this appropriation. now, there are many contractors who work for the department of defense who have employees that cook the meals for our troops, wash their uniforms, do all manner, many, many important tasks, to keep fighting men and women in a position to serve our nation. some of them may even work in the economy sear, they may work at -- commissary, they may work at various jobs and they sometimes, the federal contractors who serve the federal government, do not pay these workers. and, mr. chairman, you may think, well, you know, maybe

that happens but how often does it happen? is it really a big problem? i'm here to tell you that it is a serious problem. in fact, the economic policy institute found that in total the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages representing 15% of their earned income. a recent report by the health, education, labor and pensions committee of the united states senate revealed that 32%, that's 32%, fully 1/3 of the largest department of labor penalties for wage theft were levied against federal contractors. now, i think that democrats and republicans can agree that if you are a federal contractor and you want to do business with the united states, you should be fair to your workers. this bill doesn't go out and look -- we're not asking anyone to make any judgments. we're talking about people who

have been found to engage in wage theft already. this amendment simply says that the funds made available in this act may be used to enter nto a contract with any person with a disposition under section and it goes on. but what it means is that you must be fair to your workers and if you're not, you cannot benefit. last word i want to say about this is that, don't we want to incentivize good contractors and discourage bad ones? one way we can do that is say, if you don't treat your workers right, we're going to find some federal contractors who will. i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment. mr. visclosky: if the gentleman would yield. i appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment and speaking out on behalf of the

dignity of labor, whatever human labor that may be, and certainly believe that the amendment is acceptable to the committee. thank you very much. mr. ellison: certainly appreciate that. the chair: the gentleman from minnesota reserves. does anyone seek recognition in opposition to the amendment? the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. ellison: ok. so we'll yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from minnesota will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment.

the clerk: amendment offered by mr. forbes of virginia, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be obligated or teppeded to the procks of use, stockpiling of anti-personnel mines and their destruction. the chair: the gentleman from virginia and member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia for five mipets of minutes. mr. forbes: u.s. foreign policy is in a shambles because this administration has given our potential adversaries everything they wanted. let me walk you around the globe. the russians had was to pull our

miffed systems out of europe even though it left huge gaps. . e irians was to pull off our number one concern, we not increase our navy and we saw the president send over a budget that would have taken an ircraft a fleet and would have easily eliminated our tomahawk missiles and they have plans to bench six destroyers next year and they are ready to do something that is probably as egregious as all the rest and that is to execute within the next couple of weeks the on thea what to pull our land mines up along the d.m.z. when president clinton looked at

this, he rejected that treaty because he realized those land mines kept them from invading them for decades. president bush realized it would be impractical and when this administration looked at it in 2009, their state department said we won't meet our friends and allies and white house aide pushed back on that, the commander of our forces in south korea, the general said this, i wake up every mork with one million north korean troops across the border. our current germ who is in charge of our south korean forces whether he thought we should move our land mines and said they were critical to the defense of south korea. when we asked the top uniformed

general in the united states, general dempsey. he said it was a critical part of our defense and we asked him if anything changed since 2009 and he said things have gotten worse, not better. these are not the land mines of yesterday that were dropped somewhere and you were worried that a child would stumble on them. they are targeted. then they deactivate within a certain amount of hours. the united states has spent more those up. taking this would prohibit any funds from being made available under this act for the implementation of that on thea what treaty. time we start listening to our experts at the pentagon and taking their advice. and with that, i reserve the

balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from virginia reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: seek time in opposition. i rise in opposition essentially for two reasons. one, i believe the gentleman's amendment is moot, because we are not a signatory to the convention. the united states senate has not ratified the treaty so funds could not be expended for it. secondly, it sends a very bad signal. the gentleman alludes to the sophistication of mines that are used today to say used a generation ago and it isn't a secrete that the united states does use such program. it is within the bill and i

think publicly and the chairman and the members for increasing funding for the humanitarian mine program. it's not a large program but the mission has large value. victims ivilians are f realm napts of war, not u.s. sophisticated equipment. i acknowledge it's a different program. but the chairman and others are alluded to afghanistan and still remember a picture of two brothers, one didn't have a leg and one didn't a leg because of the mine. i don't want to send negative signals. opposed t's inferd and to his amendment.

the chair: the gentleman from indiana yields back. >> could i inquire how much time i have left? the chair: 1 delp 3/4. mr. forbes: we had various embassees tell us the same thing. these are not the same two kinds of programs. there is nothing more humanitarian than preventing war. we have troops in south korea facing those troops in north korea and the things standing between us and us are the land mines. and if we pull these land mines up. it is crucial we act now and don't make a mistake and see nother part of this globe in shambleses over our policy. the chair: the question is on

the amendment by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? ms. lee: i have an amendment at the desk, lee number 32 printed in the congressional record. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in the congressional record offered by ms. lee of california. the chair: the gentlewoman from california and member opposed each will control five minutes. ms. lee: my straightforward bipartisan amendment is co-sponsored by walter jones and jim mcgovern. what this amendment does is prohibit any funding for combat operations after december 31, 2014. even though some of us would have all of our troops returned, the president announced in may

that the united states would end the u.s. combat mission in december of 2014. for this simple amendment codifies the president's position and would allow congress to determine and re-authorize any further combat operation in afghanistan should the president deem it necessary, y re-inserting congress' constitutional authority, this amendment would ensure that we last month i nd joined congressman jones and congressman mcgovern to offer an amendment that would have required a congressional vote to continue deployment of u.s. combat troops in afghanistan after december 31, 2014, unform that amendment was not allowed

to come to the floor. the republican leadership of this house has failed to allow the american people any say in america's longest war. the afghan public through the afghan parliament has the opportunity to weigh in on the united states combat troops in ghanistan while the american public has been not given an opportunity. there is no military solution in afghanistan and the constituents are sick and tired of this endless war. it has cost us $750 billion and tens of billions as our troops remain in afghanistan. we lost thousands of our young men and women. they kicted in a way we asked them to do. it's time to end this endless

war. when you look at the human cost, . e lives, 2,300 tens of thousands injured, it's time to end this. it's time to look out for our veterans and bring them home and ot fund any combat operations. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman reservings. mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition. i strongly oppose this amendment. this amendment is very vaguely crafted. it could have undo consequences. this short amendment would make no funds available for quote, the purpose of conducting conduct operations in afghanistan after december 31, 2014, end of quotation. our bill contains funding for combat operations not only for

united states troops but provides equipment for allied troops in the fight. further, within the overseas contingency account, when the budget finally arrives and we have been asking for it for months, there will be funding for combat operations for afghanistan troops and i suspect other troops, american troops, international troops through what we call the afghan security forces fund. there is an invet built that that will happen. this amendment in my judgment goes too far as it attempts to tie the u.s. government's hands and navigating the complicated situation that we face in threats from iraq. what this amendment would do is remove the possibility of the

u.s. engaging under any circumstances even if it would be in the best interest of our country or allies. i strongly oppose the amendment. it does president make sense and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from california is recognized. ms. lee: this amendment says we are not going to fund combat operations after december 31, 2014. that's what it says and that's what it will do. for the life of me i don't understand why the opposition believes there is a solution. we have been there 13 years. history shows that the united states' military is not going to continue to have military presence and support, what is taking place in afghanistan. it is up to the afghan people to secure their own future and of

course we aren't taking away any authority. we have taken away our constitutional duty and responsibility. we can't allow funding for combat operations beyond december, 2014. what are we talking about. we want you to continue funding? you said they would end in december of 2014. so we should do what we need to do here in congress. we should end it and not allow any more funding. if the president believes and if you believe we want to engage in more combat operations, which of course the american public are telling us in no uncertain terms, but if you believe that, then come back to congress and exercise your constitutional responsibility and vote whatever the president is asking for.

13 years again. we sunseated it in the agriculture bill and funding for the last 13 years. doesn't make any sense. we want to do what the president has said he wants to do. this congress needs to re-assert itself and do our constitutional duty and engage in our constitutional responsibility and say in no uncertain terms no funding for combat operations after december 31, 2014. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair -- ms. lee: i would like a recorded vote. the chair: further proceedings on the amendment offered by the he gentlewoman from california will be postponed.

. the clerk: none of the funds made available in this act may be used to carry out the following. 1, sections 2-b, 3-c, 3-f or 3-g of executive order 13423, 2-f, tions 2-a, 2-b, 2-c, iii-4, t-h of executive order 135-14. 3, section 2911 of title 10, united states code. a.a. or s 400, sections f.f.. 5, section 303 of the energy policy act of 1992, 42, u.s.c., 1312.

6, section 203 of the energy policy act of 2005, 42, u.s.c., 15852. the chair: pursuant to husband resolution 62, the gentleman from california, -- house resolution 628, the gentleman from california and a member opposed are recognized for five minutes. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment for bits defense -- for bids defense dollars from being spent to pay for several provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of dollars on so-called green energy. for example, according to the g.a.o., the navy has spent as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel. in 2012 the navy purchased 450,000 gallons of biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60 per gallon as a -- at a time when conventional petroleum cost just $2.50. what taxpayer in his right mind would pay $26.60 for a gallon to fill up his car when next

door they're selling it for $2.50? yet that's precisely what our armed forces are ordered to do, except they're not just filling up their cars, they're filling up entire ships and aircraft. and this all comes out of our precious defense dollars. the air force has paid $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 2012, 10 times more than regular jet fuel. and it's not just biofuels. the pentagon expects to purchase 1,500 chevy volts at a subsidized prize of -- price of $40,000 a piece and a production piece of $90,000 apiece paid for by other subsidies. as is 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 uted -- used for realistic training. ummed these green energy mandates the army and navy

aboutrequired to install solar rays at various facilities. at naval station norfolk, the navy spent $21 million to install 10-acre solar arrayry will supply a grand total of 2% 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. and of course solar panels only last 25 years. in alaska the pentagon was ordered to convert three radar stations from diesel fuel to wind turbine energy. the air force claimed it will take 15 years to pay for itself but auditors found that the generators produce only, quote, sporadic, unusable power and the inspector general charged that the air force claim was completely unsubstantiated. as of 2013, the defense department had at least 60 such projects including 357 solar, 29 wind and 289 thermal energy products -- projects.

now, there are several arguments that we hear for this mandate. one of them is it's going to save us money. as you can see, these orders are rung up huge costs. we don't know how much because the g.a.o. said there's currently no comprehensive inventory of which federal agencies are implementing renewable energy-related initiatives and the types of initiatives they're implementing, but outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the department of defense for this year, a figure that will only grow each year. we're told it's to move our armed forces toward energy independence from hostile foreign sources. this from an administration that has obstructed every effort to develop america's vast shale oil reserves that would make saudi arabia look like a petroleum pauper. the x.l. keystone pipeline by itself would bring a half million barrels of canadian crude a day into this country. finally, we're told this is all a grand strategy to protect us from climate change, which the

secretary of state's called as big a threat as terrorism. even if we're -- it were possible to wage an environmentally sensitive war, which i doubt, i think there's a good chance the climb will continue to change as it has for billions of years, whether or not we waste our defense dollars to pay for this quicked so adventure. this explanation does reveal the real reason for this folly. this is 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 anybody else to buy their products. and these green activists are willing to squander the resources of our military to do so. this is a travesty that we can end here and now with this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: this is a debate that took place earlier today.

the fact is -- this debate mirrors one that took place earlier today. the fact is, i would talk about flexibility. the gentleman talks about costs involved. i think when you develop a new product, new technologies, there is going to be a cost as far as that research and development. the comparisons as far as some of the costs also perhaps do not fully factor in to shoot of transportation and how some of those fuels get on those ships and airplanes in remote parts of the world. i do think, the gentleman alludes to it, the flexibility in foreign soil where you don't have a gas station handy. for some of the energy that those troops may need. so i would also reiterate that the commander for pacific command, admiral samuel lock hart, did state that -- lockhart, did state that the greatest threat to long-term peace in the pacific region is climate change. so i certainly do think that

alternative fuels, given the fact that the department of defense is the largest consumer on the planet earth, is worth abiding by. and therefore am opposed to the gentleman's amendment and i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining, is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. i would simply point out that forcing the military to pay $26.60 per gallon for fuel that can be atauned for $2.50 -- attained for $.50 isn't about flexibility -- $2.50 a gallon isn't about flexibility, it's about insanity. it's time we put this to an end. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i would again simply assert that the comparison of a gallon of gasoline at a local station compared to getting it to a jet aircraft for the department of defense perhaps is not necessarily comparing apples to apples. renew my observation to the gentleman's amendment -- objection to the gentleman's

amendment and would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. mr. grayson: grayson amendment number 300. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, 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 contra invention of an assurance provided in ection 20-c-1-a, 15, u.s.c., 278-g-3-c-1-a. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 62, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five

minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida for five minutes. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, this is an amendment that is substantially similar to an amendment that passed by unanimous voice vote among democrats and republicans on the house science and technology committee a couple of weeks ago. my amendment, the grayson-holt-lofgren amendment, seeks to address a serious problem. recently it was revealed that the national security agency has been wrecklessly subverting american crypt graphic standards and deliberately so. crypt graphic standards for the national security community and the commercial software industry are developed by the national institute of standards and technology or nist. that is an agency within the house, science and technology jurisdiction. these standards are intended to protect americans from foreign intelligence agencies, from cybercriminals, from industrial espionage and from privacy violations by those who wish us harm. they are imbedded in software products which are used and sold widely in fact almost universally, in this country and elsewhere.

unfortunately recent media reports indicate that the national security agency successfully and deliberately weakened encryption standards promulgated by nist to further n.s.a. surveillance goals at the cost of the privacy of ordinary u.s. citizens and in fact universally throughout the united states. this is extremely dangerous. it leaves users of these to anybody lnerable who is familiar with these weaknesses. we can recall just a few weeks ago millions of americans were told that they had to change their user i.d.'s and passwords. that, mr. chairman, was because of this. the n.s.a. apparently is doing this a -- doing this as part of ts domestic spying program but it's naive to imagine that if you deliberately introduce into a system a weakness you'll be the only one to use it. my amendment would seek to address this issue by prohibiting the intelligence community from subverting or interfering with the integrity of any crypton j graphic

standard. it's only commonsense that we should not waste taxpayer -- we should not want taxpayer dollars that are appropriate to one agency being used to deliberately and actively subvert the work of another agency and at the same time destroy the privacy and the liberty and the personal property of our own citizens. i urge support for this amendment on both sides of the aisle and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from florida reserves his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i'm not actually opposed to the bill but i would like to talk about some of the assertions or allegations made by the gentleman. do i that respectfully. not in opposition to the amendment, but i think there's some things that have been said that need to be replied to. the national security agency has participated in standard setting with the national institutes of standards and technology known as nist.

of course they'd participate, wouldn't we want our nation's best crypting to are a ferres to help strength -- cryptographers to help strengthen and secure the internet? you want the standards to be designed by the people who best understand the threat. they recommend the standards that they themselves use. as a national security stated in september of -- september 30 of last year, the n.s.a. is responsible for setting the security standards for systems carrying and transporting the nation's most sensitive and classified information. we use cryptography and standards that we recommend and we recommend the cryptow graphic standards we use. we -- cryptographic standards we use. we do not make recommendations that we cannot stand for protecting national security systems and data. the activity of n.s.a. is setting standards -- in setting standards has made the internet

a far safer place to communicate and to do business. indeed, our participation in standards develops -- developments has strengthens the core encryption technology that underpins the internet. and that is all within quotation marks. the idea that n.s.a. has deliberately sabotaged security is ridiculous. these folks know the threat we face and are helping to secure the internet that we all rely on so heavily. again, i don't oppose the amendment, but the assertions need to be rebutted and i retain the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: thank you. i want to in some respects associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman from new jersey. obviously we have a difference of agreement about the facts. but i think that we agree that the n.s.a. should actually be helping to establish the best possible standards for privacy in this country, regardless of

whether the published reports that have been widely reported in the media are true or not. and i appreciate the gentleman's allegiance to the underlying principle that americans deserve privacy. how much time do i have repraining -- remaining? the chair: the gentleman from florida has 2 -- mr. grayson: all right. i yield to the gentleman from new jersey. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for how long? the balance of the time? mr. grayson: for two minutes. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. > i thank the gentleman. this came about because the national security agency has a dual role of developing encryption standards and breaking encryption. mr. holt: and the reports widely circulated, and i think generally verified,