Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, today my friend, Congressman Jones, and I are offering an amendment to end the DOD's involvement in and funding of the futile war on drugs in Afghanistan.

In his most recent quarterly report from April 2016, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan, Mr. John Sopko, said that the United States has provided a total of $8.5 billion in funding for counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan since 2002. But these efforts have failed. They have been a colossal failure.

Afghanistan remains the world's leading opium supplier. It provides over 90 percent of the world's opium today, and since our efforts in Afghanistan to counter poppy production and opium production, would you believe that their production has doubled?

That is right. We have spent over $8 billion in counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan, and they have doubled their production in that period of time. If this isn't a measure of failure, I don't know what it is.

Congress annually appropriates counternarcotics funds through the DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug accounts. It also appropriates drug interdiction funds via the State Department's International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement account and through the Drug Enforcement Administration.

My amendment would specifically end DOD funding for the Afghanistan drug war, which would substantially cut the United States overall spending on antidrug efforts there. Since 2002, Congress has appropriated a total of $3 billion, that is billion with a B, for the DOD drug interdiction and counterdrug activities fund.

That is $3 billion that could have been spent here at our border on border control efforts or on antidrug efforts or counternarcotics efforts here in the United States.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, you know, in Congress, we often make the mistake of confusing activity with progress. And no doubt there has been a lot of activity--and the goals are noble--to cut off the funding for the Taliban. This is a source of income, opium production. And the activity has been there. We have spent $8 billion.

The problem is they have doubled their production. Ironically, we have helped them with irrigation and better roads, their infrastructure. Something we are doing over there isn't working, unless our goal is to increase their profits, because they have tripled the acreage that they are growing of poppy fields over there.

So we need to do something differently. What we are doing is not working. And throwing money at the problem will not solve it.

What I am proposing today is to stop the war on drugs there. It has been ineffective.

I would also remind folks--I probably don't need to remind any of my colleagues, there is a heroin epidemic here in the United States, and it is terrible in my district. My constituents are asking me, why are we throwing the money away in Afghanistan when we have the problems here? In Afghanistan, when we see no positive results--we see negative results--why don't we, instead, use that money to secure our border and prevent the influx of opium and heroin? Why don't we first focus our efforts on cleaning up our own streets, keeping our young people away from deadly drugs, versus throwing billions of dollars more away in Afghanistan on a program that has proven, by any objective measure, to be ineffective?

We had a hearing on this in the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and there was no evidence there that any of these efforts have curtailed the opium production in Afghanistan. That is why I am offering this amendment today with Congressman Jones. I encourage my colleagues to support me in this.

Stop throwing money away. Stop wasting it in foreign countries. Bring that money back home and spend it here domestically instead for our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, our Founding Fathers included the Fourth Amendment in our Constitution for a reason: to require probable cause and a warrant before the government and government agents can spy on any of its citizens. Our Founding Fathers were fed up, and, frankly, I think our citizens are fed up with being spied on by the government.

I am here to offer an amendment today that would prevent warrantless surveillance of Americans. I am offering it with many of my colleagues. I want to mention that this amendment has passed this House, this body, twice previously: once by 293-123, and another time by 255-174. It enjoys broad bipartisan support.

My cosponsors are Mr. Jordan, Mr. O'Rourke, Mr. Amash, Representative Pocan, Representatives Nadler, Gabbard, Farenthold, Ted Lieu of California, Issa, Butterfield, Labrador, Gosar, DelBene, Poe of Texas, Conyers, Sensenbrenner, and Ms. Zoe Lofgren from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate that all this amendment basically does is reassert the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. All of the tools currently available to our intelligence agencies and those that keep us safe in the United States would still be available.

The only thing that changes after this amendment passes is that the warrant is required to search for information on Americans. It has been this way constitutionally since the beginning of our country. We are just trying to reassert that. Let them have all the tools they have today; just require a warrant if you want to search for information on Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I include in the Record a letter from the Director of National Intelligence that shows that Americans are being spied on without a warrant using the 702 program. Director of National Intelligence, Washington, DC, March 28, 2014. Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from 2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been conducted for the communications of specific Americans.

As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21, 2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section 702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately not adopted.

For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs. Sincerely, James R. Clapper.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. To the judge's point, I would say that this doesn't take any tools away from those who want to investigate what happened in Orlando, none whatsoever. That is a mischaracterization, a complete mischaracterization of this amendment. You obviously can get a warrant on the perpetrator of this crime. So it would be wrong to characterize it in the way it is being characterized. It is unfortunate that my colleagues would take advantage of that situation to try and motivate people to vote ``no'' against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. It doesn't take away any of the tools. Read the amendment; you will find out. Just get the warrant; do the search.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source