To designate the Federal Building and United States Courthouse located at 1125 Chapline Street in Wheeling, West Virginia, as the "Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. Federal Building and United States Courthouse".

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman would have a restriction, and I would point out, after today's vote, this would now be the fifth restriction relative to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay. While the gentleman suggests that it is not a permanent ban, it is a mantra of let's do nothing.

These are human beings, whether we want to admit that or not, and to simply continue, after 13 years, to do nothing is wrong. We are a Nation of laws.

I believe the continued operation of Guantanamo Bay reduces our Nation's credibility and weakens our national security by providing terrorist organizations with recruitment material.

Also, we are debating an appropriation bill, and people ought to understand that we are spending $2.7 million annually per inmate at Guantanamo Bay, which is about 35 times more than the cost of an inmate at a supermaximum Federal prison in the United States.

I would also point out that the United States has transferred 620 detainees from Guantanamo since May of 2002, with 532 transfers occurring during the Bush administration and 88 transfers occurring during the Obama administration.

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out, relative to the gentleman's suggestion that we need to make sure the laws of the land are followed, that that is exactly what we do in this bill.

Chairman Frelinghuysen had an amendment in the full committee, which I supported and spoke on behalf of, given the recent transfer of Taliban prisoners by the administration, and the fact is, in section 9015 of the bill, as printed and pending, it says:

No more than 15 percent of the funds made available may be

obligated until the Secretary of Defense provides the

congressional Defense and Intelligence Committees with a

detailed spend plan for the funds provided.

Essentially, the chairman's initiative that I supported--and the committee voted for--fences that money off to make sure the law is followed. This amendment is unnecessary.

I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman.

I want to thank the gentlewoman for her service and for her commitment to her constituents, to her country, and to the Ukrainian people.

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

Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition and would certainly at the outset compliment the gentleman for his concern about the KC-10 and also for his remarks about the performance of the aircraft as well as the value to our country. That is not in dispute, and that certainly is not the reason I am on my feet now.

But the amendment, I believe, would reserve a specific element in the Department of Defense force structure. The practice of the committee and in our bill has been to avoid protection of specific weapons systems or bases and to leave the Department flexibility as far as a path going forward, particularly as far as restructuring units, as well as retirement of programs. This language does not comport with the general concepts of this bill.

I would also point out an issue similar to this relative to a transfer of an airlift wing that was in one State of this great country, and the Department proposal that it be transferred to a different State in this country was debated in committee relative to the reporting of this bill, and we had a vote on that issue, and the committee voted against interfering with the decision that the Department had made relative to their military judgment. Therefore, I would urge the rejection of the gentleman's amendment with all due respect to the capabilities of the KC-10.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the recognition.

I appreciate the thrust of the gentleman's amendment. I rise in opposition to it, however, because I think it is overly broad.

One of the concerns I have is, if it is adopted, I am concerned about whether or not technical assistance could continue to be given to contractors and subcontractors; and, obviously, given the complexity of the law, it would be helpful for them to have it, and I would not want it to be prohibited.

Additionally, the amendment would appear to interfere with the OFCCP's ability to connect outreach and, again, technical assistance under the current moratorium to help contractors and subcontractors understand their obligations under the law.

So again, I appreciate where the gentleman is coming from. I am concerned that, given the broadness of the amendment, it may inhibit the type of information and assistance that these contractors and subcontractors really do need. So, for that reason, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, the gentleman has spoken much about the spiritual role of chaplains in the military. I am very concerned that the impulse here is related to sexual orientation and the limitation in serving as a chaplain in the United States military.

I would tell the gentleman at one time in my life--and I obviously took a bad turn in the road because I got involved in politics--I was in a Roman Catholic seminary. My God is a loving God. My God is a tolerant God. My God passes judgment on the goodness of a person's soul. In this day and in this world, where there is so much hate and violence and anger, I think it is very disappointing that we in public life would try to accentuate that there are differences between us that may cause us not to like each other.

Each of us seeks our God differently. We have different religions, we have different customs, we have different preferences. But it is important to find that chaplain and spiritual guide who meets those needs to help us to find that just and forgiving and kind God.

I think it is wrong to foreclose any avenue for any American, and particularly those who put the uniform of this country on and risk their lives for us and are under incredible stress. To foreclose any avenue of spiritual guidance and relief for them is wrong.

I would simply close by noting that there is a monument--Thomas Jefferson--in Washington D.C.

One of the writings of Jefferson is on the southeast portico. It says:

Laws and constitutions must go hand in hand with the

progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed,

more enlightened, institutions must advance to keep pace with

those times. We might as well require a man to wear still the

coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to

remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

My vote would be a vote to have a tolerant policy in a tolerant country. I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I stand for a tolerant Nation, and I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding.

The fact is the gentlewoman has mentioned this authorization is very dated. The world has changed. It needs to be reconsidered.

I deeply appreciate her efforts not just today on the floor, but in committee and over the years to essentially force the issue and to ask this institution to reconsider what the authorities should be going forward.

I certainly support her effort.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chairman, the gentleman talks about the burden. The gentleman talks about the requirement. I would talk about our requirement to ease the burden on the American people as far as our continued dependency on fossil fuel, on overseas options as far as how we secure our carbon, and as I have said a number of times during the debate during the last 2 days, we should never foreclose options for our military. There is a purpose for this requirement and this policy because the Department of Defense is the largest entity on the planet Earth relative to the purchase of fuel, and it is a perfect way to begin to wean ourselves from some of these foreign sources.

Some argue that section 526 harms our military readiness. This is simply not the case. In July, the Department of Defense stated very clearly that the provision has not hindered the Department from purchasing the fuel we need today, worldwide, to support military missions, but it also sets an important baseline in developing the fuels we will need in the future.

The Department, itself, supports section 526, recognizing that tomorrow's soldiers, sailors, air personnel, and marines are going to need a greater range--more options--of energy sources. In fact, the Department of Defense says that repealing this section could complicate the Department's efforts to provide better energy options to our warfighters and take advantage of the promising developments in homegrown biofuels.

I do believe that the amendment would damage the developing biofuels sector at the worst possible time for our economy. We need to create jobs, not to eliminate them. It could also send a negative signal to America's advanced biofuels industry and result in adverse impacts in rural development areas and in exports of the world's leading technology. Section 526 doesn't prevent the sale of dirty fuels, nor does it prevent Federal agencies from buying these fuels if they need to. Instead, it simply prevents the Federal Government from propping up the makers of different types of carbon fuels with long-term contracts. Developing and bringing advanced, low-carbon biofuels to scale is a critical step in reducing the Nation's dependency on oil.

As someone who is possessed with the largest inland oil refinery in the United States of America in the First Congressional District, we are going to sell a lot of oil, but we ought to look at having a broad matrix, and the Department of Defense is a place to start, so I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I would join the chairman in thanking the gentleman for his initiative. He raises a very good point, and I support his amendment.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comment that we should look around the world and see what is happening.

I look in the Pacific, and I am struck because of the gentleman's concern about the Department of Defense and the commander for the United States Pacific Command's pivoting to Asia. Admiral Samuel Locklear states that the single greatest threat to long-term peace in the Pacific basin is climate change. These threats increase with the demand for energy as temperatures rise but also as natural disasters happen with greater frequency, causing increased operational demands on military forces serving in stability and support roles.

With these disturbing trends documented in the most recent assessments, it would be irresponsible, I believe, to prevent the continued assessment of this real and changing threat.

I would note that no funds shall be used for the research program. What has ever happened in this country where we can't do research? What we do today is: let's not see anything; let's not hear anything; let's not learn anything; let's not research anything. If my parents took that attitude of ``let's do nothing,'' we would still be waiting for the interstate system to be built.

It is time we do something. This attack on research and inquisitiveness and on the seeking of knowledge, whether we agree on all of the facts or not, is very disturbing to me, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I would simply say that these documents are research-oriented and technical updates, and we ought to pursue knowledge. I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I appreciate the gentlewoman for offering the amendment. I certainly would rise in support of it and certainly think it is acceptable to the committee.

I would point out to my colleagues though that, if you would, your view has been anticipated. I would draw my colleagues' attention to section 8113 of the underlying legislation, as well as section 9013.

So I do not want anyone to think that the committee itself, including the chairman, was inattentive to the points you raise.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I appreciate the heartfelt arguments and the concern of the gentleman who serves on the committee. We had a discussion of this amendment in committee, and it did fail on a voice vote.

I would agree with the gentleman when he said that the situation in Syria and that part of the world is very complicated, and that there are no good options. I can't argue that point either.

He also stated that there are significant risks if weapons are, if you would, provided, and I could not deny that.

But at some point in time, given the problems we have in that area of the world and the people who have been displaced and who are in those refugee camps, I think we ought to keep what few unpleasant options we have open, to assume a reasonable risk if, at some future point in time during the next year to year and a half, we can work to improve the situation.

So with all due respect and understanding of the gentleman's concerns, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield what remaining time I have to the gentleman.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Madam Chair, I seek the time because I agree with the assertion of the gentleman, and that is the service that is provided by the military technicians that he is looking to exempt, I agree with every word he said. I want to make it clear to my colleagues that these civilian employees, as a condition of their employment, are a member of the unit in which they work.

My problem is there are other people who are employed by the Federal Government who also do very important work, and I would include everyone who is in the Federal service. I have always taken umbrage, regardless of who was in charge of an administration, at making distinctions between essential or nonessential employees. If you do not have an essential job, I do not know why you are working for anyone.

I find it abhorrent that we lock Federal employees out. I find it abhorrent that we malign Federal employees who

are working very hard. And, again, I agree with the gentleman as far as the value of these military technicians. I made the point when this government was shut down last October and I opposed it that people wanted to ameliorate the discomfort because the Federal Government does nothing for me, and I am also sick of hearing that. My suggestion was, not wanting to shut the government down, well, then, no Federal employee should go to work.

And I happen to use O'Hare International Airport a long time. Maybe people should sit there because FAA employees do very important work to keep us safe when we are at 38,000 feet. I think of all the civilian employees who are doing very important medical work at our hospitals treating those who are wounded and damaged in body and mind because of their service. I think of Federal firefighters who have lost their lives, who have been injured fighting fires. I think of FBI civilian employees who risk their lives every day. I think of those in the Border Patrol who risk their lives every day. I think of civilian employees at the Coast Guard, and obviously I could go on.

So the one concern I have with the gentleman's amendment is we should not be discerning and choosing. We should either be all inclusive or exclusive. And the fact is we would be better spent doing our work, getting our budgets done, and never furloughing any Federal employee again, all of whom are essential.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I appreciate her yielding.

I appreciate her devotion to the issue and to the victims of these crimes and rise in strong support of her position, and I appreciate not only her work but for offering the amendment today.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I certainly appreciate the fact that the gentleman is looking to be very cost effective in avoiding the expenditure of unnecessary funds and strongly support his position. I appreciate his offering the amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 4870, and that I may include tabular material on the same.

I would like to join with the ranking member in commending you for this colloquy and for the purpose of the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share, love, and represent a number of Ukrainian Americans, and we know their plight, and we salute your efforts. This is an important focus that you have brought to our attention.

Will the gentleman yield?

Let me thank my colleague from New Jersey for raising this important issue. We believe this proposal to be an extremely risky proposition because the KC-10 provides a particularly vital link in the air bridge that enables global operations of our Armed Forces.

We could not have done what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq without this vital link, and to retire the entire fleet would be a huge mistake. This is the only tanker that currently uses the boom to fuel Air Force aircraft and the basket to refuel the Navy and Marine Corps fleet. So it is darn important.

I appreciate the work the gentleman has done to bring this to our attention. We have included, of course, language in our bill which reemphasizes the importance of the KC-10 to national security.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I would first like to recognize Mr. Moran's service on our committee. As just exhibited, in the full committee, he is truly a passionate man, and I must say he has been consistently passionate on this issue, but despite his passion and his reasoning, I stand in opposition to his amendment.

The provisions contained in our bill are the same as current law, and they have been carried in some form since fiscal year 2010, in both the appropriations bill and in the Defense authorization bill. Quite honestly, they need to remain there.

The provisions we carry ensure that the remaining Gitmo detainees who are judged to be the most dangerous will never be brought into our homeland, where U.S. citizens could be threatened. There is a pretty strong and enduring consensus--bipartisan consensus--in Congress that Guantanamo Bay should remain open, that the detainees should not be transferred to the United States for any reason, and that no facility should be built in the United States to house them.

As everyone here is aware and as it has been mentioned in earlier debate, a number of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded Americans. The threat is real. We haven't quite left Afghanistan. The threats there are real.

I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I ask the House to give it a strong negative vote.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, what about justice for the victims of those who died on September 11, 2001? What about justice for those five detainees that were released the other day in the prisoner exchange, how is there justice there?

They were among the worst of the worst. We need to keep the provisions in this bill. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Let me first salute the gentleman from Alabama for his strong advocacy on behalf of the littoral combat ship, and let me say that the littoral combat ship plays an extremely important role in the future of the Navy's fleet.

In fact, the ship represents nearly one-sixth of the 306-ship fleet the Navy has expressed as its stated fleet requirement.

During markup of the bill, the committee spent as much time, if not more, on this issue than any other. In the end, we were extremely concerned with the strong words expressed by the Secretary of Defense with respect to the small surface combat requirements that these ships must have.

Since the littoral combat ship does play a vital role, we want to make sure we are buying the correct version. That is why we slowed the production.

However, we recognize the importance of the industrial base--very much so--and we certainly don't want to let that in any way stagnate, so we have provided funding for two ships to bridge the gap until the Navy can verify the requirements and incorporate them into the production line.

I do recognize that this is an important program for your community, and you have been a remarkable advocate. You have been on my case for quite a long time, and I am hugely admiring of your passion and determination.

I want to assure you that we will continue to work with you to address your concerns. We will continue to monitor, as we proceed to conference with the Senate, and we will work with the gentleman to ensure we adopt the right policy for our national security and the industrial base, including a very important shipyard in the gentleman's district in Mobile, Alabama.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the gentlewoman's amendment.

Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation, and I seek the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, what is occurring in Iraq is complicated and dangerous and violent.

This is a complicated issue that the gentlewoman seeks to address with multifaceted policy ramifications that really cannot be fully debated in an amendment in this short period of time.

The situation in Iraq remains highly complicated, very dangerous, and does, I believe, and many believe, pose an imminent threat to U.S. and allied interests, particularly regional security; witness the fact that the President has sent over a number of advisers to either protect the Embassy or work with the Iraqi military.

This amendment, in my judgment, goes too far as it attempts to tie the U.S. Government's hands, i.e., the Commander in Chief's hands, in navigating the complicated situation we face related to threats emanating from Iraq, recognizing that half of the country is now in the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

We have to be realistic. What this amendment would do is to remove any possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstance, even if such engagement would be in the best interest of our own country or allies. For example, this would preclude the U.S. from providing any assistance to the Iraqi Government to defeat a terrorist group inside Iraq, and it appears we may be on the verge of doing exactly that.

Given the ever-changing dynamics in Iraq and the rising terrorist threats coming from within Iraq--and again, almost half the country is in the hands of terrorists--this is a very ill-advised amendment, and I strongly oppose it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, this amendment sends, I think, the wrong message to the Iraqi people, who have suffered a great deal, and of course I recognize the loss of our soldiers and the sacrifice of our soldiers and their families.

I think this is a very ill-advised amendment and I strongly oppose it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I object.

Madam Chair, we do not oppose the amendment.

Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment.

As the gentlelady knows, U.S. military action in Iraq came to an end in December of 2011. I want to make sure that she also knows that there are no funds in this act for military action in Iraq, pursuant to the Iraq AUMF resolution. Its grant of authority has both practically and legally ended.

This amendment is an amendment in search of a problem, a problem that doesn't exist. This amendment is not about substance. To a great extent, it is about symbolism. It is intended to send a message that the United States has washed its hands of Iraq, which we haven't.

At a time when sectarian tensions are at the highest level since we left and terrorists have, once again, succeeded in capturing large swaths of territory in Iraq and brutalizing the Iraqi people after our troops essentially fought to protect them, what kind of message are we sending with this amendment to both the Iraqi people and to the men and women of our Armed Forces and our international armed forces who so valiantly served?

Let me repeat that there are no funds in this act for the purpose the gentlelady is seeking to limit. The only thing this amendment would accomplish is to make, quite honestly, a political statement.

I recognize, from time to time, that needs to be done, but I think it sends the wrong message at the worst possible time. I don't believe that such an amendment has any purpose on our bill, and I urge strong rejection of the amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, stay tuned as our Commander in Chief and our allies contemplate future action in Iraq. As things get worse, things go south, a lot of innocent people are killed.

I am respectful of the gentlewoman's passion and her continuing battle to get this matter straightened out, but the President is still going to request for Congress to look at things. I think we should stay tuned.

I yield back the balance of my time.

We accept your amendment.

Madam Chairman, let me say I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. But we appreciate the passion in which they make their case and certainly, Mr. Fortenberry, in the committee, did a very fine job recognizing congressional concerns regarding potential U.S. involvement in Syria.

Our bill, as you are aware, contains a provision, section 9013, which prohibits the introduction of U.S. military forces into hostilities in Syria, except in accordance with the War Powers Act.

The situation in Syria is as dire as you have described it. We have about 4 million refugees outside the country, doing incredible things, destabilizing one of our best allies, Jordan, in a huge way.

The ranking member and I had an opportunity to visit one of those refugee camps. We need to be mindful of the actions we take here and, perhaps, what we might be doing to limit the President's assistance and our U.S. support for one of our greatest allies, two of our greatest allies in the Middle East, both Israel and Jordan.

So I think we ought to move with caution. We understand your underlying sentiment. In some ways we agree with it.

We don't think we ought to tie the administration's and the Commander in Chief's hands in the way that you have suggested.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

The Department of Defense Excess Property Program provides surplus military equipment to State and local civilian law enforcement agencies for use in counternarcotics, counterterrorism operations, and to enhance officer safety.

It has provided aircraft, including helicopters and small planes; four-wheel drive vehicles, such as pickup trucks and ambulances that can be used for mobile command vehicles with search warrant; entry teams; it has provided vests and helmets to protect officers, as well as other equipment.

Coming from a State and a region which suffered many deaths on September 11, 2001, we welcome this equipment. It is not misused, and the law enforcement agencies in the Northeast and throughout the country that benefit from this equipment have used it to make sure that all of our citizens are protected.

I now would be happy yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent), who is a former sheriff, for some comments.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for his comments and reserve the balance of my time.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Madam Chair, these are not weapons of mass destruction. What a ridiculous characterization, respectfully. These vehicles, these aircraft are used to protect American citizens, and the law enforcement community uses them wisely, and they are overseen by responsible elected officials.

I have registered my strong opposition to this amendment and yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.

Thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention. It is important that we get this right, and you put a very personal face on something which needs correction to make sure we don't go through this again. I appreciate your taking up this challenge and doing it so well.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I served on the Naval Academy Board for 5 years, and I know there is some issues in some people's mind as to whether this executive order either strengthens or weakens the case for rape shield, but I was appalled by what happened there. So I am supportive of what you are doing. There may be some arguments people may have as to whether you are strengthening or weakening it, but your desire is to strengthen and make this unacceptable behavior go away.

I am supportive of that and congratulate you on your efforts.

I was on that Academy Board of Visitors for a number of years. The inability of the leadership of that academy, and to think that this midshipman had to go through this 30 hours is outrageous, so I commend you for what you have put forward here.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

I oppose this amendment. This amendment, while disguised as a funding limitation, is really an attempt to put in place a major policy change that does not belong on our bill. It would essentially repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Let me be clear about what this amendment does. This amendment cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against terrorists who pose a threat to U.S. persons and interests.

In my judgment, this amendment dangerously and erroneously assumes that the terrorist threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates ends once military operations end in Afghanistan.

The terrorist threat today is no less real and, in many ways, is more daunting than it was when Congress overwhelmingly 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, as events in Yemen and most recently Iraq and Syria have not shown, we know that al Qaeda and other terrorist groups are on the rise. This amendment would end our ability to conduct any operations against them at the end of this year--inconceivable.

Core al Qaeda isn't the only threat. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, operating out of Yemen, is now considered to pose the greatest threat to U.S. citizens.

This amendment would effectively eliminate the President's ability to address the threat or other emerging threats of AQ-affiliated and like- minded groups in north Africa, 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 operations, and then they are free to launch their attacks.

The President himself, with all due respect, has reaffirmed 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 and our military by removing this authority that protects U.S. citizens and our country from terrorist threats.

I strongly oppose this amendment and urge others to do so as well.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Objection.

I am pleased to accept your amendment.

I yield to Mr. Visclosky, if you care to make any comments.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill and provisions therein which underscore that a free, independent, and democratic Ukraine is in the interests of liberty everywhere, most especially the European continent, which largely shares America's constitutional values and respect for the rule of law.

The road ahead will not be easy. Ukraine faces enormous challenges in transitioning to a democratic society as Russia eats away at her eastern provinces and now begins to sabotage her internal assets. The incomes of ordinary people in Ukraine have dropped significantly. Consumer inflation for the year is up 16 percent at the same time the Hryvnia has depreciated sharply, forcing private consumption to drop precipitously and further pushing GDP to decline. Life for ordinary citizens has become increasingly unsympathetic. Liberty hangs in the balance. With winter's approach, economic pressures will further mount as Russia restricts gas supplies to Ukraine.

This is a time for attention to Ukraine, which holds enormous potential to be the world's breadbasket in this 21st century, if only political conditions are stabilized to allow a better future to be built for all.

One powerful dimension of Ukrainian society most often ignored by Ukraine's former leaders and by the world community is Ukraine's village women. Despite all obstacles, they continue to produce nearly half the food

that that nation's citizens eat. In village after village, on plots that are small and open pastures, these stalwart women--many of them grandmothers--toil, using simple hand tools, worn out handcarts, wearing old boots, and planting seed and plants whose germ-plasma is nearly worn out. Their timeworn, horse-drawn wagons need tires to navigate the rough back roads. Their dwellings often lack water and indoor plumbing. Life is survival, and it is hard.

Empowering Ukraine's women to lighten their load and make their task a bit easier would be one important step our country and world leaders could take to allow Ukraine to transition through these delicate years to a better future.

For these reasons, the Appropriations Committee included language in the Defense bill directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after the enactment of this act describing additional assistance that the Department may provide to Ukraine, including out of its surplus warehouses.

The goal of our humanitarian efforts is to empower the women of Ukraine, who, despite enormous obstacles, literally hold their families and that nation together. It is to use humanitarian shipments from our country, from government surplus--anywhere in the world we can acquire it--to simply provide items to help them with their food production and preservation. Give to these village women: good seed, buckets, wheelbarrows, gloves, boots, shovels, scythes, hoes, rakes, plastic on rolls, fencing, carts, used tires that will fit their horse-drawn wagons, simple canning equipment for putting up fruits and vegetables, drying equipment, scissors, hand shovels, grass clippers, pruners, loppers, saws, hammers, small hoop houses, hose, rope, and string. And while we are at it, how about some shortwave radios so they can connect to the world beyond their meager circumstances?

We anticipate with other provisions in this legislation States with lift capacity, such as Ohio, can arrange Department of Defense humanitarian shipments through their National Guard Partnership for Peace programs to transport the above-mentioned agricultural tools and supplies to the Ukrainian women in their villages through charitable networks in that country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recognize this important inclusion in this bill. I thank the chairman of our committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, and all freedom-loving people everywhere for understanding the vital consequence of these provisions at this moment of history. I would like to include for the Record an article entitled ``Ukraine Faces Hurdles in Restoring Its Farming Legacy.''

[From the New York Times, May 27, 2014]

Ukraine Faces Hurdles in Restoring Its Farming Legacy

(By Danny Hakim)

Zibolky, Ukraine.--Like many of her neighbors in this old

Soviet collective farm, Maria Onysko prefers to be paid in

grain instead of cash for the modest plot of land she rents

out.

``I have two cows and four pigs, many chickens,'' said Ms.

Onysko, 62. ``So we use it for them.''

After the breakup of the Soviet Union, farmland in newly

independent Ukraine was divided among villagers, acre by

acre, creating a patchwork of agricultural endeavors that are

often inefficient or unprofitable. Some land is rented to

fruit growers, grain operators or large-scale farming

businesses. Some locals work small plots on their own. Some

acreage sits fallow, stuck in legal limbo after the owner has

died.

Ukraine was once the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, known

for its rich soil where grain, sunflowers and livestock

flourished. But farming production dropped sharply in the

chaotic decade after the collapse of communism, and recovery

has come in fits and starts. Production is only now returning

to peak levels of the 1990s, stymied by the corruption, red

tape and inefficiencies that have plagued the broader

Ukrainian economy for years and left the villagers living

humble existences.

Restoring Ukraine's farming legacy will be crucial to the

success of the country's newly elected president, the

billionaire businessman Petro O. Poroshenko. Such efforts

would go a long way toward fixing Ukraine's economy and

reducing its dependence on Russia. Agriculture once accounted

for nearly 20 percent of the gross domestic product; it is

now roughly 10 percent.

The potential became clear last year when a strong harvest

helped Ukraine avoid a drop in output. ``It was just because

of agriculture,'' said Pavlo Sheremeta, Ukraine's minister of

economic development. ``Otherwise, it would have been a

decline.''

Against the backdrop of the crisis with Russia, Western

interests are pressing for change. The European Union is

moving forward with a plan to bolster trade by lifting custom

duties on Ukrainian agriculture. As part of a deal with the

International Monetary Fund for up to $18 billion in loans,

the country's government must push through business reforms

that would help alleviate the problems with farming and other

businesses.

The hope is that such initiatives will also bolster the

confidence of foreign investors as the crisis abates. Big

multinationals have expressed tentative interest in Ukrainian

agriculture, but they have largely remained on the sidelines,

unwilling to invest in an industry hampered by structural

deficiencies and, more recently, the uncertainty with its

eastern neighbor.

``If cheap capital comes in along with foreign investment,

and you have a good government without roadblocks, Ukraine

can close to double its production in the future,'' said

Roman Fedorowycz, a Ukrainian-American who returned here

years ago and now runs a farming company that grows mainly

corn, sunflowers and soybeans.

Even small improvements would make a big difference in a

highly inefficient industry starved for money. While roughly

70 percent of Ukraine's land is considered suitable for

agriculture, it has not been fully cultivated. The country's

yield per hectare of grain is about half that of the United

States, according to the World Bank.

Change won't come easy, given the challenges. Previous

governments have tried to restrict what crops farmers grow

and when they rotate crops, as well as limiting exports. Some

state inspectors lack cars to conduct on-site inspections, so

farmers must bring grain to them before shipping.

Selling farmland is also forbidden in Ukraine, a legacy of

its communist past. So fields remain cut up ``like

chessboards,'' said Georgiy Vaydanych, land manager for

Agrokultura, a Stockholm-based agricultural company that

rents 173,000 acres in many such villages. ``For the moment

we have 40,000 active landlords,'' Mr. Vaydanych said.

``Forty thousand!''

Making matters worse, paperwork is costly and many

villagers never officially inherit the farmland after their

parents die. ``There is uncertainty on how to farm this land,

because we have the dead souls in the middle of our fields,''

Mr. Vaydanych said, in a reference to Nikolai Gogol, whose

19th-century classic, ``Dead Souls,'' is required school

reading here.

Even as the crisis in the east intensifies, life in the

agricultural west remains much the same.

A dirt road straddling tilled fields leads into this

village, with potholes so deep that drivers zigzag past each

other. There are horse-drawn carts, roosters crowing, elderly

women in kerchiefs and a church painted pale green topped by

bulbous spires.

Few in this pro-European area of Ukraine are nostalgic for

Moscow. Still, Oleg Gusak, head of the village council, said

life had not improved.

``When it was a collective, the level of life was better,''

he said, explaining that it was once a larger operation that

harvested crops, had livestock and made clothing, furniture

and jams.

``People even came from other regions, because we had so

much work,'' he said, adding, ``Now, it's not the same.''

Trouble raising capital at reasonable prices makes it

difficult to start or expand farms.

``I have to pay up to 12 percent if I borrow in euros,''

said Taras Barshchovsky, an entrepreneur who founded T.B.

Fruit, which makes fruit juices and whose rented orchards

cover thousands of acres. He has expanded into Poland, where

he said he could borrow for less than 3 percent.

``Those who work with Ukrainian banks in hryvnias,'' the

national currency, ``they pay up to 20 percent or more. I

don't believe you can profit and return money on that

percentage,'' he added.

And while other former Soviet bloc neighbors like Hungary,

Romania and Poland began easing their land sale restrictions

after joining the European Union, Ukraine has repeatedly

delayed lifting its moratorium, considering the move

politically risky in its agrarian society. In 2013, the

government of Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed Ukrainian

leader, extended the moratorium until 2016, after he expected

to stand for re-election.

``I'm afraid if I sell my land in the future my children

will say their old grandfather drank away all their money,''

Hrynchyshyn Myroslaw, 62, said as he cleared a willow field

near another village.

With a laugh, he added: ``It depends how much you will pay

me. If there are enough zeros, you can pay me.''

Volodymyr Baran, 43, a tractor mechanic, said he would

never sell his six acres: ``The land is our bread.''

Such dynamics deter foreign investment, which has been

tepid for years. Despite some interest from China and

multinationals, large agricultural enterprises tend to be

Ukrainian owned, and recent prominent deals have been less

than they seemed. For example, Cargill paid a reported $200

million

for a stake in UkrLandFarming, an agricultural holding

company. But a Cargill spokeswoman emphasized that the shares

were collateral for a loan rather than a long-term

investment.

The rules make ``it so much more difficult to understand,

and to bring in investment,'' said David Sedik, a senior

official at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the

United Nations. ``It's not that a foreigner or a company has

to buy the land, but it breeds opaqueness in the sector. You

need transparent land laws.''

At his office, Mr. Vaydanych pulled out a village map and

showed how its 2,500 acres were divvied up among 507

villagers.

``Every field is split, by little, little plots,'' he

explained.

Being a land manager requires a political touch. Mr.

Vaydanych goes from village to village handing out favors,

fending off competitors trying to outbid his rental

contracts.

A village chief, he said, ``may call us and tell us, it's

the wintertime, we have a lot of snowfall, so give us a

forklift to clean the road. O.K., well, we do that.''

``He may say this electricity substation is broken so we

need urgently to repair it, or he's calling because the water

pump at school broke, so we replace it,'' he said. ``That's

the commitment that comes with the land.''

``I wouldn't be surprised by any request,'' Mr. Vaydanych

said. ``It is about keeping everyone happy. That's my work.''

Thank you so very much for your openness to this, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for allotting me the time.

Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 31 at the desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.

Madam Chair, I rise today, remembering 12 years ago when I stood on this floor and offered an amendment with the same purpose as the amendments I offer this evening: to prevent a war with Iraq; to keep our young men and women--our troops--out of harm's way; and to be prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, as well as ensuring our national security.

We are all familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place. We must not let history repeat itself. Calls to be dragged back into a war in Iraq must be rejected because the reality is there is no military solution in Iraq.

I want to applaud the President for reiterating that again today and for making it clear that he does not want combat troops on the ground in Iraq.

This amendment would not allow funding for combat operations. This is a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were inflamed, unfortunately, when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must be political and take into account respect for the entire Iraqi population.

The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis, rejecting violence in favor of a peaceful democracy that represents all and respects the rights of all.

Our job is to continue to promote and support regional and international engagement, recognition of human rights and political reforms, support for women and children, and religious freedom.

Madam Chair, after more than a decade of war, thousands of American lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, the American people are rightfully war weary. The American people are not interested in repeating the mistakes of the past. A recent poll found that 74 percent of the public is opposed to sending combat troops into Iraq.

This amendment would not impact the President's ability to protect U.S. personnel or our Embassy. We must do that. It does not impact the President's ability to act if there is a direct or imminent threat to our national security. As the President cited in his recent notification to Congress, doing so would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.

Finally, it does not impact the President's ability to send assistance to gather intelligence or advisers and trainers.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, just to clarify, all this amendment does is it would not fund the combat operations in Iraq.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).

Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute now to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Madam Chair, in closing, let me just underscore the fact that combat operations will not solve the problems in Iraq. This amendment would not fund combat operations. We should not repeat these terrible mistakes of the past.

Let me once again clarify. This amendment would not impact the ability of the United States personnel and our Embassy. We want to protect the United States personnel and Embassy.

Secondly, it would not impact the President's ability to provide unmanned intelligence gathering and assistance. It would not impact the President's constitutional authority to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.

I urge for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of her time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment would simply prohibit funding for any operations or activities pursuant to the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.

Why is this amendment necessary? Well, more than 2 years since the United States troops withdrew from Iraq, the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force remains on the books.

Two years ago, President Obama declared the war in Iraq as over. Just yesterday, according to press reports, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated that the 2002 AUMF is ``no longer used for any United States Government activities.''

Further, in our Appropriations Committee, our chairman confirmed that this bill does not contain any funding to implement the 2002 authorization. That is good news, and it should make supporting this amendment an easy thing to do for Members on both sides of the aisle.

The American people need an affirmative vote that the war in Iraq that began over 11 years ago through the military operation--shock and awe, which took over 2,000 lives--has come to an end and none of their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.

Some of us agree that it is well past time that we remove this authorization totally from the books, but on this appropriations bill, we only state very clearly that no funds may be obligated or expended for the authorization.

Congress should never allow war-funding authorizations to remain on the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't do this for the transportation bill.

Madam Chair, we are all familiar with reports coming out of Iraq about the horrific sectarian violence taking place there. Once again, I want to applaud President Obama for reiterating again today that there is no military solution to the sectarian war there and also for his clear position that the United States is not going to be returning to combat in Iraq.

This amendment does not limit the President's authority under the Constitution or War Powers Act to act if there is a direct or imminent threat to our national security.

As the President cited in his recent letter to Congress, doing so would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect United States citizens both home and abroad. This amendment does not take away that authority.

Further, this amendment fully allows for the protection of the United States Embassy and its personnel and would not impede any of those efforts by the United States military.

Given that there is no funding in this bill for the 2002 AUMF, supporting this amendment is just plain common sense. The American people deserve this vote. It is long overdue. We should vote primarily also to ensure that our constitutional role is reasserted in war- making.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.

I want to thank the ranking member for his comments and for reasserting and reassuring Members that our constitutional role is extremely important in matters of war and peace.

I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 34 at the desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.

Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is straightforward. It is cosponsored by Congressman Broun of Georgia and Congressman Sanford of South Carolina.

It will prohibit any funding in this bill pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force after December 31, 2014.

This date is set as the official end of combat operations in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it gives the President and Congress sufficient time to determine what, if any, authorization 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.

On September 14, 2001, I could not vote for the resolution, an authorization that I knew would provide a blank check to wage war any time, anywhere, for any purpose, and for any length. Thirteen years later, this authorization is still on the books.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are over 30 known instances of the executive branch invoking authority to engage in hostilities or deploy Armed Forces under this AUMF.

The report, which is on my Web site, lists 30 instances where the AUMF has been invoked by President Bush and President Obama, including to deploy troops in Ethiopia, Djibouti, Georgia, Yemen, justify detentions at Guantanamo Bay, and conduct military commissions, among many other uses, for which this resolution served as the legal justification for.

No executive office, not President Bush, not President Obama, nor any future President can be handed such broad authority to wage war with no oversight.

In fact, President Obama has stated that he looks forward to engaging Congress and the American people in efforts to refine and ultimately repeal the AUMF's mandate, and he will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.

We need to take up the President's suggestion. There was very little debate on this resolution. I was here 12 years ago, and so year after year, I have introduced legislation to repeal this resolution.

It is long past time for Congress to have a meaningful debate. I remember that night. There were five or six maybe on the floor, maybe a few more, and we had probably an hour's debate that evening.

We need to have a real debate about our constitutional role in declaring war and our obligation to conduct rigorous oversight, accountability, and to demand transparency and accountability for the American people for their tax dollars. I ask Members to support this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I don't know how much time--how much more time the opposition to this amendment wants to see this authorization on the books and continue to fund it. There is no reason that a 13-year authorization should continue to be funded.

I just want to read you this, as I close, what this authorization said 13 years ago, which totally has abdicated our constitutional responsibility and authority as Members of Congress. We are abdicating our constitutional authority by not going back to the drawing board and debating any further efforts as it relates to military force.

The President is authorized to use all necessary and

appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or

persons he deems planned, authorized, and aided the terrorist

attacks that occurred on September 11.

That is 2001. Again, the Congressional Research Service has cited 30 instances. We know there are more. Once again, we 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, bring it up to date, but we definitely need to stop the funding.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the chairman for yielding.

Madam Chair, as a past sheriff, we utilized that equipment in a responsible way. All of the helicopters we had in our fleet were all surplus helicopters that flew as far back as Vietnam. Some of the weapons that we had came from the military. We didn't receive any bombs.

At the end of the day, you can always find misuses of any equipment that is given or utilized by law enforcement. It is the responsibility of those communities to keep that law enforcement agency in check.

To just outright ban the usage of that equipment would devastate local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, not just in Florida, but everywhere.

With that, I do appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New Jersey.

Madam Chair, I have heard a lot of things in my life as a sheriff and in my 38 years in law enforcement, but I will tell you this: first of all, the Federal Government does not give local law enforcement or any law enforcement agency bombs.

The helicopters that local law enforcement receive are all demilitarized. They are all stripped out of any capability of having weapons in them. Those are used to save people's lives. They are used to find guys that have murdered people or to find rapists.

This is absolutely ludicrous to think that the equipment that is utilized by law enforcement is utilized for any reason except for public safety interests, and it happens across this Nation every day in a responsible way.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chairman, the amendment treats the National Guard dual status military technicians as uniformed personnel in the event of furlough.

Dual status technicians are uniformed full-time guardsmen, but a lot of their workweek falls into a legal gray area between active duty and civilian. Essentially, they wear two hats.

They are trained to perform a particular job in the Armed Forces, and they drill in that role like all other guardsmen. However, these dual service technicians are the ones that actually keep the equipment operational.

My son serves in the Florida Army National Guard as a Black Hawk pilot. These dual service technicians are there all week long, to make sure that the helicopters he flies are viable, are safe, and can do a mission.

When they were furloughed last time under this President, we lost the ability to respond to natural disasters within the State of Florida. When we were in the hurricane season and the helicopters were not flyable because our dual service technicians had been furloughed and not treated like other full-time military personnel, we lost the capability to respond to issues that are State issues.

More than that, this same unit that I am talking about--and it goes across this Nation with regard to National Guard units and dual service technicians--they have deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq; and when they deploy, they actually go with them because they are in uniform. They are military.

Because of the gray area they fall in, they can be furloughed by the President, like they did this last time, and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and I had come to this floor to talk about that issue, and we had this same amendment, which passed unanimously, I believe, because it protects not only the States, but it also protects our national mission of self-defense here in the homeland and being able to project the force that we need.

So at the end of the day, these technicians who during the day wear a uniform of the United States--this time it would be the Army--in keeping the equipment serviceable and operational--and in this instance were Black Hawk helicopters--they were furloughed. And guess what? They can only be there when they were on the drill weekend. Well, unfortunately, 3 days out of a month is not enough to keep a Black Hawk operational.

So this is really important. We are lucky this time that sequestration is put off in 2015. But that doesn't stop the Commander in Chief from changing that and furloughing these employees, another reason to save money.

At the end of the day, it is about readiness. We should do nothing that hurts readiness in our military, whether it is National Guard or Reservists, but particularly, and I will tell you from my standpoint in the State of Florida that is hurricane prone, those Black Hawks deliver rescue capability that no other vehicle provides for. And we need to make sure those dual-service technicians are treated with respect and kept on the payroll to do the job of keeping our military active with that Reserve component, the National Guard, keep them ready to respond to emergencies here at home and abroad.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the work that you have done on this.

With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I certainly do appreciate the ranking member's comments about other Federal employees, and I am the last one to malign Federal employees, but this is specifically in regard to--do you remember back when we passed the Pay Our Military Act? It was that act that allowed for the President and the Department of Defense to make that determination that these folks were essential. They decided that they weren't. And, in fact, we know they are because they are the ones, like I said, that keep the equipment operational, that allows our pilots and, in particular, Black Hawk pilots the ability to fly to respond to missions at home and abroad.

So while I don't disagree with a lot of what the ranking member said, this is really about those that wear the uniform of this country and allowing them to make sure that they are paid, A, and make sure that they are on duty to keep that equipment operational.

With that, I yield back the balance of my time.