Condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the terrorist group known as Boko Haram in northeastern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership, the chairman of the committee from California, and Mr. Smith from New Jersey, who is managing the bill, and I thank very much the sponsor of this legislation, Ms. Wilson, who has brought us together around a very important statement. Members of the United States Congress will have the ability to stand and to take a very public view that the thugs of Boko Haram will no longer be able to run rampant without the attention of the United States and the people around the world.

I have, Mr. Speaker, the geographic area in which Nigeria is in, from Benin and Togo, to nearby Ghana and Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. We wonder where these girls are now. So it is very important that we are condemning this horrific act. We wonder where these children are.

We have used the term ``girls'' and we want to bring them home, but these are children who cannot consent to leaving home, to marrying, to changing their religion. So in one sweep we have sex traffic girls, we have violated religious freedom, and we have taken children away from the bosom of their family.

So as I hold up in my hand these names, many whom we should call-- these are real people. I would ask today as we stand to support this resolution that we push for a relief fund for these girls, we push for Nigeria to establish its own special ops so that they can safely find these girls, and we tell the Islamic world, we tell al Qaeda in particular, to stop funding these groups. And we thank Mr. Ellison.

Let me also indicate that it is important for the United Nations peacekeepers and the African Union and others to realize this is a much larger issue. Today I stand on the floor of the House and condemn Boko Haram, but ask that these girls be rescued and brought home safely.

Mr. Speaker, as an original co-sponsor, a senior member of the Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees, and, most important, a mother, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 573, a resolution condemning the abduction of female students by armed militants from the terrorist group known as Boko Haram in northeastern provinces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

I thank my colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Wilson, for introducing this bipartisan resolution and urge all Members to support it because it is important for the House to go on record in opposition to the brutal and outrageous assaults on human dignity and freedom committed by the Boko Haram, a militant group that has no respect for the rights of women and girls.

Since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women, and children have been slaughtered by Boko Haram.

The victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care providers, relief workers. And schoolchildren.

I urge our government, the United States of America, to assist the Government of Nigeria in developing its own capacity to deploy specialized police and army units rapidly to bring Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau to justice and to rescue the more than 200 schoolgirls who were kidnapped from the Chibok School for Girls in Borno State on April 15, and the 11 schoolgirls kidnapped last night in the Warabe community of Borno, and reunited with their families and loved ones.

Boko Haram's reign of terror must be brought to an end.

I also call upon our government to work with the African Union and the international community to detect, disrupt, and dismantle Boko Haram's funding sources derived from other Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP), the Al Muntada Trust Fund, and the Islamic World Society.

I commend President Obama on his decision to deploy American security experts and equipment in Nigeria to help locate and rescue the abducted schoolgirls and we applaud Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan for accepting that assistance.

The leader of Boko Haram has threatened to ransom or sell the abducted schoolgirls into the human trafficking market for about twelve dollars each ($12.00 USD).

I say to him: ``Don't you dare.''

Boko Haram's outrageous conduct will not be tolerated or overlooked for not only is it a violation of the girls' human rights, it is also contrary to United States policy which supports and promotes equal access to education and economic opportunity for women and girls.

As the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.

So we will not stand idly by.

But we do stand in solidarity with the good people of Nigeria and especially those beautiful and courageous schoolgirls who wanted nothing more than to get an education to make life better for themselves and their beloved country.

We will not forget or forsake you.

This is what I think we should do.

First, since we know that terrorist groups cannot operate effectively without reliable and steady funding to support their criminal acts, the United States should work with the international community to detect, disrupt, and dismantle the funding networks financing Boko Haram.

Published reports in the media indicate that Boko Haram has received as much as $70 million from other Islamist groups, including Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP), the Al Muntada Trust Fund, and the Islamic World Society.

Second, as I mentioned, the United States should work with the Government of Nigeria to develop its own capacity to deploy specialized police and army units rapidly to prevent and combat sectarian violence in cities and around the country where there has been a history of sectarian violence.

The creation and deployment of an elite highly-trained rapid response unit was used to successful effect by the Indonesia Government in 2004 to neutralize the Laskar Jihad terrorist organization.

Third, the United States should also take appropriate action to help the Government of Nigeria establish a Victim's Fund to provide humanitarian relief and economic assistance to the victims of attacks by Boko Haram so that they can rebuild their lives and communities.

``People are the great issue of the 20th century,'' declared, then- Senator Hubert Humphrey in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, the well-being of people remains the great issue of the 21st century.

And there is no better measure of any society than the way its treats its women and girls.

Boko Haram understands that when Nigerian girls are educated, Nigerian women can succeed; and when Nigerian women succeed, Nigeria succeeds.

And that is why it is so important that the United States help Nigeria ensure that Boko Haram fails.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy of the May 8, 2014 letter to President Obama from myself and 15 Members of Congress commending his decision to deploy American security experts and equipment in Nigeria to help locate and rescue the kidnapped schoolgirls urging the Administration to work in concert with the Government of Nigeria and the African Union to bring Abubakar Shekau and other leaders of Boko Haram to justice.

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.