Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I stand before you today to honor Jerry Hanas and to wish him well upon his retirement as General Manager of the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. Mr. Hanas's many years of service and expertise in his field have been a remarkable asset to the community of Northwest Indiana and beyond. In honor of Jerry's retirement, a celebratory reception was held on Wednesday, November 5, 2014, at Sand Creek Country Club in Chesterton, Indiana.

Northwest Indiana's extensive transportation network earns this region's reputation for being the crossroads of America. Interstates 80, 94, 90, and 65 traverse our landscape, as do the railroad tracks servicing the Norfolk Southern, Canadian National, and CSX rail lines, connecting travelers and business interests alike from the East to West Coasts. Most notably, the South Shore Rail Line, a passenger rail service offered by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD), provides riders access to the environs of Chicago and its $500 billion economy. Under Mr. Hanas's direction, NICTD and the South Shore Rail Line have flourished.

Established in 1908, the South Shore Rail Line provided passenger service to the city of Chicago as well as to the recreational opportunities found in Northwest Indiana, given its proximity to Lake Michigan and South Bend. With the advent of the interstate system, and the newfound ability to travel between neighboring communities with ease, ridership along the South Shore Rail Line began to decline. In order to prevent the complete loss of this asset, the state of Indiana created NICTD for the sole purpose of maintaining and operating the passenger line. Jerry Hanas was hired as the General Manager of NICTD upon its creation in June 1977, and it is here where he has served the railroad for 37 years.

NICTD's success is due to Jerry's competence, hard work, and dedication to a long-term vision in which passenger rail service is improved and expanded throughout the region. He effectively coordinated NICTD's purchase of the South Shore railroad and passenger assets, resulting in a stable and reliable relationship between the passenger and freight services. This acquisition required a steadfast commitment to a series of strategic investments to ensure the line's continuation. To that end, under Jerry's leadership, since 1977, over $500 million has been dedicated to upgrading the rolling stock, stations, track, catenary, bridges, and signals associated with the line in order to enhance safety and to make much needed capacity-related track improvements.

Currently, NICTD is in the process of conducting the appropriate environmental studies as part of its effort to expand services to the suburban areas in Northwest Indiana. This expansion is a key component to capitalizing upon our region's transportation network and maximizing economic development opportunities. Although Jerry Hanas retires this fall, he leaves a completely rebuilt and vibrant South Shore Rail Line to serve as his legacy and a well-established corporate vision to keep the momentum going for future generations.

Jerry's commitment to his career and to the community of Northwest Indiana is exceeded only by his devotion to his family. He and his wonderful wife, Nancy, have a daughter, Melissa, son-in-law, Tom, and one beloved grandson, Donovan. They also have one son, Roger, whose fiancee, Annie, will be joining Jerry's exceptional family.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending Jerry Hanas for his lifetime of leadership, service, and dedication to the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District. Jerry's impact on the region will be evident for generations to come, and he is worthy of the highest praise. I ask that you join me in wishing him well upon his retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is with sincere admiration that I recognize the Asian American Medical Association, which will host its 38th Annual Gala on Saturday, November 15, 2014, at Avalon Manor in Merrillville, Indiana. Each year, the Asian American Medical Association pays tribute to prominent, outstanding citizens and organizations for their contributions to the community. In recognition of their efforts, these honorees are awarded the prestigious Crystal Globe Award at the annual banquet.

The Asian American Medical Association has always been a great asset to Northwest Indiana. Its members have generously devoted themselves to providing superior medical services to the residents of Northwest Indiana and have always demonstrated exemplary service through their many cultural, academic and charitable endeavors.

At this year's Annual Gala, the Asian American Medical Association will present the Crystal Globe Award to one of Northwest Indiana's finest citizens, Beth Wrobel. Mrs. Wrobel is to be commended for her exceptional contributions to her field and her community.

In 1979, Beth graduated from Valparaiso University where she majored in Mechanical Engineering. Mrs. Wrobel's engineering career includes twenty years of service with NiSource, Inc. Subsequently, in 2007, she also earned her Healthcare Executive Certificate from the University of California, Los Angeles, Anderson School of Business.

Beth has been the chief executive officer of HealthLinc, Incorporated since 2002. She has since advanced the organization from a free medical clinic serving only adults to a Federally Qualified Health Center that provides medical services to over 4,000 uninsured or underinsured patients, through all life cycles, from prenatal to seniors. HealthLinc provides comprehensive, quality and affordable care that includes medical, dental, optometry and behavioral health services at six locations and one mobile van in Northern Indiana.

In 2013, Beth was honored by Northwest Indiana Business Quarterly as top not-for-profit chief executive officer in Northern Indiana due to her success improving and expanding HealthLinc from a one-location, small organization, known as Hilltop Community Health Center, with a budget of less than $350,000 in 2001, to the multi-location organization that is known today, with a budget of $20 million and a staff of more than 200 employees. Beth has also earned distinction as Porter County Community Foundation's 2012 Outstanding Executive and was honored by Porter County United Way as an Outstanding Agency Professional in 2014.

Among her many accomplishments, Beth is a member of the Indiana Primary Healthcare Association Board and has previously held the position of president. She also serves as an adviser to many medical groups, including Indiana University Northwest Medical School, and has presented at many conferences, both at the national and state level.

Additionally, Beth selflessly gives of her time through her involvement in various organizations and civic activities, such as the Porter County Reading Foundation Board and the City of Valparaiso Human Relations Council. She also serves as president-elect of the Valparaiso Rotary Club and is an active member of Immanuel Lutheran Church.

Beth's compassion and dedication to her field and her commitment to charitable endeavors exemplifies the self-driven person that she is and is exceeded only by her devotion to her wonderful family. Beth and her husband, Joe, have three amazing sons.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in commending the members of the Asian American Medical Association, as well as this year's Crystal Globe Award recipient, Beth Wrobel, for their outstanding contributions to their community and beyond. Their unwavering commitment and dedication to improving the quality of life for the people of Northwest Indiana and throughout the United States is truly inspirational.

Mr. Speaker, it is with tremendous gratitude and the highest respect that I take this time to honor a dear friend and one of Indiana's finest citizens, the Honorable Sue Landske, Indiana State Senator. During her many years of public service and because of her countless efforts toward improving the lives of her fellow Hoosiers, Sue has left an indelible mark as an outstanding public servant, and for this, she is to be commended. Senator Landske will be retiring at the end of this year.

Sue Landske pursued her education at Saint Joseph's College and Indiana University, followed by graduate studies at the University of Chicago. In the years to follow, Sue, through hard work and a spirit for public service, was elected Center Township Assessor in 1978. She was also elected Lake County Republican Vice Chair the same year and maintained that position until 1989, then again from 2001 to 2007. Senator Landske was first elected to the Indiana Legislature in 1984 and has selflessly represented the people of Indiana Senate District 6 for the last thirty years. Throughout her tenure as State Senator, Sue has consistently fought for the rights of the residents of her district and throughout Indiana. In particular, Senator Landske's legislative achievements include authoring Indiana's lemon law, which guards Hoosiers against the sale of defective vehicles, creating living will legislation, which gives Indiana residents better control over their future medical decisions, and spearheading the passage of a bill requiring all Indiana nursing homes to have fire

sprinklers throughout their facilities and smoke detectors in every patient's room. Senator Landske's record speaks for itself. She has passionately devoted herself to improving the lives of Hoosiers and to protecting the interests and well-being of Indiana's most vulnerable citizens. Highlighting her leadership in Northwest Indiana and the Indiana General Assembly, Sue has distinguished herself by serving as the Assistant Pro Tempore in the Indiana State Senate. She has also served on numerous legislative committees including the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, as a ranking member of the Civil Law Committee, and as chair of the Elections Committee. Along with her career as a State Senator, Sue is also a retired colonel in the Indiana National Guard and president and owner of All Golfcar, Incorporated.

Senator Landske's exemplary service has been rightfully recognized numerous times during her legislative career. In both 1980 and 1983, she was honored with the prestigious Sagamore of the Wabash for her service to the people of Indiana. Following this honor, Sue was awarded the title of Outstanding Republican Senator, as well as the accolade of Business and Professional Woman of the Year. Sue was also recognized as Lake County Republican of the Year in 1988, the Jaycees' Citizen of the Year in 1991, and was named Small Business Champion in 2000 by the National Federation of Independent Business.

Senator Landske's remarkable career is exceeded only by her devotion to her amazing family. Sue and her loving husband of fifty-seven years, Bill, have five children and seven grandchildren.

I have been truly fortunate to call Sue Landske my friend. Throughout the years, she has been an outstanding advocate for the community of Northwest Indiana, as well as for all Hoosiers. She epitomizes what it means to be a public servant, and for her selfless, lifelong commitment to the people of Indiana, she is worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring Indiana State Senator Sue Landske for her lifetime of leadership and exceptional service to the people of Northwest Indiana and throughout the state. Senator Landske's impact will be evident for generations to come, and she serves as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Lieutenant Colonel Evan C. Ewachiw for his exceptional dedication to duty and service to the United States Army and to the United States of America. Lieutenant Colonel Evan Ewachiw will be transitioning from his present assignment as an Army Congressional Budget Liaison (SAFM-BUL) to serve as an operations research analyst for the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, United States Army.

A native of Fallston, Maryland, Lieutenant Colonel Ewachiw was accepted into the College of William and Mary's Reserve Officer Training Corps program in 1991 and, upon graduation in 1995, was commissioned a Regular Army Infantry Officer. LTC Ewachiw graduated with a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics. He has subsequently earned Master's degrees in Legislative Affairs and Operations Research from the George Washington University and Florida Institute of Technology, respectively.

Lieutenant Colonel Evan Ewachiw's assignments have been diverse and include service within the Active Duty Army, as well as the Army National Guard. His assignments include Infantry Platoon Leader in B Company 1-503 Infantry, Camp Casey, the Republic of Korea; Information Management Officer, 10th Special Forces Group, Fort Carson, Colorado; Signal Detachment Commander and Battalion Signal Officer, 19th Special Forces Group, Colorado Army National Guard; Operations Research Analyst, National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia; Army Congressional Fellow in the office of Representative John Culberson (TX-17); and most recently as a Congressional Budget Liaison Officer. Additionally, Lieutenant Colonel Ewachiw deployed to Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2002 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Lieutenant Colonel Ewachiw's leadership throughout his career has positively impacted his soldiers, peers, and superiors. As an Army Budget Liaison Officer for the past two years with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Financial Management and Comptroller, he worked directly with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to educate and inform Representatives, Senators, and congressional staff about military and civilian personnel issues, force structure, operation and maintenance, and the Army Working Capital Fund. Additionally, he served as the Army's liaison to the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Our country has been enriched by Lieutenant Colonel Ewachiw's extraordinary leadership, thoughtful judgment, and exemplary work. As a personal matter, I have benefited from his counsel and I deeply respect this officer for his dedication to serving others.

Mr. Speaker, it has been a pleasure to work with Lieutenant Colonel Evan C. Ewachiw during his time as an Army Congressional Budget Liaison. On behalf of a grateful nation, I join my colleagues today in recognizing and commending Lieutenant Colonel Evan Ewachiw for almost two decades of service to his country. We wish Evan, his wife Carrie, and his children Ana and Rhys all the best as they continue their journey in the United States Army.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I recognize the Schererville Fire Department, as the organization celebrates its 100th anniversary. In honor of this momentous occasion, the Schererville Fire Department is hosting a celebratory event on Friday, September 26, 2014, at the Patrician Banquet Center in Schererville, Indiana.

The Schererville Volunteer Fire Department was established on June 25, 1914, under the direction of Fire Chief Fred Henderlong, and was made up of twenty-five volunteer members. In the early days, the firefighters did not receive compensation for their work. This changed in 1953, when one dollar was given to the members for attending a monthly meeting, responding to a call, or working for one hour. Today, the Schererville Fire Department is a fully paid organization consisting of sixty-one employees. Throughout the years, the department has changed its standards to fit the needs of the community. From purchasing the department's first motorized piece of fire equipment in 1922, to upgrading their ambulance service from basic life support to advanced life support in 2006, the Schererville Fire Department has upheld their mission statement of ``serving the needs of its people.''

The leaders and members of the Schererville Fire Department continue to touch lives through their outstanding community service, especially to those most in need. Every year, the organization lends its support to a variety of charitable organizations, including Hoosier Burn Camp, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, the American Heart Association, Northwest Indiana Cancer Kids, ``Bump Out Cancer,'' Tri-Town Safety Village, Schererville Baseball League, and the Down Syndrome Association of Northwest Indiana.

At this time, I would like to acknowledge several individuals who, in conjunction with the Schererville Fire Department, have worked diligently to support this outstanding organization. In addition to the firefighters and all of the employees of the department, I would like to recognize Fire Chief Joseph M. Kruzan, Jr., Deputy Fire Chief Robert Patterson, Town Council President Mike Troxell, and Board of Safety Chairman Pete Sormaz.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating the Schererville Fire Department on its 100th anniversary. Northwest Indiana is both grateful and proud to have had the organization's support during the past 100 years, and for their selfless service, the leadership and members of the Schererville Fire Department are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect and admiration that I rise to celebrate National Hispanic Heritage Month and

its 2014 theme, Hispanics: A legacy of history, a present of action, and a future of success. The people of the United States will once again celebrate the histories, cultures, and traditions of our Hispanic American brothers and sisters from September 15, 2014, through October 15, 2014.

Hispanic Heritage Month begins each year on September 15, the anniversary of the independence of five Latin American countries: Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. Mexico and Chile observe their independence days on September 16 and September 18. Since its inception as National Hispanic Heritage Week in 1968, which later became National Hispanic Heritage Month in 1988, Americans have taken this time to not only pay tribute to the rich culture and traditions of Hispanic Americans, but also to reflect on the numerous contributions they have made that have led to improvements within their communities, and in turn, a better America.

Our nation's success is reliant upon the rich heritage and cultural diversity of its people. Hispanic Heritage Month celebrates the many Hispanic leaders and members of our communities who have added to the prosperity of the United States in every facet of society including medicine, business, arts and entertainment, sports, education, politics, and the military.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month. Throughout America's history, present, and future, the Hispanic community has played and continues to play a major role in enriching the quality of life and culture of our great nation, and for their outstanding contributions they are worthy of the highest praise.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and also want to add my voice to those who are complimenting Mr. McLemore on his dedication to public service and his retirement as clerk of the Defense Subcommittee.

I would tell my colleagues that, despite the strong leadership and very best efforts of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey, I am abjectly disappointed that we again find ourselves in the position of considering another continuing resolution. Continuing resolutions are no way to run a nation. We cannot expect good government if we are incapable of providing appropriations in a timely and predictable manner.

As importantly, I am greatly concerned about providing another authority for conducting military operations in the Middle East.

In letters to Congress, the President has cited the powers granted to him in Article II of the United States Constitution as the legal basis for some of the actions already taken. In recent briefings and public statements, the administration also indicates that the authorized use of military force resolutions passed in 2001 and 2002 remain the legal foundation for current operations. However, these authorities were approved by the Congress in a different time and for different conflicts and with a very different membership.

The time has come to rationalize the authorities with the needs of the current conflict and for the current legislative body to weigh in on this matter of war and peace rather than to rely on authorities intended for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

I appreciate the President's honesty in pointing out that the efforts to combat ISIL will extend into the next administration. So why, after 3 years of civil war in Syria, are we including this authority in a continuing resolution that will be in effect for less than 3 months, providing a fleeting authority for what we all anticipate will be a protracted effort? Further, this approach fails to take into consideration the long-term financial costs of conducting this mission, which has been estimated to cost up to $500 million a year.

I also believe that there is an inherent flaw in this strategy, training and

equipping nonstate actors as the main effort in combating a threat to the region and our national security.

The United States invested lives and innumerable injuries, as well as a great deal of national treasure, to train and equip the Iraqi Army, only to see the result of that professional force collapse in the midst of serious conflict. Why then do we expect the next force we train to behave differently? We must also ask ourselves if we can truly vet these rebel groups beyond their known affiliations and ensure that we are not arming the next extremist threat to the region.

I would note that, recently, some of our allies and partners in the region have made commitments of equipment, training areas, and financial resources. I believe far more will ultimately be required of them, including leadership and troops of their own, to truly degrade and defeat ISIL.

The task of fighting ISIL is complicated. I am gravely concerned with the complexities we face while ensuring the safety of our forces. It is for these reasons that I am opposed to the amendment that will be offered by Chairman McKeon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Colonel John A. Leggieri for his exemplary dedication to duty and his service to the United States Army and to the United States of America. Colonel Leggieri will retire from the Army in December after serving almost half of his 30-year career in Congressional Liaison.

A native of Claverack, New York, Colonel John Leggieri was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant through Sienna College's ROTC program. Initially branched into Air Defense Artillery, John led Soldiers in demanding situations--first with the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea and then with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He then transitioned to the Quartermaster Corps, where he led Soldiers for the next decade as a logistician in New York, Nebraska, Virginia, and Arkansas.

In 1999, John began the next phase of his career in Congressional Liaison. He initially served as an Army Congressional Fellow for a year, working in a Member's office on Capitol Hill. For the next 14 years he served in positions of increasing responsibility in the critical, fast-paced arena of Congressional Liaison. He worked as Legislative Liaison Officer for the Chief of the Army Reserve and then as Congressional Budget Liaison Officer for the Office of Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management and Comptroller), working closely with the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. There are few who know more about the Congressional budget process and none respected more. After his initial work with Congress, John was selected as a National Security Fellow and studied for a year at Harvard University's prestigious John F. Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The Colonel's next role with Congress was as Chief of Congressional Plans and Strategy for the Army's Chief of Legislative Liaison, where he directed the development of long-range Army wide legislative goals and objectives to help clearly communicate the Army's multi-billion dollar annual budget requests. Finally, Colonel Leggieri served as the Chief of Congressional Budget Liaison, where for the last three years he ensured the Army's budget positions were extremely well represented and articulated to the Congressional Appropriations Committees. John's tenure as the Chief of Congressional Budget Liaison coincided with a particularly challenging fiscal period for the Department of the Defense. Under his leadership, the Army's Congressional Budget Liaison Office navigated dramatically declining defense budgets as operations in Iraq and Afghanistan drew down and sequestration was implemented. In spite of these challenges, John was instrumental in ensuring that Congress was informed of the importance of key programs for the future of the Army.

In his many years in the liaison role, John helped showcase the Army's great accomplishments by leading countless high profile Congressional delegations to locations around the world, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Egypt, Iraq, Kosovo, and innumerable other places where dedicated Americans serve our nation. These fact finding missions have been instrumental in improving the United States' foreign and defense policy.

Colonel Leggieri's leadership throughout his career positively impacted his Soldiers, peers, and superiors. His integrity, his exceptional work, and his sense of service are leaving our world improved and they have always served as an example for those he has commanded. To quote Charles Dickens, Colonel Leggieri is, ``as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in commending Colonel John Leggieri for over three decades of service to his country. We wish John, his wife Rebecca, herself a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel and now Professional Staff Member on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and their two children, Olivia and Gabriel, all the best.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I am not opposed to it.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the recognition, and I would strongly emphasize that I join with my chairman and colleague from New Jersey in support of his amendment. So that there is clarity as to the purpose of his offering this amendment, I would reiterate two of his remarks.

Over the last few months, we have had several instances in which National Security staff has mandated that the Department of Defense and other agencies selectively withhold information from congressional oversight committees, and in one case specifically, excluding the Appropriations Committee. As the chairman rightfully pointed out, the Congress is vested exclusively with the constitutional authority to fund that defense, and the authority in this instance rests with the Appropriations Committee.

The committee has included clear direction in the Fiscal Year 2014 Defense

Appropriations Act and in the House-passed Defense Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2015 for the Department to report on the conduct of various programs as well as the obligation and expenditure of associated funding.

This direction addresses not only funds expressly provided in the Department's appropriations bill but Department actions that may cause the reprogramming of funds provided by the Congress.

Accurate, complete, and timely reporting by the Department of Defense is essential for the committee to conduct its oversight responsibilities. It informs committee deliberations to prepare the annual appropriations bills. It helps prepare the committee for negotiations with the Senate, and at present, it will help the committee formulate recommendations on the recently submitted fiscal year 2015 budget amendment on the overseas contingency operations.

The committee's responsibilities for funding are specific. Article I, section 9 of the Constitution states:

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in

consequence of appropriations made by law, and a regular

statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all

public money shall be published from time to time.

I strongly urge the adoption of the gentleman's amendment, which underscores the constitutional prerogative of the Congress as well as of the Committee on Appropriations.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure and sincerity that I take this time to congratulate the individuals who took their oath of citizenship on July 4, 2014. In true patriotic fashion, on the day of our great Nation's celebration of independence, a naturalization ceremony took place, welcoming new citizens of the United States of America. This memorable occasion, coordinated by the League of Women Voters of the Calumet Area and presided over by Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich, was held at The Pavilion at Wolf Lake in Hammond, Indiana.

America is a country founded by immigrants. From its beginning, settlers have come from countries around the world to the United States in search of better lives for their families. The oath ceremony was a shining example of what is so great about the United States of America--that people from all over the world can come together and unite as members of a free, democratic nation. These individuals realize that nowhere else in the world offers a better opportunity for success than here in America.

On July 4, 2014, the following people, representing many nations throughout the world, took their oaths of citizenship in Hammond, Indiana: Lucy Lucia Griffith, Susete Margarida Psimos, Ricarda Kurzinski, Salma Mardi, Sulka Tyagi, Andrija Cesljarev, Mira Cesljarev, Juana Cruz Lopez, Teodoro Obien Abadilla, Daliborka Nonkovic, Maria Del Rosari Gonzalez Carrillo, Tyson Francis, Irene Garcia Garcia, Ilija Trajanoski, Jagoda Markovska, Mary Ugonwa Hardin, Daniel Lodewikus Smith, Sophia Johanna Ca Smith, Alma Delia Torres De Gonzalez, Toni Kitevski, Jefferson Marcos Caldeira, Esther Mukabacondo, Alejandro Escobedo Roman, Majid Latif, Xuan Loc Thi Hoang, Paulina Joanna Jagodzinska, Ivy Mwansa Chirwa Cox, Philip Papai Muturi, Maria Soledad Araos De La Fuente, Manuel Garza, Hector Javier Balza Medina, Wladyslawa Skauba, John Munene Njiru, Rosendo Hernandez Fierros, Noreen Nothando Ncube, Dolores Irene De Santiago Martinez, Dmitri Valentinov Boulanov, Haralambos Nikolaos Kladis, Meilute Ona Zinkus, Severo Ramirez Madera, Tatiana Silvia Sanjines Del Llano, Danica Rnic, Janette Atillo Jasmin-Wallace, Ana Ma Galicia Reyes, Angelica Maria Saucedo De La Cruz, Ma Teresa Valdovinos, Gerald Joseph Oblina Rinon, Darshan Lal Wadhwa, and Mustafa Musleh.

Though each individual has sought to become a citizen of the United States for his or her own reasons, be it for education, occupation, or to offer their loved ones better lives, each is inspired by the fact that the United States of America is, as Abraham Lincoln described it, a country ``. . . of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' They realize that the United States is truly a free nation. By seeking American citizenship, they have made the decision that they want to live in a place where, as guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, they can practice religion as they choose, speak their minds without fear of punishment, and assemble in peaceful protest should they choose to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask you and my other distinguished colleagues to join me in congratulating these individuals, who became citizens of the United States of America on July 4, 2014, the day of our Nation's independence. They, too, are American citizens, and they, too, are guaranteed the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We, as a free and democratic nation, congratulate them and welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great respect that I recognize Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church as the congregation joins together in celebration of the church's 100th anniversary. The parishioners, along with Parish Priest, Reverend Father Marko Matic, and Parish President, Mr. Mike Ajder, will be commemorating this momentous occasion with a special 3-day celebration taking place from November 21 through November 23, 2014. The event will honor all who have contributed to the success of Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church.

Founded in Gary, Indiana, Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church is now located in Merrillville and is one of the oldest churches in the Midwest. In 1914, the church's founders declared their mission before the Secretary of the State in Indianapolis: ``The purpose of this parish is to preach the Word of God (the Lord Jesus) and take spiritual care of its members; to spread goodness, justice, brotherly love and respect among its members.''

In 1914, Saint Sava's first church-school congregation was organized. It was named after Saint Sava, the first Archbishop of the Serbian Church. The church was built on 20th Avenue and Connecticut Street in Gary. After a devastating fire in 1978, Saint Sava relocated to their previously built chapel and parish hall located in Hobart, where the congregation held services until 1991. Very Reverend Father Jovan Todorovich led committed efforts in the construction of their current place of worship in Merrillville, which was completed in May of 1991. Today, the parishioners and church leaders gather together in this magnificent building to worship, celebrate, and continue the mission of the founding fathers.

Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church continues to touch the lives of countless individuals through its compassionate service and charitable work. Most recently, parishioners and church leaders participated in a relief effort to raise funds and collect needed supplies to help the victims in Serbia and surrounding communities recover from devastating floods. In addition, the members of this parish continue to preserve the traditions of the Serbian culture and the Orthodox faith through the church's historical society.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and my other distinguished colleagues join me in honoring and congratulating Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church in Merrillville, Indiana on its 100th anniversary. The members and church leaders have dedicated themselves to upholding Serbian heritage, tradition, and the Orthodox faith. For their noteworthy commitment to serving so many in need, the congregation is worthy of the highest praise.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman taking the time and would also join him in thanking all of the staff of the subcommittee as well as the full committee. People ought to appreciate the discerning judgment that they bring to their work, their knowledge, their tireless work ethic, and the fact that they are fun to be around. They also are very selfless as far as providing for the protection of our Nation, to ensure also that it is done in as cost-effective a manner as possible.

I appreciate that the chairman enunciated the names of all of our staff because on this subcommittee it is a very seamless and indistinguishable process. The staff understand they are here to help every member of the subcommittee, the full committee, and of this House, whether we agree or not, to ensure that our legislative process and product is as good as it can be.

The final thing I will note is to thank personally the chairman for his leadership on this issue, for his dedication to public service. My father always told me it took a very strong man to be a gentleman. Mr. Chairman, you are the consummate gentleman, and I thank you for that and for your friendship.

Will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chair, I would emphasize the chairman's very first point, and the reason there is not a discrete figure within the legislation is we continue to await that request in the overseas contingency operation fund from the administration.

I will simply add a couple of comments to the points the chairman raised. One, if the funds were prohibited, I believe it would also affect our ability to withdraw from Afghanistan since we traversed through Pakistan's ground lines of communications to transport our equipment back home.

I also think the withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within their military and their government generally, and in addition to counterterrorism activity, the fact that Pakistan's nuclear weapons capability provides, I believe, an ample reason for the U.S. to continue to be positively engaged.

I would not disagree with the gentleman that this is a very difficult relationship. There are significant problems with Pakistan--all the more reason to continue to be engaged.

I also rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, and I appreciate the chairman yielding.

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

Madam Chair, this is perhaps the fourth or fifth debate we have had on biofuels and their limitation relative to the Department of Defense, but I do feel compelled to continue to remind my colleagues that we do have an energy problem in the United States.

I would, I guess, start at the dueling admirals' statements. The gentleman quoted Admiral Mullen from 2010. I would suggest that Admiral Locklear, who is commander of the Pacific Command, stated this year that the most destabilizing problem that we face in the Pacific Basin is climate change and the impact it has on the people and the national security in that part of the world.

I continue to emphasize that we need to keep our options open for the Department of Defense and, I would suggest, for this great Nation.

Indiana, the State in which I live--and have lived all of my life--is a coal State. More steel is produced in the district I represent than any State in the United States. I am very proud of that.

You need carbon to make steel. What we need is a matrix--not only carbon-based fuels, but other types of fuels, including renewables: wind, tidal, solar, hydro, and biofuels.

I would also reference Senator Lugar, who I continue to have a profound respect for. Senator Lugar suggested that energy is a problem economically in the United States. Senator Lugar suggested that it is an environmental problem in the United States.

He said, fundamentally, energy is, most importantly, a national security problem, which is why we ought not to limit the options for the Department of Defense to expand the use of biofuels.

For those reasons, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong support of his amendment. The committee has a tradition of protecting whistleblowers. In fact, we have accepted, during consideration of the bill, an amendment to do so 2 days ago.

I think most Members probably have encountered an individual who has come into their office and said: I would like to provide you with information that, hopefully, would make our government more efficient and better, but I don't want to get into trouble.

That is who you have in mind. I appreciate that very much and rise in support of it.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I especially lend my agreement to his comments relative to the situation at Guantanamo Bay.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

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

Madam Chair, the gentleman has enumerated a number of terrorist organizations in countries, and I don't think there is a Member of Congress who would suggest that they are up to any good at any moment in time, but the amendment attempts to treat these countries and these organizations with a one-size-fits-all approach. Our Nation's involvement with each one of these entities is reflective of each country's reality and state of affairs, our Nation's interests, national security concerns or lack thereof. I would just provide one example.

If this amendment were to pass, the Department of Defense could provide that the options for any actions in Syria relative to the removal of chemicals and materials of mass destruction would be inhibited, because these moneys are provided through the cooperative threat reduction account, which works to ensure the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons' stockpile, and by necessity, we end up having to work with that government to do this very good work.

For that reason, the practical nature of this begs it, and I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield time to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman of the subcommittee.

I appreciate the chairman's remarks.

Madam Chair, again, I would emphasize my opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

At the outset of my remarks, Madam Chair, I would not in any way dispute the value or the good work done at the proving grounds in Arizona or the good work of the military and civilian personnel who are there. I would concur in the gentleman's remarks. That is true, though, of the military and civilian employees throughout the Department of Defense, both in our country and around the world.

I would remind our colleagues that, despite the fact of including the overseas contingency account, this bill contains $569.6 billion, which is an astronomical amount of money. It is a finite amount of money despite, as I have also said repeatedly over the last 3 days, infinite amounts of demand.

I do think the gentleman's amendment is contrary to what we are doing as far as conceptually in the bill in that we are trying to stay out of some of these decisions that the Department must make. In the committee, we had discussions about whether or not KC-10s should be moved or retired. We declined to become involved as far as the movement of one airlift wing from a State to another State. Also, I couldn't dispute the gentleman's assertion that we would save money if we didn't spend it on transferring, but I might parenthetically ask the question: perhaps we will save more in the long run in that the Department of Defense may not be wrong in its assertion.

For those reasons, I would respectfully oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

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

Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, despite the fact that I do not object to his amendment.

I appreciate the recognition, and I appreciate the gentleman's emphasis on competition.

I also appreciate the fact that he is concerned about the industrial base and manufacturing in the United

States of America. We have seen a collapse in manufacturing employment.

I would just point out for my colleagues, though, that the emphasis relative to the standards the gentleman is concerned about is to try to build that small business base.

I remain disappointed in the Department of Defense because, while they talk about building small businesses, improving that manufacturing base, I don't see many discernible results. In my own district, I had a firm that does very sophisticated technology work, a very small firm. They had to spend more than $1 million cash to go through the evaluation process so they could start to bid on military contracts.

There are not many small businesses with less than 20 employees that have $1 million in cash to go through an approval process so they can start doing business with the Department of Defense, so I share his concerns.

But I also just want to make note that we have to draw the Department's attention to small business manufacturing development in the United States.

Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 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.

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

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment and speaking out on behalf of the dignity of labor, whatever human labor that may be, and certainly believe that the amendment is acceptable to the committee. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, essentially, for two reasons.

One, I believe that the gentleman's amendment is moot because we are not a signatory to the convention. The United States Senate has not ratified the treaty so funds could not be expended for it.

Secondly, I do think it sends a very bad signal. The gentleman alludes to the sophistication of mines that are used today compared to say a generation ago. I don't think it is a secret that the United States does use such equipment.

But I would point out, and it is a different program within the bill--and I thank publicly the chairman, as well as the members of the subcommittee and the full committee, for increasing funding for Humanitarian Mine Action Program. It is not a large program, but its mission is of immense value. All too often innocent civilians are victims of explosive remnants of war, not just new sophisticated U.S. equipment. It is only right that we share our expertise with others, and I acknowledge it is a different program.

But the chairman and others have alluded to our visit to Afghanistan, and still remember a picture of two brothers--one didn't have a leg and the other was blind because of a mine. So I don't want to send negative signals internationally. I know that is not the gentleman's intent, but, unfortunately, I think it is inferred and, therefore, am opposed to his amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, this debate will mirror one that took place earlier today.

The fact is I would talk about flexibility. The gentleman talks about the costs involved. I think, when you develop new products, new technologies, there is going to be a cost, as far as that research and development.

I will point out that the comparisons, as far as some of the costs, perhaps do not fully factor into the issue of transportation and how some of those fuels get on those ships and in those airplanes in remote parts of the world.

The gentleman also alluded to the flexibility on foreign soil, where you don't have a gas station handy for some of the energy that those troops may need, so I would also reiterate that the commander for the Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, did state that the greatest threat to long-term peace in the Pacific region is climate change.

I certainly do think that alternative fuels, given the fact that the Department of Defense is the largest consumer on the planet Earth, is worth abiding by, and therefore, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would, again, simply assert that the comparison of a gallon of gasoline at a local station compared to getting it to a jet aircraft for the Department of Defense perhaps is not necessarily comparing apples to apples.

I renew my objection to the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment, although I am not opposed to his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make just a couple of points.

The gentleman noted that the last BRAC in 2005, if I am correct, is not going to save money until 2018. That implies it is going to save money in 2018. The concern I have is we do have to think about the future budgets for the Department of Defense, and sometimes we have to make hard decisions in years like 2014 so that we can begin to accrue savings in the out-years.

I mentioned in my opening statements and more than once over the last couple of days--but I feel compelled to do it again--that I do have a concern about Congress' continued failure to confront our long-term fiscal challenges relative to the Department of Defense. The Department of Defense proposed significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, the restructuring of TRICARE, changes in commissaries, the retirement of several weapons programs--the A-10, the Kiowa Warriors, and others--to provide for future flexibility and to meet our national security strategy.

A number of the proposals--I am not saying they all have incredible value--do possess merit, but with few exceptions, these proposals have not gained any traction in Congress. Most have been excluded in language, prohibiting or postponing the start in the most recently passed National Defense Authorization Act. I certainly don't dismiss the results and impacts on many Members' congressional districts, but, again, I don't think we should foreclose any options to consider in order to possibly save money in the out-years.

I would make the observation, although I am not going to vote against the gentleman's amendment, that we have got to stop saying ``no'' to everything. We have got to start saying ``yes'' to some things, but, unfortunately, for the last 2 days, all we have been doing is saying, ``Don't do anything.''

I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much this is the third iteration of a very similar amendment, so my comments will also mirror those that I have made earlier in the debate.

The first thing I would make clear to the gentleman from Texas, though, is I am not going to suggest in any way, shape, or form that his amendment is offered to protect the oil and gas industry of his State. As I mentioned earlier this evening, the largest inland oil refinery in the United States of America is in the First Congressional District of Indiana, and I am very proud of that. I tell my constituents that we need a matrix of fuels, and while we work from using carbon almost exclusively, we are also a coal State in Indiana. We are not to foreclose our options, and particularly for the Department of Defense.

Given the fact that the Department is the largest consumer of energy on planet Earth as far as a single entity, I do think we ought to also allow them to examine what is the best matrix and mix of fuels for the particular missions and locations that they find themselves in. For these reasons, I am opposed to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

I just want to correct the statement that my colleague just made. At the outset of my remarks, I was careful to note, because in the gentleman's original remarks he said that some would suggest he had offered his amendment to defend the oil and gas industry. I specifically said I know that is why he did not do that in the amendment and made the further point that the largest inland oil refinery in the United States of America is in my district, so I would in no way infer that. So I want the Record to be very clear that I am not impugning the motives of the gentleman who offered the amendment. I simply rose in disagreement with his amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to begin by expressing my appreciation as well to Chairman Frelinghuysen and congratulate him on the collegial and transparent manner in which he crafted H.R. 4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations Act. I also want to express my sincere appreciation for the efforts of Chairman Hal Rogers and Ranking Member Nita Lowey and all of the members of the Defense Subcommittee.

Also, as I think all of my colleagues know, this bill could not have been written without the dedication, long hours, and discerning and thoughtful input by our committee staff and our associate and personal staffs. I want to thank each one of them.

I would like to begin by saying a few words about the overseas contingency operations title that the chairman referred to.

The committee has been placed in a very difficult position of having to provide $79.4 billion as a placeholder. Recent decisions on the post-2014 troop levels in Afghanistan clear up the major policy issue that held back a detailed budget request.

Unfortunately, the clarity gained was quickly muddled by the proposed $5 billion counterterrorism partnerships fund and the $1 billion European reassurance initiative.

At a time when many in Congress are rightfully looking to limit what is an eligible expense in OCO and shift activities to the base budget, these new proposals further complicate the issue. Clarity must be brought to the opaque nature of OCO, and I look forward to the debate on this during the consideration of amendments.

I support the bill we are marking up today and believe it provides for our national security and the protection of U.S. interests at home and abroad. Put simply, the bill provides stability for our military personnel, maintains readiness, and preserves the industrial base.

I am pleased by the subcommittee's continued efforts on sexual assault prevention and response. Specifically, the bill fully funds the budget request for the Special Victims' Counsel, continuing last year's initiative.

The bill increases funding relative to the President's budget request for traumatic brain injury and psychological health research, suicide prevention outreach programs, and several other invaluable medical programs.

Further, the bill and report carry strong language aimed at increasing cooperation between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs in their ongoing efforts to develop interoperable electronic health records.

Specific to readiness, the bill includes an increase of $1 billion to fill gaps in key programs to prepare our troops, including $135 million for the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The bill makes investments in programs that are vital to the rebuilding and resetting of the force after 13 years of conflict.

In particular, it increases funding by $720 million for facility sustainment and modernization and provides each military service with additional funding for depot maintenance.

I especially appreciate the chairman's focus on encouraging DOD to meet the FY 2017 deadline for achieving fully auditable financial statements. The measure provides $8 million above the request for the Comptroller's office to improve business and financial systems throughout the Department.

Continuing problems in DOD's strategic forces are also addressed in the bill, and funding is provided to address issues directly impacting intercontinental ballistic missile crews.

With regard to the industrial base, I was dismayed that, in its FY 2015 budget request, the administration proposed the elimination of several longstanding general provisions ensuring that contracts followed Buy America requirements and support domestic manufacturing.

I am pleased to note that the committee chose to reject the administration's inexplicable proposal to jettison these Buy America proposals.

The bill also contains several other provisions and initiatives aimed at securing our industrial base, including $220 million to establish a program for the domestic development of a next-generation liquid-fueled rocket engine. Hopefully, this program will swiftly fill a very troubling void in the U.S. space launch industry.

One other area of the bill I would like to highlight is the funding increase for the Humanitarian Mine Action Program. Albeit a small program, I believe its mission is of immense value.

All too often, innocent civilians are the victims of explosive remnants of war. It is only right to share our military's expertise with host nations on the detection, clearance, disposal, and demilitarization of explosive ordnance. I thank the chairman in particular for his special efforts in this area.

However, I would point out that there are certain aspects of the bill that give me pause. Fundamentally, these concerns have little to do with the detailed work of the subcommittee, which I believe did its very best under the constraints in which it operated; rather, the concerns stem from Congress' continued failure to confront our long- term fiscal challenges.

In its fiscal year 2015 budget request, the Department of Defense proposed some significant initiatives, including military pay adjustments, restructuring TRICARE, and the retirement of several weapons system--such as the A-10 and the Kiowa Warrior--in order to stay under the fiscal year 2015 budget cap, provide for future flexibility, and to meet the national security strategy.

Having said this, one could easily point out that the administration then undercut its own efforts by planning for higher spending in fiscal years 2016 through 2019 and by submitting the disingenuously named ``Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative,'' and subsequently also submitting unfunded priority lists.

Regardless, a number of the proposals the Department put forth for fiscal year 2015 do possess merit. With few exceptions, these proposals have gained no traction within Congress. Most were excluded or had language prohibiting or postponing their support in the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act.

I do not suggest that the administration is uniformly correct, nor do I dismiss the resultant impacts of many of these initiatives, but the alternative of staying the course and hoping for some relief in fiscal year 2016 is very wishful thinking.

The sooner Congress reaches the consensus required to make the difficult decisions that are essential to deal with the reality of finite resources, the better we can provide for our national defense.

In closing, I want to reiterate my appreciation to the chairman for his cooperation, his friendship and diligence. He and his staff have ensured that the Defense Subcommittee continues its tradition of operating collaboratively and effectively. I am pleased to support this bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I would echo the sentiments about the importance of public-private partnerships and including teaching and clinical hospitals in finding ways to provide the best care possible to our servicemembers.

Mental health disorders are a growing trend in our military, and we must use all resources at our disposal to address the demand for treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his interest and for the colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra) for the purpose of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns and appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue.

I know that the Junior ROTC program has made a difference in the lives of many students, as well as our country. I would be happy to work with the gentleman on providing funding for this important program.

I thank the gentleman and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, at this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I certainly understand the gentleman's concerns and appreciate him making the committee aware of this issue. I would be happy to work with him to provide attention and resources to this issue.

I am very pleased that he brought this to our attention today on the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I would be delighted to yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan) for the purpose of a colloquy.

I would want to make it clear to all of my colleagues, first of all, that my good friend from Wisconsin has been working on this issue for a number of years. I remember a meeting we had about a year ago on this issue, and he continues to press ahead, which I appreciate.

I certainly will continue to work with him on the development of lithium ion battery technology and promote battery safety as an important part of this research, and I appreciate the gentleman's concern, as well as his good work.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition. The subcommittee

has always done everything we can to take care of our special operators, and that is reflected in the mark.

I do believe the gentleman's amendment is philosophically inconsistent with the underlying bill. I cannot justify devoting significant resources to SOCOM's $1 billion proposal to establish their own separate contractor-staffed facilities, when our services are undergoing tremendous downsizing pressures. It runs contrary to what we are trying to do in the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey, the committee chair.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks and would also point out that the committee has raised significant questions regarding duplication with service-related facilities and services by the Special Forces.

More importantly--and I think this is key--we must be careful not to create or give the perception that we are treating Special Forces differently than anyone else who serves this country in uniform.

Anyone who puts the uniform of the United States military on, they are all special. I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by saying that all members of the military are equal and that this amendment is unwarranted, and I do oppose it.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey if he has anything to add.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank both gentlemen for raising this issue and offering the amendment. I strongly support it.

Will the gentleman yield?

If supplied with a copy of his amendment, I would appreciate it very much.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the Chair that we do not have a copy of the gentleman's amendment.

I would also point out to the Chair, if I would be given permission to, that this is the second time in the first hour of debate we have not been supplied with an amendment offered on the floor.

I would certainly appreciate the courtesy of making sure that we are noticed as far as the content of these very important amendments, so we can give them the appropriate consideration that they are due.

I appreciate the Chair's indulgence.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern, but would make three points to our colleagues.

The first is that the committee is absolutely aware of the problem that is taking place along the borders of our country.

Both relative to the problem that the gentleman has highlighted, as well as for this Nation's defense, I would point out to my colleagues that, in the underlying bill, we provide $1.356,227 billion for the procurement of 87 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters, which is an increase of $119.226 million and eight aircraft above the President's request, so there is a recognition by the committee and in the bill that there is a need, and we filled that bill.

I would also point out that, relative to drug interdiction, the committee recommendation is for $944.687 million to deal with this problem; and I would, again, point out the gentleman's concern, that that is an increase of $124 million above the administration's request.

The last point is that the gentleman is taking it out of operation and maintenance, departmentwide.

I spoke in my opening remarks about the increases we have tried to provide to make sure our troops are prepared, maintained, trained, and ready. It is a mistake to take over $35 million away from our troops, who need that money for training.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's remarks.

Again, I would point out to my colleagues that I think $1.356 million is enough, and I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, given the 5 minutes we were allowed to review it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment. I do not oppose it. I would simply mention a concern I have, which is not with the intent of the gentleman's but, rather, with the amount.

I just want my colleagues to know that the underlying bill already provides $11 million from the operations and maintenance funds of the Army, Navy, and Air Force for the construction and furnishing of additional Fisher Houses, a total not to exceed $33 million. This amendment, obviously, would add $20 million to that amount. I am concerned that the rapid increase in construction funding in a single fiscal year would be very difficult for the foundation to utilize.

I also want to join the chairman and thank you for offering the amendment. You raise a number of good points, and it is a very good program. I appreciate your attention to it. Thank you so much.

I appreciate the chairman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would reluctantly add my voice to the chair. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's concern for wounded warriors, his sensitivity, and the fact that he is asking for, if you would, a fresh set of eyes.

The chairman talked about his concerns about the offset. I would simply inform my colleagues that we have had a number of studies. The Office of Inspector General has completed seven different studies, but perhaps more importantly, to the gentleman's point about an independent study, is that the Government Accountability Office has also done two.

I would remind our colleagues that the GAO is a creature of the legislative branch and is not captive to the Department of Defense.

Perhaps the emphasis here--and, again, I appreciate the gentleman's concern and what he is trying to get at--is to implement some of the findings in these nine studies, particularly the findings from the Government Accountability Office on behalf of the legislative branch and see that they are implemented.

Will the gentlewoman yield?

I would be happy to express my support for the amendment

and certainly believe there is no objection on behalf of the committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that while we are at the beginning, so to speak, of the production of the F-35, it has always inured to the benefit of this country to look to the future, to look at the next generation. And when it comes to an examination of technology and how it can be used in the defense of this Nation in the future, I don't think we should close that door.

We have a resurgence in China. We have a resurgence in Russia. We have problems in the Middle East. We ought not to be taking our oar, if you would, out of the water. And so we ought to continue down this road. We are not, by doing this initial research, instituting a billion or multibillion-dollar procurement program.

So I am opposed and would be happy to yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

I appreciate the chairman's remarks.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the gentleman from Florida is putting forth and the position he has taken. I certainly believe there is merit, if you would, in the technology.

As you may know, we have included some very encouraging language in the report for this bill, noting our pleasure with the Air Force incorporating this type of technology into their nonkinetic counterelectronics analysis of alternatives.

However, we have carefully refrained from prejudicing the Air Force's analysis of alternatives by adding funds from one program to another.

I would like to work with the gentleman further to ensure, again, that the technology is given consideration, without prejudicing the study undertaken by the Air Force. I do think we ought to give them a full breadth of options, so that the best choice can be made on behalf of this country.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's concern and his focus, as far as the problems that financial stress causes, and the additional $1 million and certainly believe it would be a good addition to the bill. I think I speak on behalf of the committee, as far as accepting the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

I would add my voice to the chairman's, and what I found most heartening is the hope that there is going to be success. Because often we want to see the success, but you certainly have made me hopeful that if we made the proper investment and have the appropriate levels of funding for the grants, we can see improvement, and for that I thank you very much.

Will the gentleman yield?

I am always cautious about people who have suggested in the past that we would balance the budget if we eliminated waste, fraud, and abuse. But the gentleman is correct; there are occurrences of waste, fraud, abuse, or inefficiencies.

The investment the gentleman is talking about I think is a wise one, to make sure that we do protect the taxpayer's dollar, ferret out those monies that are ill spent to make sure it doesn't happen again, and to make sure that those who are doing the right thing are protected in the performance of their duty on behalf of the Government of the United States.

So I appreciate the gentleman's amendment.

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

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

What he is doing is locking in our strategic force levels, and the fact is that the armed services bill is not yet done as far as authorization, and, essentially, the gentleman is saying that we should have 430 silos. The gentleman may be correct. Maybe we need 425 silos or maybe we need 218 silos. I don't think we should prejudge that final figure until the authorization legislation is completed.

I certainly think, again, that it is limiting our options. I think any time we limit our defense options going forward that it is not good policy, and, therefore, I strongly object to the gentleman's amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman's yielding.

Using the same rationale as to my opposition for the previous amendment, I would support the gentleman's because what he would do is remove the limitation, if it is making sense, to allow us to reduce, convert, decommission, or otherwise move to nondeployed status these silos. I don't suggest, while standing here on the floor today, what we should or should not do, but we should allow the administration of this country those options.

I appreciate the gentleman's offering his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the gentleman's amendment.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Oklahoma, the author, if it is the gentleman's intent to withdraw his amendment.

If the gentleman from Oklahoma would, again, yield a moment of his time, I would just suggest to the membership that I was not fully aware of the problems that existed and that have now been exacerbated until the gentleman raised it in committee.

As a member of the subcommittee, I appreciate that happening, and the fact that you have now raised it on two significant occasions, I think, is going to compel the administration, as well as our colleagues, to find a solution to this very serious problem.

So raising the point of order was simply to preserve that right, but I appreciate what the gentleman is doing.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Oklahoma yielding, and I will withdraw my point of order.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I will suggest that I would find the amendment acceptable. I do believe it is largely duplicative of the general provision of section 8110 that is already found in the bill. Again, I understand the gentleman's intent and would agree with it and do believe it is acceptable to the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. I believe that we need to set conditions to close the detention facility at Guantanamo. This includes retaining the option to transfer detainees from this facility elsewhere. It is in the United States' national security interest to do so.

Guantanamo has become a rallying cry. It serves as a recruitment tool for terrorists and increases the will of our enemies to fight while decreasing the will of others to work with America.

Part of the rationale for establishing Guantanamo in the first place was the misplaced idea that the facility would be beyond the law--a proposition rejected by the Supreme Court. As a result, the continued operation of this facility creates an impression in the eyes of our allies and enemies alike that the United States selectively observes the rule of law.

There is no reason that we should impose on ourselves the legal and moral problems arising from the prospect of indefinite detentions at Guantanamo after more than one decade. Working through civil courts since 9/11, hundreds of individuals have been convicted of terrorism or terrorism-related offenses and are now serving long sentences in Federal prison. Not one has escaped custody.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, we are a nation of laws. Again, I reiterate my objection and would yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the point that the gentleman is raising and certainly would associate myself with his remarks. I do believe it will be acceptable to the committee.

I appreciate the chairman yielding and would also add my comments that the A-10 is a wonderful aircraft. The B-17 Flying Fortress was a wonderful aircraft. It was replaced. The Kiowa Warrior was indispensable during Vietnam. It is being replaced.

The A-10 is being replaced over a protracted period of time. In the interim, other aircraft are going to take its place until the F-35 is prepared to do its mission.

The second point I would make is that the Chief of Staff for the Air Force flew the A-10. It is their recommendation to phase this plane out. The Air Force has also stated to the committee that, if given another $4.3 billion, they have a whole range of other options they would pursue before continuing the A-10 program.

The final observation I would make is that the amendment is somewhat disingenuous, and I don't say that in a pejorative sense because I know that is not the intent of my colleagues, but while it would sound to our colleagues that there is no money involved in this amendment, I would propose that I would like to find $339 million that is not in the bill because you now need crews and you need fuel and you need maintenance that is not in the bill because we agreed with the administration's position.

There is another $200 million that would be required over the next year for spares and modifications of this aircraft.

Essentially, you are leaving the committee now in a position of $600 million by simply saying no funds shall be used to terminate this program during the coming year that aren't in the bill, and the author of the amendment and those who support it have not shown us where that money is going to come from in this bill.

I strongly urge my colleagues, for the reasons stated in my opening remarks, we have to begin to make some tough decisions. There is a finite amount of money in this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate that, but the fact is there is no offset in this amendment and the cost to the committee is $600 million that is not in the bill. I appreciate the chairman yielding to me.