[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 96 (Thursday, June 19, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H5514-H5555]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of 
H.R. 4870, and that I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 628 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 4870.
  Will the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins) kindly resume the 
chair.

                              {time}  1708


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 4870) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Collins of Georgia (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, 
June 18, 2014, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller) had been postponed, and the 
bill had been read through page 141, line 4.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
  Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Blumenauer of Oregon.
  An amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  An amendment by Mrs. Walorski of Indiana.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the 
noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 130, 
noes 292, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 318]

                               AYES--130

     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Campbell
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Conaway
     Costa
     Crenshaw
     Daines
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hurt
     Jenkins
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Loebsack
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Neugebauer
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney
     Roskam
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sinema
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stockman
     Takano
     Terry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Walberg
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Wolf
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--292

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachus
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Eshoo

[[Page H5515]]


     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walorski
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Capuano
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)

                              {time}  1713

  Mr. ELLISON changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Marchant). The unfinished business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 179, 
noes 242, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 319]

                               AYES--179

     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--242

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Veasey
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Capuano
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)
     Webster (FL)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1718

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page H5516]]

                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 187, 
noes 233, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 320]

                               AYES--187

     Amash
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--233

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Capuano
     King (IA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Moran
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1722

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                   Amendment Offered by Mrs. Walorski

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Indiana 
(Mrs. Walorski) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 179, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 321]

                               AYES--238

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--179

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly

[[Page H5517]]


     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Capuano
     Ellison
     King (IA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Labrador
     Lankford
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ryan (OH)
     Schweikert
     Wittman


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1726

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  1730


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cotton

  Mr. COTTON. I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to transfer or release any 
     individual detained at United States Naval Station, 
     Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to the individual's country of origin or 
     to any other foreign country.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Arkansas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
  Mr. COTTON. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would very simply prohibit the use of 
funds in this legislation from being used to transfer detainees at 
Guantanamo Bay to their country of origin or any foreign country.
  There are two main reasons why this amendment is necessary, both 
related to the President's action in trading five senior Taliban 
commanders for Private Bowe Bergdahl.
  First, he has proven that section 1035 of the National Defense 
Authorization Act is inadequate; and, second, we need to review 
conditions of the release of the Taliban Five.
  On the first point, this Congress granted the President, last year, 
expanded authority to release detainees from Guantanamo Bay, 
conditioned on 30 days' notice to the Congress, as well as certain 
conditions.
  The President abused that authority by releasing the Taliban Five 
without notification, even to the so-called Gang of Eight, the senior 
leaders of both parties in both Chambers, the senior leaders of both 
Intelligence Committees in both Chambers.
  The President, having duly signed the National Defense Authorization 
Act into law with those restrictions, but then did not obey those 
restrictions, did not claim his core article II constitutional powers 
to override them. Therefore, it is imperative on our institution to 
reclaim, on principle, our constitutional authority.
  Second, the Taliban Five have been released into the country of 
Qatar. We need to take a year to review the conditions of those 
released. As many of you have seen, they appear to be moving about 
freely in the country of Qatar without any restrictions on their 
movement, absent the requirement that they remain in Qatar.
  This would allow them--senior commanders, mind you--to communicate 
freely with Taliban on the battlefield against our troops in 
Afghanistan. We should be able to take at least 1 year to see if such 
conditions are adequate to support the release of such hardened 
terrorist commanders.
  What does this amendment not do? This is not a permanent ban on 
transfers of detainees from Guantanamo Bay, nor does it authorize 
indefinite detention. It simply says we will take a 1-year pause to 
evaluate the conditions under which five senior Taliban commanders were 
released and to reassert our constitutional prerogatives.
  Who are these detainees? They are not goat herders who were 
innocently swept up by the American military, nor are they foot 
soldiers or couriers. These are the worst of the worst, 149 hardened 
terrorists, which Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay says 120 of are high 
risk to return to the battle.
  In fact, just this week, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee was 
arrested in Spain, recruiting for the Islamic States of Iraq and Syria, 
the terrorist group that is currently rampaging through both Syria and 
Iraq.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, stand up for your 
honor as a coequal branch, stand up for our national security, and 
stand up for the safety of your constituents.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Yoho).
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  I rise today in support of the gentleman from Arkansas, Tom Cotton's 
amendment, which would prohibit any funds from being used to transfer 
or release any of the prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.
  We are a Nation of laws, and we need to make sure we follow those 
laws. I support this amendment for a litany of reasons, chief among 
them is that it sends a clear message to the President that he cannot 
circumvent Congress and that he, the President, cannot override the law 
of the land.
  He should have notified Congress 30 days prior to releasing the five 
prisoners in exchange for Sergeant Bergdahl. The implications of this 
release will have a far-reaching impact on the national security of the 
United States.
  Just recently, as the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) pointed 
out, Spanish authorities arrested a former

[[Page H5518]]

Guantanamo Bay detainee on suspicions of running a terrorist 
recruitment network.
  The Director of National Intelligence has said that, by January of 
2014, about 29 percent of the 614 detainees released from the prison at 
Guantanamo Bay had returned to violence.
  Our brave men and women in uniform have fought too hard and have 
sacrificed too much to have the President release these detainees who 
will likely return straight to the battlefield. We understand this, and 
our constituents understand this. I support this amendment, and I urge 
my colleagues to support this strongly, too.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, with due respect to the gentleman from 
Indiana on numerous points, this is the fifth restriction that this 
Congress has undertaken.
  If it were to pass, it simply shows the judgment of this Congress, 
the people's representatives, that these remaining 149 detainees are 
too dangerous to be cavalierly released into a country without adequate 
constraints or without notification to Congress, as the law that the 
President signed demanded.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this bill. There are 
some facts that need to be put on the table that are inconsistent with 
what has been suggested by the gentleman from Arkansas. 18.6 percent of 
the people that were released by the Bush administration were 
``confirmed'' recidivism cases, but it needs to be made clear that the 
Obama administration has released 95 people, and five of them have gone 
back to the battlefield.
  Now, we don't want anyone to go back to the battlefield. There are 
149 detainees still at Guantanamo. Fifteen are clearly the worst of the 
worst. Nobody is talking about transferring them, ever; but among them 
are a number of Muslim men who are innocent of any act against this 
country or our allies who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and 
were kidnapped by bounty hunters.
  Only 5 percent of the prisoners held at Guantanamo were actually 
apprehended by U.S. forces, and as many as 86 percent were delivered to 
coalition forces in exchange for a bounty of millions of dollars per 
head.
  There are 78 people who have been cleared for release by the 
Department of Defense, and they are still under detention. That is a 
travesty. That is not right. That is inconsistent with everything we 
believe and stand for in terms of American jurisprudence.
  I think the gentleman has made it sufficiently clear by now that many 
of us know that the political and legal expediency of this detention 
center at Guantanamo has not been worth the cost to America's 
reputation around the world, nor to the erosion of our legal and 
ethical standards here at home.
  For far too long, over the course of this war, we have let our fear 
and anger triumph over our commitment to the rule of law, and every day 
that we continue to hold these men without charge, we diminish 
ourselves and cede our moral authority in the world.
  So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is wrong. We need to exercise our 
judgment. Not all are the same. Not all should be there. Some should be 
tried in our courts, and this country has the ability to try and 
prosecute them.

                              {time}  1745

  Mr. COTTON. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cotton says that by this amendment, 
Congress recognizes the danger presented by these detainees. But 
legislative bodies have no right to make such judgments about 
individuals. Ever since Magna Carta, we have denied the government the 
power to imprison or punish people on mere accusations. Just because 
the government or Congress labels someone a terrorist doesn't make him 
one. The government must be required to prove the accusation in court. 
That has always been a bedrock American principle until we opened 
Guantanamo. Now we imprison people indefinitely without trial. By what 
claim of right do we do this?
  How can we be sure we are punishing actual terrorists and not 
innocent people when we hold no trials? Guantanamo should be closed and 
its inmates either tried or released. It is beyond time to close 
Guantanamo to end this shame on American justice.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would simply say that the 
149 terrorists left at Guantanamo Bay are not goat herders, they are 
not couriers, and they are not even foot soldiers. They are bomb-
makers, they are commanders, and they are intelligence experts who have 
killed American soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines around the 
world.
  Yes, there have been releases in the past, but many of those release 
were of less dangerous terrorists. The Joint Task Force Guantanamo Bay 
says 120 out of 149 of the remaining detainees are at high risk to 
return to the battlefield. That is over 80 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``yes'' vote to put a pause on the President's 
lawless release of the Taliban Five from Guantanamo Bay.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arkansas 
will be postponed.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the gentlewoman 
from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this bill and provisions 
therein which underscore that a free, independent, and democratic 
Ukraine is in the interests of liberty everywhere, most especially the 
European continent, which largely shares America's constitutional 
values and respect for the rule of law.
  The road ahead will not be easy. Ukraine faces enormous challenges in 
transitioning to a democratic society as Russia eats away at her 
eastern provinces and now begins to sabotage her internal assets. The 
incomes of ordinary people in Ukraine have dropped significantly. 
Consumer inflation for the year is up 16 percent at the same time the 
Hryvnia has depreciated sharply, forcing private consumption to drop 
precipitously and further pushing GDP to decline. Life for ordinary 
citizens has become increasingly unsympathetic. Liberty hangs in the 
balance. With winter's approach, economic pressures will further mount 
as Russia restricts gas supplies to Ukraine.
  This is a time for attention to Ukraine, which holds enormous 
potential to be the world's breadbasket in this 21st century, if only 
political conditions are stabilized to allow a better future to be 
built for all.
  One powerful dimension of Ukrainian society most often ignored by 
Ukraine's former leaders and by the world community is Ukraine's 
village women. Despite all obstacles, they continue to produce nearly 
half the food

[[Page H5519]]

that that nation's citizens eat. In village after village, on plots 
that are small and open pastures, these stalwart women--many of them 
grandmothers--toil, using simple hand tools, worn out handcarts, 
wearing old boots, and planting seed and plants whose germ-plasma is 
nearly worn out. Their timeworn, horse-drawn wagons need tires to 
navigate the rough back roads. Their dwellings often lack water and 
indoor plumbing. Life is survival, and it is hard.
  Empowering Ukraine's women to lighten their load and make their task 
a bit easier would be one important step our country and world leaders 
could take to allow Ukraine to transition through these delicate years 
to a better future.
  For these reasons, the Appropriations Committee included language in 
the Defense bill directing the Secretary of Defense to submit a report 
to the congressional defense committees not later than 60 days after 
the enactment of this act describing additional assistance that the 
Department may provide to Ukraine, including out of its surplus 
warehouses.
  The goal of our humanitarian efforts is to empower the women of 
Ukraine, who, despite enormous obstacles, literally hold their families 
and that nation together. It is to use humanitarian shipments from our 
country, from government surplus--anywhere in the world we can acquire 
it--to simply provide items to help them with their food production and 
preservation. Give to these village women: good seed, buckets, 
wheelbarrows, gloves, boots, shovels, scythes, hoes, rakes, plastic on 
rolls, fencing, carts, used tires that will fit their horse-drawn 
wagons, simple canning equipment for putting up fruits and vegetables, 
drying equipment, scissors, hand shovels, grass clippers, pruners, 
loppers, saws, hammers, small hoop houses, hose, rope, and string. And 
while we are at it, how about some shortwave radios so they can connect 
to the world beyond their meager circumstances?
  We anticipate with other provisions in this legislation States with 
lift capacity, such as Ohio, can arrange Department of Defense 
humanitarian shipments through their National Guard Partnership for 
Peace programs to transport the above-mentioned agricultural tools and 
supplies to the Ukrainian women in their villages through charitable 
networks in that country.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to recognize this important inclusion in 
this bill. I thank the chairman of our committee, Mr. Frelinghuysen, 
the ranking member, Mr. Visclosky, and all freedom-loving people 
everywhere for understanding the vital consequence of these provisions 
at this moment of history. I would like to include for the Record an 
article entitled ``Ukraine Faces Hurdles in Restoring Its Farming 
Legacy.''

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

         Ukraine Faces Hurdles in Restoring Its Farming Legacy

                            (By Danny Hakim)

       Zibolky, Ukraine.--Like many of her neighbors in this old 
     Soviet collective farm, Maria Onysko prefers to be paid in 
     grain instead of cash for the modest plot of land she rents 
     out.
       ``I have two cows and four pigs, many chickens,'' said Ms. 
     Onysko, 62. ``So we use it for them.''
       After the breakup of the Soviet Union, farmland in newly 
     independent Ukraine was divided among villagers, acre by 
     acre, creating a patchwork of agricultural endeavors that are 
     often inefficient or unprofitable. Some land is rented to 
     fruit growers, grain operators or large-scale farming 
     businesses. Some locals work small plots on their own. Some 
     acreage sits fallow, stuck in legal limbo after the owner has 
     died.
       Ukraine was once the breadbasket of the Soviet Union, known 
     for its rich soil where grain, sunflowers and livestock 
     flourished. But farming production dropped sharply in the 
     chaotic decade after the collapse of communism, and recovery 
     has come in fits and starts. Production is only now returning 
     to peak levels of the 1990s, stymied by the corruption, red 
     tape and inefficiencies that have plagued the broader 
     Ukrainian economy for years and left the villagers living 
     humble existences.
       Restoring Ukraine's farming legacy will be crucial to the 
     success of the country's newly elected president, the 
     billionaire businessman Petro O. Poroshenko. Such efforts 
     would go a long way toward fixing Ukraine's economy and 
     reducing its dependence on Russia. Agriculture once accounted 
     for nearly 20 percent of the gross domestic product; it is 
     now roughly 10 percent.
       The potential became clear last year when a strong harvest 
     helped Ukraine avoid a drop in output. ``It was just because 
     of agriculture,'' said Pavlo Sheremeta, Ukraine's minister of 
     economic development. ``Otherwise, it would have been a 
     decline.''
       Against the backdrop of the crisis with Russia, Western 
     interests are pressing for change. The European Union is 
     moving forward with a plan to bolster trade by lifting custom 
     duties on Ukrainian agriculture. As part of a deal with the 
     International Monetary Fund for up to $18 billion in loans, 
     the country's government must push through business reforms 
     that would help alleviate the problems with farming and other 
     businesses.
       The hope is that such initiatives will also bolster the 
     confidence of foreign investors as the crisis abates. Big 
     multinationals have expressed tentative interest in Ukrainian 
     agriculture, but they have largely remained on the sidelines, 
     unwilling to invest in an industry hampered by structural 
     deficiencies and, more recently, the uncertainty with its 
     eastern neighbor.
       ``If cheap capital comes in along with foreign investment, 
     and you have a good government without roadblocks, Ukraine 
     can close to double its production in the future,'' said 
     Roman Fedorowycz, a Ukrainian-American who returned here 
     years ago and now runs a farming company that grows mainly 
     corn, sunflowers and soybeans.
       Even small improvements would make a big difference in a 
     highly inefficient industry starved for money. While roughly 
     70 percent of Ukraine's land is considered suitable for 
     agriculture, it has not been fully cultivated. The country's 
     yield per hectare of grain is about half that of the United 
     States, according to the World Bank.
       Change won't come easy, given the challenges. Previous 
     governments have tried to restrict what crops farmers grow 
     and when they rotate crops, as well as limiting exports. Some 
     state inspectors lack cars to conduct on-site inspections, so 
     farmers must bring grain to them before shipping.
       Selling farmland is also forbidden in Ukraine, a legacy of 
     its communist past. So fields remain cut up ``like 
     chessboards,'' said Georgiy Vaydanych, land manager for 
     Agrokultura, a Stockholm-based agricultural company that 
     rents 173,000 acres in many such villages. ``For the moment 
     we have 40,000 active landlords,'' Mr. Vaydanych said. 
     ``Forty thousand!''
       Making matters worse, paperwork is costly and many 
     villagers never officially inherit the farmland after their 
     parents die. ``There is uncertainty on how to farm this land, 
     because we have the dead souls in the middle of our fields,'' 
     Mr. Vaydanych said, in a reference to Nikolai Gogol, whose 
     19th-century classic, ``Dead Souls,'' is required school 
     reading here.
       Even as the crisis in the east intensifies, life in the 
     agricultural west remains much the same.
       A dirt road straddling tilled fields leads into this 
     village, with potholes so deep that drivers zigzag past each 
     other. There are horse-drawn carts, roosters crowing, elderly 
     women in kerchiefs and a church painted pale green topped by 
     bulbous spires.
       Few in this pro-European area of Ukraine are nostalgic for 
     Moscow. Still, Oleg Gusak, head of the village council, said 
     life had not improved.
       ``When it was a collective, the level of life was better,'' 
     he said, explaining that it was once a larger operation that 
     harvested crops, had livestock and made clothing, furniture 
     and jams.
       ``People even came from other regions, because we had so 
     much work,'' he said, adding, ``Now, it's not the same.''
       Trouble raising capital at reasonable prices makes it 
     difficult to start or expand farms.
       ``I have to pay up to 12 percent if I borrow in euros,'' 
     said Taras Barshchovsky, an entrepreneur who founded T.B. 
     Fruit, which makes fruit juices and whose rented orchards 
     cover thousands of acres. He has expanded into Poland, where 
     he said he could borrow for less than 3 percent.
       ``Those who work with Ukrainian banks in hryvnias,'' the 
     national currency, ``they pay up to 20 percent or more. I 
     don't believe you can profit and return money on that 
     percentage,'' he added.
       And while other former Soviet bloc neighbors like Hungary, 
     Romania and Poland began easing their land sale restrictions 
     after joining the European Union, Ukraine has repeatedly 
     delayed lifting its moratorium, considering the move 
     politically risky in its agrarian society. In 2013, the 
     government of Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed Ukrainian 
     leader, extended the moratorium until 2016, after he expected 
     to stand for re-election.
       ``I'm afraid if I sell my land in the future my children 
     will say their old grandfather drank away all their money,'' 
     Hrynchyshyn Myroslaw, 62, said as he cleared a willow field 
     near another village.
       With a laugh, he added: ``It depends how much you will pay 
     me. If there are enough zeros, you can pay me.''
       Volodymyr Baran, 43, a tractor mechanic, said he would 
     never sell his six acres: ``The land is our bread.''
       Such dynamics deter foreign investment, which has been 
     tepid for years. Despite some interest from China and 
     multinationals, large agricultural enterprises tend to be 
     Ukrainian owned, and recent prominent deals have been less 
     than they seemed. For example, Cargill paid a reported $200 
     million

[[Page H5520]]

     for a stake in UkrLandFarming, an agricultural holding 
     company. But a Cargill spokeswoman emphasized that the shares 
     were collateral for a loan rather than a long-term 
     investment.
       The rules make ``it so much more difficult to understand, 
     and to bring in investment,'' said David Sedik, a senior 
     official at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the 
     United Nations. ``It's not that a foreigner or a company has 
     to buy the land, but it breeds opaqueness in the sector. You 
     need transparent land laws.''
       At his office, Mr. Vaydanych pulled out a village map and 
     showed how its 2,500 acres were divvied up among 507 
     villagers.
       ``Every field is split, by little, little plots,'' he 
     explained.
       Being a land manager requires a political touch. Mr. 
     Vaydanych goes from village to village handing out favors, 
     fending off competitors trying to outbid his rental 
     contracts.
       A village chief, he said, ``may call us and tell us, it's 
     the wintertime, we have a lot of snowfall, so give us a 
     forklift to clean the road. O.K., well, we do that.''
       ``He may say this electricity substation is broken so we 
     need urgently to repair it, or he's calling because the water 
     pump at school broke, so we replace it,'' he said. ``That's 
     the commitment that comes with the land.''
       ``I wouldn't be surprised by any request,'' Mr. Vaydanych 
     said. ``It is about keeping everyone happy. That's my work.''

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Frelinghuysen), the chairman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to join with the ranking member in 
commending you for this colloquy and for the purpose of the colloquy.
  Mr. Chairman, as you know, we share, love, and represent a number of 
Ukrainian Americans, and we know their plight, and we salute your 
efforts. This is an important focus that you have brought to our 
attention.
  Ms. KAPTUR. Thank you so very much for your openness to this, Mr. 
Chairman. And Mr. Ranking Member, thank you for allotting me the time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to retire, divest, or 
     transfer, or to prepare or plan for the retirement, 
     divestment, or transfer of, the entire KC-10 fleet during 
     fiscal year 2015.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, my amendment simply states that none of the 
funds made available by this act may be used to retire, divest, or 
transfer--or to prepare to retire, divest or transfer--the KC-10.
  During my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of the Air 
Force's new tanker, the KC-46A. We must bring a new tanker online, but 
during the transition, it is critical that we are able to meet all 
mission requirements.
  This is why I am strongly concerned by the Air Force's proposal to do 
a possible vertical cut of the KC-10 tanker and retire it. Having a 
mission capability shortfall by eliminating the newest tanker currently 
in our inventory while the KC-46A comes online is simply unacceptable.
  As many of you are aware, I am proud to have Joint Base McGuire-Dix-
Lakehurst in my district, and my colleague Mr. Garamendi has Travis Air 
Force Base in California, which are both home to the KC-10. This is not 
parochial. It is an air refueling and air mobility mission readiness 
issue.
  The KC-10 platform has more than proved itself as a workhorse in 
support of air refueling and air mobility in Iraq, Afghanistan, our 
homeland defense, and other missions as called upon.
  Unlike other tankers in our inventory, it can refuel Air Force, Navy, 
and international military aircraft with its dual boom and hose-and-
drogue systems. The KC-10 itself can also be refueled while in flight, 
helping extend our global reach.
  Most importantly, this aircraft is critical to providing an air 
bridge across the Arctic, Atlantic, and Pacific routes to support our 
combatant commanders.
  This amendment sends a message to the Air Force and the DOD that 
Congress remains committed to active oversight of our air refueling 
mission platforms and sufficient capacity to support our warfighters.
  I want to thank the chairman, the members of the subcommittee, and 
the staff for working with me on this important amendment. I would 
particularly highlight our appreciation for the strong support Chairman 
Frelinghuysen has shown for the KC-10 platform, and his concern for 
ensuring there is no mission gap for our military's air refueling 
needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RUNYAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank my colleague from New Jersey for 
raising this important issue. We believe this proposal to be an 
extremely risky proposition because the KC-10 provides a particularly 
vital link in the air bridge that enables global operations of our 
Armed Forces.
  We could not have done what we did in Afghanistan and Iraq without 
this vital link, and to retire the entire fleet would be a huge 
mistake. This is the only tanker that currently uses the boom to fuel 
Air Force aircraft and the basket to refuel the Navy and Marine Corps 
fleet. So it is darn important.
  I appreciate the work the gentleman has done to bring this to our 
attention. We have included, of course, language in our bill which 
reemphasizes the importance of the KC-10 to national security.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for those kind words, 
and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments on 
that. And I will just tell the committee that I have had many 
conversations with the Air Force about this exact issue, and to be able 
to take a capability away from what we can do in our global reach and 
not have a legitimate answer in the near future I think would be 
devastating to what we can do and how we can project power globally.
  So the readiness issue has not been answered, and I think this is a 
step in the right direction to make sure that our national security is 
at the forefront. So, with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).

[[Page H5521]]

  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out sections 8107 and 8108.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.

                              {time}  1800

  Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes to explain that my 
amendment would allow the U.S. military to transfer to their home 
countries the 77 detainees who have been cleared for release by the 
intelligence community and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to bring those 
not cleared for release to the United States to be charged, tried, and 
sentenced.
  The Sergeant Bergdahl exchange has brought this issue again to center 
stage, but the fact is that, if we had dealt with these individuals in 
a responsible and legal way, we would not be in this situation 
discussing the merits of the decision to release five of them.
  For 12 years now, Guantanamo has operated outside of a legal checks 
of the American judicial system, serving a physical reminder of the gap 
between the principles that define us as Americans and our willingness 
to abandon those principles in the name of national security.
  With the final withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan this 
year, the continued indefinite detention at Guantanamo enters a new 
stage. We will no longer be at war, and the current Authorization for 
the Use of Military Force will expire.
  So we have to ask ourselves: Do we have the legal authority to hold 
these enemy combatants indefinitely? Now is the time to either transfer 
or bring these men to trial--now--while we can still do so on our own 
terms, while we can give the Defense Department the legal authority it 
needs to make the right decisions about these prisoners.
  It is costing us $2.7 million per detainee, per year, versus $34,000 
at a maximum security prison in the United States. More than 300 
individuals convicted of crimes related to international terrorism are 
currently incarcerated in 98 Federal prisons in the United States, with 
no escapes or attacks in attempts to free them.
  The indictment and capture of Ahmed Abu Khattala for his role in the 
Benghazi attack is a great example of our ability to deal with high-
profile terrorists swiftly and safely.
  Mr. Khattala will not be brought to Guantanamo to become yet another 
symbol of U.S. hypocrisy. He will be brought to the United States to 
answer for his crimes in a Federal court and punished in accordance 
with the laws of this Nation. I have every confidence in our legal 
institutions to bring Mr. Khattala to justice.
  General Michael Lehnert, who oversaw the opening of Gitmo has said 
that its continued operation ``has helped our enemies'' and makes ``a 
mockery of our values.''
  It is time to put an end to this by supporting this amendment, and 
let me just use one more quote. In the words of the family members of 
the 9/11 victims, the current system is ``immoral, unlawful, expensive, 
counterproductive, unnecessary, and has failed to deliver justice for 
the 9/11 attacks.''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I seek time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mrs. Black). The gentleman from New Jersey is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I would first like to recognize Mr. 
Moran's service on our committee. As just exhibited, in the full 
committee, he is truly a passionate man, and I must say he has been 
consistently passionate on this issue, but despite his passion and his 
reasoning, I stand in opposition to his amendment.
  The provisions contained in our bill are the same as current law, and 
they have been carried in some form since fiscal year 2010, in both the 
appropriations bill and in the Defense authorization bill. Quite 
honestly, they need to remain there.
  The provisions we carry ensure that the remaining Gitmo detainees who 
are judged to be the most dangerous will never be brought into our 
homeland, where U.S. citizens could be threatened. There is a pretty 
strong and enduring consensus--bipartisan consensus--in Congress that 
Guantanamo Bay should remain open, that the detainees should not be 
transferred to the United States for any reason, and that no facility 
should be built in the United States to house them.
  As everyone here is aware and as it has been mentioned in earlier 
debate, a number of detainees who have been released from Guantanamo 
have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded Americans. The 
threat is real. We haven't quite left Afghanistan. The threats there 
are real.
  I strongly oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I ask the House to 
give it a strong negative vote.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), a distinguished member of the 
Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Chair, we are holding 154 people at Guantanamo, 77 
of whom have been cleared for release. That is to say they have been 
found guilty of nothing, are thought to be guilty of nothing, and have 
been judged not to pose any danger, but nonetheless, they are not 
released.
  There is no reason and no right for us to hold them further. The 
others should be brought to the United States and tried in a secure 
facility, tried for their offenses.
  Madam Chair, I wonder which of our colleagues doesn't believe in the 
American system of justice. I wonder which of us does not trust our own 
American courts. I wonder who among us does not believe in the Bill of 
Rights, who does not believe in the right to counsel or that people 
should have an opportunity to have their guilt or innocence established 
in court.
  What we have at Guantanamo is a system that is an affront to those 
beliefs and to the United States. In the last decade, we have begun to 
let go of our freedoms bit by bit, with each new executive order, each 
new court decision, and each new act of Congress.
  We have begun giving away our right to privacy, our right to our day 
in court when the government harms us, and with this legislation, we 
are continuing down the path of destroying the right to be free from 
imprisonment without due process of law.
  The language in this bill, without this amendment, prohibits moving 
any detainees into the United States or releasing any at all and 
guarantees that we will continue holding people indefinitely, people 
who may not be terrorists, who may not be enemy combatants, some of 
whom we may suspect to be terrorists, none of whom have been proven to 
be terrorists, none of whom have had a day in court.
  We will continue to hold them indefinitely without charge, contrary 
to every tradition this country stands for, contrary to any notion of 
due process.
  Mr. Cotton says that this Congress has judged that these people are 
dangerous people. This Congress has no right, under the Constitution, 
to make such a judgment. That is called the bill of attainder and is 
specifically prohibited.
  People to be found guilty must be found guilty in a court, not by a 
legislative body. Because of this momentous challenge to the founding 
principles of the United States that no person may be deprived of 
liberty without due process of law and certainly may not be deprived of 
liberty indefinitely without due process of law, we must close the 
detention facility at Guantanamo now, in order to restore our national 
honor.

  This will afford the detainees no additional constitutional rights. 
The Supreme Court has already ruled that detainees at Guantanamo have 
the same constitutional rights at Guantanamo as they would if they were 
brought here.
  They should be brought here. They should be tried in a Federal court,

[[Page H5522]]

where they can be convicted if guilty and acquitted if innocent and not 
wait for years for military tribunals which have succeeded in 
convicting nobody at trial at all.
  We must restore the honor of the United States and eliminate this 
exception to our traditions and to our rule of law and to our rule of 
justice.
  Just because we think or somebody in the government thinks that 
somebody is terrorist does not mean that that person is a terrorist--he 
may or may not be--and it does not mean that he does not have the right 
to his day in court.
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, what about justice for the victims of 
those who died on September 11, 2001? What about justice for those five 
detainees that were released the other day in the prisoner exchange, 
how is there justice there?
  They were among the worst of the worst. We need to keep the 
provisions in this bill. I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
will be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Byrne) for the purpose of a colloquy.
  Mr. BYRNE. Madam Chair, I rise to engage in a colloquy regarding the 
Navy's littoral combat ship. The Navy's littoral combat ship represents 
the future small surface combatant for the United States Navy. This 
program is in its infancy, but has, so far, cleared many hurdles and is 
well on its way to becoming an integral part of the fleet.
  The Navy reduced the budget request from four ships in fiscal year 
2015, as they projected last year, to three ships. Mr. Chairman, your 
bill has further reduced the program to a recommended level of two 
ships.
  Mr. Chairman, wouldn't you agree that the LCS is an important part of 
the Navy's future fleet?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me first salute the gentleman from Alabama for 
his strong advocacy on behalf of the littoral combat ship, and let me 
say that the littoral combat ship plays an extremely important role in 
the future of the Navy's fleet.
  In fact, the ship represents nearly one-sixth of the 306-ship fleet 
the Navy has expressed as its stated fleet requirement.
  During markup of the bill, the committee spent as much time, if not 
more, on this issue than any other. In the end, we were extremely 
concerned with the strong words expressed by the Secretary of Defense 
with respect to the small surface combat requirements that these ships 
must have.
  Since the littoral combat ship does play a vital role, we want to 
make sure we are buying the correct version. That is why we slowed the 
production.
  However, we recognize the importance of the industrial base--very 
much so--and we certainly don't want to let that in any way stagnate, 
so we have provided funding for two ships to bridge the gap until the 
Navy can verify the requirements and incorporate them into the 
production line.
  I do recognize that this is an important program for your community, 
and you have been a remarkable advocate. You have been on my case for 
quite a long time, and I am hugely admiring of your passion and 
determination.
  I want to assure you that we will continue to work with you to 
address your concerns. We will continue to monitor, as we proceed to 
conference with the Senate, and we will work with the gentleman to 
ensure we adopt the right policy for our national security and the 
industrial base, including a very important shipyard in the gentleman's 
district in Mobile, Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your attention to this matter. 
I look forward to working with you and Ranking Member Visclosky, as 
well as Chairman Rogers, as we move toward conference.
  The Navy has been unequivocal in its support for the LCS, and as you 
say, the LCS plays an extremely important role in the future of the 
Navy's fleet. It is vitally important the Congress not lose sight of 
that and that I not lose sight of the importance of this shipyard to my 
district.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.


           Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I have amendment No. 31 at the 
desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the purposes of conducting combat operations in 
     Iraq.

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman from California and 
a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I rise today, remembering 12 
years ago when I stood on this floor and offered an amendment with the 
same purpose as the amendments I offer this evening: to prevent a war 
with Iraq; to keep our young men and women--our troops--out of harm's 
way; and to be prudent with taxpayers' hard-earned dollars, as well as 
ensuring our national security.
  We are all familiar with the reports coming out of Iraq about the 
horrific sectarian violence taking place. We must not let history 
repeat itself. Calls to be dragged back into a war in Iraq must be 
rejected because the reality is there is no military solution in Iraq.
  I want to applaud the President for reiterating that again today and 
for making it clear that he does not want combat troops on the ground 
in Iraq.
  This amendment would not allow funding for combat operations. This is 
a sectarian war with longstanding roots that were inflamed, 
unfortunately, when we invaded Iraq in 2003. Any lasting solution must 
be political and take into account respect for the entire Iraqi 
population.

                              {time}  1815

  The change Iraq needs must come from Iraqis, rejecting violence in 
favor of a peaceful democracy that represents all and respects the 
rights of all.
  Our job is to continue to promote and support regional and 
international engagement, recognition of human rights and political 
reforms, support for women and children, and religious freedom.
  Madam Chair, after more than a decade of war, thousands of American 
lives, and hundreds of billions of dollars, the American people are 
rightfully war weary. The American people are not interested in 
repeating the mistakes of the past. A recent poll found that 74 percent 
of the public is opposed to sending combat troops into Iraq.
  This amendment would not impact the President's ability to protect 
U.S. personnel or our Embassy. We must do that. It does not impact the 
President's ability to act if there is a direct or imminent threat to 
our national security. As the President cited in his recent 
notification to Congress, doing so would be consistent with his 
responsibilities to protect U.S. citizens both at home and abroad.
  Finally, it does not impact the President's ability to send 
assistance to gather intelligence or advisers and trainers.
  Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I withdraw my reservation, and I seek 
the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
  The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, what is occurring in Iraq is 
complicated and dangerous and violent.

[[Page H5523]]

This is a complicated issue that the gentlewoman seeks to address with 
multifaceted policy ramifications that really cannot be fully debated 
in an amendment in this short period of time.
  The situation in Iraq remains highly complicated, very dangerous, and 
does, I believe, and many believe, pose an imminent threat to U.S. and 
allied interests, particularly regional security; witness the fact that 
the President has sent over a number of advisers to either protect the 
Embassy or work with the Iraqi military.
  This amendment, in my judgment, goes too far as it attempts to tie 
the U.S. Government's hands, i.e., the Commander in Chief's hands, in 
navigating the complicated situation we face related to threats 
emanating from Iraq, recognizing that half of the country is now in the 
hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
  We have to be realistic. What this amendment would do is to remove 
any possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstance, even if 
such engagement would be in the best interest of our own country or 
allies. For example, this would preclude the U.S. from providing any 
assistance to the Iraqi Government to defeat a terrorist group inside 
Iraq, and it appears we may be on the verge of doing exactly that.
  Given the ever-changing dynamics in Iraq and the rising terrorist 
threats coming from within Iraq--and again, almost half the country is 
in the hands of terrorists--this is a very ill-advised amendment, and I 
strongly oppose it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, just to clarify, all this 
amendment does is it would not fund the combat operations in Iraq.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Nolan).
  Mr. NOLAN. Madam Chair, I rise in support of the Lee amendment. The 
American people have invested 10 years of precious blood and treasure 
into this conflict. The simple truth is that the Iraqi Government and 
the Iraqi Army have failed to win the confidence of their own people. 
The fact is, the army has cut and run, leaving behind valuable 
equipment, and the fact is we have no friends in this conflict. It is 
time to get out and to stay out.
  Thank you, Representative Lee, for your amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, this amendment sends, I think, the 
wrong message to the Iraqi people, who have suffered a great deal, and 
of course I recognize the loss of our soldiers and the sacrifice of our 
soldiers and their families.
  I think this is a very ill-advised amendment and I strongly oppose 
it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, how much time do I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) has 2\1/
2\ minutes remaining.
  Ms. LEE of California. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona 
(Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Madam Chair, I am here to support the amendment to 
prohibit the use of ground troops in Iraq.
  What the American people are seeking is an end to 10, 12, 11 years of 
a war without end. What the American people are seeking is attention to 
the needs in this country. What the veterans that have fought in that 
war are seeking are jobs and the proper care for the visible and 
invisible wounds of that war.
  The only thing we need to protect--and it is not about us going into 
a conflict and picking sides in what is fundamentally a religious war 
where there will be no end for us. We must avoid and prevent combat 
troops being in Iraq. We do that because the American people are 
against it; we do that because it is the moral imperative; and we do 
that because we have learned a lesson from history. And history has 
taught us that this is a war that will not end. We have an opportunity 
to end it. We have an opportunity to demand of the international 
community that they use diplomacy to solve the problem in the region.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute now to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Chair, it is as simple as this: the al-Maliki 
government has abused and excluded huge portions of his population. 
Because of that, there is a conflict in that country of al-Maliki's own 
making. Now, what we are going to do if we send combat troops there is 
literally be his air force, be his ground troops. We shouldn't do that. 
That is not the right thing for the United States to do.
  If we want to help, what we should do is engage the regional 
community, the countries around Iraq and Iraqi leaders, in a diplomatic 
solution that hopefully includes them having a more inclusive, less 
abusive government. That is the proper role of the United States. 
Trying to stop us from being combat troops is the right thing to do. I 
urge everybody to support this.
  I think the gentleman is incorrect; we are right to stay out of this 
thing. What, after all, have we learned if 11 years has not taught us? 
Training? We have given plenty of training. We have trained these 
people up the wazoo. They abandoned their post. It is not a training 
problem.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, in closing, let me just 
underscore the fact that combat operations will not solve the problems 
in Iraq. This amendment would not fund combat operations. We should not 
repeat these terrible mistakes of the past.
  Let me once again clarify. This amendment would not impact the 
ability of the United States personnel and our Embassy. We want to 
protect the United States personnel and Embassy.
  Secondly, it would not impact the President's ability to provide 
unmanned intelligence gathering and assistance. It would not impact the 
President's constitutional authority to protect U.S. citizens both at 
home and abroad.
  I urge for a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the balance of her time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Walberg

  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. 10002.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to promulgate Directive 293, issued December 16, 
     2010, by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I rise in support of my amendment that 
would reiterate Congress' objection to a proposed policy change by the 
Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program. That 
would treat health care providers as Federal contractors.
  In December 2010, OFCCP quietly issued directive 293 asserting that 
contractual arrangements under Medicare, TRICARE, and the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program will trigger OFCCP jurisdiction. This 
directive would reclassify a majority of hospitals in the United States 
as Federal contractors, subjecting hospitals in your district and mine 
to OFCCP's often crushing regulatory burden.
  With respect to TRICARE, the agency aggressively asserted in its 
jurisdiction in the 2009 administrative case OFCCP v. Florida Hospital 
of Orlando, OFCCP argued the hospital was a Federal subcontractor by 
virtue of its participation as a provider in a TRICARE network of 
providers.
  The agency took this troubling position despite the fact that the 
Department of Defense, which regulates TRICARE, previously included: 
``It would be impossible to achieve the TRICARE mission of providing 
affordable health care for our Nation's Active Duty and retired 
military members and their families if onerous Federal contracting 
rules were applied to the more than 500,000 TRICARE providers in the 
United States.''
  Unfortunately, Madam Chair, the administrative law judge in the case 
did not heed DOD's warning and failed to

[[Page H5524]]

see this policy change for what it is: an expansion of government power 
over the health care sector. As such, Congress acted to oppose this 
overreach, and the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act clarified 
that a TRICARE network health care provider is not a Federal contractor 
or subcontractor.
  As chairman of the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections, I am deeply 
concerned by this attempt by OFCCP to expand its jurisdiction through 
executive fiat. In response, I introduced the Protecting Health Care 
Providers from Increased Administrative Burdens Act, which would 
clarify that health care providers are not Federal contractors subject 
to the jurisdiction of the Department of Labor's OFCCP.
  Our actions on the committee in bringing attention to this issue have 
been successful in prompting OFCCP to place a moratorium on the policy. 
However, as OFCCP has previously defied Congress and the Department of 
Defense, I believe this amendment is necessary. Therefore, Madam Chair, 
I ask the House to support my amendment that would prohibit funds to be 
used under this act for implementing this overreach and affirmatively 
show the House will not support such actions by the Department of Labor 
and OFCCP.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Chair, I appreciate the gentleman's concern; 
however, as DOD has recommended in the past and stood on the fact that, 
for purposes of TRICARE and the like, hospitals are not contractors, 
they do not contract with the Federal Government, with the Department 
of Defense.

                              {time}  1830

  So I don't see the reason for continuing to address this issue any 
further for these contractors, at least as defined by OFCCP.
  In closing, again, this is an issue that DOD has spoken on strongly, 
this is an issue that Congress has spoken on, this is an issue that 
OFCCP continues to push. I believe we would be remiss if we allowed 
this to happen and allowed the concept that hospitals would be 
considered government contractors simply for providing health care 
under TRICARE and the like to our veterans, to our military, and 
certainly to any of our Federal employees.
  I would appreciate support for this amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. DeLauro

  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enter into any contract with an incorporated 
     entity if such entity's sealed bid or competitive proposal 
     shows that such entity is incorporated or chartered in 
     Bermuda or the Cayman Islands, and such entity's sealed bid 
     or competitive proposal shows that such entity was previously 
     incorporated in the United States.

  Ms. DeLAURO (during the reading). Madam Chair, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I object.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  My amendment would prohibit Federal contracts issued by the 
Department of Defense from going to entities incorporated in Bermuda 
and the Cayman Islands, two nations most often abused as tax havens.
  This body accepted a similar provision for the Departments of 
Transportation and Housing and Urban Development earlier this month.
  According to a joint study by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group 
and Citizens for Tax Justice, 70 percent of the companies in the 
Fortune 500 used tax havens last year. These companies stashed nearly 
$2 trillion offshore for tax purposes, with almost two-thirds of that 
total, 62 percent, being hidden away by just 30 companies.
  We just saw the medical device manufacturer Medtronic, a company 
founded in a Minnesota garage with deep roots throughout the State, 
announce it was effectively moving operations to Ireland to escape its 
tax obligations. This is a persistent and a growing problem, and we 
need to start taking action to rein it in.
  We can start with this amendment. Of the companies who have 
established subsidies in tax havens, nearly two-thirds have registered 
at least one in Bermuda or in the Cayman Islands. The profits these 
companies claim were earned in these two island nations in 2010 totaled 
over 1,600 percent of these countries' entire yearly economic output.
  These companies take advantage of our education system, our research 
and development incentives, our skilled workforce, and our 
infrastructure, all supported by U.S. taxpayers. They should not be 
allowed to pretend that they are an American company when it is time to 
get a defense contract, then claim to be an offshore company when the 
tax bill comes. We should not spend taxpayer money on Federal contracts 
to companies that have renounced their American citizenship in favor of 
an island tax haven.
  As I said, a similar amendment became part of the Transportation and 
Infrastructure bill. I urge my colleagues to pass this amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, we do not oppose the amendment.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Chair, that is very good to hear.
  I join in supporting this amendment as a coauthor of it. 
Multinational corporations that do business around the globe have an 
even greater interest in world order and in national security. They 
should not be paying a lesser rate of taxes than corporations that 
focus their business right here in America.
  Unfortunately, some of them scheme to avoid their fair share and to 
shift the burden to smaller businesses and to individuals. Some of 
these same companies have on more than one occasion paid more to their 
lobbyists to lobby this Congress and the Treasury to avoid paying taxes 
than they actually pay to the Treasury. It has been a pretty wise 
investment for them because our Tax Code is a mess. It is riddled with 
preferences and loopholes and one exception after another.
  This amendment addresses one of the most egregious tax gimmicks. That 
is where a corporation actually renounces its American citizenship, 
declares itself a citizen of some other country, and then continues 
operations in

[[Page H5525]]

America, demanding the full protection of the laws and the military and 
the educational system that it refuses to contribute a fair share to 
pay for. Tax lawyers call it an ``inversion''; I call it a perversion 
of our tax laws.
  To add insult to injury, some of these same corporations, which have 
abandoned their citizenship, then ask for American government contracts 
paid for with the very tax dollars from the small businesses and 
individuals to whom they have shifted the tax burden.
  American companies that stay and contribute to building our country 
and keeping her strong at home and abroad deserve a level playing 
field, and that is what this amendment does.
  The action that we take in approving this amendment today sends a 
message to executives that they can pretend that their company is 
located on some Caribbean beach to avoid paying taxes, but Congress is 
not going to put its head in the sand about this kind of tax dodging.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Connecticut has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the Chair.
  Madam Chair, I and others have long fought for--and we have succeeded 
in passing through the appropriations process--a ban on Federal 
contracts for U.S. companies that acquire a business in a lower tax 
jurisdiction and claim their headquarters there, despite still being a 
U.S. company.
  According to a 2009 GAO report, 63 of the 100 largest publicly traded 
U.S. Federal contractors reported having subsidies and tax havens in 
2007. These companies are currently paying a tax rate of zero percent--
zero percent. So unless you believe tax reform should eliminate taxes 
for U.S. companies, this avoidance is not about corporate tax reform.
  We need to send that clear message. If a company is going to abuse 
the tax loopholes at the expense of businesses that are paying their 
fair share, they will not be rewarded with defense contracts.
  I am happy to hear and I urge my colleagues to make this stand with 
me again and to pass this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Fleming

  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. ___.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to appoint chaplains for the military departments in 
     contravention of Department of Defense Instruction 1304.28, 
     dated June 11, 2004, incorporating change 3, dated March 20, 
     2014, regarding the appointment of chaplains for the military 
     departments.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Louisiana and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chairman, the amendment before you today holds the 
Department of Defense to current accepted DOD policy and standards when 
appointing military chaplains. It maintains the status quo, which has 
been well accepted for decades, if not centuries. My amendment affirms 
the spiritual role of chaplains in the U.S. armed services, preserving 
the integrity of the U.S. Chaplain Corps.
  I want to thank Representatives Jim Bridenstine and James Lankford 
for their cosponsorship of this amendment. This amendment was adopted 
last year during the House's consideration of DOD appropriations on a 
bipartisan basis, although it was ultimately dropped from the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2014. I would urge my colleagues to 
support its passage again today.
  Chaplains by definition are ministers for spiritual needs to people 
of secular institutions. They are equipped to do so because, like many 
other professionals requiring a certain skill set, chaplains possess a 
belief in God or a spiritual world view. Chaplains are experienced in 
their field, educationally qualified, and are willing to serve and 
attend to the spiritual needs of all members of the armed services, 
regardless of whether or not that soldier, sailor, airman, or marine 
shares the same faith as that of the chaplain.
  Current DOD guidelines requires that the candidates be endorsed by a 
``qualified religious organization'' whose primary function is to 
perform religious ministries to a nonmilitary lay constituency and 
which holds tax-exempt status as a church.
  Faith and spiritual leadership are integral and inseparable from the 
institution of the Chaplain Corps. It would be difficult for an 
individual lacking in any faith to be appointed as a military chaplain 
without first dismantling the purpose of the chaplaincy and making 
significant changes to the DOD policy.
  Madam Chairman, it is an oxymoron to have a secular person attached 
to a secular institution as a chaplain. How can that person minister to 
the spiritual needs of others? Even so, there continues to be a 
movement to appoint atheist chaplains in the military. Such individuals 
reject the very existence of God, a deity, or even a spiritual world 
view, and thus an atheist chaplain would not serve any identifiable 
need for servicemembers that is not already currently being met with 
the Armed Forces.
  There are a host of other nonspiritual services available to support 
people in a nonfaith context, including social workers, psychologists, 
and counselors. Through Military OneSource and the Military and Family 
Life Counselor Programs, servicemembers can receive temporary and 
confidential counseling services from a licensed professional without 
any attachment to their records. In addition to these services, 
military chaplains can stand ready to faithfully and respectfully serve 
all servicemembers with any resources they might need, regardless of 
whether the individual shares the chaplain's faith.
  My amendment would prevent DOD from making changes to its 
longstanding appointment process that could undermine the integrity of 
the chaplaincy and interfere with the chaplain's responsibility to meet 
the religious needs of our brave men and women in uniform.
  I would like to thank the Family Research Council and the Chaplain 
Alliance for their support of this amendment, and urge all of my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.

                              {time}  1845

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


[[Page H5526]]


       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.
  Mr. FLEMING. Madam Chair, may I ask how much time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Louisiana has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. FLEMING. It is interesting. The gentleman argues that--
amazingly--somehow a chaplain is not going to be open to serving the 
spiritual needs of all, whether they be gay or otherwise.
  There is nothing in this amendment that says anything about the 
choice of one's sexual partner whatsoever. In fact, remember that we 
already have in our chaplaincy Wiccans, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, 
and Jews. Many of those accept same-sex marriages.
  This argument that the gentleman makes is for another debate, not for 
this one. This deals purely with atheism. It is very interesting 
because the scene is that, on the battlefield, you have a chaplain who 
is serving the spiritual needs of a dying soldier and the soldier asks 
the chaplain: What happens now? What happens after my death?
  The answer from the atheist chaplain is: There is nothing for you 
after death.
  That is really a very disturbing thought, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Fleming).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public 
     Law 107-243; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, this amendment would simply 
prohibit funding for any operations or activities pursuant to the 2002 
Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq.
  Why is this amendment necessary? Well, more than 2 years since the 
United States troops withdrew from Iraq, the 2002 Authorization for Use 
of Military Force remains on the books.
  Two years ago, President Obama declared the war in Iraq as over. Just 
yesterday, according to press reports, White House Press Secretary Jay 
Carney stated that the 2002 AUMF is ``no longer used for any United 
States Government activities.''
  Further, in our Appropriations Committee, our chairman confirmed that 
this bill does not contain any funding to implement the 2002 
authorization. That is good news, and it should make supporting this 
amendment an easy thing to do for Members on both sides of the aisle.
  The American people need an affirmative vote that the war in Iraq 
that began over 11 years ago through the military operation--shock and 
awe, which took over 2,000 lives--has come to an end and none of their 
hard-earned tax dollars are being spent.
  Some of us agree that it is well past time that we remove this 
authorization totally from the books, but on this appropriations bill, 
we only state very clearly that no funds may be obligated or expended 
for the authorization.
  Congress should never allow war-funding authorizations to remain on 
the books in perpetuity. We don't do this for the farm bill. We don't 
do this for the transportation bill.
  Madam Chair, we are all familiar with reports coming out of Iraq 
about the horrific sectarian violence taking place there. Once again, I 
want to applaud President Obama for reiterating again today that there 
is no military solution to the sectarian war there and also for his 
clear position that the United States is not going to be returning to 
combat in Iraq.
  This amendment does not limit the President's authority under the 
Constitution or War Powers Act to act if there is a direct or imminent 
threat to our national security.
  As the President cited in his recent letter to Congress, doing so 
would be consistent with his responsibilities to protect United States 
citizens both home and abroad. This amendment does not take away that 
authority.
  Further, this amendment fully allows for the protection of the United 
States Embassy and its personnel and would not impede any of those 
efforts by the United States military.
  Given that there is no funding in this bill for the 2002 AUMF, 
supporting this amendment is just plain common sense. The American 
people deserve this vote. It is long overdue. We should vote primarily 
also to ensure that our constitutional role is reasserted in war-
making.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment.
  As the gentlelady knows, U.S. military action in Iraq came to an end 
in December of 2011. I want to make sure that she also knows that there 
are no funds in this act for military action in Iraq, pursuant to the 
Iraq AUMF resolution. Its grant of authority has both practically and 
legally ended.
  This amendment is an amendment in search of a problem, a problem that 
doesn't exist. This amendment is not about substance. To a great 
extent, it is about symbolism. It is intended to send a message that 
the United States has washed its hands of Iraq, which we haven't.
  At a time when sectarian tensions are at the highest level since we 
left and terrorists have, once again, succeeded in capturing large 
swaths of territory in Iraq and brutalizing the Iraqi people after our 
troops essentially fought to protect them, what kind of message are we 
sending with this amendment to both the Iraqi people and to the men and 
women of our Armed Forces and our international armed forces who so 
valiantly served?
  Let me repeat that there are no funds in this act for the purpose the 
gentlelady is seeking to limit. The only thing this amendment would 
accomplish is to make, quite honestly, a political statement.
  I recognize, from time to time, that needs to be done, but I think it 
sends the wrong message at the worst possible time. I don't believe 
that such an amendment has any purpose on our bill, and I urge strong 
rejection of the amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the ranking member for his 
comments and for reasserting and reassuring Members that our 
constitutional role is extremely important in matters of war and peace.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. This Congress has a constitutional obligation to approve 
military action before any President decides to shoot first and ask 
questions later. A 12-year-old resolution, enacted in the aftermath of 
9/11, should not provide a basis for endless war.

[[Page H5527]]

  Some of the same self-certified smart people who were talking about 
mushroom clouds and weapons of mass destruction are, once again, trying 
to stampede us into war. We have been there, and we have done that, and 
America is still paying a terrible, terrible price for their past 
failures, though they refuse to acknowledge them.
  Protecting our Embassy in Baghdad is one thing--a true emergency--but 
if any President wants to launch offensive military action, they need 
to come and make a specific case to this Congress for authorization, 
just as President Obama said he would do last year on Syria, not some 
convoluted interpretation of a resolution from a different time and 
circumstance.
  If there is a case for war, have the courage to come here and make 
it, but don't rely on an open-ended authorization of military force 
from long ago.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield 45 seconds to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Chair, I thank my friend from California for this 
amendment, but also for her longstanding work on this issue and related 
issues.
  When we hear about this impossible situation which we find ourselves 
in today in Iraq, with the country clamoring for us to do something, we 
should be reminded of how we got there. It is not because of something 
that has expired. It is because of something that still exists.
  The gentlelady is absolutely right that we should repeal that, 
repudiate that, and get ourselves on a new track, which requires 
deliberate attention by the Congress, if we are ever going to use 
military force, and not a blank check to the administration.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, stay tuned as our Commander in Chief 
and our allies contemplate future action in Iraq. As things get worse, 
things go south, a lot of innocent people are killed.
  I am respectful of the gentlewoman's passion and her continuing 
battle to get this matter straightened out, but the President is still 
going to request for Congress to look at things. I think we should stay 
tuned.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Flores

  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and 
     Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, I rise to offer an amendment which addresses 
another misguided and restrictive Federal regulation.
  Section 526 of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
prohibits Federal agencies from entering into contracts for the 
procurement of fuels, unless their life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions 
are less than or equal to emissions from an equivalent conventional 
fuel produced from conventional petroleum sources.
  My amendment is simple. It would stop the government from enforcing 
the ban on agencies funded by the Department of Defense Appropriations 
bill from being forced to comply with section 526.
  The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense 
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquids jet 
fuel. We must ensure that our military has adequate fuel resources and 
that it can rely upon the domestic and more stable sources of fuel.
  One of the unintended consequences of section 526 is that it 
essentially forces the American military to acquire fuel refined from 
unstable Middle Eastern crude resources.
  I offered this amendment to 13 prior appropriations bills in fiscal 
years 2012, 2013, and 2014; and each time, these amendments passed with 
bipartisan support.
  My friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), also added similar 
language to the latest defense authorization bill, to exempt the 
Defense Department from this burdensome regulation.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. FLORES. Madam Chair, the opposition does not understand my 
amendment.
  This amendment does not do anything with respect to restricting the 
ability of the Department of Defense to buy any green fuel, biofuel, 
experimental fuel, or any other kind of fuel.
  What it does do in the situation of the refinery in the gentleman's 
district, if it turns out to start using Canadian oil sands crude as 
one of their feedstocks, is to prevent that refinery from not being 
able to sell its fuel to the military. The gentleman's argument is 
exactly backwards. This allows the military to buy the fuel from 
whatever source whether it is biofuels, green fuels, conventional 
sources, some

[[Page H5528]]

other coal-to-liquid source, or a Canadian oil sand source. It gives 
them the greatest opportunity at the cheapest cost to buy the fuel that 
allows our warfighters to worry about taking care of defending this 
country and not to worry about where the source of the fuel comes from.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conyers

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to transfer man-portable air defense 
     systems (MANPADS) to any entity in Syria.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Michigan and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Chair, if there is one simple lesson that we can 
take away from our involvement in conflicts overseas, it is this: 
beware of unintended consequences.
  As was made vividly clear with the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan 
during the Soviet invasion decades ago, overzealous military assistance 
or the hyperweaponization of a conflict can have destabilizing 
consequences and, ultimately, undercut our own national interests.
  It is for this reason that I offer this bipartisan amendment with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho), and others to prevent 
funds in this bill from being used to transfer man-portable air defense 
systems, known as ``MANPADS,'' to parties in the Syrian civil war. 
MANPADS, also known as ``shoulder-fired antiaircraft missiles,'' can be 
fired at an aircraft by individuals on the ground, and they can be 
easily hidden or transported in the trunk of a car.
  According to the Los Angeles Times:

       U.S. and Israeli officials have feared that they could be 
     used by terrorists to bring down commercial airliners.

  Leaders of the Syrian opposition movements have told The Wall Street 
Journal and other news outlets that they are actively seeking the 
transfer of MANPADS from the U.S. and our allies and that U.S. 
officials continue to consider these requests. I urge the support of 
the amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. We accept your amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I would join the chairman in thanking the gentleman 
for his initiative. He raises a very good point, and I support his 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. In reclaiming my time, I thank both of the floor leaders 
for their support.
  Madam Chair, I want to make clear that this amendment will simply 
ensure that no funds may be made available under this bill for the 
transfer of these devastating and highly mobile weapons to any party in 
the Syrian civil war. So, regardless of one's opinion about U.S. 
intervention in foreign conflicts, this prudent and responsible 
amendment deserves our support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. McKinley

  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short tile) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to design, implement, administer, or carry out the 
     U.S. Global Climate Research Program National Climate 
     Assessment, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 
     Fifth Assessment Report, the United Nations' Agenda 21 
     sustainable development plan, or the May 2013 Technical 
     Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
     Analysis Under Executive Order 12866.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from West Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, this amendment is identical to the one 
that the House adopted last month to the National Defense Authorization 
Act. The amendment would prohibit the Department of Defense from 
spending money on climate change policies forced upon them by the Obama 
administration.
  We shouldn't be diverting financial resources away from the primary 
missions of our military at a time when we face many threats. Just look 
at what is happening around the globe: Iraq is splintering; Syria is 
still engulfed in a civil war; Russia continues its threat against 
Ukraine and Crimea; North Korea continues its saber rattling; Iran 
refuses to stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons; the Taliban threatens 
stability in Afghanistan; Hamas has now captured teenagers and is 
holding one of them, an American teenager, in Israel; and ISIS, Boko 
Haram, al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups are promoting instability 
and threatening liberty and freedom all around the world.
  Madam Chairman, we live in a dangerous world, yet our military is 
being forced to make due with less. Spending precious resources to 
follow the Obama climate change agenda will compromise our national 
security.
  When this same amendment was being adopted previously, some people 
claimed the amendment would prevent the military from using science. 
That is not true. This amendment merely prevents the Pentagon from 
spending money--precious money--to implement policies based on the 
Obama administration's climate assessment and on the United Nations' 
reports. These are widely acknowledged as political documents, adopted 
by people with an agenda. We should not be spending money pursuing 
ideological experiments when we face military challenges around the 
world. This amendment will ensure we maximize our military might 
without diverting funds for a politically motivated agenda, so I urge 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. McKINLEY. Madam Chairman, with all due respect to the minority 
leader, in this amendment, we are not stopping research, and we are not 
denying that there is climate change occurring. We are merely saying 
that we

[[Page H5529]]

should not be diverting money to implement the political documents that 
we list in the amendment.

                              {time}  1915

  There is ample research. There is ample reason to continue the work 
that we are doing, but we don't need to be using these documents that 
are widely acknowledged as politically-driven documents.
  We want to continue the research, but not using these documents, 
these very specific documents.
  Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. McKinley).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Ms. Hanabusa

  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used with respect to Iraq in contravention of the War 
     Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et seq.), including for the 
     introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities 
     in Iraq, into situations in Iraq where imminent involvement 
     in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, or 
     into Iraqi territory, airspace, or waters while equipped for 
     combat, in contravention of the congressional consultation 
     and reporting requirements of sections 3 and 4 of such 
     Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1542 and 1543).

  Ms. HANABUSA (during the reading). Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to waive the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Hawaii.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, the Hanabusa-Garamendi amendment is 
simple. It would ensure that President Obama does not circumvent the 
War Powers Resolution by unilaterally committing U.S. forces to 
operations in Iraq.
  I have opposed our involvement in Iraq since 2002 and continue to 
oppose it today.
  On Monday, President Obama invoked the War Powers Resolution to send 
an additional 275 troops into Iraq to increase security at the U.S. 
Embassy in Baghdad. Today, we heard possibly an additional 300 
personnel.
  While I understand the need to send troops into Iraq for the express 
purpose of providing security for U.S. personnel in Iraq, and this 
amendment would not prevent the additional Embassy security recently 
announced by the administration or any evacuation operations, I remain 
resolute that we should not resume combat operations in Iraq.
  Congress and the administration need to seriously consider the lack 
of objectives or an endgame the U.S. would achieve through further 
military involvement in Iraq. We know the results when we don't know 
what the end game is and we don't fully consider the consequences of 
military action, and this miscalculation is not worth repeating to 
involve our Nation in a situation that is the result of a longstanding 
sectarian conflict.
  After over a decade of U.S. military action in the Middle East that 
has taken lives and come at far too high a cost of our Nation's 
resources, we must let the Iraqi people decide their own future.
  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are estimated to have cost between 
$4 trillion to $6 trillion, taking into account the medical care of 
wounded veterans and expensive repairs to the force depleted. This 
monetary figure cannot come even close to measuring the human lives 
that were taken as a result of our involvement in the Middle East.
  Madam Chairman, we simply cannot afford the options under 
consideration. U.S. forces should be on a new strategy for regional 
engagement, rather than considering options that we get involved as we 
have in the past. This amendment would do that.
  I ask my colleagues to vote for this amendment and ensure that the 
President abides by the law and does not put American lives at risk by 
involving U.S. troops in combat operations in Iraq.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. HANABUSA. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Ms. HANABUSA. Madam Chairman, I thank the chair and the ranking 
member of the subcommittee for accepting my amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to provide weapons in Syria.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Nebraska and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I believe this amendment is absolutely 
consistent with the underlying portions of the bill that reaffirm that 
the policy of the United States should be that we will not enter into 
armed conflict in Syria.
  Madam Chair, along the Syrian-Turkish border there is a family--a 
mother, a father, and six children. One of the children is named Elias.
  Elias, one day, in his home town in Syria, was walking to school. He 
had his hand on the schoolroom door. Then all of a sudden he felt 
another hand come across his face and everything went dark as he was 
blindfolded and kidnapped by a Syrian rebel group in the name of 
liberating the Syrian people.
  Fortunately, the family was able to get Elias back, but they had to 
flee to a refugee camp from their hometown in Syria. Perhaps they are 
the lucky ones, because 160,000 other Syrians are dead.
  Let's make no mistake: the current President, the ruler of Syria, 
Assad, is responsible for many of these deaths. Assad is a brutal 
tyrant. But many innocent Syrians, like Elias and his family, fear the 
rebel armies even more than Assad.
  The rebel movement is a battleground of shifting alliances and bloody 
conflicts between groups that now include multinational terrorist 
organizations. Some of the most violent and the successful rebel 
militias are linked to al Qaeda.
  Now, sending our weapons into this chaotic war zone could 
inadvertently help these extremists, jihadists who would be all too 
eager to seize American weaponry. And it has already happened.
  The horror show now unfolding in Iraq suggests that we have already, 
unintentionally, aided sociopathic zealots. The murderous leaders of 
the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria have seized American 
Humvees and weaponry from the disintegrating Iraqi army.
  Madam Chair, a CIA analyst on acid could not have imagined this 
nightmare scenario a week ago. Our best foreign policy analyst could 
not have seen the ferocity and speed of the collapse of large portions 
of Iraq.

[[Page H5530]]

  What we are witnessing is the development of a multinational quasi-
emirate, ruled with a ruthless interpretation of Shari'a law. The ISIS 
marches under the black flag of death.
  Madam Chair, the naive notion that we can deliver weapons to vetted, 
moderate opposition groups at war with other rebel militias gives no 
guarantee that our weaponry won't be seized or diverted, making an 
already terrible civil war even worse.
  The ad-hoc arming of Syrian rebels, absent a broader multinational 
strategy in the region, is a recipe for disaster, for further disaster.
  Look, I understand this is a complicated situation. It is a hard 
situation, and there are no good options here. But we cannot afford to 
do something that may make the situation worse.
  In my judgment, the potential benefits from this policy do not 
outweigh this very significant risk. Just talk to the people in the 
refugee camps. Talk to Muslim families, Christian families who have had 
to flee their home. Talk to them. I think we should all remember Elias 
and what his family has had to go through.
  Madam Chair, at this time I yield as much time as he would like to 
consume to the Congressman from New York, Representative Chris Gibson, 
Army Iraq war veteran, Purple Heart, professor at West Point.
  Mr. GIBSON. I thank my friend and colleague.
  Madam Chair, if another country gave arms to a rebel group or another 
country for the express purpose of attacking our country, we would view 
that act as an act of war. But for some reason, we don't hold ourselves 
to that same standard.
  If it is the intent of the administration to give arms to any group 
then, under our Constitution, the administration must first come here 
and debate it on the floor and get authorization from the people's 
representatives.
  So, Madam Chair, I oppose us getting involved in the Syrian civil 
war. I believe that there is more that we can do diplomatically to 
isolate the Assad regime, but I don't think giving arms to any rebel 
group is in our best interest.
  But most certainly, if that is ever to occur, there first has to be 
an authorization. So I urge my colleague to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chairman, let me say I rise in opposition to 
the gentleman's amendment. But we appreciate the passion in which they 
make their case and certainly, Mr. Fortenberry, in the committee, did a 
very fine job recognizing congressional concerns regarding potential 
U.S. involvement in Syria.
  Our bill, as you are aware, contains a provision, section 9013, which 
prohibits the introduction of U.S. military forces into hostilities in 
Syria, except in accordance with the War Powers Act.
  The situation in Syria is as dire as you have described it. We have 
about 4 million refugees outside the country, doing incredible things, 
destabilizing one of our best allies, Jordan, in a huge way.
  The ranking member and I had an opportunity to visit one of those 
refugee camps. We need to be mindful of the actions we take here and, 
perhaps, what we might be doing to limit the President's assistance and 
our U.S. support for one of our greatest allies, two of our greatest 
allies in the Middle East, both Israel and Jordan.
  So I think we ought to move with caution. We understand your 
underlying sentiment. In some ways we agree with it.
  We don't think we ought to tie the administration's and the Commander 
in Chief's hands in the way that you have suggested.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield what remaining time I have to the gentleman.

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. FORTENBERRY. I thank both the chairman and the ranking member for 
this respectful dialogue.
  These are tough judgment calls. I understand that. In my judgment, 
the risks do not outweigh the potential rewards here.
  Until we have a strong, significant multinational strategy to contain 
this contagion, I believe an ad hoc policy--which it appears to me we 
now have--by sending weapons into this area, potentially could make 
this situation worse.
  As the gentleman from New York, Congressman Gibson, pointed out, it 
is the responsibility of Congress to potentially revisit this issue if 
we need to reassess the situation, and it becomes much clearer and 
necessitates U.S. action; but now, to me and my conscience, it is 
important to say no.
  Last year, we had a very strong bipartisan vote that demanded that 
the United States would not enter into a military conflict in Syria. 
The American people spoke loudly and clearly, and I think this is 
simply an extension of that understanding.
  I understand the differences of opinion here in judgment, and I very 
much appreciate the time and respect accordingly.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. ENGEL. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the Fortenberry 
amendment to H.R. 4870, although I understand my friend's intentions. 
Our country is wary of intervention halfway across the world.
  I understand the impetus to avoid engagement in these very urgent 
challenges around the world.
  Syria's horrendous civil war has seen over 140,000 deaths, 4 million 
refugees, the use of chemical weapons, mass starvation, the 
obliteration of entire cities, and growing instability throughout the 
region.
  Syria's odious dictator, Bashar Assad, remains in power and continues 
to slaughter and starve his people. Innocent civilians have been denied 
food and medicine, their towns and villages have been razed, and their 
friends and families driven into refugee camps.
  The war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by the Assad 
regime are a horrific stain on the 21st century, and they demand a much 
more serious international response.
  To many, the carnage in Syria has seemed like a distant problem.
  But we can no longer take comfort that our nation is thousands of 
miles from the Levant. This conflict, which has often seemed like it 
couldn't get any worse, is evolving in an even more ominous direction.
  Of course, we're seeing how the extremist terrorist group, the 
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has used Syria and Iraq as 
its breeding ground. Our headlines show the group is carrying out a 
bloody offensive in places all too familiar to U.S. marines.
  I am most concerned that in recent months, ISIL and its likeminded 
extremist groups have begun to turn their attention to the west. It 
appears that they are using the Levant and Iraq.
  But choosing between ISIL on one hand and Assad on the other is a 
false choice. Assad has. .let these extremist groups fester in Syria. 
His plan is to show how reasonable he looks compared to an emerging 
terrorist threat.
  This false choice leaves out the moderate Syrian opposition that 
doesn't subscribe to Assad's brutality or Al-Qaeda's extremism.
  With the emergence of this dual threat in Syria, it is clear that we 
need a new strategy to end Assad's carnage and prevent Al Qaeda and 
like-minded groups from establishing safe havens in Syria that could be 
used to plot attacks against the U.S. and our allies.

[[Page H5531]]

  Yet, the Fortenberry amendment constrains that strategy. I believe we 
must aggressively ramp up our efforts to support the moderate 
opposition in Syria.
  It is not too late.
  It is not too late to help the moderate opposition. It is not too 
late to transition to a Syria without Assad. It is not too late to 
protect ourselves and our regional allies from the threat that ISIL 
poses. It is not too late to help Syrians build the future they 
deserve.
  Ultimately, I don't believe that the future of Syria will be resolved 
on the battlefield.
  But until the day comes when Syrians representing all segments of 
society are ready to negotiate peace, we must be prepared to do what's 
necessary to counter the dangers and tragedy in Syria.
  The lives of millions of innocent people and, indeed, our own 
national security compel us to act--and act quickly.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Fortenberry amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec._. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial 
     vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, 
     toxicological agents (including chemical agents, biological 
     agents, and associated equipment), launch vehicles, guided 
     missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, 
     mines, or nuclear weapons (as identified for demilitarization 
     purposes outlined in Department of Defense Manual 4160.28) 
     through the Department of Defense Excess Personal Property 
     Program established pursuant to section 1033 of Public Law 
     104-201, the `National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal 
     Year 1997'.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, you may recall, yesterday, I gave an 
impassioned plea in favor of a different version of this amendment, 
which was ruled out of order. I am hoping for a better result tonight; 
but in any event, there is only so much passion in the world, so I will 
keep my remarks short.
  I rise today to address a growing problem throughout our country, 
which is the militarization of local law enforcement agencies. The New 
York Times recently reported that police departments have received 
thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment and 
hundreds of silencers, armored cars, and aircraft directly from the 
Department of Defense. These are military weapons.
  I think this is appalling. That is why my amendment would prohibit 
the Department of Defense from gifting excess equipment, such as 
aircraft--including drones--armored vehicles, grenade launchers, 
silencers, and bombs to local police departments. Those weapons have no 
place in our streets, regardless of who may be deploying them.
  As The New York Times article ``War Gear Flows to Police 
Departments'' explains:

       Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of 
     times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, 
     heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub 
     in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, 
     officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids 
     on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of ``barbering 
     without a license.''

  One South Carolina sheriff's department now takes a new tank that it 
received from the Department of Defense with a mounted .50-caliber gun 
to schools and community events. The department's spokesman calls that 
tank a ``conversation starter.''
  I don't think this is the way I want my America to be. I think we 
should help our police act like public servants, not like warriors at 
war.
  I think we should facilitate a view of America where the streets are 
safe and they don't resemble a war zone, no matter who is deploying 
that equipment. We don't want America to look like an occupied 
territory.
  I hope for the support of my colleagues, and I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The Department of Defense Excess Property Program 
provides surplus military equipment to State and local civilian law 
enforcement agencies for use in counternarcotics, counterterrorism 
operations, and to enhance officer safety.
  It has provided aircraft, including helicopters and small planes; 
four-wheel drive vehicles, such as pickup trucks and ambulances that 
can be used for mobile command vehicles with search warrant; entry 
teams; it has provided vests and helmets to protect officers, as well 
as other equipment.
  Coming from a State and a region which suffered many deaths on 
September 11, 2001, we welcome this equipment. It is not misused, and 
the law enforcement agencies in the Northeast and throughout the 
country that benefit from this equipment have used it to make sure that 
all of our citizens are protected.
  I now would be happy yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Nugent), who is a former sheriff, for some comments.
  Mr. NUGENT. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Chair, as a past sheriff, we utilized that equipment in a 
responsible way. All of the helicopters we had in our fleet were all 
surplus helicopters that flew as far back as Vietnam. Some of the 
weapons that we had came from the military. We didn't receive any 
bombs.
  At the end of the day, you can always find misuses of any equipment 
that is given or utilized by law enforcement. It is the responsibility 
of those communities to keep that law enforcement agency in check.
  To just outright ban the usage of that equipment would devastate 
local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, not just in Florida, 
but everywhere.
  With that, I do appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New 
Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for his 
comments and reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, what I am saying is not so much a question 
of whether the equipment is being occasionally misused. The question 
really has become whether it is ever properly used.
  Can any of the gentlemen here tonight or anyone else identify a 
single act of terrorism that was thwarted by handing police officers 
helicopters that are militarized, bombs, and all sorts of gear that you 
would only expect to see on the battlefield?
  In fact, I would venture to say that the only examples we can come up 
with for the actual use of these objects is the misuse of these 
objects, the examples that I gave that were pointed out in national 
media.
  These weapons are not being used to defeat terrorism on our streets. 
Where is the terrorism on our streets? Instead, these weapons are being 
used to arrest barbers and to terrorize the general population. In 
fact, one may venture to say that the weapons are often used by a 
majority to terrorize a minority.
  Certainly, we know of many cases--both recent and in the deep, dark 
past--where police have used their weapons improperly for the sake of 
brutality. Now, it used to be that they could only use billy clubs or 
guns.
  Now, they can use helicopters and bombs. Before long, I suppose, 
given the logic propounded by my colleagues, they will be able to 
deploy nuclear weapons. That is not an America that I want to live in.
  I respectfully submit that this amendment deserves support. We are 
not cutting off the use of any equipment that is already in the field. 
On the contrary, that is gone. That is out the door.

[[Page H5532]]

  Bear in mind that, under the current program, these weapons are given 
without any strings attached. These are weapons of mass destruction, 
and they are deployed within our borders by our military to our law 
enforcement. That is not something I can abide.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I have heard a lot of things in my life as a 
sheriff and in my 38 years in law enforcement, but I will tell you 
this: first of all, the Federal Government does not give local law 
enforcement or any law enforcement agency bombs.
  The helicopters that local law enforcement receive are all 
demilitarized. They are all stripped out of any capability of having 
weapons in them. Those are used to save people's lives. They are used 
to find guys that have murdered people or to find rapists.
  This is absolutely ludicrous to think that the equipment that is 
utilized by law enforcement is utilized for any reason except for 
public safety interests, and it happens across this Nation every day in 
a responsible way.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Madam Chair, these are not weapons of mass destruction. What a 
ridiculous characterization, respectfully. These vehicles, these 
aircraft are used to protect American citizens, and the law enforcement 
community uses them wisely, and they are overseen by responsible 
elected officials.
  I have registered my strong opposition to this amendment and yield 
back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I think my colleagues must be attacking some other 
amendment, not this amendment. This is not an amendment that restricts 
the distribution of guns or ammunition; rather, this is an amendment 
that restricts the distribution of armored vehicles, grenade launchers, 
silencers, toxicological agents, chemical agents, biological agents, 
launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, 
torpedoes, bombs, mines, and nuclear weapons.
  Unfortunately, Madam Chair, those are all legally permitted to be 
distributed to our local law enforcement under current law. That is 
what I am trying to prevent here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Nugent

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to plan for or carry out a furlough of a dual status 
     military technician (as defined in section 10216 of title 10, 
     United States Code).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Chairman, the amendment treats the National Guard 
dual status military technicians as uniformed personnel in the event of 
furlough.
  Dual status technicians are uniformed full-time guardsmen, but a lot 
of their workweek falls into a legal gray area between active duty and 
civilian. Essentially, they wear two hats.
  They are trained to perform a particular job in the Armed Forces, and 
they drill in that role like all other guardsmen. However, these dual 
service technicians are the ones that actually keep the equipment 
operational.
  My son serves in the Florida Army National Guard as a Black Hawk 
pilot. These dual service technicians are there all week long, to make 
sure that the helicopters he flies are viable, are safe, and can do a 
mission.
  When they were furloughed last time under this President, we lost the 
ability to respond to natural disasters within the State of Florida. 
When we were in the hurricane season and the helicopters were not 
flyable because our dual service technicians had been furloughed and 
not treated like other full-time military personnel, we lost the 
capability to respond to issues that are State issues.
  More than that, this same unit that I am talking about--and it goes 
across this Nation with regard to National Guard units and dual service 
technicians--they have deployed to Afghanistan, to Iraq; and when they 
deploy, they actually go with them because they are in uniform. They 
are military.
  Because of the gray area they fall in, they can be furloughed by the 
President, like they did this last time, and the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) and I had come to this floor to talk about 
that issue, and we had this same amendment, which passed unanimously, I 
believe, because it protects not only the States, but it also protects 
our national mission of self-defense here in the homeland and being 
able to project the force that we need.

                              {time}  1945

  So at the end of the day, these technicians who during the day wear a 
uniform of the United States--this time it would be the Army--in 
keeping the equipment serviceable and operational--and in this instance 
were Black Hawk helicopters--they were furloughed. And guess what? They 
can only be there when they were on the drill weekend. Well, 
unfortunately, 3 days out of a month is not enough to keep a Black Hawk 
operational.
  So this is really important. We are lucky this time that 
sequestration is put off in 2015. But that doesn't stop the Commander 
in Chief from changing that and furloughing these employees, another 
reason to save money.
  At the end of the day, it is about readiness. We should do nothing 
that hurts readiness in our military, whether it is National Guard or 
Reservists, but particularly, and I will tell you from my standpoint in 
the State of Florida that is hurricane prone, those Black Hawks deliver 
rescue capability that no other vehicle provides for. And we need to 
make sure those dual-service technicians are treated with respect and 
kept on the payroll to do the job of keeping our military active with 
that Reserve component, the National Guard, keep them ready to respond 
to emergencies here at home and abroad.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding.
  Thank you for bringing this important issue to our attention. It is 
important that we get this right, and you put a very personal face on 
something which needs correction to make sure we don't go through this 
again. I appreciate your taking up this challenge and doing it so well.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it. And, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate your comments, and I appreciate the work that you have done 
on this.
  With that, Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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

[[Page H5533]]

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.
  Mr. NUGENT. I certainly do appreciate the ranking member's comments 
about other Federal employees, and I am the last one to malign Federal 
employees, but this is specifically in regard to--do you remember back 
when we passed the Pay Our Military Act? It was that act that allowed 
for the President and the Department of Defense to make that 
determination that these folks were essential. They decided that they 
weren't. And, in fact, we know they are because they are the ones, like 
I said, that keep the equipment operational, that allows our pilots 
and, in particular, Black Hawk pilots the ability to fly to respond to 
missions at home and abroad.
  So while I don't disagree with a lot of what the ranking member said, 
this is really about those that wear the uniform of this country and 
allowing them to make sure that they are paid, A, and make sure that 
they are on duty to keep that equipment operational.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Ms. Speier

  Ms. SPEIER. I have an amendment at the desk, Madam Chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 10002.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to implement Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 
     1984, as amended by Executive Order 13669 of June 13, 2014, 
     as those amendments apply to section 405(i) of the Rules for 
     Courts-Martial.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, last Friday, the President signed Executive 
Order 13669, which amended the Manual for Courts-Martial. This order 
delivers a significant blow to an already broken military justice 
system that will further revictimize servicemembers brave enough to 
come forward and report that they have been sexually assaulted.
  Specifically contained in this executive order is a provision that 
makes Military Rules of Evidence 412 admissible in article 32 
preliminary proceedings. This particular rule of evidence outlines when 
previous sexual history is admissible in court-martial proceedings and 
is currently applied to make all sorts of demeaning and irrelevant 
innuendos about a victim's previous sexual history admissible in 
courts-martial. Now, mind you, rape shield laws have been passed by 
virtually every State in the Union, and the question I have is why 
should servicemembers be considered second-class citizens in this 
country?
  Shockingly, this order doubles down on this harmful rule and allows 
the sexual history to be admissible in preliminary hearings. What is 
even worse, under the order, the convening authority will be able to 
read and consider evidence deemed inadmissible by the article 32 
hearing. The military has clearly learned nothing from the Wilkerson 
case in Aviano, Italy.
  You maybe remember that General Franklin, the convening authority, 
justified overturning a court-martial jury that convicted Wilkerson of 
having sexually assaulted a woman, and even though he was convicted by 
five colonels, peers of his, the general was able to look at 
inadmissible evidence that the judge had ruled out of order and 
consider that in overturning the decision.
  This amendment will prohibit funds to implement the component of 
Executive Order 13669 to prevent this harmful and wrongheaded provision 
to go into effect. This order usurps and reverses the progress that, in 
fact, this Congress has been making in reforming article 32 
proceedings, and I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SPEIER. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I served on the Naval Academy Board for 5 years, 
and I know there is some issues in some people's mind as to whether 
this executive order either strengthens or weakens the case for rape 
shield, but I was appalled by what happened there. So I am supportive 
of what you are doing. There may be some arguments people may have as 
to whether you are strengthening or weakening it, but your desire is to 
strengthen and make this unacceptable behavior go away.
  Ms. SPEIER. That is correct.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am supportive of that and congratulate you on 
your efforts.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I was on that Academy Board of Visitors for a 
number of years. The inability of the leadership of that academy, and 
to think that this midshipman had to go through this 30 hours is 
outrageous, so I commend you for what you have put forward here.
  Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman.
  Well, Madam Chair, with that, I thank my colleagues for recognizing 
the importance of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used to pay for storage for 
     patrol boats procured under the Department of Navy Memorandum 
     #105-E2P-196 dated October 12, 2010.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Madam Chair, I rise today to offer a commonsense, cost-
saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2015.
  Specifically, my amendment prohibits the Federal Government from 
wasting more money on storage for eight patrol boats which have cost 
taxpayers $3 million, have never been used, and have been sitting in 
storage for almost 4 years.
  Recent media reports and an inspector general's report brought this 
issue to my attention, and the wasteful spending involved is 
deplorable.
  In 2010, the Federal Government spent more than $3 million on patrol

[[Page H5534]]

boats for the Afghan National Police that were never shipped to 
landlocked Afghanistan. Even more troubling, the cost of each patrol 
boat was more than $265,000. The Washington Post has reported that 
similar patrol boats can be purchased in the United States for 
approximately $50,000 each.
  The Office of the Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, 
also known as SIGAR, was so concerned about this waste of taxpayer 
money that it conducted an investigation and recently released a 
report. The report includes a letter dated April 24, 2014, from the 
inspector general to the commanding general of the Combined Security 
Transition Command for Afghanistan.
  I would like to share a few excerpts from letter:

       I am writing to request information on a $3 million 
     procurement of patrol boats for the Afghan National Police 
     initiated by the Combined Security Transition Command for 
     Afghanistan in 2010.
       My focus is on the operational requirements that initiated 
     the procurement of the patrol boats for the Afghan National 
     Police and the reasons for the cancelation 9 months later.
       Additionally, I am also interested in the requirement for 
     the United States Government to pay for the storage and 
     related expenses for these boats for the last 3 years, boats 
     that apparently have no planned use.
       According to official at the Defense Security Cooperation 
     Agency, the patrol boats were manufactured and delivered to 
     the Navy in 2011 and have been in storage at the Naval 
     Weapons Station/Cheatham Annex, Yorktown, Virginia, ever 
     since.

  The full report goes on to detail some other troubling findings, 
which include missing storage records, missing expenditure 
authorizations and justifications, and missing documents which should 
detail the reason for canceling the procurement order.

                              {time}  2000

  The inspector general's June 6, 2014, letter is even more harsh as it 
stated:

       I continue to have concerns because the Combined Security 
     Transition Command for Afghanistan was unable to answer a 
     significant number of my questions regarding the patrol 
     boats. The list of unanswered questions is particularly 
     troubling.
       Further, the Combined Security Transition Command for 
     Afghanistan's response indicates that its Security Assistance 
     office led a review board that determined that the boats do 
     not fill a valid requirement for Afghanistan.
       To help the inspector general better understand how these 
     decisions were made and to help us prepare lessons learned 
     reports intended to avert the waste of U.S. taxpayer funds in 
     the future, please provide a detailed accounting of all the 
     elements of the Security Assistance office review boat's 
     proceedings which led to that decision, including 
     transcripts, testimony, and exhibits.
       By letter today, I have also requested the Department of 
     the Navy to provide their plans for disposition of the boats.

  I wholeheartedly agree with the inspector general, and not another 
penny of Federal taxpayer money should be spent on these boats that 
cost $3 million to produce, were never utilized, and have been sitting 
in storage since 2011.
  These boats either need to be put in the water or resold, per Federal 
law. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support passage 
of my commonsense amendment that will ensure better use of taxpayer 
money.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment No. 34 at the 
desk, preprinted in the Congressional Record.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization for 
     Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 
     note) after December 31, 2014.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my bipartisan amendment is 
straightforward. It is cosponsored by Congressman Broun of Georgia and 
Congressman Sanford of South Carolina.
  It will prohibit any funding in this bill pursuant to the 2001 
Authorization for Use of Military Force after December 31, 2014.
  This date is set as the official end of combat operations in 
Afghanistan. Furthermore, it gives the President and Congress 
sufficient time to determine what, if any, authorization would be 
needed to replace the 2001 AUMF.
  The fact of the matter is the world has changed dramatically in the 
aftermath of the horrific tragedy of September 11.
  On September 14, 2001, I could not vote for the resolution, an 
authorization that I knew would provide a blank check to wage war any 
time, anywhere, for any purpose, and for any length. Thirteen years 
later, this authorization is still on the books.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, there are over 30 
known instances of the executive branch invoking authority to engage in 
hostilities or deploy Armed Forces under this AUMF.
  The report, which is on my Web site, lists 30 instances where the 
AUMF has been invoked by President Bush and President Obama, including 
to deploy troops in Ethiopia, Djibouti, Georgia, Yemen, justify 
detentions at Guantanamo Bay, and conduct military commissions, among 
many other uses, for which this resolution served as the legal 
justification for.
  No executive office, not President Bush, not President Obama, nor any 
future President can be handed such broad authority to wage war with no 
oversight.
  In fact, President Obama has stated that he looks forward to engaging 
Congress and the American people in efforts to refine and ultimately 
repeal the AUMF's mandate, and he will not sign laws designed to expand 
this mandate further.
  We need to take up the President's suggestion. There was very little 
debate on this resolution. I was here 12 years ago, and so year after 
year, I have introduced legislation to repeal this resolution.
  It is long past time for Congress to have a meaningful debate. I 
remember that night. There were five or six maybe on the floor, maybe a 
few more, and we had probably an hour's debate that evening.
  We need to have a real debate about our constitutional role in 
declaring war and our obligation to conduct rigorous oversight, 
accountability, and to demand transparency and accountability for the 
American people for their tax dollars. I ask Members to support this 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I oppose this amendment. This amendment, while 
disguised as a funding limitation, is really an attempt to put in place 
a major policy change that does not belong on our bill. It would 
essentially repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.
  Let me be clear about what this amendment does. This amendment 
cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations against 
terrorists who pose a threat to U.S. persons and interests.
  In my judgment, this amendment dangerously and erroneously assumes 
that the terrorist threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates ends once 
military operations end in Afghanistan.
  The terrorist threat today is no less real and, in many ways, is more 
daunting than it was when Congress overwhelmingly gave to President 
Bush and to President Obama the authority to protect us against those 
who want to do us harm.
  While some would argue that core al Qaeda has weakened, as events in 
Yemen and most recently Iraq and Syria have not shown, we know that al 
Qaeda and other terrorist groups are on the rise. This amendment would 
end our ability to conduct any operations against them at the end of 
this year--inconceivable.
  Core al Qaeda isn't the only threat. Al Qaeda in the Arabian 
Peninsula, operating out of Yemen, is now considered to pose the 
greatest threat to U.S. citizens.

[[Page H5535]]

  This amendment would effectively eliminate the President's ability to 
address the threat or other emerging threats of AQ-affiliated and like-
minded groups in north Africa, the Horn of Africa, and elsewhere.
  If adopted, this would send terrorists the message that they just 
need to wait out the military authority to conduct counterterrorism 
operations, and then they are free to launch their attacks.
  The President himself, with all due respect, has reaffirmed the need 
for this continued authority and uses it, I can assure you, each and 
every day. It would be a mistake to tie the hands of our Commander in 
Chief and our military by removing this authority that protects U.S. 
citizens and our country from terrorist threats.
  I strongly oppose this amendment and urge others to do so as well.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlelady from California.
  No, repealing the AUMF will not leave America vulnerable to 
terrorists. What it will do is put this U.S. Congress in a position to 
debate the legitimate--or not so legitimate, in some cases--
justification for further military action.
  It will update the debate. It will put us in a position to really 
drill down and find out whether there is a national security interest, 
which would justify military force in the situation moving forward.
  Members of Congress, this thing is over a decade old, and it has gone 
far afield from its original purpose.
  This AUMF has been used more than 30 times to take our country into 
conflict, countries literally hundreds and maybe thousands of miles 
away from where it was originally intended.
  It is time for a new debate. It is time for a new Authorization for 
Use of Military Force, if we should have one. It is nothing more than a 
scare tactic to say that this will leave our country vulnerable.
  The President is the Commander in Chief and has authority to protect 
the interests of the United States, but this AUMF has brought us in a 
direction that was not contemplated.
  As the representatives of the people of the United States--that is 
us--we should have a say on the future of where military conflicts 
might be conducted. That means we repeal this AUMF, and if there is a 
legitimate national security interest moving forward, we should debate 
it on the floor and, if necessary, pass it. It is time to repeal the 
AUMF.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say I don't 
know how much time--how much more time the opposition to this amendment 
wants to see this authorization on the books and continue to fund it. 
There is no reason that a 13-year authorization should continue to be 
funded.
  I just want to read you this, as I close, what this authorization 
said 13 years ago, which totally has abdicated our constitutional 
responsibility and authority as Members of Congress. We are abdicating 
our constitutional authority by not going back to the drawing board and 
debating any further efforts as it relates to military force.

       The President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he deems planned, authorized, and aided the terrorist 
     attacks that occurred on September 11.

  That is 2001. Again, the Congressional Research Service has cited 30 
instances. We know there are more. Once again, we need to come back and 
have a debate. We need to talk about how far removed now we are from 
2001.
  If we think this needs to be brought up to date, bring it up to date, 
but we definitely need to stop the funding.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Rogers of Alabama

  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement the Treaty on Open Skies, done at 
     Helsinki March 24, 1992, and entered into force January 1, 
     2002.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Alabama and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. ROGERS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge Members to 
support my amendment and to support the underlying bill by my friend 
from New Jersey. I regret I have to bring this amendment today. It 
deals with a very arcane issue, the Treaty on Open Skies.
  In the FY15 NDAA, H.R. 4435, we included a bipartisan provision to 
require certification of the national security implications for Russian 
Federation proposals to implement new sensors on their Open Skies 
aircraft.
  These aircraft are allowed to fly over the United States to conduct 
surveillance flights. They are not supposed to supplement Russian 
intelligence collection on the U.S., yet not long after this body 
passed the NDAA on a 325-98 vote, the administration opted to ignore 
this body's concerns, ignore the concerns of a bipartisan group of 
Senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and approve a 
Russian request to improve its sensor platform.
  The administration did this without regard to Russia's invasion of 
Ukraine and illegal seizure of Crimea. The administration did this 
without regard to Russia's violation of the INF treaty. The 
administration did this without regard to Russia's compliance failings 
in the New START Treaty.
  The administration did this without regard to the fact that Russia is 
cheating on the Open Skies Treaty itself--just look at the State 
Department Web site. The administration did this without regard to the 
concerns of the Department of Defense and other government agencies.
  How did Russia respond to this decision by the administration to 
accede to Putin's wishes? The New York Times this past weekend answered 
that question this way:

       Rebels also claim to have shot down a Ukrainian AN-30 
     surveillance plane on June 6, 2014. The June 6 episode was of 
     particular concern because it involved the destruction of one 
     of the two planes that Ukraine used to monitor the Open Skies 
     Treaty.

  Mr. Chairman, when will we learn that we can't respond to Russian 
aggression with concession?
  Putin responded, as he always does, by taking our concession and 
having his shock troops in Ukraine shoot down an airplane.
  We cannot continue like this. We cannot continue to ignore Russia 
cheating when it comes to our treaties. We cannot continue to allow 
Russia to misuse arms control treaties like the Open Skies Treaty. We 
cannot continue to allow Russia to foment violence on NATO's borders.

                              {time}  2015

  We cannot continue to ignore the concerns of our military and other 
national security agencies just to make Russia feel good.
  I urge support of my amendment to send a message to Russia and 
safeguard our national security.
  With that, I would urge my colleagues to accept the amendment and 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers of Alabama).
  The amendment was agreed to.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Murphy of Florida

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to maintain or improve Department of Defense real 
     property

[[Page H5536]]

     with a zero percent utilization rate according to the 
     Department's real property inventory database, except in the 
     case of maintenance of an historic property as required by 
     the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et 
     seq.) or maintenance to prevent a negative environmental 
     impact as required by the National Environmental Policy Act 
     of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).

  Mr. MURPHY of Florida (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask 
unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Florida?
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will continue to read.
  The Clerk continued to read.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I rise today to offer an amendment 
to the Department of Defense Appropriations bill that would eliminate 
wasteful spending on unused and underutilized facilities.
  With the Federal Government being the largest holder of land in the 
country, management of these properties must be economically 
responsible. Unfortunately, our government continues to misuse taxpayer 
dollars maintaining vacant and underutilized properties. This 
mismanagement must be addressed so that taxpayer money is no longer 
squandered on these unused facilities.
  That is why I am once again introducing this commonsense amendment, 
as I have with previous appropriations bills, and will continue to do 
so until wastefulness, both in terms of cost and efficiency, is rooted 
out of our government.
  This proposal is an extension of the bipartisan SAVE Act I had put 
forward that would cut $230 billion in government spending by rooting 
out waste and mismanagement such as this.
  I am proud that my amendment is endorsed by a broad coalition, 
including the Project on Government Oversight and the National 
Taxpayers Union. I thank them for their support of this commonsense 
measure to save taxpayers money by making our government more 
efficient.
  The Department of Defense, alone, has hundreds, possibly thousands, 
of buildings and structures that it has rated at zero percent 
utilization, yet the Federal Government continues to maintain these 
unused facilities at an incredible cost to taxpayers. As a CPA, this 
just doesn't add up. It is unacceptable that taxpayers are on the hook 
for maintaining these unused facilities. Putting an end to this misuse 
of resources could save tens of millions of dollars a year, smart 
savings we should all support, regardless of party affiliation.
  Mr. Chair, when I came to Congress, I promised my constituents that I 
would scrutinize the Federal budget so that their money was not wasted, 
promoting smarter governing. This is a simple solution to do just that.
  This amendment was passed by the House last year with bipartisan 
support, and I ask my colleagues to again support this measure that can 
save American taxpayers tens of millions of dollars in this year alone. 
Let's come together and show the American people that we can work 
together to promote better government and smarter spending.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I am pleased to accept your amendment.
  I yield to Mr. Visclosky, if you care to make any comments.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I certainly appreciate the fact that the gentleman is looking to be 
very cost effective in avoiding the expenditure of unnecessary funds 
and strongly support his position. I appreciate his offering the 
amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. MURPHY of Florida. Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Murphy).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar

  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, 148, at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to procure any Army Aircrew Combat Uniforms.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Arizona and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona.
  Mr. GOSAR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer a commonsense, cost-
saving amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
fiscal year 2015.
  It has been brought to my attention from numerous sources within my 
district that in 2009 the Department of Army fully phased out the CWU-
27/P Army aviation flight uniform and moved to the Army Aircrew Combat 
Uniform, also known as the A2CU.
  Constituents of mine, many of whom are Active Duty, retired, or 
friends and family of military personnel, have expressed a strong 
desire for the Army to go back to the CWU-27/P model uniform.
  There are multiple reasons to switch back to the CWU model uniform. 
The most important reasons to switch back to the CWU model are safety 
and efficiency. But to sweeten the deal, when making the pitch to me, 
my constituents explained that moving back to the CWU model would also 
save the Department millions of dollars a year in procurement costs. 
Talk about hitting two birds with one stone.
  First and foremost, let's touch on CWU model's proven track record of 
safety and practicality. The CWU model is still authorized for Army 
Special Operations aviators, all of the aviators in other service 
branches of the U.S. military, and most air forces and navies around 
the world. Yes, these points are a testament to the safety and 
efficiency of the CWU model.
  And these safety aspects are of paramount importance to our Army 
aviators, because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are very 
high. The CWU model flight suits have antistatic fiber woven in them to 
prevent sparks, which, for obvious reasons, are not desirable when 
operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet 
fuel on board.
  The one-piece design of the CWU model is also extremely important as 
it does not, in the event of a fire, leave any opportunities for 
exposed skin. Being that the A2CU is a two-piece model exactly like 
ground troop uniforms, it cannot offer the same amount or types of 
protection. Moreover, the A2CU is also cut to a looser standard than 
the CWU-27/P, creating the potential for more items of clothing to snag 
on controls in the cockpit.
  Speaking to the cost savings, the A2CU model costs an average of 56 
percent more than the CWU model, and the A2CU has proven to wear out 
faster than the CWU. Further, every time the Army decides to change the 
camouflage pattern of the duty uniform, they have to spend millions 
more purchasing the new flight uniform. The CWU model, to my knowledge, 
is usually only one color per uniform.
  The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that this 
amendment does not score as it is written; but being that the intent is 
to move back to the CWU model, the effects of the policy should 
actually net some cost savings. Conservative estimates show that the 
Army could save around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it 
were to move back to the CWU model. Further, it should not cost 
anything to reintroduce the CWU model back into the supply system, as 
the rest of service branches still use them. In other words, there is 
no need to reboot the supply chain.
  Further, the Army could replace the A2CU's with CWU's as they are 
exchanged by soldiers without the upfront cost of re-outfitting each 
soldier. The cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me who was 
sent to this town to rein in spending. More importantly, I listen to 
these Army aviators and flight operators. They tell me it is safer, and 
being that they are the ones

[[Page H5537]]

doing the training and fighting, I will take them at their word.
  Given the safety and practicality applications, and given that the 
United States is not exactly running a budget surplus right now, saving 
a few million here and there in the name of safety and practicality is 
something we should all strive to achieve.
  I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment which cuts 
costs and improves safety.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to enter into a contract with any person whose 
     disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in 
     section 2313(c)(1) of title 41, United States Code, in the 
     Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System 
     include the term ``Fair Labor Standards Act.''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I think Democrats 
and Republicans can actually agree on, it is that, if a penny is 
earned, that penny must be paid. This amendment is very 
straightforward. In fact, a version of it has already passed the House 
of Representatives. What it says is that, if there is a Federal 
contractor who has been found to engage in wage theft, that they may 
not benefit from this appropriation.
  Now, there are many contractors who work for the Department of 
Defense who have employees that cook the meals for our troops, wash 
their uniforms, do all manner of many, many important tasks to keep 
fighting men and women in a position to serve our Nation. Some of them 
may even work in the commissary. They may work at various jobs. And 
they sometimes, the Federal contractors who serve the Federal 
Government, do not pay these workers.
  Mr. Chairman, you may think, well, you know, maybe that happens, but 
how often does it happen? Is it really a big problem? I am here to tell 
you that it is a serious problem. In fact, the Economic Policy 
Institute found that, in total, the average low-wage worker loses a 
stunning $2,634 per year in unpaid wages, representing 15 percent of 
their earned income.
  A recent report by the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 
Committee of the United States Senate revealed that 32 percent--that is 
32 percent, fully a third--of the largest Department of Labor penalties 
for wage theft were levied against Federal contractors.
  Now, I think that Democrats and Republicans can agree that, if you 
are a Federal contractor and you want to do business with the United 
States, you should be fair to your workers. This bill doesn't go out 
and look and we are not asking anyone to make any judgments. We are 
talking about people who have been found to engage in wage theft 
already.
  This amendment simply says that the funds made available in this act 
may be used to enter into contract with any person whose disclosures of 
a proceeding with a disposition listed under section 2313(e)(1), title 
41, and it goes on. But what it means is that you must be fair to your 
workers, and if you are not, you cannot benefit.
  Last word I want to say about this is that don't we want to 
incentivize good contractors and discourage bad ones? One way we can do 
that is say, if you don't treat your workers right, we are going to 
find some Federal contractors who will.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.

                              {time}  2030

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman offering the amendment and 
speaking out on behalf of the dignity of labor, whatever human labor 
that may be, and certainly believe that the amendment is acceptable to 
the committee. Thank you very much.
  Mr. ELLISON. I certainly appreciate that.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Forbes

  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be obligated or expended to implement the Convention on the 
     Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer 
     of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, if you turn on your TV tonight, you will 
see U.S. foreign policy in shambles almost across the globe. It 
shouldn't surprise us because basically this administration has given 
our adversaries or potential adversaries almost everything they wanted, 
even when it jeopardized our national defense.
  Let me just walk you around the globe.
  The number one concern the Russians had was for us to pull our 
missile defense systems out of Europe, and we did that, even though it 
left huge gaps for us in our missile defense.
  The number one concern the Iranians wanted was to pull off their 
sanctions, and we agreed to that.
  The number one concern the Afghan insurgents had was a time certain 
when we were going to get out.
  The number one concern the Chinese had was that we not increase our 
Navy and we decrease it, and we saw the President send over a budget 
that would have effectively taken an aircraft carrier out of our fleet, 
would have beached half of our cruiser fleet, would have essentially 
eliminated or severely impacted the production of our Tomahawk 
missiles, and they have plans to bench six destroyers next year. Now 
they are getting ready to do something that is probably as egregious as 
all the rest, and that is to execute within the next couple of weeks 
the Ottawa Treaty, which would require us to pull our landmines up 
along the DMZ, which is the number one concern for the North Koreans.
  When President Clinton looked at this, he rejected that treaty 
because he realized that those landmines were what kept the North 
Koreans from invading South Koreans for decades. When George W. Bush 
looked at it, he rejected it because he realized how militarily 
impractical it would be. And when this administration looked at it in 
2009, this is what their State Department said:

       We would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor 
     our security commitments to our friends and allies if we 
     signed this.

  Then when a White House aide pushed back on that about 3 years later, 
the commander of our forces in South Korea, General Thurman, said this:

       I wake up every morning with 1 million North Korean troops 
     right across the border.

  When we asked our current general, who is in charge of our South 
Korean forces, whether he thought we should move those landmines, he 
said they were critical to the defense of South Korea.
  When we asked the top uniformed general in the United States, General 
Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he said it was a 
critical part of our defense. And when we asked him if anything had 
changed since 2009,

[[Page H5538]]

he quickly came back and said things have gotten worse, not better.
  Mr. Chairman, these are not the landmines of yesterday that were just 
dropped somewhere and you worried a child would come along and stumble 
on them. These landmines are very targeted. They only come on when we 
activate them, and then they deactivate within a certain number of 
hours after that. In fact, the United States has already spent more 
than $2 billion over the last 20 years taking those up.
  So, Mr. Chairman, what this would do is to prohibit any funds from 
being made available under this act for the implementation of that 
Ottawa Treaty. It is time we start listening to our military experts at 
the Pentagon and we start taking their advice on what we need for 
national security.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 1\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this is not moot. We have it 
on widespread information that the administration is planning to do 
this within the next 2 weeks. We even had various embassies tell us the 
same thing.
  Secondly, as he mentioned, he is talking apples to oranges. These are 
not the same two kinds of programs. There is nothing more humanitarian 
than preventing war. We have 28,500 troops in South Korea facing all 
those troops in North Korea, and the thing that stands between them and 
us are those landmines. The gentleman can't tell me one thing that is 
going to stop them from coming over there if we pull those landmines 
up. That is why it is crucial we act now and make sure we don't make 
this crucial mistake and see another part of this globe in shambles 
over our foreign policy.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Forbes).
  The amendment was agreed to.


           Amendment No. 32 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the purpose of conducting combat operations in 
     Afghanistan after December 31, 2014.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, my straightforward bipartisan 
amendment is cosponsored by Representatives Walter Jones and Jim 
McGovern.
  What this amendment does is prohibit any funding for combat 
operations in Afghanistan after December 31, 2014. Even though some of 
us would rather have all of our troops returned, the President 
announced in May that the United States would end the U.S. combat 
mission in December 2014.
  This simple amendment codifies and clarifies the President's 
position. It would also allow Congress to determine and reauthorize any 
further combat operations in Afghanistan should the President deem it 
necessary.
  By reinserting Congress' constitutional authority, this amendment 
would ensure that we have a debate and a vote in this body for the 
future of combat operations in Afghanistan.
  Last month, I joined Congressmen McGovern, Jones, Garamendi, and 
Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith in offering an amendment to 
the National Defense Authorization Act that would have required a 
congressional vote to continue deployment of U.S. combat troops in 
Afghanistan after December 31, 2014.
  Unfortunately, that amendment was not allowed to come to the floor.
  Instead, to date, the Republican leadership of this House has failed 
to allow the American people any say in the future of America's longest 
war. It is really unconscionable that the Afghan public through the 
Afghan parliament has ample opportunity to weigh in on the future 
presence of United States combat troops in Afghanistan, while the 
American public has been given no such opportunity through this 
Congress.
  For many years, we have known there is simply no military solution in 
Afghanistan, and our constituents are sick and tired of this endless 
war.
  This war has cost taxpayers over $750 billion, and promises to cost 
tens of billions more for every year our troops remain in Afghanistan. 
We have lost thousands of our young men and women. They conducted 
themselves in a way that everything we asked them to do they did, and 
so it is time now to honor them by ending this endless war.
  This war, again, when you look at the human cost, the lives of I 
think it is 2,321 soldiers, and tens of thousands injured, it is really 
time to end this. It is time to look out for our veterans, our brave 
young men and women, bring them home, not fund any more combat 
operations, and ensure their job security, their health, their mental 
health, and their future.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment.
  This amendment is very vaguely crafted. It could have undue 
consequences. This very short amendment would make no funds available 
for ``the purpose of conducting combat operations in Afghanistan after 
December 31, 2014.''
  Our bill contains funding for combat operations, not only for United 
States troops, but provides funding, equipment, lift, and sustainment 
of allies in the fight.
  Further, within the overseas contingency operations funding account--
when the OCO budget finally arrives, and we have been asking for it for 
months--there will be funding for combat operations for Afghanistan 
troops, and I suspect other troops, American troops, or international 
troops, through what we call the Afghan Security Forces Fund. I think 
there is a degree of inevitability that that will happen. Certainly we 
are going to have troops there I think for some time.
  This amendment, in my judgment, goes too far, as it attempts to tie 
the U.S. Government's hands in navigating the complicated situation we 
face related to threats emanating from Iraq.

[[Page H5539]]

Let's be realistic. What this amendment would do is it would remove the 
possibility of the U.S. engaging under any circumstances, even if such 
engagement would be in the best interest of our country or allies.
  I strongly oppose the amendment. It doesn't make sense.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, first of all, this amendment 
says we are not going to fund combat operations after December 31, 
2014. That is what it says. That is what it will do. That is what the 
President has indicated.
  For the life of me I don't understand why the opposition really 
believes that there is a military solution in Afghanistan. We have been 
there 13 years. History shows that the United States military is not 
going to continue to have a military presence and support what has 
taken place in Afghanistan. It is now up to the Afghan government and 
people to secure their own future.
  Of course, we are not taking away any authority from the President. 
We have taken away our authority here, our constitutional duty and 
responsibility. We can't allow funding for combat operations beyond 
December 2014. The President has said that will not happen. So what in 
the world are we talking about by saying, yes, here is the money, we 
want you to continue funding these combat operations?
  He said they would end in December of 2014, so we should do what we 
need to do here in Congress. We should end it, we should not allow any 
more funding. If, in fact, the President believes, and if you believe, 
that we want to engage in more combat action and operations--which, of 
course, the American public I believe are telling us in no uncertain 
terms they are war-weary--but if you believe that, then come back to 
Congress and exercise your constitutional duty and responsibility, and 
vote for whatever it is that the President is asking for. This doesn't 
make any sense--13 years. Again, we sunset in the farm bill, the 
transportation bill. Here we have got an authority now and funding for 
the last 13 years. It doesn't make any sense. We want to do what the 
President has said he is going to do.

                              {time}  2045

  This Congress needs to reassert itself and do our constitutional 
duty, engage in our constitutional authority and responsibility, and 
say in no uncertain terms: no funding for combat operations after 
December 31, 2014.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
will be postponed.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. McClintock

  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to carry out any of the following:
       (1) Sections 2(b), 2(d), 2(g), 3(c), 3(e), 3(f), or 3(g) of 
     Executive Order 13423.
       (2) Sections 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(f)(iii-iv), 2(h), 7, 9, 
     12, 13, or 16 of Executive Order 13514.
       (3) Section 2911 of title 10, United States Code.
       (4) Sections 400AA or 400 FF of the Energy Policy and 
     Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6374, 6374e).
       (5) Section 303 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 
     13212).
       (6) Section 203 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 
     15852).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from California and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, my amendment forbids defense dollars 
from being spent to fund two executive orders and several other 
provisions of law that require the military to squander billions of 
dollars on so-called green energy.
  For example, according to the GAO, the Navy has spent as much as $150 
per gallon for jet fuel. In 2012, the Navy purchased 450,000 gallons of 
biofuel for its so-called green fleet at the cost of $26.60 per gallon, 
at a time when conventional petroleum fuel cost just $2.50.
  What taxpayer in his right mind would pay $26.60 per gallon to fill 
up his car when, next door, they are selling it for $2.50? Yet that is 
precisely what our Armed Forces are ordered to do--except they are not 
just filling up their cars, they are filling up entire ships and 
aircraft, and this all comes out of our precious defense dollars.
  The Air Force paid $59 per gallon for 11,000 gallons of biofuel in 
2012--10 times more than regular jet fuel.
  It is not just biofuels. The Pentagon expects to purchase 1,500 Chevy 
Volts at a subsidized price of $40,000 apiece and a production price of 
$90,000 apiece, paid for by other subsidies. As Senator Coburn's office 
points out:

       Each one of these $40,000 Chevy Volts represents the choice 
     not to provide an entire infantry platoon with all new rifles 
     or 50,000 rounds of ammunition that cannot be used for 
     realistic training.

  Under these green energy mandates, the Army and Navy have been 
required to install solar arrays at various facilities. At Naval 
Station Norfolk, the Navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar 
array, which will supply a grand total of 2 percent of the base's 
electricity.
  According to the inspector general's office, this project will save 
enough money to pay for itself in only 447 years. Of course, solar 
panels only last about 25 years.
  In Alaska, the Pentagon was ordered to convert three radar stations 
from diesel fuel to wind turbine energy. The Air Force claimed it will 
take 15 years to pay for itself, but auditors found that the generators 
produce only ``sporadic, unusable power,'' and the inspector general 
charged that the Air Force claim was completely unsubstantiated.
  As of 2013, the Defense Department had at least 680 such projects, 
including 357 solar, 29 wind, and 289 thermal energy projects.
  There are several arguments that we hear for this mandate. One of 
them is it is going to save us money, but as you can see, these orders 
are running up huge costs. We don't know exactly how much because, as 
the GAO said:

       There is currently no comprehensive inventory of which 
     Federal agencies are implementing renewable energy-related 
     initiatives and the types of initiatives they are 
     implementing.

  Outside estimates are as much as $7 billion for the Department of 
Defense for this year, a figure that will only grow each year.
  We are told it is to move our Armed Forces toward energy independence 
from hostile foreign sources. This is from an administration that has 
obstructed every effort to develop America's vast oil shale reserves 
that would make Saudi Arabia look like a petroleum pauper. The XL 
Keystone pipeline, by itself, would bring a half-million barrels of 
Canadian crude a day into this country.
  Finally, we are told this is all a grand strategy to protect us from 
climate change, which the Secretary of State has called as big a threat 
as terrorism. Even if it were possible to wage an environmentally-
sensitive war--which I doubt--I think there is a good chance that 
climate will continue to change, as it has that past 4 billion years, 
whether or not we waste our defense dollars to pay for this quixotic 
venture.
  This explanation does reveal the real reason for this folly. This is 
an ideological crusade imposed on our military that will pointlessly 
consume billions of defense dollars, mainly to keep money flowing to 
politically well-connected green energy companies that can't get 
anybody else to buy their products.
  These green activists are willing to squander the resources of our 
military to do so. This is a travesty that we can end here and now with 
this amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.

[[Page H5540]]

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that forcing 
the military to pay $26.60 per gallon for fuel that can be obtained for 
$2.50 a gallon isn't about flexibility. It is about insanity, and it is 
time that we put an end to this.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used to ``consult'', as the term is used in reference to the 
     Department of Defense and the National Security Agency, in 
     contravention of the ``assur[ance]'' provided in section 
     20(c)(1)(A) of the National Institute of Standards and 
     Technology Act (15 U.S.C. 278g-3(c)(1)(A).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that is substantially 
similar to an amendment that passed by unanimous voice vote among 
Democrats and Republicans on the House Science and Technology Committee 
a couple of weeks ago.
  My amendment, the Grayson-Holt-Lofgren amendment, seeks to address a 
serious problem. Recently, it was revealed that the National Security 
Agency has been recklessly subverting American cryptographic 
standards--and deliberately so.
  Cryptographic standards for the national security community and the 
commercial software industry are developed by the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, or NIST. That is an agency within the House 
Science and Technology jurisdiction.
  These standards are intended to protect Americans from foreign 
intelligence agencies, from cyber criminals, from industrial espionage, 
and from privacy violations by those who wish us harm. They are 
embedded in software products which are used and sold widely--in fact, 
almost universally in this country and elsewhere.
  Unfortunately, recent media reports indicate that the National 
Security Agency successfully and deliberately weakened encryption 
standards promulgated by NIST to further NSA surveillance goals at the 
cost of the privacy of ordinary U.S. citizens--in fact, universally 
throughout the United States.
  This is extremely dangerous. It leaves users of these standards 
vulnerable to anybody who is familiar with these weaknesses.
  We can recall that, just a few weeks ago, millions of Americans were 
told that they had to change their user IDs and their passwords. That, 
Mr. Chairman, was because of this.
  The NSA apparently is doing this as part of its domestic spying 
program, but as World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee put it:

       It's naive to imagine that, if you deliberately introduce 
     into a system a weakness, you will be the only one to use it.

  My amendment would seek to address this issue by prohibiting the 
intelligence community from subverting or interfering with the 
integrity of any cryptographic standard that is proposed, developed, or 
adopted by NIST.
  It is only common sense that we should not want taxpayers' dollars 
that are appropriated to one agency being used to deliberately and 
actively subvert the work of another agency and, at the same time, 
destroy the privacy and the liberty and the personal property of our 
own citizens.
  I urge support for this amendment on both sides of the aisle, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to 
the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I am not actually opposed to the 
amendment, but I would like to talk about some of the assertions or 
allegations made by the gentleman, and I do that respectfully. I am not 
in opposition to the amendment, but I think there are some things that 
have been said that need to be replied to.
  The National Security Agency has participated in standards setting 
with the National Institute of Standards and Technology, known as NIST. 
Of course, they would participate.
  Wouldn't we want our Nation's best cryptographers to help strengthen 
and secure the Internet?
  Their participation in setting standards is a no-brainer. You want 
the standards to be designed by the people who best understand the 
threat. They recommended the standards that they themselves use.
  As the National Security Agency stated on September 30 of last year:

       NSA is responsible for setting the security standards for 
     systems carrying and transporting the Nation's most sensitive 
     and classified information. We use cryptography and standards 
     that we recommend, and we recommend the cryptographic 
     standards we use.
       We do not make recommendations that we cannot stand behind 
     for protecting national security systems and data. The 
     activity of NSA in setting standards has made the Internet a 
     far safer place to communicate and to do business.
       Indeed, our participation in standards development has 
     strengthened the core encryption technology that underpins 
     the Internet.

  The idea that NSA has deliberately sabotaged security is ridiculous. 
These folks know the threat we face and are helping to secure the 
Internet we all rely on so heavily.
  Again, I don't oppose the amendment, but the assertions need to be 
rebutted.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to, in some respects, associate 
myself with the remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Obviously, we have a difference of agreement about the facts, but I 
think we agree that the NSA should actually be helping to establish the 
best possible standards for privacy in this country, regardless of 
whether the published reports that have been widely reported in the 
media are true or not.
  I appreciate the gentleman's allegiance to the underlying principle 
that Americans deserve privacy.

                              {time}  2100

  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank my friend from Florida for offering this amendment. 
It should go a long way toward recovering the lost reputation of the 
National Institute of Standards and Technology.
  Mr. Chairman, this came about because the National Security Agency

[[Page H5541]]

has a dual role of developing encryption standards and breaking 
encryption. The reports widely circulated and, I think, generally 
verified show that these two dual roles caused real problems for 
American standards and, hence, for American technology and American 
companies.
  It is unfortunate that NIST, which is supposed to be an impartial 
arbiter of national and of even global standards for technology, was 
effectively used to propagate defective encryption standards, and this 
amendment, I think, will help correct that. It is important that we 
keep high standards and that everyone knows it. This is an important 
amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. I also appreciate 
the comments of the chair of the committee.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I think the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, aka NIST, has always enjoyed a good 
reputation. I served on the committee as a ranking member, and we 
heavily invested in the work they do. They enjoy an incredible 
reputation, and the suggestion that somehow they have lost their luster 
and their reputation is totally inappropriate, but let's move on.
  I support the bill with the reservations that I have made about some 
of the earlier assertions that have been basically within the media 
that have been pumped up, maligning not only NIST but the National 
Security Agency, which I think does an incredible job of protecting 
national security and all of us.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I join in the gentleman's desire to move 
on, and I appreciate the gentleman's fair consideration of this 
amendment on the merits.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Wittman

  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. 10002.  None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to propose, plan for, or execute an additional 
     Base Realignment and Closure round.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Virginia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is pretty simple. It says 
that we are not going to use any funds at this particular time to 
propose, plan, or execute any additional Base Realignment and Closure 
rounds, better known as BRAC, the reason being that this language was 
adopted in the National Defense Authorization Act by an overwhelming 
vote of 325-98. The House has spoken and has said now is not the time 
to use these funds to begin this. I want to make sure that people 
understand that this is also in the Senate language.
  I want to make sure people understand, too, that this is a process by 
which we want to make sure we are understanding how decisionmaking 
takes place. A force structure comes before decisions on 
infrastructure, and as you know, the service branches are still making 
the decision about what the end strength should be--how many people we 
should have in our military. That will determine what our 
infrastructure should be. We are also undergoing an overseas base and 
housing assessment to determine what our presence should be overseas. 
That is ongoing. That should be completed before we even entertain any 
consideration about what our base structure needs to be here at home.
  The cost estimates for the last Base Realignment and Closure 
Commission in 2005 indicated that it would cost $21 billion. Now we see 
it costs $35 billion. The 2005 BRAC, as we see, hasn't saved money at 
all at this particular point, and it won't save money until 2018, so 
now is not the proper time to pursue a Base Realignment and Closure.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WITTMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let me thank the gentleman for his incredible 
service on the House Armed Services Committee.
  May I say that the Defense Appropriations Committee has worked very 
closely with Chairman McKeon as well as with you, and as you know, our 
bill contains no funding for a future BRAC. I think all of us are still 
digesting the last BRAC and understand how expensive it was. I think it 
is important for you to know that we will repeat in our bill, through 
your amendment, what you put in the authorization bill, which would 
make it quite clear to the administration.
  Mr. WITTMAN. I thank the chairman for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
gentleman's amendment, although I am not opposed to his amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the gentleman from Indiana is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from 
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler).
  Mrs. HARTZLER. I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his 
leadership on this issue as well as for the chairman's support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, now is not the time for BRAC. Due to the passage of the 
Budget Control Act, our military is facing unprecedented cuts which, I 
believe, could jeopardize our national defense--maintenance is being 
deferred; force structure is being reduced to levels we haven't seen 
since before World War II; training is being deferred as well. A BRAC 
would siphon precious defense dollars away from our military at a time 
when the ultimate end strength is uncertain.
  We should learn from past lessons. We are still paying for the last 
BRAC. In 2005, a BRAC was approved. It was supposed to cost $21 
billion, but in fact, it is actually costing taxpayers $35 billion. We 
are still paying off the last BRAC. Now is not the time to take the 
precious dollars that need to be going to our men and women in uniform 
and spend them on a BRAC, especially when we have not determined the 
ultimate force end strength at this point.
  What are we not going to spend money on for our defense if we okay a

[[Page H5542]]

BRAC? Are our men and women in uniform not going to get the equipment 
they need? Are we going to cease even more training? Are we going to 
just mothball further platforms? Are we going to cut the benefits to 
our military families?
  We need every dollar in defense right now to go to protect our 
national defense, not to reduce our future options that we may need. 
With all of the threats facing our country--and as we watch TV now, we 
see all of the threats that are in the world--we need to make sure we 
have a strong national defense and that we not further weaken it and 
not weaken our options. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, in closing, we are at a decisive point.
  As you know, right now, we are bringing equipment back from 
Afghanistan. We are resetting our force, and we are training them for 
the next missions that they are about to face. Those efforts take 
resources, and we cannot forget that we have to devote those resources 
on the list of priorities. Making sure that our men and women are 
properly trained and that the equipment they have is properly operating 
and maintained is critical to this Nation's readiness. That should be 
job one. That is not to say we shouldn't look at saving money elsewhere 
through infrastructure, but we must restore lost readiness now. That is 
where those funds need to go. We certainly can look at infrastructure 
later, but now is the time to make sure we maintain readiness.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wittman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee

  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used in contravention of Article II, section 2 of the 
     Constitution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentlewoman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman of the subcommittee and, 
as well, the ranking member for the courtesy of your staffs and for the 
work that this committee is doing on behalf of our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the ranking member of Homeland 
Security's Border and Maritime Security Subcommittee, working on human 
trafficking and smuggling, as I come from a city that has been called 
the epicenter of human trafficking--Houston, Texas. So I thank both the 
chairman and the ranking member for this opportunity to put forward 
this simple and straightforward amendment that affirms the example of 
the national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on 
Earth.
  The amendment says that none of the funds made available by this act 
may be used in contravention of article II, section 2 of the 
Constitution.
  I am joined on this amendment by Congressman Steve Stockman, 
Congresswoman Lois Frankel, Congresswoman Frederica Wilson, and 
Congressman John Conyers.
  Mr. Chairman, recently, I was proud to support House Resolutions 573 
and 617, strongly condemning the ongoing violence and systematic gross 
human rights violations against the people of Nigeria that have been 
carried out by the militant organization Boko Haram, especially the 
April 15, 2014, kidnapping of more than 200 young girls who were 
kidnapped from the Chibok school by Boko Haram.

                              {time}  2115

  This is what the people of northeast Nigeria are facing every single 
day. Since 2013, more than 4,500 men, women, and children have been 
slaughtered by Boko Haram.
  In addition, it took the United States 25 months after the first two 
Americans were attacked, and 1 year after the third and fourth 
Americans were targeted, before Boko Haram was designated a foreign 
terrorist organization.
  It took the United Kingdom 16 months from the time its first citizen 
was killed by Boko Haram to legally brand them as terrorists.
  It took the United Nations 33 months after the United Nations 
headquarters in Nigeria was bombed before Boko Haram was sanctioned as 
an al Qaeda-linked terror group.
  On June 2, 2014, the European Union finally designated Boko Haram as 
a terror group.
  NGOs have indicated that, in April, the average deaths were hundreds 
a week by Boko Haram, and later it was an average of 100 deaths a day.
  So they couldn't do enough killing, killing of Christians and Muslims 
and journalists and health care providers and relief workers and 
schoolchildren. They had to kidnap 200 children, 200 girls.
  The international community, working with the African Union, is 
assisting the government of Nigeria in locating and rescuing the 
missing girls, bringing an end to Boko Haram's reign of terror, and 
ensuring that they are brought to justice because of their crimes 
against humanity.
  On May 21, 2014, the President notified the Congress that, pursuant 
to the authority vested in him by article 2, section 2, as the 
Commander in Chief, and to conduct foreign relations, that he had 
directed deployment of approximately 80 U.S. Armed Forces personnel to 
Chad as part of the U.S. efforts to locate and support the safe return 
of our 200 girls reported to have been kidnapped in Nigeria.
  The President informed the Congress that these personnel would 
support the operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area. 
The force will remain in Chad until its support in resolving the 
kidnapping situation is no longer needed.
  My simple amendment indicates that nothing in this bill will 
contravene the President's authority while these girls are missing.
  Mr. Chairman, four Members of Congress, over June 12 to June 16, went 
to Nigeria. We were in northeast Nigeria. We were in the Borno State, 
in Abuja. We visited with the victims, the girls who escaped from the 
Chibok school. They drove 2 days to meet with us to tell us of the 
outrageous violence, and how they were laid on the ground, and the Boko 
Haram, pointing AK-47s at their heads, said: Answer my questions or 
die.
  Then we met a woman whose throat was sliced, and her husband, a 
police officer, was decapitated.
  The enforcement, the military, and the police officers of Nigeria 
need our help.
  No, this is not an encouragement or a suggestion at all for boots on 
the ground. It is a simple collaboration that will stop the siege of 
Boko Haram that is spreading across Africa and the surrounding area. It 
is almost like the unknowing understanding of the Taliban by many in 
America before 9/11.
  Boko Haram is a disaster waiting to happen for the continent. In a 
state like Nigeria that is about to be 440 million people, that has a 7 
percent growth rate, and is one of the most prosperous nations in 
Africa, it has 60 percent poverty, it has 10 million children out of 
school. And Boko Haram is burning hospitals, schools, Christian 
churches, mosques, and killing pastors and emirs.
  So this amendment is to remind us, just as Hubert Humphrey said, 
``People are the great issue of the 20th century.'' Now they are the 
great issue of the 21st century.
  It is time to treat our boys and girls and women with respect.
  As I close, I ask my colleagues to support the amendment, to stop the 
headlines like this, as Boko Haram continues to rage across Nigeria. I 
ask support for the Jackson Lee amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their 
devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives 
to keep our nation safe.

[[Page H5543]]

  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the 
national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on 
earth:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec.__. None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
     used in contravention of Article II, section 2 of the 
     Constitution.

  Mr. Chair, it was a proud occasion when the House passed H. Res. 573 
and H.R. 617, resolutions strongly condemning the ongoing violence and 
the systematic gross human rights violations against the people of 
Nigeria carried out by the militant organization Boko Haram, especially 
the April 15, 2014 kidnapping of more than 200 young schoolgirls 
kidnapped from the Chibok School by Boko Haram.
  Since 2013, more than 4,400 men, women, and children have been 
slaughtered by Boko Haram.
  The victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care 
providers, relief workers. And schoolchildren.
  The international community, working with the African Union, is 
assisting the Government of Nigeria in locating and rescuing the 
missing girls, bringing an end to Boko Haram's reign of terror, and 
ensuring that its crimes against humanity are documented so its leaders 
can be held accountable.
  On May 21, 2014, the President notified the Congress that pursuant to 
the authority vested in him by Article II, Section 2, as Commander in 
Chief and to conduct foreign relations, that he had directed the 
deployment of ``approximately 80 U.S. Armed Forces personnel to Chad as 
part of the U.S. efforts to locate and support the safe return of over 
200 schoolgirls who are reported to have been kidnapped in Nigeria.''
  The President informed the Congress that ``these personnel will 
support the operation of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance 
aircraft for missions over northern Nigeria and the surrounding area. 
The force will remain in Chad until its support in resolving the 
kidnapping situation is no longer required.''
  The Jackson Lee Amendment simply makes clear that nothing in the bill 
contravenes the President's authority to take the actions just 
described which he has determined to be in furtherance of U.S. national 
security and foreign policy interests.
  Boko Haram's outrageous conduct will not be tolerated or overlooked 
for not only is it a violation of the girls' human rights, it is also 
contrary to United States policy which supports and promotes equal 
access to education and economic opportunity for women and girls.
  ``People are the great issue of the 20th century,'' declared, then-
Senator Hubert Humphrey in 1948.
  Mr. Chair, the well-being of people remains the great issue of the 
21st century.
  And there is no better measure of any society than the way its treats 
its women and girls and boys and families.
  Boko Haram understands that when Nigerian girls are educated, 
Nigerian women can succeed; and when Nigerian women succeed, Nigeria 
succeeds.
  And that is why it is so important that the United States help 
Nigeria ensure that Boko Haram fails.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to transfer weapons to the Palestinian Authority.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Iowa and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, simply, this amendment says, as the 
gentlelady read, ``None of the funds made available by this Act may be 
used to transfer weapons to the Palestinian Authority.''
  I would like to express why I brought this amendment. I take you 
back, Mr. Chairman, to April 23, 2014, when Fatah and Hamas unified 
within the Palestinian Authority in the Palestinian organization. That 
unification brought about a terrorist-designated organization, a 
foreign terrorist organization, joined together with Fatah. This is 
April 23.
  On June 6 of 2014, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said: ``We 
will work with and fund the new Palestinian Authority government.''
  So what that means is, they have decided, for the first time, that 
our taxpayers' borrowed money is going to be committed to a terrorist 
organization.
  1997 was when Hamas was designated as a foreign terrorist 
organization. Since 1997, Hamas has launched tens of thousands of 
rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel.
  Khaled Mashal of Hamas said the reconciliation of the two 
organizations, Fatah and Hamas, will consolidate the resistance. Not 
bring about peace, but consolidate the resistance.
  We can't afford and cannot fund a power-sharing Palestinian 
government that includes Hamas because they are a foreign trade 
organization.
  I would bring to the attention of the floor, Mr. Chairman, the 
Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which bans funding to a 
government that includes Hamas until they meet three different 
conditions.
  One is that they recognize Israel.
  Two is that they renounce violence.
  And three is that they accept previous Israeli-Palestinian 
agreements.
  They have done none of those three things and, therefore, can't 
qualify for this funding. So we cannot fund a power-sharing Palestinian 
government that includes Hamas because they are a foreign trade 
organization, because they do not recognize the Jewish state, they do 
not recognize their right to exist.
  But prior to June 2, 2014, the U.S. has never recognized a government 
that includes Hamas, and so that is why I bring this amendment.
  And I would point out that the administration has been isolating 
Israel in a number of ways. Secretary Kerry, in April of this year, 
compared Israel to an apartheid state. I have been there a number of 
times and I have not seen that. I don't recognize that, and I don't 
think it is true. I think Israel would reject that, and I would 
encourage them to do so.
  But in May of 2011, President Obama said that Israel should return to 
its 1967 borders. That would be indefensible for Israel to do that.
  So we need to stick with the existing statute, the 2006 Palestinian 
Anti-Terrorism Act. And this amendment cuts off funding to that 
military supply and support.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of my amendment, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk, Grayson 
Amendment 5.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to detain, without conviction, any person for more 
     than 15 years at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, 
     Cuba.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Florida and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment at the desk is simple. It 
reads as you just read it.
  As you know, Guantanamo was opened for business, so to speak, in 
January of 2002. It is now June of 2014.
  My amendment seems to give some kind of clue as to how long we, a 
free people who respect freedom, are willing to incarcerate and 
imprison people who have been accused of no crime, have faced no judge, 
no jury, and have never been subject to the American system of justice.
  My amendment has no immediate effect during this fiscal year. As it 
says, it is limited to persons who have served for 15 years or more at 
Guantanamo Bay. The facility itself is only 12 years old.
  What this amendment does do is ensure that no funds will be made 
available by this bill that are carried over to future fiscal years and 
are then used to imprison anyone for 15 years or longer if they haven't 
been accused, much less convicted of any crime.
  I would hope that we, as a free people, would understand that 
principle and agree that this is reasonable.

[[Page H5544]]

  Nobody, nobody, foreign or American, should be subject to 
imprisonment for more than 15 years without ever even facing his 
accusers, much less being convicted of a crime. That is particularly 
true under the auspices of the U.S. Government because we are a people 
of laws, not a people of people.
  This amendment is silent as to whether detainees could be convicted 
under an article III court, a military tribunal, a commission, or some 
other form of court with the authority to render any judgment.
  It simply says that a person must be convicted of a crime or must be 
released from Guantanamo if they have served 15 years, 15 years, Mr. 
Chairman, of detention.
  We have speedy trial rules in this country that guarantee the right 
to face your accusers within 6 months. These prisoners, both the 
innocent ones and the guilty ones, have been incarcerated without 
hearing any charges against them now for more than a decade.
  I would urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and 
recognize the dignity of all human beings, whether or not they have the 
privilege to be American citizens.
  In the year 1209, in a French city called Beziers, a monk oversaw the 
Albigensian crusade. The crusaders were brought into that city to deal 
with the heretics, the Albigensians, who lived in that French town. 
Arnaud Amelric, a monk, was asked: What should we do with these people, 
these Christians who are like us who don't believe exactly what we 
believe?
  He said: Kill them all and let God sort it out.
  That has stood for many years as a signal that we must expect more 
from civilized people than that. We are holding these people in that 
prison, all of them, the innocent and the guilty apparently, under 
current rules, forever and ever and ever.
  What is worse, killing them all and letting God sort it out, or 
holding them forever and not letting them ever meet their God but 
remain in prison for their entire lives?
  I submit to you that we Americans are better than this. There has to 
be some kind of limitation.
  This amendment will not force the release of anyone imminently, but 
will be a signal to all mankind that we, the American people, we retain 
our dignity and our humanity.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Our Nation has invested millions of dollars in building state-of-the-
art, humane, safe, and I may say, air-conditioned facilities to detain 
and prosecute the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo.
  In order to close that facility, we need to know what the President 
intends to do with those terrorist detainees who are too dangerous to 
release but could not be tried.
  They had an opportunity to prosecute. What has been going on for the 
last 6 or 7 years?
  How will he ensure that the terrorists transferred overseas don't 
return to the fight?
  No way, apparently, he can reassure us of that because plenty have, 
and they have killed a lot of our soldiers in the process.
  And what will he do with terrorists we capture in the future, like 
the one we captured the other day in Libya?
  Well, we know what he does. He brings them back to this country, and 
they are prosecuted as common criminals, not as enemy combatants.
  He hasn't answered those questions, so our committee is just as 
adamant as the authorizing committee in opposition to this amendment. I 
strongly oppose this amendment, and urge my colleagues to do so.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2130

  Mr. GRAYSON. I would respectfully submit that, on the gentleman's 
logic, there is no longer any distinction between the innocent and the 
guilty.
  Those who are at Guantanamo Bay undoubtedly contain both innocent and 
guilty, but those categories, under the gentleman's logic, do not even 
apply to them any longer. They are simply captives forever and ever, 
going untried until they themselves decide to end their life, and we 
permit it. That is a fundamentally undignified view of the human 
conditions.
  Whatever these people may be, American or not American, they are not 
just innocent until proven guilty, but on the gentleman's logic, they 
are not just guilty until proven innocent. They are guilty, guilty, 
guilty--no matter what.
  That is something that is fundamentally unfair to them and to us and 
has cast an aspersion and a blotch on the American reputation 
throughout the world. That is why I call on this to end.
  I am not saying that these people need to be released. I am saying 
that they need to be tried. Let's get to the bottom of it and determine 
if they are guilty or innocent. For God's sake, let's stop punishing 
the innocent.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Let's remember the innocent people who were killed 
on September 11, 2001. How about justice for them?
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Well, of course, nothing that we do here today is likely 
to bring any of those victims back; but as President Lincoln once said, 
It is for we, the living--we, the living, that carry forth the 
principles of justice.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Grayson).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    amendment offered by mr. massie

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), none of 
     the funds made available by this Act may be used by an 
     officer or employee of the United States to query a 
     collection of foreign intelligence information acquired under 
     section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 
     1978 (50 U.S.C. 1881a) using a United States person 
     identifier.
       (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to queries for foreign 
     intelligence information authorized under section 105, 304, 
     703, 704, or 705 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 
     of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1805; 1842; 1881b; 1881c; 1881d), or title 
     18, United States Code, regardless of under what Foreign 
     Intelligence Surveillance Act authority it was collected.
       (c) Except as provided for in subsection (d), none of the 
     funds made available by this Act may be used by the National 
     Security Agency or the Central Intelligence Agency to mandate 
     or request that a person (as defined in section 1801(m) of 
     title 50, United States Code) alter its product or service to 
     permit the electronic surveillance (as defined in section 
     1801(f) of title 50, United States Code) of any user of said 
     product or service for said agencies.
       (d) Subsection (c) shall not apply with respect to mandates 
     or requests authorized under the Communications Assistance 
     for Law Enforcement Act (47 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Kentucky and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the American people are sick of being spied 
on. Our Founding Fathers wrote an important provision into the Bill of 
Rights--the Fourth Amendment--and that requires probable cause and a 
warrant before the government and government agents can snoop on any 
American.
  During the debate on the USA FREEDOM Act, we knew that more work was 
needed to ensure Americans' privacy rights are protected. That is why 
our bipartisan group has joined together to shut surveillance backdoors 
that do not meet the expectations of our constituents or the standards 
required by the Constitution.
  At this time, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague from California 
(Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to know that the 
Director of National Intelligence has confirmed publicly that the 
government searches vast amounts of data, including the content of 
emails and telephone calls, without individualized suspicion or 
probable cause when it comes to U.S. persons.

[[Page H5545]]

  Last week, the director of the FBI testified under oath, before the 
Judiciary Committee, that this information is used for prosecution and 
without a warrant.
  This amendment is simple. It allows us to get the bad guys, but it 
also says use probable cause and the Fourth Amendment. It also closes a 
backdoor to technology holes.
  The broad support for this, I think, shows why it is important for 
Mr. Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin; myself; Mr. Conyers of Michigan; Mr. 
Poe of Texas; Ms. Gabbard; Mr. Jordan of Ohio; Mr. O'Rourke; Mr. Amash; 
of course, Mr. Massie; Mr. Holt; Mr. Nadler; Mr. Petri; Ms. DelBene; 
Mr. Farenthold; Mr. Sanford; and Mr. Butterfield--this spans all over 
this House of Representatives, from right to left, with Members saying: 
yes, we need to protect our country, but we also need to honor our 
Constitution and especially the Fourth Amendment.
  We started this Congress by reading the Constitution of the United 
States aloud in this Chamber. Let's finish this bill by making sure 
that we honor that Constitution by adopting this amendment.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I will submit for the Record the letter from 
the Director of National Intelligence that my colleague from California 
referred to.

                            Director of National Intelligence,

                                    Washington, DC, Mar. 28, 2014.
     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wyden: During the January 29, 2014, Worldwide 
     Threat hearing, you cited declassified court documents from 
     2011 indicating that NSA sought and obtained the authority to 
     query information collected under Section 702 of the Foreign 
     Intelligence and Surveillance Act (FISA), using U.S. person 
     identifiers, and asked whether any such queries had been 
     conducted for the communications of specific Americans.
       As reflected in the August 2013 Semiannual Assessment of 
     Compliance with Procedures and Guidelines Issued Pursuant to 
     Section 702, which we declassified and released on August 21. 
     2013, there have been queries, using U.S. person identifiers, 
     of communications lawfully acquired to obtain foreign 
     intelligence by targeting non U.S. persons reasonably 
     believed to be located outside the U.S. pursuant to Section 
     702 of FISA. These queries were performed pursuant to 
     minimization procedures approved by the FISA Court as 
     consistent with the statute and the Fourth Amendment. As you 
     know, when Congress reauthorized Section 702, the proposal to 
     restrict such queries was specifically raised and ultimately 
     not adopted.
       For further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact 
     Deirdre M. Walsh in the Office of Legislative Affairs, at 
     (703) 275-2474.
           Sincerely,
                                                 James R. Clapper.
  Mr. MASSIE. At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose the gentleman's 
amendment. This is our Appropriations bill. There is nothing in this 
amendment about funding. You won't see one dollar sign or numeral. The 
goal was to change policy--that is why they are here--and the 
application of the law without the oversight of the authorizing 
committees. The authorizers ought to be dealing with this issue.
  It is my pleasure to yield such time as he may wish to consume to the 
distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of 
the Judiciary, to respond to this amendment.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, last month, the House passed H.R. 3361, 
the USA FREEDOM Act, with overwhelming bipartisan support. This 
amendment undoes the carefully crafted reforms that this body passed, 
with overwhelming support.
  A similar amendment regarding section 702 was offered and rejected by 
the House Judiciary Committee during its markup of H.R. 3361.
  The bipartisan legislation passed by the House last month was closely 
negotiated on a bipartisan basis with the House Intelligence Committee, 
House leadership, and the intelligence community--to create a product 
that provides real, meaningful reforms to intelligence-gathering 
programs, while ensuring that the operational capabilities of the 
intelligence community are protected.
  H.R. 3361 explicitly codifies existing minimization procedures for 
section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act that requires the intelligence 
community to minimize the collection and prohibit the retention and 
dissemination of wholly domestic communications.
  H.R. 3361 also prohibits the government from using communications to 
or from a United States person or a person who appears to be located in 
the United States, except where the communication relates to a target 
under section 702 or to protect against an immediate threat to human 
life.
  The intelligence community is strictly prohibited from using section 
702 of the FISA Amendments Acts to target a U.S. person. If a U.S. 
person is the target of intelligence gathering under FISA, this must, 
at all times, be carried out pursuant to an individualized court order 
based upon probable cause.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), the ranking member of the 
Intelligence Committee.
  Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against 
this amendment.
  The USA FREEDOM Act that reformed the Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act was the product of nearly a year of carefully 
considered negotiation and debate. It passed the House last month with 
an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 303 votes, but now, we have an 
amendment to an appropriations bill that makes major legislative 
changes to FISA with only 10 minutes of debate, and it makes our 
country less safe.
  It would prohibit the urgent search of lawfully-collected information 
to thwart a bomb plot against a synagogue in Los Angeles, a church in 
Maryland, or the New York Stock Exchange.
  It has no emergency exceptions, and it basically says that what you 
can do to stop a criminal in this country, you can't do to stop a 
terrorist. That is wrong. We cannot allow this to happen.
  We will continue to work on FISA and our other national security laws 
to maximize privacy and civil liberties, especially for U.S. persons, 
but we must do so carefully and deliberately. We must make sure to also 
keep our country and our allies safe from terrorist attacks.
  Ultimately, while I applaud these Members for continuing to look for 
ways to reform our intelligence laws, we shouldn't be doing this on an 
appropriations bill with only 10 minutes of debate.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee is 
correct. This was in the original FREEDOM Act, and it was stripped out 
in his committee. That is why many of the Members who originally 
sponsored the FREEDOM Act did not, in fact, vote for the final version, 
and I would argue that it was not legislated.
  The final version of the FREEDOM Act was done behind closed doors, 
and when it came to this floor, we would have loved to have offered 
amendments, but the rules were written such that we could not amend it.
  Legislators from 435 districts had no say in the final bill, and that 
is why we are here tonight with this amendment, to reinsert this 
provision which over 150 Members of this body sponsored.
  At this point, I would like to yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard).
  Ms. GABBARD. Mr. Chairman, our number one priority is keeping the 
American people safe. We do that by focusing our resources on those who 
actually pose a threat to our safety, while upholding the freedoms and 
civil liberties of the American people, not by continuing this dragnet 
spying on millions of Americans.
  There is no evidence to date that these programs have made our 
country more secure. Not a single taxpayer dollar should be used to 
fund a program that spies on innocent Americans, violating the 
principles of liberty and freedom that so many have fought and given 
their lives for.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the NSA has shown they will always 
interpret the law to the extent that allows them to seize the 
information. That is why the law has to be much more clear to the NSA. 
We all must remember that the NSA was violating the PATRIOT Act, as 
written.

[[Page H5546]]

  This amendment does something that is very concrete. It tells the 
NSA: Get a warrant. Get a warrant through the front door. You get a 
warrant through the backdoor. You can't spy on Americans unless you get 
a warrant. That is what this amendment does, and I support this 
amendment.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, my friend from Texas is correct. The 
American people can be kept safe, and we can follow the Constitution. 
We don't have to disregard it, and that is what this amendment would 
allow us to do, to keep the American people safe while protecting their 
civil liberties.
  There are two provisions here, and they both close backdoors. One 
backdoor currently allows, without probable cause or a warrant, for the 
NSA to query a database of American persons' information. This is 
wrong. They should have a warrant.
  The other part of this amendment would prevent money from being spent 
to fund companies to put backdoors into products. When the government 
causes these companies to intentionally make defects in their products, 
they make Americans less safe. They make Americans' data less safe, and 
they compromise the quality of American goods overseas.
  Ultimately, this is about the Constitution, and if you believe in the 
Constitution, if you believe that it is still valid, if you think we 
can honor the Fourth Amendment and that we can still keep people safe, 
then I urge you to vote for this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the bill passed by this House honors the 
Fourth Amendment and protects the rights of American citizens. At the 
same time, Islamic radical terrorists are on the march in Iraq, and the 
leader has publicly threatened to attack America, Syria has become a 
vortex of jihadists from across the globe, and the Director of National 
Intelligence and the Secretary of Homeland Security have warned of the 
growing threat these jihadists pose to our own homeland. State control 
has collapsed in Libya, and rival gangs of radical terrorists have 
established safe havens that rival those in Afghanistan prior to 2001.
  Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban, Haqqani Network, and al Qaeda 
continue to fight. Moreover, the administration has released the 
Taliban Five from Guantanamo, emboldening the terrorists. The terrorist 
danger is grave and growing. The terrorist threat is not contained 
overseas. The U.S. homeland remains a prime aspiration and target.
  This amendment would create a blind spot for the intelligence 
community tracking terrorists with direct connections to the U.S. 
homeland. This amendment would impose greater restrictions on the 
intelligence community's ability to protect national security than 
constitutionally required and create an impediment to the government's 
ability to locate threat information already in its possession. Such an 
impediment would put American lives at risk of another terrorist attack
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment and stand by the 
legislation passed. It is also being considered in the Senate and there 
will be further negotiations, but this--this--contradicts the intent of 
the House and endangers America's national security.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chair, this amendment answers questions millions of 
Americans have asked: Will we stop the government's unconstitutional 
searches of Americans' stored communications? Will we prohibit the 
government from deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet 
and America's technology products?
  This amendment would do both while still giving the government all 
the authority it needs to collect foreign intelligence on real threats. 
It is a first step towards reversing the current government paradigm of 
treating our people as suspects first, and citizens second. I urge my 
colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan amendment.
  It has been over a year now since the nation learned of the scope of 
the National Security Agency's vast surveillance programs targeting 
global communications, and thus the communications of every American. 
These programs have been executed in the absence of true, probing 
Congressional oversight, and they have been repeatedly rubber-stamped 
by a secret court that has too often acted as an enabler of this 
domestic spying rather than a check on it.
  Earlier this spring, the House passed a bill--the USA Freedom Act--
that if enacted into law would have the effect of essentially 
enshrining these unconstitutional programs into law. While I hope the 
Senate will either reject or substantially improve that legislation, 
there is no guarantee that the USA Freedom Act or any other stand-alone 
NSA reform legislation will pass the Congress this year. That is why I 
and over a dozen of my colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, have brought 
this amendment to the House floor tonight. I should also note that this 
amendment is supported by dozens of groups from across the political 
spectrum, as well as some of America's leading technology companies, 
including Google.
  This amendment answers questions millions of Americans have asked: 
will we stop the government's unconstitutional searches of Americans' 
stored communications? Will we prohibit the government from 
deliberately sabotaging the security of the internet and America's 
technology products? This amendment would do both while still giving 
the government all the authority it needs to collect foreign 
intelligence on real threats.
  The first part of this amendment would prohibit the government from 
conducting warrantless searches of the communications of Americans 
collected under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act. One of the predictions I and others made in 2008 when this 
provision became law was that it would be misused for the ``reverse 
targeting'' of Americans' communications while collecting against 
foreigners. As we now know, that is exactly what happened, and those 
communications--billions of phone calls, emails, text messages and the 
like--now sit on National Security Agency servers, available for search 
without a warrant. This amendment would bar the NSA from using any 
funds in this act to conduct any search of stored communications of 
Americans collected under Sec. 702 of FISA, thus protecting the privacy 
and Constitutional rights of all Americans.
  The second part of this amendment would prohibit the government from 
forcing American technology companies to build in ``back doors'' to 
their products that would compromise the encryption and privacy 
safeguards built into them. Early this year, published reports revealed 
that RSA, which provides the SecurelD remote login devices used by 
House Members and staff, had, at NSA's insistence, built in such ``back 
doors'' to some of its other products that compromised the privacy and 
encryption features of the devices in question. This amendment would 
prohibit that practice, thus helping to restore public confidence in 
the security and integrity of American produced high technology 
products.
  This amendment is a first step towards reversing the current 
government paradign of treating our people as suspects first, and 
citizens second. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this bipartisan 
amendment.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner of 
Wisconsin, Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, and the other sponsors of 
this amendment for their continued leadership on the effort to roll 
back dragnet surveillance of United States citizens.
  Last month, a broad, bipartisan majority passed H.R. 3361, the USA 
FREEDOM Act. That bill rightly ends domestic bulk collection.
  But, as I said then, ending bulk collection is only part of the work 
that must be done to fully reform government surveillance.
  This amendment closes the ``backdoor surveillance'' loophole--through 
which the government queries U.S. person information without a warrant.
  This amendment also prohibits the government from mandating the 
creation of vulnerabilities in commercial products and services for 
later exploitation.
  Together, these changes end two demonstrated threats to our privacy 
and civil liberties--without any measurable loss to our national 
security.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chair, I am proud to be a leading co-sponsor of the 
Sensenbrenner/Lofgren/Massie amendment and I urge my colleagues to 
support it.
  The NSA must stop conducting illegal `backdoor searches' into the 
communications of U.S. citizens. Congress must adopt the Sensenbrenner/
Lofgren/Massie amendment and make sure that this loophole is closed in 
the law. For too long, the NSA has misused authority granted under 
section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act, which was meant only to 
authorize spying on foreigners. However, the NSA has misused this 
authority to search emails, pictures, videos, and other internet

[[Page H5547]]

traffic of innocent Americans. This practice is clearly 
unconstitutional and violates the Fourth Amendment, which protects 
against unreasonable search and seizure, and normally requires a court-
issued warrant. Clearly, this is not how Congress intended the law to 
be applied.
  After the passage of the USA Freedom Act, this amendment is the 
logical next step to prevent improper surveillance. I will continue to 
work to improve our nation's privacy laws and to ensure that this 
Administration, and all those that follow it, respect the 
constitutional rights of all Americans.
  As I said at the time, the USA Freedom Act certainly did not give us 
everything we wanted or needed. It was far from perfect, but it was an 
important step forward. We must not leave in place a framework that 
leads to the dragnet surveillance of our citizens.
  During the last several months, I have worked with my colleagues on 
the House Judiciary Committee to pass the USA Freedom Act. While that 
bill contains some significant reforms, such as ending NSA's bulk 
collection of metadata from Americans, more reforms are still needed. 
And this amendment is an important step in the right direction.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair, I rise today to support this amendment 
to the Fiscal Year 2015 Department of Defense Appropriations Act. I 
would like to thank Representatives Lofgren and Massie for their work 
on this issue.
  To my colleagues who supported the USA FREEDOM Act, this amendment 
further defends the constitutional rights we voted to protect. To 
cosponsors who didn't believe the FREEDOM Act went far enough, this 
amendment reclaims an important protection stripped from the original 
bill.
  I believe the amended USA FREEDOM Act is an important step toward 
striking the proper balance between privacy and security, and I look 
forward to seeing it signed into law. But as I said at the time of that 
vote, the FREEDOM Act was a first step--not a final step--in our 
efforts for reform.
  The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act prohibits the government 
from targeting U.S. communications. The Administration believes, 
however, that as long as it incidentally or inadvertently collects 
Americans' communications, it can read our emails and listen to our 
phone calls without any judicial process at all.
  The Administration has admitted it violates our rights in this way, 
but it refuses to say how often or to what extent.
  The Obama Administration knows that FISA does not authorize 
collection of wholly domestic communications. It also knows that the 
content of our communications are, by and large, protected by the 
Fourth Amendment. But the Administration nevertheless believes that as 
long as those communications are inadvertently collected, it has the 
right to disregard the law and the Constitution.
  This amendment says that the Fourth Amendment means what it says and 
there should be no shortcuts around it. For those who believe the sky 
will fall and U.S. security will be undermined, it has only been since 
2011 that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opened the 
backdoor and allowed these illegal searches. This amendment closes that 
door.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


               Amendment Offered by Mr. Barrow of Georgia

  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) disestablish, or prepare to disestablish, a Senior 
     Reserve Officers' Training Corps program in accordance with 
     Department of Defense Instruction Number 1215.08, dated June 
     26, 2006; or
       (2) close, downgrade from host to extension center, or 
     place on probation a Senior Reserve Officers' Training Corps 
     program in accordance with the information paper of the 
     Department of the Army titled ``Army Senior Reserve Officers' 
     Training Corps (SROTC) Program Review and Criteria'', dated 
     January 27, 2014.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Georgia and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first, I want to thank the chairman and the ranking 
member for their work on what is undoubtedly the most important bill we 
pass on an annual basis.
  I rise in support of the bipartisan Barrow-Benishek amendment to H.R. 
4870, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2015. This is a straightforward amendment that provides the certainty 
that our Army Reserve Officers' Training Corps needs to select, 
educate, train, and commission college students to be officers and 
leaders of character.
  In the coming days, the Army is expected to initiate the closure of 
some ROTC programs. On that list could be any of the 275 ROTC host 
programs located in every State in the Union. Unfortunately, for 
thousands of cadets in these programs, the Army's timeline for closure 
is too short. According to the plans, the Army would close ROTC 
programs as early as next June. That is simply not fair for the 
students in these programs or their host universities.
  This amendment would simply delay closure of these ROTC programs by 1 
year. We would be doing everything we can to make sure that our ROTC 
programs and our cadets succeed. They are the next generation of Army 
leadership, and 1 year of delay would give all of us the certainty that 
we need to do so.
  At this time, I would like to yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Benishek), my partner in this measure.
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment I co-
introduced with my friend, Mr. Barrow, to prevent the closure of 
Reserve Officers' Training Corps programs across this country.
  ROTC programs not only benefit the Army, they strengthen communities 
and provide opportunities to promising young students. However, in 
October of this past year, the Army released a list of 13 ROTC programs 
slated for closure following the 2014-2015 school year.
  Following advocacy from Members, including Chairman Rogers, we were 
able instead to get the Army to institute a new evaluation system for 
ROTC programs. This amendment simply holds the Army to their promise of 
giving these programs enough time to institute changes.
  One of these valuable programs is located at Northern Michigan 
University. Over the 45-year history of the program, Northern Michigan 
has seen 400 students graduate and go on to military service.
  A closure of the NMU ROTC program next school year would prove 
especially unfair to the cadets currently in the program. These young 
men and women have worked hard in order to be accepted and maintain 
their spot. Let's give them a chance to succeed and serve the country 
they love. Support this amendment. Please vote for it.
  Mr. BARROW of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, for all the reasons given, I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the bipartisan Barrow-Benishek amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway

  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title) insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available in this Act may be used to enter into a contract 
     for the planning, design, refurbishing, or construction of a 
     biofuels refinery any other facility or infrastructure used 
     to refine biofuels unless such planning, design, 
     refurbishing, or construction is specifically authorized by 
     law.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 628, the gentleman 
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. This is a pretty straightforward amendment, Mr. 
Chairman, that would simply require

[[Page H5548]]

that any effort under the Defense Production Act to build a hundreds-
of-millions-of-dollars refinery for biofuels could not happen until it 
was authorized by this body.
  It is not allowed to stop this from happening. It simply means that 
the Department of Defense and the Department of Agriculture, who both 
are funding this misguided attempt, in my opinion, couldn't do that 
until they bring a business case to this body for consideration.
  I would think my colleagues on the Appropriations Defense 
Subcommittee as well as the MilCon Subcommittee would be offended by 
this backdoor approach to spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a 
project of dubious value.
  The Defense Production Act is a World War II, post-World War II 
vintage program supervised by the Financial Services Committee--not the 
Defense, not the Armed Services Committee or the Subcommittees on 
Appropriation--but the Financial Services Committee.
  There is currently a refinery that is being proposed to be joint-
funded by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Defense 
to build a biofuels refinery. Neither of these agencies' core 
competencies is in this arena. They each have their own core 
competencies, and it has absolutely nothing to do with biofuels.
  I would argue that the Department of Energy--if anybody--should be 
the one who authorizes this work, but they have got a dubious 
distinction, as well, with decisions such as Solyndra and others of 
making really poor decisions.
  The other side will argue that this somehow protects the Department 
of Defense from price shocks on oil and gas that they have simply 
purchased. They have never brought us that business case. We have no 
clue what the break-even point on biofuels is against some equivalent 
cost for fossil-based fuels. Currently, they are spending somewhere 
between $16 and $27 a gallon for algae-based jet fuel versus the $3 to 
$4 a gallon commercially available.
  These folks who are proponents of biofuels are not proponents of 
better alternative resources like coal to liquids. So I would urge my 
colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the amendment to require an authorization 
for the spending of some $300-plus million on a refinery that is, in my 
view, of dubious distinction.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I would not take offense--I should--but I 
won't take offense that the gentleman suggests that somehow this 
amendment has anything to do whatsoever with respect to oil and gas 
that we produce in Texas. When you don't like the merits of your own 
argument, you go ahead and attack the folks on the other side, and I 
understand that technique.
  The truth of the matter is the Department of Defense can, in fact, 
make judgments for themselves once a product is available to them at 
commercial products. This just prevents them from going ahead and 
trying to build something, build up a market and build a fuel that no 
one else wants. It is only available here in the United States. It 
would not be available anywhere else in the world to fuel our 
airplanes, or our ships, or our tanks and other things.
  So, this is a misguided attempt driven by the White House on this 
green initiative that is spending millions and millions of dollars of 
taxpayer money, and it is a waste every time they do that.
  I would argue that the better argument is to say ``no'' to this, 
allow the Department of Defense to spend their dollars, as has been 
said previously, on guns, tanks, ships, and salaries for our soldiers. 
This is a wrong-headed tip. It ought to be authorized by the HASC and 
by the Senate equivalent, and these two subcommittees on Appropriations 
ought to be offended by this backdoor approach at spending hundreds of 
millions of dollars on a program that has no oversight.
  Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. 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.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. CONAWAY. I did misunderstand you. I thought you were saying I was 
disqualified from offering an amendment like this because I simply 
represent west Texas, which is the leading oil and gas producer in our 
country. So if I misunderstood you, I will accept that.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were 
postponed, in the following order:
  An amendment by Mrs. Miller of Michigan.
  Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Cotton of Arkansas.
  An amendment by Mr. Moran of Virginia.
  Amendment No. 31 by Ms. Lee of California.
  Amendment No. 33 by Ms. Lee of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Massie of Kentucky.
  An amendment by Mr. Fortenberry of Nebraska.
  An amendment by Mr. Grayson of Florida.
  Amendment No. 34 by Ms. Lee of California.
  An amendment by Mr. Ellison of Minnesota.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


              Amendment Offered by Mrs. Miller of Michigan

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Michigan 
(Mrs. Miller) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.

[[Page H5549]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 300, 
noes 114, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 322]

                               AYES--300

     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Camp
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Conyers
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DeSantis
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Tonko
     Turner
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--114

     Aderholt
     Bachus
     Bass
     Becerra
     Blumenauer
     Brooks (IN)
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chu
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Culberson
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Doggett
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Griffith (VA)
     Hanna
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kline
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Lee (CA)
     Lofgren
     Long
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Marchant
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Meng
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Paulsen
     Quigley
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rokita
     Royce
     Sanford
     Schwartz
     Sensenbrenner
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (WA)
     Takano
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Walorski
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bishop (GA)
     Capuano
     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  1227

  Messrs. WALDEN, ISSA, ADERHOLT, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, 
Mrs. NAPOLITANO, and Ms. CLARKE of New York changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. PITTS, CARSON, JOHNSON of Ohio, CHAFFETZ, and RODNEY DAVIS of 
Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cotton

  The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Foxx). The unfinished business is the demand 
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Cotton) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 184, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 323]

                               AYES--230

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--184

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn

[[Page H5550]]


     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Bishop (GA)
     Capuano
     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2231

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Moran

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Moran) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 163, 
noes 249, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 324]

                               AYES--163

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Roybal-Allard
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--249

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Bishop (GA)
     Capuano
     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meng
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2235

  Mr. BARBER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 31 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 165, 
noes 250, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 325]

                               AYES--165

     Amash
     Barber
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bera (CA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici

[[Page H5551]]


     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bishop (GA)
     Capuano
     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2239

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 33 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 182, 
noes 231, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 326]

                               AYES--182

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Capps
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Roybal-Allard
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                               NOES--231

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry

[[Page H5552]]


     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schock
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--18

     Bishop (GA)
     Capuano
     Fudge
     Gohmert
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Stivers
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2243

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Massie

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
(Mr. Massie) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 293, 
noes 123, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 327]

                               AYES--293

     Amash
     Amodei
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (FL)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Campbell
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Collins (GA)
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Massie
     Matsui
     McAllister
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     O'Rourke
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Terry
     Tierney
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velaazquez
     Wagner
     Walorski
     Waters
     Waxman
     Weber (TX)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho

                               NOES--123

     Aderholt
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Beatty
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Carter
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Ellmers
     Forbes
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grimm
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Langevin
     Latham
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Marino
     Matheson
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McKeon
     Meehan
     Messer
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Pompeo
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Schiff
     Sewell (AL)
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (TX)
     Stivers
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Wasserman Schultz
     Webster (FL)
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

     Lipinski
       
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2247

  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                  Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Fortenberry) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167, 
noes 244, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 328]

                               AYES--167

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Bachmann
     Barletta
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bass
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Cassidy
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conyers
     Daines
     Davis, Danny
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Eshoo
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleming
     Fortenberry
     Garamendi
     Garrett
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Grijalva
     Guthrie
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Harris
     Heck (NV)
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Holt
     Honda
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Keating
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Massie
     Matheson

[[Page H5553]]


     McAllister
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     Meadows
     Meeks
     Messer
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neugebauer
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pingree (ME)
     Pitts
     Pocan
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Ruiz
     Salmon
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NJ)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Takano
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Turner
     Velaazquez
     Wagner
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Westmoreland
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--244

     Amodei
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barr
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bucshon
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cartwright
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Gutieerrez
     Hanna
     Harper
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McKeon
     McKinley
     Meehan
     Meng
     Mica
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Noem
     Nunes
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pompeo
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Roby
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Roskam
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Stewart
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Wenstrup
     Whitfield
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yarmuth
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Denham
     Fudge
     Graves (GA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Pascrell
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rokita
     Runyan
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Southerland
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz
  


                              {time}  2252

  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Grayson

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Grayson) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 62, 
noes 355, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 329]

                                AYES--62

     Amash
     Barrow (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Braley (IA)
     Bridenstine
     Broun (GA)
     Caardenas
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Chu
     Conyers
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Holt
     Honda
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kingston
     Labrador
     Lee (CA)
     Lewis
     Maffei
     Massie
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McClintock
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Miller, George
     Nadler
     Negrete McLeod
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Perlmutter
     Perry
     Petri
     Pocan
     Rohrabacher
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Stewart
     Stockman
     Takano
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Velaazquez
     Waters

                               NOES--355

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonamici
     Boustany
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castro (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farenthold
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hall
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Heck (WA)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holding
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Joyce
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     Latta
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Long
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lummis
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Marchant
     Marino
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McCollum
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Messer
     Mica
     Michaud
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Scalise
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waxman

[[Page H5554]]


     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (FL)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2256

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Ms. Lee of California

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 157, 
noes 260, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 330]

                               AYES--157

     Amash
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Benishek
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Broun (GA)
     Burgess
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Huelskamp
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kuster
     Labrador
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Petri
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rigell
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Saanchez, Linda T.
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stockman
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Veasey
     Velaazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho
     Young (AK)

                               NOES--260

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barrow (GA)
     Barton
     Bentivolio
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Rodney
     Delaney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Engel
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foster
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallego
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffin (AR)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Hudson
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Israel
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Matheson
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Titus
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Vela
     Visclosky
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Fudge
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2259

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota 
(Mr. Ellison) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212, 
noes 204, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 331]

                               AYES--212

     Barber
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Caardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Duncan (TN)
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     Gibson
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith (VA)
     Grijalva
     Grimm
     Gutieerrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hultgren
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kuster
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujaan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     Peters (MI)
  

Peterson

Pingree (ME)

Pocan

Price (NC)

Quigley

Rahall

Reichert

Renacci

Rohrabacher

[[Page H5555]]



Ros-Lehtinen

Roskam

Roybal-Allard

Ruiz

Runyan

Ruppersberger

Saanchez, Linda T.

Sanchez, Loretta

Sarbanes

Schakowsky

Schiff

Schneider

Schrader

Schwartz

Scott (VA)

Scott, David

Serrano

Sewell (AL)

Shea-Porter

Sherman

Sinema

Sires

Slaughter

Smith (WA)

Speier

Swalwell (CA)

Takano

Thompson (CA)

Tiberi

Tierney

Titus

Tonko

Tsongas

Van Hollen

Vargas

Veasey

Vela

Velaazquez

Visclosky

Wasserman Schultz

Waters

Waxman

Welch

Wilson (FL)

Yarmuth

Young (AK)


                               NOES--204

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Latta
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Reed
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--15

     Fudge
     Johnson (GA)
     Kirkpatrick
     Lankford
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Polis
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Thompson (MS)
     Walz

                              {time}  2304

  Mr. MESSER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, I move that the Committee do now 
rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Joyce) having assumed the chair, Ms. Foxx, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 4870) 
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had come to no 
resolution thereon.

                          ____________________