h iran, even though those negotiations were not yet complete. and so we had a vote on the negotiations with iran. in fact, a voter to later have a vote. and now we are here once again with a series of shifting rationales for why we don't have a debate on this war ongoing now for 10 months. this must come to an end. the amendment that i've offered this evening would provide that the funds -- no funds shall be ex pended for the war against isis after a certain date in march of next year unless congress authorizes a war against isis. . if this is worth fighting, and i believe it is it's worth having congress do its job. if we're going to ask our service members risk their lives, we ought to have the courage ourselves to make a vote on this war. and with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves.

the gentleman from new jersey is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment. the clerk: the gentleman -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: currently, american forces are conducting air strikes in iraq and syria. without this authority, these campaigns would end immediately. should this authorization of military force be replaced? perhaps it should. on may 19, speaker boehner urged president obama to start from scratch and diclairing, we don't have a strategy. we have no strategy with regard to isil. recently president obama said he still doesn't have a comprehensive or complete strategy for defeating the islamic state. at a time then sectarian

tensions are at their highest levels since the end of operation iraqi freedom in december of 2001, the terrorists have again, once again succeeded in capturing control of major cities in iraq, killing innocent citizens, causing thousands of families to flee. what kind of message are we sending with this amendment to both the iraqi people, to our soldiers and marines who have value yently served and sacrificed and even now the president suggesting sending another 400 advisors to advise and train and equip iraqis to recapture ramadi. this amendment is not about substance. it's about symbolism. unfortunately, its effect would be much more than symbolism. acceptance of this amendment would rob our nation of one of the key authorities our commander in chief relies on to keep us safe. i strongly urge rejection of the

amendment. i yield my time to the ranking member, mr. visclosky if he desires the time. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. schiff: may i inquishe how much time i have remaining? the chair: one and a half minutes. mr. schiff: i yield the gentleman 30 seconds. mr. visclosky: as the chairman indicated, this is a very complicated situation. and because lives are at stake, all the more reason i think to support the gentleman's amendment to force this body if you would, to very carefully define what our purpose is, what our policy is, and how we should go ahead -- go about its implementation and i do support the gentleman's amendment and thank him for yielding time. mr. schiff: i thank the gentleman and would like to respond to my colleague's points. first of all, the effect of this

is not to end funding immediately. the effect of this would end funds in nine months if we fail to take up and pass an authorization. certainly 10 months into this war and nine months from now ought to be ample time for the congress to do its constitutional duty. second mitigating circumstance colleague makes the point that he doesn't agree with the president's strategy. we may take issue with the president's strategy and we all have our opinions about how this war ought to be waged but one thing that's clear is it's not going to impact the strategy if congress does its job or not. that impacts our institution, that doesn't impact the presidency. it's our institutional presence in having a voice in the war making authority that's at stake here. finally the gentleman asked what kind of message are we sending with an amendment like this and i would say the message we're sending is that we value our constitution. we respect the requirements of our constitution. our constitution says that congress, not the executive but congress shall have the power to

declare war. my colleague says this is merely a symbolic act. i suppose that's true if you think that the constitutional clause that gives congress the power to declare war is only symbolic but i think it is far more than symbolic and key to the balance of power. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. mr. schiff: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. walberg of michigan. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section 10003 none of the funds made available by this act may be used to

promulgate directive 293 issued december 16, 2010, by the office the federal compliance program. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five maines -- five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. walberg: thank you mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment that would reiterate congress' objection to a proposed policy change by the department of labor's office of federal contract compliance program. ofccp and treat federal providers as federal contractors. in september of 010, ofcpp quietly issued direct live 293 asserting that contractual arrangements under medicare, tricare and the federal employee health benefit program will trigger ofccc jurisdiction. this is absurd. this directly -- 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 its jurisdiction in 2009, administrative case ofcpp versus florida hospital of orlando. ofccp argued the hospital was a federal subcontractor by virtue of its participation as a provider of a tricare network of providers. the agency took this troubling position despite the fact that the department of defense which regulates tricare previously concluded, and i quote mr. chairman, it would be impossible to achieve the tricare mission of providing afordable 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, end quote. unfortunately, the administrative law judge in the case did not heed d.o.d.'s warning and failed to see this poll icy change for what it is, an expansion of government power over the health care sector. as such, congress acted to oppose this outreach and in 2012 national defense authorization act clarified that a tricare network health care provider is not, is not, a federal contractor or subcontractor. as chairman of the subcommittee on work force 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 in the 113th congress which clarified 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 i ask the house support my amendment that would prohibit funds to be used under this act for implementing this overreaching policy and affirmatively show the house will not support such actions by the department of labor and ofccp. thank you, mr. chairman, and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. does any member seek to be recognized in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: i appreciate that. at this point in time would yield to the gentlelady from michigan for a colloquy. >> i thank the ranking member for yielding. as you know, tricare provides coverage to over 9.5 million people worldwide including active duty, activated guard and reserve members retiring survivors and their families. to ensure coverage they must choose between independently

practicing tricare certified medical health counselors and/or supervised mental health counselors. i would -- i entered my amendment and withdrew it but i am -- it's important that we get this on the record. the independent providers must have a master's degree from a mental health counseling program accredited by the counsel for accreditation of counseling and related education programs which we call kker. this rule unfortunately has unintended consequences that require counselors to complete their education at an

institution that only has been accredited by this group. mrs. lawrence: this freezes out some of our most respected institutions including harvard colombia -- columbia and in my home state of michigan, michigan state university and university of michigan. i'm extremely concerned about and ask for the committee's support in addressing this issue. with more time, we can get this right and ensure our military members have as much access to care as possible. mr. visclosky: i would like to thank the gentlewoman from michigan for bringing this issue to the committee's attention and look forward to working with you on it to address the unintended consequences of the existing d.o.d. rule. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek

recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number two printed in the congressional record offered by mr. high zen fwa of michigan. -- mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: i yield myself such time as i may consume at this time. i rise today to offer this amendment that will assure a fair and open bidding process to supply our men and women on the frontlines with one of the most indispensable pieces of equipment they use every day -- their boots. it would prohibit the use of funds to implement the 2012 small business administration's rule in regards to footwear preventing the logistics agency from bidding the contract as a small business set-aside. when s.b.a. released the rule

there was concern they didn't go through the normal rule making and public comment process and more specifically did not perform due diligence on how the changes would affect the footwear industry which the s.b.a. has acknowledged. this rule dramatically changed the competitive landscape amongst companies supplying compliant footwear to the military. there's very few of these manufacturers here in the united states and even fewer than manufacture compliant footwear. this would ensure that all businesses capable of supplying high quality foot wear to our war fighters are able to compete for that contract. i might add that last year, we had been table get language inserted in that would call far study and -- a study i want to, in the report, i just want to have a quick quote from that on the impact of jobs and this is from the report that was issued. quote, although the overall impact on the industrial base is

low, the abrupt and drastic change in the small business standards is likely to have an impact. the d.o.d. footwear industry is highly capable but also very dependent on d.o.d. orders. it's porn to consider both the short-term and long-term health of the industrial base. the industry is also a critical element to the nation's national security because of the enduring need to meet wartime footwear requirements. the emphasis here is mine but given the industry's sensitive and critical position, such abrupt and drastic plcy changes that impact the competitive landscape should be executed with greater moderation. i think, mr. speaker that is the concern here today and that's why i would urge my colleagues to support this vital amendment. i do appreciate the opportunity for dialogue that i've been having with my colleague from illinois and also with the small business committee on that. with that, i yield -- i reserve

the balance of my time. . >> i stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. visclosky: thank you mr. speaker. >> as you may know the reason i stand in opposition is a small business administration sets these standards and as of 2012, this standard was set in place. though i'm more than willing to work with the gentleman in the future on what might come forward, actually through the small business committee, the concern i have is that those who do qualify under small business inadvertently through his language would be removed from that. the concern i have is also that that is located in my district, with a company that is already -- that has already received a contract under that. it is a process that we have in place. we know that there may be flaws in the process and the small business committee, we are going to be working on those.

i believe that the gentleman has sincere hopes to try to straighten this problem out for his district. i understand that. i believe that this is not the way to do this. i stand in opposition. i hope that others will join me in voting no on this. but do give the commitment that if that occurs, if a no vote does occur i'll be working with him. mr. visclosky: does the gentleman from illinois yield? i appreciate the gentleman yielding and would add my voice to his in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. it is certainly my belief and understanding that the defense logistics agency is executing an acquisition program that maximizes, turnover extent possible long-term contracts multiple award strategies that limit production variability, to limit each vendor's economic risk. the gentleman mentions small manufacturers. with some of the largest companies in the country involved at the department of defense, which is fine, they do

wonderful work for our country, we ought to make sure that we protect the prerogatives of small business and make sure they are on equal footing for these contracts, so that you have that limit on economic risk for all vendors. big and small. so i appreciate the gentleman's objection and would join you in it. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from illinois. boast boast i yield back -- mr. bost: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from illinois yields back. the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you mr. speaker. i do appreciate my colleague from illinois and other members from the small business committee who are committed to working at this. the concern again would be one of our capacity in our industrial base and being able to supply that most vital of needs for our men and women in uniform, which is their foot wear. mr. huizenga: and the fear is that if we do see any companies exiting this space especially any of those larger companies, when we talk about large we

talk about small at the same time, because 400 is the number of west michigan jobs that are in balance here. but we wouldn't be able to reach the full capacity if we needed to surge, again, in a very unstable world, as we've been dealing with a number of crises around the world. so with that mr. speaker, i urge a yes vote and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from michigan yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition?

ms. lee: thank you mr. chairman. i have an amendment at the desk. this is lee number 67. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following, section none of the funds made available by this act may be -- ms. lee: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the chair: without objection, the read something dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentlelady from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: thank you mr. chairman. my amendment is really very simple. it's co-sponsored by representative grijalva and ellison. it prohibits any funding in this bill, pursuant to the 2001 authorization for the use of force, to be authorized pursuant to december 31 2015. this timeline gives the president and the congress sufficient time, that's eight months, after this is signed into law, eight months, to determine what if any

authorization would be needed to replace the 2001 aumf. this amendment is not only timely, but it really is necessary. on september 14, 2001, i could not vote for the 2001 aumf. that was an authorization that i knew would provide a blank check to wage war any time for any length, anywhere. in the last 14 years it has become increasingly clear that this authorization has essentially provided the president, now this is any president, president bush, now president obama, the authority to wage war against anyone, anywhere, at any time, against any country, with no authorization from congress. in fact, the congressional research service has found that the 2001 aumf has been used more than 30 times to justify military action and other activities. including warrantless surveillance and wiretapping, indefinite detention and

practices at gitmo targeted killing operations using lethal drones, and the open-ended expansion of military operations abroad, which have nothing to do with the original congressional intent. in addition to the activities i mentioned, the aumf has reportedly been invoked to deploy troops in afghanistan in yemen kenya, ethiopia and somalia. and the 2001 aumf is now being cited as the authority for the now 10-month-long war against isil. and, yes, we are in a war. we know that isil must be degraded and dismantled. but congress must do our job, we should debate and vote on the use of force. that's our constitutional responsibility. and i know that while many of us may not share a common position on how to deal with the 2001 authorization, many of us do agree that the overly broad authority is a major and

concerning deterioration of congressional oversight and war making authority. and i think many of us can agree that a robust debate and vote is necessary. long overdue and must take place. whatever we believe about how we would vote. the american people deserve to have their representatives speak for them on these grave matters, which the constitution requires. let me be clear. with the 2001 authorization still on the books in its current form any administration can continue to rely on this blank check to wage endless war. that's why my amendment to prohibit funding for the 2001 aumf after december 31, 2015 is so important. there was very little debate, i remember that very moment that we had this debate on this resolution 12 years ago. and i think the debate maybe was about one hour. i probably was the only one who

voted and said no in terms of the debate. but i tell you, it wasn't a very long debate. and i'm sure if we had had more time to debate this, more members would have realized that this was a blank check. so let's repeal this. i've introduced this legislation once again to get this off the books. congress cannot continue to and gate its constitutional responsibility while the united states now is embroiled in yet another open-ended war in the middle east. we can begin to address this debate by passing this amendment, providing congress and the president with plenty of time to decide which measures should replace this authorization before the end of the year. i'd like to yield now to our ranking member, mr. visclosky. and thank you for your leadership. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and join in support of her amendment. as she indicated more than 14 years have passed. the united states withdrew

their large troop presence and marked the end of combat operations in iraq. security operations for afghanistan were transferred to the afghan security forces in june of 2015 -- 2013. the basic mission of u.s. and nato forces in afghanistan has been to train those forces, including the afghan army. and i think the gentlewoman made a very good point. she and i may not agree on what that resolution and authority should look like in the end. all the more reason for all of us collectively, both parties, to have a debate and to resolve that issue. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment. in order to prosecute the global war on terrorism, one of our primary current missions,

the president, our commander in chief, relies on this authorization for the use of military force, for which he is trying and attempting to repeal. this aumf, better known as 9/11 aumf is necessary for the department of defense and u.s. military forces to address campaigns against al qaeda and al qaeda-related affiliated forces worldwide by using this authority. it has been used by both this president and his predecessor since 2001. granted, this amendment was written to sunset on last day of this calendar year. but without a follow-on authority in place, killing the 9/11 aumf would tie our nation's hands and our commander in chief's hands with regard to combating worldwide terrorism in seven short months. this amendment cripples our ability to conduct counterterrorism operations

with partner nations, with our allies against al qaeda and their affiliates. once again, the gentlelady intends to put in place a major policy that does not belong on an appropriations bill. this defense bill. the terrorist threat today is no less real and in many ways is far more dangerous than it was when congress overwhelmingly gave the president that authority in 2001. to protect us against those who wanted to do us harm. these terrorist organizations pose a real threat to united states persons and interests. it is my judgment this amendment erroneously assumes that al qaeda and its affiliates ended their terrorist acts once major operations -- military operations seized -- ceased in afghanistan. and obviously they haven't. recent disasters in yemen, and most recently frightening developments in iraq and syria, have shown new terrorist groups

are on the rise. this amendment would effectively eliminate the president's ability to address that threat or emerging threats from al qaeda and like-minded groups in north africa, the horn of africa, and elsewhere, and leave our nation and our allies more vulnerable to attacks. therefore i strongly urge opposition to this amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. ms. lee: i ask for a recorded vote, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek

recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i move that the committee do now rise. the speaker pro tempore: the -- the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having

had under consideration h.r. 2685, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2685 and has come no to -- has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that it be in order at any time to take from the speak ears table h.r. 1295 and consider in the house without intervention of any point of order a single motion offered by the chair of the committee on ways and means or his dez illing knee that the house, one, concur in the senate amendment to the title and two, concur in the senate amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the portion of the congressional record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule 18 and numbered 1.

mr. sessions: that the senate amendment and -- senate amendments and motion be considered as read that the motion be debatable for one hour equally divided and voled -- controlled by the chair and ranking minority member on the committee on ways and means and that the previous question be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the request? without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 303 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2685. will the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mooney, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for

further consideration of h.r. 2685 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for fiscal year ending september 30, 2016, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee, had been postponed and the bill had been read through page 162, line 25. for what purpose does the gentlelady from arizona seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. mcsally of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the following, section none of the funds made available in this act may be used to divest, retire, or place in storage or on backup inventory aircraft status or divest or transfer or place on backup status any ec-138

aircraft. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentlelady from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from arizona. ms. mcsally: i want to thank the chairman for including funds to support our fleet of aircraft in this bill. it restores $27.3 million to support 15 ec-138 aircraft next year. my amendment today does not cost a dime. the chairman has already provided full funding for our entire ec-138 fleet and my amendment simply ensures that the chairman's intentions are carried out and that the air force does not use back door means to try to retire these important aircrafts. the compass call is the only dedicated u.s. air force elock tronic warfare aircraft. i can tell you nits unclassified setting, it can perform warfare and counteroperations.

it was successfully employed in desert storm iraqi freedom enduring freedom and in operations in kosovo, pan in a, haiti and afghanistan. despite plans to divest 50% of the fleet, the air force has not identified a follow-on capability and no other platform perform this is mission. air force deputy chief of staff linet deputy james holmes confirms there are things only the ec-130 does and does best. right now it's deplied in afghanistan and in the fight against isis. divesting without a replacement would be irresponsible, especially given its high rate of deployment. my amendment would not cost a dime, simply ensures the chairman's decision to fund the fleet is carried out thsms a critical capability and we cannot afford to dispose of it without a reflacement. i want to thank the chair, urge

adoption of the amendment and reserve. yes. mr. frelinghuysen: we're pleased to accept your amendment and we're proud of your service to our nation and thank you for the time. ms. mcsally: thank you very much, thank you for your support in this effort. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. does any member wish to be remember niced in opposition. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. mcsally: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by this egentlelady from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the preceding vote on the amendment number 2 be vacated to the end that the chair put the question de novo. the chair: the clerk will redesignate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: without objection the vote on the amendment is vacated and the chair will put the question de novo. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. this is lee 68. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. lee of california. at the end of the bill before the short title -- ms. lee: i ask for unanimous consent that the read being

dispensed with. the chair: without objection the reading is dispensed. with the gentlelady from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. lee: thank you, mr. chairman this amendment would prohibit funding pursuant to the 2002 iraq authorization for the use of military force. once again, i'm proud to offer this amendment with my colleagues representative ellison and grijalva. why is this amendment necessary? three years ago, mind you president obama declared that the iraq war -- iraq war was over. since then, the president has stated a number of times that the 2002 aumf is no longer necessary and the congress -- and that congress should work to repeal it. yet congress has allowed this authorization to remain on the books indefinitely. now we all are familiar with the report, we know what is taking place in iraq syria, and across the middle east as it relates to

isil. we all agree they must be degraded an disdismantled. but just as with the 2001 resolution, the 2002 aumf is completely inappropriate to deal with this threat. this is a new war mr. chairman. not an old war. this is a new war which the people of this country have a right to have their members of congress debate and vote on. even the president included a repeal of the 2002 aumf in the proposed authorization he sent to congress in february that we can't even get that authorization brought up for a debate and vote. so simply put, the 2002 authorization is no longer necessary. we need to come back to the drawing board and decide based on what this body wants to do should we vote for a new authorization or not? if we want to commit the united states to another war in iraq, congress must have that debate and decide whether or not to authorize another war. i'm pleased that my sense of

congress resolution, it was an amendment actually affirming this, was passed in a bipartisan basis in committee and is included in this bill. mr. chairman, this amendment is common sense and we cannot continue to leave authorizations for the use of military force on the books indefinitely. it's time for taos reassert our constitutional prerogative to declare war or not, to debate and vote on any military action in iraq. let me yield to our ranking member mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i would reiterate my comments from the gentlewoman's previous amendment and that is, after 13 years, things have changed. one of the changes we ought to make in this chamber is to have again that wholesome debate as to what the parameters of our military involvement overseas is going forward from this point in time not the beginning of the previous decade, and appreciate the gentlewoman offering the amendment.

ms. lee: thank you. mr. chairman, how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentlelady has two minutes remaining. ms. lee: ok, mr. chairman, let me just say with regard to this amendment, congress has a constitutional responsibility. it's our prerogative to declare war or not. it's our prerogative to debate and vote on any military action anywhere in the world, more than a prerogative it's our constitutional responsibility. we represent the american people. the american people deserve to have a voice in such grave matters. that's why the constitution required that. and for us not to do our job and to continue to rely on old authorizations from 13 and 14 years ago, really is an abdication of our responsibility. people did not elect us to congress to duck and dodge the hard questions and the hard issues. some of us agree we need to go to war. some of us don't agree.

but that's not the issue. that's not what this amendment nor my prior amendment was about. it was about our -- doing our job here, laying out the pros and cons, making some heavy duty decisions and that's what they are, that's why we're here and then instructing our commander in chief what congress believes should be the appropriate course of action. many would vote for it many would vote against it. but again, not to have this debate and vote when we're now 10 months into another war is down right wrong. it's almost lawless. it's something that -- it's hard to imagine getting away with this long. so i hope we get a good bipartisan vote on this. it's about time that we do debate this. again, if the speaker did not like the president's authorization that he brought forward then let's get another authorization.

let's write one ourselves. let's bring forth, i have one, i know other members have one, let's bring forth an authorization and debate what we want to do moving forward. that's the wise thing to do. that's the smart thing to do. that's the right thing to do. we have troops and -- troops in harm's way. they need to know what their members of congress believe, what the constitution requires in terms of doing our job. they deserve that. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: as i said, currently u.s. forces are conducting multiple air strikes against isil in iraq and syria. without this authority, those campaigns would stop. certainly much has happened since the authority was first given. as a matter of fact, things are getting far worse than they have been in the past. acceptance of this amendment

would rob our country of one of the key authorities our command for the chief needs and relies on to keep us safe and to address these type of crises which seem to occur all over the middle east. therefore i reject and oppose the amendment and urge others to do likewise and yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. ms. lee: may i have a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from california will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. hunter of california. at the end of the bill, before

the short title insert the follow section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used in contravention of section 2483 b-5 of tite 108 united states code. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303 the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. hunter: thank you, mr. chairman. first i want to thank the chairman from new jersey and thank him for the wonderful job he's done for our troops and making sure the world remains a safer place than it would be otherwise. mr. chairman, i offer an amendment that would prohibit the department of defense from increasing the prices paid by our troops and their families, our veterans and their families, at military commissaries, especially overseas. the commissary benefit is one of a number of benefits our service members receive upon joining the military and it's one our service members and their families relie upon to maintain their access to wholesome affordable healthy food. the commissary has embarked on a

poorly researched plan to raise prices as part of what they call a consumer commercial business model this amendment requires that the department of defense continue using the existing model of produce sourcing for commissaries in asia and the pacific unless and until the secretary of defense can certify that a new sourcing model will not raise prices on the shelves this maintains the promised benefits that our warriors and their families expected to receive when they raised their right hand and women a united states sailor, airman, soldier, or marine. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. does any seek to be recognized in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from the northern

mariana islands seek recognition? mr. sablan: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. sablan of the northern mariana islands. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following new section. section. mr. sablan: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the record. the chair: is there objection to the gentleman's request? without objection, the reading is dispensed with. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from the northern mariana islands and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. mr. sablan: thank you very much, mr. chairman. many of us in this chamber share a concern that the federal government has so much power and so many resources that it can actually overwhelm and even intimidate smaller state and local governments. the amendment i'm offering responds to that concern.

it requires, before any funds are expended in the northern mariana islands, for expanded activities by the military, that the secretary of defense reach an agreement with the government of the northern marianas on the nature and scope of those activities. my amendment levels the playing field between a very powerful federal government and a very small territorial government. a little history. in 1975, the people of the northern marianas elected to become a part of the united states. and 78% of the people voted for the negotiated agreement that defined our political union. part of the agreement includes the lease of 2/3 of our island to the u.s. military for 100 years and the lease of the entire island. the cost of the united states $175,000 a year. the people of the northern marianas committed these lands for the purpose of national defense willingly because we understood that with citizenship comes responsibility. and the united states

recognized in the agreement negotiated, that we have very little land and that any future acquisition therefore would be, and i quote, only the minimum area necessary, end of quote. today, however, the u.s. military is proposing to take over another entire island. one more out of only 14 islands in the northern marianas, when we already have given up all of one and 2/3 of another. 25% of our total land area of only 183 square miles. the military's proposing to use this land for live fire ranges, training courses and maneuver areas. i should explain that these are public lands and decisions about the use of public lands in the northern marianas rest notice hands of the governor and our legislatures. to lease lands to the military or not, what the terms and conditions may be, those decisions are exercised in local government and i will respect those local decisions.

but as the official in congress representing the people of the northern morianas, i want to be sure that the federal government also represents the decisions of the government of the northern marianas. again, that is what my amendment would do. my amendment simply assures that none of the funds we appropriate today will be used for the activities the military is proposing for public lands in the northern marianas and -- without first obtaining the consent of the government and actually obtaining an agreement for the use of that land. and i thank you, mr. chairman, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i appreciate the gentleman raising the issue and obviously he's a wonderful representative of the mariana islands. however, given the way this amendment is written it's unclear to me the impact this may have on our military's future ability to train.

so regretfully i must oppose this amendment but i look forward to working with the gentleman to address his concerns. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. mr. sablan: how much time do i have remaining? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. sablan: thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank very much the chairman, his concerns, and very much the work he puts into this work. but let me put it this way mr. chairman. you have a piece of property and it belongs to you in title. and i come over and without asking you if you could use your land i come in with a yard stick i bring surveyers, i bring architects and engineers to your land and i start drawing up my plans. would you, would any person alive allow that to happen in the united states of america? it won't. 2/3 of -- they already have.

they're asking for an entirely new island mr. chairman, and they would own 25% of the northern marianas. they're going to fire hougers. people live near these islands. 41 members of congress come to washington to work and go home every break except for one, the delegate from the district of columbia. this is her home. all of us come to d.c. to work. some of us even those who don't have homes in our districts, claim that we go back to our districts, because that's our home. the law says, present law, federal law, says that the united states government, the military must first seek permission and obtain access to the property. they don't have that access.

in the meantime, until they obtain that access or an agreement to the use of the land, they should cease and desist from any plans they are making for the use of an island that they don't own. mr. visclosky: if the gentleman would yield for a moment. mr. sablan: i yield. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the passion and his conviction and would join in wanting to work with you as the chairman has indicated to see if there's some resolution to your concern. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. sablan: i don't own the land. i am just bringing out facts here and bringing out the sentiment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the northern mariana islands. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. sablan: on that i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: the gentleman asks for a recorded vote. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from the northern mariana islands will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition?

>> i have an amendment at the desk, number 39. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act under the heading iraqi train and equip fund may be used to procure or transfer manned portable air defense system. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman. since august 8 2014, in iraq -- mr. frelinghuysen: would the gentleman yield? mr. yoho: yes. mr. frelinghuysen: the committee's prepared to accept your amendment. mr. yoho: with that, mr. chairman, i appreciate it and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

any member wish to be recognized in opposition? the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. yoho: mr. chairman, i have another amendment at the desk. number 40. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. yoho of florida. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act under section 9014 for assistance and sustainment to the military and national security forces of ukraine may be used to procure or transfer manned portable air defense systems. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida.

mr. yoho: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, -- mr. frelinghuysen: would the gentleman yield? mr. yoho: yes, sir. mr. frelinghuysen: we're prepared to accept your amendment. mr. yoho: mr. chairman, i appreciate it and i yield back. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. any member wish to speak in opposition? the amendment is offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> i have a resolution -- an amendment at the desk. 106. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section 1003, none of the funds made available by this act may be ex pended by

the department of the navy to divest or transfer or prepare to divest or transfer any search and rescue units from the marine corps. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: thank you mr. chairman. i rise to offer an amendment which would preserve a very important component of the marine corps. its search and rescue units. according to the most recent marine aviation plan, the corps had these united slated for divestiture. i am glad to see that after public backlash on that plan, the court decided to temporarily postpone those plans. just as easily as the marines postponed their decision, they could also recommence. i still believe such actions would be a bad decision and i'm not alone. that's why i'm offering this amendment, but a partisan with my amendments. after many years there were only two remaining search and rescue units left. one at marine corps air station

in yuma, arizona, and one in north carolina. marine corps air station yuma search and rescue unit performed 72 rescue missions to surrounding communities from 2010 to 2014. last october the yuma unit facilitated the rescue of 2 boy scouts and four chaperons who were lost during a canoe trip. mcas cherry point search and rescue unit performs roughly 50 missions annually to help retrieve last paddlers and hikers. vmr-1 rescued man who was missing during a kayaking trip near ceder island, north carolina. this mission was not only a nighttime mission, but there was a heavy fog as well. so much so that the first rescue helicopter known as the pedro had to abort its first landing at a hospital and ultimately traveled 75 miles to greenville where the man was finally admitted for treatment. but none of us have yet heard a viable alternative to sustain the mission of these search and rescue units. law enforce.

and first responders do not have these capabilities and apparently no contractor does either. these proposed divesttures would literally cost lives. i did, -- i ask, what would have happen happed to -- what would have happened to these boy scouts if the marines had not come to help. i thank the chair and ranking member and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from arizona reserves. does any member seek time in opposition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. frelinghuysen: respectfully i rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the marine corps has an aviation plan calling for the orderly transfer of this capability to other entities. the east coast mission will be assumed by the coast guard while the west coast mission will be competively contracted out, as i understand it in fiscal year 2017. while we respect the

gentleman's concerns, this amendment takes a rightful -- rifle shot approach against the department of defense's force structure plan and we believe that this is not good policy. therefore i urge opposition to the amendment, but appreciate the gentleman's making a case for his position and i yield to mr. visclosky my ranking. mr. visclosky: i join with the chairman in expressing my opposition and again appreciate the gentleman's concern, but we've had a series of amendments like this throughout the debate, limiting transfers, limiting consideration of any movement or decisions or changes at the department of defense. at some point we're going to have to allow the department of defense to run itself as well. and not to second guess that maybe sometime they actually will make improvements because of a decision they make and for that reason i do support my

chairman in his opposition. thank you. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona is recognized. mr. gosar: the idea that the east coast may be absorbed may be one thing but accordingfully what i've heard down in yuma, there is no viable option or contractor that has been and will be found for yuma. so with that i will yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gosar: mr. chair. i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote? mr. gosar: yes do i. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, a further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. . for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the

desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by -- the chair: would the gentleman specify which amendment? mr. johnson: flash-bang grenades. number 55. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. johnson of georgia. at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following, section none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this act may be used to transfer a flash-bang grenade under section 2576-a of title 10 united states code.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. on may 28, 2014, narcotics agents assisted by members of the haversham response team served a search warrant on a home on a quiet street. officers terrified the sleeping family but did not find any drugs when they entered the home. during the raid a 2-year-old child, baby boo-boo was badly burned when officers tossed a flash-bang grenade into his

playpen which was in a darkened room. the officers justified their actions by saying that their intelligence indicated there would be no children present. as an editorial in "the washington post" noted quote, a flash-bang grenade is an explosive device that emits a deafening boom and blinding light. it's designed to temporarily stun the occupants of a building so the armed men who deployed it can clear the building. it is an instrument of war, end quote. my amendment is simple. it would prohibit the transfer of flash-bang grenades for free from department of defense, from the department of defense to local law enforcement. the department of defense's 103 -- 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort the relationship between the police and the communities they serve by allocating over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to

local police including flash-bang grenades. nothing in current law prevents the military from giving police including school and university police departments, flash-bang grenades. allowing this loophole to exist puts our communities at risk of increasing militarization. mr. speaker, while we have real tensions across the country our police and their communities are not at war. funneling free military equipment to the police, however, helps to further deepen the divide in our communities. the same "washington post" piece i mentioned earlier cited over a dozen instances in recent years where police injured themselves or others while using flash-bang grenades. this amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law enforcement agencies should or should not have. instead, it is about whether this congress should purchase flash-bang grenades for fighting

wars abroad and then allow these flash-bang grenades to be transferred by the department of defense back to local law enforcement agencies for use here at home. local governments in consultation with law enforcement agencies that they oversee should decide what types of equipment the law enforcement agencies can acquire. law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally make that decision independently of civilian authority. the local government can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use by the agencies under their control through the local budgeting process and they can seek financial assistance through federal grants. this amendment doesn't touch grant money or state or local government's freedom to purchase the equipment they need. the local budget process and federal grant programs involve making choices based on need and

funding while the 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of flee equipment directly from the pentagon to the law enforcement agency. when the equipment is free and is plentiful, and civilian authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple. why not accept free gifts of military equipment? however, if acquiring this equipment militarizes beyond comprehension our police departments, what kind of community policing are we actually performing? or are we just simply occupying? this amendment mr. speaker is very common sense. we should consider whether or not we want our country to move in this direction of mill tarization and we certainly need

our civilian authorities to be involved in that process so the quens conditions -- consequences are too dangerous to keep proliferating this weaponry on our streets and i'd ask for my colleagues to support this amendment. with that, i yield back. i will yield. mr. frelinghuysen: -- mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman's amendment and rise in support of it. there's no question that every police officer in our country is in a dangerous job. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. frelinghuysen: i yield a minute to my colleague.

mr. visclosky: i was going to say i recognize the tough and dangerous job police officers have, what an important job they do. i certainly have been act i over my career in congress working with the department of defense to transfer necessary equipment to law enforcement agencies but would agree with the assertion of the gentleman that we have to make a distinction with some of these types of materials between civil law enforcement and military action and i to appreciate the courtesy of the chairman. the chair: the gentleman from new jersey. mr. frelinghuysen: claiming my time, i do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the department of defense excess property program does provide valuable surplus equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies for its use in counternarcotics and counterterrorism operations and to enhance officer safety. it has on occasion provided aircraft helicopters, small

planes or small four-wheel drive vehicles pickup trucks ambulances, mobile command vehicles vests helmets to protect officers, all sorts of protection binoculars, radios, clothing and information technology. in a time of declining budget at the federal level and also at the state and local level this type of program is a good example of a state-federal-local partnership that ensures we get the most out of each tax dollar spent this amendment basically would restrict the department's ability to put equipment they no longer need to use protecting our citizens within our local communities. we think it's a good program. it obviously ought to be monitored and proper things ought to be put in proper hands. on occasion horrible incidents do occur. all in all, this program has been a valuable thing to many

communities across america. i do rise in opposition to the amendment and urge a no vote. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. johnson: i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> i have an amendment, 102, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona. at the end of the bill, before the short title insert the

following, section, none of they have funds made available by this act may be used to procure any army air crew combat uniforms. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from arizona and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman is recognized. mr. gosar: thank you mr. chairman. i rise today to offer a cost-saving amendment to the department of defense appropriations act for fiscal year 2016. last year it was brought to my attention by numerous sources in my district that in 2009 the department of army fully phased out the c.w.u.-22-p flight aviation uniform and moved to the army air crew combat uniform, known as the a-2-c-u. old constituents of mine, many of whom are active duty, retired or friends and family of military personnel, expressed a desire for the army to go back to the cwu-2-p model uniform.

there are many reasons to switch back. the -- switch back. the most important reasons are safety and efficiency. but to sweet then deal when making the pitch to me, my constituents explained that moving back to the c.w.u. model would save the department millions of dollars per year in procurement costs. all these factors led me to offer the same commonsense amendment last congress and it passed by a voice vote. the c.w.u. model has a proven track record of safety and practicality. it's still authorized for army special operation aviators and auators in all the other branches of the military and in militaries around the world. these safety aspects are of paramount importance because the chances of a fire in an aviation crash are very high. the c.w.u. model flight suits have an anti-static fiber woven into them to prevent sparks

which are not that desirable when operating an aircraft with thousands of pounds of highly volatile jet fuel on board. the one-piece design is also extremely important as it does not, in the event of fire, leave any opportunities for exposed skin. speaking to the cost savings, the a-2-c-u model costs 56% more than the c.w.u. model and is proven to wear out faster than the c.w.u. further every time the army decides to change the camouflage pattern of the uniforms they have to spend millions purchasing new uniforms. the nonpart son -- nonpartisan budget office it does not score as written but the effects of the policy should net some cost savings. conservative estimates show the army could ave around $5 million a year in procurement costs if it moves back to the c.w.u. model. further, it should not cost

anything to introduce the model back into the supply system as the rest of the branches still use them. in other words, there's no need to reboot the supply chain. the cost savings are tantalizing for someone like me sent to this town to rein in spending. more importantly, i listen to army aviators and flight operators. they tell me it's safer and being that they're the ones that are doing the flight training and flying, i have to take them at their word. the united states is not exactly running a budget surplus saving a few millions here and a few million there is in the name of safety and practicality is something we should all strive to achieve. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. frelinghuysen: let het me commend the gentleman for his interest in the safety of our personnel this would prohibit the army from spending additional funds from purchasing the army crew uniform. as an alternative they could resume using a previous flight suit that has not been authorized since 2009. except for special operators. i understand this amendment is based on discussions with flight crews burg visits to airfields and training sites. the old mod sell a one-piece design said to cost less and be more durable an the current model. the committee is interested in providing our soldiers with the best equipment possible. however, conclusions based on what appear and i want to say this respectfully, on somewhat anecdotal information and brief discussions rarely lead to wise spending decisions. so we reluctantly urge a no vote

on this amendment and i'm pleased to yield to mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i want to associate myself with the chairman's remarks and reiterate my previous comments that at some point we ought to trust some judgments being made down at the department of defense and not just say no to everything. . i appreciate the chairman's explanation of this situation and join him in opposition to the amendment. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. >> i would like to remind the two individuals that the one piece has been preferred by the aviators the safety aspects, because of the woven cloth. i think sometimes we have to have administrations start looking to the people that are actually in harm's way. mr. gosar: with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. gosar: mr. chairman, i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? mr. conyers: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. conyers of michigan. at the end of the bill, before the short title, add the following, section, none of the funds made available by this act may be used to provide arms training or other assistance to the azora battalion. mr. conyers: i ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. mr. chairman and members -- the chair: the gentleman will suspend.

pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from michigan and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: thank you mr. chairman. i begin by thanking mr. frelinghuysen and mr. visclosky in conducting the amendments around these important considerations. this amendment that i propose this evening limits arms training and other assistance to the north korea nazi ukrainian me -- neonazi ukrainian coalition. foreign policy magazine has characterized the 1,000-man

battalion as, quote openly neo -nazi, end quotation and quote, fascist. numerous other news organizations, including "the new york times," the guardian, the associated press, have corroborated the dominance of white supremacy -- is you premmists and anti-central ethic views within the group. yet, ukraine's interior minister recently announced the battalion will be among the units to receive training and arms from western allies, including the united states. their founder organized the neonazi group. the social national assembly in 2008. their neonazi symbolism on their banner. these groups run counter to

american values and once the fighting ends, they pose a significant threat to the ukrainian government and the ukrainian people. as we've seen many times, most notably within the mujaheddin in afghanistan these groups will not lay down their arms once the conflict is over. they will turn their arms against their own people in order to enforce their hateful views. i urge support of our amendment and make it u.s. law that we will not equip this dangerous neonazi militia. i'll yield to the gentleman. mr. visclosky: we accept the gentleman's amendment and appreciate the fact that he wants to exercise care, as we do on the committee, to make sure whoever is trained is someone who is, if you would a person of good intent, as opposed to someone who is not.

so i appreciate the gentleman's concern and for offering the amendment. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman. mr. frelinghuysen: we accept the amendment. thank you. mr. conyers: i thank the gentleman from new jersey. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new jersey -- michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. johnson of georgia. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available in this act may be used to transfer a mine

resistant ambush resistant vehicle of title 10, united states code. the chair: pursuant -- pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from georgia and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from georgia. mr. johnson: thank you mr. speaker. the sheriff's departments and local peace -- police departments are local peace officers. they enforce the law and maintain peace and order. ideally they are members of the communities in which they serve. the department of defense's 1033 program has helped to sometimes distort the relationship between police and their communities by providing over $5 billion in surplus military equipment to local police, including armored vehicles and military grade

weapons. police who patrol the streets and neighborhoods in armored mraps while armed to the hilt can easily lose sight of their role which is to protect and serve, and instead take on the mindset of a paramilitary occupation force. the routine showing of military authority on our streets creates mistrust that only further deepens the divide between law enforcement and the people they are sworn to protect and serve. my amendment is simple. it would prohibit the transfer of mine resistant ambush protected vehicles or mraps for free, straight from the department of defense to local law enforcement agencies. this amendment is not about regulating what types of equipment law enforcement agencies and police should not have. instead it's about whether this congress should purchase mraps for fighting wars abroad and then allow the department of

defense to give that equipment away to civilian law enforcement here at home. for free. to use on the streets of america. local governments in consultation with the law enforcement agencies they oversee should decide what types of equipment their law enforcement agencies can acquire. law enforcement agencies should not unilaterally make that decision independent of civilian authority. the local governments can purchase whatever equipment they deem necessary for use by the agencies under their control, through their local budgeting process, and they can also seek financial assistance to purchase necessary equipment from federal grant programs. this amendment doesn't touch grant money or state or local governments' freedom to purchase the equipment they need. the local budget process and application for a federal grant program involve making choices based on need and funding

while the 1033 program is an unregulated pipeline of free equipment directly from the pentagon to the law enforcement agencies. when the equipment is free and in plentiful supply and civilian authority is not involved, the calculus is very simple. why not accept free equipment? why not obtain equipment based on desire rather than need? however, if acquiring the equipment required to use -- required the use of local funds or involved applying for grant money, the decision would be more deliberative and inclusive of civilian authority. other factors would be considered, including whether there's a need for such equipment, how would the equipment be used, and whether the community consents to being policed with such equipment. this amendment simply shuts off the pipeline of military equipment from the battlefield to our main streets. this amendment forces us to

consider whether mraps designed and purchased for battle in the iraqi desert, are suitable for our local police. it forces us to consider whether an ordinary american citizen would truly feel comfortable approaching an officer for help if the officer were behind the wheel of a 50-ton armored vehicle just returned from combat in afghanistan. and this amendment would end the transfer of these armored vehicles to school systems and universities across the country. are our children so unyou'll that order can only be maintained with the use of an mrap? unless this amendment passes, a vote for the underlying bill will ultimately fund the purchase of mraps which will one day be transferred back home for use against our constituents. the consequences are too dangerous to continue this flow of weaponry to the streets of this nation.

i urge support for this amendment and with that i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. rather than repeat myself, i think the department of defense excess property program does provide some very valuable equipment to local law enforcement and of course it's invaluable if it's used properly and with care and as a consequence i oppose the gentleman's amendment. and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. johnson: mr. chairman, i'd ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6

of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from oklahoma seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: -- >> i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. >> mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman will suspend. pursuant to house resolution 303 the gentleman from oklahoma and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: mr. chairman i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. cole: mr. chairman, i'm offering a bipartisan amendment which prohibits the furlough of

civilian employees while funds remain in defense working capital fund. the services provided by working capital fund employees are already fully funded apart from the appropriations process. in fact, imposing furloughs actually costs the taxpayers more through delayed production overhead increases and the need for overtime or the transfer of work load to more expensive sources of work. the amendment will prevent that from happening again as it did in 2013. if working capital fund employees are furloughed, as they were in the last government shutdown, there will be no direct savings. indeed, it will actually cost the taxpayers more money. the furloughs delay production, increase overhead and in some cases transfer work load to more expensive sources of work. indeed, senior military officials have expressed publicly that working capital

fund employees such as depot and shipyard workers should be considered for exemption from furloughs because of the furloughs -- because the furloughs hurt readiness and increase costs associated with production delays. it's important to note that under this provision d.o.d. still has the authority to furlough working capital fund employees for disciplinary purposes. further, working capital fund employees could be furloughed if funded workload dried up due to budget cuts or downsizing. therefore ending the threat of furloughs for these employees will save money, improve military readiness and prevent need lets delays for work that's already been funded. i urge the support of the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: to claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: the gentleman puts me in a difficult position.

i complained in my opening remarks that some of our colleagues in the congress, as i said earlier in the day delight every time a civilian employee is furloughed. so i certainly appreciate the gist of the gentleman's amendment. we have a much larger problem that we and the administration need to address and i know he feels the same way. my concern with the particular amendment is, we have other departments as well, whether it be the department of labor internal revenue service e.p.a., housing and urban development, and the list goes on and ought not to select one agency over the other. i don't think it's the proper way to go. we ought to collectively understand that the government actually does many good things to help the people of this country. we ought to value the work of

each of our federal employees and we ought to block the furlough of any of them in any agency not a particular one. so i certainly do not disagree with the intent of the the gentleman from i realize we are talking about the department of defense. but do believe that we ought to be looking at the broader question and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from oklahoma. mr. cole: i want to quickly respond to my friend. i share many of his sentiments, i certainly don't like to see anybody furlough, i was not in favor of previous goth shutdowns, i thought they were quite counterproductive. this is, however, a unique case. the funds are already in existence. there's no savings, we are literally taking people out of work when we have funds set a i side outside the appropriations process for them to continue their work system of in this case they really deserve to be accepted if we happen to make a

mistake and stumble into a process like this again. but again, i don't disagree with my friend's sentiments about the larger work force. i've never found these things to be particularly productive. if i recall, in every case we've gone back and make everybody whole. the ultimate loser always ends up being the taxpayer because we had uncertainty and ultimately paid the worker. these people should stay at work, they are doing an important job for national security. i urge passage of the amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman -- mr. visclosky: i yield back. mr. cole: in that case, i yield back. the chair: the sque on the amendment offered by the gentleman from oklahoma. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it.

the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: can the gentleman specify which amendment? mr. grayson: grayson number three. the chair: clerk will report. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. at the end of the bill before she short title insert the following, section nouven the funds made available by this act may be used to enter into a contract with any our -- mr. grayson: i ask unanimous consent toway the reading. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from florida and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you mr. chairman. the chairman of the committee has shown a great deal of

courtesy, kindness and consideration. so i'm going to try to keep this as short as possible. mr. frelinghuysen: we're prepared to accept your amendment because it's so reasonable. mr. grayson: ok, i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment, 108, at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment -- amendment offered by mr. gosar of arizona, at the end -- mr. gosar: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from arizona

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from arizona. mr. gosar: i rise to offer one final amendment to the d.o.d. appropriations act for fiscal year 2016. let me express again my sincerist thanks to chairman frelinghuysen and the ranking member. mr. frelinghuysen: we're pleased to accept your amendment. mr. gosar: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. gray son: i have an amendment at the desk, grayson number four. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. grayson of florida. mr. grayson: i ask madam speaker consent toway the reading. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from florida

and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, this amendment is identical to an amendment offered last year that passed the house by voice vote. it seeks to prohibit the intelligence community from subverting or interfering with the integrity of any cryptographic standard proposed, gopped or adopted by nst. i urge continued support of this amendment and reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the clerk: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: i rise in opposition to the amendment. we don't know the full impact. it could have some unintended consequences. it could hamper legitimate communications between the intelligence community and nist. this amendment is very broadly

drafted, it could prevent nist from consulting with other intelligence agencies and that agency's internal computer systems. i know it was reported that the 2006 nist cryptographic standard had a nasa backdoor. i want to make it clear that nist says they did not deliberately weaken cryptographic standards at the behest of other government agencies. they assure us they will not do so in the future. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment, given that assurance. i yield back the balance -- i yield to the the ranking member, mr. visclosky. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding and associate myself again with his remarks and objection to the bill. we go to great pains on the subcommittee to protect the privacy of the american people and would agree with the assertions the gentleman has

made and appreciate him yielding to me. mr. frelinghuysen: reclaiming my time, i yield back. mr. grayson: let me try to allay some concerns that have been expressed. my amendment seeks to address a serious problem. a year and a half ago it was revealed that the national security agency deliberately subverted american cryptographic standards. cryptographic standards for the community and the software industry developed by nist. these standards are intended to protect americans from foreign intelligence agencies, fro cybercriminals from industrial espionage and from privacy violations by those who wish us harm. they're embedded in software products which are used and sold widely almost universally in this country and elsewhere. unfortunately, reports have confirmed that the national security agency successfully and deliberately weakened encryption standards promulgated by nist to further n.s.a. surveillance

goals at the cost of the privacy of ordinary u.s. citizens. this is extremely dangerous. it leaves users of those standards vulnerable to anybody familiar with those weaknesses. friend or foe. as worldwide web inventor tim burnsley put it it's naive to believe if you introduce a weakness into a system that you'll be the only one to use it. my amendment would seek to address this issue and resolve it once and for all by prohibiting the intelligence community from subverting or interfering with any cryptographic standard proposed, developed, or cooperated -- adopted by nist. the intelligence community can continue to provide advice. what the intelligence community cannot do is deliberately set out to weaken cryptographic standards because whatever it does in that regard will certainly be understood and exploited by our enemies as we saw just last week. when we witnessed the deprescription of information

regarding classified information and u.s. employees. it's only commonsense that we should not want taxpayer dollars that are appropriated to one agency to be used to deliberately and actively subvert the work of another agency. therefore i respectfully request support for this amendment on both sides of the aisle and i reserve the balance of of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. grayson: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the noes have it. the amendment is not adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, replacing number 3 printed in the

congressional record. the chair: clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. mcclintock of california. mr. mcclintock: i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading. the chair: without objection. pursuant to house resolution 303, the gentleman from california and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment forebids scarce defense dollars from being spent to fund three execive orders and several other provisions of law that require our military to squander billions of dollars in so-called green energy. the house adopted this amendment by a voice vote last year. i'd again remind the house that just a few weeks ago, the so-called defense hawks warned that our defense budget has been strongled -- strangled by sequestration that every dollar of waste had long ago been rung

out of the pentagon budget and that our national security was directly imperiled as a result. that argument carried the day even though it will add billions to the national debt. yet although we were told we didn't have enough money to adequately pay and supply troops in the field, it seems we do have plenty of defense money to indulge the green energy mandates imposed on our armed forces. but truly trouble -- what truly troubles me is that this was all aired during debate on the d.o.d. propings bill last year, the limiting amendmented were -- amendments were adopted by voice, yet we see the same waste again allowed in this yore's bill. let me refresh memories about the green energy mandate. the g.a.o. reports that these mandates have cost the navy as much as $150 per gallon for jet fuel. in 2012, the navy was forced to purchase 450,000 gallons of biofuel for its so-called green

fleet at the cost of $26.60 per gallon when conventional petroleum cost just $2.50 per tpwhron. these mandates forced the air force to pay $59 per gallon for 11,000 of biofuel in 20212, 10 times more than regular jet fuel cost. it's not just biofuel. last year the pentagon was required to purchase over 1,000 chevy volts as a subsidized price of $40,000 each. senator coburn's office pointed out, each one of these $40,000 chevy gentlemans 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. these green energy mandates that require the army and navy to install solar arrays at various

facilities. at navy station norfolk, the navy spent $21 million to install a 10-acre solar array to supply a grand total of 2% of the base's electricity. according to the inspector general's office, this project will save enough money to pay for itself in just 447 years. too bad solar panels only last about 25 years. if we don't know exactly how much these mandates waste because the g.a.o. reports, there is currently no comprehensive inventory of which federal agencies are implementing renewable energy initiatives and the types of initiatives they are implements -- implementing, end quote. but auds estimates are as much as $7 billion for the department of defense last year a figure expected to grow in the future. . we're told this program is necessary for flexibility. really? shouldn't flexibility free us to get cheaper and more plentiful fuels, not more

expensive and more exotic ones? we're told the military should do its part for the environment. as if it's possible to fight an environmentally sensitive war. and that i fear is the real reason for this wasteful spending. to sacrifice our military budget on the alter of climate change. this is part of 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 anyone else to buy their products. there is a reason that admiral mullin warned us that in his professional military judgment, the greatest threat to our national security is our national debt. now, we just increased that debt because of assurances that we'd stretched the defense budget to the breaking point. as long as this program continues to consume billions of our defense dollars that claim cannot be taken seriously. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his

time. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. visclosky: to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. the chair: the gentleman has five minutes in opposition. mr. visclosky: i would start my remarks by saying the gentleman from california has me at a disadvantage. because we just received a copy of the final amendment that was offered in the house and line 7 and 8 are new to the amendment and referred to executive order 13963. which is in addition to other items that i am opposed to. i am told that those sections in that executive order are referred to planning for sustainability but i cannot confirm that to the members of the house. i do rise in strong opposition to the gentleman's amendment. he talks about exotic items. exotic items. the department of defense would be blocked from purchasing recycled paper. let's not buy recycled paper at

the department of defense, now there's a great idea. the department would be blocked from generating renewable energy that might include using tents with materials that generate solar power onsite for our troops in god for saken places on this planet with no other access to energy sources. the department would be blocked from considering sites for new federal facilities that are pedestrian friendly. and accessible to god forbid, public transit. perhaps we should move the pentagon because it is near a metro stop. the department would be blocked from cooperating with the department of energy's efforts to maximize the use of alternative fuels for our federal fleet. the department of defense is the largest purchaser of energy in the united states of

america. and as a former member of the congress, i have a profound respect for senator dick luger from indiana characterized energy. it's not an energy problem so much as it is a national security issue given where and how much energy we import. the department would also be blocked from advancing sustainable acquisition by trying to procure either less toxic or more water-efficient alternatives. my sense in some portions in the state of california and other areas, they're desperate for a couple of extra drops of water, but that might just be too exotic. these are programs and initiatives that make sense both for the environment and for fiscal responsibility. moreover, the department has been a leader in spurring new technologies and i thought

that's what drives the economy in america. this amendment is terribly ill advised and i would strongly urge all of my colleagues to oppose it and i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. mcclintock: mr. chairman the gentleman's absolutely right. the military's the largest purchaser of energy in our economy. that is exactly the point. they should not be forced to purchase energy at vastly inflated prices to soothe the ideological itch of the environmental left. no one in his right mind would pull into a gas station to pay $26.60 cents per gallon for fuel when the gas station next door is selling it for $2.50. that is exactly what these executive orders are requiring our military to do. it is squandering billions of our dollars and making a mockery of any claim that we are stretching our defense dollars to the utmost. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time.

the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, i move what the committee now do rise -- that the committee now do rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises.

the speaker pro tempore: mr. chairman. the chair: we've had under consideration the bill and it directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2685 and has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the chair: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany resolution 305 resolution providing for consideration of the senate amendment to the bill h.r. 1314 to amend the internal revenue code of 1986, to provide for a right to an administrative appeal relating to adverse determinations of tax-exempt statuses of certain organizations and providing for consideration of the senate

amendments to the bill, h.r. 644, to amend the internal revenue code of 1986 to permanently extend and expand the charitable deduction for contributions of food inventory. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. pursuant to house resolution 303 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 2685. will the gentleman from illinois mr. bost, kindly resume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of house resolution 2685. will the clerk report by title? the clerk: a bill maintaining -- making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30 2016, and for

other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, an amendment offered by the gentleman from california, mr. mcclintockic -- mr. mcclintock, what been disposed of and the bill has been read through page 162 line 25. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota seek recognition? mr. ellison: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. ellison of minnesota. at the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the following, section, none of the funds made available by in act may be used to enter into a contract with any person whose disclosures of a proceeding with a disposition listed in section -- mr. ellison: i would move that the -- unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read. the chair: without objection, pursuant to house rule 303, the gentleman from minnesota and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. ellison: i thank the gentleman for the -- the

chairman for the time. mr. chairman, no hardworking americans should ever have to worry that hire employer will refuse to pay her when she works overtime or to take money out of her paycheck. especially if she works for a federal contractor. this practice is known as wage theft. right now federal contractors who violate the fair labor standards act are allowed to apply for federal contracts. this amendment, from -- this amendment will ensure that funds may not be used to enter into a contract with a government contractor that willfully, and this is important, mr. chairman, willfully or repeatedly violates the fair labor standards act. other iterations of this amendment have simply identified any violations of the fair labor standards act. this one identifies only those contracts wherein the violator has been found to have been

willfully or repeatedly in violation. i hope that both republicans and democrats can agree that willful and repeated violations of the fair labor standards act are unacceptable. that we can find other contractors who do not violate the fair labor standards act willfully and repeatedly. and this amendment ensures that those in violation of the law do not get taxpayer support. it also ensures that honest, good contractors who do not willfully and repeatedly violate the fair labor standards act can have contracts. why shouldn't the federal government work with contractors who have some modicum of respect for their employees and who do not willfully and repeatedly violate the fair labor standards act? this amendment relies upon the violations reported to the federal awardee performance and integrity information system.

again when a contractor applies for a federal contract, there's documentation they have to fill out, including the federal awardee per it for mans and integrity -- performance and integrity information system and that information looks back to look at prior five years' worth of criminal, civil or administrative agency actions which have a vital disposition. none of these things are pending or under appeal. they have been decided. and this amendment says that wherein violations of the fair labor standards act have been decided and determined conclusively and only in the category of those that have been willful and or repeated, then those particular contractors are contractors who the u.s. government shouldn't be doing business with. at least for five years, until they clean their act up. i hope that no one in this body would want to stand on the side of the willful and repeated

violators of the fair labor standards act. it's impossible to me that any member would want to do that. particularly when we're trying to enhance -- promote and do business with honest, decent contractors or at least average and mediocre contractors. this one is going to the, again, willful and repeated violators. very difficult to stand next to them. and i hope no member of this body would do such a thing. the amendment would ensure that a singled in a vernlt violation would not -- inadvertent violation would not disqualify a contractor and that's important. i've had some people say, well, what if somebody just messes up one time? well, no that particular individual wouldn't be hit by this amendment. but the willful and repeated ones would. and so i think taxpayer money should be spent wisely. i think it's the largest purchaser of goods and services, the federal government, must find a way to make sure that funds are going to companies who treat their

workers fairly and give american families a chance to succeed. this is a serious problem, mr. chairman. the economic policy institute found that in total, the average low-wage worker loses a stunning $2,634 per year nun paid wages. representing -- in unpaid wages. representing as much as 15% of their earned income. a report by the health, education, labor and pensions committee of the u.s. senate revealed that 32% of the largest department of labor penalties for wage theft were levied against federal contractors. this is a problem. this is a situation that must be remedied. similarly, the national employment law project study found that 21% of federal contract workers were not paid overtime and 11% have been forced to work off the clock. upholding the rule that the law -- upholding the rule of law is a bipartisan issue and i think that we may disagree on many

things taxes, spending we disagree on that, and there have even been people in this body that disagree that any violator of the fair labor standards act should get a contract but i certainly hope that those people who are repeated let me repeat, repeated and willful violators should be excluded, at least for five years. and i yield back the time that i don't have. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. frelinghuysen: i rise to claim time in opposition. the chair: five minutes in opposition. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. chairman, we all agree that bad actors who deny workers basic protections, including wage and overtime pay, shouldn't be rewarded with government contracts. funded by taxpayer dollars. but this amendment is unnecessary. there is a suspension in department process already in place under the current law. if an employer has a history of bad behavior including willful and repeated violations of lfla