[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 100 (Thursday, July 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H4689-H4732]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2012
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 320 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2219.
{time} 1233
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 2219) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Westmoreland in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday, July 6,
2011, the bill had been read to page 161, line 12.
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to furnish military
equipment, military training or advice, or other support for
military activities, to any group or individual, not part of
a country's armed forces, for the purpose of assisting that
group or individual in carrying out military activities in or
against Libya.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is quite simple. It prohibits
any funds in this bill from being used to conduct military operations
in Libya, a place where I believe we are engaged in an illegal and
certainly unauthorized conflict.
Mr. Chairman, I feel a little bit today like a lawyer with two very
unpopular clients. One of them is Libya, and the other one is the
United States Congress. But in this case, each one of them has an
important point to make.
With respect to Libya, let me make it clear, I don't believe anybody
in this Chamber supports Mr. Qadhafi, supports that regime, or wishes
it well in any way. But Libya did not attack the United States of
America. Libya did not attack any member of NATO. Libya has not allowed
al Qaeda to operate with impunity out of its territory. A number of
years ago, Libya turned over nuclear material to the United States.
Quite simply, however much we detest Mr. Qadhafi and his regime, we
have no reason to be at war or conducting military operations in Libya.
And, frankly, if we allow that situation to continue, I think we have
to ask ourselves: Are we willing to attack any nation any time that we
disagree with a regime that we don't like simply because the President
chooses to do so?
More troubling than the attack on Libya, in my view, is the
circumvention of this body, the United States Congress, and its
warmaking authority under both the Constitution and the War Powers Act.
Only Congress has the ability to authorize and fund military
operations.
The administration consulted with NATO. The administration consulted
with the United Nations. The administration consulted with the Arab
League. It never, in any real sense, consulted with the Congress of the
United States before beginning military operations in Libya.
Two weeks ago, this House made clear its opposition to the Libyan
venture by refusing to authorize even the limited use of force. We
should build on that by removing funding today.
Some may question whether or not this amendment is germane to this
particular piece of legislation. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I worked very
carefully with the Parliamentarian on the language, and, more
importantly, it's modeled after the famous Boland amendment of 1983 to
the Defense approps bill that year that was approved by this body 411-
0.
Some may argue, like the administration, that we really aren't
engaged in hostilities in Libya. That simply is laughable. Attorneys at
both the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice of this
administration believe that our activity requires congressional
authorization under the War Powers Act.
We've flown over a thousand combat sorties over Libyan airspace.
We've launched 228 Tomahawk missiles. We've launched over a hundred
Predators. We're refueling and supporting NATO aircraft that are
engaged in attacking Libya every single day. If that's not war on our
side of this situation, I can assure you that people on the other side
consider it war and certainly consider it hostile.
The reality is we should not be engaged in military action of this
level unless it's authorized and funded by the Congress of the United
States.
In Libya, the President has, quite simply, overreached. However, in
Congress, we have so far allowed him to do so. We've not authorized
this activity. There's not a single line in the Defense authorization
bill or in this bill which actually funds this activity, and we ought
to explicitly prohibit the President from concluding.
I think, like many in this body, this is a very important moment for
the Congress of the United States. Whether or not we claim warmaking
authority and exercise our power under the Constitution is really the
issue here. You could be for the Libyan venture and still be able to
support this legislation, or you could be against it.
At the end of the day, it's extraordinarily important that we stop
the erosion of the warmaking authority and responsibility of the
Congress of the United States, that we end this ill-advised adventure
in Libya, and that we reassert the rightful place of this institution
in conducting war and authorizing it and funding it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1240
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Before I begin, I want to say that I have great respect
for Congressman Cole, who serves on the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee. He is one of our most thoughtful members.
The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of
Libya was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations,
including the Arab League, and it followed a resolution adopted in the
United Nations Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with NATO, which is also playing
a major role in this. We will undoubtedly require support in the future
in our dealings with NATO, and we get support in Afghanistan today.
I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the
costs of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, both in
the defense and foreign affairs-related committees as well as here on
the House floor. We should let the mission with our NATO allies
continue so we can overthrow Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. The Constitution, Mr. Chairman, and the War
Powers Act clearly say what the parameters are within which the
President must act or follow: number one, a declaration of war; number
two, a specific authorization; number three, a national emergency
created by an attack
[[Page H4690]]
upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its Armed
Forces.
None of these criteria were met by the President. He said he went in
there because of humanitarian issues. He consulted, as we've said
before on the floor, with France, England, the United Nations, NATO,
and the Arab League. He had 2 or 3 weeks to do that, but he didn't have
time to talk to the Congress of the United States, and he's gone in
there and spent almost a billion dollars at a time when we just don't
have the money.
Now if you're talking about humanitarian problems, in the Sudan,
2,300 Sudanese have been killed this year alone, and more than 500
people have died in the last 2 weeks. In Darfur, 450,000 to 480,000
have been displaced or killed. Just recently, and one of my colleagues
talked about this a while ago, in the Nuba Mountains in the Sudan,
they're killing people every single day. Horrible atrocities are taking
place. Human rights violations. If you're talking about humanitarian
issues, why wouldn't you go in there as well?
You look, also, at Syria right now. In Syria, there have been an
awful lot of people killed. We all see that on television every night.
There are wars of opportunity. If you go to Liberia, if you go and look
back at the Khmer Rouge, we didn't get into those wars, and we're not
getting into these wars right now because it's not in our national
interest, and it's not a threat to the United States.
The President has taken us into a conflict. He said it's not a war,
but it is a war. We've sent about 230 missiles in there at $1.1 million
per to kill people. We've flown sortie after sortie over there dropping
bombs on people, and the President says it's not a war. It is a war,
it's the United States' war, and it's being covered by NATO.
We shouldn't be going to war unless this body and the other body say
it's okay. It's in the Constitution. It's in the War Powers Act. We
should not be there. Nobody likes Muammar Qadhafi. Nobody thinks he
should be there. But we can't be going into wars of opportunity every
place, especially at a time when we're fiscally broke. I think it's
extremely important that legislation like that which the gentleman from
Oklahoma just offered should be passed, and I hope we will pass it.
There's a whole host of these amendments that are going to be read
today and we're going to be voting on, and we need to send a very clear
signal to the White House that this must never happen again.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. BUERKLE. Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the Cole Amendment to
H.R. 2219. Mr. Cole's amendment would restrict the use of funds for
furnishing military equipment, military training or advice, and other
military activities in Libya.
The President has failed to properly consult Congress on the
engagement of hostilities in Libya. The President is also in violation
of the War Powers Resolution because of the continued military action
past the 90 days allowed under the War Powers Resolution. The
Administration's attempt to excuse the continued U.S. military actions
in Libya by saying that the hostilities do not reach the threshold set
by the War Powers Resolution is disingenuous.
The power of the purse plays an important part in the U.S.
government's system of checks and balances. This amendment today will
prohibit the President from continuing to conduct military operations
in Libya until he can justify the actions to the Congress. I strongly
support the limitation of funding of current military activities with
respect to Libya. The President should not have a blank check to
conduct wars without the consultation and authorization of Congress.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the use of military force against Libya.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. AMASH. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First, I would like to thank the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Kucinich) for his tremendous leadership on this issue. There is a
growing bipartisan support for this amendment. It's an amendment that
gives us the opportunity to stop this unconstitutional war in Libya.
The United States has been at war against Libya for nearly 4 months.
We have dropped bombs on Libyan buildings. We have flown sorties over
Libyan airspace. It has been reported that we have even targeted
Qadhafi himself.
We are at war. The Constitution vests Congress with the exclusive
power to declare war, the President has not attempted to obtain
Congress's authorization for the war, and yet at this moment, as we
debate on the House floor, the war continues.
Instead of following the Constitution and seeking authorization, the
President made strained arguments to justify the continued operation.
At first, the operation was supposed to be ``limited,'' as though that
undefined term serves as a constitutional escape clause. My
constituents certainly would be surprised if Congress established a
limited religion, or subjected them to limited cruel and unusual
punishment, or quartered soldiers in their houses, but only for a
limited time.
After that ``limited'' argument ran its course, the President turned
to a U.N. Security Council resolution and an invitation from an
organization of Arab states to justify our involvement. Those
organizations were not around at the time the Constitution was written,
much less are they listed in its text.
The administration now has retreated from its constitutional
arguments in public and claims that at least the War Powers Resolution
does not forbid the strikes because we're not involved in, quote,
hostilities against Libya. Imagine that the shoe were on the other
foot, that Libya was bombing us. Would we view the Libyan air force's
bombing of our infrastructure as a hostile act? Of course we would.
Last week, a member of the other Chamber called the President's
arguments, quote, cute. I would use a different term: embarrassing.
It's embarrassing that the administration attempts to hide behind these
transparently strained and flimsy arguments, especially when we're
dealing with such a grave issue.
But do you know what would be more embarrassing? If this Congress did
nothing. More embarrassing than the President's contortions of the law
and disregard for the Constitution would be if Congress, with full
knowledge that it was occurring, gave him a pass. In the face of an
attack on the Constitution, in the face of an attack on this
institution and our powers as a coequal branch, we must stand up and
say stop. If we don't, we should be the ones who are embarrassed.
The Amash-Kucinich amendment prohibits funds from being used for
military force against Libya. To be clear, I believe that Congress
doesn't need to do anything to stop the President from ordering force
against Libya; because the President has not received authorization,
the use of force is already illegal. However, to reinforce our
constitutional position, our amendment says that beginning at the start
of the fiscal year, on October 1, the Armed Forces may not drop bombs
on Libya or otherwise use military force. Unlike the bill we considered
the week before last, our amendment does not implicitly authorize any
actions against Libya. It simply says force may not be used because the
President has not sought nor has he received authorization for force.
Please vote ``yes'' on the Amash-Kucinich amendment and defend our
constitutional role in war powers.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1250
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, if this were a debate on policy,
or a debate on philosophy, or a debate specifically on the War Powers
Act, the
[[Page H4691]]
position that I would take would be somewhat different than I must take
today. But as the manager of this bill, what I have to work with is the
bill before the House and the amendment before the House.
Now, the amendment is simple. None of the funds made available by
this act may be used for the use of military force against Libya. What
I would say to the Chair is that there are no funds in this bill, in
this act, for Libya. I was curious about that. And as chairman
preparing to write this bill, in conjunction with Mr. Dicks, the
ranking member, I wrote to the President on April 1, and I sent each of
our Members a copy, asking the President specific questions about the
scope of this activity, the expected cost, et cetera.
On June 22, the White House finally responded, and said that it will
not plan to ask for a supplemental appropriations bill. And there is no
money in this bill for Libya. The administration says that it will not
ask for a supplemental bill to pay for Libya, that they will use funds
in the base budget. I wonder from where the administration is going to
take money out of the base budget. Now, as chairman of the
subcommittee, this worries me. From where do they plan to take the
money? That's only part of the argument. There is no money in this act
for Libya to start with.
But, secondly, if this amendment should become effective, there are
many things that we would not be able to do. We would not be able to
fly or perform search and rescue missions of American forces who may be
flying aerial activity and have planes go down. Early in the operation,
we lost an F-15. Two American pilots went into Libya and safely rescued
the pilot of that F-15. We wouldn't be able to do that under this
amendment.
What we are providing today is surveillance, intelligence, and
reconnaissance. We wouldn't be able to do that under this amendment. We
wouldn't be able to provide aerial refueling to our coalition partners,
and they are our partners and we have an agreement with those partners.
We provide aerial refueling because most of them do not have the
capacity to refuel their aircraft in the air. Under this amendment, we
would not be able to provide aerial refueling. We couldn't even provide
operational planning, sitting down and talking with our coalition
partners about the plan for Libya.
So while this amendment would sound good if we were discussing
philosophy and if we were determining a policy, the policy has already
been established. And this amendment does not change the policy. It
affects something in the bill that's not even in the bill. So there are
no funds in this bill for Libya; and according to the letter from the
White House, supplemental funds will not be requested. The
administration will just pay for the operation out of existing funds.
That remains a good question, and I say that again, I am really curious
to know what base funds they intend to use to pay for this operation in
Libya. I don't have the answer today. I am hoping that one day soon I
may have that answer.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KUCINICH. I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. KUCINICH. I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich amendment.
The esteemed chair, my good friend, of the Defense Appropriations
raises a question: Where are they getting the money? The money is not,
as he points out, expressly in the bill.
Well, this legislation, the Amash-Kucinich amendment, isn't to delete
funds that have already been appropriated. This is to forbid the
administration, forbid the administration, from using funds that are
appropriated in this act.
Now, there is no way that Congress could or would intervene to stop a
search and rescue mission. And that's not relevant unless you're
talking about that this Congress is finally going to search this
defense budget, figure out where the President is getting the money,
and rescue the American taxpayers from a wasteful war and rescue the
Constitution from an illegal war. That is what makes it a search and
rescue mission. But no search and rescue is prohibited by the Amash-
Kucinich amendment.
I want to say that I am proud to have worked with Mr. Amash to come
together with this bipartisan agreement. And the support for it is
growing. We have Mr. Paul, Ms. Woolsey, Mr. Jones, Mr. Conyers, Mr.
Burton, Ms. Barbara Lee, Mr. Poe, Mr. Stark, Mr. McClintock, Mr.
Nadler, Mr. Nugent, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Honda. The support is growing. And
Members can call either Mr. Amash's office or my office right now if
they want to cosponsor.
This is our moment in Congress; this is our moment to reclaim the
Constitution of the United States, which the Founders envisioned that
under article I, section 8, we have the power to determine whether or
not this Nation goes to war, not some rebel group in Benghazi. Because
when you reduce it to its ultimate, a group of Benghazi rebels made the
decision to go to war against its own government, and before you know
it NATO joins in, we're pulled into it. The administration went to
everyone except getting the approval of the United States Congress.
This is our moment to reclaim the Constitution. Will we rise to the
occasion? This isn't only about this Congress right now. History will
judge us whether or not we understood the imperative of article I,
section 8. This is about the Constitution. Certainly it's about a
billion dollars that would be spent by September unless we intervene,
at a time of rising debt, at a time of tremendous pressure on the
budget, at a time when local governments in our communities are cutting
public services because they don't have the money. This administration
determines they're going to take us into war, and they didn't even give
so much as give this Congress an opportunity to have this debate before
the decision was made. That was wrong.
I appreciate that we have been able to set aside any partisan
disagreements that are part of the nature of this forum to understand
that we have a higher calling here. And that higher calling is to
defend this Constitution of the United States, which describes what our
duties are when we come here. We take the oath to defend the
Constitution. That's what we shall do today.
We shall rescue this Congress from the ignominy of having the rights
that the people expect us to exercise on their behalf just trampled by
an administration that doesn't think that we have any co-equal role in
the government at all. This is our moment to stand up, Democrats and
Republicans alike.
I am proud to work with Mr. Amash in crafting this bipartisan
Kucinich-Amash amendment.
This is our moment, Members. Let's not lose this opportunity to stand
up and speak out on behalf of the United States Constitution, on behalf
of the separation of powers, on behalf of the co-equality of our House
of Representatives and the Congress of the United States. Let's show
the Founders, and the spirit of the Founders is always with us in this
place, let's demonstrate that we remember where we came from when this
Constitution was set forth. Let's demonstrate that we have reached our
moment where we stand up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCLINTOCK. Mr. Chairman, for more than 3 months, our Nation has
been amidst a quiet constitutional crisis that carries immense
implications. My friend, the gentleman from Florida, is sadly mistaken
to dismiss this as a meaningless philosophical discussion. This strikes
at the very heart of our constitutional form of government.
{time} 1300
On March 19, completely without congressional authorization, the
President ordered an unprovoked attack against another country. In so
doing, he crossed a very bright constitutional line placed there
specifically to prevent so momentous and fatal a question as war being
made by a single individual.
The American Founders were explicit on this point. For centuries,
European monarchs had plunged their nations into bloody and
debilitating wars on whim, and the Founders wanted to protect the
American Republic from that fate.
James Madison explained why in this passage in a letter to Hamilton.
He
[[Page H4692]]
said: ``In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found than
in the clause which confines the question of war or peace to the
legislature, and not to the executive department. The trust and the
temptation would be too great for any one man. War is, in fact, the
true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war a physical force is to
be created and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war,
the public treasures are to be unlocked, and it is the executive hand
which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and the emoluments of
office are to be multiplied, and it is the executive patronage under
which they are to be enjoyed. Those who are to conduct a war cannot, in
the nature of things, be proper or safe judges whether a war ought to
be commenced, continued, or concluded.''
The President has tried to justify this act in a variety of ways:
that bombing another country is not really an act of war, that there
wasn't time to consult Congress--though more than enough to consult the
United Nations Security Council--or that it was a humanitarian act.
Mr. Chairman, never was there a greater provocation or clearer moral
justification for war than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. And
never was there a more activist President than Franklin Roosevelt.
Yet within 24 hours of that attack, President Roosevelt appeared
before a joint session of Congress in this very Hall. He clearly
recognized that as Commander in Chief his authority only extended to
ordering that ``all measures be taken for our defense.'' He recognized
that under the Constitution, anything more, even in this most historic
attack, required an act of Congress, which he sought and obtained.
The unprovoked attack on Libya was not authorized by this Congress,
and it is accordingly unconstitutional and illegal. Indeed, 2 weeks
ago, the House considered a resolution authorizing a war with Libya,
and it rejected that measure by a nearly 3-1 margin. It then considered
a second measure to authorize acts of war against Libya just short of
actual combat, including refueling tankers on their way to targets. The
identification and selection of targets, operational support,
operational planning, it rejected that measure as well.
The precedent being established right now by the President's
deliberate defiance of the Constitution and the clear will of Congress
has profound implications for our Nation's future. If this act is
allowed to stand unchallenged, it means that the checks and balances
painstakingly built into the Constitution on the supreme question of
war and peace have been rendered meaningless.
Weeks ago, the House voted to deny authorization for the use of funds
for the war on Libya effective October 1. This amendment simply follows
through on that decision in the actual appropriations act.
Frankly, we need to do much more than this. Clearly, one of the
conditions for increasing the debt limit must be to ensure that no
funds, either borrowed or raised, should be used to continue to support
this illegal act.
And we need to remember that a war once started cannot always be
turned off by an appropriations act. Once we have attacked another
country without provocation, we have created an aggrieved belligerent
that now has cause to pursue that war regardless of what the Congress
later decides.
That's why this precedent is so dangerous. That's why the President's
actions are so devastating to our very form of government, and that's
why we need to speak clearly and unequivocally through measures like
that offered by the gentlemen from Michigan and Ohio today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Amash-Kucinich
amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor and at the same time call
on other Members to join us on the floor right now for this important
debate.
Mr. Chairman, I have been struck in recent days by the profound lack
of seriousness in Washington when it comes to confronting this illegal
war we are fighting in Libya. Last week at a news conference, the
President dismissed congressional concerns about war powers authority
and his Libya policy and, he said ``all kinds of noise about process.''
At the same time, the U.S. Senate essentially punted on the issue
earlier this week, pulling the plug on an important debate that the
country needs because a few Republican Senators complained that they
canceled recess only to deal with the debt ceiling, and they were not
going to discuss Libya.
But perhaps it was right here in the House that we have seen the most
incoherence on Libya. Right before we adjourned almost 2 weeks ago,
this body voted against authorizing the use of force in Libya; and then
less than 2 hours later, the House voted to continue funding the war we
had just refused to authorize.
Mr. Chairman, Congress has the ``power of the purse,'' and we must be
prepared to use it. We must use this opportunity to send a powerful
message. A vote of no confidence in this Libya policy will prove that
we do not and will not write another check for a war that Americans
don't want and a war that we did not authorize.
Hostilities with Libya--and, let's be frank, these are hostilities--
have now been going on for more than 100 days with the cost climbing
toward a billion dollars, and that doesn't even include the moral costs
and the cost of civilian lives. The people's money is too important and
too precious, especially during this time of fiscal austerity.
No one believes that cutting off Libya alone is enough to make
meaningful progress on deficit reduction; but I think it's outrageous
that we are talking about cuts in Social Security benefits, and those
cuts are on the table while we are discussing the debt ceiling
negotiations while we continue to throw money at not one, not two, but
three wars.
A Brown University study concludes that when it's all said and done
Iraq and Afghanistan will suck the Treasury dry to the tune of at least
$3.7 trillion. Enough, already.
Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon is like that teenager. You keep giving the
kid the keys to the car, and he keeps crashing it. It's time we cut him
off.
We must draw the line, and we must draw it here. No more funding for
Libya; no more continuance in Libyan hostilities. I urge my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the President says we have gone to
war in the name of humanity. In other words, the President's little war
in Libya is so that we can preserve humanity in Libya.
In the history of peoples, as the gentleman from California has
pointed out, and the histories of countries, it has always been the
king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent
that particular country to war.
So when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect
Union, they decided it would not be the leader, which we call the
President, it would be the people that would decide if we went to war.
They gave that power to the Congress of the United States and only
Congress can declare war, not the President.
{time} 1310
But this is the President's war; and the President, in my opinion, is
in violation of the Constitution. He has led America to our third war.
Whether or not the war powers resolution is constitutional or not, we
can debate that. But he is in violation of it, too, because we're still
engaged in war, whether you call it hostilities or not. Some say it's
not hostile. Well, you be one of the recipients of one of those cruise
missiles on the ground somewhere in Libya, and you might think that's a
hostile environment towards you. But this country is spending money on
a third war, and it is unconstitutional.
Our ancestors had comments about the leader, the king, leading us
into war. The writer of the Constitution wrote a letter. James Madison
said that ``the Constitution supposes what the history of all
governments has always demonstrated, that it is the executive branch
most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with
studied care vested the
[[Page H4693]]
question in this country of war in the legislative body.''
The first Commander in Chief, the first President of the United
States, George Washington, said that ``the Constitution vests the power
of declaring war with Congress, therefore no offensive expedition of
importance can be undertaken until after they have deliberated upon the
subject and Congress has authorized such a measure.''
It is our history, it is our heritage, it is our Constitution, and it
is our principle that Congress must declare war, Congress must be the
one to engage in war. And in my opinion, the President has violated
that Constitution. He has violated the law of the land and the war
powers resolution; and it's Congress' duty now, it is our turn and it
is our responsibility to weigh in on this war and stop money from going
to this war.
Where the President got the $700-plus million that has already been
spent on this war, we don't know. We just want to make sure no more
money is spent on this unconstitutional action.
Muammar Qadhafi is a tyrant. He's an outlaw. There are a lot of bad
guys in the world, Mr. Chairman, and is it now the policy of the
President to pick out the ones he does not like and start blowing up
that country in the name of humanity? We don't know.
So Congress must resume, regain, its rightful authority and role and
make sure that we do not fund the President's little war, or any other
future wars, without congressional approval.
Mr. Chairman, instead of spending money blowing up Libya, we ought to
spend that American taxpayer money in the United States building the
United States and rebuilding America and not destroying somebody else's
country and being involved in somebody else's civil war.
And that's just the way it is.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, we should not turn our backs on the Libyan
people. I want to remind my colleagues that NATO's campaign in Libya
has saved countless lives. Our actions and those of NATO were the only
thing that stopped Qadhafi from committing unspeakable crimes against
humanity. In fact, when the United States and NATO intervened, Qadhafi
was on the footsteps of Misrata and threatening to kill without mercy.
Qadhafi's forces were on the brink of Benghazi hours before NATO's
operation began. Qadhafi literally said that he would kill people with
``no mercy, no pity.'' He said he would go ``house by house, room by
room.'' Those are the words of a shameless, ruthless killer; and we had
to do something, and I'm glad that we did.
Constituents of my district whose roots come from Libya have made it
clear to me that they want me to stand together with humanity, stand
together with vulnerable people. But let me be clear, this is not Iraq,
and this will not be the Iraq war. We did not unilaterally declare war
on another country. On the contrary, our actions were with the
international community, sanctioned by the United Nations, the Arab
League and, most importantly, the Libyan people themselves.
Our role is limited and constrained, no boots on the ground. We
essentially are helping to supply and refuel and add surveillance. Do
we want to signal to other murderous dictators while the people are
standing up for democracy that they have a free hand to slaughter their
public? I hope not.
I say listen to regular Libyans on the street today. They want more
NATO involvement, not less. They want the United States to remain
involved. If we pull out now, the NATO coalition could fall apart and
tens of thousands of refugees fleeing Qadhafi's wrath would jeopardize
the fragile democratic transitions in both Egypt and Tunisia. This
issue has regional implications. It's not limited to Libya alone.
As my constituents know, and my legislative record reflects, I was
adamantly against the Iraq war and I am adamantly in favor of a faster
withdrawal from Afghanistan. In fact, I'm almost always against the use
of the military option. Seldom is it the right course, in my opinion.
But ``seldom'' doesn't mean ``always.'' Srebrenica, Darfur and Rwanda
all warranted our engagement as Libya does today. We made it to the
Balkans, but we didn't make it to Darfur or Rwanda, and literally
millions of people died because of that.
But at the same time, I cannot turn a blind eye to the slaughter of
innocent people. My hope is that the day may never come when I will
ignore the cries of innocent people being murdered by a dictator or
while we cozy up to a murderous dictator. I cannot turn my back on
people demanding the same freedoms we enjoy in America.
I understand my colleagues' aversion to military conflict. I share
it. I understand their fear of mission creep. I share that. But I also
understand that when people are being murdered wholesale, being
ethnically cleansed, being the targets of genocide, the world,
including the United States, cannot and must not stand back and watch.
For the sake of the Libyan people and all demanding freedom in the
Middle East, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution
authorizing the use of limited force.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Chairman, today I was planning to offer my own
amendment which would hold the President accountable to the War Powers
Act with regard to his operation in Libya. My intention was to expose
the President's clear violation of this important law. However, I was
concerned some wording could have raised a point of order. That being
said, I'm proud to cosponsor Mr. Kucinich's important amendment, which
will completely cut off funds for this illegal war.
Mr. Chairman, on March 19, President Obama announced he had
authorized U.S. military forces to conduct operations in Libya.
Unfortunately, the President did this without receiving authorization
from Congress even though he made sure to get the U.N.'s approval. By
not being open and honest with Congress, he left Members in the dark
and unsure of what our ultimate mission was. To this day, the President
hasn't come to Congress to ask for formal approval.
Initially, when the President committed our military operations in
Libya, he said it would be days, not months. Well, now we are
definitely talking months because it is a little over a week we've been
engaged in military operations in Libya for nearly 4 months. In an
effort to escape his responsibility, to this day the President has
refused to acknowledge that the U.S. is engaged in hostilities in
Libya. That being said, those in the Pentagon seem to disagree with the
President on this issue.
While the President has turned a blind eye to truth, the Department
of Defense has decided to award imminent danger pay to servicemembers
who fly over Libya and for those who serve on ships within 110 nautical
miles of the shore. As of June 3, 93 percent of the cruise missiles, 66
percent of the personnel, 50 percent of the ships, and 50 percent of
the planes used in NATO operations against Libya were by the United
States of America.
Mr. Chair, firing a cruise missile at Libya qualifies as hostilities.
In early June, it was estimated that Libya was already costing the
American taxpayers over $700 million.
I have three sons that are currently in the military, and I will
support our troops no matter where the President sends them. However, I
cannot support Obama's decision to commit our military forces'
operations without the required congressional authorization. That's why
I cosponsored this amendment, the 2012 Department of Defense
appropriations bill Kucinich amendment.
With that, I ask all my colleagues, all Members, to come down here on
the House floor and to express support for this important amendment, to
reclaim our Constitution, to reclaim the validity of this Congress as
relates to committing troops to war.
Mr. Chairman, I support this amendment. I encourage all my colleagues
to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1320
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H4694]]
Mr. DICKS. I believe this is an important debate in the House today
as we, appropriately, exercise congressional oversight of the use of
force and the costs associated with our engagement in Libya.
In my judgment, the President's initial commitment of U.S. air power
and naval forces to support the international effort was appropriate,
and certainly within his power as Commander in Chief. In March, the
President clearly outlined the rationale for our involvement in this
military action. Now if I were advising the President, I would have
said send up a resolution and get approval from the House and the
Senate. There is no question that would have been the preferred course
of action.
The U.S. effort was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of
nations, and it followed a resolution adopted in the United Nations
Security Council authorizing ``all necessary measures'' to protect
Libyan civilians attempting to overthrow the oppressive regime of
Muammar al Qadhafi. The Qadhafi government's response to the uprising,
inspired by the ``Arab Spring'' movement, was to use force against
civilians and opposition forces, and the brutal measures prompted the
international outcry and the United Nations action. While the direct
U.S. leadership of this effort lasted a brief time, U.S. forces remain
engaged in the NATO operation.
When I hear many of my colleagues speak in favor of abandoning this
cause, I believe it is important to reflect on the fundamental reason
why we are concerned here. This is the same individual, Muammar al
Qadhafi, who had been planning terrorist actions against United States
citizens and others for decades. This is the same terrorist leader
against whom President Ronald Reagan authorized a military strike in
1986--and he didn't ask Congress for approval--following the bombings
in Berlin and definitive proof of Qadhafi's involvement in other
terrorist activity. At that time, President Reagan publicly denounced
Qadhafi as the ``Mad Dog of the Middle East'' who espoused the goal of
world revolution.
Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today
about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance
to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that
President Reagan started.
Now, just to make it clear, the administration, when they sent up
their report under the Boehner amendment, I believe, they did list out
the military cost for the operation. Daily operations up to June 3 were
$313.7 million; munitions, $398.3 million; global lift and sustain,
$1.6 million. The subtotal for military operations was $713.6 million.
And then the drawdown of DOD supplies, $1.3 million; humanitarian
assistance, $1 million; for a total of $715.9 million.
Now munitions come out of the munition funds; daily operations come
out of O&M funds for the Army and the Navy. The estimate by September
30, 2011, is that daily operations will total $618 million; munitions,
$450 million; global lift and sustain, $10 million; for a total of
$1.078 billion. Drawdown of DOD supplies would be $25 million and
humanitarian assistance of $1 million, for a total of $1.104 billion. I
think that is a pretty clear indication.
Now, our chairman is absolutely correct. They have not asked for a
supplemental here. They are going to use existing funds that we have
already appropriated to take care of this operation. And of course we
would all like to see this thing resolved as quickly as possible, and a
political settlement may be possible. But I think it would be wrong to
undermine the President and our country and our involvement with NATO
and with the U.N. and with our Arab allies on this subject.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash-Kucinich amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, last month, the House voted against defunding
the American military mission in Libya. That was the right decision,
and it still is: along with our NATO allies, we intervened in Libya in
response to Moammar Gadhafi's violent repression of his own people, and
the explicit promise of worse to come. It's also important to remember
that Gadhafi has more American blood on his hands than anyone other
than Osama bin Laden. And we must remember that we intervened in
response to calls from the Arab League, the United Nations, the
European Union, and a unanimous NATO.
Our allies have taken the leading role in Libya, but it is crucial
that America continue to support them. It's crucial because the
campaign against Gadhafi has made significant progress, which would be
dramatically set back by a sudden withdrawal of American support;
because that sudden withdrawal of support could endanger civilian lives
and stall democratic movements across the Middle East; and because it
would represent a failure to keep faith with our NATO allies. As I said
the last time this issue came to the floor: either we are in an
alliance, or we are not. And if we are, that means supporting our
allies in their time and place of need, so that they will continue to
do the same for us--a principle that is especially important when
civilian lives are at stake. I urge my colleagues to oppose this
amendment.
The CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The question was taken; and the Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan will be postponed.
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings will now
resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. Lee of California.
An amendment by Mr. Garamendi of California.
An amendment by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 1 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. Lee of California.
Amendment No. 41 by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
An amendment by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island.
An amendment by Mr. Cohen of Tennessee.
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Poe of Texas.
Amendment No. 1 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 2 by Ms. McCollum of Minnesota.
Amendment No. 13 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
An amendment by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for the second through
the 11th vote. The final two votes will be 5-minute votes.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 97,
noes 322, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 502]
AYES--97
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capuano
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Michaud
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
[[Page H4695]]
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
NOES--322
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--12
Cantor
Cleaver
Conyers
Culberson
DeLauro
Giffords
Keating
Lewis (GA)
Miller, George
Payne
Pelosi
Wasserman Schultz
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1351
Messrs. CONNOLLY of Virginia, MILLER of North Carolina, SCOTT of
South Carolina, and LYNCH changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, CROWLEY, and MURPHY of Connecticut
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Garamendi
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California (Mr.
Garamendi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 133,
noes 295, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 503]
AYES--133
Amash
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--295
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
[[Page H4696]]
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
{time} 1357
Ms. PELOSI changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Nadler
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 174,
noes 251, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 504]
AYES--174
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--251
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Coffman (CO)
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Neugebauer
Whitfield
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1400
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 504, had I been present,
I would have voted ``no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 131,
noes 297, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 505]
AYES--131
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capuano
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Emerson
Engel
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Hall
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Lummis
Lynch
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Pearce
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schrader
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Slaughter
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
West
[[Page H4697]]
Westmoreland
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--297
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Ellison
Ellmers
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1404
Mr. CONYERS changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Lee
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee)
on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114,
noes 314, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 506]
AYES--114
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Courtney
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Holt
Honda
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Price (NC)
Rangel
Richardson
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schrader
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--314
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
[[Page H4698]]
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1408
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 41 Offered by Mr. Cohen
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 210,
noes 217, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 507]
AYES--210
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Marchant
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McIntyre
Meehan
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--217
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Sullivan
Terry
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Watt
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Camp
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.
{time} 1411
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from to ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 507 I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ''no.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cicilline
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Cicilline) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 145,
noes 283, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 508]
AYES--145
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Campbell
Capps
Cardoza
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Maloney
Matsui
McGovern
McIntyre
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Payne
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Upton
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Woolsey
[[Page H4699]]
NOES--283
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in the vote.
{time} 1415
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Cohen
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 119,
noes 306, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 509]
AYES--119
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costello
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeLauro
Deutch
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McGovern
Mica
Michaud
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Payne
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Posey
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tonko
Towns
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
NOES--306
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Edwards
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Berman
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
King (IA)
Stivers
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
[[Page H4700]]
{time} 1419
Ms. WATERS changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Poe of Texas
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140,
noes 285, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 510]
AYES--140
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cummings
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Eshoo
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hall
Harris
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
LaTourette
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lummis
Lynch
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McKinley
McNerney
Mica
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Renacci
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Schilling
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shuster
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Welch
West
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--285
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Farr
Fattah
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gonzalez
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stearns
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Markey
Smith (NJ)
Stivers
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1422
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 201, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 511]
AYES--226
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Butterfield
Campbell
Cantor
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
DesJarlais
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Heck
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kucinich
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Noem
Olver
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
[[Page H4701]]
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Waxman
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (IN)
NOES--201
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Capps
Carson (IN)
Carter
Clyburn
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dreier
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gerlach
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Gutierrez
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hinchey
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Markey
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1427
Messrs. McCARTHY of California and BURGESS changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Ms. McCollum
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.
McCollum) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 167,
noes 260, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 512]
AYES--167
Ackerman
Akin
Alexander
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Burgess
Camp
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fudge
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Gosar
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Heinrich
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jones
Kaptur
Kildee
Kind
Kingston
Kucinich
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moran
Neal
Noem
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Sherman
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Sutton
Tiberi
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Waters
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
NOES--260
Adams
Aderholt
Altmire
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coble
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Holden
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schilling
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Issa
Keating
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1432
Messrs. LoBIONDO and MACK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mr. GUTIERREZ and Ms. SUTTON changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
[[Page H4702]]
Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Cole
The CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a recorded vote
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) on
which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225,
noes 201, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 513]
AYES--225
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bonner
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cummings
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Rehberg
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NOES--201
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Burgess
Butterfield
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grimm
Gutierrez
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Nunes
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Wilson (FL)
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
McHenry
Scott, David
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry) (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining in this vote.
{time} 1439
Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 513, I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
Amendment Offered by Mr. Amash
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Amash) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 229, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 514]
AYES--199
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Carson (IN)
Cassidy
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Long
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCaul
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stearns
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Towns
Tsongas
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
West
Westmoreland
[[Page H4703]]
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Young (AK)
NOES--229
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Engel
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stark
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tonko
Turner
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--3
Culberson
Giffords
Keating
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There are 2 minutes left in this
vote.
{time} 1446
Mr. WESTMORELAND changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rigell
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to support Operation Odyssey Dawn or Operation
Unified Protector.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, each Member of this body has the duty to
protect the separation of powers that was so wisely woven into our
Constitution by our Founding Fathers and which forms the very
foundation of how we govern this great Nation.
Mr. Chairman, an egregious ongoing breach of the separation of powers
is taking place at this very hour; specifically, the usurpation of a
power given only to Congress, that found in article I, section 8 of the
Constitution: only Congress can declare war.
Known initially as Operation Odyssey Dawn and now as Operation
Unified Protector, military intervention easily rising to the
definition of war is being carried out in Libya. It is being carried
out with the bravery, exceptional professionalism and commitment to
victory that define our fellow Americans who serve in our Armed Forces.
And before I address the mission itself, I first applaud their
willingness to sacrifice so much for their fellow Americans.
Mr. Chairman, a careful review of the President's case for support of
his actions in Libya leads me to this sobering but firm conclusion. The
President's use of force in Libya is unwise and it is unconstitutional.
The level of military resources being employed both in personnel and
equipment, the amount of ordnance delivered, and the damage inflicted
constitute acts of war. At the very minimum, they meet the definition
of ``hostilities'' under the War Powers Resolution. Yet not one of the
three criteria delineated in the War Powers Resolution that would
justify his action has been met.
There has been no declaration of war. There has been no statutory
authority issued. There has been no evidence that an attack on American
forces was imminent or had occurred.
Now if a Tomahawk missile was launched into any American city,
whether Los Angeles, Chicago, or even my home city of Virginia Beach,
would that not meet our definition of hostilities? Absolutely, it
would.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this is the pivotal issue: The military force
being directed toward Libya easily triggers the definition of
hostilities. The legal opinion upon which the administration stakes the
legitimacy of its actions in Libya is thinner than the paper on which
it is written. It is not based on law but something that he refers to
as the ``national interest,'' a term that the President, in his wisdom,
believes he can solely define himself. His Office of Legal Counsel
concluded that: ``President Obama could rely on his constitutional
power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated
military operations in Libya which were limited in their nature, scope,
and duration''--listen carefully here--``without prior congressional
authorization.''
{time} 1450
Disregarding the legal opinions of the Pentagon's general counsel and
the acting head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel,
both of whom told the White House they believed that the military's
operations in Libya amounted to ``hostilities,'' the President plowed
ahead.
Mr. Chairman, a President's opinion of the War Powers Resolution does
not negate its authority.
Though required by law, there was no check; there was no balance.
Even the broadest interpretation of article I, section 8 cannot corral
the interpretation held by the President of his unilateral right to
engage U.S. forces in combat. It is irreconcilable with our
Constitution. The President has taken America into a war in the midst
of a financial crisis, in yet another Muslim nation, in pursuit of a
military objective that is ambiguous and constantly morphing.
Though I disagree with the President's actions in Libya, I stand here
today not motivated by partisanship. Now, if I woke up tomorrow morning
and learned that the President had taken action to defend this great
country from imminent danger and attack, I would be the first to stand
next to him and affirm his action. If America should go to war, it must
be done so in a very careful, deliberative manner and as a last
measure.
It must be done so in a way that is fully consistent with our
Constitution. That is not the case here.
My amendment is necessary because only by using the power of the
purse can we end an unwise war and meet our duty, our high duty, to
preserve the separation of powers. Now is the time to act.
I respectfully ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. On March 19, 2011, coalition forces launched Operation
Odyssey Dawn to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 to
protect the Libyan people from the brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi.
Operation Odyssey Dawn ended on March 31, 2011, and transitioned to the
NATO-led Operation Unified Protector, which continues today.
[[Page H4704]]
Operation Odyssey Dawn has ceased operations; therefore part of this
amendment is no longer relevant. However, the NATO-led mission to
defeat Qadhafi and to protect the people of Libya was undertaken in
concert with a broad coalition of nations, including the Arab League,
and it followed resolutions adopted in the United Nations Security
Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
This amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with NATO allies from whom we
will undoubtedly require support in the future and who have been our
partners since 1949. We should let the mission with our NATO allies
continue so we can defeat Qadhafi and protect the Libyan people.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Rigell).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. RIGELL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Norton
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The amount otherwise made available by this Act
for ``Operation and Maintenance--Environmental Restoration,
Formerly Used Defense Sites'' is hereby reduced and increased
by $1,000,000.
Ms. NORTON (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to waive the reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The Acting CHAIR. Objection is heard.
The Clerk will continue to read.
The Clerk continued to read.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, more than 25 years ago, the Congress
charged the Defense Department to identify and then to clean up and
remediate properties which the department had owned or leased in order
to test chemical munitions. Congress did so because these munitions had
left hazardous substances related to the work of the department. There
are more than 2,000 such sites in nearly every State, all the
Territories and in the District of Columbia.
My concern is with those sites in congested residential parts of our
country where there may be dense populations located by formerly used
defense sites. A classic case and perhaps the most important--but I'm
sure not the only one--was the World War I chemical weapons site for
the United States of America. It happened to have been right here in
Northwest Washington, DC, in a portion of what is now American
University and its surrounding neighborhood known as Spring Valley.
The Army is making good on its duty to clean up these formerly used
defense sites (FUDS), including the site in the District of Columbia,
but we have no information on the health effects of these leftover
chemical munitions. They have been found in people's back and front
yards. They have been found, at least here, in people's gardens. Entire
houses and garages, as it turns out, unknowingly were built on this
debris. The site here in the District of Columbia was found by accident
by a utility contractor digging into a trench. The neighborhood had no
knowledge. The city had no knowledge of these leftover munitions.
Again, I stress that there are surely other sites around the United
States, and I cite this case as an example.
This land, in the District of Columbia at least, was used for the
research and development and testing of chemical explosives, and it was
able to be done in this city because there wasn't any local government,
and there wasn't any home rule. I guess, since the city was
administered by the Federal Government, they could simply make a
munitions testing site in this city. Hundreds of pounds of chemical
agents and explosives were developed and released throughout the
environment. We have found in the Spring Valley section of the city
arsine projectiles, mustard gas projectiles, lewisite projectiles, and
other kinds of chemical toxic waste left over from undetonated
ordnances.
When World War I was over, the Army simply used the site where they'd
been doing the testing as a dumpsite. They buried these munitions right
where they were testing. Now, that was the way in which you disposed of
these munitions at the time. In the Spring Valley area that is a
classic case, there are 1,200 private homes, 30 Embassies and foreign
properties, Sibley Hospital, Wesley Seminary. There may be other
metropolitan areas that have formerly used defense sites as well.
Spring Valley may be the prime target because it is such a well-
established neighborhood where chemical agents and munitions were once
used.
{time} 1500
The amendment requires the Secretary to allocate $1 million to study
the human health effects of left-over munitions in congested
residential areas. Just as the Department of Defense and the Army have
acknowledged their obligation to clean up and remove hazardous
substances, especially munitions that have been left behind through
their testing, they also have the obligation to investigate whether
there are any remaining health effects. That is all we are asking; that
there be a study as to whether there are any remaining health effects
at this former munitions site from World War I and other sites like it
in congested residential areas.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to acknowledge the gentlewoman's hard
work to clean up this part of the District of Columbia.
Our bill provides $276.5 million in the Environment Restoration
Account, formerly the Used Defense Site Account. The Department has the
authority to provide funding to those projects that it deems of the
highest priority and that pose the greatest risk to environmental and
human health.
If the Department believes that funding such a study as the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia suggests is important, the
Department has the ability to do so. For these reasons, we do oppose
the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I also appreciate the gentlewoman's amendment, and I will
work with you on seeing if we can talk to the military to use
environmental restoration funds if your amendment doesn't succeed.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. PASCRELL. I would like to ask the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Chairman, to engage in a colloquy on the need for traumatic brain
injury funding for post-acute guidelines for our returning troops.
Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that medical treatment
guidelines for post-acute rehabilitation of moderate and severe TBI do
not exist today. Recognizing this, Mr. Platts from Pennsylvania and Ms.
Giffords from Arizona included an amendment in the National Defense
Authorization for fiscal year 2012 that would require the Department of
Defense to implement post-acute treatment guidelines for traumatic
brain injury. This provision was supported by
[[Page H4705]]
the cochairs of the Brain Injury Task Force--myself, Mr. Platts,
bipartisan. It is my hope that the Uniformed Services University of the
Health Sciences be able to begin the project as soon as possible. Over
the years, the TBI Task Force has addressed many gaps for our
servicemembers.
I now yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
As cochair of the Traumatic Brain Injury Task Force, I am honored to
join with the gentleman from New Jersey in support of implementing
post-acute treatment guidelines.
Before 2007, there were no funds in the budget for traumatic brain
injury treatments, but with the dedicated efforts of Chairman Young and
other members of the Appropriations Committee, through their efforts we
were not only able to provide funding, but more importantly, to sustain
a significant level of funding over the past number of years.
As we continue to address new gaps for our servicemembers suffering
TBIs, in this 2012 authorization bill that was passed in the committee
and moving forward through the process we requested $1 million to fund
these post-acute guidelines that the gentleman from New Jersey has
referenced. It is our understanding that while TBI funding in the
Defense appropriations bill is not separated by purpose, it is our
understanding that the Department uses the overall funding for
traumatic brain injury research for authorized purposes.
Is our understanding correct, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. The gentleman is correct. In this bill, the
committee has provided an additional $125 million for TBI research.
It's above the fully funded budget request of $415 million. And it has
been our long-standing policy that this increased funding is provided
at the discretion of the Department. Historically, this subcommittee
has provided increased funding for TBI research but refrained from
directing how that money should be spent, allowing the Department to
prioritize how best to use that funding for authorized purposes.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, may I also clarify
that should the authorization bill pass with this provision on post-
acute guidelines that the Department then has the needed amount of $1
million to really accomplish this objective which we have.
Mr. Chairman, I would request, as usual, your deepest cooperation.
And no one has done more for our troops than you.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PASCRELL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
I would say to the gentleman that he is correct; should the provision
be carried on the final authorization bill, then the Department would
have sufficient resources to fund the provisions should they decide to
based on this appropriations bill.
Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield to my brother, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts).
Mr. PLATTS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would just like to add my words of great thanks to Chairman Young,
who has been a great leader in doing right by our men and women in
uniform in all fashion, and especially those who have suffered
traumatic brain injury. As a Nation, we are indebted to you and your
staff for your great leadership.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United
States Code (the Defense of Marriage Act).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Chairman, what sets the United States apart from many
other countries that have lots of resources are our values, and that we
are a Nation of laws. We may not agree with all of our laws, but they
are the laws of our land, and not even the President can decide which
laws to enforce and which not to enforce. Yet this administration has
said it will not enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.
The Department of Defense maintains that the repeal of Don't Ask,
Don't Tell does not directly challenge the Defense of Marriage Act,
which protects the right of individual States to define marriage as the
union between a man and a woman. In February, 2011, Attorney General
Eric Holder announced that the Department of Justice would no longer
defend the Defense of Marriage Act in Federal court. However, the House
of Representatives has expressed its intent to continue legal defense
of the statute along with other laws of our country.
My proposed amendment would reaffirm Congress' assertion that funds
may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title I, United States
Code, the Defense of Marriage Act. The Department of the Navy has
already demonstrated how pressures to accommodate same-sex couples can
quickly lead to policy changes that are ultimately contrary to previous
assurances given with regard to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell and
in contravention of the Defense of Marriage Act.
On April 13, 2011, the Office of the Chief of Navy Chaplains, in a
memo titled ``Revision of Chaplain Corps Tier 1 Training,'' directed
that training be revised to accommodate same-sex marriages on military
bases that are located in States where same-sex marriage is legal. The
memo stated, ``This is a change to previous training that stated same-
sex marriages are not authorized on Federal property.'' The memo
further authorized the participation of a military chaplain in a same-
sex civil marriage ``if it is conducted in accordance with the laws of
a State which permits same-sex marriages or unions,'' and if the
chaplain is otherwise certified to officiate. This calls into question
the intent of the Department of Defense with regard to compliance with
existing Federal law under the Defense of Marriage Act.
Congress should establish policy guidance on this issue that will
cover numerous contingencies and unexpected situations in the future.
It is irresponsible for the Department of Defense to dismiss all
concerns about issues involving marriage status by pointing to the
existence of the Defense of Marriage Act.
{time} 1510
There's no contingency plan to address this issue should the Federal
courts invalidate the Defense of Marriage Act. In fact, the
administration is inviting that very policy. Federal court orders could
suddenly overturn current policies of the Department of Defense, which
is not likely to resist or oppose new directives that disregard the
intent of the Defense of Marriage Act. Congress can and should enact a
policy making it clear that Defense Department funds should not be used
in ways that violate Federal laws, including the Defense of Marriage
Act.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying
bill.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentlelady's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Issues such as the Defense of Marriage Act represent
policy questions that are not suited to appropriation bills. Indeed,
this amendment does not address any specific program funding matter
addressed in the bill now before the House.
To the extent that this amendment has any connection to the
Department of Defense, I believe that such a policy issue is
appropriately addressed within the domain of the House Armed Services
Committee. I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
[[Page H4706]]
(Mr. BURTON of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I won't be redundant. I'll just follow up on
what my colleague Representative Foxx said in proposing this amendment
for the two of us.
This is merely a move to make sure that legislation that has already
passed, the Defense of Marriage Act and in the authorization bill
dealing with the Department of Defense, coincides with the
appropriation bill that we're talking about today.
There's been some confusion in the Department of Defense, in the
facilities at these military bases, that there could be marriages
between two men or two women. The Defense of Marriage Act and the
authorization bill clearly state that that cannot happen and will not
happen because it would be a violation of the Defense of Marriage Act
which has passed this body.
And even though the administration has chosen not to be involved in
this issue, I believe it's incumbent on the Congress to make this issue
very clear so that we don't have confusion on these military bases when
we talk about same sex marriages.
I think it is imperative that we make absolutely clear in both the
appropriation bill and the authorization bill, as well as the Defense
of Marriage Act, what the law is, what it's intended to do, so that
it's very clear to the military so they don't have any difficulty in
making decisions on this particular issue.
I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Representative Virginia
Foxx for introducing this amendment on behalf of the both of us.
She and her staff, especially Javier Sanchez, have thoroughly
examined the confusing messages and conflicting protocols within the
Department of Defense related to the implementation of the Defense of
Marriage Act.
Why is this Amendment Needed?
(1) This amendment reinforces language that was included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed the
House on May 26, 2011.
Section 534 of the FY 2012 National Defense Authorization Act
reaffirms the policy of the Defense of Marriage Act by stating that the
word ``marriage'' included in any ruling, regulation, or interpretation
of the Department of Defense (DoD) applicable to a service member or
civilian employee of the Department of Defense shall mean only a legal
union between one man and one woman.
And, Section 535 establishes that marriages performed on DoD
installations or marriages involving the participation of DoD military
or civilian personnel in an official capacity, to include chaplains,
must comply with the Defense of Marriage Act.
This amendment does not impose a new restriction on the Department of
Defense.
It is a straightforward in its purpose and text. It simply aligns the
Department of Defense appropriations bill we are considering today with
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 that passed
the House May 26, 2011.
The amendment ensures that defense dollars are not used to implement
policy changes that violate the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
I believe that appropriations and authorization bills should be
compatible, where possible, and by adopting the Foxx-Burton amendment,
we will do just that for the Defense of Marriage Act.
This is the only opportunity we have to synchronize DoD funding to
the DOMA policy provisions contained in the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012.
(2) The amendment settles--once and for all--any confusion and/or
misinformation within the DoD about the abilities of its personnel to
perform same-sex marriages as well as the use of its facilities.
It is important that we pass this amendment, which is a
straightforward statement reaffirming Congress' assertion that funds
may not be used in contravention of section 7 of title 1, United States
Code (Defense of Marriage Act).
The law ensures the States would not have to recognize same-sex
marriages from other States, and that the Federal Government would
recognize only the union of one man and one woman as marriage.
Offering up Federal facilities and Federal employees for the use in
same-sex marriages violates DOMA, which is still the law of the land
and binds our military.
(3) President Obama's Administration is on record that it will no
longer defend DOMA thus leaving it up to Congress to defend against
challenges to DOMA.
I am confident that activist lawyers and judges will begin
challenging inconsistencies in marriage status for military personnel.
For example, a same-sex couple who was married in a State where same-
sex marriage is recognized sues because they are denied military family
housing. The resolution of this kind of litigation would propel the
courts into policy matters that Congerss should decide.
Bottom line.
This amendment--in conjunction with the Sections 534 and 535 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012--will allow
Congerss to speak with one voice on the Defense of Marriage Act.
If Congress fails to speak clearly on this issue, we are certain to
see more conflicting and confusing DOMA protocols emerging in the
Department of Defense. And, it will be with the blessing of the White
House.
Let's keep our Department of Defense focused on the missions at hand.
Congress can and should make it clear that Defense Department funds
should not be used in ways that violate Federal laws, including the
Defense of Marriage Act.
Support the Foxx-Burton Amendment. Let's leave the guesswork out of
it.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chair, last year, Congress voted to repeal the
counterproductive and unjust policy of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell.''
But despite overwhelming evidence that repeal will strengthen our
military, despite strong support for repeal among our troops and the
American people, despite support for repeal from military leaders like
the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
and despite a Federal court order that the Government stop enforcing
DADT immediately, Republicans are still pushing to keep this shameful
policy in place.
Under DADT, 13,500 gay men and women were discharged simply because
of who they were. These were troops who had served our country
honorably and bravely; 1,000 of them filled what the military calls
``critical occupations,'' such as engineering and interpretation of
languages like Arabic and Farsi.
Our closest allies--countries like Britain, Canada, and Israel--know
better than to throw that kind of service and expertise away.
Yet the amendment offered by Mr. Huelskamp would force our military
to stop training its Chaplain Corps to prepare for the repeal of DADT.
This amendment would substitute Congress's micromanagement for the
judgment of our military leaders on training issues, and it is a
transparent attempt to interfere with the repeal of DADT in any way
possible.
The amendment offered by Ms. Foxx is in a similar vein. It would
prohibit defense appropriations in contravention of the Defense of
Marriage Act, or DOMA.
DOMA is discriminatory and should be ruled unconstitutional--but as
long as it is law, it clearly applies to all Federal agencies,
including the Defense Department.
That makes this amendment entirely unnecessary. Let's see it for what
it is: Republicans' effort to change the subject from open service--an
argument they've lost--to marriage equality--an argument they're still
in the process of losing.
I urge my colleagues to oppose both amendments which put partisan
belief in the exclusion of gays above the strength of our military.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BERMAN. I rise to engage Mr. Dicks in a colloquy regarding an
important area of funding for the Department of Defense.
For more than a decade, the Department of Defense has funded programs
to support established university programs that promote region-wide
informal conferences and task forces on arms control, regional
security, and related topics to the Middle East for Arab, Israeli, and
other officials and experts.
These programs serve an important national security objective--
fostering an alternative means of dialogue and engagement in an area of
unparalleled significance to the United States. I know of one such
program in Los Angeles, and I urge the Department to continue funding
such programs.
I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking
member, for his thoughts on this issue.
Mr. DICKS. First of all, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
And I thank you, Mr. Berman, for your comments and agree that such
programs that support university programs promoting Middle East
conferences and task forces on arms control, regional security, and
other issues
[[Page H4707]]
for Arab, Israeli, and other officials are important and beneficial. I
hope the Department of Defense funds such programs accordingly, and I
will work with the gentleman to ensure that that happens.
Mr. BERMAN. I thank the gentleman.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 64 Offered by Mr. Michaud
Mr. MICHAUD. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 2533a of title 10, United
States Code (popularly known as the ``Berry Amendment'').
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlemen from Maine is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICHAUD. I rise today to offer an amendment with Mr. Kissell to
ensure that no funds in this bill are spent in violation of the Berry
Amendment.
The Berry Amendment requires DOD to procure certain categories of
products from American manufacturers including food, clothing, fabrics,
stainless steel, and certain tools. It was enacted to ensure that the
United States troops wore military uniforms made in the U.S.A. and to
ensure that U.S. troops were fed American-made food.
The Berry Amendment has been on the books for 70 years. Yet, in
recent years, some in Congress have tried to weaken it. At a time of 9
percent unemployment and when employment in the U.S. manufacturing
sector is on the decline, it is more important than ever for Congress
to reiterate its support for existing law that promotes domestic
procurement.
I urge my colleagues to support American manufacturing and to promote
American food and uniforms for our troops by voting for the Michaud-
Kissell Amendment.
At this time, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Kissell).
Mr. KISSELL. I would like to thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Mr. Chairman, for 70 years, as my colleague pointed out, the Berry
Amendment has served this Nation well. It has given our fine military
forces the best of American-made equipment and has guaranteed the
American people the opportunity to make that equipment. It is a matter
of national security. And it should not be a matter, as the intent of
Congress has been clear for 70 years, it shouldn't be a matter of us
standing up to reaffirm this amendment.
But as my colleague said, there have been efforts made to weaken the
Berry Amendment, to get around the Berry Amendment, and we simply want
to remind all folks involved that the Berry Amendment is the intent of
Congress. It has been the law for 70 years. And we need to continue
with the Berry Amendment that any funds that are being spent should be
spent in total compliance with the Berry Amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHAUD. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to advise him that we're prepared to accept this
amendment.
Mr. MICHAUD. I thank the chairman very much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Kissell
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enter into a contract, memorandum of
understanding, or cooperative agreement with, or provide a
loan or loan guarantee to, any United States commercial air
carrier if that contract, memorandum of understanding,
cooperative agreement, loan, or loan guarantee allows the air
carrier to charge baggage fees to any member of the Armed
Forces who is traveling on official military orders and is
being deployed overseas or is returning from an overseas
deployment.
{time} 1520
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from North Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. KISSELL. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple, to-the-point
amendment.
We have heard recently about members of our armed services traveling
on official military business being charged excess baggage fees by our
commercial airlines here in the United States. This amendment would not
make any funds available for entering into any contracts, memorandums
of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan guarantees with
any United States commercial airlines where those contracts,
memorandums of understanding, cooperative agreements, loans or loan
guarantees would allow for excess baggage fees for any member of the
armed services traveling on official military business.
Our folks, when they're traveling and protecting our Nation,
shouldn't have to worry about this, and we as a Nation shouldn't have
to pay extra fees beyond the millions upon millions of dollars that we
already pay to these airlines. This just should be business as usual,
and I encourage all my colleagues to vote in support of this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this
amendment.
Our troops and their families are being asked to make sacrifice after
sacrifice after sacrifice. We should be at a point of trying to make
things better for them, make things easier for them; and I would say
that one of the things that we can do is to adopt the gentleman's
amendment to at least give them some relief when they're coming back
from the war that we sent them to without charging them extra money to
get back home with their belongings.
I applaud the gentleman for offering this amendment, and I rise in
strong support.
Mr. DICKS. Will the chairman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I, too, agree with the chairman. This is one of those
situations where I think we have to step in and take action for our
troops. This is a good amendment, and I urge its adoption.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Kissell).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Ms. Eshoo
Ms. ESHOO. I have an amendment at the desk, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to enter into a contract with a corporation or other
business entity that does not disclose its political
expenditures.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman reserves a point of order.
The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the third time this year to call
for transparency and disclosure in our system and throughout our
government. This appropriations bill will spend hundreds of billions of
taxpayer dollars next year; and a huge portion of it, a portion that's
impossible to quantify, will go to contractors. Some are small, others
rank among the world's largest companies. As we meet today, the
workforce of contractors in Afghanistan is the same size as the
workforce of the uniformed personnel there; and since 2005, we've spent
approximately $12 billion on contractors in Afghanistan. Today, there
are more private contractors than uniformed personnel in Iraq, and
we've spent $112 billion on contractors in Iraq since 2005.
The Federal Government does business with thousands of contractors
who receive billions of dollars in taxpayer
[[Page H4708]]
money. They should be required to disclose their political spending,
and that's what my amendment will accomplish.
In 2002 when we voted to pass the historic McCain-Feingold campaign
finance bill, most Republicans voted ``no,'' saying we needed
disclosure, not soft money restrictions. They said we needed to put
spending out in the open and let the voters assess it. Today, when the
President proposes requiring contractors to simply disclose their
spending, not to limit it, Republicans are up in arms. They say it will
politicize the contracting process; but when contractors can spend
money in elections, the contracting process is already politicized.
My amendment is modest and it's simple: It will bring this
information out into the open and let the public decide for themselves.
The public deserves to know what happens with their tax money.
Mr. Chairman, this is not a revolutionary idea. For the last 17
years, the SEC requires bond dealers to limit their campaign
contributions to the officials in the cities that issue bonds. It
requires them to disclose their contributions, providing the public
with transparency. The rule was challenged and upheld in court, and my
amendment really adheres to the same principle. To quote Senator Mitch
McConnell from 2003: ``Why would a little disclosure be better than a
lot of disclosure?''
I agree with Senator McConnell. With public dollars come public
responsibilities. Disclosure would fulfill this responsibility. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against
the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and
constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates
clause 2 of rule XXI.
The rule states in pertinent part:
``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order
if changing existing law.'' This amendment requires a new
determination.
I ask for a ruling from the Chair.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to speak on the point of
order? Seeing none, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination of whether certain political contributions were
disclosed. The amendment therefore constitutes legislation in violation
of clause 2 of rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
Mr. MULVANEY. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $17,192,000,000, not to be
derived from amounts of appropriations made available by
title IX.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from South Carolina is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. MULVANEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By way of brief summary, this amendment would freeze the base
Department of Defense funding at 2011 levels. It is roughly a $17
billion reduction, or a 3 percent reduction over the bill that's
currently before us. Again, it takes it back to the 2011 levels that we
passed just recently in H.R. 1 during the continuing resolution debate.
This is not, Mr. Chairman, a new idea. It's not even my idea. The
Domenici-Rivlin bipartisan deficit reduction plan also proposed exactly
this--freezing base defense spending at 2011 levels.
{time} 1530
During the budget debate, the one substantive bipartisan amendment
that passed was an amendment that was a sense of the Committee that
said that defense spending needed to be on the table as we look at
spending reductions for 2012. And most importantly, the President's
fiscal commission, the Simpson-Bowles Commission, also recommended
exactly what this amendment does today, keeping defense spending at
2011 levels.
I happen to believe that at least, especially in this area, the
Simpson-Bowles Commission is correct. And I want to read from the
commission's report: ``Every aspect of the discretionary budget must be
scrutinized. No agency can be off limits, and no program that spends
too much or achieves too little can be spared. Any serious attempt,''
and I will say that again, ``any serious attempt to reduce the deficit
will require deliberate, planned reductions in both domestic and
defense spending.''
Personally, I like to think that I am serious about cutting our
deficits. I hope that I am not alone. Many of us have gone around back
home and told people how serious we are. But how can we look them in
the eye and tell them that we are serious about cutting this deficit
and about cutting spending and then come in and plus-up the base
defense budget?
Admiral Mullen himself said that with the increasing defense budget,
which is almost double over the last 10 years, it has not forced us,
that's the Defense Department, to make the hard trades. It hasn't
forced us to prioritize. It hasn't forced us to do the analysis.
We just received a Budget Committee memo today that said of the 92
major defense acquisition programs, 69 percent of them are over-budget.
One in every five of them is over-budget by at least 50 percent. That
is simply not right. It's not what our families are having to do. It's
not what our States are having to do. It's not even what we have chosen
to do in other areas of the budget. We have made hard decisions. We
have made hard choices. The Defense Department needs to do exactly the
same.
This amendment will not in any way limit our national defense
capabilities. It will not put a single soldier at more risk. It simply
holds defense spending exactly where we were 3 months ago when we
approved the CR.
Having been here about 6 months, there is one thing that I have
learned being a freshman. And for the folks who are here for the first
time, the message is this: talk is cheap. Talk is especially cheap.
It's very easy for us to go home and tell folks how important it is to
cut spending, how serious we are about cutting spending. But nothing
sends the message that we are really serious about it like cutting
spending on something that is important to us. It's easy to cut things
that we don't like. It is hard to cut things that are important to us.
And defense spending is critically important to me and to the folks of
this Nation and to the folks of South Carolina.
But if we're going to send a message that we are really serious about
cutting spending, then everything needs to be on the table. And holding
defense spending simply at 2011 levels and passing this amendment would
help show everybody that we are really serious about fixing this
difficulty.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. This amendment follows the Lee amendment and the Garamendi
amendment in cutting about $17.1 billion from the Overseas Contingency
Operation Fund. I myself feel that we could be reducing our troop
levels faster, but I don't think we should take the money out at this
point until we have a better understanding of the pace of the
withdrawal.
Now, we know the President's plan is 10,000 this year and another
23,000 next year. And so there will be some savings in the overseas
contingency account as those troops come home. But I think it's too
early to make a decision on that. Better left to do it in conference,
where we can make a reasoned judgment and talk to the Pentagon and the
Congressional Research Service so that we have a better idea of how
much savings this will be. I feel that this is premature at this point.
The other two amendments were soundly defeated, and I think the same
fate will be here.
I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.
Mr. MULVANEY. Just for clarification, the amendment only makes the
change to the base spending. It does not change anything in title 9. It
does not change overseas contingencies in any way. It is simply the
base portion
[[Page H4709]]
of the DOD budget. Thank you for yielding.
Mr. DICKS. That's even worse. I would doubly oppose the gentleman's
amendment on that part of it. So let's defeat this amendment, as we
defeated the others.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I am
one of the original budget cutters in this Congress. But I will not cut
a defense budget to the point that it adversely affects our troops or
adversely affects our country's readiness. And we could be getting
close to that.
This year, Secretary Gates made his recommendation, which resulted in
the President's budget request being $13 billion less than we had
anticipated for national defense. In addition to that, this committee
recommended, and this Congress will pass sometime today or tomorrow, a
bill that is $9 billion less than the President requested. So we have
cut and saved money everywhere we could without affecting readiness and
without having an adverse effect on our troops.
If we start cutting too deep--and we were careful with this $9
billion reduction, very careful--we don't want to see that we have to
cancel training for returning troops. We don't want to have to cancel
Navy training exercises. We don't want to have to slow down or reduce
Air Force flight training. We don't want to delay or cancel maintenance
of aircraft, ships, and vehicles. We don't want to delay important
safety and quality-of-life repairs to facilities and to military
barracks. If we do those things, we are affecting our readiness.
Training relates to readiness.
Training is a large part of the money in the base bill, not the
overseas contingency operations account, but the base bill, which is
what this amendment reduces. This amendment could be getting us very
close to a dangerous situation where troops and readiness are affected.
And there is just no way that I can even appear to support this
amendment. I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina will be postponed.
Amendment No. 71 Offered by Ms. Bass of California
Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of section 1590 or 1591 of title 18,
United States Code, or in contravention of the requirements
of section 106(g) or (h) of the Trafficking Victims
Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7104(g) or (h)).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. BASS of California. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan amendment is
simple. It prohibits the Defense Department from being used to engage
in or facilitate human trafficking. Thousands of private contracting
defense firms, including some of the industry's biggest names, such as
DynCorp International and Halliburton subsidiary KBR, have been linked
to trafficking-related incidents. Thousands of nationals from
impoverished countries are lured by the promise of good jobs, but
sometimes end up victims of scams that leave them virtual slaves, with
no way to return home or seek legal recourse.
Despite this, allegations against Federal contractors engaged in
illegal labor practices ranging from contract-worker smuggling to human
trafficking in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to surface in the media.
A recent New Yorker article illustrates the urgent need for this
amendment. The article tells the story of two women from Fiji who
thought they were going to lucrative jobs in Dubai, but ended up,
quoting the article, unwitting recruits for the Pentagon's invisible
army of more than 70,000 cooks, cleaners, construction workers,
beauticians, et cetera, from the world's poorest countries who service
U.S. military contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
These two women were asked to deliver resumes, hand over passports,
submit to medical tests, and they had to pay $500 to a recruiting firm.
They were lured to Iraq under false pretenses and then told they would
be making $700 a month. That was after they believed they were going to
be making $3,800 a month, 10 times the normal salary in their home
country.
{time} 1540
What they didn't realize was that they were contracted to work 12
hours a day, 7 days a week. They were also victims of sexual harassment
and assault.
After complaining, they were sent off base for making trouble and
held for a month while their passports and ID badges were confiscated
by the subcontracting company. The company that hired them was
initially reprimanded but still operates in Fiji and still has a
contract with the U.S. military.
Meanwhile, allegations against Federal contractors engaged in
commercial sex and labor exploitation continue.
Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. I rise in strong support of this amendment, which will
prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to facilitate human
trafficking and labor abuses on U.S. military bases.
As cochair of the bipartisan Congressional Caucus on Human
Trafficking, I am particularly concerned that workers from South Asia
and Africa are being trafficked to work on U.S. military bases and that
U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent to unlawfully lure and transport them
to work in extreme conditions.
It is Army policy to oppose all activities associated with human
trafficking. This must include the supply chain that provides services
to our servicemembers defending our country.
We must have strong oversight over our contracting system to ensure
that it is free from human rights abuses, and this amendment works
toward that end.
I urge my colleagues to join us in fighting human trafficking and
support this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would just like to advise the gentlewoman
that I consider this an extremely important amendment and I am happy to
accept it.
Ms. BASS of California. Thank you.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. We will be glad to accept the amendment. We appreciate
your hard work in this effort.
Ms. BASS of California. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. I would like to thank the gentlemen for
accepting the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment,
which cuts funding to subcontractors in the U.S. Defense Department.
This amendment would prevent funding from being used by subcontractors
hired by the Defense Department who engage in unlawful activities of
human trafficking and labor abuses on military bases.
At a time where we are going across the board looking for all the
budget cuts we can find to help reduce the national debt, it only makes
sense to eliminate funding to these nefarious individuals who are
performing atrocious acts on our military soil and are not representing
what this great country stands for. We as Americans cannot fund human
trafficking nor can we allow labor abuse; these abuses are not what
this country stands for and it's our job as lawmakers to do everything
in our power to put an end to such crimes.
We can send a loud message with this amendment that the United States
does not stand for such horrible crimes. So I join my
[[Page H4710]]
colleagues in support of the Bass-Maloney Amendment to H.R. 2219.
Ms. BASS of California. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Bass).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Runyan
Mr. RUNYAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds in this Act may be used to
procure air transportation from a commercial air carrier for
a member of the Armed Forces who is traveling under orders to
deploy to or return from an overseas contingency operation
under terms that allow the carrier to charge the member fees
for checked baggage other than for bags weighing more than 80
pounds or bags in excess of four per individual.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. RUNYAN. I thank my colleague from New York (Mr. Grimm) for his
support on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Runyan-Grimm amendment
which seeks excess baggage fees being charged to servicemembers
deploying or returning from an overseas contingency operation.
This issue was brought to light early in June when a group of Army
Reservists traveling back from Afghanistan were charged $200 each for
checking a fourth bag, some of which contained U.S. Government
equipment like an M4 rifle, a grenade launcher, and a 9-millimeter
pistol. The soldiers posted a YouTube video, titled, ``Delta Airlines
Welcomes Soldiers Home,'' expressing their frustrations for what they
had experienced.
After serving our country in theater and enduring an 18-hour layover
on their trip home, the warm welcome this group received was a $2,800
out-of-pocket expense. This is an unacceptable slap in the face,
whether it was intentional or not. Applying these charges to those
headed to or returning from the fight is an insult to them and their
service to our Nation.
My amendment would make none of the funds available by this act to be
used to pay any commercial air carrier if that airline charges excess
baggage fees for the first four pieces of checked luggage that are 80
pounds or less per servicemember. This amendment is a reasonable
compromise, whose primary purpose is taking care of our warfighters
while not allowing the system to be abused.
Our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines risk their lives to
protect the freedoms we all enjoy. They take great personal sacrifices
to defend our country. There is no doubt they should be provided with
any reasonable accommodations while traveling on orders to or from
theater of operations. Most importantly, they should not have to endure
personal financial hardship as a result of traveling to and from
overseas contingency operations. $200 is a large amount of money to pay
out of pocket, especially for those who are enlisted.
It shouldn't take a YouTube video and bad publicity to convince any
of us to do the right thing. With this amendment, we are sending a very
strong message that our warfighters are individuals who are serving our
country and not for an addition to a profit margin.
The amendment is endorsed by the VFW and the National Guard
Association of the United States. I hope all my colleagues will stand
with me in support of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines by
voting in favor of this amendment.
National Guard Association
of the United States, Inc.,
Washington, DC., July 7, 2011.
Hon. John Runyan,
House of Representatives, Longworth Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Runyan: We are writing to express our
strong support for your recently proposed amendment to H.R.
2219, the FY12 Defense Appropriations bill to target and deny
funds to commercial airlines who would charge excess baggage
fees to servicemembers deploying and returning from overseas
contingency operations. The National Guard Association of the
United States represents over 45,000 members of the National
Guard, their families and employers.
NGAUS believes in the fair treatment of our servicemembers,
including our Guard and Reserve, when they deploy and return
from overseas operations. The incident this past June where
soldiers were charged excess baggage fees for equipment by an
airline was outrageous. This amendment would appropriately
target the program airlines participate in for supporting
additional airlift capability for troops/baggage and
equipment while denying funds made available in the bill to
those airlines who violate tile program and charge baggage
fees for the first four pieces of baggage (not exceeding 80
lbs and not including any carry-on baggage).
The National Guard Association of the United States
strongly supports your efforts to correct unfair treatment by
airlines in regards to our members of the National Guard and
our Armed Forces deploying or coming home from overseas
contingency operations.
Sincerely,
Gus Hargett,
Major General, USA (Ret),
President, NGAUS.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to thank the gentleman for
the hard work that he has done on this amendment. I associate myself
with his comments because I strongly agree with everything that he
said, and I am happy to accept the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Runyan).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sherman
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.
Mr. SHERMAN. I ask that the Clerk read the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the Clerk will report the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used in contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50
U.S.C. 1541 et seq.).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SHERMAN. I had the Clerk read the amendment to show how short and
how simple it is. It simply says that none of the money appropriated in
this bill can be used to violate the War Powers Resolution, which is
the law of the land found in title 50.
The War Powers Resolution simply states that a President may not
deploy our troops into hostilities or our military forces into
hostilities for more than 60 days if the President does not have
congressional authorization. In the absence of such authorization, the
President has 30 days to withdraw.
This is the exact same amendment that we considered 3 weeks ago on
the MilCon appropriations bill. At that time it got the support of 60
percent of the Republicans and 61 percent of the Democrats, and I hope
that those who voted for the bill or the amendment 3 weeks ago would
vote the same way today. I hope to be able to persuade a few who voted
the other way last time.
This amendment is important, even if we weren't engaged in Libya at
all, because for the last several administrations, Presidents have been
captured by the siren song of extremist lawyers who are part of the
permanent executive branch. They tell the President that the President
of the United States, acting alone, can deploy our troops into
hostilities for unlimited duration, for any purpose, and, in any
quantity, any assets can be deployed.
{time} 1550
We are told that there are no limits on the President's power as
Commander in Chief. Well, the War Powers Act says otherwise, and it is
the law of the land. Now these extremist attorneys in the executive
branch have gone a little further. They have added insult to injury by
floating the idea that a resolution by NATO, the Arab League, or the
United Nations can substitute for an authorization from both Houses of
Congress, or they have said that briefing the leadership of Congress is
a substitute for enacting an authorization. But even the most extremist
attorneys in the executive branch admit we have the power of the purse,
and we can prevent the funds provided by this appropriations bill from
being used to violate the War Powers Act.
[[Page H4711]]
If we were to do otherwise, we would be abdicating our own
responsibility, for if Congress habitually appropriates funds knowing
that they will be used to violate the law of the land, then we would be
complicit in undermining democracy and the rule of law here in the
United States.
Now we on this side admire the President of the United States. But
even if you would grant this President unlimited power to deploy
unlimited forces for unlimited duration, if you ignore the War Powers
Act today, you are granting that power to the next President. And those
of us who are in good health will all live to see a President that we
disagree with. And even if you agree with exactly what's happening in
Libya, it is important that we draw a line and say that the conduct of
our foreign policy must be consistent with U.S. law.
Now as a practical matter, this President has taken the extreme
position that we are not engaged in hostilities in Libya. So what will
be the practical effect of this amendment? First, I think he will
reconsider that decision, because I think the lawyers behind it took
refuge in the belief that the War Powers Act was somehow not binding on
the administration. With this amendment, the War Powers Act is binding
because we do have the constitutional right to limit the use of funds.
Furthermore, at a minimum, this amendment would prevent the President
from deploying regular ground forces to Libya. Now I realize he doesn't
intend to do that at this time. But, clearly, this President could not
claim that armored divisions deployed in a war zone were not engaged in
hostilities. So the minimum practical effect of this amendment is to
limit Presidential power to what is going on now and not to introducing
major combat operations.
Now, I support a limited effort to bring democracy and the rule of
law to the people of Libya. That's not what this amendment is about.
This amendment is about democracy and the rule of law here in the
United States. I think that if we pass this amendment, and if we can
get the Senate to do likewise, that the President will come to Congress
and seek an authorization for what is going on in Libya. And at that
time, Congress will be able to influence our policy. I think we would
insist on a legal limitation to limit our efforts to just air forces
and perhaps ground rescue operations. I believe that we would insist
that we have the right to review that policy every 3 or 6 months. I
believe that we would insist that the $33 billion of Qadhafi assets
which have been frozen by the U.S. Treasury be used to finance this
operation, instead of American taxpayer dollars. And I believe that we
would insist that the rebels in Benghazi disassociate themselves from
the al Qaeda operatives in their midst and from the Libyan Islamic
Fighting Group.
But we can't insist on anything if we accept the view of extremist
attorneys in the executive branch who view Congress as merely an
advisory body. A review of the law and a review of the Constitution
indicates that Congress has and should not be derelict in exercising a
role in forming American foreign policy.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The amendment prohibits the use of funds in this bill to
breach the War Powers Act. However, the proponents hope this language
will compel the administration to change our response to the crisis in
Libya.
I oppose the amendment on two different grounds. First, the language
of the amendment cannot possibly deliver what the proponents claim.
Second, what the proponents hope to accomplish would harm the efforts
of our allies, working against our national interests and benefiting
Qadhafi.
The language can't deliver on the proponents' promises for two
reasons. First, the amendment restricts the use of funds in this bill,
but none of the $118.7 billion in the overseas contingency portion of
the bill are designated for Libya. Second, the language merely requires
compliance with the War Powers Act, but the heart of the proponents'
difference with the President is a matter of interpretation about what
constitutes compliance. The amendment takes us no closer to a
resolution of that difference.
I would oppose the amendment even if the language could accomplish
what the proponents hope for. To further restrict our role in Libya
puts us on the wrong side of history and on the wrong side of the Arab
Spring. It would hinder the efforts of our allies, if not making NATO's
mission impossible and prolonging Qadhafi's tenuous hold on power.
To address the matter of Libya, I believe that language--similar to
the language introduced in the other body by Senators Kerry and McCain,
is the appropriate course of action at this time--this language
preserves the understanding between the administration and Congress
that U.S. ground forces are not appropriate at this time, and it
requires regular and detailed reports from the administration to the
Congress.
Now I must say that I, too, agree that the President would always be
better served, as President Bush did and President Clinton, to come to
Congress to get approval of the authorization. But to unilaterally
overturn an effort that includes NATO, the Arab League, and the United
Nations saying that this horrific act would take place against the
people of Libya, is just, I think, a big mistake, and it would
undermine U.S. foreign policy that's been consistent since 1949 when
NATO was established. So I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide assistance to Pakistan.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment,
which states, as you have just heard, no funds in this bill may go to
Pakistan.
Pakistan is a country on which we have spent billions and billions of
dollars. We've given them $18 billion just since 9/11--not to mention
the many billions of dollars we gave to them during the Cold War. What
has all that spending achieved for the people of the United States?
Pakistan is now the best friend to America's worst enemies: radical
Islam and, yes, an emerging and belligerent China. Wake up, America.
Was anyone really surprised to find Osama bin Laden was living in a
luxurious mansion in plain view in a military-dominated Pakistani city?
Let me admit that even I was surprised that the Pakistani Government
was so bold, so open in its contempt of the people of the United
States, as to arrest five of its citizens for helping us bring to
justice Osama bin Laden, that terrorist radical fiend whose leadership
led to the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11.
The Pakistan Intelligence Service, the ISI, is today, as it always
has been, a friend of radical Islam and an enemy of Western democracy.
With American acquiescence and Saudi financing, the Pakistani
Government--read that the ISI--the Pakistani Government created the
Taliban as Islamabad's vanguard for the conquest of Afghanistan. In the
process, they set in place a fundamentalist anti-Western radical
Islamic terrorist state.
Let's note that even after 9/11, after 3,000 of our citizens had been
slaughtered, the ISI continued to covertly support radical Islamic
terrorists, and they are still engaged in such hostile
[[Page H4712]]
acts, even as American lives are being lost even today.
{time} 1600
In 2010, the London School of Economics published a report that found
agents of the ISI--this is 2010, long after 9/11--were ``funding and
training the Afghan Taliban.'' And to top things off, there is
substantial reporting that has been done that suggests that Pakistani
diplomats are lobbying the Afghan Government leaders, suggesting that
they dump the United States and turn to China for a partnership and
reconstruction.
This isn't shame on them; this is shame on us. Washington may be able
to coerce and bribe Islamabad into doing us a favor now and then, but
it is time to face reality. The goals and values of the United States
and Pakistan are fundamentally at odds. Wake up, America. This bill
would provide for another $1 billion to Pakistan. The Pakistani
Government and Pakistan, they are not our friends. Why are we borrowing
money from China to give to a government that has betrayed us time and
time again?
Therefore, I urge adoption of my amendment to eliminate any funding
in this appropriations bill from going to Pakistan.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The bill includes approximately $2.4 billion to support
the Pakistani military. Of this amount, $1.1 billion is for the
Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund, and approximately $1.3 billion is
provided through Coalition Support Funds.
The Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund provides for the training and
equipping of Pakistani forces specifically to aid U.S. counterterrorism
objectives. Coalition Support Funds are used to reimburse the Pakistani
military for operations which generally support U.S. counterterrorism
objectives.
In the wake of Osama bin Laden's killing by U.S. Special Forces,
serious questions have arisen about Pakistan's reliability as a
strategic partner, and I agree with the gentleman from California that
this has raised serious questions here in the United States about the
reliability of one of our partners. And also, there are questions about
President Karzai in Afghanistan as well.
Now, the relationship with Pakistan has always been difficult. It
reminds me a great deal, during World War II, of our relationship with
the Soviet Union, Russia. That was a difficult relationship, but it was
essential at that time. And it is essential at this point. This
relationship has helped the U.S. make progress against terrorism, and
the Pakistanis have allocated a significant part of their forces within
their own borders to this mission, which we need to do more of on the
federally administered tribal areas and in Quetta, where the Afghan
Taliban leadership exists. And we need them to let us bring our Special
Forces into Pakistan.
Now, a complete withdrawal of U.S. assistance would likely polarize
Pakistan and exacerbate significant pro- and anti-American rifts within
their military and their government generally. Aggravating this divide
would be counterproductive to U.S. objectives in the region.
In addition to the counterterrorism activity, the fact of Pakistan's
nuclear weapons capabilities provides ample reason for the United
States to continue positive engagement, so I urge my colleagues to
reject this amendment.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is any of the money that we have in this bill going
to end up financing the ISI? Will any of that money end up in the hands
of the ISI?
Mr. DICKS. I cannot say for certain. I don't think there is anything
in this bill that I know of, any provision that provides funding
directly to the ISI. Now, there may be. As the gentleman knows, there
are other avenues in the intelligence world. But I don't know of
anything specifically in this bill. And the ISI, I have just as much
trouble with them as you do. But I don't think that we have anything
specifically in the bill that funds them.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Is there any language in the bill that would prevent
the money in this bill from going to the ISI?
Mr. DICKS. No, I don't think there is any prohibition in this bill.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. All right. Thank you very much.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
voice vote by which amendment No. 61 offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) was adopted be vacated to the end that the
Chair put the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Utah?
If not, the earlier voice vote is vacated.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment.
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from North
Carolina will be postponed.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. I would ask the subcommittee chairman, Mr. Young,
if he would enter into a colloquy regarding the Minuteman III Warm Line
Solid Rocket Motor Sustainment program.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I would be very
happy to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. As the chairman is aware, the Air Force has
proposed to terminate the Minuteman III Warm Line Solid Rocket Motor
Sustainment program beginning in FY 2012. The Air Force has not
presented this committee a viable plan to sustain this strategic weapon
system beyond the year 2020 as these motors age out, and the program of
record now requires the system to be deployed until 2030, which does
leave a 10-year gap of vulnerability with no Minuteman III-specific
industrial base to support this weapon system.
Would the chairman agree that it is vitally important that the Air
Force undertake what is called a smart closeout of this program to
include taking definite steps to preserve the essential tools, the
uniquely skilled workforce, suppliers, equipment, and production
facilities needed to continue to produce and support the readiness of
Minuteman III motors through their current operational life cycle
through at least 2030?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman from Utah for bringing
this matter to our attention, and we do share his concern for the solid
rocket motor industrial base.
We understand that the Air Force is considering their options, and we
certainly intend that they use closeout funding from the Minuteman III
mod line in a wise manner. We believe that they should seriously
consider a smart closeout, as the gentleman from Utah described, and
should also consider incorporating the essential elements from the
Minuteman III production line into existing production lines for other
defense solid rocket booster programs in order to preserve both
military capabilities and to ensure the best use of taxpayer funds.
[[Page H4713]]
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, do you also
agree that all funds provided for Minuteman III modification in this
bill may only be used to support the current Minuteman III system and
that no funds have been either requested in the President's budget
request or provided by this committee to begin a new start program for
a future, currently unauthorized Minuteman III follow-on capability?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I would respond that the purpose of the funding
that we have provided for the Missile Modifications program is to
support the operational capability of the Minuteman through 2030. This
includes $34 million, as requested, for closeout of the warm line
program. Development of any follow-on capability is still years away.
And the gentleman is correct, a new start system would require
authorization and appropriation by the Congress, which the Air Force
has not requested and we have not provided. We intend that warm line
funds be used in a manner that preserves the industrial base and does
not diminish our future strategic capabilities.
I commend the gentleman for his leadership in this area and look
forward to working with him further on this issue.
{time} 1610
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman for his
kindness and his answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert
Mr. GOHMERT. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated, expended, or used in any manner to support
military operations, including NATO or United Nations
operations, in Libya or in Libya's airspace.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, we have had a couple of amendments we've
already voted on. In reviewing whether or not to withdraw my amendment,
my concern comes on the review of Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, my dear friend,
and the amendment that passed that he provided. His amendment says that
none of the funds in the act may be used for supporting military
activities of any group or individual not part of a country's Armed
Forces. So it still could be used to supplement another country's Armed
Forces through NATO or through the U.N.
We have here a case where people on both sides recognize that the
President moved forward and put our military in harm's way to go after
a man who until March 1 was recognized by the United Nations as being a
leader in human rights. In fact, it had elected him in 2003 to be the
chairman of the Human Rights Commission of the U.N. We also know from
our office's inquiry of our own military that we comprise 65 percent of
NATO's military. So it is not comforting to think that this President
has already gone beyond seizing on loopholes and is just ignoring laws
in order to do what he wants because the Arab League asked him--not
Congress, not the population of the United States, but the Arab League
and some in NATO.
It has not been established--and there are no indications it will be
established--that the people who are going to replace Qadhafi will be
better for us, for our national security or for our allies like Israel.
So, if it's not good for this country's national security and if it's
true as to what the gentleman Secretary Gates said, to whom the
President recently awarded a Medal of Honor, that we have no national
security interests in Libya, then we should not be committing our
military in that direction.
Even though the U.N. may support action in Libya and even though they
may buy into this Arab Spring, we are already seeing that Iran is
excited because it looks like they're going to get additional puppets.
We found out this week that the leader of Iraq, Maliki, is giving in to
the request of the leader of Iran and is going against his promise to
us and to the people of Camp Ashraf that they'll be safe and secure.
Now he's saying he's going to disband the camp.
It is time to put America's national security and national interests
first and not some whim of some President because someone outside the
U.S. asked him. We know the Muslim Brotherhood, despite what some say,
has been supporting terrorism. The evidence was clear in the Holy Land
Foundation trial. We know that this administration has bent over
backwards to appease such folks, so it is time for an amendment to make
very clear, which this one does:
Mr. President, it doesn't matter whether you're going to try to use
our military through NATO, our military through the U.N., our military
head-up for a reconnaissance rescue. It doesn't matter. You're not
going to use them.
For those who argue the War Powers is constitutional or is
unconstitutional, I would humbly submit it does not matter. Even though
the War Powers Act was passed as a curb against the President at the
time, it is actually a gift to a President. This body has the power of
the purse to cut off funding at any time it so desires, and the War
Powers gave him a gift that said, Look, we'll give you days and days
and days to come make your case before we cut you off.
That's a gift.
This President has shoved it back down our throats, and has said, I
don't care what you think.
It is time to use the constitutional powers of this body and say,
``Enough.''
In the hopes that people will vote for this amendment, I yield back
the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I find it a little difficult to listen to the
arguments about the War Powers Act, because I agree with those
arguments.
First of all, in 1973, I think the Congress did give Presidents a
gift of power not intended by the Constitution. The Constitution is
very clear. It intends that war-making decisions would be made in
conjunction with the Commander-in-Chief and the Congress, not the
Commander-in-Chief by himself or herself and not the Congress alone,
but while working together. That's not the way it has been happening
lately. There hasn't been a real declaration of war under the
Constitution since World War II, but we have fought in a lot of wars,
and we have killed and wounded a lot of our kids.
That's not the argument, though. I agree with all of those points. I
think that Congress has a serious responsibility to review the War
Powers Act and to make it what we think it ought to be, and that is a
partner relationship between the Congress and the executive branch.
Yet, while we hear these strong arguments about the War Powers Act
and the separation of powers, these amendments don't really get the job
done. If you want to cut off all funding for any activities in and
around Libya, you would have to introduce a separate resolution that
would simply say: No funds appropriated here or anywhere else can be
used in the Libya operation.
In this particular bill, there is no money for Libya, and the
President has made it very clear that he is not going to use any funds
from the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for Libya. We'll see if that
changes, but we have that in writing. We're already there. We're
already in the area. We're already flying missions. If this amendment
should be agreed to, here is what we would not be able to do:
We could not fly search and rescue missions for a downed pilot. We
could not do ISR--Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. We
could not do aerial refueling for our coalition partners. We could not
even be part of operational planning under this amendment.
As much as I agree with what the gentleman is trying to accomplish, I
can't support this amendment, because of the effect that it really has.
If it could amend the War Powers Act and make the President be a
partner with Congress, I'd say, Amen. Let's do it quickly. I think the
Congress ought to do that, and I think we ought to be serious about
doing that; but on this particular amendment, I've got to oppose
[[Page H4714]]
it because this is what we're dealing with, not the emotional
discussions about the War Powers Act.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I do not insist on my point of order.
The Acting CHAIR. The reservation is withdrawn.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The brutal regime of Muammar al Qadhafi has caused an
international outcry, and the people of Libya have asked for our help.
The NATO-led mission to defeat Qadhafi and protect the people of Libya
was undertaken in concert with a broad coalition of nations, including
the Arab League, and it followed resolutions adopted in the United
Nations Security Council, authorizing ``all necessary measures.''
{time} 1620
The amendment would end our involvement unilaterally. I believe this
could materially harm our relationship with our NATO allies from whom
we will undoubtedly require support in the future, and our NATO
alliance has been a vital and successful part of U.S. foreign policy
dating back to its formation in 1949.
I do support a wider debate and greater oversight of the use and the
cost of U.S. military forces engaged in the Libya operation, but I
would point out that the administration did send up a detailed document
that shows the money that has been spent thus far and what will be
spent through the end of this fiscal year. We should let the mission
with our NATO allies continue so we can replace Qadhafi and protect the
Libyan people.
I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment. And I
would just remind everyone that in 1986 President Reagan authorized a
military strike following the bombings in Berlin and definitive proof
of Qadhafi's involvement in other terrorist activities. At the time,
President Reagan publicly denounced Qadhafi, the ``Mad Dog of the
Middle East who espoused the goal of world revolution.''
Mr. Chairman, I can only wonder what Ronald Reagan would say today
about those who would propose immediate withdrawal of U.S. assistance
to the broad coalition of nations attempting to finish the job that
President Ronald Reagan started.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense to lease or purchase new
light duty vehicles, for any executive fleet, or for an
agency's fleet inventory, except in accordance with
Presidential Memorandum-Federal Fleet Performance, dated May
24, 2011.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, President Obama issued a
Memorandum on Federal Fleet Performance, which requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles, such
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel, by December 31, 2015. My
amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds in
the Defense Appropriations bill from being used to lease or purchase
new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the President's
memorandum. I have introduced similar amendments to the Homeland
Security Appropriations bill and the Agriculture Appropriations bill
and intend to do it with other appropriations bills. Both were accepted
by the majority and passed by voice vote.
Our transportation sector is by far the biggest reason we send $600
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing
costs, but America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that,
when implemented broadly, will allow any alternative fuel to be used in
America's automotive fleet.
The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles
in the Federal fleet, with almost 197,000 being used by the Department
of Defense. By supporting a diverse array of vehicle technologies in
our Federal fleet, we will encourage development of domestic energy
resources--including biomass, natural gas, coal, agricultural waste,
hydrogen and renewable electricity. Expanding the role these energy
sources play in our transportation economy will help break the leverage
over Americans held by foreign government-controlled oil companies and
will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect consumers from
price spikes and shortages in the world oil markets.
I ask my colleagues to support this amendment as both sides of the
aisle have done in previous bills; and I want to mention on a similar
note, I have worked in a bipartisan fashion with my colleagues, John
Shimkus, Roscoe Bartlett and Steve Israel, to open the bipartisan Open
Fuel Standard Act, H.R. 1687.
Our bill would require 50 percent of new automobiles in 2014, 80
percent in 2016, and 95 percent in 2017 to be warranted to operate on
nonpetroleum fuels in addition to or instead of petroleum-based fuels.
Compliance possibilities include the full array of existing
technologies, including flex fuel, natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel,
plug-in electric drive and fuel cell, and a catch-all for new
technologies. I mention it because it's similar to this, and I really
believe that our energy policies obviously can only be done on a
bipartisan basis.
I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, again as we've
done on all the other bills where I have introduced it, and the Open
Fuel Standard as we work toward breaking our dependence on foreign oil.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I think the gentleman's amendment is a good
amendment. I think we've seen this on other bills, and I am happy to
accept the amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's willingness to accept the
amendment, and I too think it's a good amendment and a good idea.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 89 Offered by Mr. Neugebauer
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to reduce the number of B-1 aircraft of the Armed
Forces.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the B-1
bomber.
This is a very simple amendment. Basically, it just says it prevents
any funds in this bill from being used to retire the B-1 bombers during
the coming fiscal year.
Currently, as you know, about 163 planes are in our bomber fleet,
which is about 3 percent of our total fleet. Currently, we are going
through an analysis of what our bomber fleet is going
[[Page H4715]]
to look like in the future, and part of that is from the START Treaty.
What we feel is appropriate is for us to not look at reductions in the
bomber fleet on a piecemeal basis, but to look at it as a total picture
once we have done the analysis and seen how many of the planes will not
be needed for nuclear capability moving forward.
The B-1 is kind of an interesting plane. It doesn't get a lot of
attention, but what it does is it works 24-7 and has in the theaters
that we're involved in for a number of years. In fact, it has been our
number one bomber of choice for a number of years and until recently
was the only bomber seen in active duty.
I am pleased to be supported in this effort by Congressman
Thornberry, who is vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, as
well as my colleague, Mr. Conaway.
At this time, I would like to yield to one of the cosponsors of this
amendment, the gentlewoman from South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
Mrs. NOEM. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment that is
offered by the gentleman from Texas.
The B-1 bomber is the workhorse of our long-range bomber fleet and
has been flying missions over Iraq and Afghanistan for nearly a decade.
More importantly, the B-1 bomber from the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth
Air Force Base in my home State of South Dakota just carried out air
strike operations in Libya. In just under 2 days, Ellsworth generated
aircraft loaded with conventional weapons that were able to strike
targets halfway across the world.
Regardless of what one thinks about our involvement in Libya, one
thing that one cannot dispute is the B-1's capability to respond
globally and its vital importance to our bomber fleet. Mr. Chairman,
with the next generation bomber development still a decade or more
away, the administration's proposal to retire six B-1s is short sighted
and it's premature. What's more, it can't be reversed. Retired planes
aren't mothballed and put away for a period of time. They are sent to
the bone yard and they are used for parts. Mr. Chairman, we propose
that no B-1s be irreversibly retired this year because of questions
regarding the future of our bomber force structure and the B-1's proven
track record in theater as our workhorse.
I urge my colleagues to vote for a strong bomber fleet, a strong
national defense, and I ask them to support this amendment.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I yield to the distinguished chairman.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The gentlelady from South Dakota just made a speech that I was about
to make, so I would just simply say it's a good amendment, and I accept
it.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I thank the chairman, and I urge our colleagues to
support a strong national defense and making sure that we have the
appropriate number of bombers, and to vote in favor of the Neugebauer
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Mr. DICKS. I move to strike the requisite number of words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. I would just say to the gentleman that the B-2 bomber has
been used also on several of these military operations that we've used,
and the B-2 is a stealthy airplane. We only have 20. As a member of the
committee, I offered the multiyear purchase agreement so we could buy
the B-1s. And we had a unanimous vote, I think, in our committee on
that. It was very bipartisan.
I agree with the gentleman that we don't have enough bombers. That's
why I'm so strongly committed to the next-generation bomber. But as has
been pointed out, that's going to be several years away. We tried to
add some money this year to accelerate that because we do need a
follow-on bomber.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, I yield.
Mr. NEUGEBAUER. I agree with the gentleman. And I think that our
bomber fleet is extremely important, the B-1, the B-2, and obviously
the B-52s. And as the gentleman knows, as we do not have a replacement
bomber in the works at this particular point in time and until such
time as we develop that, I think it's extremely important that we be
strategic about what level we maintain our current fleet until we know
what the replacement is going to be. And I agree with the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. Reclaiming my time, we only have 20 stealthy bombers.
That's what some people don't understand. And the ability to penetrate
China or the Soviet Union or wherever we might have to penetrate at
some point, North Korea, we would be vulnerable with the B-52s and the
B-1s to surface-to-air missiles.
So making sure that we get a high-quality stealthy airplane to follow
the B-2 is a matter of national importance. I support the amendment.
I yield back my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of the B-1
bomber fleet. To echo what my colleague, Mr. Neugebauer has said, I too
believe that we should carefully examine the way we modify our bomber
fleet for the future.
As part of the New Start Treaty, the U.S. and Russia will limit their
nuclear capable delivery vehicles to a total of 700 deployed assets,
including heavy bombers. At this time, we do not yet know what those
cuts will look like. Preserving the size of our non-nuclear bomber
fleet until we know the results of the New Start Treaty analysis is
simply good policy.
My colleagues on the Armed Services Committee and I are very
concerned that if we go down this path and prematurely reduce a portion
of the fleet, that we will regret that decision.
Mr. Chair, I recognize that cuts need to be made. Every aspect of the
budget needs to be thoroughly reviewed, but let's not make bad
budgetary decisions without considering our mission capabilities first.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Neugebauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, today I rise to address the ranking
member of the House Appropriation's Committee on Defense, Mr. Dicks,
and also the chair in a colloquy on the critical need to improve the
recruitment, retention, and competitive compensation of the mental
health professionals who can work with our Iraq and Afghanistan
military servicemen and -women.
Since 2001, 2,103 military members have died by suicide. And one in
five servicemembers currently suffer from post-traumatic stress and/or
major depression. We must ensure that an adequate number of mental
health professionals are available to treat our soldiers.
Mental health professionals must be retained by providing adequate
pay and competitive benefits that are also available in the private
sector. It is our duty and responsibility to our wounded warriors that
we ensure their mental health services are secure and available when
and where needed.
I am submitting for the Record an article from the Army Times dated
April 7, 2011, regarding the Senate Appropriations Committee Defense
Subcommittee meeting of April 6 and quoting Army Surgeon General
Lieutenant General Schoomaker, who stressed the severe lack of mental
health professionals in the military, and his concern about retention,
especially in the rural areas. The article states, ``Congress has been
pressing the military health system to add more psychiatric doctors,
nurses and social workers for several years. That has prompted the
services to add about 1,500 full-time mental health professionals since
2006--a 70 percent increase.''
The article further says, ``But demand has continued to outpace that
growth. Active-duty troops and their families were referred to off-base
civilian mental health care professionals nearly 4 million times in
2009, roughly double the number of off-base referrals in 2006, military
data show.
``The dramatic increase in military suicides during the past several
years has added urgency to congressional concerns. At the April 6
hearing, all three military surgeons general told lawmakers about
efforts to improve training, recruiting and retention of mental health
professionals.''
[[Page H4716]]
Senator Mikulski has suggested military training may be uniquely
important because some civilian doctors and social workers have trouble
understanding the troops' problems and mindset.
I am also submitting for the Record a witness statement of July 14,
2011, from the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the
Committee on Veterans Affairs, where the Deputy Director of Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, Jacob Gadd, expressed the
challenges of hiring and retaining quality mental health specialists.
Our servicemembers should not have to wait one more day for the help
they deserve.
As cochair of the Congressional Mental Health Care Caucus, I have met
with many key military leaders to learn what the most critical issues
are in addressing mental health services for our military men and
women. I've repeatedly been informed that there have been woefully
inadequate numbers of mental health professionals available to care for
our men and women.
Congress has a responsibility to see that our soldiers and veterans
have the resources for quality care. Because this quality of care is
dependent on the quantity of behavioral health specialists trained in
war, PTS, we must successfully recruit and retain to work with our men
and women who fight to ensure our precious daily freedoms.
The legislation before you today provides $32.3 billion for the
defense health program and military family programs, with $125 million
of this going towards research of traumatic brain injury and
psychological health treatment, hopefully to also include hyperbaric
treatment research.
We must insist on accountability that adequately trained behavioral
health professionals are on hand when and where needed. I would like to
work with the ranking member to obtain from the Department of Defense a
detailed outline on their efforts for each military service--Army, Air
Force, Navy, Marines, et cetera--to recruit, retain, and formulate the
competitive salaries and benefits that will keep behavioral health
specialists serving our men and women who have given so much to protect
our freedoms.
We place them in harm's way. It is our duty and obligation to ensure
the best care is given to them.
I yield to the ranking member.
Mr. DICKS. I will work with the gentlelady on the Defense
Department's plan to ensure adequate mental health services for our
servicemembers.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mrs. Napolitano
was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlelady continue to yield?
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. DICKS. I would point out that the chairman of this committee, Mr.
Young, and his wife, Beverly, have been some of the strongest advocates
for our Wounded Warriors and he has led the fight in our committee to
increase the funding for traumatic brain injury and post-traumatic
stress disorder. So our committee has been very committed to this. It
is one of our highest priorities.
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I thank Mr. Dicks, the ranking member, for working
with me on this critical issue and look forward to working soon enough
on this.
[Apr. 7, 2011]
Panel Questions Adequacy of Mental Health Care
(By Andrew Tilghman)
The military's top doctors faced heated questions on
Capitol Hill about whether there are enough mental health
professionals to meet the soaring demand from troubled
troops.
``Do you feel you have adequate mental health personnel?''
asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., at an April 6 hearing of
the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense panel.
Lt. Gen. Eric Schoomaker, the Army surgeon general,
acknowledged that the military would prefer to have more, but
cited an overall lack of mental health professionals
nationwide as a key challenge. ``I think the nation is facing
problems. As a microcosm of the nation, we have problems,''
Schoomaker said.
Congress has been pressing the military health system to
add more psychiatric doctors, nurses and social workers for
several years. That has prompted the services to add about
1,500 full-time mental health professionals since 2006--a 70
percent increase.
But demand has continued to outpace that growth. Active-
duty troops and their families were referred to off-base
civilian mental health care professionals nearly 4 million
times in 2009, roughly double the number of off-base
referrals in 2006, military data show.
The dramatic increase in military suicides during the past
several years has added urgency to congressional concerns. At
the April 6 hearing, all three military surgeons general told
lawmakers about efforts to improve training, recruiting and
retention of mental health professionals.
Mikulski suggested military training may be uniquely
important because some civilian doctors and social workers
have trouble understanding troops' problems and mindset.
``From what I understand . . . often in the first hour of
the first treatment, the military [patients] facing this
problem walk out and tell the counselor, essentially, to go
to hell because they don't feel they get it,'' she said.
Schoomaker downplayed issues with nonmilitary
professionals.
``Frankly, I think . . . this warrior culture issue might
be present in some cases but not universally. Our people do a
good job with that,'' he said.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was concerned about reservists
who may not live near a military treatment facility and may
have problems finding mental health care. Schoomaker agreed
that reservists can face a significant challenge.
``We have residual problems . . . in reserve communities.
You go home to a community where access to care is a problem
for all care, but especially behavioral health,'' Schoomaker
said.
That's also a problem for some active-duty posts in rural
areas. ``In the desert of California, for example, it's hard
to recruit and retain high-quality people,'' he said.
____
Statement of Jacob B. Gadd, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion, to the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, United
States House of Representatives, on ``Examining the Progress of Suicide
Prevention Outreach Efforts at the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs'', July 14, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to submit The American
Legion's views on progress of the Suicide Prevention efforts
at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the
Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the
Subcommittee for holding a hearing today to discuss this
timely and important issue.
Suicide among service members and veterans has always been
a concern; it is the position of The American Legion that one
suicide is one too many. However, since the war in Iraq and
Afghanistan began, the numbers of service members and
veterans who have committed suicide have steadily increased.
As our service members are deployed across the world to
protect and defend our freedoms, we as a nation cannot allow
them to not receive the care and treatment they need when
they return home. The tragic and ultimate result of failing
to take care of our nation's heroes' mental health illnesses
is suicide.
Turning first to VA's efforts in recent years with Mental
Health Care, The American Legion has consistently lobbied for
budgetary increases and program improvements to VA's Mental
Health Programs. Despite recent unprecedented increases in
the VA budget, demand for VA Mental Health services is still
outpacing the resources and staff available as the number of
service members and veterans afflicted with Post Traumatic
Stress (PTS) and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) continues to
grow, this naturally leads to VA's increase in mental health
patients.
In 2008, RAND's Center for Military Health Policy Research,
an independent, nonprofit group, released a report on the
psychological and cognitive needs of all servicemembers
deployed in the past six years, titled, ``Invisible Wounds of
War: Psychological and Cognitive Injuries, Their
Consequences, and Services to Assist Recovery,'' which
estimated that more than 300,000 (20 percent of the 1.6
million) Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are suffering from PTS
or major depression and about 320,000 may have experienced
TBI during deployment.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates
30,000-32,000 U.S. deaths from suicide per year among the
population. VA's Office of Patient Care and Mental Health
Services reported in April 2010 that approximately 20 percent
of national suicides are veterans. The National Violent Death
Reporting System reports 18 deaths per day by veterans and
VA's Serious Mental Illness Treatment, Research and
Evaluation Center reported about five deaths occur each day
among VA patients. In a recent AP article, it was cited that
there have been more suicides than service members killed in
Afghanistan.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has made
improvements in recent years for Mental Health and transition
between DoD and VA such as the Federal Recovery Coordinators,
Polytrauma Rehabilitation System of Care, Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom
[[Page H4717]]
(OIF) case management teams, integrating mental health care
providers into primary care within VA Medical Center
Facilities and Community Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), VA
Readjustment (Vet) Centers hiring of Global War on Terrorism
(GWOT) Counselors, establishing directives for TBI screening,
clinical reminders and a new symptom and diagnostic code for
TBI.
Regarding suicide prevention outreach efforts, VA founded
the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 1-800-273-TALK
(8255) by collaborating with the National Suicide Prevention
Lifeline where veterans are assisted by a dedicated call
center at Canandaigua VA Medical Center in New York. The call
center is staffed with trained VA crisis health care
professionals to respond to calls on a 24/7 basis and
facilitate appropriate treatment. VA reported in 2010 a total
of 245,665 calls, 128,302 of which were identified as
veterans. Of these veterans, 7,720 were rescues.
VA hired Local Suicide Prevention Coordinators at all of
the 153 VA Medical Centers nationwide in an effort to provide
local and immediate assistance during a crisis, compile local
data for the national database and train hospital and local
community on how to provide assistance. One of the primary
responsibilities of the Local Suicide Prevention Coordinators
is to track and monitor veterans who are placed on high risk
of suicide (HRS). A safety plan for that individual veteran
is created to ensure they are not allowed to fall through the
cracks.
In 2009, VA instituted an online chat center for veterans
to further reach those veterans who utilize online
communications. The total number of VeteransChat contacts
reported since September 2009 was 3,859 with 1471 mentioning
suicide. VA has also had targeted outreach campaigns which
included billboards, signage on buses and PSA's with actor
Gary Sinise to encourage veterans to contact VA for
assistance.
The American Legion Suicide Prevention and Referral Programs
The American Legion has been at the forefront of helping to
prevent military and veteran suicides in the community. The
American Legion approved Resolution 51, The American Legion
Develop a Suicide Prevention and Outreach Referral Program,
at the 2009 National Convention. In addition, VA's National
Suicide Prevention Coordinator Dr. Janet Kemp facilitated an
Operation S.A.V.E. Training for our Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission members. VA&R Commission members
and volunteers subsequently developed American Legion state,
district and post training programs to provide referrals for
veterans in distress with VA's National Suicide Prevention
Hotline. The American Legion currently has over 60 posts
with active Suicide Prevention and Referral Programs.
In December 2009, The American Legion took the lead in
creating a Suicide Prevention Assistant Volunteer Coordinator
position, under the auspices of VA's Voluntary Service
Office. Each local suicide prevention office is encouraged to
work with veteran service organizations and community
organizations to connect veterans with VA's programs in their
time of transition and need. The Suicide Prevention offices
can increase their training of volunteers to distribute
literature and facilitate training in order to further reach
veterans in the community.
This year, The American Legion entered into a partnership
with the Defense Centers of Excellence's Real Warrior
Campaign to educate and encourage our members to help
transitioning service members and veterans receive the mental
health treatment they need. Additionally, during our 2010
National Convention we will have a panel to discuss
prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment of TBI with
representatives from DoD, VA and the private sector.
Challenges
Despite recent suicide prevention efforts, yet more needs
to be done as the number of suicides continues to grow. The
American Legion's System Worth Saving (SWS) program, which
conducts site visits to VA Medical Center facilities
annually, has found several challenges with the delivery of
mental health care. VA has the goal to recruit psychologists
from their current nationwide level of 3,000 to 10,000 to
meet the demand for mental health services. However, VA
Medical Center Facilities have expressed concerns with hiring
and retaining quality mental health specialists and have had
to rely on fee basis programs to manage their workload.
The American Legion applauds last year's action by Congress
in passing Advance Appropriations for mandatory spending.
However, problems exist in VA itself in allocating the funds
from VA Central Office to the Veteran Integrated Service
Networks (VISNs) and to the local facilities. This delay in
funding creates challenges for the VA Medical Center Facility
in receiving its budget to increase patient care services,
hiring or to begin facility construction projects to expand
mental health services. VA's 2011 budget provides
approximately $5.2 billion for mental health programs which
is an 8.5 percent, or $410 million, increase over FY 2010
budget authorization. The American Legion continues to be
concerned about mental health funds being specifically used
for their intent and that Congress continue to provide the
additional funding needed to meet the growing demand for
treatment.
Challenges in preventing suicide include maintaining
confidentiality and overcoming the stigma attached to a
service member or veteran receiving care. Additionally, the
issue of a lack of interoperable medical records between DoD
and VA, while being addressed by Virtual Lifetime Electronic
Records (VLER), still exists. The American Legion has
supported the VLER initiative and the timely and unfettered
exchange of health records between DoD and VA. Unfortunately,
DoD and VA still have not finalized both agencies ALTA and
VISTA architecture systems since the project began in 2007,
which limits DoD and VA's ability to track and monitor high
risk suicide patients during their transition from military
to civilian life. The American Legion recommends VA take the
lead in developing a joint database with the DoD, the
National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention to track suicide national
trends and statistics of military and veteran suicides.
The American Legion continues to be concerned about the
delivery of health care to rural veterans. As mentioned, a
nationwide shortage of behavioral health specialists,
especially in remote areas where veterans have settled,
reduces the effectiveness of VA's outreach. No matter where a
veteran chooses to live, VA must continue to expand and bring
needed medical services to the highly rural veteran
population through telehealth and Virtual Reality Exposure
Therapy (VRET). DoD and VA have piloted VRET at bases at Camp
Pendleton, Camp Lejeune and the Iowa City VA Medical Center.
VRET is an emerging treatment that exposes a patient to
different computer simulations to help them overcome their
phobias or stress. The younger generation of veterans
identifies with computer technology and may be more apt to
self-identify online rather than at a VA Medical Center or
CBOC.
Both DoD and VA have acknowledged the lack of research on
brain injuries and the difficulties diagnosing PTS and TBI
because of the comorbidity of symptoms between the two. The
Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center (DVBIC) developed
and continues to use a 4-question screening test for TB
today. At the same time, Mount Sinai School of Medicine in
New York developed the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire
(BISQ), the only validated instrument by the Centers for
Disease Control to assess the history of TBI, which has over
100 questions with 25 strong indicators for detecting TB.
Mount Sinai has published data that suggest some of the
symptoms, particularly those categorized as ``cognitive,''
when found in large numbers (i.e. 9 or greater), indicate the
person is experiencing complaints similar to those of
individuals with brain injuries. The American Legion wants to
ensure that DoD and VA are working with the private sector to
share best practices and improve on evidence-based research,
screening, diagnosis and treatment protocols of the
``signature wounds'' of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recommendations
The American Legion has seven recommendations to improve
Mental Health and Suicide Prevention efforts for VA and DoD:
(1) Congress should exercise oversight on VA and DoD
programs to insure maximum efficiency and compliance with
Congressional concerns for this important issue.
(2) Congress should appropriate additional funding for
mental health research and to standardize DoD and VA
screening, diagnosis and treatment programs.
(3) DoD and VA should expedite development of a Virtual
Lifetime Medical Record for a single interoperable medical
record to better track and flag veterans with mental health
illnesses.
(4) Congress should allocate separate Mental Health funding
for VA's Recruitment and Retention incentives for behavioral
health specialists.
(5) Establish a Suicide Prevention Coordinator at each
military installation and encourage DoD and VA to share best
practices in research, screening and treatment protocols
between agencies.
(6) Congress should provide additional funding for
telehealth and virtual behavior health programs and providers
and ensure access to these services are available on VA's web
pages for MyHealthyVet, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention
as well as new technologies such as Skype, Apple i-Phone
Applications, Facebook and Twitter.
(7) DoD and VA should develop joint online suicide
prevention service member and veteran training courses/
modules on family, budget, pre, during and post deployment,
financial, TBI, PTSD, Depression information.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, although VA has increased its
efforts and support for suicide prevention programs, it must
continue to reach into the community by working with Veteran
Service Organizations such as The American Legion to improve
outreach and increase awareness of these suicide prevention
programs and services for our nation's veterans. The American
Legion is committed to working with DoD and VA in providing
assistance to those struggling with the wounds of war so that
no more veterans need lose the fight and succumb to so tragic
a self-inflicted end.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this
concludes my testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gosar
Mr. GOSAR. I have an amendment at the desk.
[[Page H4718]]
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be obligated or expended for assistance to the following
entities:
(1) The Government of Iran.
(2) Hamas.
(3) Hizbullah.
(4) The Muslim Brotherhood.
{time} 1640
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I ask for your support of my limiting amendment that would prohibit
any military expenditure that would assist any entity that has a policy
calling for the destruction of the State of Israel.
My amendment is specific and would prohibit this type of expenditure
to any entity that has a policy calling for the destruction of the
State of Israel. Most prominent, of course, is Iran. Just last month,
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad reiterated his nation's policy
calling for the complete elimination of Israel.
It is not just formally recognized states, however, we need to be
concerned about. History has shown that entities we consider terrorist
fringe groups sometimes, through force, manipulation and popular vote,
take over the state apparatus. This happened in the Gaza Strip when
Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, won a plurality of legislative
seats, 44 percent, in the 2006 election. The United States and Israel
classify Hamas as a terrorist organization, but the United Nations, for
example, does not. The Hamas Charter of 1988, never withdrawn or
amended, states that ``Israel will exist and will continue to exist
until Islam will obliterate it, just as it has obliterated others
before it.'' This mirrors the Iranian policy, as that ``the reason for
the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its
way to annihilation.''
In the last budget, according to the State Department, U.S. military
aid to Egypt totals over $1.3 billion annually in funding referred to
as Foreign Military Financing. Currently, questions exist about the
Muslim Brotherhood, now a key player in Egypt and potentially in Libya
with the rebel opposition, and its hostility to Jews and the State of
Israel. It is quite possible that extremist groups who seek the
destruction of Israel are taking over the state operations in Egypt and
part of Libya. Time will tell.
My amendment would ensure that we do not use our money and military
assistance to help any entity that will not recognize the right of
Israel to exist and to exist peacefully. That includes the Muslim
Brotherhood in Egypt. No other nation on Earth except Israel has had to
face systematic, ideological and persistent existential threats.
My amendment would prohibit military aid, assistance or funding to
any nation, state or entity that espouses a policy that refuses to
recognize Israel's right to peacefully exist. With the prospect of not
receiving our money and assistance, the new Egyptian regime may take a
more respectful approach to Israel. In this sense, my amendment takes a
carrots approach.
I appreciate your support of my amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the gentleman's
amendment. I also want to support his reasons for offering this
amendment. I think they are very well taken. The amendment is a good
amendment, and I strongly support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Not more than $200,000,000 of the funds provided
by title IX under the heading ``Operation and Maintenance,
Army'' may be available for the Commander's Emergency
Response Program, and the amount otherwise provided under
such heading is hereby reduced by $200,000,000.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
One of the major decisions that this Congress has to make and for
which we need a recommendation from the Appropriations Committee for
the Defense Subcommittee is whether nation-building is a wise strategy,
a sustainable strategy, an affordable strategy, and an effective
strategy in Afghanistan. We had a debate on that policy. There was a
bipartisan vote, with 204 Members suggesting it was time to call into
question the wisdom, sustainability and effectiveness of nation-
building.
One of the things that we have provided to our commanders in order
for them to be able to do hearts-and-minds civic projects, roads,
bridges, schools is a $400 million fund that they can use completely at
their discretion. Now, this sounds like a good idea. If you're going to
ask the military to win the hearts and minds, not just use military
power to fight battles, then a discretionary fund can seemingly make
some sense. The question, though, is, upon review, it turns out that
these roads, these bridges, these canals, almost the moment they're
turned over to the Afghan authorities, fall into disrepair, disuse and
neglect. It's not surprising.
Number one, there is very little local government infrastructure in
Afghanistan, and the fact that we build a road or a school doesn't
necessarily mean there's a government or an authority there to be able
to maintain it. So we build something, and the moment we turn the keys
over, it falls into disuse and disrepair.
Second, the expenses of doing this are enormous. It may make sense to
do these civic projects, to create some goodwill, but do you do them,
Mr. Chairman, in the middle of a shooting war? Or is it better to do
that before or after the war, when you have a chance for this
implementation to occur?
Then, third, there's an immense amount of ripping off of this money
from the American taxpayer. It gets lost. It gets picked up in graft
that we all know about is too rampant in Afghanistan. According to a
report in The Washington Post, half of this money, a minimum of $400
million, is gone missing, it's wasted, and it is coming out of our
taxpayer pockets.
My amendment would cut in half the $400 million, reduce it to $200
million, basically taking away that $200 million that is being utterly
wasted. This is a commonsense, practical way to save money by stopping
a policy that may be good in theory but in practice is a failure.
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 4, 2011]
U.S.-Funded Infrastructure Deteriorates Once Under Afghan Control,
Report Says
(By Josh Boak)
Roads, canals and schools built in Afghanistan as part of a
special U.S. military program are crumbling under Afghan
stewardship, despite steps imposed over the past year to
ensure that reconstruction money is not being wasted,
according to government reports and interviews with military
and civilian personnel.
U.S. troops in Afghanistan have spent $2 billion over six
years on 16,000 humanitarian projects through the Commander's
Emergency Response Program, which gives a battalion-level
commander the power to treat aid dollars as ammunition.
A report slated for release this month reveals that CERP
projects can quickly slide into neglect after being
transferred to Afghan control. The Afghans had problems
maintaining about half of the 69 projects reviewed in eastern
Laghman province, according to an audit by the Special
Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction.
The spending in Afghanistan is part of the $5 billion
provided to U.S. military commanders for projects in Iraq and
Afghanistan since 2004. The new report is the latest to
identify shortcomings and missteps in the program, whose
ventures have included the Jadriyah Lake park in Iraq,
planned as a water park but now barren two years after a U.S.
military inauguration ceremony.
The dilapidated projects in Afghanistan could present a
challenge to the U.S. strategy of shifting more
responsibility to Afghans. Investing in infrastructure, notes
President Obama's December review of the war, ``will give the
Afghan government and people the tools to build and sustain a
future of stability.''
``Sustainment is one of the biggest issues with our whole
strategy,'' said a civilian official who shared details from
a draft of the
[[Page H4719]]
report. ``The Afghans don't have the money or capacity to
sustain much.'' The official spoke on the condition of
anonymity because the Defense Department is preparing a
response to the audit.
Photos in the report show washed-out roads, with cracks and
potholes where improvised explosive devices can be hidden.
Among the projects profiled is a re-dredged canal that filled
with silt a month after opening.
Multiple reports by the Government Accountability Office
have noted a lack of monitoring by the Pentagon. And because
formal U.S. oversight stops after a project is turned over to
Afghans, it is difficult to gauge how projects are maintained
countrywide.
When asked whether the Afghans have trouble sustaining
projects, the U.S. military issued a statement saying it does
not have the information to provide an immediate answer.
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in
Afghanistan, said in Senate testimony last year that CERP is
``the most responsive and effective means to address a local
community's needs.'' He previously relied on the
discretionary fund as the commanding general in Iraq, where
$3.5 billion has been spent through the program. Over the
past two years, Petraeus has pushed for stricter controls to
stop any fraud and waste.
In response to ``insufficient management,'' CERP guidance
for Afghanistan was revised in December 2009, according to a
statement by the military. The new guidance emphasizes the
need to meet with Afghan leaders when choosing what to fund.
It does not, however, require U.S. troops to continue
inspecting projects after they are placed under Afghan
control.
Under the guidance, an Afghan governor, mayor or bureaucrat
must sign a letter promising to fund maintenance and
operations. But an October SIGAR audit of projects in
Nangahar province found that only two of the 15 files
examined contained a signed letter. Nor is there formal
reporting to the national or provincial Afghan governments of
what was spent and built, the audit said. That makes it
difficult for Afghans to know what they are supposed to
maintain.
The provincial and district governments that take over the
projects do not have the money to sustain them because they
cannot collect taxes and they depend on the national
government for funding, said Army Maj. David Kaczmarek, the
civil affairs officer for Task Force Bastogne in eastern
Afghanistan.
To teach the local governments how to request additional
funds from Kabul, Kaczmarek helped launch a program in the
summer that uses CERP dollars for the operation and
maintenance of some projects.
The U.S. military tracks CERP projects with poorly
maintained computer databases. Before October 2009, the
database did not consistently record the villages or
districts where projects were undertaken, according to
military and civilian personnel who spoke on the condition of
anonymity because the master database is classified.
A civilian official who examined the contents of the
database for a government assessment said the military cannot
account for the spending without knowing the villages and
districts that were project recipients.
``Let's say the project is not working,'' the official
said. ``Why would we want to fund that project again the next
year? Very little evaluation was done to decide what we fund
next.''
The organizational problems have also frustrated attempts
to study the effectiveness of the $2 billion spent on CERP. A
paper co-written by Princeton University professor Jacob
Shapiro found that CERP funding helped reduce violence in
Iraq. Shapiro and his colleagues have struggled over the past
nine months to conduct a similar study for Afghanistan
because of the database.
``There's not a sense of how the program may or may not be
working in Afghanistan,'' Shapiro said.
Army Lt. Col. Brian Stoll tried to clean up the database
while serving in Kandahar last year. He champions CERP as a
way to build confidence in the Afghan government, despite the
mess he found.
Projects dating to 2006 had never been closed out, said
Stoll, who updated the files while working 12-hour days to
audit ongoing projects in southern Afghanistan.
We never got it all cleaned up,'' Stoll said. ``It was like
a Hydra. You get part of it cleaned up and you find some more
along the way.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment for a number of reasons, although I think he's made some good
points, and certainly we want accountability to apply to this program
as much as we want it to apply to anything. However, this is the same
funding level as last year. The request was $425 million, and our
commanders in the theater are telling us that that is even not high
enough. So what we're doing with this amendment is actually cutting a
level funding item from last year, cutting it in half.
Now, what does the CERP money do, the Commander's Emergency Response
Program money? Let's say an IED explodes, or maybe there is a bomb that
blows up a storefront in the middle of the street. A commander can go
in there and hire local labor to clear out the entrance to that small
business or whatever it is and get it done quickly without having to
put U.S. Army personnel in danger to do it and can do it quickly and
effectively and therefore leave our soldiers in the field, leave our
soldiers where they can be most effective with their time and their
training, and it does promote some goodwill on the streets with the
people.
It has been said, well, all you're doing is renting a friend, and
we're not going to be the first army that's fighting a war that rents
friends, if you will. It really doesn't just rent a friend. It does
create some long-term goodwill and does have an economic benefit of it.
But the idea is to give the commander on the street some flexibility so
that they can get the jobs done as the jobs arise and get them done
quickly and turn them around.
CERP money actually has been an effective tool, and it's enormously
popular with our commanders who are on the ground. I believe one of the
problems we have in Afghanistan, one of the problems we've always had,
is that too many decisions are being made down the street at the
Pentagon and not in Baghdad, not in Kabul, not in Kandahar, where the
commanders are closest to the war front.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont will
be postponed.
{time} 1650
Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Flores
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to enforce section 526 of the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-140; 42 U.S.C. 17142).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FLORES. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment, which would
address another misguided Federal regulation. Section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act prohibits Federal agencies from entering
into contracts for the procurement of alternative fuels unless their
lifecycle greenhouse gases emissions are less than or equal to
emissions from an equivalent conventional fuel produced from
conventional petroleum sources. Simply stated, my amendment would stop
the government from enforcing this ban on the Department of Defense.
The initial purpose of section 526 was to stifle the Defense
Department's plans to buy and develop coal-based or coal-to-liquid jet
fuels. This was based on the opinion of environmentalists that coal-
based jet fuel produces more greenhouse gas emissions than traditional
petroleum. I recently offered my similar amendment to both the MILCON
VA and Ag appropriations bills, and they passed the House by voice vote
each time.
My friend Mr. Conaway of Texas also had similar language added to the
Defense authorization bill to exempt the Defense Department from this
burdensome regulation. We must ensure that our military becomes more
energy independent and that it can effectively and efficiently rely on
domestic and more stable sources of fuel.
Our Nation's military should not be burdened with wasting its time
studying fuel emissions when there is a simple fix, not restricting
their fuel choices based on extreme environmental views, policies, and
regulations
[[Page H4720]]
like section 526. In light of increasing competition with other
countries for energy and fuel resources, and continued volatility and
instability in the Middle East, it is more important than ever for our
country to become more energy independent and to further develop and
produce our domestic energy resources. Placing limits on Federal
agencies', particularly the Defense Department, fuel choices is an
unacceptable precedent to set in regard to America's energy policy and
independence.
On July 9, 2008, the Pentagon, in a letter to Senator James Inhofe
stated: ``Such a decision would cause significant harm to the readiness
of the Armed Forces because these fuels may be widely used and
particularly important in certain geographic areas.''
In summary, not only have extreme environmental views and policies
created and burdened American families and businesses, but they also
cause ``significant harm in readiness to the Armed Forces.''
Mr. Chairman, section 526 makes our Nation more dependent on Middle
Eastern oil. Stopping the impact of section 526 would help us promote
American energy, improve the American economy, and create American
jobs.
To everyone watching these proceedings today, I would say this:
following my remarks, you will hear speakers from the other side of the
aisle make several claims regarding the merits of section 526. When you
hear these claims, please remember the following facts about section
526: it increases our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It hurts our
military readiness and our national security. It prevents the use of
safe, clean, and efficient North American oil and gas. It increases the
cost of American food and energy. It hurts American jobs and the
American economy.
I urge my colleagues to support passage of this commonsense
amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. The Department of Defense alone is the largest single
energy consumer in the world. Its leadership in this arena is critical
to any credible approach to dealing with energy independence issues.
Section 526 provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to play
a substantial role in spurring the innovation needed to produce
alternative fuels which will not further exacerbate global climate
change.
This provision has spurred development of advanced biofuels. These
fuels are being successfully tested and proven today on U.S. Navy jets
at supersonic speeds. It's a testament to American ingenuity.
Unfortunately, section 526 is under assault by those who disagree with
advanced biofuels production. They'd like us to continue our dependence
on the fuels of the past. That's the wrong path to take. It's
unsustainable and won't lead to the energy security we need.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONAWAY. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I join my colleague in asking to exempt
the Department of Defense from section 526; 526 was added to the energy
bill in a wrongheaded move to placate some notion that it would have
some impact on global warming. It's wrong to require the Department of
Defense in these times, where every single dollar is scarce and every
single dollar should have a home, to require them to spend extra money
beyond what they would normally spend for fuel for their planes.
This amendment would also allow the continued development of coal-to-
liquid jet fuel, which would make this country much less dependent on
foreign oil in terms of powering our jets and other engines. So 526,
maybe it belongs in the Department of Energy bill, maybe it belongs
somewhere else, but it does not belong in the Department of Defense
spending bill because those dollars are scarce. They are going to get
scarcer. And to require the Department of Defense to spend more money
than they would have otherwise have spent on energy under this
wrongheaded notion, in my view, is just simply bad policy.
So I rise in support of my colleague's amendment, and I urge the
adoption of his amendment when it comes to a vote.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I support the gentleman's amendment, but I do want to
understand one thing in terms of what it does to the military's options
of purchasing domestic or even North American fuel. And the reason why
I say that is, as I understand, the Department of Defense has three
strategies in terms of energy, or using less energy. Number one is to
increase the fight, decrease the fuel. Number three is increase the
capacity. And then number two--and I am going in this order for a
reason--is to increase the fuel options, the choices, to diversify the
fuel sources. And it appears to me that 526 has inadvertently
eliminated some of the options.
I would like to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Flores) to explain
that a little bit further, particularly with respect to domestic energy
sources.
Mr. FLORES. Thank you for the chance to provide further weight to
this amendment.
It's important to know that much of the oil that we import from the
oil sands in Canada winds up being blended in several refined fuels
throughout the United States. So if you took a literal reading of
section 526, theoretically the military would not be able to use any of
those fuels since the oil sands as a source is considered to be banned
by section 526.
The oil from Canada from the oil sands is stable North American oil
and gas. And it is in large part produced by Americans and creating
American jobs. Section 526 would cut off this safe, friendly, stable
source of fuel to this country. And my amendment does nothing to
restrict the military from looking at all alternative sources of fuel.
It allows them to go with biofuels, whatever alternative energy sources
they need. It just takes away burdensome restrictions that are based on
environmental views that aren't proven.
Mr. KINGSTON. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned
about, with 84 million barrels of fuel produced every day, and America
only having control of about 3 percent of that, yet consuming 25
percent, wherever we can use a friendly source of fuel is something
that we need to keep open as an option.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).
The amendment was agreed to.
{time} 1700
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for tax collection purposes by the Afghan Ministry of
Finance.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia reserves a point of
order.
The gentleman from Vermont is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the American taxpayer is
spending $2 billion a week in Afghanistan. Among the expenditures are
payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in
Afghanistan--roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals.
The Washington Post recently reported that the Afghan Government is
taxing American aid. We send the money there to build a road. We have
to hire contractors in order to do that, and the Afghan Government is
trying to tax that money for their own coffers.
So it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of
dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. The Afghan
Government is literally trying to reach into the pocket and
[[Page H4721]]
double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in
giving them money. Now, how does that make any sense at all?
Among the things that the Afghan officials are doing, after this was
reported, is stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. They are
doing things like threatening to detain contractors. If they don't pay
up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in
the Afghan coffers, they, the Afghan officials, are threatening, Mr.
Chairman, to detain our contractors. They are denying licenses to our
contractors, again, in an effort to do what I could only call a
shakedown.
Third, they are revoking visas for unpaid tax bills. We are spending
a substantial amount of our money rebuilding their infrastructure. We
should not be taxed, nor should we allow our taxpayers, essentially, to
be stuck up by the Afghan officials.
This amendment, offered by my colleague from Washington, Ms. Herrera
Beutler, would end that practice.
So we believe this is overdue. There should be no tolerance for this
double-dipping by the Afghan Government, and our amendment is an effort
to crack down on that process.
I thank my colleague from Washington for joining me in the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Point of Order
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the
amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes
legislation on an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of
rule XXI because it requires a new determination.
The Acting CHAIR. Does any Member wish to be heard on the point of
order?
If not, the Chair is prepared to rule.
The Chair finds that this amendment includes language requiring a new
determination about the use of funds by a foreign government entity.
The amendment, therefore, constitutes legislation in violation of
clause 2, rule XXI.
The point of order is sustained, and the amendment is not in order.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. We are working on making this amendment
something that can be passed as a part of this bill, but I just want to
speak in support of it and share part of the reason I am very honored
to be working with the gentleman from Vermont on this.
Basically, we are in Afghanistan right now helping to rebuild, or in
many cases build from scratch, infrastructure. And when we leave that
country--and I do hope it will be soon--we will leave that
infrastructure behind. Power grids, water systems, trained law
enforcement are the building blocks of a functioning society.
We will spend or have spent hundreds of millions, if not billions, of
dollars on improvements meant to better the lives of the people in
Afghanistan.
The reason I supported this amendment is we don't need to also be
paying taxes to the Afghan Government for the privilege of rebuilding
that country, and that's why I cosponsored the amendment.
The Department of Defense funding should be focused on providing
soldiers training in the field and on the front lines with the tools
they need to protect themselves and defend our country. This amendment
would uphold or, as it was offered, as we attempted, would uphold
existing law and clarify existing agreements between the U.S. and
Afghanistan, prohibiting Afghanistan from taxing U.S. subcontractors
doing work in Afghanistan. So this ban on levying taxes would also
apply to all subcontractors that may not have direct contracts with
Afghanistan.
In other words, if a company is working on a project funded by the
U.S. Department of Defense, whether that company is a prime contractor
or a subcontractor, that company should not be subject to taxes from
the Afghan Government.
It seems pretty simple. These are the contractors doing the work of
rebuilding in Afghanistan, helping rebuild the infrastructure and
hopefully allowing them to one day thrive independently.
So common sense and financial prudence says the U.S. should not be
subject to taxation for the rebuilding efforts it is paying for. That
was what we were getting at with this amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. KINGSTON. I think that the point you have raised is a very valid
point and something that is very good discussion matter.
Unfortunately, we believe that it is authorizing on an appropriation,
as the Chair has confirmed, but that's probably the concern far more
than the philosophical concern.
So I think that if you and the gentleman can work on some other
language, make another run at it, I cannot speak for the real chairman
of the committee, but I think that there are going to be a number of
people who would have sympathies with you because I think you have
raised a very valid point.
Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Very good. We will continue to work on this
issue, and I thank you for hearing my point.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cole
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to implement any rule, regulation, or executive order
regarding the disclosure of political contributions that
takes effect on or after the date of enactment of this Act.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, in April a draft executive order was
circulated that would require all companies bidding on Federal
contracts to disclose all Federal campaign contributions.
If enacted, this executive order would effectively politicize the
Federal procurement process, in my opinion. Companies wouldn't merely
be judged by the merits of their past performance, by the capability to
do the job, but would also be obviously considered on the basis of who
they gave money to or against.
This would clearly chill the constitutionally protected right to
donate to political parties, candidates and causes of one's choice;
and, I think, frankly, that's exactly what the executive order,
proposed executive order, is intended to do.
My amendment would simply prohibit funds from this act being used to
implement such an executive order.
It doesn't change existing Federal campaign contribution law in any
way. It doesn't prevent the disclosure of campaign contributions. It
simply says we won't spend money from this bill to require campaign
contribution information to be submitted along with bids for Federal
contracts.
This House has agreed to this concept on three previous occasions:
once in the bill, once in an amendment to the Defense Authorization
Act, and once in an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act.
Finally, it's worth noting that Congress has rejected an effort to do
exactly what this proposed executive order intends to do when it failed
to pass the DISCLOSE Act in 2010.
Mr. Chairman, pay-to-play has no place in the Federal procurement
contract, and we should try to keep politics out of the selection of
vendors and businesses and contractors to go about doing Federal works.
So I would urge the adoption of the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Washington is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Our system has been improved by having public disclosure
of political contributions. The more the public knows about where the
money is coming from, the better off the citizenry is.
The amendment is a legislative attempt to circumvent a draft
executive order, which would provide for increased disclosure of the
political contributions of government contractors, especially
contributions given to third-party entities.
[[Page H4722]]
Opposition exists for this effort because some believe this
additional information could be used nefariously to create some kind of
enemies list, like during the Nixon administration.
{time} 1710
They argue that companies should not disclose more information
because people in power could misuse that information to retaliate
against them. Using the opposition's logic, all campaign disclosures
would be bad. Government contractors already disclose contributions and
expenditures by their PACs and those who contribute to them.
Contributions by the officers and directors of government contractors
are also required to be disclosed.
These provisions are fine as they are written. The information is
required to be provided already in law. And the executive order that
the amendment would circumvent certainly enhances the quality of that
information.
Disclosure is good because disclosure of campaign contributions to
candidates is good. Disclosure of companies making these disclosures is
good. And I just worry that we have a situation here where companies or
major entities could make enormous contributions secretly, and that's
what we are trying to avoid. And the President's executive order is an
attempt to do that. We already know that the Boeings, the Lockheeds,
the General Dynamics and the Northrop Grummans all make campaign
contributions, and they are all disclosed. What's wrong with
disclosure?
I urge a ``no'' on the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. KINGSTON. I accept the amendment because I believe that the
things that Mr. Dicks is talking about in this amendment actually do
move us in that direction.
I would like to yield to Mr. Cole and ask him to clarify that because
I want it confirmed.
Mr. COLE. I would simply say to my good friend from Washington, who I
respect frankly as much I do anybody in this Congress, the intent here
is to make sure we never link political contributions with the awarding
of government contracts. If we want to require additional disclosure,
the Congress has it within its ability to do that, and indeed we
considered something like this in 2010 and decided it was
inappropriate. And that was a time when my friends on the other side of
the aisle were in control of both Houses as well the Presidency.
So I understand the concerns, but I think this is an inappropriate
way to address them. Number one, the executive order, frankly, is
legislating through the back door. If we want to change the campaign
contribution laws in the United States, that needs to be done here, not
by executive fiat.
And, secondly, to link it with the contracting process is inevitably
going to raise questions, create fears and doubt and I think without
question chill political speech. So let's just simply keep contracting
and the awarding of the contract by the Government of the United States
separate from partisan political considerations and contributions. I
think we would be better off.
I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding.
Mr. KINGSTON. I thank you.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. ESHOO. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from California is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I just listened with great curiosity to the
comments that were made about the so-called intent of the legislation.
I don't see my colleagues on the other side bringing forward
legislation that you have the power to pass given the number of votes
that you have for full disclosure.
So if you're opposed to a draft executive order, if you're opposed to
my coming to the floor and blocking every time I offer an amendment for
disclosure in transparency, change it. You were for it before you went
against it, the Republicans were. That's what the record is. So I rise
in opposition to Representative Cole's amendment which blocks
disclosure of contractor political spending.
Now, this is not to create any kind of list. You can come up with all
kinds of things about why you're against something and then try to
label it. This is about disclosure. This is about sunshine. This is
about disinfectant, and you're against it. I think that's a bad place
to be. In fact, I think it's the wrong side of history.
The draft of the President's order would require disclosure
requirements for contractors who do business with the Federal
Government. Now, any business that does business with the Federal
Government is paid with taxpayer dollars. Why shouldn't there be
transparency, accountability, and disclosure relative to those dollars?
This amendment, your amendment, would prohibit disclosure, which I
think is the exact wrong thing to do.
We should oppose any amendment--we should oppose any amendment,
Republican or Democrat--that's designed to keep the public less
informed about what happens to their tax dollars. We know who supports
this amendment. It's the American League of Lobbyists, the lobbyists
for the lobbyists. Surprise, surprise.
They're trumpeting their opposition to the President's draft order.
We should be fighting for the taxpayers, not for the uber-,
superlobbyists. What are we here for? We are here for the public
interest, for the people. And yet there is an amendment on the floor
that would destroy any attempt at disclosure.
Again, I remember when the Republicans supported disclosure. When we
wanted contribution limits, Republicans said, no, we need disclosure
instead. Now that we are asking for disclosure, you're opposed to it.
As I said, you were for it, now you're against it.
The American people were very clear on this late last year when there
was a CBS/New York Times poll, and that poll found that 92 percent of
Americans support requiring outside groups to disclose how much money
they have raised, where it came from and how it was used.
Now we are going directly to taxpayer dollars, those that do business
with the Federal Government. It's very simple to disclose. We should be
listening to the American people, and I would ask my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.
This is a bad amendment. It's not good for the country. It's not good
for our system. I don't believe it's why the people sent us here. And
of all things to be stomping on and trying to snuff out, disclosure
should not be one of them.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
will be postponed.
Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. The total amount of appropriations made available
by this Act is hereby reduced by $8,500,000,000, not to be
derived from amounts of appropriations made available--
(1) by title I (``Military Personnel'');
(2) under the heading ``Defense Health Program'' in title
VI (``Other Department of Defense Programs''); or
(3) by title IX (``Overseas Contingency Operations'').
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, this is a dangerous
amendment. It's kind of a test of whether or not Members of this body
believe what they say. Fortunately, I think for all concerned, the oath
we take at the beginning of the session does not carry over to specific
statements. So the fact that I believe this will probably,
unfortunately, show a great gap between what people say and what they
vote will have no consequences other than the public knowing it.
[[Page H4723]]
We are at a time of austerity. We are at a time when the important
programs, valid programs, are being cut back. And we were told by some,
everything is on the table, there are no sacred cows, all those
metaphors that are supposed to suggest that we will deal with
everything. And then we get this appropriation from the Appropriations
Committee for the military budget. At a time when we are cutting police
officers on the streets of our cities, we are cutting back
firefighters, we're cutting back maintenance of highways, of the
construction of bridges to replace old bridges, when we are cutting in
almost every capacity, the military budget gets a $17 billion increase
for this fiscal year to the next.
A $17 billion increase for the military budget simply does not fit
with this argument that we are putting everything on the table. Yes,
they say they're putting everything on the table, but there is a little
bit of a problem with the preposition here--not the proposition, the
preposition.
{time} 1720
The military budget is not on the table. The military is at the
table, and it is eating everybody else's lunch. We are cutting area
after area. For example, we have been told by some on the Republican
side that we cannot afford to go to the aid of those of our fellow
citizens who have been the victims of natural disasters who have
suffered enormous physical and, therefore, also psychological damage
from tornadoes and floods unless we find the cuts elsewhere. But if we
were not increasing the military budget by $17 billion over this year,
then there would be no need to do that and you would not have to worry
about that aid.
Now, my colleagues, this is co-authored by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Jones), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Holt), the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore). We are
being very moderate here. We are not saying don't give the Pentagon any
more money. This amendment reduces by 50 percent the increase for the
Pentagon. We are accepting $8.5 billion more.
By the way, this, of course, does not affect the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan. It just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the
budget for Afghanistan, which we refuse to cut, reluctantly,
regrettably, was voted out by the committee before the President
announced a 10,000 troop reduction. So we are overfunding Afghanistan
unless you think the President was kidding when he said we are going to
bring down 10,000 troops. We funded 10,000 troops for next year that
won't be there in Afghanistan. And that is the problem.
We are saying to the Pentagon, You find it. Don't cut military
personnel. Don't cut health, but perhaps some of the bases we maintain
overseas, some of the subsidies we give to NATO. Lip service is paid
here to an alliance in which they participate.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have to say it is true of the Obama
administration and the members of the Appropriations Committee and the
Armed Services Committee, they are the enablers of one of the great
welfare dependencies in the history of the world: the ability of
wealthy European nations, 61 years after the foundation of NATO, to get
subsidized by America so their military budgets can be a small
percentage of ours as percentage of the GDP so they can provide more
services, better rail, better health care, and earlier retirement for
their own people.
This says to the Pentagon not that we are going to cut you. This
gives them a greater than 1 percent increase at a time when everybody
else is being cut. And it leaves it up to the Pentagon. Let's look at
the bases that we have all over the world. Let's look at efficient
procedures. Yes, there is inefficiency.
You cannot mandate efficiency from the outside when you
simultaneously give the entity in question the ability to spend without
limit. You will never get efficiency, Mr. Chairman, at the Pentagon if
we don't begin to subject them to the same kind of fiscal discipline
that everybody else gets. And it is undeniable that the Pentagon is a
great exception here.
We are going to be telling American cities to continue to lay off
cops, to continue to ignore important reconstruction projects that help
with transportation. We are going to continue to cut back on
firefighters. We are going to continue to quibble over financial
disaster relief, but we will give the Pentagon, unless this amendment
passes, an additional $17 billion that we cannot afford.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Chairman, I want to offer a somewhat different
perspective than my friend from Massachusetts does on the trend line of
defense spending.
Looking at the long term, defense spending has actually, over time,
come down pretty dramatically as a percent of our gross national
product. In 1960, at the height of the Cold War, we spent about 9
percent of the GDP on defense. In 1980 in the great Reagan defense
buildup, it was about 6 percent. It fell as low as 3.5 percent on the
eve of 9/11. It is barely 5 percent, or in that range, today. So by
historical standards, particularly since 1940, we do not spend a large
percentage of the national wealth on defense.
By the way, the same thing is true of the Federal budget. In 1960,
about 50 percent of the Federal budget was defense spending. It was
about 33 percent in 1980. It is about 18 or 19 percent today. Certainly
a lot of money, and that is certainly not the only way in which to
judge military spending, but if looked at in terms of the size of the
Federal budget or the wealth of the country, defense has been,
comparatively speaking, a bargain compared to other parts of the
budget.
I would also like to point out that, frankly, this Defense
Subcommittee and the administration have worked to find additional
economies. Secretary Gates made $78 billion in reductions over the next
5 years, and this budget itself is below what the President of the
United States asked us to appropriate by $9 billion. In addition, the
Secretary has laid out a path for an additional $400 billion worth of
savings.
I think most Americans would be shocked to find out we are engaged in
two or three wars, depending on how you want to count, with an Army
that is almost 40 percent smaller than it was in 1982.
So I yield to no one in terms of trying to find savings in defense,
but I think the record ought to be clear: As a percentage of our
national wealth, as a percentage of the Federal budget, what we spend
on defense has come down. And, frankly, we ought to remember that we
are at war; we are in a dangerous situation. This is not the first
place to cut, although cut we have. In my opinion, I think it is the
last place that we ought to cut.
And the consequences of what my friend proposes, I think, would be
terrific. We would be reducing and canceling training for returning
troops, canceling Navy training exercises, reducing Air Force flight
training, delaying or canceling maintenance of aircraft, ships, and
vehicles, and delaying important safety and quality-of-life repairs.
This is not the time for us to embark on additional cuts on top of
the restraints in spending that we have already done as a House. I
would urge the rejection of my friend's amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite numbers of
words.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. HOLT. I rise in support of the amendment of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
You know, all of Washington inside the Beltway is abuzz about how
much we can save by cutting Federal spending. As the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) said, to us, this amendment is a test. Will
we put every Federal agency's budget on the table in our quest to
control spending and reduce debt, or are there privileged categories?
Will we continue down the path of trying to balance the budget on the
backs of the poor, the disabled, schoolchildren, and seniors?
The Pentagon spending bill before us, some $650 billion, nearly two-
thirds of a trillion dollars, is about equal to all military spending
of all the rest of the
[[Page H4724]]
world--all of our allies, all of our potential adversaries, and all of
those countries that Americans rarely think about all put together.
The amendment that Mr. Frank and I and some of our colleagues on both
sides of the aisle are offering today is truly a modest proposal. It
would simply cut the rate of increase in Pentagon spending. Instead of
allowing a $17 billion increase over this year's level, it would cut
that increase in half just to see if we are willing to do that.
Now, my colleague, Mr. Cole, puts this, I think, in the wrong
context. I mean, we should talk about, sure, in 1960 it was a larger
part of the budget. That is before we had Medicare, before we had a lot
of programs. But when you ask yourself is our military structured to
deal with the problems this country faces and to expect from other
countries in the world their share of what must be done, the answer
surely is this is an unsustainable size.
This amendment was born out of a series of discussions among Mr.
Frank and Mr. Paul and Mr. Jones and some other Members and I have had
over several months. Recently, we sent a joint letter that outlined our
concerns about the state of our spending on national security. We point
out not only the excessive, unquestioned overall size of military
spending, but also that this is a result of the military that is indeed
a remnant of the Cold War, to go back to Mr. Cole's comments. And it
bears far more than our share of keeping the peace and is still
structured to overwhelm the Soviet Union more than to deal with today's
actual threats to our security.
To take one example that the cosponsors of this amendment may or may
not agree with me on but we might ask: Why do we need a replacement for
the B-2 bomber?
{time} 1730
It was not the B-2 bomber or any bomber that killed Osama bin Laden.
It was U.S. Special Operations. Buying new nuclear bombers would simply
be a form, I think, of defense sector corporate welfare to protect
against a threat that went away decades ago. I could cite multiple
additional disconnects between our defense spending priorities and the
actual threats we face.
One that comes to mind is Libya. As we note in our letter, it has
been widely reported in the press that England and France have been
pressing the United States to resume its earlier role in Libya because
they've been unable to assume it themselves. The explanation is that
only America has the capacity to respond.
Our point precisely.
We have allowed other nations in the world to grow into an
overdependence on America's military and America's tax dollars and the
expenditure of American money and lives far beyond what's appropriate
for our share of world peacekeeping. All of us who support this
amendment want to protect our country. That's precisely why we've
offered our proposal and this amendment: To put ourselves on track for
a better structured military.
Spending money on cold war-era weapons to wage undeclared wars of
choice is clear evidence of misguided, needlessly expensive priorities.
If the House cannot even pass an amendment that simply cuts the rate of
increase in Pentagon spending, it will never pass amendments that
actually make the kinds of cuts that are truly necessary to restructure
our defense in order to meet the real threats we face and to achieve
the budget savings that we must secure for our financial future.
I urge my colleagues to support this modest first step to rein in our
out-of-control defense budget.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. I rise in support of the Frank-Holt amendment.
This is a modest amendment. Quite frankly, I wish the cut were
greater than the cut being proposed here, because I think everybody in
this Chamber knows that there is a great deal of waste and abuse that
exists within our military spending. We have no-bid defense contracts.
We go right down that road of all the contracts that we've divvied out
and how wasteful they've been, and we're still building and preserving
weapons systems that are remnants of the cold war that even our Joint
Chiefs of Staff don't want. So there is savings to be had within the
military.
The other point I want to make is that, when we talk about national
security and national strength, we ought to be talking about making
sure that the people in this country can earn a decent living. National
security should mean jobs. It should mean the strength of our
infrastructure, the quality of our education system, which we are
neglecting. My friends on the other side of the aisle want to balance
the budget by cutting those very programs that, I think, provide our
economic strength. When you go home to your districts, the first thing
that people want to talk about is jobs. It is economic security.
Why aren't we doing more to create jobs? Why aren't we talking more
about jobs here in the Capitol?
So I make those two points because I think this amendment is a modest
amendment that moves us in the right direction and that moves this
discussion in a better direction.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to the author of
the amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. First of all, what we are saying is they
get an increase. So, if you vote against this amendment, apparently you
believe that they are 101\1/2\ percent efficient at the current level,
because you're giving them, we would say, a 101\1/2\ percent increase.
You must believe it's a 103 percent increase, those who vote against
this. People pay lip service where there are some inefficiencies, but
you will not get at them unless there is some limit to the spending.
I particularly want to address the very odd notion that we should
decide what we need to spend on the military today by using as a
standard what the situation was 51 years ago. That's the problem.
Fifty-one years ago, Germany was divided. The Communists controlled
Czechoslovakia and Poland and Hungary and East Germany. Our Western
allies were poor, and they were still recovering from 1945. The Soviet
Union was very strong. That's precisely the problem. This budget out of
the Appropriations Committee and from the administration, which is also
incorrect on this, acts as if it were still 1960. The fact is that it
is no longer appropriate for the rest of the world to expect us to put
out so much of the burden. That's what the issue is.
The gentleman from Oklahoma said, oh, well, we'll have to cut this
here and that there.
Why? Why don't we cut some of the money we spend in Europe, in Japan
and in other wealthy and secure nations?
This amendment tells the Pentagon, You're only going to get half of
the $17 billion increase on top of the $500 billion-plus you already
get. You decide where to stop spending.
Well, are they able to stop spending overseas?
Foreign aid is very unpopular, I think unduly unpopular. I like to
help poor children and to fight disease, but the biggest foreign aid
program in the history of the world is the American military budget and
its foreign aid for the un-needy, its foreign aid for the wealthy. You
want to talk about percentages of the GDP that are in the budget. What
about Germany? What about England? What about France? What about Italy?
What about Denmark? What about the Netherlands? All are our great
allies, and none spend as much as half a percentage as we do.
So what we now have here, apparently, the House is going to decide.
When Members have said that the Pentagon should be subjected to fiscal
discipline and that other needs will be taken into account and that the
deficit is the greatest threat to national security--people have quoted
Mike Mullen as saying that and Robert Gates as saying that--do the
Members understand what it means? It means that you don't even cut the
Pentagon, that you don't even level fund them, but you don't give them
$17 billion additional. You give them $8.5 billion at a time when you
are requiring cuts in very important programs.
I will reemphasize that this is a House which says we can't afford to
go to the aid of our fellow citizens who have been devastated by
disasters in
[[Page H4725]]
the southeastern part of the country and elsewhere unless we make
offsetting cuts. Well, to the extent that you give the Pentagon an
additional $17 billion, you exacerbate that dilemma, and you make it
harder to find the funds necessary to go to the aid of the people in
this area.
Yes, we want to keep the American people safe. I want to keep them
safe from unsound bridges, from fires that can't be effectively
combated, from food that isn't adequately tested, and from diseases.
People are unsafe because we are cutting back on health research.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank).
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The notion that the only danger to the American people is a Soviet
Union which collapsed 20 years ago or whatever it is we are protecting
people from in Germany and other bases such as that ignores the need
for better public safety here, better public health here, research on
disease, protection against disaster. It's one thing to go to the aid
of people after a disaster, but let's do a better job of building those
structures that can help diminish it.
This is a central question: Are the Members of the House going to
say, ``No, we didn't really mean it? No, the Pentagon is not subject to
fiscal discipline''?
My friend from Oklahoma said, oh, no, there were cuts; there's $78
billion in cuts coming over the next 5 years. This is a $17 billion
increase. How can that be a cut? It may be a cut from a $30 billion
increase, and that $30 billion increase is a cut from a $200 billion
increase, but it ain't a cut. It's a $17 billion increase, and we say
let it only be an $8.5 billion increase.
So the question is not are we going to treat the Pentagon more
generously with less discipline than any other entity. We've conceded
that. We're only asking that you cut in half the extent to which you
are going to tell American cities to lay off cops, that you're going to
say that we don't have enough to provide disaster relief without making
cuts elsewhere, that you're going to cut health research, that you're
going to cut food inspection, that you're going to cut fire service,
that you're going to cut the reconstruction of bridges in America.
Tens and tens of billions will be spent in Western Europe and on our
allies that needed our help 61 years ago and 51 years ago but who don't
need it today--in Japan and in other parts of the world where we're
subsidizing their military budgets so they can spend more elsewhere.
By the way, let me close with this: We talk about competition and
things that count--our ability to spend money on community colleges, to
provide aid so that people can become scientists and engineers, our
ability to develop technology. All of those things are hampered by the
drain on resources we get from spending military dollars in precisely
those countries with which we are competing. England and Germany and
France and the Netherlands and Denmark and Japan can all spend more on
their education and on their technology--on those areas where we are
competitive in a friendly way because we allow them to keep their
military budgets to a much lower percentage of GDP than ours, and that
is the relevant measure.
{time} 1740
So we again have a test: Are Members so caught up in the history--and
again, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for helping make the point;
1960 is his reference point. Well, stay with the concerns of 1960 and
use that as a reference point and things are not going to look very
good in 2011.
I thank my colleague from Indiana for yielding.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I'm having a hard time believing
what I'm hearing in this Chamber when it comes to national defense. You
don't get a bookkeeper or an accountant to make some sleight-of-hand
number to come up with a defense number. That's not how you do it. The
way you do it is decide what is the threat; what is threatening
America, what is threatening our allies overseas, what is threatening
our troops or our businesses around the world? Decide what that threat
is, and then decide how we're going to meet that threat. That's how you
come up with a defense number.
Just imagine we are going back to the good old days of just slashing
defense, gutting the victory fund, and the hangars were full of hangar
queens--hangar queens being airplanes that can't fly because they don't
have engines or they don't have parts. And in order to make one
airplane fly, they had to cannibalize two or three others to get enough
parts to make one airplane fly. Well, if you need three or four
airplanes in the air but only one flies, somebody is in trouble. We
don't want to go back to the days of a hangar queen, the ``hollow
force'' so-called.
And what about the troops out in combat facing a vicious enemy, and
they get to the point where they haven't really experienced what they
are about to experience because we didn't get that far in our training
because the training was curtailed? When you start cutting back the
money, you start cutting back the training, you start cutting back the
flying hours, you start cutting back the ability of that soldier to
reach out and say, hey, I know exactly how to do this because I was
trained properly. Don't cut the training, don't do it. Don't cut our
readiness by cutting training. Don't cut our readiness by having
hangars full of hangar queens that can't fly or by having garages full
of vehicles that can't run because of a lack of spare parts.
This is just not good defense. You don't make your defense decisions
based on some magical scheme or some solution that an accountant might
come up with. You had better be very careful about what the threat is.
We don't want any more Pearl Harbors; we don't want any more U.S. World
Trades on 9/11; we don't want any more attacks on the Pentagon. We were
not well enough prepared there with our intelligence. We need to make
sure that we invest enough in intelligence to make sure that we stop
those things before they happen.
Defense is not something to play games with. Defense is not something
to stand up and say, hey, I'm a cost-cutter. All of us are cost-cutters
in our own way; some of us just have different priorities for what
costs ought to be cut.
Mr. Chairman, this is a very important amendment. This subcommittee
did a very good job in reducing and saving over $9 billion on this bill
alone. This is a terrible amendment. I hope that we overwhelmingly
defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Fortenberry
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. II. None of the funds made available by this Act for
international military education and training, foreign
military financing, excess defense articles, assistance under
section 1206 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2006 (Public Law (109-163; 119 Stat. 3456),
issuance for direct commercial sales of military equipment,
or peacekeeping operations for the countries of Chad, Yemen,
Somalia, Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Burma
may be used to support any military training or operations
that include child soldiers, as defined by the Child Soldiers
Prevention Act of
[[Page H4726]]
2008, and except if such assistance is otherwise permitted
under section 404 of the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of
2008 (Public Law 110-457; 22 U.S.C. 2370c-1).
Mr. FORTENBERRY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with further reading of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Nebraska?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Nebraska is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in 2008, this body declared that the
United States would not provide military assistance to countries found
guilty of using child soldiers. With broad bipartisan support, we
declared that this is an affront to human dignity and an affront to
civilization itself, and we reaffirmed this policy earlier this year in
the continuing resolution.
It is the policy of our Nation that children--all children, no matter
where they are--belong on playgrounds and not battlegrounds, Mr.
Chairman. But that policy is at risk, and this body has an important
decision to make. Six governments were found guilty of using child
soldiers in 2010--Burma, Chad, the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. As the law we passed provided, four were
granted national security interest waivers last year in the hopes, Mr.
Chairman, that they would take serious and aggressive strides toward
ending this serious human rights violation. Somalia was also permitted
to continue receiving peacekeeping assistance, effectively sanctioning
only Burma, a country to which we provided no military assistance
anyway.
Mr. Chairman, this administration has been heavily criticized for
this decision. And it is no surprise that in the newly released 2011
child soldiers report, the same six countries were listed as violators
once again. Mr. Chairman, we must ask, where is the progress? The 2011
report needs to stand as a challenge to President Obama, the
administration, and this Congress as well. We are operating
inconsistently, obligated by law and civilized order itself to combat
this most serious human rights violation--especially prevalent in the
world's ungoverned spaces--but we continue with military assistance,
with inattentiveness to stopping the pernicious use of child soldiers.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment reaffirms current U.S. policy, lest we
forget it. In the 2011 continuing resolution, we extended the Child
Soldiers Prevention Act to cover peacekeeping operations, and my
amendment is consistent with this. It also clarifies a point of law not
mentioned in the Child Soldiers Prevention Act. Section 1206 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2006 provides the
Department of Defense the authority to train and equip foreign military
forces. But according to its own terms and the State Department,
section 1206 authorities may not be used to provide any type of
equipment, supplies, or training that is otherwise prohibited by any
other provision of law.
Mr. Chairman, children in these countries are being preyed upon,
innocent lives are being lost, children are being thrown into
psychological hell. Girl soldiers and some boys are being subjected to
grotesque sexual slavery and violence. They are property. Their lives
are not their own. They are battered, beaten, victimized, stripped of
dignity, hope, and a future, made to do unfathomable things by the
world's worst criminals.
Mr. Chairman, these criminals just aren't faceless rebels in the bush
either. While there are plenty of those, we are talking now about
governments that are guilty of this pernicious practice. And we need to
make it clear: Are we going to tolerate this or not? William
Wilberforce, the British statesman and unyielding abolitionist for whom
our anti-human trafficking law is named, once said this: ``You may
choose to look the other way, but you can never again say that you did
not know.''
{time} 1750
We must make it clear to these governments that we do now know and
that we cannot look the other way, Mr. Chairman. With that, I urge my
colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word to
express support for this good amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).
The amendment was agreed to.
Announcement by the Acting Chair
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in the Congressional Record
on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 2 by Mr. Rigell of Virginia.
Amendment No. 61 by Ms. Foxx of North Carolina.
An amendment by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 8 by Mr. Sherman of California.
An amendment by Mr. Rohrabacher of California.
An amendment by Mr. Gohmert of Texas.
An amendment by Mr. Welch of Vermont.
Amendment No. 4 by Mr. Cole of Oklahoma.
Amendment No. 79 by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.
Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Rigell
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Rigell) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 176,
noes 249, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 515]
AYES--176
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Capuano
Chaffetz
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Costello
Cummings
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Royce
Rush
Sanchez, Loretta
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--249
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
[[Page H4727]]
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Stivers
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Hinojosa
Payne
Schrader
Towns
{time} 1818
Mrs. BONO MACK, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, and Messrs. CRAVAACK,
NEAL, AL GREEN of Texas, TIERNEY, CROWLEY, and BARLETTA changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Ms. HANABUSA, Ms. MOORE, and Messrs. GARRETT of New Jersey, GONZALEZ,
SHERMAN, GRIJALVA, HARRIS, GRAVES of Missouri, CONYERS, MILLER of
Florida, SULLIVAN, and BILIRAKIS changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 515, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Amendment No. 61 Offered by Ms. Foxx
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Mack). The unfinished business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 248,
noes 175, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 516]
AYES--248
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--175
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bono Mack
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Cantor
Cardoza
Culberson
Gibbs
Giffords
Payne
Sullivan
Towns
{time} 1822
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Mulvaney
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded
[[Page H4728]]
vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Mulvaney) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 135,
noes 290, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 517]
AYES--135
Amash
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Burgess
Campbell
Capuano
Cardoza
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Coble
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
DeFazio
DeGette
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Flake
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garrett
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Lofgren, Zoe
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Paul
Perlmutter
Peters
Pitts
Polis
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Ross (FL)
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Slaughter
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Walsh (IL)
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yoder
NOES--290
Ackerman
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Cicilline
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Herger
Higgins
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Hultgren
Hunter
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Sires
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Conyers
Culberson
Giffords
Issa
Payne
Towns
{time} 1827
Ms. SUTTON changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Sherman
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Sherman) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 316,
noes 111, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 518]
AYES--316
Adams
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Baldwin
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berg
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
DeGette
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Doggett
Dold
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Kline
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
McCarthy (CA)
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Nugent
Nunnelee
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pelosi
Pence
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
[[Page H4729]]
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schilling
Schmidt
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--111
Ackerman
Aderholt
Altmire
Baca
Barrow
Barton (TX)
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Boren
Canseco
Cantor
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carter
Chandler
Clyburn
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeLauro
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Engel
Eshoo
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gohmert
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Herger
Higgins
Hochul
Hoyer
Israel
Issa
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Lamborn
Lance
Levin
Long
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Moran
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Olver
Owens
Perlmutter
Peterson
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Rahall
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ruppersberger
Schiff
Schock
Scott, David
Shuler
Sires
Stivers
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Van Hollen
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Yoder
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1832
Mr. SMITH of Texas changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Rohrabacher) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 89,
noes 338, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 519]
AYES--89
Adams
Amash
Baldwin
Barletta
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Black
Blumenauer
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Campbell
Cardoza
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Filner
Fincher
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grijalva
Guinta
Harris
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Higgins
Hochul
Honda
Hultgren
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jordan
Keating
Kucinich
Landry
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
McClintock
Michaud
Mulvaney
Napolitano
Nugent
Pallone
Paul
Pearce
Petri
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Renacci
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Schilling
Schrader
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Southerland
Stark
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Walsh (IL)
West
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
NOES--338
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Kaptur
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Nadler
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Platts
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schwartz
Scott (SC)
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stearns
Stivers
Sullivan
Sutton
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Webster
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1836
Mr. COHEN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Gohmert
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Gohmert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162,
noes 265, not voting 4, as follows:
[[Page H4730]]
[Roll No. 520]
AYES--162
Adams
Akin
Amash
Bachmann
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Boustany
Braley (IA)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Campbell
Capito
Chaffetz
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Coble
Cole
Conyers
Davis (KY)
DeFazio
Denham
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleming
Flores
Foxx
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Griffin (AR)
Grijalva
Guinta
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hastings (WA)
Heck
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Jones
Jordan
Kingston
Kucinich
Labrador
Landry
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Noem
Nugent
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ross (FL)
Royce
Schilling
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stark
Stearns
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walsh (IL)
Waters
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Woodall
Woolsey
Young (AK)
NOES--265
Ackerman
Aderholt
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Chabot
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clyburn
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fleischmann
Forbes
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garamendi
Gerlach
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly
Kildee
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCollum
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Mica
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neal
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Pence
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Platts
Polis
Price (NC)
Quayle
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rehberg
Reyes
Richmond
Rivera
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Van Hollen
Walden
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Womack
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--4
Culberson
Giffords
Payne
Towns
{time} 1840
Mr. BLUMENAUER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Welch
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 169,
noes 257, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 521]
AYES--169
Ackerman
Altmire
Amash
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buerkle
Butterfield
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Filner
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garrett
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hurt
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sewell
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOES--257
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Andrews
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Berg
Berkley
Berman
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cooper
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kaptur
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Levin
[[Page H4731]]
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Reyes
Ribble
Richardson
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schiff
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Walberg
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Towns
{time} 1843
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Cole
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oklahoma
(Mr. Cole) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 170, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 522]
AYES--256
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chandler
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Holden
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Rahall
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOES--170
Ackerman
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hochul
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Richmond
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stark
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--5
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Towns
{time} 1847
Mr. TURNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Frank of Massachusetts
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) on which further proceedings were postponed
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
Recorded Vote
The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 181,
noes 244, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 523]
AYES--181
Ackerman
Amash
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barton (TX)
Bass (CA)
Bass (NH)
Becerra
Benishek
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Campbell
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chu
Clarke (MI)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gibson
Goodlatte
Graves (GA)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Herrera Beutler
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
[[Page H4732]]
Holt
Honda
Huizenga (MI)
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kind
Kucinich
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
LaTourette
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lummis
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (CT)
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Pallone
Pascrell
Paul
Pelosi
Peters
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Ribble
Richardson
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Southerland
Speier
Stark
Stearns
Stivers
Stutzman
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh (IL)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Woodall
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
Yoder
NOES--244
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Barrow
Bartlett
Berg
Berkley
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chandler
Cicilline
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Courtney
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Critz
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis (KY)
DeLauro
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dicks
Dingell
Dold
Donnelly (IN)
Dreier
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heinrich
Hensarling
Herger
Higgins
Hochul
Holden
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Kelly
Kildee
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kissell
Kline
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Langevin
Lankford
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lungren, Daniel E.
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McCotter
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Olver
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Perlmutter
Peterson
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (AR)
Ross (FL)
Rothman (NJ)
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Sullivan
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walz (MN)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NOT VOTING--6
Culberson
Giffords
Jackson Lee (TX)
Payne
Tiberi
Towns
Announcement by the Chair
The CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining in this
vote.
{time} 1851
Mr. CARSON of Indiana changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TIBERI. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No. 523, had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now
rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Mack) having assumed the chair, Mr. Westmoreland, Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2219)
making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2012, and for other purposes, had come to no
resolution thereon.
____________________