[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 83 (Wednesday, June 12, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H3309-H3316]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1960, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 1256, SWAP JURISDICTION CERTAINTY ACT
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 256
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
year 2014 for military activities of the Department of
Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services. After general debate, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Sec. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1256) to
direct the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission to jointly adopt rules
setting forth the application to cross-border swaps
transactions of certain provisions relating to swaps that
were enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and
Consumer Protection Act. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now
printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill,
as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill,
as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate,
with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial
Services and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 3. The chair of the Committee on Agriculture is
authorized, on behalf of the committee, to file a
supplemental report to accompany H.R. 1947.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. NUGENT. House Resolution 256 provides for House consideration of
two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R.
1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which will be considered for
1 hour, with time divided between the Committees on Financial Services
and Agriculture, under a closed rule.
Secondly, and the reason why I am so proud to be the sponsor of this
rule, H. Res. 256 provides for 1 hour of general debate for this year's
National Defense Authorization Act.
The Rules Committee traditionally receives hundreds of amendments to
the NDAA; and with just under 300 submitted by the end of the day
yesterday, this year is no different. Therefore, as is the tradition
for this bill, this first rule in the NDAA consideration process
provides for general debate while a second will provide for
consideration of the plethora of amendments we have before us.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the
[[Page H3310]]
honor of helping craft this legislation for the past few months. As I
think anybody can imagine, when you're talking about a bill that
authorizes the Department of Defense, there is a lot to discuss and
consider. That point was illustrated by our full committee markup in
the Armed Services Committee last week, which started first thing
Wednesday morning and went through to almost 3 a.m. on Thursday, 16
hours. We worked long and hard, and I'm proud of the product we've
presented to this House for consideration.
But for as much time and effort that we on the Committee on Armed
Services put into the Defense Authorization Act, I know that other
Members who don't serve on our committee will want to make their mark
on this bill, too. To ensure that the House has an opportunity to
really have a comprehensive, free-flowing debate on such an important
topic, we've decided to break the rule for the Defense Authorization
Act into two parts.
That's why today's rule provides us with 1 hour of general debate
time. It gets us started on the path to consideration. It also allows
Members from both sides of the aisle to have a full discussion about
the broader themes running through this base legislation. There are
important debates, and the sooner we get them started, the better. But
with nearly 300 amendments submitted to the National Defense
Authorization Act, the truth is we on the Rules Committee couldn't give
each and every amendment the full weight and consideration it deserves
and produce a comprehensive rule that starts debate on the full bill
and all amendments today.
{time} 1350
If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Therefore,
while the House works on the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act and starts
general debate on the NDAA, we, on the Rules Committee, will return to
the committee room and we'll continue to sift through all the
amendments that Members have offered on this bill.
We want to make sure the House has the opportunity to weigh in on
each and every important issue in the NDAA. That's why we need to take
our time. And once we have a full understanding of the amendments
submitted to the committee, we'll come back with a second rule setting
the universe of amendments for this legislation.
I know that we all share the same commitment to making this a fair
and collaborative process. Quite frankly, it's the spirit of
cooperation and the knowledge that we're serving a common purpose that
has been one of the most gratifying parts of serving on HASC to date.
As Chairman McKeon said to the Rules Committee yesterday, we may
disagree sometimes, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable.
We're able to put partisanship aside, and we know that our work
directly impacts the life of each and every servicemember and his or
her family in a personal and direct way.
We're providing for the common defense, which is part of the Federal
Government's most fundamental roles, part of our core mission, as I
like to say. And if you want proof of how collaboratively we worked on
this bill as a committee, you only need to look at the fact that we
passed this bill out of committee 59-2. And as the father of three sons
serving in the Army, I'm heartened to know that politics can be set
aside when it comes down to making sure our troops are equipped with
the tools that are required, funded at the levels they need, and
trained for the mission at hand.
This is an important time for our country and an important time for
those members of the military who serve us every day. These young men
and women put their lives on the line for us so we could be here today
and debate the issues of the day. So they deserve our undivided
attention and support when it comes to making sure that they have
everything that they need, and there's no more essential role for our
Federal Government, in my opinion, as to what we are doing today.
H.R. 1960 fulfills the promise to our warfighters and to their loved
ones. I'm proud of this rule, which gets us on the road towards
considering and passing this essential bill. For that reason, I support
the rule. I support the underlying pieces of legislation and look
forward to coming back here tomorrow in the next step of getting the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed.
I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, this should be a simple rule. Every
year, this House considers the annual National Defense Authorization
Act. It's a bill that reauthorizes our Nation's defense programs and a
place where we should have the opportunity to debate some of the most
important issues facing this country and the world.
The process is typically broken up into two parts: a rule providing
for general debate on the National Defense Authorization Act and a rule
providing for consideration of amendments to that bill. It's generally
not a controversial process; although, the decisions made by the Rules
Committee in allowing and preventing amendments from being considered
can be controversial.
And that's where this rule goes wrong. This is not the normal rule
providing for general debate for the defense authorization bill. No,
Madam Speaker, this rule is much more than that.
Over the past 3 years, we've seen the Republican leadership in the
House fixated on several things:
They want to take health care away from millions of Americans by
repealing ObamaCare;
They want to destroy the social safety net through mindless budget
cuts; and
They want to weaken our financial system by repealing the Dodd-Frank
Act that came out of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great
Depression.
This rule, the rule that should be a simple general debate rule for
the Defense Authorization Act, also makes in order H.R. 1256, the Swap
Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Not only does this rule cram in this
controversial bill, it does not allow one single amendment. That's
right. This is a closed rule. That's not an open and transparent
process, certainly not the one that Speaker Boehner promised.
H.R. 1256 would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and
the Securities Exchange Commission to jointly issue rules on the
regulations of swaps transactions between the United States and foreign
entities.
H.R. 1256 automatically exempts transactions in countries with the
nine largest swaps markets from U.S. regulations unless the CFTC and
the SEC jointly determine that the regulations aren't broadly
equivalent. Because many large U.S. financial institutions have
subsidiaries outside of the United States, there are serious concerns
that banks will seek to conduct swap transactions in countries with
looser regulations to avoid U.S. oversight. And, Madam Speaker, it is
important to note that many countries are far behind the United States
in promulgating their rules on swaps.
Why are we looking to allow foreign regulations to govern
transactions involving U.S. companies that could ultimately impact our
economy?
During the markup in the Financial Services Committee, Ranking Member
Maxine Waters offered an amendment to strike the presumption that
foreign regulatory requirements satisfy U.S. swaps requirements,
allowing the CFTC and the SEC to determine whether foreign regulatory
requirements are comparable to U.S. requirements. Unfortunately, under
this closed rule, the full House will not have the opportunity to
consider a similar amendment to strengthen this legislation.
Madam Speaker, this is yet another attempt to slow down the Dodd-
Frank rulemaking process, undermine the CFTC's work in regulating
derivatives trading, and weaken the financial market regulations needed
to protect our economy.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
This rule also allows, believe it or not, the Agriculture Committee
to file a supplemental report to H.R. 1947, the
[[Page H3311]]
farm bill reauthorization. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that cuts
$20.5 billion from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. While this
report is just technical, and fulfills the committee's responsibilities
following the markup of H.R. 1947, this rule is not the place for this
report. And, more importantly, I want to make it crystal clear that I
do not support these egregious cuts. It's a rotten thing to do to poor
people during this tough economic time.
Finally, Madam Speaker, let me discuss the least controversial part
of this rule, the defense authorization bill. This rule allows the
House to begin general debate on H.R. 1960, the FY 2014 National
Defense Authorization Act.
There is much to admire and support in this bill, and I commend the
chairman and ranking member for working together to ensure the programs
that provide benefits and support to our veterans and military retirees
are adequately funded and that there will be no increases in TRICARE
fees. Regrettably, there's also a great deal in this bill that should
make every Member of this Chamber pause and think about our national
security priorities:
Should we be spending additional billions on Cold War nuclear weapons
rather than on our troops, their families, and our veterans?
Should we really be cutting funds and putting obstacles in the way of
implementing the New START Treaty with Russia, limiting both our
nations' ability to further reduce and verify our nuclear arsenals?
Should we be committing hundreds of millions this year and billions
of dollars in the future to an east coast missile defense site that the
Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need?
Should we continue to set up roadblocks and obstruct the President's
efforts to resolve the issue of how to effectively and safely close the
detention facilities at Guantanamo Naval Station, appropriately release
and return to their families those prisoners who have been cleared of
all charges, and bring to justice once and for all those few remaining
prisoners who were indeed engaged in heinous acts of terrorism?
And once again, Madam Speaker, the committee provides $85.8 billion
for the war in Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations
account. That's $5 billion more than what the President and the
Pentagon asked for.
Now let me just say a couple of words about the OCO account. It is an
off-budget account. It is another $85 billion on the Nation's credit
card--deficit spending, pure and simple. It is the lingo of ``emergency
spending,'' as if it were an unexpected surprise that we will still be
in Afghanistan throughout all of FY 2014.
I have always been concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and the ever more amorphous and hard-to-define global war on terror,
have not been included in the Pentagon's base budget but always outside
that budget, with an ``emergency'' designation so that we don't have to
figure out how to pay for it now. We'll just pay for it later and later
and later. I'm increasingly concerned that, even after we transition
all combat military and security operations over to the Afghan
Government by the end of 2014, the OCO will still go on.
It is time to phase out the OCO, put this spending back into the base
spending bill, and if we want to make war, then we ought to figure out
a way to pay for it or make the appropriate cuts in other Pentagon
programs to make room for the funding of these operations.
{time} 1400
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the strong
concerns this Congress has, on both sides of the aisle, about the
epidemic of sexual assault in all branches of our military. This bill
includes several measures that will strengthen the investigation and
prosecution of these heinous crimes inside our military. It also
provides new protections for victims of military sexual assault. It
reflects the bipartisan work of Representative Turner, my Massachusetts
colleague, Representative Tsongas, as well as Representatives Walorski,
Noem, Castro, and Loretta Sanchez. However, Mr. Speaker, there is still
much more that should and can be done to ensure these brutal rapes and
assaults are fully investigated and prosecuted, the victims treated
with respect, and to advance education in our military academies and
among our ranks and our officer corps.
Several amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and I hope
that they will be made in order so that we can more fully debate this
critical issue and how to end rape and sexual assault within our Armed
Forces.
Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that while the NDAA looks to strengthen
protections and prosecutions inside our military, we here in Congress
are also to blame for having failed in our oversight responsibilities.
Congress has not given the attention to military sexual assault that it
deserves. So I think that we do need to clean up our own House and
ensure that Congress does a far better job of oversight to ensure that
the Pentagon and all our military members are held accountable for
preventing, reducing, and prosecuting cases of sexual assault and abuse
in our Armed Forces and providing victims with the services and support
that they deserve.
Mr. Speaker, I'm always ambivalent about the annual defense
authorization bill. I support the programs for our veterans and our
retirees, and I support providing for the genuine needs of our
servicemen and -women, whether they are based here at home or abroad.
But I cannot support the amount of waste, the spending on unnecessary
and often ridiculous programs, on more nukes, on outdated weapons, and
on wars that never end.
As we begin general debate on the defense bill later today, I ask my
colleagues to keep these questions in mind.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule is unnecessarily complicated and
misguided. There is no reason to include yet another bill gutting Dodd-
Frank in this rule, and there's no reason to cram into this rule a
report from the Agriculture Committee about a bill that will make
hunger worse in America.
For these reasons, I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to
vote ``no'' on the rule for these three measures, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Turner).
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, about 5 years ago in my community, we were
saddened to hear of the news of the tragic death of Marie Lauterbach.
Marie Lauterbach was a marine who came forward to report the sexual
assault that she had endured and came forward and reported her belief
of a subsequent pregnancy from that sexual assault, only to have the
Marines inform her and the accused in the sexual assault, the
perpetrator, that they would wait until her baby was born, and when the
baby was born, they would do DNA testing. And if the DNA testing
showed, in fact, that the baby was the accused's, then they would move
forward with the prosecution. Until then, they left the two in close
proximity until the accused murdered Marie Lauterbach in her eighth
month of pregnancy and burned her in her backyard in a bonfire.
It was at that time that I saw that the issue of sexual assault in
the military was not just one of unacceptable numbers, it was an issue
of an environment where victims were re-victimized and perpetrators
felt safe.
Mr. Speaker, a recent survey in the military indicated that 28,000
servicemembers have indicated that they were sexually assaulted, but
less than 3,000 of those were willing to actually report it in a manner
that would result in charges against their accused. We think we know
why: because 62 percent of the slightly less than 3,000 indicated that
they felt that they were persecuted in the workplace for having done
so. They were re-victimized.
What we're doing in this NDAA is to ensure that that culture shifts,
that the perpetrators are those that fear the system, and the victims
are those that will feel embraced. We change the relationship between
the commander and the victim, moving the responsibility for both the
prosecution and the handling of those cases and diminishing the direct
commander's authority over the disposition of sexual assault cases when
a conviction has occurred. We expand legal counsel for victims, making
certain that victims have beside them someone who can advise them in
the legal processes, and we remove the chain of command's authority in
the disposition of these cases and establish a mandatory minimum.
[[Page H3312]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we include mandatory minimums that say if
you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military, you will be
dishonorably discharged, and if you are a trainer and you enter into a
trainer-trainee relationship that is inappropriate, you are out. No
longer will a victim be forced to salute their predator or their
accused. These provisions are incredibly important. They're ones we
worked with on a bipartisan basis.
I want to thank my cochair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention
Caucus, Niki Tsongas. I also want to thank Ranking Member Smith and the
chairman, Buck McKeon, and also the chairs of the Subcommittee on
Military Personnel, Susan Davis and Joe Wilson.
This is a matter on which we've worked together very thoughtfully. At
the same time, we know that Chairman Dempsey, Secretary Hagel, and
former Secretary Panetta have made this a significant issue to address
in the military. What we're trying to do on a legislative basis is to
give them the tools to, once again, make perpetrators fear the system
and hold them accountable.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services
Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises,
Mrs. Maloney.
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for
yielding and for his leadership. I commend the work of Mr. Turner and
others for strengthening protections for women in the military, but
it's not enough. The amendments from Jackie Speier and other women
leaders were not included. We need an open rule where all of these
ideas can come to the floor to protect our men and women in the
military.
The status quo in the military is not a way to solve the problem of
sexual abuse. Too often, it is the problem. Every year that I have been
in Congress, the military brass has come to us and said that they will
stop this abuse. Yet each year, it seems to be getting worse. Women are
even afraid to report it. They're then afraid that they'll be punished
in some way.
Despite the widespread public and congressional outrage, some top
military officers still seem to resist important, fundamental changes
to a culture that has clearly failed in one of its single, most
important missions: keeping its own people safe. And the casualties are
mounting every day.
For example, a U.S. military officer overseeing sexual assault
prevention at Fort Hood in Texas is under investigation for his sexual
assault of soldiers. The officer in charge of the Air Force's sexual
abuse prevention program was recently arrested for groping women. We
need to end the culture of tolerating the abuser and punishing the
victims.
We created a database for them to report in, but they won't report
because they are afraid of retaliation. Too often they've seen if
you're a woman who's been raped and abused, then you're told to be
quiet. If you report it, you'll be punished, but if you're the abuser,
you might end up in charge of the sexual abuse prevention program and
get a promotion.
The strongest military in the world has got to learn how to protect
its own soldiers. It's got to keep them from being wounded by rape and
sexual assault. We need to stop this, allow an open rule, and allow
amendments on this important protection of our soldiers.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody
knows that there were almost 300 amendments that have been submitted,
and they'll be discussed later today, and Mr. McGovern is a part of
that process and will be discussing those amendments today.
But I agree with both of my colleagues as it relates to sexual
assault in the military. Having only been on Armed Services now for 6
months, I will tell you that I agree with Mr. McGovern, particularly as
it relates to oversight. And I believe that this Congress should
exhibit and utilize its oversight capacity to the fullest, especially
as it relates to sexual assault within the military.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, military cohesion is eroding and trust is
disintegrating throughout the ranks as sexual assault infests the
services. An Air Force officer charged with sexual assault prevention
efforts here in Washington was arrested for sexual battery last month.
{time} 1410
West Point and the Naval Academy have made recent headlines about
assaults involving athletes. Alarmingly, the military academies
reported 80 cases of sexual assault last year, a 23 percent increase;
and too many cases go unreported.
We trust the service academies to mold our sons and daughters for
service to our country. Cadets and midshipmen are of an impressionable
and often vulnerable age, requiring stronger protections against sexual
assault and better support for victims.
The culture that is propelling this epidemic must change. I urge
support for the sexual assault provisions in the NDAA.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the
Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and
Capabilities.
Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, while I rise in opposition to this rule, I want to
express my strong support for the underlying bill, H.R. 1960, the
National Defense Authorization Act.
This legislation is not perfect; however, it ensures support for our
men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much on our behalf, and
includes provisions that are crucial to our military's future
capabilities in this fiscally constrained environment.
Now, among other things, it fully supports the President's request
for the peerless Virginia-class submarines, as well as critical future
enablers such as the Ohio Class Replacement and the Virginia Payload
Module.
It also includes the Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act
which, for the first time, requires prompt notification to the defense
committees of any overseas lethal or capture operations outside of
Afghanistan, including those conducted with unmanned aerial vehicles.
Furthermore, I'm pleased that this measure begins to tackle the
epidemic of sexual assault in our military. Our people in uniform need
to know that they are protected from and against sexual assault, and
God forbid if there is a sexual assault that occurs, that the
perpetrator is held accountable.
While far more must be done, there are important first steps in this
bill that are worthy of our strong support.
Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud to work closely with Chairman Mac
Thornberry, both in this bill and in numerous other provisions which
fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Intelligence,
Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Together, we have worked hard to
increase resources for our Special Operations Forces, who are helping
us confront shifting threats and unconventional battlefields, and to
support our efforts in the cybersecurity realm.
There are many other positive steps with regard to cyber in this
legislation, including incentivizing new cybersecurity standards,
ensuring U.S. Cyber Command has the proper authorities and the
personnel in coordinating cybersecurity efforts with related
disciplines.
However, the reality is that our Nation's cybersecurity challenges
cannot simply be handed over to the Department of Defense. With the
vast majority of our critical infrastructure in private hands, we
absolutely must require minimum standards for their owners and
operators. It is way past time for Congress to move aggressively to
partner with the private sector and address what I believe is our
greatest national security vulnerability.
Meanwhile, though I applaud DHS's efforts to coordinate the various
approaches to cybersecurity found across
[[Page H3313]]
the Federal Government, I continue to believe that there must be an
office within the White House with the policy and budgetary authority
to enforce appropriate actions across the whole government. I'm
disappointed the procedural and jurisdictional issues precluded
offering such an amendment to the NDAA, but I am going to continue to
work with my colleagues to enact what I believe to be a crucial
provision.
Finally, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, as
well as Chairman Thornberry and all of my colleagues on the committee,
but most especially the tireless HASC, for all of their efforts, which
have been really Herculean in bringing this bill to the process of
where we are today.
I certainly urge my colleagues to support the National Defense
Authorization Act.
Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the U.S. detention facility
at Guantanamo Bay.
Continued operation of the facility at Guantanamo weakens U.S.
national security, wastes resources, damages our relationships with key
allies, and reinforces anti-American propaganda led by groups like al
Qaeda to recruit new enemies against the United States.
In a time of war, the Commander in Chief must have the flexibility to
execute important foreign policy and national security determinations.
This includes how to treat detainees captured on the battlefield. The
Commander in Chief having this authority is not a new concept to this
Congress. In fact, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were
transferred from Gitmo with Congress' support. Restrictions placed by
Congress to prevent this President from making these decisions are not
prudent.
In addition to foreign policy and national security consideration,
the facility at Guantanamo is also a waste of scarce resources. DOD
estimates that the cost to run Guantanamo Bay is around $150 million a
year. In a time when we're making sequestration cuts to programs here
at home, we're spending approximately $1 million per detainee each
year. This makes Guantanamo Bay literally the most expensive detention
facility in the world.
I urge my colleagues to give the President the flexibility he needs
to operate Guantanamo Bay.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, sexual assault in the military continues to
be a serious problem. Given both the headlines and the reality, this is
an understatement. It impacts thousands of servicemen and -women each
year. And while Congress has investigated and discussed this problem
for more than two decades, the issue remains pervasive. It's time for
us to act. Recent reports that assault is happening by individuals who
are supposed to protect and command our servicemembers make this all
the more concerning.
According to a recent 2012 Pentagon survey, an estimated 26,000
sexual assaults in the military occurred in that year. That's a 35
percent increase since 2010. It means that roughly 70 servicemen and -
women are sexually assaulted every single day. And I know from my own
long history and experience of working on these issues that where there
are 26,000, there are many, many more. And we know that only a fraction
of these incidents are reported; fewer than 3,400 reported incidents
every year.
Sexual violence has a longstanding impact on servicemen and -women
and their families. According to the Service Women's Action Network,
while experiences of sexual violence are strongly associated with a
wide range of mental health conditions for men and for women veterans,
military sexual trauma is the leading cause of PTSD among women. Due to
shame, guilt, or fear of not being believed, fewer than 15 percent of
these sexual assaults are reported to the proper authorities.
As a former domestic violence and sexual assault advocate, I
understand that coming forward is an unimaginably tough thing to do,
and I commend every single one of the men and women who had the courage
to come forward and name their accused. Their fear of coming forward is
not imagined; it's real. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of
confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once
an incident is reported. This is profound in the military and it has
profound consequences.
We have to act and stand together as a Congress and as a Nation to
declare that the problem can't go on, and we have to work now to stamp
out the violence within the military.
We have to ensure that the Guard and Reserve have response
coordinators available at all times regardless of their duty status,
and to ensure that each service has a robust investigative team, with
clarity and consistency among the services.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
Ms. EDWARDS. Our hope is to ensure that zero tolerance for sexual
assault in the military is the norm.
I want to say that some have pointed to a culture issue within the
military that contributes to the problem. You know what, that might be
true; but we cannot use culture as an excuse. It has to be a challenge
and a commitment to change throughout the chain of command.
Some have pointed as well to say that this is just endemic within the
military. As somebody who grew up in a servicemember family as one of
four daughters, I can't lay this blame on the fact of service. I know
that in the civilian sector a relatively small number of perpetrators
commit the overwhelming number of crimes. So let's root out the
criminals within the military. We have to commit ourselves to making
sure that we do that and hold them accountable, hold their commanders
accountable, punish people for crime, and stop promoting perpetrators
and transferring the problem from one installation to the next
installation. This enforceability and accountability has to happen
throughout the command structure, no excuses and no exceptions.
{time} 1420
It's the service that my father sacrificed for and that millions of
others do that we have to honor. We do that by protecting the men and
women who serve by saying to them: We want you to serve your country,
but we want to make sure that you can do it in safety and that those
who are criminals are held accountable.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for
yielding.
I rise in support of the progress this underlying bill makes in
combating military sexual assault. Sexual assault in the military
continues to be a serious problem. In 2012, an average of 70 servicemen
and -women were sexually assaulted each and every day. This is
unacceptable. Moreover, only a fraction of these are reported. Fewer
yet are prosecuted.
More needs to be done at every level to establish comprehensive
uniform solutions. I am pleased to see that this bill offers a renewed
determination to stop these unacceptable crimes that undermine the
strength and honor of our military. The included provisions make
progress to increase transparency with new victim protections and
services, and improved processes to hold offenders accountable.
But we must do more. We must work diligently to put an end to this
problem so we can again--with full confidence--encourage our daughters
and sons to serve this great country.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
yielding me time.
Seventy men and women serving in the military every single day are
sexually assaulted and raped. While we sit here and we talk, that's
going on.
For over 25 years--for over 25 years--we have known about this
problem and
[[Page H3314]]
we have done very little. Aberdeen, Tailhook, the military academies,
Lackland, all of these are happening under our collective watch, and we
have found it acceptable to hold hearings, to bring the brass up here,
have them say the right words--``zero tolerance''--and then we would go
about our business. That is not good enough. And while the NDAA has
some good fixes on the end of the process, we still have much to do on
the front end.
There is a reason why there are 26,000 sexual assaults and rapes a
year in the military and only 3,300 have the guts to come forward. It's
because if you come forward, you're retaliated against. Some 63 percent
are retaliated against. And of those 3,300 that report, only 500 of
those cases are going to go to court-martial and only 200 will end up
in a conviction.
So why would anyone report? Because your odds of getting justice are
just not there. That's why it is important for us to have a debate on
this House floor about taking these cases out of the chain of command.
If it's in the chain of command, then you have the potential of having
the assailant be the person making the decision, or the person making
the decision--the commander--being the friend of the assailant, or the
commander itching for a promotion, who is fearful that if they find out
that there was a rape under their watch, that they won't get that
promotion.
Other countries have a similar Uniform Code of Military Justice. Ours
is based on the British system. And the Brits and the Canadians and the
New Zealanders and the Australians and the Israelis have all taken
these cases out of the chain of command, and it's working. It's time
for us to have that discussion as well.
I urge my colleagues to embrace an amendment that I will take up in
Rules Committee that will at least give us the opportunity to have this
debate--this healthy debate--on the House floor. Otherwise, I will
guarantee you in another 6 months, in another year, we will see yet
another scandal, and we will not have changed anything.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small
Business, Ms. Velazquez.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise in opposition to this rule. Our Armed Forces face an epidemic
that is tearing away this institution's moral credibility. Millions of
patriotic young men and women who are considering donning our Nation's
uniform, must contend with the fact that our military has become a safe
haven for sexual assault and rape.
According to DOD's own estimate, on average, 70 servicemembers are
sexually assaulted every day, with 26,000 of these incidents occurring
last year alone. That represents a 30 percent increase from just 2
years before.
Keep in mind, this is the Department of Defense data. It is likely
this problem is even more widespread than these numbers suggest.
Equally troubling, only a sliver of about 3 percent of these cases were
prosecuted. The horrifying fact is that tolerance of sexual assault has
become part of the Armed Forces' culture. In too many cases, victims
are further harmed by a system that protects offenders in the name of
the chain of command. This is unacceptable. It must change, and it must
change now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. VELAZQUEZ. The men and women who serve our Nation sacrifice
enough. They should not have to worry about sexual assault at the hands
of superiors and colleagues.
It is time for real steps that end this permissive culture, hold
sexual offenders accountable, and restore trust in our Armed Forces.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman of
Massachusetts for yielding.
It has already been stated--but it is worth repeating again--in 2012,
26,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted. If only one
servicemember was assaulted, that is one too many.
Sexual assault in the military is intolerable--period. It is a
terrible entrenched cultural flaw of our military that allows victims
to be abused without accountability or justice.
While there are a number of legislative proposals to address this
issue, the consensus is clear: we need a fail-safe solution that
increases transparency and accountability so that the military no
longer is a place where sexual assault is tolerated.
I am pleased that H.R. 1960 takes steps to improve the military
justice system. However, I do believe the bill does not go far enough.
We must do a better job.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am loath to turn attention away from this
critical topic, and I agree with all of my colleagues on it. But also
part of this rule is H.R. 1256, which is entitled the Swaps
Jurisdiction Certainty Act. This is a closed rule--they're not allowing
any amendments on it--and it is bad policy. I urge members to vote
``no.''
This bill reminds me of the old adage that's often said that ``the
past isn't dead. It isn't even past.''
I'm referring to the global crisis--the global financial crisis--that
a few years ago had every Member of this body absolutely on razor's
edge as we wondered what was going to happen to the American economy,
and we ended up seeing the TARP passed and all types of things to try
to avert collapse.
$13 trillion in lost wealth, Mr. Speaker, and still here we are
looking at a bill--in a closed rule, mind you--that would allow
offshore derivative swap trading to be beyond the jurisdiction of
American regulators.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
{time} 1430
Mr. ELLISON. Let me just cut straight to the chase.
Congress granted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission explicit
authority in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act to oversee all derivatives transactions with a direct and
significant connection to the U.S. economy.
That's a good idea--a $223 trillion industry. I think we need to
protect our interests. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
I rise to oppose the closed rule on H.R. 1256.
H.R. 1256 really has no business being hidden in this bill at all. It
is another attempt to keep the debate from taking place so that people
will know what is happening when we are trying to have a regulatory
regime that will protect us from having to bail out big institutions.
We are simply saying that we can't allow our financial institutions
to have subsidiaries overseas that are doing business and trading and
putting us at risk. Every time they get involved in a trade in which
they don't have comparable rules in that country, what we are doing is
putting this country at risk that we are going to have to bail out a
big financial institution because the harm will come right back to the
parent company.
We, in Dodd-Frank, have said that we must have comparable rules, that
we must have regulatory regimes that are comparable to ours in order to
do business and to do trading in order to protect against big
institutions failing. So now we have this H.R. 1256 that would undo all
of that and drag it back into the shadows, this derivatives trading,
and put us all at risk. We can't even debate it. We can't even have an
amendment because, again, they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank.
[[Page H3315]]
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida
how many additional speakers he may have.
Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member of
the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Waters).
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much. I do appreciate this. This is so
important.
I am against this closed rule simply because we have mandated the
kind of reform in Dodd-Frank that would keep us from ever being in the
position in which we have to bail out these big institutions, and now
we have so much organized push back and undermining of Dodd-Frank in
which they are attempting to undo the reforms that we have done.
Simply put, we cannot allow the branches and subsidiaries of these
big broker dealers--these big banks--to go over and do trading with
countries that don't have comparable rules. If we allow that to happen,
we will be forced to do what we have seen with AIG, which was to bail
them out to the tune of billions of dollars, and supposedly, we'd done
reforms to keep from having to be in that position again. We will find
that we will again be experiencing what happened with Goldman Sachs and
others who ended up being the beneficiaries of our failed regulatory
regime.
So I am opposed to the closed rule. Vote against the closed rule, and
then vote against the bill.
Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, I get it. The Republican majority wants to repeal Dodd-
Frank, and they're using every possible vehicle they can to undermine
Dodd-Frank, which puts consumers at risk by their constant attack on
protections that, I think, most people in this country think are
reasonable.
As you heard from Ms. Waters, the ranking member on the Committee on
Financial Services, and from Mr. Ellison, there is controversy around
this bill. The thought that you would bring a bill like this to the
floor that would weaken Dodd-Frank under a closed rule is really
unforgivable, quite frankly. We ought to debate this. This is important
stuff. There ought to be debates, and there ought to be amendments.
On the defense authorization bill, I just want to say this for the
record: while I have no opposition to your bringing the DOD bill up for
general debate, I do want to express my concern that when the Rules
Committee considers the amendments that they be fair-minded about it
and that all major issues, including the issues raised by a number of
my colleagues on sexual assault, are addressed.
I also want to say that the war in Afghanistan ought to be debated on
this floor. A central part of our defense budget right now is going to
this war, and last year, we were shut out. I'm hoping that this year we
will at least have the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor,
debate what our policy should be, and will let Members on both sides
vote up or down.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' because this does allow H.R. 1256
to come to the floor under a closed rule. That is wrong. This should be
a more open and transparent process, especially when it comes to an
issue that is so important.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this rule and
encourage my colleagues to support it as well. It allows the House to
take action on two different but very important pieces of legislation.
It provides us with an opportunity to force the SEC and the CFTC to
finally and jointly promulgate rules governing the U.S. institutions'
use of swaps and other financial derivatives while accessing
international markets. This action will help ensure that we have a
vibrant financial system and that American companies can manage the
risks while remaining competitive in an international market.
Additionally, it begins our consideration on the National Defense
Authorization Act, providing the House with an hour of general debate
on programs that make up our Department of Defense.
As a Member of Congress, as a three Blue Star parent, and as an
American, I can think of nothing more important than providing our
military the tools that they need to carry out their missions. These
brave men and women put their lives on the line for our Nation each and
every day. This legislation isn't a thank-you to the troops, it's our
duty as citizens to acknowledge that we live in the land of the free
only because of the service of the brave.
Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion here on the floor,
particularly as it relates to Dodd-Frank. First of all, this does not
repeal Dodd-Frank. If it were a vote for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, I'd
vote for it, but it's not a repeal of Dodd-Frank. As a matter of fact,
this piece of legislation, the Swap Act, was actually voice voted out
of the Agriculture Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over this
piece of legislation. It was voice voted. In the Committee on Financial
Services, 100 percent of the Republicans and two-thirds of the
Democrats voted for its passage, so it isn't exactly as one would hear
the other side say.
When we talk about open rules, I think one of the things that
distinguishes this Congress versus the 111th Congress is that this is
one of the most open Congresses in the 112th Congress versus the 111th,
which had absolutely zero open rules. I will remind my colleagues of
that just because, as we talk about this and move forward on both of
these issues, it's important to know that we have an open rule coming
up in which we have almost 300 amendments that we are going to be
considering in the Rules Committee in just a short period of time with
the NDAA.
Lastly, I hear my colleagues talk about how for 25 years they have
allowed sexual assault to go unabated. I can hardly stomach the fact
that this body would allow that to happen over the last 25 years. As a
former law enforcement officer, as one who vigorously prosecuted cases
of sexual assault and rape, it should be no different for our armed
services.
That is where my good friend Mr. McGovern had mentioned the oversight
of armed services and of this House to make sure that we hold people
accountable; to make sure, as other Members have talked about, that
members of our military are kept safe, and that those who would prey
upon members of their own military unit will find swift justice so that
nobody can say there is not justice in regards to the fact, if you
commit a rape or a sexual assault in the military, that you will be
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that we make sure that we
have victim advocates for those who are assaulted, and that we have
good investigators who focus on those types of crimes and have the
forensics to back it up so you have a strong prosecution. I think
that's what this NDAA bill is an attempt to do.
{time} 1440
I strongly support the bill and the underlying legislation.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 256 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 634 and H.R. 742.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239,
nays 184, not voting 11, as follows:
[Roll No. 214]
YEAS--239
Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
[[Page H3316]]
Camp
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)
NAYS--184
Andrews
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--11
Campbell
Cantor
Chu
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Graves (GA)
Markey
McCarthy (NY)
Meeks
Slaughter
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1510
Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, PETERSON, THOMPSON of
Mississippi, CUMMINGS, and VEASEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HURT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________