Congressional Record, Volume 159 Issue 107 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)

[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 107 (Wednesday, July 24, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H5002-H5031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2014

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Nugent). Pursuant to House Resolution
312 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. 2397.
Will the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren) kindly take the
chair.

{time} 1425

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. 2397) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Hultgren (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday,
July 23, 2013, amendment No. 66 printed in House Report 113-170 offered
by the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Hanabusa) had been disposed of.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on amendments printed in House Report 113-170 on which
further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 48 by Mr. Jones of North Carolina.
Amendment No. 51 by Mr. LaMalfa of California.
Amendment No. 55 by Mr. Mulvaney of South Carolina.
Amendment No. 60 by Mr. Stockman of Texas.
Amendment No. 62 by Mrs. Walorski of Indiana.
Amendment No. 65 by Ms. Bonamici of Oregon.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for each electronic vote
in this series.

Amendment No. 48 Offered by Mr. Jones

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

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This will be a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 177,
noes 246, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 401]

AYES--177

Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bass
Becerra
Bilirakis
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Camp
Capuano
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conyers
Courtney
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DesJarlais
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanna
Harris
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Hultgren
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kennedy
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lucas
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
Meadows
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, George
Moore
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Perry
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Quigley
Radel
Rangel
Ribble
Rohrabacher
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sherman
Shimkus
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Upton
Walden
Walz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

NOES--246

Aderholt
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Clyburn
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hanabusa
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Pittenger
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stewart
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

[[Page H5003]]

NOT VOTING--10

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1429

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

Amendment No. 51 Offered by Mr. LaMalfa

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. LaMalfa) 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

[Roll No. 402]

AYES--235

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
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
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
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)

NOES--188

Amash
Andrews
Barber
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
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
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1433

Ms. DUCKWORTH changed her vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 55 Offered by Mr. Mulvaney

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Mulvaney) 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 215,
noes 206, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 403]

AYES--215

Amash
Andrews
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Collins (GA)
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Garamendi
Garcia
Garrett
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Labrador
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mica
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano

[[Page H5004]]

Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rangel
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth

NOES--206

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Cole
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Gardner
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Takano
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Gohmert
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita
Rush

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1438

Messrs. GRAVES of Georgia and POSEY changed their vote from ``aye''
to ``no.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 60 Offered by Mr. Stockman

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Stockman) 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

[Roll No. 404]

AYES--137

Aderholt
Amodei
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Capito
Chabot
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Crawford
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Harris
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kirkpatrick
Labrador
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Luetkemeyer
Maffei
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
McCaul
McClintock
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Mullin
Neugebauer
Palazzo
Pearce
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Tiberi
Tipton
Wagner
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westmoreland
Williams
Wolf
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

NOES--286

Alexander
Amash
Andrews
Bachus
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Edwards
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gosar
Granger
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Kuster
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCollum
McDermott
McKeon
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pocan
Polis
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Ribble
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Roskam
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Simpson
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--10

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

[[Page H5005]]

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1443

Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``aye'' to
``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 62 Offered by Mrs. Walorski

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 405]

AYES--238

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Keating
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (MI)
Peterson
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
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Takano
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)

NOES--185

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

NOT VOTING--10

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1447

So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Chair, on rollcall vote No. 405, I inadvertently
voted ``aye.'' I intended to vote ``no.''
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Dent was allowed to speak out of order.)

Washington Kastles Charity Classic

Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, do you see this trophy before us? We've been
on this House floor many times to celebrate baseball victories,
football victories, or, I should say, baseball debacles in our case.
But we celebrate a lot of things, also golf.
I want to point out that we had a wonderful experience last week,
Thursday night, with the Washington Kastles, who are seated up in the
Members' gallery. We had a wonderful bipartisan game of tennis between,
obviously, the Members, Republican and Democrat intermixed, as well as
members of the media.
I'm pleased to report to you that there were two teams, the Stars and
the Stripes. My colleagues here, Mr. Watt, Ms. Edwards, and Shelley
Moore Capito, were on the Stripes, and I'll introduce the Stars team in
a moment. Mr. Bishop will do that. We had a wonderful game.
We should also let you know, too, that members of the media played. I
should let you know that part of Stripes' team included David Gregory
of ``Meet the Press.'' He's a bigger problem on the tennis court than
he is in an interview on ``Meet the Press.'' I also want you to know
he's got a big serve. You've got to watch him. Our coach was Leander
Paes, who's seated in the gallery, a professional. Our team also
included former Senator John Breaux; Shelley Moore Capito, a Division I
player from Duke. Did I say, ``Go Lehigh''? That's basketball. Sorry.
There was also Peter Cook from Bloomberg; myself; Donna Edwards, who
received the Good Sportsmanship Award; Mel Watt, who I must say was one
of the most feisty players I've seen; Mark Ein, the owner of the
Washington Kastles, who's also here; David Gregory; Jonathan Karl from
ABC News; and Hans Nichols from Bloomberg--a very competitive
individual, I might add. It was a great time had by all.
I know it's never appropriate to gloat when you win, but we'll do it
anyway since we're Members of Congress. Here's our trophy. Stripes beat
the Stars.
At this time, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Thank you very much. I appreciate my friend
for yielding, although I must point out I don't remember Coach Doyle
gloating like that when we won the baseball game.

[[Page H5006]]

We had a great night, and I was pleased to play with my fellow
Members: Jim Costa, Mike McIntyre, and Cheri Bustos. We had two members
of the press from Fox News: Ed Henry and Bret Baier. We had two people
from the White House: Gene Sperling and Alan Krueger. We had Ben Olsen
from D.C. United. We had Ambassador Dino Djalal, and we were joined by
three members of the Kastles: Murphy Jensen, Martina Hingis, and
Anastasia Rodionova.
Mr. DENT. Now I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).
Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much.
I, too, want to thank my colleagues who participated with the Stars
and Stripes. Fun was had by all. We raised a good amount of money for
charity. I want to thank the Kastles for their wonderful hospitality. I
got a tennis lesson from my partner, Martina Hingis.
But I do have, from a reliable source, that the Stripes, our
opposition, pulled in two ringers from the Main Street media with NBC's
David Gregory and Bloomberg's Hans Nichols. These two failed to
disclose their professional tennis status in an amateur charitable
tournament. So much for press ethics under full disclosure.
Mr. DENT. I now yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
McIntyre).
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. Chairman, when you talk about helping with
education, when you talk about helping food banks, and when you talk
about helping our military families, it really was worth raising a
racket about. That's what happened down at the Kastle stadium. We want
to thank them for their hospitality.
Tennis is a lifetime sport, but this offers a lifeline to those in
need in our schools, those who are hungry, and also to our military
families. We appreciate the great opportunity. It truly was a great
time to have the ball in our court to do something in a positive way.
Mr. DENT. Reclaiming my time, I just wanted to say, in conclusion, it
was a wonderful cause. Many charities were supported.
I should also let you know the Washington Kastles are playing tonight
down at the waterfront. Get down there and watch them. It's not tennis
anyone; it's tennis everyone. So get out there and do it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. The Chair reminds Members that the rules do not
allow references to occupants of the gallery.

Amendment No. 65 Offered by Ms. Bonamici

The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, 2-minute voting will continue.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Oregon
(Ms. Bonamici) 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

[Roll No. 406]

AYES--264

Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Barr
Barton
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cicilline
Clarke
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Cook
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green, Al
Griffith (VA)
Guthrie
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Hoyer
Huelskamp
Huffman
Hunter
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Jordan
Kaptur
Keating
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lynch
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Mullin
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reichert
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Titus
Tsongas
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Webster (FL)
Welch
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--154

Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Buchanan
Cantor
Carson (IN)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Clay
Coffman
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeSantis
Doggett
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellmers
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Franks (AZ)
Gardner
Garrett
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gowdy
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Gutierrez
Hanna
Heck (NV)
Holding
Holt
Honda
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Lamborn
Levin
Long
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
Meehan
Meng
Miller (FL)
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neugebauer
O'Rourke
Olson
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Pittenger
Pitts
Polis
Pompeo
Radel
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Roskam
Rothfus
Royce
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shuster
Sinema
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Stockman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Tonko
Turner
Upton
Velazquez
Walberg
Watt
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder

NOT VOTING--15

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Doyle
Grijalva
Grimm
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
McCarthy (NY)
Meeks
Pallone
Rokita
Waxman

Announcement by the Acting Chair

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

{time} 1457

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

{time} 1500

Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Kilmer

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 67
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. KILMER. 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:

[[Page H5007]]

At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. 10002. None of the funds made available by this Act
may be used to issue to a civilian employee of the Department
of Defense a denial of a security clearance pursuant to
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 that lists in the
notice of specific reasons of the clearance decision (as
defined in section 3.2 of such Directive) financial hardships
because of a ``furlough caused by sequestration''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Kilmer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to protect the
continued employment of needed and trusted Department of Defense
civilian employees. DOD civilian employees who are critical to our
national security mission may be in danger of losing their security
clearances and their jobs if financial hardships from being furloughed
result in financial delinquencies.
Right now, the DOD has issued vague guidance that they will take into
account the impact that sequestration is having on servicemembers'
financial situation.
While I appreciate those efforts, I believe that Congress should
strengthen our commitment to our servicemembers by ensuring no funds
are used to deny the renewal of security clearances to workers who are
only experiencing financial hardship as a result of sequestration.
I believe this is a commonsense amendment, and it is my hope that it
will receive strong support. I urge my colleagues to support this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's
intense interest in trying to protect these folks who would be affected
by sequestration, but awarding or granting or giving a national
security clearance is not a simple thing and it should not be taken
lightly. If the Department of Defense or government agency decides that
a person doesn't really qualify, they feel that they don't deserve a
national security clearance, if the phrase ``furlough caused by
sequestration'' is included in the denial, then the denial is null and
void. You can't deny it if it is claimed that it's due to
sequestration, and that's not fair. That's not fair to our national
security. It's not fair, actually, to the Defense Department, and I
just think this is not a good idea.
But I know what the gentleman wants to accomplish and would like to
work with him to figure out how to do this without denying the Defense
Department the right to deny a security clearance to someone that they
think is not a good risk for a security clearance.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Heck).
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Congressman
Kilmer for offering this amendment today and, frankly, for his tireless
advocacy on behalf of our men and women in our civil service who
support our servicemembers and veterans every day. Without this
amendment, hardworking men and women who live in the district I
represent and who work at Joint Base Lewis-McChord risk losing their
security clearance through furloughs that are no fault of their own,
thus complicating their employment situation. We should not let that
happen.
The issue this amendment aims to resolve is yet another in a long
series of issues that show why budgeting by sequestration is bad
policy. I don't think anyone in this Chamber actually thinks civilian
employees should lose their security clearance because they were
furloughed, but the way sequestration was designed makes that a very
real possibility.
This is a good amendment to fix a bad policy. I strongly urge my
colleagues to support it.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve.
Mr. KILMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the remarks on the specific
language of the amendment, and I do hope that we will continue to work
through the conference process to address any concerns about the
language because we can all agree that this is a serious issue. It is
extremely important that the DOD continues to grant security clearances
to employees who are charged with doing critical and sensitive work.
There are many factors that DOD considers when determining if an
individual can do these important jobs and to ensure that an employee
is trustworthy. Sequestration-related furloughs and any financial
hardships that come from sequestration are not an employee's fault. No
civilian employee should be denied a security clearance because of
Congress' inability to undo sequestration.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and support DOD
civilians and the work they do for our country.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, again I sympathize with what the
gentleman is trying to do. It's just the problem in the denial, if they
use the phrase ``furlough caused by sequestration,'' they can't deny
that request for a security clearance, and there may be a lot of good
reasons why that person should be denied.
And so it's a question of do we protect the national security by
giving the Defense Department the authority to deny regardless of what
the furlough language is, or do we allow this amendment, which is
probably poorly written; and we would like to work with the gentleman
to write it in such a way that it doesn't cause us great distress. But
I just don't want to see someone who should be denied a security
clearance given one because of a technicality.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Kilmer).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. KILMER. 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 Washington
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 69
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. NADLER. 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 in this Act may
be used for the continued detention of any individual who is
detained, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, by the
United States at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba, and who has been approved for release or transfer to a
foreign country.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment prohibits funds from being used to
detain cleared individuals held at Guantanamo. Of the 166 people
currently being held there, 86 have been cleared for release; that is,
they have not been charged with any offense. They have been found
guilty of nothing, and they have been judged by our military to pose no
threat to the United States if released. We should release them now.
Holding these 86 people who have been cleared for release is against
everything we claim to stand for.
In response to this very situation, President Obama asked: Is this
who we are?
I hope today we will answer: No, we are better than that.
I hope we support this amendment and move expeditiously to support
the release of these detainees. It is truly astonishing that in 2013
the United States continues to hold people indefinitely who have not
been charged, let alone convicted of any crime, who admittedly do not
pose any threat to the United States. They should be released.

[[Page H5008]]

Guantanamo is an affront to America and to the founding principle of
the United States that no person should be deprived of liberty without
due process of law. Our continuing to hold prisoners indefinitely,
without charge and without trial, is a rebuke to our professed support
of liberty.
If they've been judged not to pose a threat and we hold them anyway,
what kind of message are we sending? By what claim of right do we hold
people in jail who have been charged with nothing, whom we're not
bringing to trial, and who we have decided pose no threat to us? What
are we saying about the United States and our values? We must change
course and we ought to support this amendment.
Now, I know some will say these are dangerous terrorists. No, they're
not. They're people who were captured in some way who have been judged
by our military not to pose a threat to the United States, who have not
been charged as terrorists, who have not been judged as terrorists.
Some of them may be simply victims to the fact that we paid bounties to
people in Afghanistan to turn in people who they said were terrorists.
The Hatfields turned in the McCoys because--why not?--we were giving
them a couple of thousand dollars.
So anyone who has not been charged with a crime, who has not been
convicted, and who we have already decided poses no threat ought to be
released. And, therefore, this amendment says no funds may be used to
continue their confinement. I urge its adoption.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the amendment would allow, and
probably require, that a very large number of detainees from Guantanamo
are sent back home to their home country or a country that they might
have come to. They're detainees for a reason. They are detainees
because they inflicted harm or danger or threats or death to our
American interests, our American soldiers. They came from the
battlefield.
Now, we know that two of the former detainees who have been sent back
to their country established a group that's run by those two former
Gitmo detainees, and so I don't think it's a good idea. I think we
should keep the detainees that are dangerous. Until such time as they
meet the requirements of the law, they should stay at Guantanamo. They
would have to ensure that the remaining Gitmo detainees, whom most
judge as the most dangerous, will not be released or otherwise brought
into the homeland where U.S. citizens could be threatened.
Second, the present law ensures that, prior to releasing Guantanamo
detainees to a foreign country, a careful and deliberate assessment
must be made that the detainee is not likely to reengage in terrorist
activities.
What's wrong with that? There's nothing wrong with that, so why
change it? Why turn these people loose to go back to the battlefield,
which many of them that have been released have already done, causing
additional harm to our troops. So I'm strongly opposed to this
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1515

Mr. NADLER. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman from our Judiciary Committee for
yielding.
And I want to say to my very good friend from Florida, the chair of
the Defense Appropriations Committee, whom I greatly respect, I'm
afraid there's a misunderstanding. This amendment is only about those
detainees who have been cleared for release or transfer. This is not
about the entire 166 people who are there.
These are the people who, after a very careful review, have been
cleared for release by the intelligence community and by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. So we're holding these people without cause. We're
holding them because we've let our rhetoric get ahead of ourselves.
The fact is that they would be released to their countries of origin.
Their countries of origin are going to watch them. But these are people
who we have found we have nothing to charge them with, and we have
determined that they are not a threat to the United States or to anyone
else. They shouldn't have been rounded up. They shouldn't have been
detained. And they've been detained for 12 years.
46 detainees are now having to be tube-fed. They're strapped down and
a tube is forced down their nose and into their stomach. They're
strapped down for 2 hours so the liquid gets digested.
People that have been cleared for release, how can we justify doing
this to them?
And what's the end game of our current policy?
Are we going to keep them until they die in prison? People who have
been cleared for release and transfer, and we're just going to keep
detaining them until they die?
Because that's the only result of the current policy.
Once they get cleaned, they should be released.
Who are we, as a Nation to detain people indefinitely, without legal
cause?
It doesn't make sense. It's not American. It's a complete violation
of our Constitution, of our most fundamental principle of equal justice
under the law.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left? How much time
does the gentleman have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1 minute remaining.
The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of the time.
Mr. Chairman, it would serve a purpose if people actually read the
amendment. The amendment says none of the funds made available may be
used to detain an individual who has been approved for release or
transfer to a foreign country.
We hear from the gentleman from Florida, these people are there for a
reason. Yes, when we arrest somebody, a murder is committed, a rape is
committed, we arrest somebody. But then, the grand jury says, no, we're
not going to indict this person; there's not enough evidence.
Do we hold them in jail indefinitely, forever, even though there's no
charge, even though the District Attorney says we made a mistake; it's
somebody else; they didn't do it? No.
Because maybe they'll commit a crime? That's antithetical to every
notion of what the United States is about. These are 86 people who are
not charged as terrorists, who we have no evidence are terrorists, and
who have been judged by the military and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and
the intelligence community to pose no threat to us.
By what claim of right do we hold them in jail? The United States, at
this point, is no better than a kidnapper if it holds in jail people
whom it charges with no crime and judges safe for release.
Approve the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it can be said any
stronger or needed to be said any more often. These detainees are bad,
bad people. They hate America. They've sworn to kill Americans, and, in
fact, they have done so on the battlefield, and that's why, when they
were captured, they were sent to Guantanamo. That's where they should
stay unless the current law is abided by, and that is, to ensure that
the remaining Gitmo detainees who are most judged as the most dangerous
will not be released or brought into the homeland where U.S. citizens
could be threatened.
Second, they ensure that prior to releasing Guantanamo detainees to a
foreign country a careful and deliberate assessment must be made that
the detainee is not likely to re-engage in terrorist activities and the
foreign government can maintain control over the individual. What's
wrong with that law?
It protects Americans. It protects America, and it keeps the bad guys
where they need to be kept. And in this particular case, it's at
Guantanamo.
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. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

[[Page H5009]]

Mr. NADLER. 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 New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 70
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. NADLER. 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 in this Act may
be used to construct any new Department of Defense facility
at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to
expand any existing Department of Defense facility at such
Naval Station.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit any funds in
the bill from being used to construct or expand detention facilities at
Guantanamo.
The bill contains $249 million to convert temporary detention
facilities into more permanent structures. But the administration wants
to close Guantanamo and to release or transfer the detainees. So why
waste $429 million to construct facilities that will not be used?
Because many in Congress want to keep the detainees in Guantanamo
forever.
Now, we have, we know, 166 detainees in Guantanamo; 86 should be
released immediately. The gentleman from Florida says that they're bad
people; they are terrorists; they're there for a reason. No, they're
not. They're there for different reasons. Some because they were handed
over for bounties by rival militias or rival clans. Some because a
mistake was made. Some because they're terrorists. But we make
distinctions.
The gentleman says we shouldn't release them until a careful
assessment has been made. Well, a careful assessment has been made: 86
of them, half of those in Guantanamo, have been cleared for release.
That is to say, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence agencies
have determined that these 86 people were not terrorists and were not
likely to pose a threat to the United States if released. So they're
guilty of nothing. They have been tried for nothing. We don't say that
people are bad people, we ought to hold them in jail indefinitely
without a trial normally, except here. So we ought to release the 86
who have been cleared for release immediately, and the others we ought
to try, put on trial.
There's a separate dispute whether that should be an Article III
court or a military tribunal. I prefer an Article III court, but either
way, put them on trial in front of a court or in front of a military
tribunal and let them be tried. Perhaps most of them will be guilty and
put them in jail for long periods of time. Maybe some will be innocent.
That's what the justice system is about.
Are we really going to say that Guantanamo is separate? Anyone who is
unlucky enough to be sent there because at one time we thought maybe
they were dangerous should stay there indefinitely until they die
without a trial?
The assessment has been made for 86 of them. They have been judged
not to be guilty, not to be a terrorist, and not to be a threat. That
assessment has been made according to law, and these people ought to be
released. The other 80 ought to be tried and, if convicted, ought to be
put in prison in the United States. We have hundreds of terrorists in
maximum security prisons in the United States. There's no reason a few
more couldn't be put there, and we could save $249 million.
Guantanamo was originally set up because it was thought by the Bush
administration that if we held people in Guantanamo they could be tried
or handled without having the constitutional rights of someone in the
United States, but the Supreme Court said no. The people in Guantanamo
have the same rights as if they were held in the United States. So it
doesn't change what will happen to them, whether they're kept in prison
in the United States or in Guantanamo.
So let's release the 86 who ought to be released because they've been
adjudged that they should be released by the Joint Chiefs and by the
intelligence agencies. Let's try the others, and let's keep them in
jail if they're adjudged guilty. Let's proceed with American justice
notions and do ourselves proud, and let's stops wasting billions of
dollars on Guantanamo.
So this amendment says don't permanentize what should be and will be
temporary, however temporary it is. Don't waste $249 million on making
these facilities permanent.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, as I read the amendment, I'm
assuming that the gentleman is trying to prevent any further
construction or money of that type for the Guantanamo detainees. And I
can understand that because we have just recently spent a lot of money
building two brand new prisons, air-conditioned, comfortable, and we've
already spent that money, so maybe we don't need to spend any money
there.
But what the amendment doesn't recognize is that since 1903, we have
had a presence at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for our own military purposes.
The 4th Fleet is headquartered there and has been there for many years.
Allied shipping, allied Navy facilities, allied forces move through
Guantanamo Bay on a fairly regular basis. I don't know that they have
any specific requests right now for any kind of construction, but I
don't think we want to deny it in the event that the Defense Department
finds it important to do a construction project there.
So, understand, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been part of the United
States military facility since 1903, and so I don't think this
amendment is a good amendment because it would deny our troops, our
forces not even involved with Guantanamo detainees the right for
military construction, or the right for whatever needs to be spent.
So, again, I just have to oppose this amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 1\1/4\ minute
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 2\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. NADLER. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Moran).
Mr. MORAN. Mr. Chairman, we just approved $260 million in the defense
authorization bill for Guantanamo. In addition, we approved another
$186 billion to construct a new temporary facility, almost half a
billion dollars, in addition to what we're now spending. We've spent
this year alone $2,670,000 per Guantanamo detainee. Eighty-six of them
have been cleared for release. We have no reason to keep them. And yet,
we spend that much money on each of them.
In U.S. prisons we spend $34,000 per year per maximum security
prisoner. Imagine the discrepancy. We have now convicted 300 terrorists
in U.S. prisons. They're being held at 98 Federal prisons for a
fraction of the money. And we have no convictions at Guantanamo that
haven't been overturned.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman just made
my case. We don't really need a lot more money for construction for
Guantanamo detainees. We've already spent a lot of money there.
The point is, we don't want to deny the ability of the Defense
Department to provide whatever is needed for our own military forces at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not part of the Guantanamo detainees.
I think we've talked this one to death. We're repeating ourselves
now. So, in the interest of time, I'm going to yield back the balance
of my time.

{time} 1530

Mr. NADLER. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, the $249 million in the budget is for expansion and
making permanent detention facilities. I have

[[Page H5010]]

no objection to construction of other military facilities at Guantanamo
Bay. I don't know whether that makes sense or not. But the $249 million
we're talking about here is for more detention facilities. That's a
pure waste of money. And I'll be happy to clarify, if this amendment
passes, that it should apply only to detention facilities.
So if you're opposed to wasting $249 million more on detention
facilities so we can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year per
prisoner instead of $34,000 per year per prisoner in the United States,
if you think that's a good idea to waste all this money, then vote
against this amendment. I hope rational people who don't want to waste
a quarter of a billion dollars for permanent detention facilities will
vote for this amendment.
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. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. 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 New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 71 Offered by Mr. Pierluisi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 71
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. PIERLUISI. 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, administer, or enforce--
(1) the first sentence of section 204(c) of the Military
Construction Authorization Act, 1974 (Public Law 93-166; 87
Stat. 668);
(2) the first sentence of section 9 of the quitclaim deed
of December 20, 1982 (transferring property on the Northwest
Peninsula of Culebra to the government of Puerto Rico), or,
with respect to such sentence, section 10 of the quitclaim
deed; or
(3) with respect to a response action required under
section 2701(c)(1)(B) of title 10, United States Code, with
respect to property transferred by the quitclaim deed
described in paragraph (2)--
(A) section 2(d)(15) of the enclosure 3 accompanying
Department of Defense Manual No. 4715.20, dated March 9, 2012
(relating to ``DERP Eligibility--Ineligible Activities''); or
(B) section 8074 of this Act.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Puerto Rico (Mr. Pierluisi) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Puerto Rico.
Mr. PIERLUISI. Mr. Chairman, this budget-neutral amendment, which I
offer with Mr. Young of Alaska, would enable DOD to remove unexploded
ordnance from land in Culebra, Puerto Rico, which was used as a
military training range for seven decades.
In 1974, Congress enacted legislation directing the Navy to cease
operations in Culebra. A provision stated that the present bombardment
area shall not be utilized for any purpose that would require
decontamination at the expense of the United States.
In 1982, the Federal Government conveyed land in Culebra to the
Government of Puerto Rico, including a 400-acre parcel within the
former bombardment area. The deed provided that, in accordance with the
1974 act, the Government of Puerto Rico would not hold the Federal
Government liable for decontamination of the land.
Four years later, in 1986, Congress enacted SARA, which amended the
1980 CERCLA law. SARA states that DOD is responsible for cleaning up
contamination it caused on current and former military sites and
established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program for DOD to
carry out these responsibilities. That program is funded by the bill
under consideration today.
SARA directed DOD to clean up former defense sites conveyed to third
parties prior to 1986. These sites are eligible for Federal funding,
even though there were no specific authorities enabling their cleanup
at the time they were decommissioned and conveyed. Nevertheless, DOD
contends that the 1974 law and the 1982 deed that tracks it prohibits
the use of Federal funds to decontaminate the 400-acre parcel on
Culebra, and these prohibitions were not superceded by SARA. As a
result of this restrictive interpretation, Culebra is the only former
defense site in the Nation that DOD contends it is barred by statute
from decontaminating.
This makes no sense. The 1974 act and the 1982 deed may have been
consistent with Federal policy at that time since there was no legal
framework in place that would have enabled the Federal Government to
pay for the cleanup of the conveyed property. However, they're now
squarely at odds with Federal policy that has been in place for more
than 25 years under SARA. Accordingly, there's no principled basis to
treat Culebra differently from thousands of other former defense sites
conveyed out of Federal hands prior to 1986 which the Federal
Government is obligated to decontaminate.
The status quo poses a threat to human safety since this parcel
contains beaches, walkways, and campgrounds visited by over 300,000
people a year. A recent DOD report found that since 1995, there have
been 70 incidents in which members of the public encountered unexploded
munitions that could have caused great harm. In fact, in March of this
year, a young girl visiting a Culebra beach suffered burns after she
picked up an artillery shell containing white phosphorous. The FBI
responded and found six other munitions which it detonated and removed.
This potentially tragic incident underscores the need for congressional
action.
This amendment would ensure that the 1974 act ceases to function as
an obstacle to implementation of current Federal policy, as reflected
in CERCLA and SARA. The amendment simply ensures that Culebra will
receive the same treatment as other former defense sites in the FUDS
program. The citizens in Culebra sacrificed so our military could
receive the training it needed. Congress, in turn, should take this
small step to remove the barrier that is preventing DOD from addressing
safety hazards that remain on the island.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Certainly I appreciate the gentleman's passion on
this issue and agree that is an important issue that needs to be
addressed. As he is aware, Mr. Chairman, the Department estimates it
will take multiple years and a significant investment to properly
address these contaminated sites in Puerto Rico.
We look forward to working with the gentleman. We understand that he
may be considering withdrawing his amendment so we can continue to work
with him to address this problem, which significantly has impacted the
Commonwealth.
I will yield to the gentleman.
Mr. PIERLUISI. I look forward to working with the majority.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate my friend yielding to me.
I simply want to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. The
agreement that was reached--and I think some people used the agreement
as an excuse to do nothing--is 40 years old. It was entered into in
1973. Well, they agreed to it. I graduated from law school in 1973. The
world is a much different place today. People have changed. I certainly
think our environmental consciousness has improved and our
consciousness of our responsibility in this has improved. And I do
think this is an opportunity to rectify that.
I serve on the Energy and Water Subcommittee of this great committee.
The chairman chairs that Energy and Water Subcommittee. Unfortunately,
in the Formerly Used Defense Sites that were cited by the gentleman, we
have over 10,000 properties, which is one of the problems I think the
gentleman alludes to as far as the costs we have to deal with. All the
more reason, I believe, that we ought to be very assiduous and active
in beginning to address these sites.
So I appreciate the gentleman raising it, and I certainly support his
position.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Reclaiming my time, it was my understanding with

[[Page H5011]]

Mr. Young that the gentleman would consider withdrawing the amendment
if we gave a commitment to continue to work with him on this very
important issue, which he has dedicated so much time and effort to.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PIERLUISI. That's absolutely right. So I will withdraw my
amendment. But let me just say that, again, this is one property. It's
only one property out of thousands of properties facing these
circumstances. So I hope we can work it out. It's not going to be
costly. It makes sense to clean it up.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I yield back the balance of my time.

Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective
John M. Gibson

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to the Chair's announcement of earlier
today, the House will now observe a moment of silence in memory of
Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. Gibson.
Will all present please rise for a moment of silence.

Amendment No. 72 Offered by Mr. Brooks of Alabama

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 72
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. 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 in this Act may
be used by the Department of Defense--
(1) to implement or execute any agreement with the Russian
Federation pertaining to missile defense other than a treaty;
or
(2) to provide the Government of the Russian Federation
with any information about the ballistic missile defense
systems of the United States that is classified or
unclassified by the Department or component thereof.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Brooks) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, my amendment prohibits funds to
implement or execute any non-treaty executive agreement with Russia
regarding missile defense or to provide Russia with information about
America's ballistic missile defense systems, both classified and
unclassified. The reason the amendment says classified and unclassified
is to prohibit the administration from declassifying missile defense
technology to skirt the law. A similar amendment was passed last year,
with bipartisan support, and is included in the current continuing
resolution that is funding our government during this fiscal year.
Multiple news sources over the years have reported that the Obama
administration may seek to share our missile defense secrets with the
Russians. I am concerned these reports may be accurate. While the
danger to national security is a serious concern, so is the loss of
billions of dollars we have sunk into creating these exceptional
technologies.
The Congressional Research Service estimates the United States has
spent approximately $153 billion on missile defense. Roughly 90 percent
of that $153 billion, or $140 billion, has been spent on hit-to-kill
technology.
I ask the House to support this amendment to preserve America's lead
in missile defense technologies, protect America's investment of
billions of dollars, and ensure the viability of current and future
missile defense technologies.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I rise to claim time in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I had my breath taken away with the
assertion that the President of the United States might give away the
most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia, and that we
are debating an amendment to Defense appropriations, with all of the
other problems we face and all the threats we face in this country,
based on the assumption that the President of the United States might
give away the most intimate defense secrets of this country to Russia.
I would simply ask my colleagues to think about the underlying
assumptions based in the gentleman's amendment and vote ``no,'' and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. There have been numerous occasions in which
the media has reported that the administration is considering, as a
part of negotiations or other things, divulgence of our sensitive hit-
to-kill technology to the Russian federation.

{time} 1545

I am thankful that my colleague across the aisle says that it takes
away his breath, and I hope with that that he will support this
amendment.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
We support your amendment. As you said, it is similar to what the
bill carried last year and what was a provision in the armed services
bill, so we are supportive of it. We're obviously mindful and
respectful of the ranking member's position, but the majority of
Congress felt the way you and I do and the committee did as well.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman responds to my concern by
suggesting that he has discovered the possibility that the President of
the United States is going to give away the most intimate secrets this
country holds to Russia through the media. I'm wondering--and I ask
this question simply rhetorically, not necessarily of my colleague--I
wonder if that was FOX News. I wonder if he saw that on the Colbert
Report recently. I wonder if that was on the John Stewart program.
I was watching CNN, and I didn't see any report of that yesterday;
although, I saw that a baby was born in another country. Despite the
world coming apart, that was the headline news. I didn't see MSNBC, and
I don't know if that was it. Perhaps it was even on a BBC telecast. But
I'm wondering what media outlets are providing this inside information
as to the deliberations of the President of the United States to give
away these cherished secrets.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the
appropriate way to gather the requested information is simply for the
gentleman to Google what I have just stated.
This issue arose in 2011 with numerous comments by the White House
that were reported in numerous outlets. By way of background, my source
is not FOX News in this particular instance, but all he has to do is
Google it and he can find it.
Also, there were numerous reports in 2012 where the President
indicated--in what turned out to be an open mic--that once the
elections were over with, he could more freely negotiate or give away
information to the Russians. Those aren't the exact words used by the
President. Unfortunately, I don't have perfect recall, but it was words
to that effect.
I would emphasize that this House has visited this issue previously.
This has passed with bipartisan support. So I would urge this body to
again, as a precautionary measure, adopt this amendment to prevent the
sharing of our hit-to-kill technology with the Russian Federation to
the extent that risk becomes a reality.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I reserve the balance of my time, and I understand I
have the right to close.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman indicated, in query to my
rhetorical question, that all I have to do is Google and I will
discover the information that will lead to our knowledge that the
President of the United States is considering giving away this very
sensitive information.
It comes to mind, when the gentleman suggests I should Google it, how
many different encounters I have had with members of the public who
said, ``I saw it on the Internet; it must be true.'' For example,
Members of Congress, after serving one term, receive a full salary
pension for the rest

[[Page H5012]]

of their lives; and Members of Congress receive free health care for
the rest of their lives; and Members of Congress, for the last 4 years
in a row, have received significant pay increases because they Googled
it on the Internet, and so they secured very specific, accurate
information. Perhaps we should go to Facebook or LinkedIn or reddit, or
maybe we should tweet each other.
Again, in very serious concern, I would suggest my colleagues
absolutely reject this amendment. I would ask for their vote against
it, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Schiff

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 73
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. SCHIFF. 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 under this Act
may be obligated or expended pursuant to the Authorization
for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541
note) after December 31, 2014.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Schiff) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prohibit funding the use
of force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or
AUMF, effective on December 31, 2014, when the last American combat
troops will rotate out of Afghanistan and the responsibility for
security will have passed to the Afghan people after more than 13 years
of war in that country.
New Year's Day 2015 should not only bring about a new relationship
between the United States and Afghanistan, it should also mark the end
of a conflict that was begun in our skies on that September morning and
which was formalized days later when the Congress passed the AUMF.
That legislation provided the President with the authority to use
``force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines
planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that
occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or
persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism
against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.''
The 2001 AUMF was never intended to authorize a war without end, and
it now poorly defines those who pose a threat to our country. That
authority and the funding that goes along with it should expire
concurrent with the end of our combat role in Afghanistan.
In addition to this amendment, I have introduced bipartisan
legislation, H.R. 2324, which sunsets the AUMF effective the same date,
December 31, 2014, and calls on the administration to work with
Congress together to determine what new authority, if any, is necessary
to protect the country after that time.
The Constitution vests the Congress with the power to declare war and
the responsibility of appropriating funds to pay for it. It is our most
awesome responsibility and central to our military efforts overseas. We
owe it to the men and women we send into combat to properly define and
authorize their mission, and my amendment will effectively give
Congress the next 16 months to do so.
In his recent speech at National Defense University, President Obama
specifically called on Congress to work with him:

I look forward to engaging Congress and the American people
in efforts to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF's
mandate, and I will not sign any laws designed to expand this
mandate further. Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist
organizations must continue, but this war, like all wars,
must end.

This amendment is a prudent first step towards meeting the
President's challenge, a call that we must embrace, not as Republicans
or Democrats, but as Members of Congress sworn to defend the
Constitution.
I urge a ``yes'' vote and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, in some ways I'm somewhat sympathetic
to the hopes that underlie this amendment. I hope that terrorism has
gone away by December 31, 2014. I hope that Zawahiri and the others
responsible for 9/11 and those who authorized, committed, or aided the
terrorist attack or harbored them are all brought to justice in the
next 14 months. I hope that our country and other countries around the
world no longer have to worry about terrorists hiding bombs inside
their clothing or inside their bodies, trying to kill as many innocent
people as possible. And I hope that military and civilians who serve
our Nation all around the world, and others in the private sector, are
no longer the target for suicide bombings and assassinations and the
other sorts of things that we've seen since 9/11.
But, Mr. Chairman, what if my hopes don't come to pass? What if the
world has something else in store? What if terrorism still exists by
December 31, 2014? Well, then it seems to me that this amendment
doesn't make a lot of sense. Because this amendment says no matter
what--not just in Afghanistan, but anywhere around the world--we're not
going to fund anything through the Department of Defense pursuant to
that AUMF.
Now, I've got to say, I have been and continue to be for updating
that AUMF to better reflect the way that al Qaeda has evolved over the
last decade or so. Unfortunately, that has been resisted by the
administration, as the gentleman just pointed out.
Of course we all want this war against terrorists and other wars to
end, but, unfortunately, the enemy gets a vote. So for us to
unilaterally say, because of the calendar, we're done, and, oh, maybe
we'll pass some new authority--but maybe not--in order to protect this
country, I think, is dangerous. It's shortsighted. It is putting hopes
above reality.

So I hope my colleagues reject this. We can do better in fighting
terrorists in a variety of ways. But to bury our head in the sand and
say it's all going to be over on a certain date is not the way to
protect this country, and I believe it forfeits our most essential
responsibilities under the Constitution.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. I want to yield to my colleague from Indiana. Before I
do, two quick points.
No one is suggesting, of course, that terrorism is going to go away
in 16 months or all of our problems will be over. But what we are
saying with this amendment is that the authorization we passed that
authorizes force against those who planned, authorized, and committed
the 9/11 attacks shouldn't be used to go after groups like al Shabaab,
which may not even have been in existence at the time of 9/11.
This AUMF is now outdated; and unless we have a sunset date, we're
going to continue to rely on an AUMF that no longer describes the
nature of the conflict we're in.
With that, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding and rise in strong
support of his amendment.
The gentleman who is in opposition mentions that the administration
mentions the United States Constitution. The fact is we have a
constitutional responsibility. With the passage of more than a decade
and a changing world--and I would agree with the gentleman, something
else may be in store--we ought to revisit that issue. We ought to
exercise our constitutional, congressional prerogative and have a full
debate.
Again, the gentleman is providing over 1\1/2\ years. In such a
serious issue, I think even this Congress could come to grips with that
type of fundamental issue and resolve the future.
So I strongly support what the gentleman is doing and appreciate his
amendment.
Mr. SCHIFF. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, I just point out to my colleagues, this

[[Page H5013]]

House has voted 2 years in a row to update the AUMF so it does better
reflect the way that al Qaeda has changed. We have included the exact
language used by the Obama administration and the Bush administration
in court proceedings and just adopted that. The House has passed that.
I don't remember how the particular gentleman voted on that, but the
House has passed it. The Senate has not gone along. But there has been
an effort to update the language to better reflect the way that the
threat has changed, but that's a far different thing from saying, okay,
we're just going to make this go away and hope that in the meantime we
can do something better. I think that is terribly risky.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. I would only say to my colleague, through the Chair, that
this institution has proved that unless we have a deadline, we simply
refuse to act.
What the President has said in terms of any new authorization for use
of force--and it's something I agree wholeheartedly with the White
House--is that he won't support a new authorization that is broader
than the one that we seek to sunset. That, I think, is a problem with
some of the drafts which the majority has proposed.
We don't want an expanded war. We do want an authorization that
reflects the precise nature of the threat, and that threat has changed
since 9/11. It no longer comes as much from the core of al Qaeda, which
has been decimated; rather, it comes now from a group of franchises,
loosely affiliated organizations that sometimes, as a product of
convenience, will associate with al Qaeda for financing or legitimacy.
But it is now a far-flung terrorist challenge, and any authorization
ought to reflect the changing nature of threat.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time I
have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Texas has 1\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. THORNBERRY. Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is you have to read the
amendment and the words that are in it. The amendment says we can spend
no money for any part of the Department of Defense pursuant to the AUMF
after December 31, 2014.

{time} 1600

Now, we can have a very interesting discussion about how the AUMF
should be updated, about different authority that could take its place,
but none of that is before us. What is before us is that it basically
says, no funding shall be used. It essentially repeals the AUMF.
Now, I realize the gentleman is trying to precipitate further debate,
but the fact is terrorism is not going away. This prohibits any U.S.
military action, not only in Afghanistan, but anywhere in the world
that al Qaeda or its affiliates may have traveled. This stops all of
that.
My point is that there is too dangerous a risk in a world where there
are too many people still trying to find new, innovative ways to attack
us and kill as many Americans as possible. We can't take that risk.
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, and yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 74 Offered by Ms. Speier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 74
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $65,000,000) (increased by $65,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, my amendment addresses a current issue that
is undermining an already weakened system of justice in our military.
Any JAG will tell you that it is impossible to effectively prosecute
a case if the investigation was improperly handled. That is why the DOD
Inspector General report released last week was so troubling.
It uncovered that of the 501 investigations of sexual assault
offenses they audited, all but 83 had some sort of deficiency. That
means that less than 20 percent were completed without error. Fifty-six
cases, 11 percent of the cases, had serious deficiencies. And 399 of
these cases had interview and post-interview deficiencies. They also
found weaknesses in collecting evidence, not developing leads, and
photographing the scene. This in large part is a result of inadequate
training in how to properly investigate these complex cases.
A February IG report found that criminal investigators want and need
more training on conducting sexual assault investigations. For example,
criminal investigators for the Air Force told the IG they wanted more
training on the psychology of interviewing victims and evidence
collection. One investigator said he would be ``in trouble'' if he only
relied on the training he received.
That is why I'm offering this amendment that will provide an
additional $10 million in funds to train investigators on how to
properly investigate sexual assault-related offenses.
My amendment realigns funds from the Operations and Maintenance
Defense-wide account and shifts $5 million to Army Operations and
Maintenance, $2.5 million to Air Force Operations and Maintenance, and
$2.5 million to Navy Operations and Maintenance, which are accounts
that pay for training investigators.
Ensuring that assaults are investigated properly is the first step
for holding perpetrators accountable.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I claim the time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, this is an issue that we can't
sweep under the rug any longer. We have got to face it square on. The
gentlelady's amendment helps do that.
The subcommittee when preparing this legislation was extremely
concerned about the issue, and we have included considerable amounts of
money to deal with sexual predators and sexual assaults in the
military, especially demanding that the military do a better job at
enforcing the rules, the laws, to protect the rights of those who are
sexually abused.
I thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment, and we do support
the amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SPEIER. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, I've got goose bumps that I actually have an amendment
that my colleagues on the other side support.
I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and the
chairman's support.
Madam Chair, the amendment does seek to target an important part of
the process when prosecuting a sexual assault--the investigation of the
incident.
As the Congresswoman pointed out, the Inspector General found this
particular part of the process lacking in terms of interviewing
victims, investigating crime scenes, and notifying the sexual assault
response coordinator. The funding proposed would provide the means to
include special training for tactics and techniques when investigating
crimes of these natures. I would join the chairman of the committee in
thanking her for raising the issue and strongly support it.
I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

[[Page H5014]]

Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, let me just say in closing, we all now
recognize 26,000 cases a year of sexual assault and rape. This is not
sexual harassment, I might point out; this is unwanted sexual contact.
Of those cases, only 3,000 are actually reported. The fear of
reporting, the fear of reprisal is so great, that very few of them,
less than 20 percent, actually report them.
Then when you report these cases, to have them improperly or
inadequately investigated, that then results in a handful of actual
courts-martial, and then even smaller, some 250 convictions out of some
3,000 that are reported suggests that we have a lot of work to do.
I thank my colleagues for the support, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. KEATING. Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, Ms.
Speier for offering this amendment. Frequently, sexual-assault victims
in the military are referred to Uniformed mental-health experts. From
there, they are all too often subsequently diagnosed with ``personality
disorders'' and separated from the military. While the military is
making some positive steps to correct the improper processes
surrounding sexual assault cases, it is impossible to know how many
veterans of the military have disputed their personality disorder
discharges and it is even more difficult to know how many victims of
sexual assault did not come forward in fear of being labeled or
scapegoated. Instead of sweeping these crimes under the rug, this
amendment will review these cases and identify individuals that were
improperly separated from the military subsequent to reporting a sexual
assault and correct their record. I urge support for this important way
forward in addressing sexual crimes.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mr. Speier).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 75 Offered by Ms. Speier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 75
printed in House Report 113-170.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 8, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 8, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,500,000)''.
Page 9, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Chair, since I began working on this issue of
military sexual assault 3 years ago, I've had the opportunity to speak
to over 100 courageous survivors of rape.
With each of their experiences, there is a unique nature to them. But
many of these survivors that decided to report these crimes have had a
very similar experience after they reported: they were retaliated
against, ostracized, and involuntarily separated from the military on
the grounds of a personality or adjustment disorder.
Mental health diagnoses are grossly misused to administratively
discharge or retaliate against survivors of sexual assault and other
servicemembers. Since 2001, the military has discharged more than
31,000 servicemembers on the grounds that they were subject to a
personality disorder.
A GAO investigation found that 22 to 60 percent of the time
personality disorders were either not diagnosed by a trained
psychiatrist or psychologist, or there was undue command influence.
This pattern has become a potent lesson to servicemembers that are
assaulted: report and get kicked out of the military with a personality
disorder diagnosis. This designation amounts to a scarlet letter,
pinned where their medals should be, and follows them for the rest of
their lives. These servicemembers are re-victimized every time they
apply for a job and submit their DD214s. It also makes it virtually
impossible to retain a security clearance.
My amendment aims to address this clear pattern of retaliation
against victims who report a crime of rape or sexual assault. The
amendment provides funds to correct their service record and provide
them with the benefits they have earned. My amendment realigns $65
million within the Operations and Maintenance Defense-wide account to
dedicate these funds to identifying and correct the service record of
servicemembers who were summarily discharged from the military
following reports of a sexual assault. This amendment requires the
Department of Defense to review all separations of individuals that
made an unrestricted report of sexual assault and determine if they
were discharged, and on what grounds--including personality and
adjustment disorders. My amendment will also direct the Secretary of
Defense to correct their records of service--to right this wrong--and
provide them with any compensation and services they weren't able to
receive as a consequence of this error.
This is the very least we can do for these brave survivors. It is the
first step in addressing the systemic re-victimization of courageous
men and women who were brave enough to come forward.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I claim the time.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Again, Madam Chairman, this is a good
amendment. Those who are subject to sexual assaults, sexual attacks,
and who have been separated from the military on grounds of a disorder
need to have their records corrected if information indicates that that
should be done.
Sexual assault victims have already suffered a great deal. They
deserve to have their military records accurately reflect their
military service. Those victims who were improperly discharged on the
grounds of a personality disorder deserve to have those records
corrected.
We do support the amendment. This bill already provides substantial
funding to provide these services.
I notice a very distinguished gentleman rising who would like me to
yield, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding and would like
to associate myself with his kind remarks, and appreciate the
gentlewoman for offering the amendment and would like to indicate my
support for the amendment as well.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, needless to say, we support
this amendment. We have already robustly financed sexual assault
programs. We fully fund the President's request for sexual assault
prevention and response programs at the service level and at the
Department of Defense Sexual Assault Prevention and Response program
office.
I would like to emphasize ``prevention.'' If we can prevent these
sexual assaults, then the other problems go away. So it is important
that we do pay attention to prevention.
In addition, our bill provides $25 million to the Department and the
services, including the Guard and Reserve, to implement a Sexual
Assault Special Victims program, such as the Air Force Special Victims
Counsel program, to provide all victims with specially trained legal
assistance throughout the investigation and prosecution process--fair
play. That's important.
We also support a number of policy changes that were including the FY
2014 National Defense Authorization Act. I think our bill goes a long
way on this issue, and this amendment goes even further, so we
enthusiastically support it.
I yield back the balance of my time.

{time} 1615

Ms. SPEIER. I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their
unanimous support of this effort and of this particular amendment.
Madam Chair, let me just close by saying that the GAO says 20 to 60
percent of these personality disorder designations are either done
improperly or are done with undue influence. Certainly, those who have
been victimized deserve to be able to have that designation erased from
their DD-214 forms so that they are not in a position of having to then
in the civilian world explain why they have this designation on their
discharge papers.
I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H5015]]

Mr. KEATING. Madam Chair, I would like to thank my colleague, Ms.
Speier for offering this amendment. While many protections for victims
of sexual violence have recently been put in place across our Armed
Forces, a review by the IG of military sexual assault cases revealed
that over three-quarters (83%) of the 501 investigations conducted,
were not properly investigated, and had significant deficiencies, such
as a failure to collect key evidence; incomplete interviews; and only
partial crime scene investigations. As a former District Attorney, I
was stunned by these findings. I have worked to protect victims of
abuse and violence throughout my career and know that such sloppy
investigative work will only cause further injury to victims and their
families. To add insult to injury, these victims are the very men and
women who have devoted their lives to the lives of others. With this
amendment, we will be returning the favor of their commitment to our
country's security and ensure additional funding and training to close
the harmful loops that exist in the military's investigative processes
related to sexual assaults. This amendment is a vital step towards
ensuring an environment where there is justice for all victims. I urge
support of our amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 84
printed in House Report 113-170.

Amendment No. 97 Offered by Mr. Radel

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 97
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. RADEL. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

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

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Radel) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. RADEL. Madam Chair, this amendment should serve as a reminder to
the President that he does not have the authority to unilaterally send
our children to war. In fact, it was Senator Obama who in 2007 said:

History has shown us time and again, however, that military
action is most successful when it is authorized and supported
by the legislative branch.

Here we are, again, seeing that Senator Obama and President Obama are
two very different people; and with the rhetoric heating up on Syria in
particular and with word that we will now arm rebel factions, we must
make a statement today. What we are saying is: Mr. President, if you
want to go to war, you go through us.
Don't get me wrong. My heart goes out to the innocent families who
have been victimized and caught up in this fierce civil war in Syria,
but that's exactly what it is--a civil war--and we cannot be the police
of the world. If you thought that the situations in Iraq and
Afghanistan were complicated, the situation in Syria has history going
back 1,000 years with deep and profound complexities. We cannot just go
into Syria and pick and choose who to arm. Too many times we have seen
those we arm often turn their own weapons against us, weapons that we
have provided. We do not have to use military force around the world to
be a leader for democracy.
This amendment is about Congress doing its job instead of following
the President's cloudy, unclear foreign policy. This is about the House
of the people making decisions for the people--for our young men and
women in the military who are serving our country today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I rise to claim the additional 10 minutes
on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman for offering the amendment.
Madam Chair, I would point out in my opening remarks that I think the
fundamental responsibility of this body is to be engaged in these types
of situations and to make determinations relative to our constitutional
responsibility, particularly in dangerous situations when it involves
military action. Syria, for example, is reported to have the fourth
most sophisticated, integrated air defense of any nation on the planet
Earth. Reports in the media indicate that Russia has kept these systems
resupplied and up to date technologically.
It is but one of many things that we have to consider as far as the
safety and well-being of those who are in our military forces, as well
as, ultimately, what our national interests are.
At this point, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RADEL. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, first of all, I want to
congratulate our colleague from Florida for having a very successful
first few months in the Congress. He has done a really good job.
I am happy to rise in support of this amendment. It is a responsible
approach to a critical national security issue. We appreciate the
gentleman working closely with the committee to address this issue in a
responsible manner that protects our national interests.
So I say, again, thank you for the initiative that you have offered
here today.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would make an additional observation on
the gentleman's amendment.
There are political and diplomatic issues of Russia's relationship
with the Assad regime. Altering this relationship over the long run may
become an objective of U.S. foreign policy. Maybe. Maybe not. However,
entering into an armed conflict with this relationship in mind is a
dangerous step, among many other dangerous steps, and it renews the
prospect of a more openly hostile relationship with a country that
otherwise had ended the Cold War. So it's certainly an additional
reason as to my appreciation for the gentleman offering the amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RADEL. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, I now yield 2 minutes to my neighbor up north, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rooney).
Mr. ROONEY. I want to thank my friend from Florida (Mr. Radel) for
bringing this amendment to the floor today.
Madam Chair, I would have liked to have seen something that went
specifically to not arming the so-called ``rebels'' in Syria, but I
think it's important that we also address this issue of the President
of the United States and what his obligations are to this Congress and
to the American people under the War Powers Act.
The Founding Fathers didn't want one person to be able to take us to
these wars in foreign lands. They wanted there to be debate,
deliberation, and for the President to have to come and make the
argument to the American people through their representation as to why
something is such an important part of our national interests that he
would send our men and women into harm's way to potentially die for us
in that land.
In this case, we have Assad, who is a dangerous dictator in the
Middle East. On the other hand, we have the rebels, who are infiltrated
by al Qaeda and other bad actors--the same people we've been fighting,
by the way, over the last 10 years.
So whose side are we on--Sunni? Shia? It's a civil war in the Middle
East. What is our national interest?
Ladies and gentlemen, if you can't answer that question, if you're
not absolutely sure--as the President needs to make us sure through the
War Powers Act and through authorization, which this amendment
requires--then you cannot support sending our men and women or getting
involved in Syria or even sending weapons to the so-called ``rebels''
over there.
Support the Radel amendment. Make the President make the case for
Syria. Come to Congress, and let the people decide.

[[Page H5016]]

Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield such time as he may consume to my good friend
from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
I thank my colleague for this extremely important amendment.
Madam Chair, we have a dire situation in Syria, and everyone's heart
breaks for the suffering of the Syrian people. Over 100,000 people are
getting slaughtered by the leader of their own government. It's
absolutely unconscionable. So the questions for us are: What can we
practically do? Whatever it is that we do do, does Congress have a say
in the ``yes'' or ``no'' of military action?
I thank the gentleman for this amendment because there are two
questions here.
One is as to the policy itself, the use of military force, arming the
rebels. Is that a wise policy? Will it make things better or will it
make things worse?
The second question is: Whatever the policy is, is it the
responsibility of those of us who have been elected to represent
Americans as Members of Congress--and we all do--to be accountable in
making that enormously important and consequential decision that has
the potential to send our troops into combat?
Let me talk briefly about the policy.
The military situation there is chaotic. The rebels are united
loosely in an effort to bring down Assad, but distinguishing between
the ``good rebels'' and the ``bad rebels'' is impossible. In fact, we
are reading reports right now of how rebels who are having disputes
with fellow rebels are settling them by beheading them. That's
literally what's happening. So the notion that we can have a
micromanaged approach and pick the good guys and arm them and not have
any reasonable and, actually, inevitable expectation that the arms will
get into bad hands, I think, is naive.
Also, General Dempsey, who is a hard-headed thinker about military
matters, testified and laid out very clearly, if we just want to arm
the rebels, that it's going to be like $500 million, or it could be
into the billions. If we want to do standoff attacks, which supposedly
will be surgical, that could be in the $1 billion-a-month range. If we
want to actually have a no-fly zone, it will take hundreds of ships and
aircraft in order to implement that--over $1 billion a month. That's a
consequential decision that we can't stumble into.
Then the second question, Madam Chair, is the congressional
responsibility to act. One of the frustrations that, I think, Americans
have with all of us is the sense that we are not accountable. Do you
know what? If we allow an action to be taken that has the potential to
send troops into combat and if we haven't actually stood up and voted
``yes'' or ``no,'' then they are right. We have a job to do under the
Constitution. This amendment is really saying to all of us here in
Congress on both sides of the aisle that, if the moment comes when that
decision is going to be made by the President, he has to return to us
for approval, and we have to stand and make our decision.
So with regard to that constitutional responsibility, what is more
important?
We all talk about how much we admire the troops for their willingness
to sacrifice--and all of us do--but do you know what? All Americans
admire the troops, but 435 Americans in this Chamber have the
responsibility to make certain that, when we take advantage of the
willingness of these young men and women to serve and to sacrifice,
including to give up their lives, we are the ones who must make the
decision about the policy. Our responsibility--all of ours--is to make
certain that whatever policy it is we are asking them to pursue be
worthy of their willingness to sacrifice. That has to be done at the
beginning.
Once our troops are in the field, yes, we have to support them. Then,
once they're in the field, we find ourselves conflicted about having a
discussion about how it is they got there. Do you know what? They got
there because we sent them there. Sometimes we do it consciously.
Sometimes we stumble into it. That's not right. There are 435 of us in
this House who are united by a common responsibility to the soldiers
and sailors who serve and to the citizens whom we represent.
So I thank the gentleman as I see this as an opportunity for Members
of this House on both sides of the aisle, who share a common admiration
for the people who serve in the military and who share a common sense
of duty to the people we represent, to be accountable for any policy
that has the potential to send our soldiers into combat.
Mr. RADEL. Madam Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 6\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. RADEL. I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont as well.
Madam Chair, it is times like these as we debate this that we realize
the heavy weight we carry on our shoulders. We are talking about
people's lives as we approach this. Once again, this re-asserts the
fact that this is the people's House and that we want to have a say in
our foreign policy.
At this point, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry).

{time} 1630

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman from Florida for
yielding and for this important amendment. Madam Chair, not only should
there be no American troops sent to Syria, there should be no American
weapons sent to Syria.
Several weeks ago, a Catholic priest named Father Francois Murad was
murdered in northern Syria. Who killed him? The very people that we're
considering arming. What was he guilty of? Serving the poor. We have no
business shipping weapons to those who would raid convents and kill
innocent civilians.
Madam Chair, there are now 100,000 people dead from this conflict.
What began as a hopeful exercise of civic engagement by the Syrian
people against the brutal Assad regime has now become a wanton
slaughter. We don't know who is who among this Syrian rebel movement.
No one there is safe, and no happy projections of democratic ideals
will make this better. We do not have control over the Syrian battle
space. Americans must not be complicit in this killing field.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, from my perspective, I would also make it
clear that what we're talking about at this point is the use of
military force. There is no question that there is a significant and
tragic humanitarian crisis taking place.
It is estimated that about 6.8 million people are in need of various
types of humanitarian assistance in Syria itself. There are about 4.25
million people displaced within that country. We have 1.78 million
Syrians displaced to neighboring countries. There were 486,972, as of
the latest count, that are refugees in Jordan; 607,908 are refugees in
Lebanon; 412,789 are refugees in Turkey; 161,014 are refugees in Iraq,
and 92,367 in Egypt. It's one reason why today it's estimated that
about $814 million of U.S. humanitarian aid has been expended for good
purposes. That's certainly not what we're talking about here today, and
I certainly would want to make our colleagues understand that as well.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RADEL. Madam Chair, this is excellent bipartisan discussion;
whereas, this country tends to be a little war weary these days, but we
see where the United States can have a role, most especially when it
comes to humanitarian aid, with our allies in the region and how
exactly we can help.
Once again, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have
highlighted just how deeply profound these complexities are in Syria.
We're not only confused when it comes to who the rebels are--I don't
even know if they're good or bad anymore. We simply don't know what
rebel factions are playing a part in this. You've got Hezbollah, you've
got al Qaeda, and then you have the state players in this; and we know
that we have sensitive relationships with Russia, with China, who also
potentially, at least diplomatically, are involved in this.
Again, I just want to commend our colleagues here. This is excellent
discussion.
At this point, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page H5017]]

I feel very strongly about this issue, Madam Chair. I believe without
a shadow of a doubt this is one of the most insane policies that
borders on madness. For the United States to give funding, training,
and arms most likely to al Qaeda in Syria doesn't make any sense.
Can we realize what it is we're talking about right now? This is
Islamic jihad, which has declared war on the United States and declared
war on our ally Israel. And we're now in a position when we're
authorizing arming, training, and funding for allies of al Qaeda, and
al Qaeda themselves, in Syria? This is absolute madness.
You see, Madam Chair, the decision to arm the Syrian rebels by the
Obama administration just this week will likely have catastrophic
consequences for our United States national security and the national
security of our ally Israel. The Syrian rebels that the President wants
to arm consist mostly of al Qaeda members that we've spent the last
decade fighting a war against. Have we forgotten the thousands of
Americans that were killed on September 11 in the horrific Twin Towers
attack and here in this city at the Pentagon? We lost over 3,000
Americans that day. Are we forgetting who we fought in Iraq and in
Afghanistan? It's my opinion, Madam Chair, that this is insanity to aid
those who've taken the lives of Americans with impunity and continue to
do so.
Just take note that the leader of al Qaeda is an individual named
Zawahiri. Zawahiri called on Muslims from around the world to make
their way to Syria and support the rebels and, in fact, become the
rebels who are seeking to overthrow Assad.
We don't have a great track record, Madam Chair, of putting arms into
the hands of terrorists. Take a look at the Fast and Furious program in
Mexico and the terrorists who received arms from the United States.
Take a look at Benghazi and the tens of thousands of weapons, MANPADS,
that went into the hands of al Qaeda after Benghazi. And now we're
intentionally going to make a decision to send money, training, and
arms to al Qaeda?

How about a referendum with the American people? I think this would
be more than a 90 percent issue. Don't do it. That's why we're standing
here today. Don't do it.
The top spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood is a man named
Qaradawi. He has been outlawed from the United States because he's a
terrorist. Also, he was outlawed from Egypt because he's a terrorist.
He has called for jihad in Syria, and he has said:

Every Muslim trained to fight and capable of doing that
must make himself available.

So you have the head of al Qaeda and the head of the terrorist
organization the Muslim Brotherhood both calling on Islamic jihadists
to go to Syria to fight and be the rebels. And we're going to arm them,
and we're going to train them, and we're going to provide materiel
support to them? Not my vote.
Madam Chair, former President Morsi, who was formerly the head of the
Muslim Brotherhood, which was outlawed under Mubarak in Egypt, he
supported the call from hardline Egyptian clerics who called for
Egyptians to go fight jihad in Syria. So you see, there's a common
thread here. All the wrong guys on the wrong team are all calling for
jihadists to go to Syria and fight. It was reported that over 2,500
Egyptians have already gone to Syria to fight jihad.
Pakistan Taliban fighters have left Pakistan to join the fight in
Syria, and they're working with al Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria.
On Monday, al Qaeda's Iraq-affiliated attack on the Abu Ghraib prison
helped 500 inmates escape, most of whom were part of senior positions
in al Qaeda. These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological
extremists who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with
the rebels.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield the gentlewoman as much time as she may
consume.
Mrs. BACHMANN. Madam Chair, I thank the gentleman on the other side
of the aisle, my friend.
These prisoners included trained fighters and ideological extremists
who are expected to travel to Syria to join the fight with the rebels.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top military officer
in the United States, Martin Dempsey, has warned us that intervening in
Syria could assist Islamist extremists, helping them gain access to
chemical weapons and biological weapons and further erode United States
military readiness already suffering from sharp defense budget cuts. He
has said that using force is ``no less than an act of war,'' and stated
that some of the military options for Syria may not be feasible without
compromising U.S. security elsewhere.
He made reference to the chaos in Iraq after the fall of Saddam
Hussein and Libya after Qadhafi. He warned of the unintended
consequences if Assad fell without having a viable opposition. He said
``we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very
chemical weapons we seek to control.''
This is a hub for jihadist activity. The American taxpayer has no
obligation. In fact, I say this body must protect the American taxpayer
from being involved in arming al Qaeda in Syria. We must defeat this
effort, and that's why I'm in support of this today.
Again, we have the major general from the Israeli military
intelligence, and he said that right before our eyes the center of
global jihad is developing; let's not do it. I agree with him.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Radel).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 98 Offered by Mr. Massie

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 98
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of the bill (before the short title), add the
following:
Sec. _. No funds made available by this Act may be used by
the Department of Defense to fund military operations in
Egypt, nor may funds made available by this Act be used by
the Department of Defense to fund individuals, groups, or
organizations engaged in paramilitary activity (as that term
is used in section 401 of title 10, United States Code) in
Egypt.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Massie) and a Member opposed each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There's been some misunderstanding about what my amendment does. I
welcome the opportunity to clarify the intention of the amendment.
I realize that Members of the House have different views about the
current U.S. relationship with the Egyptian Government and the Egyptian
military. This amendment is not designed to affect the current
military-to-military relationship with Egypt. It is not intended to
prevent U.S. participation in the Multinational Forward Observer
mission in the Sinai, in other words, the peacekeeping mission. It is
not intended to curtail the activities of the Office of Military
Cooperation. It is not intended to prevent U.S. military exercises with
the Egyptian military. And it is certainly not intended to prevent U.S.
marines from providing security at our diplomatic facilities in Egypt.
My amendment is quite simple. It's intended to prevent the U.S.
military from engaging in offensive operations in Egypt and to prevent
the Defense Department from providing assistance to Egyptian
paramilitary or terrorist groups.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. I claim time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas is recognized for 10
minutes.
Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, I'm so pleased to hear my friend from
Kentucky further discuss the true intent of what his amendment does;
and respectfully, I recognize that, in order for the amendment to be
made in order, it has to be written broadly. And because it was written
broadly, there were concerns expressed by a number of people on both
sides of the aisle about what an amendment written this way might do
that would negatively affect a lot of

[[Page H5018]]

the things that we presently do and have been doing for a long time in
Egypt.
I can speak personally to it because it was right after 9/11, while
commanding an infantry battalion in Arkansas with the Arkansas National
Guard, that I was called to duty to lead a task force of infantry
soldiers and other personnel of over 500 men and women to the Sinai in
Egypt to become the U.S. battalion so that other forces of the 18th
Airborne Corps could go prosecute missions elsewhere in support of the
war on terror.
The gunslingers of Arkansas distinguished themselves by going to the
Sinai in Egypt on very short notice and executed that mission, the U.S.
battalion in the South Sinai Peninsula that does the observe-and-report
mission, consistent with all of the protocols that were established
with the Treaty of Peace in 1979. In fact, our unit was there during
the 20th anniversary of the MFO. Since that time, other State National
Guard units have followed this mission and have been doing it
consistently--Oregon, Oklahoma, and others--until, because of
sequestration, the active component has accepted responsibility for
that mission once again. So we've had a lot of our men and women across
the country into the Sinai to do the mission of the MFO.
On top of that, our country has had a number of exercises called
Bright Star, which is, if not the largest, one of the largest military
training exercises that takes place on a biennial basis.

{time} 1645

Now it didn't happen in 2011 because of unrest in Egypt, but my
understanding is that Bright Star is certainly going to occur again.
So it is our hope, and as I said, I'm glad that my friend from
Kentucky has further clarified the intent of his amendment, that it is
not designed to affect the Multinational Forward Observer, nor is it
designed to affect the training exercises that would happen with a
Bright Star operation, nor does it affect what goes on with the Office
of Military Cooperation or the Defense Attache program or, as he has
indicated, our marine security to outposts in that region.
So again, I am very, very pleased, and we can breathe a bit of a sigh
of relief that there is no intent in here at all to abandon, Madam
Chair, the Treaty of Peace that was famously signed in 1979, and
everybody has the vivid reminder of that picture with Jimmy Carter in
the middle and Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin signing over that peace
treaty.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I appreciate the words from my good
colleague from Arkansas, and I certainly appreciate the service that
he's provided to our country and the service that others have provided
there in the mission of keeping the peace.
If we count the two chairmen of the Supreme Council of the Armed
Forces, Egypt has been led by five different men in the past 2\1/2\
years. So five of them in 2\1/2\ years, only one of them democratically
elected. I would say this is not a stable environment, and so my
constituents have concerns that we don't escalate military activity in
the region.
My good friend is correct about the intention of the amendment that I
have offered. My amendment, again, is intended to prevent the U.S.
military from engaging in offensive operations in Egypt and to prevent
the Defense Department from providing assistance to the Egyptian
paramilitary or terrorist groups. It's certainly not intended to
prevent the peacekeeping missions or the current military missions
there or, most of all, protecting our embassies. We want to make sure
that we allow the service of our good marines over there in Egypt.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOMACK. I yield as much time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger), the distinguished chair of the
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations.
Ms. GRANGER. Madam Chair, situations in Egypt have been problematic,
and we're all dealing with that and trying to come to terms. But I want
to remind Members that one reason we have a relationship with Egypt is
the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty. We helped forge peace between Egypt and
Israel, a peace that has held for over 30 years.
Our military-to-military relationship has been a key component to
keeping that peace. Since the signing of the treaty, the Egyptian
military has been a reliable partner and ally. Throughout all the
changes and turmoil, the Egyptian military has upheld our security
arrangements, including the peace treaty. They've also maintained
priority access for U.S. ships through the Suez Canal and allowed U.S.
military planes to use their airspace. We cannot underestimate the
importance of this.
Furthermore, since July 3, the Egyptian military has successfully
closed nearly 80 percent of the tunnels used to smuggle goods and arms
into the Gaza Strip. This is an important part of our partnership and
how we've worked together. The relationship between the United States
and Egypt has never been more critical than it is now. This amendment
could jeopardize our ability to help Egypt and Israel secure the Sinai
if the intent were other than it has been explained just a few minutes
ago. It could harm our efforts to secure the Libyan border with Egypt,
which is used to smuggle weapons to be used against Israel.
It's vital to the United States national security that we maintain
our long-standing relationship with the Egyptian military. I'm not
going to oppose this amendment as long as the intent is not to
interfere with this 30-year partnership and relationship. U.S. and
Israeli security are simply too important to put at risk.
I appreciate the time and the effort.
Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Either to yourself or possibly for the author of the amendment, the
question I have, because there has been a lot of talk, it is ``not the
intent of the amendment'' to interfere with any intercooperation we
have today with the Egyptians. It is not our intent not to be involved
in the Sinai, but the amendment reads no funds, and then goes on to
fund military operations in Egypt.
If I am an adviser, if I am a member of the uniformed services, how
is the intent met under the particular restrictions of the amendment?
That would be my question.
Mr. WOMACK. Reclaiming my time, I don't want to put words in the
mouth of the author of the amendment, but I would yield to the
gentleman from Kentucky to further clarify, as I understand it, his
willingness to make sure that we make the appropriate adjustments to
this amendment in a conference.
I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MASSIE. I thank the gentleman from Arkansas.
To allay your concerns and the concerns of the gentlelady who spoke,
the intentions are the intentions that have been mentioned here, and
the verbiage that was allowed in the amendment process was very
difficult to convey the intention. It would be our intention to work
through the process going forward in conference or otherwise to
ameliorate the language and to ameliorate your concerns.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. If the gentleman will yield, as a Member of the House
and the committee, I would want to participate in that to ensure we do
not disrupt the very positive interchange that is taking place.
Mr. WOMACK. Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky
for his further clarification of the intent going forward beyond this.
I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen).
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Arkansas has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. WOMACK. I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Madam Chair, it is in our interest that we have a
strong, stable, moderate, and truly democratic Egypt. It's in the best
interests of both our countries. We've had a 30-year relationship, and
those interests would be damaged if we decide to in any way disengage
from Egypt and its people in their quest for a true democracy or reduce
current levels of support for the Egyptian military. This is a country
of 80 million

[[Page H5019]]

people, a cornerstone of peace in the Middle East, despite its recent
troubles, and we need to make sure that we keep the Egyptians close to
us as a strong ally and work with their military operations.
Mr. WOMACK. Madam Chair, let me just say in conclusion, I do
appreciate my friend from Kentucky for further clarifying this intent
of his amendment. It is something that I believe we can work with so
long as we can make the proper adjustments once we get to conference.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
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 House Report 113-170 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 67 by Mr. Kilmer of Washington.
Amendment No. 69 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 70 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 73 by Mr. Schiff of California.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 67 Offered by Mr. Kilmer

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Kilmer) 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 277,
noes 142, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 407]

AYES--277

Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Cole
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Dent
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fitzpatrick
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hurt
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Lamborn
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Speier
Stivers
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Woodall
Yarmuth

NOES--142

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Barton
Bentivolio
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Cantor
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Ellmers
Fincher
Fleischmann
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hultgren
Hunter
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nunnelee
Paulsen
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Reichert
Ribble
Roby
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Whitfield
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--14

Barletta
Bonner
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
Joyce
McCarthy (NY)
Olson
Pallone
Reed
Rokita
Vela

{time} 1722

Messrs. PERRY and YOHO changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. ELLISON and STIVERS, Mrs. CAPITO, Mr. HUIZENGA of Michigan,
Mrs. McMORRIS RODGERS, Messrs. UPTON, PEARCE, GRIFFIN of Arkansas,
MESSER, LEWIS, THOMPSON of Mississippi, BROOKS of Alabama, GIBBS, DENT,
GUTHRIE, BISHOP of Utah, and RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois changed their
vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 69 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Terry). 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

[Roll No. 408]

AYES--176

Amash
Andrews
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duncan (TN)
Edwards

[[Page H5020]]

Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--242

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
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
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sherman
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)
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--15

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
Johnson (GA)
Lujan Grisham (NM)
McCarthy (NY)
Olson
Pallone
Rokita
Speier
Waters
Wittman

{time} 1727

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM of New Mexico. Mr. Chair, on rollcall No.
408, Nadler (NY) amendment No. 69, had I been present, I would have
voted ``yes.''

Amendment No. 70 Offered by Mr. Nadler

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

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 409]

AYES--187

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

NOES--237

[[Page H5021]]

Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Scalise
Schock
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
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)

NOT VOTING--9

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

{time} 1732

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

Amendment No. 73 Offered by Mr. Schiff

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Schiff) 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

[Roll No. 410]

AYES--185

Amash
Bachmann
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Benishek
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Doggett
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Frankel (FL)
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gibson
Gohmert
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Labrador
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woodall
Yarmuth

NOES--236

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallego
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Radel
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Yoder
Yoho
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Meng
Neal
Pallone
Rokita
Young (AK)

{time} 1737

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

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 99
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I rise as the designee of Mr. Nugent to
offer the Nugent amendment.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, is it in order for a designee to offer an
amendment on behalf of its sponsor on this bill?
The Acting CHAIR. Would the gentleman please restate the
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, is it in order for a designee to offer an
amendment on behalf of its sponsor on this rule?
The Acting CHAIR. Under the terms of House Report 113-170, the named
sponsor of an amendment may name a designee.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Chairman, point of further parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. POLIS. Does the gentleman from Kansas have a formal designation
of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent)?
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair has been made aware that the gentleman
from Kansas is the designee of the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. POLIS. I thank the Chair.
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 funds made available by this Act may be
used by the National Security Agency to--
(1) conduct an acquisition pursuant to section 702 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the purpose
of targeting a United States person; or
(2) acquire, monitor, or store the contents (as such term
is defined in section 2510(8) of title 18, United States
Code) of any electronic communication of a United States

[[Page H5022]]

person from a provider of electronic communication services
to the public pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo) and a Member opposed each will control 7\1/2\
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I offer this evening
clarifies and confirms the scope of two programs that Mr. Snowden
illegally exposed while sitting in a hotel room in Communist China.
First, the amendment clarifies that under section 702 no U.S. citizen
or person in the U.S. can be targeted, period. I say again, no U.S.
person under section 702 may be targeted in any way by the United
States Government. While there are other specific authorities the U.S.
person may be subject to an investigation, the U.S. Government may not
do so under section 702. That's what this amendment intends to clarify.
The second part of the amendment clarifies section 215, also known as
section 501 of FISA. The amendment clarifies that no content of
communications can be stored or collected by the National Security
Agency--that's no emails, no video clips, no Skype. No record of the
actual conversation or the contents thereof may be recorded or
collected by the National Security Agency. I can't repeat that enough.
That's the intent of this amendment.
I want to make clear to everyone that, contrary to the suggestions of
some, the NSA has not been acting outside of the scope of its
authorities. The Meta-Data program is carefully designed with program
layers of oversight by all three branchs of government. This is
precisely the way our government ought to operate, with input from
Article I and Article II and Article III of the United States
Constitution.
It is, of course, our duty to ensure that the NSA stays within these
legal bounds here in Congress, and this amendment makes those
boundaries perfectly clear for everyone to know and understand.
And we shouldn't mislead the American people into thinking that the
NSA has been acting illegally. There is perhaps no program in the
United States Government that is as carefully monitored and overseen as
the programs this amendment attempts to clarify.
To the extent that some in this Chamber wish to review or provide
more protections and controls for these programs, we should proceed
through a carefully considered and debated legislative process so that
the full implications for our security are clearly understood.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 7\1/2\
minutes.

{time} 1745

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment has been described and
offered as an alternative to the Amash-Conyers amendment that we will
consider next. It is not.
This amendment restates the existing ban on the intentional targeting
of United States persons under section 702. It also places into law for
the next fiscal year the Obama administration's current ban on
collecting the contents of the communications of U.S. persons under
section 215. I agree with these prohibitions. But they have nothing to
do with the current misuse of section 215 to engage in the
suspicionless, bulk collection of Americans' telephone records.
The dragnet collection under section 215 telephone metadata program
reveals call information--including all numbers dialed, all incoming
phone numbers and call duration--but not the content of communications.
Therefore, this amendment would have no impact whatsoever on this
misuse of section 215. Metadata reveals highly personal and sensitive
information, including, for example, when and how often one calls the
doctor, a journalist, or the local Tea Party or ACLU affiliate. By
tracing the pattern of calls, the government can paint a detailed
picture of anyone's personal, professional, and political associations
and activities.
Congress never authorized this type of unchecked, sweeping
surveillance of our citizens. It is this problem--the indiscriminate,
bulk collection of metadata under section 215--that we need to fix
right now.
The Amash-Conyers amendment does so by restoring the required
reasonable relationship between the collection of records and specific
persons being investigated under section 215. The Amash-Conyers
amendment ensures that this standard is not ignored by the
administration or by the FISA Court, as is happening now.
This amendment does not fix the problem with 215. The Amash-Conyers
amendment does. However you vote on this amendment, and I intend to
vote in favor of it, it is imperative that we also vote in favor of the
Amash-Conyers amendment because this amendment, although doing no harm,
does not solve the problems that Congress and Mr. Sensenbrenner and
many others have articulated with respect to the misuse of section 215
of the PATRIOT Act.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Thornberry).
Mr. THORNBERRY. I thank the gentleman from Indiana for yielding, and
I thank the gentleman from Kansas for offering this amendment, because
it helps focus on what concerns most Americans and it clarifies what
really is and is not happening.
Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is a challenge for those of us on the
Intelligence Committee to talk openly about this--even the safeguards--
in some of these programs. But this amendment helps make it clear and
reassures Americans about some of the things they may have read or
heard that is occurring with NSA. But at the same time, this amendment
is not an overreaction that actually increases the danger that
Americans face from terrorism around the world.
This amendment says clearly that NSA cannot acquire information for
the purpose of targeting Americans, and it says clearly that NSA may
not acquire, monitor, or store the content of the communication of any
Americans.
I think the key point that Members need to know is there are multiple
layers of safeguards to make sure that these programs operate exactly
in the way that the FISA Court has laid them out to operate.
The Intelligence Committees of both the House and Senate do a
considerable amount of oversight, get regular reports. Even if somebody
accidentally punches a ``2'' versus a ``3'' on their keyboard, we get a
report about that. And it even goes so far as members of the
Intelligence Committee can go sit next to the analysts and watch what
they are doing.
But it is not just the Intelligence Committees. The FISA Court has
oversight of the same sorts of reports. They can change the guidelines
that it operates under. But in addition to that, there are internal
inspector general monitoring of these. So you get every branch of
government involved in making sure that the safeguards are in place and
those same safeguards will be in place to make sure that the provisions
of the gentleman's amendment are followed as well.
Some, however, Mr. Chairman, would do away with these programs. No
amount of safeguards are good for them. But they never say what would
replace them, they never say what would fill the gap in meeting our
responsibilities to defend Americans. They would just have them go
away, and I guess assume that somehow or other that Americans could be
made safe.
The truth is, we had been incredibly successful and somewhat lucky
since 9/11 as far as preventing further terrorist attacks on our
homeland. That is because of the work of the military, intelligence
professionals, law enforcement and, as I say, a fair amount of luck.
But these programs at NSA have made a crucial contribution to that
success over the last decade. It seems to me it would be foolhardy to
toss them away, as some would want to do.
I think this amendment strikes the right approach. I also believe,
Mr. Chairman, The Wall Street Journal makes a good point in today's
editorial when it says:

[[Page H5023]]

The last thing Congress should do is kill a program in a
rush to honor the reckless claims of Mr. Snowden and his
apologists.

Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger).
Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Pompeo.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pompeo amendment.
This amendment strongly reaffirms that in America, privacy and
security must coexist together. This amendment states in no uncertain
terms that the government cannot use section 702 of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA, to intentionally target an
American for surveillance.
This important amendment also reaffirms that phone conversations
cannot be collected through section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. It makes
the intentions of Congress very clear.
I believe the Pompeo amendment makes a powerful statement that NSA
cannot target Americans for the collection or listen to their phone
calls. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.'' However, I do understand
the concerns of the American people and of Congress when it comes to
these programs.
On the House Intelligence Committee, we are reviewing and evaluating
potential ways to change the FISA Act that will provide the
intelligence community with the tools it needs to keep our country safe
while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. We are committed to
having this important discussion. However, I do have concerns about the
amendment we will debate next.
The Amash amendment is an on/off switch for section 215 of the
PATRIOT Act. It will have an immediate operational impact and our
country will be more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This authority
has helped prevent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. A planned attack on
the New York City subway system was stopped because of section 215.

But the Amash amendment passes this authority and it will end it.
This amendment goes too far, too fast, on the wrong legislative
vehicle. We need to debate the scope of this program, and we are, but
this is an extreme knee-jerk reaction to the situation.
This program has been authorized and reauthorized by Congress. It
receives extensive oversight by the Intelligence Committee and is a
vital tool for our intelligence community to protect our Nation.
Remember, 9/11 happened in part because we failed to connect the dots.
One of the critical tools we now have and use to connect those dots is
section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. Remember, this is just phone records--
just phone numbers--no conversations.
I respectfully urge a ``no'' vote on the Amash amendment and a
``yes'' vote on the Pompeo amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the State of California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Visclosky.
Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment. Why? Because it
restates current law, and current law has been interpreted by the
administration in a way that is, frankly, contrary to the intent of the
crafters of the PATRIOT Act.
Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act says that you can obtain information
that is relevant to a national security investigation.
Now, what has happened since Congress enacted that provision? It is a
low bar, but under the NSA's interpretation, it is no bar at all.
Because, as has been widely reported, they are collecting the
information about every phone call made by every American. Clearly,
that is not relevant to a terrorist investigation.
I think it is important to note that business records that are the
subject of 215 include a lot of sensitive information. What are
business records? phone records? Internet records? credit card records?
medical records? Are these things that we would voluntarily give up to
the government? No. They are incredibly sensitive, and that's why they
are being sought.
I do think it is important to note that the amendment that will
follow after this one doesn't end the ability of the government to
pursue terrorism. We are all for that. It merely requires that the
government adhere to the law, which requires that there be relevance to
a terrorist investigation.
I certainly do not challenge the motivation of the gentleman who has
offered this amendment, but I do think if you think that this provides
a remedy, then you are wrong. This provides a fig leaf.
We should vote against it, and I hope that we will move on to the
Amash amendment and solve the problem today.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to close. I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMPEO. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to correct a couple of
things.
This legislation is not a fig leaf. It is intended to clarify some
things that have been said, some beliefs that people hold, about what
section 215 authorizes and what section 702 authorizes.
It is intended to make crystal clear to everyone here, as well as to
the American public, the boundaries of these two important national
security programs. These laws have been in place and interpreted by
multiple administrations in the same way. There was no change in this
law when this President came into office, and we should continue to
support these programs regardless of who is the Commander in Chief for
the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to support this amendment,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Pompeo).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. POMPEO. 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 Kansas will
be postponed.

Amendment No. 100 Offered by Mr. Amash

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 100
printed in House Report 113-170.
Mr. AMASH. 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 new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to execute a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
order pursuant to section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861) that does not
include the following sentence: ``This Order limits the
collection of any tangible things (including telephone
numbers dialed, telephone numbers of incoming calls, and the
duration of calls) that may be authorized to be collected
pursuant to this Order to those tangible things that pertain
to a person who is the subject of an investigation described
in section 501 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1861).''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 312, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Amash) and a Member opposed each will control 7\1/2\
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. AMASH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
We are here today for a very simple reason: to defend the Fourth
Amendment, to defend the privacy of each and every American.
As the Director of National Intelligence has made clear, the
government collects the phone records without suspicion of every single
American in the United States.
My amendment makes a simple, but important change. It limits the
government's collection of the records to those records that pertain to
a person who is the subject of an investigation pursuant to section
215.

{time} 1800

Opponents of this amendment will use the same tactic that every
government throughout history has used to justify its violation of
rights--fear. They will tell you that the government must violate the
rights of the American people to protect us against those who hate our
freedoms. They will tell you there is no expectation of privacy in
documents that are stored with a third party. Tell that to the American

[[Page H5024]]

people. Tell that to our constituents back home.
We are here to answer one question for the people we represent: Do we
oppose the suspicionless collection of every American's phone records?
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in
opposition to the gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 7\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am very happy to yield 3 minutes to the very
distinguished chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, I think the American people and, certainly, some well-
intentioned Members in this Chamber have legitimate concerns. They
should be addressed. We should have time and education on what actually
happens in the particular program of which we speak.
I will pledge to each one of you today and give you my word that this
fall, when we do the Intel authorization bill, that we will work to
find additional privacy protections with this program which have no
email, no phone calls, no names, and no addresses.
Fourteen Federal judges have said, yes, this comports with the
Constitution; 800 cases around the 1979 case have affirmed the
underpinnings of the legality of this case--800. So 14 judges are
wrong, and 800 different cases are wrong. The legislators on both
Intelligence committees--Republicans and Democrats--are all wrong.
Why is it that people of both parties came together and looked at
this program at a time when our Nation was under siege by those
individuals who wanted to bring violence to the shores of the United
States?
It is that those who know it best support the program because we
spend as much time on this to get it right, to make sure the oversight
is right. No other program has the legislative branch, the judicial
branch, and the executive branch doing the oversight of a program like
this. If we had this in the other agencies, we would not have problems.
Think about who we are in this body. Have 12 years gone by and our
memories faded so badly that we've forgotten what happened on September
11?
This bill turns off a very specific program. It doesn't stop so-
called ``spying'' and other things that this has been alleged to do.
That's not what's happening. It's not a surveillance bill. It's not
monitoring. It doesn't do any of those things.
What happened after September 11 that we didn't know on September
10--again, passing this amendment takes us back to September 10, and
afterwards we said, wow, there is a seam, a gap--was somebody leading
up to the September 11 attacks who was a terrorist overseas, called a
``terrorist,'' living amongst us in the United States, and we missed it
because we didn't have this capability.
What if we'd have caught it?
The good news is we don't have to what-if. It's not theoretical.
Fifty-four times this and the other program stopped and thwarted
terrorist attacks both here and in Europe--saving real lives. This
isn't a game. This is real. It will have a real consequence. This is
hard.
Think about the people who came here before us in this great body--
Madison, Lincoln, Kennedy served here--and about the issues they dealt
with and about the politics of ``big'' and of moving America forward
while upholding the article I mandate to this House in that we must
provide for the general defense of the United States. Think of those
challenges. Think of those challenges that they met.
Are we so small that we can only look at our Facebook ``likes'' today
in this Chamber, or are we going to stand up and find out how many
lives we can save?
Let us get back to the big politics of protecting America and of
moving America forward. Soundly reject this amendment. Let's do this
right in the Intel authorization bill.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Conyers).
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this amendment will not stop the
proper use of the PATRIOT Act or stop the FISA authorities from
conducting terrorism and intelligence investigations. I'd never block
that.
All this amendment is intending to do is to curtail the ongoing
dragnet collection and storage of the personal records of innocent
Americans. It does not defund the NSA, and it will continue to allow
them to conduct full-fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an
actual investigation.
Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our
joint commitment to ensure that our fight against terrorism and
espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes
passed by this Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to vote for this amendment.
I rise in support of this amendment, which I am cosponsoring with my
colleague from Michigan, Representative Justin Amash.
This amendment will prevent mass collection of personal records, such
as phone calling information, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
When Congress passed and later revised this provision, we did not
intend for it to authorize the bulk, indiscriminate collection of
personal information of individuals not under investigation.
However, we have learned that this law has been misused to allow the
collection of call detail information on every phone call made in the
United States under a bizarre interpretation of the statute's
authorization to collect ``relevant'' information. As my colleague and
author of the statute, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, has stated,
``This expansive characterization of relevance makes a mockery of the
legal standard.''
This amendment will not stop the proper use of PATRIOT Act and FISA
authorities to conduct terrorism and intelligence investigations. All
this amendment is intended to do is curtail the ongoing dragnet
collection and storage of the personal records of innocent Americans.
It does not defund the NSA, and it would continue to allow them to
conduct full fledged surveillance as long as it relates to an actual
investigation.
Our joining together on this bipartisan amendment demonstrates our
joint commitment to ensuring that our fight against terrorism and
espionage follows the rule of law and the clear intent of the statutes
passed by Congress. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
vote for this amendment to demonstrate our bipartisan commitment to
protecting individual liberty.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I am very happy to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlelady from Minnesota (Mrs. Bachmann).
Mrs. BACHMANN. I thank the gentleman from Florida.
Madam Chair, this is a very important issue that we are taking up
today because the number one duty of the Federal Government is the
safety of the American people--of our constituents and of our own
skins, the skins of each one of us in this Chamber today. As we know
all too well, national security is a real and present danger, and it is
something that we have to take quite seriously. We can't deal in false
narratives.
A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking
in the content of Americans' phone calls. It's not true. It's not
happening.
A false narrative has emerged that the Federal Government is taking
in the content of the American people's emails. It's not true. It's not
happening.
We need to deal in facts. The facts are real, and the facts are
these:
The only people who have benefited from the revelation of classified
information by someone who worked for this government--who
intentionally and without authorization declassified some of the most
sensitive national security information that we have--are those who are
engaged in Islamic jihad. They will have been benefited, and those whom
we seek to protect will have not.
Consider this:
There is more information about each one of us contained in the phone
book that sits at home on your kitchen counter than information that is
in the National Security Database that we're talking about today. Your
name, your address are in the phone book. Your name, your address are
not in this National Security Database.
No other nation in the world has the advantage that the United States
of America has on national security--no

[[Page H5025]]

other nation--and we by this amendment today would agree to handcuff
ourselves and our allies by restricting ourselves? Let it not be. Let
us not deal in false narratives. Let us deal in facts that will keep
the American people safe.
When you look at an envelope, when a letter is put in the mail, is
there a privacy right as to what has been written on that envelope? No,
there isn't. There is a privacy right as to what is contained inside
that envelope. That's a Fourth Amendment right.
Is there a Fourth Amendment right to the record that you called
someone on a certain day? No, there isn't--that's a record--but there
is a Fourth Amendment right to what's in that phone call. Let's deal in
reality, not in false narratives.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Sensenbrenner).
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Chair, I rise in strong support of the Amash
amendment. I do so as the person who was the principal author of the
PATRIOT Act in 2001, who got that law through quickly after 9/11 and
who supported and managed its 2006 reauthorization.
Let me make this perfectly clear that unlike what we have heard from
speakers on the other side of this issue, this amendment does not stop
the collection of data under section 215--the people who are subject to
an investigation of an authorized terrorist plot. What it does do is to
prevent the collection of data of people who are not subject to an
investigation.
Now, relevance is required in any type of a grand jury subpoena or in
a criminal collection of data for a criminal trial. This goes far
beyond what the NSA is doing. The time has come to stop it, and the way
we stop it is to approve this amendment.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
Polis).
Mr. POLIS. I thank the gentleman from Michigan for his leadership on
this important issue.
Madam Chair, reports of the NSA surveillance program have broad and
far-reaching consequences.
Many Americans feel that our fundamental liberties as a country and
our constitutional rights are threatened. In addition, it has ruined
and hurt our reputation abroad--threatening our trade relationships
with allies, threatening American jobs as a result, and putting in
danger our cooperative security relationships that we need to fight the
war on terror.
The responsible thing to do is to show some contrition. Let's pass
this amendment. Let's make sure that we can have a practical approach
that shows that protecting our liberties and securities are consistent
and critical for the United States of America. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. Mulvaney).
Mr. MULVANEY. Madam Chair, here is the question:
It's a question of balancing privacy versus security. It's a question
beyond that. It's a question of who will do the balancing.
Right now, the balancing is being done by people we do not know, by
people we do not elect and, in large part right now, by somebody who
has admitted lying to this body at a hearing. That's wrong.
We should be doing the balancing. We were elected to do that. We need
to pass this amendment so that we can do the balancing, not the folks
who are not elected and whom we do not know.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AMASH. May I inquire of the Chair how much time remains.
The Acting CHAIR (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The gentleman from Michigan has
3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. I want to talk about the much ballyhooed oversight.
Every year, there is a report to the Judiciary Committee, an annual
report, on section 215. This year, the report was eight sentences--less
than a full page. To think that the Congress has substantial oversight
of this program is simply incorrect. I cannot match Mr. Sensenbrenner's
brilliant remarks; but I do agree that when we wrote the PATRIOT Act
relevance had a meaning.
Madam Chair, I submit for the Record a letter to Mr. Sensenbrenner
from the Department of Justice, which basically says, because 300
inquiries were made, the records of every single American became
relevant. That's a joke.
U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Legislative Affairs,

Washington, DC, July 16, 2013.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Sensenbrenner: This responds to your
letter to the Attorney General date June 6, 2013, regarding
the ``business records'' provision of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861,
enacted as section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
As you know, on June 5, 2013, the media reported the
unauthorized disclosure of a classified judicial order issued
under this provision that has been used to support a
sensitive intelligence collection program. Under this
program, which has been briefed to Congress and repeatedly
authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) obtains
authorization to collect telephony metadata, including the
telephone numbers dialed and the date, time and duration of
calls, from certain telecommunications service providers. The
National Security Agency (NSA), in turn, archives and
analyzes this information under carefully controlled
circumstances and provides leads to the FBI or others in the
Intelligence Community for counterterrorism purposes. Aspects
of this program remain classified, and there are limits to
what can be said about it in an unclassified letter.
Department of Justice and Intelligence Community staff are
available to provide you a briefing on the program at your
request.
In your letter, you asked whether this intelligence
collection program is consistent with the requirements of
section 215 and the limits of that authority. Under section
215, the Director of the FBI may apply to the FISC for an
order directing the production of any tangible things,
including business records, for investigations to protect
against international terrorism. To issue such an order, the
FISC must determine that (1) there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the things sought are relevant to an authorized
investigation, other than a threat assessment; (2) the
investigation is being conducted under guidelines approved by
the Attorney General under Executive Order 12333; and (3) if
a U.S. person is the subject of the investigation, the
investigation is not being conducted solely upon the basis of
First Amendment protected activities. In addition, the FISC
may only require the production of items that can be obtained
with a grand jury subpoena or any other court order directing
the production of records or tangible things. Finally, the
program must, of course, comport with the Constitution.
The telephony metadata program satisfies each of these
requirements. The lawfulness of the telephony metadata
collection program has repeatedly been affirmed by the FISC.
In the years since its inception, multiple FISC judges have
granted 90-day extensions of the program after concluding
that it meets all applicable legal requirements.
Of particular significance to your question is the
relevance to an authorized international terrorism
investigation of the telephony metadata collected through
this program. First, it is critical to understand the program
in the context of the restrictions imposed by the court.
Those restrictions strictly limit the extent to which the
data is reviewed by the government. In particular, the FISC
allows the data to be queried for intelligence purposes only
when there is reasonable suspicion, based on specific facts,
that a particular query term, such as a telephone number, is
associated with a specific foreign terrorist organization
that was previously identified to and approved by the court.
NSA has reported that in 2012, fewer than 300 unique
identifiers were used to query the data after meeting this
standard. This means that only a very small fraction of the
records is ever reviewed by any person, and only specially
cleared counterterrorism personnel specifically trained in
the court-approved procedures can access the records to
conduct queries. The information generated in response to
these limited queries is not only relevant to authorized
investigations of international terrorism, but may be
especially significant in helping the government identify and
disrupt terrorist plots.
The large volume of telephony metadata is relevant to FBI
investigations into specific foreign terrorist organizations
because the intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the
existence of potential terrorist communications within the
data require collecting and storing large volumes of the
metadata to enable later analysis. If not collected and held
by NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the
period that NSA has deemed necessary for national security
purposes because it need not be retained by
telecommunications service providers. Moreover, unless the
data is aggregated by NSA, it may not be possible to identify
telephony

[[Page H5026]]

metadata records that cross different telecommunications
networks. The bulk collection of telephony metadata--i.e. the
collection of a large volume and high percentage of
information about unrelated communications--is therefore
necessary to identify the much smaller subset of terrorist-
related telephony metadata records contained within the data.
It also allows NSA to make connections related to terrorist
activities over time and can assist counterterrorism
personnel to discover whether known or suspected terrorists
have been in contact with other persons who may be engaged in
terrorist activities, including persons and activities inside
the United States. Because the telephony metadata must be
available in bulk to allow NSA to identify the records of
terrorist communications, there are ``reasonable grounds to
believe'' that the data is relevant to an authorized
investigation to protect against international terrorism, as
section 215 requires, even though most of the records in the
dataset are not associated with terrorist activity.
The program is consistent with the Constitution as well as
with the statute. As noted above, the only type of
information acquired under the program is telephony metadata,
not the content of any communications, not the identity,
address or financial information of any party to the
communication, and not geolocational information. Under
longstanding Supreme Court precedent, there is no reasonable
expectation of privacy with respect to this kind of
information that individuals have already provided to third-
party businesses, and such information therefore is not
protected by the Fourth Amendment. See Smith v. Maryland, 442
U.S. 735, 739-42 (1979).
Moreover, it is important to bear in mind that activities
carried out pursuant to FISA, including those conducted under
this program, are subject to stringent limitations and robust
oversight by all three branches of government. As noted
above, by order of the FISC, the Government is prohibited
from indiscriminately sifting through the telephony metadata
it acquires. Instead, all information that is acquired is
subject to strict, court-imposed restrictions on review and
handling that provide significant and reasonable safeguards
for U.S. persons. The basis for a query must be documented in
writing in advance and must be approved by one of a limited
number of highly trained analysts. The FISC reviews the
program approximately every 90 days.
The Department of Justice conducts rigorous oversight to
ensure the telephony metadata is being handled in strict
compliance with the FISC's orders, and the Department of
Justice and The Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) conduct thorough and regular reviews to
ensure the program is implemented in compliance with the law.
The program is also subject to extensive congressional
oversight. The classified details of the program have been
briefed to the Judiciary and Intelligence Committees on many
occasions. In addition, in December 2009, the Department of
Justice worked with the Intelligence Community to provide a
classified briefing paper to the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees to be made available to all Members
of Congress regarding the telephony metadata collection
program. It is our understanding that both Intelligence
Committees made this document available to all Members prior
to the February 2010 reauthorization of section 215. That
briefing paper clearly explained that the government and the
FISC had interpreted Section 215 to authorize the collection
of telephony metadata in bulk. An updated version of the
briefing paper was provided to the Senate and House
Intelligence Committees again in February 2011 in connection
with the reauthorization that occurred later that year.
Finally, we do not agree with the suggestion in your letter
that the Department's March 9, 2011 public testimony on
section 215 conveyed a misleading impression as to how this
authority is used. Quoting a portion of that testimony, your
letter states that it ``left the committee with the
impression that the Administration was using the business
records provision sparingly and for specific materials. The
recently released FISA order, however, could not have been
drafted more broadly,'' In fact, key language in the
testimony in question noted that orders issued pursuant to
section 215 ``have also been used to support important and
highly sensitive intelligence collection operations, on which
this committee and others have been separately briefed.'' We
hope that the explanation above regarding the use of this
authority to identify specific terrorism-related telephony
metadata records helps to clarify the point.
The recent unauthorized disclosure of this and other
classified intelligence activities has caused serious harm to
our national security. Since the disclosure of the telephony
metadata collection program, the Department of Justice and
the Intelligence Community have worked to ensure that
Congress and the American people understand how the program
operates, its importance to our security, and the rigorous
oversight that is applied. As part of this effort, senior
officials from ODNI, NSA, DOJ and FI31 provided a classified
briefing for all House Members on June 11, 2013 and separate
classified briefings to the House Democratic Caucus and the
House Republican Conference on June 26, 2013.
The Department of Justice is committed to ensuring that our
efforts to protect national security are conducted lawfully
and respect the privacy and civil liberties of all Americans.
We look forward to continuing to work with you and others in
the Congress to ensure that we meet this objective.
We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate
to contact this office if we may provide additional
assistance with this or any other matter.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Kadzik,
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General.

Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton).
(Mr. BARTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BARTON. I thank the gentleman.
Madam Chair, this is not about how sincere the NSA people are in
implementing this technique. It is not about how careful they are. It
is whether they have the right to collect the data in the first place
on every phone call on every American every day.
The PATRIOT Act did not specifically authorize it. Section 215 talks
about tangible things that are relevant to an authorized security
investigation. In the NSA's interpretation of that, ``relevant'' is all
data all the time. That is simply wrong. We should support the Amash
amendment and vote for it.

{time} 1815

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of South Carolina. Madam Chair, amendment IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and
seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue,
but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.

Those who choose to trade liberty for security will find they have
neither.
Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE of Texas. Warrants need to be particular and specific about
the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
No judge would ever sign a general search warrant like the British
did, allowing the police to search every house on the block, much less
seize everybody's phone records, but this is what has happened under
section 215 under the government.
The government has gone too far in the name of security and the
Fourth Amendment has been bruised.
Rein in government invasion. No more dragnet operations. Get a
specific warrant based on probable cause, or stay out of our lives.
And that's just the way it is.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Madam Chairperson, this amendment stops the government
from misusing section 215, to engage in the dragnet collection of all
of our personal telephone records. Congress did not grant the executive
the authority to collect everything it wants so long as it limits any
subsequent search of that data.
This amendment restores the requirement that records sought are
relevant to an authorized foreign intelligence or terrorist
investigation. It restores the minimal relevant standard required by
Congress but ignored by successive administrations.
No administration should be permitted to operate above or beyond the
law as they have done in this respect. I therefore urge all of my
colleagues to vote in favor of the Amash-Conyers amendment.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Griffith).
Mr. GRIFFITH of Virginia. General warrants, writs of assistance,
that's what we're looking at, and the Founding Fathers found that to be
anathema. What they're doing does violate the Fourth Amendment. We took
an oath to uphold the Constitution, and we're supposed to rely on a
secret agency that deals with a secret court that deals with a
selective secrecy committee; and Members of Congress are limited to
their access to the actions of that committee, but we're supposed to
trust them.
Folks, we've got a job to do. Vote ``yes.''

[[Page H5027]]

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, may I inquire as to how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Michigan has 45 seconds
remaining, and the gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. AMASH. I yield 30 seconds to the gentlelady from Hawaii (Ms.
Gabbard).
Ms. GABBARD. Madam Chairwoman, countless men and women from my State
of Hawaii and all across the country have worn the uniform and put
their lives on the line to protect our freedoms and our liberties. I
cannot in good conscience vote to take a single dollar from the pockets
of hardworking taxpayers from across the country to pay for programs
which infringe on the very liberties and freedoms our troops have
fought and died for.
Ben Franklin said:

They who give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We're here to answer one question for the people we represent: Do we
oppose the suspicion list collection of every American's phone records?
When you had the chance to stand up for Americans' privacy, did you?
Please support the Amash amendment and oppose the NSA's blanket
surveillance of our constituents.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairwoman, I yield 2 minutes for the
closing argument to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
Mr. COTTON. Madam Chairwoman, I rise to strongly urge opposition to
the Amash amendment.
This program has stopped dozens of terrorist attacks. That means it's
saved untold American lives.
This amendment is not simple. It does not limit the program. It does
not modify it. It does not constrain the program. It ends the program.
It blows it up. Some of you've heard the analogy that if you want to
search for a needle in a haystack, you have to have the haystack. This
takes a leaf blower and blows away the entire haystack. You will not
have this program if this amendment passes. And it does so, despite all
of the safeguards you have already heard.
This program is constitutional under Supreme Court precedent--not
recent precedent. Precedent goes back to 1979, just 2 years after I was
born, the year that one of the young sponsors of this amendment was
born. This program is approved by large bipartisan majorities of this
body on the statute--text that they approved, not their secret intents
or wishes.
It is overseen by article III judges who have been confirmed by the
Senate and are independent of the executive branch. It is reviewed by
the Intelligence Committees, and it is executed primarily by military
officers, not generals, but the majors and the colonels who have been
fighting and bleeding for this country for 12 years.
What is it, metadata? It sounds kind of scary. It's nothing more than
an Excel spreadsheet with five columns: called to, called from, date,
time, and the duration. Five columns, billions of rows. It's in a
lockbox. It can't be searched unless you have specific suspicion of a
number being used by a terrorist. Only then do they go into that
database and do they run a search for what that number has been
calling.
Why do you need it? Verizon, AT&T, other companies will not keep this
data for the years necessary. Secondly, you need it quickly. When I was
in Iraq as a platoon leader with the 101st Airborne, if we rolled up a
bad guy and we found a cell phone or we found a thumb drive, we would
immediately upload that data so intelligence professionals could search
it so they could go roll up another bad guy, because you only have a
few hours to stop a terrorist once you catch another terrorist.
Folks, we are at war. You may not like that truth. I wish it weren't
the truth. But it is the truth. We're at war. Do not take this tool
away from our warriors on the frontline.
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 Michigan (Mr. Amash).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. AMASH. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan
will be postponed.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in House Report 113-170 on
which further proceedings were postponed, in the following order:
Amendment No. 24 by Mr. Terry of Nebraska.
Amendment No. 99 by Mr. Pompeo of Kansas.
Amendment No. 100 by Mr. Amash of Michigan.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Terry

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. Terry) 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.
Mr. TERRY. Madam Chair, I withdraw my request for a recorded vote on
amendment No. 24.
The Acting CHAIR. The request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 24
is withdrawn, and the amendment stands adopted in accordance with the
previous voice vote thereon.

Amendment No. 99 Offered by Mr. Pompeo

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kansas
(Mr. Pompeo) 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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 409,
noes 12, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 411]

AYES--409

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Bass
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Capps
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Carter
Cartwright
Cassidy
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)

[[Page H5028]]

Latham
Latta
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neugebauer
Noem
Nolan
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pittenger
Pitts
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Quigley
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tierney
Tipton
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOES--12

Becerra
Capuano
Cohen
Conyers
Edwards
Fudge
Grijalva
Holt
Honda
Lofgren
Polis
Rangel

NOT VOTING--12

Barletta
Beatty
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Rokita
Schock

{time} 1847

Messrs. COLLINS of New York, GALLEGO, HASTINGS of Florida, Mrs.
BACHMANN, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. DOYLE, Ms. LEE of California, Ms. KELLY
of Illinois, Ms. DeGETTE, Messrs. McGOVERN, McDERMOTT, GRIMM, LEWIS,
PEARCE, PAYNE, ANDREWS, and CARSON of Indiana changed their vote from
``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 100 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 noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 412]

AYES--205

Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barton
Bass
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Burgess
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Daines
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farenthold
Farr
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gardner
Garrett
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Grayson
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grijalva
Hahn
Hall
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Jeffries
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Keating
Kildee
Kingston
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lewis
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Marchant
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Mica
Michaud
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Nugent
O'Rourke
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pearce
Perlmutter
Perry
Petri
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Poe (TX)
Polis
Posey
Price (GA)
Radel
Rahall
Rangel
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Roe (TN)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Salmon
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schiff
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Smith (MO)
Smith (NJ)
Southerland
Speier
Stewart
Stockman
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Tierney
Tipton
Tonko
Tsongas
Vela
Velazquez
Walz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Weber (TX)
Welch
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Yarmuth
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)

NOES--217

Aderholt
Alexander
Andrews
Bachmann
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Benishek
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Boehner
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bucshon
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carney
Carter
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Cotton
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Davis (CA)
Delaney
Denham
Dent
Diaz-Balart
Duckworth
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallego
Garcia
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Kilmer
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Latham
Latta
Levin
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Messer
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Payne
Pelosi
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Pompeo
Price (NC)
Quigley
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rigell
Roby
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Schakowsky
Schneider
Schwartz
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Stivers
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Titus
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Wasserman Schultz
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NOT VOTING--12

Barletta
Beatty
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Negrete McLeod
Pallone
Rokita
Schock

{time} 1851

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

Personal Explanation

Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 411--Pompeo amendment #99,
``yes'' and 412--Amash amendment #100, ``No.''

[[Page H5029]]

Personal Explanation

Mrs. NEGRETE McLEOD. Mr. Chair, on rollcall Nos. 411, ``yes'' and
412, ``yes.''
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider a final period of
general debate.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I would rise to enter into a colloquy
with my colleague from Washington (Mr. Heck) and I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
Madam Chair, every summer, Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Washington's
10th Congressional District hosts nearly 6,000 ROTC cadets from all
across the Nation. These cadets conduct an assessment exercise we call
Warrior Forge. The exercise is an invaluable tool in shaping our next
generation of Army officers.
For 40 years, this course has honed the skills, provided the
cohesion, and fostered the knowledge necessary to create the Army's
next leaders. I have visited this program, and you need not have a
single doubt about the quality of the next generation of military
leaders in our Nation.
Yet, Madam Chair, an effort is afloat to radically change this proven
system, without the knowledge or input from this Congress. Members of
this body, including myself, the ranking member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and the former ranking member of the House
Appropriations Committee have been requesting from the Army a simple
brief and cost-benefit analysis of this proposed radical
transformation. And for over 2 years, those requests have repeatedly
been delayed and dismissed and denied.
Now, while my preference would have been to offer a limiting
amendment to this legislation, I asked the ranking member and the chair
if, in this instance, we could work together to seek from the Army a
timely report so that Congress and the relevant committees can do our
job, which is to ensure proper oversight.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the gentleman raising the issue. I am
aware of it, and would gladly work with him to get the answers on this
proposal.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the ranking member very much.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Madam Chair, I simply want to take this time to thank
someone I have a profound respect for, as we all do, my chairman, our
chairman, Bill Young from Florida, for the masterful job he has done
leading us to this point. And I would ask that he be given a round of
applause.
I want to thank the members of the subcommittee and the staff. And I
would also want to thank four young people who've worked in our offices
this summer for all of their efforts on our behalf: Craig, Morgan,
Deepa, and Matt.
Finally, I want to thank all of my colleagues. We did work our way
through 100 amendments. From my perspective, this is exactly how this
institution should work, to have issues and disagreement, to have
discussions, to have votes, and to have a conclusion to the process,
and to report a bill.
So, again, I thank my colleagues, and I thank the chair and the
colleagues I work with every day on the Defense Subcommittee.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chair, I'd like to use my time to say
thank you to the House and all of the Members who participated in some
vigorous debate, for having conducted the affairs of the House in a
most professional way, proving to our constituents that we can work
things out, that we can work together.

{time} 1900

I just want to say thank you to Mr. Visclosky, who is handling the
minority leadership on this bill for the first time. I think he
deserves a lot of credit and a lot of applause for the good job that he
did in keeping this schedule on track.
Peter, thank you very much.
While it seems a long time ago, it was only Monday night that we
finally received the 100 amendments that would be filed and considered
during the debate. We had to analyze those amendments by Tuesday--
yesterday--so that we could begin the debate on this bill. Our staff
did an outstanding job in working late into the night Monday night
analyzing these amendments so that we could consider where we would be
on those amendments.
I would like to read the names of the members of our staff, headed by
Tom McLemore as staff director and Paul Juola in a similar position for
Mr. Visclosky. Also, Becky Leggierri, Brook Boyer, Ann Reese, Megan
Rosenbush, Tim Prince, Walter Hearne, B.G. Wright, Paul Terry, Maureen
Holohan, Jennifer Miller, Adrienne Ramsay, and Sherry Young. They are a
professional staff. It's hard to find any more of a professional staff
than those that I just mentioned.
Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. All time has expired.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:

This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2014''.

Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Chairman, I move that the Committee do
now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments,
with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the
bill, as amended, do pass.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, Acting Chair of
the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2397) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2014, and for other purposes, directed
her to report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted
in the Committee of the Whole, with the recommendation that the
amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under House Resolution 312, the previous
question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment reported from the
Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at
the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. I am opposed in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Ms. Frankel of Florida moves to recommit the bill H.R. 2397
to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to
report the same back to the House forthwith, with the
following amendment:
Page 86, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $25,000,000)''.
Page 86, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 87, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to
the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will re-appropriate resources in areas critical to
our national security and to defend Israel, our most important ally in
the Middle East.
The motion to recommit adds $20 million in funding for Israel's Iron
Dome defense program and $5 million for the Arrow defense program in
order to bolster protection against short- and long-range missile
attacks.
Now here's something on which we can all agree. Defending Israel is
in the interest of our national security. The bond between the United
States and Israel is rooted in our shared national interest and our
common values of democracy, rule of law, and basic human rights.
Israel's security is our security. The same forces threatening Israel
jeopardize the United States. And this is not a partisan issue.

[[Page H5030]]

All of us who have been to Israel are struck by how close Israelis
live to neighbors who want to destroy them. As a former mayor of a
city, I ran a city where we had real problems like gangs and crimes;
but never did I have to worry about the towns next door shooting
rockets at my residents. I can't imagine what it would be like to be
the mayor of Sderot.
In 2008, before we had Iron Dome, a surge in Hamas rocket attacks
forced Israel to launch a ground operation that, tragically, claimed
over a thousand Israeli and Palestinian lives.
Fast forward to last November. In just 1 week, over 1,500 rockets
were fired at Israel again by terrorist groups in Gaza. Thankfully,
this time, Iron Dome intercepted over 80 percent of the deadly attacks,
preventing war and saving lives.
I know that we can all agree that support for Israel's missile
defense program is not merely a favor we do for Israel. Our political
and military leaders have long praised the strategic significance of
Israel's powerful military advancing our interests in the region,
saving our Nation billions of dollars on military personnel and
equipment that we might otherwise be forced to deploy.
Looking at Israel's neighborhood, never has this situation been so
urgent for both our countries, with increased threats from Iran, Hamas,
Hezbollah, and al Qaeda, and instability in Syria, Egypt, and Jordan.
We must do all we can to strengthen Israel's defenses, and that is why
this amendment to increase funding for these defense systems is so
timely and so necessary.
Support for Israel has always enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan
support. So I urge my Democratic and Republican colleagues to come
together on this important amendment to support Israel and promote
stability in the Middle East.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). The gentleman is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. There's no doubt that Iron Dome is an extremely
effective missile defense system. And because of that, the committee
fully funded this bill at $220 million for Iron Dome, which is fully in
line with the President's request and the recently passed defense
authorization bill.
Additionally, this is the third year of consecutive funding for a 4-
year commitment. The truth of the matter is they really can't spend it
any faster or any more effectively.
So as is so often the case, this motion is purely a political
statement, and I urge its rejection.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 5-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of the bill; and approval of the Journal, if
ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 192,
noes 231, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 413]

AYES--192

Andrews
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
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
Maffei
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
Owens
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
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
Schneider
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOES--231

Aderholt
Alexander
Amash
Amodei
Bachmann
Bachus
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Gutierrez
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
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
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schock
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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)

NOT VOTING--10

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Neal
Pallone
Rokita

{time} 1915

Messrs. STEWART and RICE of South Carolina changed their vote from
``aye'' to ``no.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.

[[Page H5031]]

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 315,
nays 109, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 414]

YEAS--315

Aderholt
Alexander
Amodei
Andrews
Bachmann
Bachus
Barber
Barr
Barrow (GA)
Barton
Beatty
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Butterfield
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Capito
Cardenas
Carter
Cassidy
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clyburn
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Courtney
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Cuellar
Culberson
Daines
Davis (CA)
Davis, Rodney
Delaney
DelBene
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Duckworth
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Engel
Enyart
Esty
Farenthold
Fattah
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanabusa
Hanna
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Heck (WA)
Hensarling
Higgins
Holding
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurt
Israel
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce
Kaptur
Kelly (PA)
Kilmer
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kirkpatrick
Kline
Kuster
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Lankford
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
Latta
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Long
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lummis
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Matheson
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McCollum
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Negrete McLeod
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
O'Rourke
Olson
Owens
Palazzo
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Price (NC)
Radel
Rahall
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
Ruiz
Runyan
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schock
Schwartz
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Southerland
Stewart
Stivers
Stockman
Stutzman
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Titus
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
Young (IN)

NAYS--109

Amash
Bass
Becerra
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Capps
Capuano
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Doyle
Duncan (TN)
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Farr
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gibson
Grayson
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings (FL)
Himes
Hinojosa
Holt
Honda
Huelskamp
Huffman
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kind
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Massie
Matsui
McClintock
McDermott
McGovern
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Quigley
Rangel
Richmond
Rohrabacher
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Serrano
Sires
Slaughter
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Velazquez
Waters
Watt
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--9

Barletta
Bustos
Campbell
Coble
Herrera Beutler
Horsford
McCarthy (NY)
Pallone
Rokita

{time} 1930

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________