[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 132 (Tuesday, September 16, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H7541-H7549]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 124, CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS
RESOLUTION, 2015
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 722 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 722
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 124) making continuing appropriations for fiscal year
2015, and for other purposes. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as
adopted. The joint resolution, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution, as amended, are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto
to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations; (2) the further amendment printed in part B
of the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by
Representative McKeon of California or his designee, which
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order,
shall be considered as read, shall be separately debatable
for six hours equally divided and controlled by
Representative McKeon of California and Representative Smith
of Washington or their respective designees, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question; and (3) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Section 4(c) of House Resolution 567 is amended by
adding the following new paragraph:
``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(12)
of clause 4 of rule XI shall be considered to be written
rules adopted by the Select Committee as though pursuant to
such clause.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 124, the Continuing
Appropriations Resolution for fiscal year 2015. The rule is a
structured rule which provides for the consideration of a short-term
continuing resolution keeping the government funded until December 11,
2014.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the adoption of a
technical amendment by Chairman Rogers and makes in order an amendment
by Chairman McKeon. That amendment provides the authority for the
Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to
train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition
and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups or individuals.
For this amendment, the rule provides 6 hours of debate equally
divided between Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith. The rule also
provides for one motion to recommit.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the rule corrects a technical error and puts in
place the base rules of the House regarding media access to the
hearings and meetings of the Benghazi Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my friend Chairman Rogers for bringing
a bill to avoid a government shutdown to the House. As a member of the
Appropriations Committee, it is frustrating that we are forced into
acting on a short-term continuing resolution when we spent much of this
year, both in committee and on the floor, updating congressional
funding priorities for fiscal year 2015.
This House has done its work. I wish I could say the same for the
other body. While the Senate has chosen not to pass even one
appropriations bill on the floor, this House has passed seven.
While the Senate Appropriations Committee has passed eight of the 12
appropriations bills out of committee, the House Appropriations
Committee has approved all but one. If the Senate would work with us, I
believe we could pass all of our bills on time.
The CR we are considering today is a clean bill continuing the
funding of government operations at last year's levels. It includes
only 36 so-called anomalies all within the total level of funding.
These changes are necessary to address current immediate needs like
addressing the Ebola crisis, funding programs to counter regional
aggression toward Ukraine and other former Soviet Union countries, and
funding to ensure appropriate treatment of veterans and continued
oversight of the VA.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, this bill extends the Export-Import Bank
through June 30, 2015. I know some of my friends will disagree with me;
however, I believe the Export-Import Bank provides a vital service. In
an era when foreign governments are directly subsidizing industries,
our companies are in need of a level playing field. I believe the
Export-Import Bank does that.
In my home State of Oklahoma, since 2007, financing provided by the
Export-Import Bank has supported over $1.1 billion in sales by U.S.
companies that would not have existed otherwise; in addition, the
Export-Import Bank has returned over $2.6 billion to the United States
Treasury since 2008.
Finally, and most significantly, the McKeon amendment would provide
the President with the authority he has requested to train and equip
appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The amendment
ensures congressional oversight by requiring detailed progress reports
on a plan, a vetting process, and procedures for monitoring
unauthorized end use of provided training and equipment. It would also
require the President to report on how this authority fits within a
larger regional strategy.
Mr. Speaker, when we look back on what brought us to this point,
there are at least three significant failures that we can point to:
first, former Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki was given the opportunity
to create a multiethnic, multisectarian, inclusive State of Iraq, but,
instead, he squandered it; secondly, President Obama didn't insist
forcefully enough to keep a residual American presence in Iraq; and,
third, Mr. Speaker, when ISIL expanded out of Syria and into Iraq, both
Prime Minister al-Maliki and President Obama were slow to respond.
When Ramadi and Fallujah fell to ISIL, their indecisive leadership
allowed and encouraged this terrorist organization to assert itself in
the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, the salient discussion is not about the
past and how we got here but about the future and what we must do now.
I agree with the President that ISIL represents a clear and present
danger
[[Page H7542]]
that must be dealt with, confronted, and destroyed. I am willing to
give the President the authority and the funds needed to accomplish
this mission. This amendment gives the President what he has requested
while maintaining an appropriate role for Congress, but I do disagree
with the President on several important issues.
I don't believe that he has the inherent authority to use military
force in Syria, and nothing in this amendment authorizes him to do so.
I believe that going to war on the authorizations that were passed in
2001 and 2002, which dealt with very different times, places, and
peoples, is shaky, at best. In fact, Mr. Speaker, a vast majority of my
colleagues, including myself, were not even here in Congress when those
authorizations were approved.
When we return in November, I hope that we repeal the 2001 and 2002
authorizations and replace them with ones that reflect the views of
this Congress not the Congress of the last decade.
Additionally, I disagree with the President's choice of tactics.
Regardless of whether he intends to use them or not, I believe the
President was far too quick to rule out options and tools that he, in
fact, may need later. War is the most unpredictable of all human
enterprises. History shows that it is vital for a commander to maintain
as much flexibility as possible.
I also do not believe that the authority and resources the President
has requested will be nearly enough to achieve the mission he has
outlined. It is going to take far more from our country, our allies,
and our friends on the ground to destroy ISIL than envisioned in this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I don't believe the President can succeed in the effort
to destroy ISIL without bipartisan, popular support, and I hope he will
take this opportunity to build on that. We are not Republicans or
Democrats in war, but Americans first. The Commander in Chief has asked
for our support in the underlying legislation. He should get it.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the excellent
Representative of Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when James Madison declared the Congress' ``power over
the purse'' in the Federalist Papers as the most ``complete and
effectual weapon,'' he warned of ``dishonorable stagnation.'' I fear we
have achieved that. Rather than doing the hard work of coming up with
long-term fiscal solutions for our Nation, we have resorted, once
again, to short-term measures.
In the 4 years since Republicans took control of the House, not a
single regular appropriations bill has been signed into law; instead,
we have had manufactured crises, brinksmanship, fiscal cliffs, near
defaults on the national debt, massive omnibus bills, and government
shutdowns.
This continuing resolution may avert a national crisis in the short
term by funding the government until December 11 of this year, but it
is further demonstration the House majority has failed to do their most
basic job.
They have been so obsessed with suing the President, investigating
the nonexistent scandal in Benghazi, and holding more than 50 votes to
repeal the Affordable Care Act that they have not done the routine work
of Congress, funding the government. It is clear that under the current
House majority our ``power of the purse'' has turned into
``dishonorable stagnation.''
Not only has the House majority found new ways to procrastinate on
finding long-term solutions, they insist on passing the most closed
rules in a single Congress ever; in fact, just last week, they
celebrated the 75th closed rule, which makes this their diamond
jubilee. They continue to pass closed rules which stifle debate and
impedes the work of this Chamber.
Through this tactic, half of the country's Representatives have been
silenced by the House majority. Even though Democrats received over a
million more votes than Republicans did in the 2012 election, we are
shut out. Our Nation's districts have been so gerrymandered, our
representative democracy has been skewed beyond recognition.
I also oppose the inclusion of section 2 in the continuing
resolution. That provision, which further excuses the Select Committee
on Benghazi from adopting written rules to govern its work, does not
belong in a rule for a must-pass funding bill; rather, the Benghazi
Select Committee, just like every other committee of the House, should
be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on its basic
rules and procedures that will govern its work.
The House majority previously tried to free the Benghazi Select
Committee from this responsibility when it passed H. Res. 567 and
established the committee last May. Four months later, they have
realized on the eve of the select committee's first hearing that H.
Res. 567 was not adequate; and so they inserted at the last minute a
provision that, rather ironically, now excuses the select committee
from the express requirement contained in clause 4 of rule XI for
committees to adopt written rules to assure that meetings open to the
public may be covered by audiovisual which means ``in conformity with
acceptable standards of dignity, propriety, and decorum.''
When H. Res. 567 was brought to the floor for a vote in May, 186
Democrats voted against it. Let me reiterate that what this bill was
doing is excusing the Benghazi Select Committee from having written
rules like every other committee of the House is required to do. Not a
single Republican joined us in voting against what we normally do.
Many of us objected to the creation of the Benghazi Select Committee
in the first place as an unnecessary and partisan pursuit. Seven
different congressional committees issued nine separate reports that
answer the key questions about what went wrong in Benghazi.
Many of us believe that, to the extent any legitimate questions
remain, the standing committees of jurisdiction along with Select
Committees on Intelligence are fully capable of addressing those and
overseeing the implementation of the needed reforms. It is unfortunate
that not everyone seems to have the same confidence in the work of
their colleagues.
We also objected because H. Res. 567 skews the process by failing to
equalize majority and minority representation and resources and by
seeking to excuse the select committee from following the basic
requirements that apply to other committees of the House.
Basically, that says that we on the minority side have been shut out
again. No guarantees and no discussion at all of fairness or openness
either in resources, ability to see documents, or to call for
witnesses.
I offered an amendment to address many of these concerns, but the
effort failed. After much debate about whether even to participate in
the select committee's work, Democrat members of the House ultimately
agreed to do so in the hope that Republicans would fulfill their
promises of a bipartisan, fair, and transparent process.
{time} 1245
Just as we were guaranteed an open process at the beginning of the
term, we have been had yet once again.
Inserting a last-minute provision in the rule on this must-pass
funding bill will allow a select committee to avoid negotiating over or
adopting the basic rules and procedures, and it does not honor the
promise of openness. It will not win the public's trust. You cannot
continually shut out half the Congress.
The Benghazi Select Committee, like every other committee in the
House, should be required to meet, debate, and vote in open session on
the ground rules that will govern its investigation. What the CR does
is fund the government, and the rule for it should not be a means for
the House majority to change language governing the highly political
Benghazi Select Committee.
Programs and services all over the country cannot continue to run, as
we are going to be asking them to do, on a month-to-month basis. They
need certainty and reliability, which they clearly aren't getting.
Instead of investing in emerging technologies or medical research, of
which we used to be at the forefront, the majority lurches from stopgap
to stopgap, and now that strategy has caught up with us. Running the
United States Government in 3-month tranches is a true recipe for
disaster.
The CR does extend funding for operations of all Federal agencies,
programs, and services until December 11
[[Page H7543]]
of this year and provides funding at the current annual rate of just
over $1 trillion. However, it does include changes to existing law that
are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental
changes to government programs, specifically to address current
national or global crises.
Regarding Ukraine, the CR continues the current flexibility with the
State Department and USAID to respond to the ongoing crisis in Ukraine.
Congress and the United States must continue to support the Ukrainian
people in their fight for a free and democratic country. It is with
some delight that we welcome Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to
our Chamber later this week.
The CR also increases funding to address the disability claims
backlog at the Department of Veterans Affairs as well as to investigate
claims about medical care. We all agree that when our troops come home
they deserve the best medical care, and this increase in funding will
help to ensure that we provide just that.
Finally, regarding our involvement in confronting the rising threat
to the Islamic State, or ISIL, while I am disappointed in the process
that led to the continuing resolution, I do agree the House must debate
at least one portion of the President's plan. We as Representatives
need to debate if or how we arm rebel forces in Syria as well as other
tactics in the broader effort. However, I have deep concerns about the
ever-louder drumbeat toward war.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan claimed the lives of 6,640 of our
men and women in uniform and critically wounded 50,450--50,450 come
home to an already stressed VA system that cannot adequately care for
them. The true cost of a war is not just in dollars, but in lives taken
and destroyed, and I urge my colleagues to seriously consider the path
before us.
Mr. Speaker, with this continuing resolution, we have an opportunity
to avoid a short-term crisis, but if we continue to postpone the
fundamental work of Congress, the Nation's economy will be at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising I am going to disagree with my
friend about who has and who hasn't done their job and who has been
open and who hasn't been open in terms of how they have operated on the
floor.
The reality is this House majority has repeatedly brought
appropriations bills to the floor and moved them across the floor.
Unfortunately, our counterparts and the Democratic majority in the
Senate have not been able to do that for whatever reason. It's a little
hard to have an appropriations process when the United States Senate
will not bring a single appropriations bill to the floor largely
because the majority on that side is evidently afraid of voting on any
sort of amendments to an appropriations bill.
Now, if you actually look at the record in terms of who has been open
and who hasn't, I remind my friends that the Democrats' 2006 manifesto,
``A New Direction for America,'' states:
Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure
that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full
amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer
its alternatives, including a substitute.
The fact remains that when Democrats took control of the House they
did just the opposite. Throughout the 111th Congress, in the final 2
years of Representative Pelosi's time as Speaker, the House never
considered a single bill under an open rule. That is the definition of
a closed process.
On the contrary, under Republican control, the House has returned to
consideration of appropriation bills under an open process, with 22
open rules. This year alone, the House has considered 404 amendments
during the appropriations process, 189 of which were offered by our
Democratic colleagues. Contrast that to the United States Senate, where
that process has not happened at all.
When you compare the record of the Republican majority to the most
recent Democratic majority, any fair analysis will show Republicans are
running a much more open, transparent House of Representatives.
Let me also, if I may, Mr. Speaker, turn to the issue of the Benghazi
Select Committee. I know that has caused considerable concern, I think,
largely based on misunderstanding.
Clause 2(g)(1) of rule XI, which applies to all standing committees
and the select committees, mandates that the meetings of the select
committee be open to the public, including the press, unless there is a
vote conducted in open session to close such a meeting. The rule today
only ensures that the logistics for media covering the hearing follow
the standing rules of the House. There is no change to the rules
governing public access to the meetings of the select committee.
Might I, just for the Record, Mr. Speaker, actually read the relevant
portion of the rules here--``(7) The provisions of paragraphs (f)(1)
through (f)(12) of clause 4 of Rule XI shall be considered to be
written rules adopted by the select committee as though pursuant to
such clause''--essentially applying to the select committee our own
rules. That is the only thing that is being done here. It is a
technical amendment, certainly no effort to short-circuit the process
or make it less transparent.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I know we have had this debate before and this discussion before,
blaming everything on the Senate, but the fact is we have not done our
job here in the House.
There were several appropriations bills that had committee approval,
but none of us ever had the chance to vote for them. They were never
brought to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I am now pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Committee on
Rules.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and in
opposition to the amendment on Syria that will be offered later today
and voted on tomorrow.
If it was a bad idea before to get involved in Syria's civil war, why
is it now a good idea?
Is it only because ISIL has expanded its operations over a fluid
border into Iraq?
How long will we support the Syrian Free Army?
Who are these people?
How much will it cost?
What happens if and when our weapons fall into the wrong hands?
What are the countries in the region offering in terms of substantive
solutions?
What is the clearly defined mission?
How does this end?
Do we have answers to any of these questions as we prepare to vote?
We are talking about war, Mr. Speaker. When you drop bombs on people,
that is war. And we can talk all we want about so-called boots on the
ground, but unless some of our soldiers weren't given shoes, we already
have boots on the ground. We need to be honest about that.
We have trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers for over a decade. And
for what? To watch them shed their uniforms and to turn their weapons
over to ISIL? Is that what we are doing here again, Mr. Speaker?
If the real purpose of U.S. military operations in Syria is to bring
the killers of the two American journalists to justice, then perhaps
good intelligence and a well-prepared Special Forces operation could do
so, just like we hunted down Osama bin Laden.
I want to be perfectly clear on one other point. Any amendment to
provide title 10 authority to train and equip Syrian opposition forces
must not be seen in any way as an authorization for U.S. Armed Forces
to engage in hostilities in Iraq or Syria. It must not be seen as a
substitute for specific congressional action.
Authorization to carry out sustained military operations is not
something that should be stuck into a conference report. There should
be nothing backdoor about it. That would be an insult to our uniformed
men and women, an insult to their families, an insult to this House,
and an insult to the American people.
On July 25, this House voted 370-40--370-40--in favor of my
resolution to require specific congressional authorization for
sustained combat operations by U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq. Yet,
[[Page H7544]]
since August 8, the U.S. Navy and Air Force have flown more than 2,700
missions against the Islamic State in Iraq, including 156 airstrikes.
These airstrikes have occurred almost daily over the past 6 weeks.
Last week, the President announced that those operations will
escalate and likely expand into Syria. This morning, they expanded to
targets near Baghdad. If that doesn't qualify as sustained combat, Mr.
Speaker, I don't know what does.
So, if this House is serious about what it said in July, then we
should demand a vote this month on congressional authorization for U.S.
military operations in Iraq and Syria. Anything less would constitute
yet another failure on the part of this House to carry out its
constitutional duties. Anything less would make a mockery of that vote
that this House took in July. But, if this leadership gets its way, we
will leave Washington for nearly 2 months without such a vote, and I
expect and I think we all expect that during that time U.S. combat
operations in Iraq and Syria will expand and escalate.
I know this is a hard vote. I know it is politically difficult. But
we were not elected to duck the hard votes. We weren't elected to avoid
difficult choices. War is a big deal. We need to do our jobs.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will vote ``no'' on this rule, and I will vote
``no'' on the Syria amendment.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, I want to respectfully, once again, disagree with my friend
from New York on the appropriations process. The reality is we have
brought bill after bill to this floor. Every Member has had the
opportunity to offer any amendment on seven different bills and to vote
``yes'' or ``no'' on their final disposition. The Senate hasn't brought
any. And, frankly, at some point the Senate's failure to do its job
begins to impact our ability to do ours, because it is very difficult
to get time on the floor and use it knowing there is not anything going
on on the other side. And that is just the reality of it.
So, if my friends can talk the Senate into beginning to move, I think
they would actually find the House, which is already far ahead of them,
would continue to work with them and we would actually begin to pass
bills. But until the Senate will bring a bill to the floor of any kind
for an appropriation, very difficult for us to get our work done over
here.
Now I want to address myself, if I may, to my friend and colleague on
the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern. There is much in what he says that I
agree with. Frankly, I think he is correct when he says that we need at
some point a full authorization, a full debate, full discussion. He is
absolutely right, and I want to commend him for the action he took in
his amendment on Iraq in July that we voted on. I was very happy to
vote it. So I think, in substance, I find very little to disagree with
in what my friend has to say. I do point out a couple of things,
though.
First, and I think my friend is aware of it, the Speaker has actually
taken the position that we need a full authorization debate and
discussion. And I am told that he conveyed that to the President and
actually said he thought this institution, our country, which I know is
what we care about supremely, and the President himself would be better
off under such discussion. That is a viewpoint that I agree with, and I
think many Members on both sides of the aisle and with both points of
view on the issue also hold that opinion. So this is actually a
decision that has been largely made, in a sense, by the President.
We are trying to respond in a short period of time to what the
President has asked us to do, and I think that is an important point to
remember in this. This is not a fight on this floor between Democrats
and Republicans or even for proponents. I think it is, at another
level, a difference in perception about what authority the President
has, his view versus probably Congress' view on a bipartisan basis.
{time} 1300
I think it is a challenge in terms of timing. It is extremely
difficult for the leaders of either Chamber to look like they are
undercutting the President at a time of danger and when he has come
with this request. We have set 6 hours of debate aside for a reason. If
you will remember, the President's original request was simply to drop
this measure in the continuing resolution and have no vote and no
discussion at all. It was actually our side and your side that insisted
that it be pulled out and that a vote and discussion occur. When we
come back--again, I share my friend's opinion--I would be prepared to
do it before the election. I see no particular need in waiting, but I
don't get to make that decision.
At the end of the day, we are giving the Commander in Chief what he
is asking for. I think we are trying to be both responsible and
helpful. We have actually curtailed considerably what the President
asked for. We noted specifically that this does not authorize the use
of military force in Syria. We have required reviews. I suspect we will
be revisiting this issue again--I certainly would hope so--and I look
forward to working with my friend to make sure that we do.
I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), my
friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his
words about his view that we ought to have a vote here in the Congress
with regard to authorizing any kind of military operations in Iraq and
Syria, and I appreciate his comments last night in the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I think what he is saying and I think what I am saying
reflects the sentiment of most Democrats and Republicans. This is not a
partisan issue. I think the gentleman is right in saying that the piece
that we are voting on today has nothing to do with bombing Syria or
with bombing in Iraq, but that continues, and that has escalated. My
concern is that we may very well adjourn by the end of this week and
not come back until after the elections, and that that involvement in
both of those countries will have deepened, and we have not yet been
promised that we will actually have that vote.
I think Members on both sides would feel a little bit more relieved
if, in fact, the Speaker would give us an ironclad promise that there
will be a vote on an AUMF with regard to Iraq and Syria.
Mr. COLE. In reclaiming my time, if I may, I don't presume to speak
for the Speaker. I know that we have this vote largely because the
Speaker wanted to make sure that we had a vote, and I know the request
that he made of the President. Look, I am not condemning the President
on this either. I understand all Executives try to tell you they have
the authority to do everything they want. Ours do when we have a
Republican, and Democrats do.
All I can say is, at the end of the day, I think we have a robust
debate, and we have an opportunity to register opinion. But I want to
continue to work with my friend and make sure that we have precisely
the kind of debate and discussion and vote that his own amendment in
July actually envisioned, because I think my friend is correct. I think
this is an issue of constitutional propriety, and I think it is an
issue, ultimately, of war and peace, and I think we ought to all vote
on it. I would be happy if we did it before the election, but I will
work with my friend to make sure that we do it as quickly as possible.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds because I can't
resist it, although I am so fond of Mr. Cole, but we can't really blame
it on the Senate that we have not done our work over here.
The House was able to find the time to vote 55 times to kill the
health care bill, which is providing health insurance for 8 million
Americans who didn't have it before. For goodness shakes, we could do
that once a week, but we couldn't do the appropriations bills.
Now I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont
(Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlewoman.
I want to thank the Speaker, and I want to thank Leader Pelosi for
working together to give us an opportunity to vote on this question of
developing a Free Syrian Army. Make no mistake: the decision that
Congress will make on that question is of great importance because it
is, in fact, a major escalation in U.S. involvement.
[[Page H7545]]
Mr. Speaker, there is a collective revulsion at what ISIS did in the
beheadings of two young Americans, and there is a good people here in
this country, where parents saw the possibility of their own sons being
in that circumstance, and everything in all of us wants to react to
that.
The question is: Is the prospect of creating a Free Syrian Army a
good step at this time?
The administration is briefing us. All of us are doing all of the
consideration we can. We are going to have a debate on that. I want to
ask some questions that I think are important for us to come to a
conclusion.
First, I want to compliment President Obama. He did use air power to
stop the slaughter of the Yazidis. In that circumstance, he had ground
forces, the Peshmerga, and a reliable ally in the Kurdish Government.
Number two, the President was wise not to bomb when they were
threatening Baghdad because he saw rightly that the problem was Mr.
Maliki, who had created sectarian division and who had really undercut
the capacity of his army by putting cronies in instead of good leaders.
Then, third, the President has exercised great restraint about not
having us be involved in the maelstrom of the Syrian civil war. That is
a Sunni-Shia civil war that is out across the entire belt of Syria and
Iraq.
But what do we do?
As for our allies who are in the region--Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Egypt--what are they going to contribute when
they are the principal objects of this threat? They have over 1,000
planes among them, and they have armies. We haven't yet seen that.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. WELCH. Second, the vetting process: How on a practical level will
that work?
We want the moderate Syrian rebels, but, in fact, we are going to be
working with Egypt and with Saudi Arabia. They would nix Muslim
Brotherhood participation. They want extreme folks who support the very
conservative regime in Saudi Arabia. We are creating a very practical
dilemma in the potential success of the so-called ``Free Syrian Army.''
Finally, is the fundamental issue here one of military leadership or
is it one of political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia? Is that a
problem that can be solved by our military or is it a problem, ages
old--centuries old--in that region, the conflict between Sunni and
Shia?
When I consider the contributions that the men and women of our Armed
Forces made to Iraq, in which they threw out Saddam Hussein and gave
stability and gave an opportunity for the people of that country to
decide to live civilly together or in civil war forever, we gave them
the chance they deserved.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston), my good friend, a fellow member of the
Appropriations Committee and a fellow subcommittee chairman.
Mr. KINGSTON. Thank you, Mr. Cole.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make three points about the continuing
resolution.
Number one, as an appropriator, I would be remiss in my duty if I did
not say we do not like continuing resolutions, because we on the
Appropriations Committee have worked hard to pass our bills. We passed
seven off the House floor, and the Senate was unable to move one single
bill and, as a result, shut down the appropriations process.
The reason Members should be attuned to this is, during the
appropriations process, you find out about a lot of programs that need
to be discontinued, some that need to be modified, some that need to be
enhanced, some that need to be limited altogether. We passed those
bills on the House floor through a very vigorous amendment process, and
that is a superior way to handle appropriations compared to the
continuing resolution method, which just continues programs and really
empowers more of the executive branch over the legislative branch.
I believe that Chairman Rogers and Speaker Boehner have worked very
hard to return this body to the regular order process of 12 different
appropriations bills. We were well on our way to having that happen
when the Harry Reid Senate shut down the process, and that is why we
are here with the CR today. I am hopeful that we can go back into these
bills and improve on the continuing resolution, and I do stand in
support of it.
Number two, let me say this about the bill. It has appropriate and
important funding to take on the Ebola virus that has broken out in
West Africa. This bill provides $88 million--$30 million for the CDC--
to put staffers on the ground and to address the needs there and then
$58 million to the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development
Authority, which is working on the possibility of 12 different vaccines
for Ebola. They are not in the marketplace right now. We do not have a
vaccine, and we need to do this research. That is why this amendment
has been put in the continuing resolution, and it is something that all
Members should be attuned to.
I want to remind the Speaker that 2,500 people have already died
because of Ebola and that the number who have been infected is
somewhere between 3,800 and maybe as high as 4,500, or even higher than
that. Getting the number, itself, is very difficult to do.
Then, thirdly, let me say this about the use of force in the McKeon
amendment that we are having, and I think Members do deserve to have a
separate vote on this. It is important for the educational process. It
is important for the discussion and the debate for the entire country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. KINGSTON. As I have looked at the 2001 and the 2002
authorizations for military force, I believe that the President is
probably right. I haven't come to a 100 percent conclusion on that, but
I believe that he does have that authority. I think it would be far
better off for everyone to have a separate vote, and I hope that we can
have that happen sooner rather than later. But, in the meantime, this
vote is very significant, and Members need not fool themselves that the
McKeon amendment does help move this process forward.
When we talk about airstrikes only and training only, and when we
have made this decision not to have ground troops, we do not need
another half-pregnant war in the Middle East. If it is important enough
to fight, it is important enough to win, and we need to give the
Commander in Chief all of the resources that he needs to have this
victory. People often say airstrikes will get the job done, and they
point to the NATO operation in Yugoslavia in 1999--1,000 aircraft,
38,000 combat missions, 2,300 missiles--but the reality is that that
war only ended when the President took the next step, and that was to
commit ground troops. That is how important this is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. COLE. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. KINGSTON. I want to be sure Members look back because that is the
example where people say airstrikes alone are sufficient, when they
point out the operation in Yugoslavia that was from March 24, 1999, to
June 10. Even though we did not have ground troops, the Supreme Allied
Commander in Europe, General Wesley Clark, said that he was convinced
that the planning and preparation for ground intervention, in
particular, pushed Milosevic to concede. We need to be very, very
careful and mindful about this. If it is worth fighting, it is worth
winning, and if it is something we are going to win, we need to give
the Commander in Chief all of the tools that he needs to have a
victory.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, the Middle Eastern tragedy in which this resolution will
further entangle America is directly related to the wholly unnecessary
Bush-Cheney invasion of Iraq. Having learned so little from the
sacrifices of that conflict, the Congress now approves greater
involvement in a Syrian civil war that has already taken almost 200,000
lives.
The administration has affirmed this very day that what it is talking
about
[[Page H7546]]
is definitely a war, a declaration of war, while it seeks to avoid this
Congress declaring that war, a Congress in which too many of the
people's representatives fear making a decision today on whether to
declare war.
{time} 1315
Instead, we vote on an amendment here to authorize the administration
to do what it is already doing in Jordan, while declining to consider a
vote on what it should not do without specific congressional
authorization.
Reliance on resolutions approved by this Congress on this floor over
a decade ago, in 2001 and 2002, is very instructive. First, it shows
the dangers of open-ended authorizations. Resolutions such as the one
we have today will not only govern the actions of President Obama but
future Presidents as well.
Second, once begun, this Congress, even under Democratic control, has
shown little ability to contain war. Third, despite billions expended
and with courageous Americans on the ground, the results over more than
a decade of trying to successfully train Iraqis and Afghans is not
particularly encouraging; indeed, the reality is the American taxpayers
have been compelled to pay for the arms for our enemies as well as for
our allies; nor do we have any explanation today as to how taking a few
Syrians for training in Saudi Arabia--a country with its own brutal
history of regular beheadings, financing extremists around the world,
and opposing democracy most everywhere--how that will work better than
our previous training on the ground with Americans.
Rejecting the resolution today does not mean that we should do
nothing. When Americans are brutally murdered, the President already
has the necessary authority, which he should use forcefully, to go
after these barbaric murderers. There is a significant difference
between confronting the savagery of ISIS and initiating a multiyear war
in the region.
With the steadily growing number of U.S. military on the ground in
Iraq now approaching 2,000 and recurrent demands from the same people
that led us wrongly into Iraq in the first place that we add even more
on the ground, the danger of escalation is very real.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. DOGGETT. Now, with our military leaders conceding that ISIS is a
regional threat, it would kill as many Americans as it could--if it
could--just as is true of some of the terrorist groups today in Africa;
but, with it being a regional threat, not a threat to our homeland
today, the question arises of why the countries in the region--who are
more directly impacted from ISIS--why aren't they providing the bulk of
the resources necessary to confront it?
They are always content to have Americans kill as many of their
enemies in their centuries-old conflict as we will kill. They would let
the Americans do all of the bleeding and all of the paying for this
conflict. A photo-op with 40 countries does not an army make.
Ultimately, this resolution, like our previous unwise invasion, will
make our families less secure, not more secure, and that should be the
ultimate test of our actions.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just wanted to quickly note that I actually agree with a very good
deal of what my friend from Texas has to say.
I do want to correct him on one item. The amendment we are talking
about is not like the authorizations of 2001 and 2002, mostly because
it is very finely tailored to limit the executive branch.
It actually runs out on December 11 or earlier if we actually pass a
National Defense Authorization Act and deal with the Syrian issue in
that context; so it is very limited in terms of time, very limited in
terms of scope. It explicitly states that it does not authorize
military action in Syria.
With all due respect, I would suggest that most of my friend's
disagreements are with this administration. They are largely
disagreements with the President. The Speaker is doing what he can to
provide an opportunity for us to debate and express that in the
continuing resolution, and I will work with my friend from Texas to
make sure that we have a fuller, more robust debate because I think the
country deserves that, and I think my friend is right to demand it.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule that makes two changes: first, it
would strike a special waiver for the Benghazi Select Committee that
lets them avoid the transparent and deliberative process of debating
and voting on their own written rules for media access, which every
other committee has to do; second, we would bring up the bill
introduced by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to reauthorize
the Export-Import Bank for 7 years, bringing certainty and stability to
an agency that helps to create jobs in the United States.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Heck) to
discuss our proposal.
Mr. HECK of Washington. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I rise to oppose the
previous question so that I might, indeed, offer H.R. 4950 to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 7 years instead of what the
underlying continuing resolution would do, which would reauthorize it
for 9 years.
I do so for two reasons: number one, the argument of certainty--here
is the truth: the fact of the matter is a 9-month extension of the
Export-Import Bank is not certainty. Here is the truth: we are already
losing business because of the cloud of the debate that hangs over this
Chamber with respect to the continuation of the Export-Import Bank, and
that is documented, I might add; so we need certainty.
Everybody who comes from the private sector has made that argument on
this floor. I come from the private sector. I make that argument.
The truth of the matter is this: the number one advocate for
eliminating the Export-Import Bank likes the idea of a 9-month
extension because it plays into his hands of getting rid of it.
Now, I take the gentleman from Oklahoma at his word. I know him to be
a gentleman of honor and integrity, and I appreciate, deeply, his words
in support of the Export-Import Bank, but the Export-Import Bank will
be weakened with this language and will be subject to termination at
the end of June 30 when it is isolated and left alone.
One of the arguments that is offered for 9 months is to give time for
an effort to develop a reform proposal. I know of one such effort
underway by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fincher), and he is
operating in absolute good faith. There is no question in my mind. He
is working hard to get there.
There is equally no question in my mind that the effort to extend the
Ex-Im, if we do it for 9 months, will be severely weakened, severely
weakened. There is no assurance. There is no certainty that it will go
beyond that date. We have a proposal that would do that, which has 201
signatures on it as cosponsors, I might add.
The second reason, the Export-Import Bank makes America stronger. It
created 205,000 jobs last year. It reduced our Nation's deficit by $1
billion in October when that amount of money was transferred to the
U.S. Treasury. It creates jobs, and it creates good-paying jobs,
manufacturing jobs. It enables America to compete in an increasingly
global economy.
Most people lose sight of the fact that, just since the year 1980,
global trade has increased fivefold. I beseech the House: do not
unilaterally disarm.
Here is the truth: 59 other countries, virtually every developed
nation on the face of the planet, has an export credit authority, and
most of them are larger than ours, expressed either in terms of
absolute dollars or percentage of their gross domestic product.
For us to allow the Export-Import Bank to expire is to unilaterally
disarm in an increasingly global trade-driven economy. For us to
reauthorize the Export-Import Bank for 9 months is to tee it up for
elimination, and you know this in your heart. You know this in your
heart because the advocate for doing away with it thinks this is a good
idea and has as much said that it tees it up for elimination.
The Export-Import Bank is good for America. It makes America
stronger.
[[Page H7547]]
It creates jobs. It creates good-paying jobs, and it enables us to
compete in a global economy.
I ask you to defeat the previous question so that we might offer a
longer-term reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I want to thank my friend from Washington for his kind words. I
couldn't agree more with him about the Export-Import Bank. I think it
is a very important institution that ought to be reauthorized, and I
intend to work with my friend to make sure that happens when the time
comes.
I don't think, as a rule, reauthorization in a continuing resolution
is a good idea. I think it is much more appropriate, particularly for a
matter this controversial and this serious--and, again, I agree with
the substance of what my friend says--that we go through a normal
committee process and that we come to the floor and have a full debate.
I don't think this is the appropriate vehicle for that.
While I look forward to working with my friend on the reauthorization
of the Export-Import Bank, I doubt that it is going to happen in this
particular vehicle so, hopefully, in the new Congress, as we make
persuasive arguments, as my friend has advanced, we will find that we
get the broad bipartisan support we need to do that reauthorization.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the majority's insistence on brinkmanship
and short-term solutions threatens the Nation's economy, and regular
appropriations bills have been replaced with fiscal cliffs, temporary
stopgap measures, massive omnibus bills, and government shutdowns.
It is far past time that this Chamber's majority party does the good
work of government and works to provide stability to the American
people.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' to
defeat the previous question. Vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I do want to revisit, in closing, this issue of appropriations and
openness, and I want to remind my friends on the other side of some
recent history.
In 2010, when my Democratic colleagues controlled the House, they
only considered two appropriations bills. At that time, by the way,
they also had control of the Senate. I presume it would have been
easier for them to have cooperated with a Democratic Senate than for
us, but perhaps not because they only got two appropriations bills done
the last year they were in the majority.
My colleagues deviated from the longstanding practice of open rules
for appropriations bills by making in order only 40 amendments that
year. You heard that correctly. Democrats considered two of 12 bills,
with only 40 amendments made in order.
This year, Republicans have considered seven of 12 bills, considering
404 amendments, 189 of them which were offered by my Democratic
colleagues. I will let the American people decide who has the better
record on actually bringing appropriations bills to the floor and
opening them up for full consideration by this House.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate all of those who spoke today for
the sincerity and the thoughtfulness of the debate. I particularly know
that we probably find ourselves on common ground in wanting to make
sure the government doesn't shut down, pass a continuing resolution.
It is interesting to me that that was not the subject of a great deal
of contention; so I would hope that is something that brings us
together. It is something that, certainly, the Speaker wants to
accomplish, but the President and the majority leader want to
accomplish that as well. Surely, we can find a bipartisan amendment for
that.
Obviously, the great issue of the day and this week is going to be
this discussion over the Syrian matter, and, again, I want to
congratulate my colleagues for the seriousness with which they are
approaching this.
I think we have all learned some very hard lessons in the last 13
years, and I am pleased that the amendment that would bring to the
floor--an amendment, by the way, the President didn't particularly
want.
I would recall for the Record that the President wanted this
authorization for active title 10 authority for him to train Syrians to
simply be dropped into the continuing resolution. It was the Speaker
with the support of the Democratic leadership as well that wanted to
make sure that we had a separate vote and discussion on this issue. I
think that is a very good thing.
Now, I agree with my friend from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern). I
would prefer a much more robust and fuller discussion, and I hope we
reach that point. I think that is exactly the course that the Speaker
recommended to the President.
{time} 1330
He said:
I think the institution that I preside over will be better
served, I think you will be better served, and I think the
country will be better served if we have that debate.
I know the Speaker made every effort to get to that point. Others
have a different point of view. I respect the President. Like most
Chief Executives, he has had to take some very expansive views of his
authority under the Constitution.
I recognize some people, frankly, are concerned about having this
vote ahead of an election. Personally, I would prefer to do it ahead of
an election, but I don't get to make those decisions, and I think the
Speaker has done the best that he can do in reconciling all the
conflicting opinions between the Senate, the House, and the executive
branch and has managed to bring us at least something that is a serious
debate and will be taken seriously by the country; moreover, I am
particularly pleased that my chairman, Mr. Sessions, on the Rules
Committee made sure that we will have not a cursory debate but 6 hours
of debate.
If any Member wants to voice their opinion, 6 hours is an awful lot
of time. I suspect they are going to have the opportunity to come down
here and do that, and I hope they will.
I think what we are going to see is probably a bipartisan opposition
to the amendment and bipartisan support. Frankly, in issues of war and
peace, that is probably the better way for us to proceed; so I think it
is a challenging situation. I think all concerned are trying to work
together and do the right thing and to present clarity.
I just want to go on record once again, personally, as hoping that as
soon as possible that we come back--the President asked for broad
authority--that we repeal the '01 and '02 resolution, something the
President has asked us to do himself before, and work together and
present a more precisely defined and limited resolution that gives him
the authority to act robustly in the defense of our country, to punish
people who commit the barbarous acts that we have seen in recent weeks,
and to do the things that are necessary with the full bipartisan
support of Congress to secure the security of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying resolution upholds the primary
responsibility the American people have sent us here to do, ensuring
the continued funding of the government. While not my first choice,
passage of a continuing resolution is better than any of the
alternatives; additionally, it provides the President the additional
authority he has requested to degrade and destroy ISIL.
I would urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 722 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
Strike section 2 of the resolution and insert the
following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
4950) to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank of the United
States for 7 years, and for other purposes. The first
[[Page H7548]]
reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4950.
____
THE VOTE ON THE PREVIOUS QUESTION: WHAT IT REALLY MEANS
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote ordering on the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules and passing S. 2154.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224,
nays 188, not voting 19, as follows:
[Roll No. 498]
YEAS--224
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Bachus
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bentivolio
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
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
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--188
Barber
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Horsford
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney, Sean
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Michaud
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (CA)
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
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
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
[[Page H7549]]
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--19
Bachmann
Barton
Bridenstine
Capito
Castor (FL)
Crowley
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Edwards
Gutierrez
Harris
Holt
Hunter
Kinzinger (IL)
Maloney, Carolyn
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Rush
{time} 1402
Messrs. CICILLINE, SCHNEIDER, and ISRAEL changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 192, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 499]
YEAS--221
Aderholt
Amodei
Bachus
Barber
Barletta
Barr
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brooks (IN)
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coble
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Cotton
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Daines
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
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
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guthrie
Hall
Hanna
Harper
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Lankford
Latham
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Marchant
Marino
McAllister
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peters (CA)
Petri
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Royce
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
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IN)
NAYS--192
Amash
Barrow (GA)
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bentivolio
Bera (CA)
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Courtney
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Duckworth
Ellison
Engel
Enyart
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia
Gosar
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hanabusa
Hastings (FL)
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Horsford
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, Sean
Massie
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Miller, George
Moore
Moran
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Negrete McLeod
Nolan
O'Rourke
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters (MI)
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
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
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
Waxman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--18
Bachmann
Barton
Bridenstine
Capito
Castor (FL)
Crowley
DeFazio
DesJarlais
Edwards
Harris
Holt
Hunter
Kinzinger (IL)
Maloney, Carolyn
Miller, Gary
Nunnelee
Pelosi
Rush
{time} 1412
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________