[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H2989-H2997]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1735, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 260
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1735) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2016 for military activities
of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes. No further general debate shall
be in order.
Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an
original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-14. That
amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered
as read. All points of order against that amendment in the
nature of a substitute are waived.
(b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute made in order as original text shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution and amendments en bloc described
in section 3 of this resolution.
(c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole.
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole.
Sec. 4. 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. Any
Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any
amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill
or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in
order as original text. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
{time} 1430
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 14, 2015, on page H2989, the following appeared: as I may
consume. 1430
The online version should be corrected to read: as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only. 1430
========================= END NOTE =========================
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Madam 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 Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, H. Res. 260 provides a structured rule for
consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016. It is my privilege to present this rule to the House as a member
of the Rules Committee. It is also my privilege to do so as a member of
the committee of jurisdiction over this bill, the House Armed Services
Committee.
The Rules Committee received a record number of amendments to the
bill; heard nearly 6 hours of testimony from our colleagues; and, in
this rule, have made in order 135 amendments for consideration on the
House floor.
As is traditional, the rule gives the chair of the Armed Services
Committee authority to offer such amendments en bloc to facilitate
consideration of such a large number of amendments.
This is a good rule that helps pave the way for the passage of the
National Defense Authorization Act. This law, this bill, governs the
defense of the United States of America, provides for the servicemen
and -women that defend this country. It is the single most important
function of this House.
We are going to hear spirited debate today, but we need to make sure,
as we hear this debate, that we focus on what we are here about, and
that is to defend the people of the United States. While there are
other things that may be brought up that are important and good, they
are not about the defense of the United States and would not be in
order for this bill.
As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have followed
this bill from the start. Counting the Rules Committee hours and the
hours in committee, I have personally spent over 25 hours in debate on
this bill.
This has been an incredibly open process: 335 amendments were filed
at the Armed Services Committee level; 211 amendments were adopted by
the House Armed Services Committee in markup, including 96 Democrat
amendments; 135 amendments were made in order by the rule--69 of those
are Democrat or bipartisan amendments. That is over 450 amendments that
have been considered since we started this process.
The National Defense Authorization Act has a history of
bipartisanship, which is only appropriate on the single most important
thing that we do, defending the people of the United States.
It passed out of the Committee on Armed Services on a vote of 60-2.
It has been completed every year since 1962 on a bipartisan basis. That
is 53 straight years, and we need to make it 54.
This bill is vitally important to our country. For the first time in
a long time, Americans are ranking national security as their number
one concern, even ahead of the economy.
Former CIA leader Mike Morell said he has never seen more threats to
our country at any other time in his 33 years in the business. Most
alarmingly, he says that we are at risk of another attack here in the
United States. Our military men and women need this bill to do their
job and help keep us safe.
[[Page H2990]]
The administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy
and indicated in there that the President's advisers would recommend a
veto of this bill. I sincerely hope the President would not do so,
given the bipartisan effort to pass a bill so critical to the security
of our Nation.
President Obama requested authorization for $612 billion in military
spending, and this bill matches that request dollar for dollar.
Now, some of my colleagues quibble with that, and they quibble with
that because, as you can see in this light blue area at the very top,
in the President's recommendation, there is a certain amount of money
that he wants to be in the categorization of overseas contingency
operations, OCO.
The bill does the same thing except it increases OCO by a small
amount--that you can see here--and increases the base by a larger
amount. In essence, what we have done here is gotten to the same place
as the President by making a very small alteration to the OCO.
Some of my colleagues are trying to use our military men and women as
pawns in an effort to boost nondefense discretionary spending. That is
plainly wrong and reprehensible.
Those other issues are important to our country, and it is important
that we debate them, but we should never hold up this piece of
legislation that is historically bipartisan to make a point on
something that has nothing to do with the defense of the United States
of America.
This bill is for the men and women who are keeping our Nation safe.
They have elected to serve our Nation. The least we can do is give them
the resources and the policy they need to do their job. Now, some of my
colleagues want to use them as political bargaining chips. That is hard
for me to believe that anyone would consider doing that in this House.
This bill is complex. It deals with a number of very complicated
issues. There are a couple that I know we are going to talk about today
that I briefly want to touch on now.
The first one is this whole issue of the overseas contingency
operations account and how it affects this whole issue of
sequestration. Long before I got here, there was this deal within
Congress that was proposed by the President that, in essence, resulted
in this artificial sequestration of funds that would otherwise be
appropriately sent to the military, and we are operating under the
artificial constraints of that sequestration law today.
I don't know what the rationale was back then because I wasn't here,
but that rationale, whatever it was, doesn't make sense today when the
number one concern of the American people is defending the United
States of America, when experts on this issue are telling us, over and
over again, the American interests abroad--and, yes, here at home--are
threatened.
Why should we feel that we should be limited to that at a time when
we need to be stepping forth and defending the American people?
Now, there may be a time and a place to revisit the sequestration
law, but that time and that place is not on this law. This law is for
us to do what we must do to defend the United States of America, and
this bill does that.
Another issue that we will be hearing a lot today is a proposed
amendment by my colleague from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), and that deals
with the issue of immigration. Now, you may ask: Why are we talking
about immigration in regard to a bill on national defense? That is a
good question. We should not be.
During the Armed Services Committee's consideration of this bill--and
it went for 18 hours late in the process--one of our members offered an
amendment to insert the immigration issue into this bill. It was
unfortunate, and it was inappropriate.
The Brooks amendment proposes to take it out, and we are going to
have spirited debate during this rule, I predict, and during the debate
on the bill; but make no mistake about it, however important you think
or I think the immigration issue is, however much we think that that
should come to this floor for consideration, this bill, a bill on the
defense of the United States of America, is not the right bill for us
to consider it in.
There are other committees of jurisdiction that are supposed to do
that--Homeland Security, for example. Those committees need to go
through their process and make sure they do what they need to do, and
then it can come to this floor, but it should not come to this floor to
confuse this bill that deals with the defense of the United States of
America.
This rule, Madam Speaker, is an extremely fair rule made after a lot
of debate, allowing an enormous number of amendments, and I urge its
support.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, 355 amendments were submitted to the House Rules
Committee on a wide variety of issues relevant to the National Defense
Authorization Act. Of those, only 135 were made in order, or about 38
percent. That means that the Republican majority of the Rules Committee
rejected over 60 percent of amendments submitted by their House
colleagues.
This is a very exclusive structured rule. The amendments included
under this rule are important amendments, worthy of the time and
attention of this House, but I believe that all the amendments
submitted merited debate and should have been included under an open
rule.
Further, each amendment included under this rule only receives 10
minutes of debate maximum, equally divided. That is no way to treat
debate of significant issues regarding our national security.
Madam Speaker, I have served in Congress long enough that I remember
when it used to take 4 or 5 entire days to debate the NDAA. Amendments
that would significantly affect our defense policies and operations
were provided with enough debate time so that all Members had the
opportunity to speak and air their views.
Of course, that was back in the days when the House actually worked 4
or 5 full days each week. That simply doesn't happen anymore. There are
fewer and fewer Members in this Chamber who remember when matters of
substance were given the time, attention, and debate that they deserve.
There is much to admire in the FY 2016 defense authorization bill,
but there is also much to be concerned about, from dangerous spending
to increase our nuclear arsenal, to continuing to tie the hands of the
administration on how to handle the transfer of prisoners out of
Guantanamo who have been cleared of all charges.
One of the most blatant and egregious demonstrations of excess
spending in the NDAA is what the bill has done to the President's
overseas contingency operations fund, the so-called OCO fund.
This bill adds $38 billion to the OCO fund on top of the $51 billion
requested by the President to fund our various wars. This $38 billion
will not be spent on war-related costs, but instead, it transfers money
from the operations and maintenance account to the OCO to fund what
should be base bill requirements, all as a ruse to evade the Budget
Control Act caps.
In the coming weeks, my House colleagues will see at least four
appropriations bills come to the House floor that are prepared to cut
more than $20 billion in urgently needed domestic programs, all in the
name of staying within the caps set by the Budget Control Act; yet,
when it comes to the Pentagon, nearly twice that amount is added to the
OCO as a slush fund in order to avoid those very same caps. This is
madness, Madam Speaker, absolute madness.
The strength of our Nation--the health, welfare, and prosperity of
our people and our communities--requires that we invest in our
transportation and infrastructure; in our urban and rural development;
in science, engineering, and technology; in medical research and our
healthcare and education systems; in our children, our families, our
workers; in our local businesses and new entrepreneurs.
Our national and economic security is based on so much more than just
our
[[Page H2991]]
force of arms. It is based on the role of the Federal Government in
supporting strong quality of life for each and every one of our people,
regardless of age, income, geography, or political affiliation. No one
is offering them a slush fund; instead, we are cutting those programs
to the bare bone.
When it comes to helping the neediest among us, Madam Speaker, the
majority in this House has, once again, prevented debate on this
critical issue. I am disappointed that an amendment offered by my
friend from California (Mr. Vargas) was not made in order for debate
under this rule.
Under current law, military servicemembers who do not live on base
are provided with a basic allowance for housing. Because this stipend
is offered to military families in lieu of on-base housing, it is
exempted from Federal taxes and from being considered as income when
determining eligibility for certain tax credits. Unfortunately, there
is still a lack of uniformity in how the allowance is treated for
various basic needs programs.
For example, the basic housing allowance is being considered as
income for the purpose of calculating SNAP benefits, which results in
eligible households receiving a lesser SNAP benefit or being cut off
from the program altogether. These are families who are struggling, and
it makes absolutely no sense that receiving housing assistance means
our military families should receive less food assistance.
It is shameful that an ever-increasing number of military families
are struggling to make ends meet. More and more of these families are
relying on SNAP benefits to put food on their tables, and we need to be
having a larger conversation about how to make sure that our servicemen
and servicewomen and their families who have sacrificed so much for our
country have economic security.
Military families have unique needs, and we must make sure that they
are receiving all the necessary assistance that they deserve.
{time} 1445
Mr. Vargas' amendment would have simply excluded the basic housing
allowance from any calculation of income or resources for any purpose
under Federal, State, and local law. It is a good amendment, and it is
a commonsense amendment, and this House should have had the opportunity
to debate this important amendment; but while we shortchange the
American people, local communities, and our neighbors living in
poverty, we have plenty of time to add to the national deficit and debt
by funding a myriad of wars on the national credit card.
Speaking of the many wars in which the U.S. is currently engaged,
last night in the Rules Committee, Congressman Walter Jones of North
Carolina, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services
Committee--Congressman Adam Smith of Washington--and I offered an
amendment that would do one simple thing: it would have the President
tell Congress next year what our mission is in Afghanistan and how much
longer our servicemen and servicewomen would continue to be deployed
over there. Then Congress would have 30 days to vote on whether or not
to authorize or to modify that mission.
We have been in Afghanistan for nearly 14 years. It is the longest
military engagement in U.S. history. Over the past few years, the
mission of our Armed Forces has been constantly altered. Supposedly, we
ended combat operations at the end of last December; yet our forces
still engage in combat. We are now supposed to be engaged in training
the Afghan military and police forces and be out of Afghanistan by the
end of 2016; but every day, I open up the newspaper, and I read how we
are going to need to remain in Afghanistan for much, much, much longer.
In the underlying bill, this NDAA says that the U.S. should remain
engaged in counterterrorism and special operations after 2016. All the
President is required to do is let us know if he wants to keep our
troops in Afghanistan to continue training Afghan forces until they can
stand on their own.
Is it too much to ask for the President to tell us next spring what
the plan is for keeping our uniformed men and women in Afghanistan and
then having a vote on that plan? Don't our troops and don't their
families deserve much more from us?
I guess it is too much to ask because this Congress--once again, the
majority on the Rules Committee--decided not to make the McGovern-
Jones-Smith amendment in order.
So U.S. engagement in Afghanistan--our blood and our treasure--simply
continues on and on and on and on. It is a long, endless war that
Congress barely pays attention to anymore, not even as members of our
Armed Forces come home in coffins or wounded in body, heart, and mind.
One of my constituents was the first to fall this year under our new
post-combat operations mission in Afghanistan. Who will be the last
U.S. servicemember to die in Afghanistan?
These are brave and honorable men and women. This House, however, is
a disgrace.
This House--this Congress--is incapable of being accountable for the
wars we so easily send our servicemembers to fight and die in, and it
is completely incapable of carrying out its constitutional
responsibilities to specifically and explicitly authorize these
military operations.
It has been over 8 months since the United States began sustained
combat operations in Iraq and Syria against the Islamic State. Last
year, the Speaker said that it was not right for the 113th Congress to
vote on this new war started on its watch. It should be up to the next
Congress--this Congress, the 114th Congress--to authorize the war. Then
the Speaker complained that Congress couldn't act until the President
sent us an AUMF. Madam Speaker, the President sent Congress an AUMF on
February 11. That was over 3 months ago. It is not an AUMF that I would
support, but the President did his job, and still Congress fails to
act. Why? Because the leadership of this House says it can't find its
way to 218 on an AUMF.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but that is not how it works. The job of
the Congress is to take a vote on an AUMF--period. If you don't like
what the President's proposal is, then change it, vote against it, or
bring another version to the House floor. Congress has the
constitutional obligation to authorize the use of military force to
combat the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or elsewhere. Congress has
the responsibility to specifically debate and authorize sending
servicemen and servicewomen into hostilities in Iraq and Syria. The
party in charge of the House and the Senate has a responsibility to
legislate. We don't have the right to say, ``Oh, this is just too tough
of a job, and we don't want to deal with it.''
If you want to be in charge, then you have to govern. Unfortunately,
Madam Speaker, I don't see the leadership interested in governing on
this most serious matter.
Once again, reluctantly, Congressman Walter Jones, Congresswoman
Barbara Lee, and I will be introducing a privileged resolution under
the provisions of the War Powers Resolution to force a debate on
whether our troops should remain engaged in combat operations against
the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria or whether they should withdraw.
We have been patient. We have waited and waited and waited for the
Republican leadership of this House to tell us when it would act on an
AUMF for Iraq and Syria, but it has now become clear that this House
has no intention of debating an AUMF on the fight against the Islamic
State. It is perfectly happy to just drift along and not take any
responsibility whatsoever for the lives that we are putting at risk in
Iraq and Syria and for the millions of taxpayer dollars that we are
spending each and every day.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule, and I oppose this underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In listening to the remarks that we have just heard from the
gentleman from Massachusetts, I was struck by the fact that so much of
it had to do with things other than national defense. I said in the
very beginning that this is the authorization of the defense of
America. Those are important issues--health care, education,
transportation--and we need to debate those, but not in this bill. That
is why those sorts of amendments were not made in order.
[[Page H2992]]
Madam Speaker, we are here today to debate the defense of the United
States of America.
I did hear the gentleman criticize the President's policy in
Afghanistan, and I do think that we should consider at some point in
time an appropriate AUMF for the conflict in Iraq. This House has been
asking the leadership for briefings and other information about the
proposed AUMF that we got from the administration, and we haven't
received them yet, so we can't have the sort of deliberative-type
review of his AUMF until we receive that information.
I would say, as important as those issues are, they are not in order
under this bill. This is a bill that we have historically adopted in a
bipartisan fashion. Let's stay focused on the defense of the United
States of America in this bipartisan bill and not wander off onto other
things that we are either not prepared for or that are not in order
under this bill.
At this point in time, Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Brooks), my colleague.
Mr. BROOKS of Alabama. Madam Speaker, the NDAA, as amended by
Congressman Ruben Gallego, undermines America's border security and
ratifies parts of Obama's illegal amnesty for illegal aliens.
During the early morning, sleep-deprived portion of the Armed
Services Committee NDAA hearing, the Gallego amendment, which
encourages the Secretary of Defense to take military service
opportunities from Americans and from lawful immigrants in order to
give them to illegal aliens, passed on a close 33-30 vote. As Members
ponder my amendment to strike the Gallego amendment, we should consider
how much American families are struggling in an anemic job and wage
market and how much the Gallego amendment makes job and income
prospects for Americans even worse.
From 2000 to 2014--and although the American economy gained 5.6
million jobs in the 16 to 65 age bracket--American-born citizens
suffered a net loss of 127,000 jobs. These job losses, combined with
population growth, mean that there were 17 million more jobless
American-born citizens than there were 14 years earlier. Hispanic
Americans, African Americans, Caucasian Americans--American men and
women--all lost economic ground. While American-born citizens suffered
economic hardship, job losses, and wage suppression, foreign-born
persons gained 5.7 million jobs.
In the context of this anemic economy, Gallego's amendment to take
military service jobs from Americans and from lawful immigrants in
order to give them to illegal aliens is outrageous and unconscionable.
I encourage Members to represent the interests of Americans and lawful
immigrants by voting to strike the Gallego amendment from the NDAA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I just want to respond to something that my friend on the Rules
Committee said when he said that this bill is all about issues that
have to do with the national defense of our country.
I don't know what we are doing in Afghanistan or what we are doing in
Iraq again or what we are doing in Syria now if it isn't supposedly in
the name of the national defense of our country. I mean, this is the
bill considered by the Armed Services Committee. If this is not an
appropriate place to talk about war and about all of the military
equipment we are sending halfway around the world, then I don't know
what bill is appropriate. We are told over and over and over again that
these are inappropriate vehicles in which to talk about war. This is
the Armed Services Committee. This is the National Defense
Authorization Act. This is the bill. This funds the wars.
There is this notion that it doesn't belong here. Well, where the
hell does it belong? This is important stuff, and we treat war as if it
is nothing.
We have men and women in harm's way, and we don't even debate whether
or not the mission is something that we support or not. This is
ridiculous. This is disgraceful. It is outrageous that amendments that
are germane to this bill--that the Parliamentarian tells us are germane
to this bill--are denied over and over and over again. These aren't
just mine. Ms. Lee has amendments on repealing the old AUMFs from 2001
to 2002--denied, denied. They are germane, but no one wants to talk
about it. We are going to force you to talk about it. We are going to
have a privileged resolution. We are going to force this debate.
Just one other thing on the Gallego amendment. I have to tell you
that I am always amazed at the anti-immigrant rhetoric on the other
side of the aisle. The notion that we can't allow the Secretary of
Defense to make decisions on whether or not DREAMers can actually serve
our country in the Armed Forces to defend our Nation is ludicrous.
Just so people understand this, unlike a lot of things that my
friends on the other side of the aisle do, this was not snuck into
something. This actually went through regular order. It was actually
debated and voted on by the House Armed Services Committee. They voted
``yes'' to accept it. By the way, the Army has already allowed almost
50 DREAMers to enlist in our Armed Forces.
What are you going to do--go and try to find these people and tell
them that they have now been discharged?
I feel a great kind of sense of pride that there are people in this
country who have been mostly raised in this country and who want to
serve this country. That is something, I think, that every American
takes pride in. That the rhetoric is so nasty and so demeaning, I
think, is beneath what this House is about.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Hahn).
Ms. HAHN. Madam Speaker, I rise against the rule that we are
considering to the National Defense Authorization bill.
I was extremely disappointed late last night, as you can imagine,
when the Rules Committee decided not to make my amendment in order for
today.
My amendment would have provided a token thank-you to the World War
II merchant mariners. These brave men suffered the highest losses of
any military branch in World War II, and they did not receive veterans'
benefits under the GI Bill.
Time is running out. These merchant mariners are now in their
eighties and their early nineties. There are only 5,000 living today.
We can't continue with the slow wheels of bureaucracy. We can't do a
study to see if they deserve it or if we can afford it. Congress should
act swiftly and with a sense of urgency.
As President Eisenhower said:
When final victory is ours, there is no organization that
will share its credit more deservedly than the merchant
marine.
It is too late for this bill today, but it is sad, as we are about to
vote on a bill that authorizes our defense of this country, that we
couldn't take a moment to give a token thank-you to those who were
involved in the defense of this country.
{time} 1500
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar).
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the amendment
offered by my friend and colleague, Mo Brooks. The Brooks amendment is
simple. It keeps the immigration debate out of the national security
debate. That is it.
My colleague, Mr. Gallego, inserted language during the markup to
require the Secretary of Defense to conduct a review under section 504
of title 10, United States Code, relating to whether or not those who
have received amnesty under President Obama's DACA initiative should be
able to enlist in the services, but that very statute already provides
the Secretary of Defense the authority he or she needs to make such a
determination if there is a readiness crisis. It is already there.
Specifically, paragraph (b)(2) entitles him to ``authorize the
enlistment of a person . . . if the Secretary determines that such
enlistment is vital to the national interest.''
Now, while the Gallego language may appear to be simple, a sense of
Congress to some, in function it will be
[[Page H2993]]
cited by the lawyers arguing on behalf of the President's executive
overreach. Those lawyers will say, you see, even the House of
Representatives has passed language that recognizes DACA.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. GOSAR. The Center for Immigration Studies agrees the Gallego
language is unnecessary and is simply meant to undercut the ongoing
litigation about the legality and unconstitutionality of DACA.
If the Brooks amendment is not accepted and this language is left in
the NDAA, it potentially jeopardizes passage of critical legislation.
My colleagues, I have fought the President on his executive actions and
will fight here again. It is our purview. Once again, I said, the House
has moved three times to demonstrate that DACA is illegitimate. This
should be the fourth time. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Brooks
amendment, stripping the Gallego language.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Gutierrez).
Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the latest
efforts by leadership to appease hard-liners on immigration. Today,
this body is allowing their loudest anti-immigrant voices to overrule
the adoption of the Gallego amendment by none other than the
Republican-controlled Armed Services Committee, controlled by the
Republican majority. Not only are they throwing their highly touted
regular order out of the window, they are taking one more dive down the
anti-immigrant rabbit hole.
The amendment by my friend from Arizona simply expresses a sense of
the House that the Secretary of Defense should review whether
recipients of deferred action should be allowed to serve in the
military. It doesn't say the military must allow them to serve. It
says, let's do a review, a study, a sense of Congress. We woke up today
and this is how we feel. Remember that these same 700,000 recipients
who grew up here in America, passed a criminal background check, and
now have a legal work permit to reside in the United States, they are
ready to risk their lives to defend the only country they know. It just
says, Hey, do you guys want to take a look?
Meanwhile, you totally missed the Veasey amendment calling for a
similar study of how executive actions of President Obama and
prosecutorial discretion could expand the pool of potential military
recruits and how enlistment of DACA applicants would impact military
readiness. They missed that one. I guess NumbersUSA didn't give you a
call over on the other side or Heritage Action forgot to tell you about
that provision.
So, Republican hard-liners fixated on the Gallego amendment. Seeing
the word ``review,'' all they heard was the word ``amnesty.'' If the
majority party is unable to allow a nonbinding study approved by the
committee of jurisdiction where they are the majority because it
includes the word ``immigrants'' without slapping the amnesty label on
it, how on Earth will you be able to fix our broken immigration system
or win over the fastest-growing group of voters in this country?
It is clear to me that the candidate who is ready to embrace
immigrants and protect DREAMers and their families may as well start
measuring the drapes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, and I think I know
what her name is.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Smith of Nebraska). Members are reminded
to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King), my friend.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Alabama for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I would say, first of all, that neither the gentleman
from Massachusetts nor the one from Chicago can quote any anti-
immigrant statements from anybody over on this side. That is their
tired rhetoric. It is not a fact.
What is a fact is we initiated a lawsuit called Crane v. Napolitano
clear back when these first unconstitutional acts were delivered by the
President. He clearly has violated the Constitution. I don't actually
think there is any worthy debate to the contrary, and this Congress has
voted three times--three times--to shut off the funding or to eliminate
the President's lawless, unconstitutional actions, Mr. Speaker. That
includes June of 2013, King amendment, and very similar language in
August of 2014 and January of 2015.
So I wanted to announce to this Congress that we will stand on the
Constitution. This Congress cannot send a message to ratify the
President's lawless actions. We must defend the Constitution because
that is our oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States. His oath is to take care to faithfully execute the laws, and
instead, he has done the opposite. So we have pro-amnesty people on the
other side.
I will support the rule, the Brooks amendment, but I will not support
the NDAA if the amendment fails.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding but
also for his tremendous leadership on the Committee on Rules and also
just in terms of making sure that we, as Members of Congress, do our
job. So thank you very much.
I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to the bill. I offered
three bipartisan amendments to H.R. 1735, the National Defense
Authorization Act, and I am very disappointed to say that, once again,
two of my amendments to address the Authorization for Use of Military
Force were not made in order. The first, offered with Representative
Walter Jones, would have repealed the 2001 blank check for endless war,
which has been used more than 30 times, mind you, to justify military
action around the world.
The other, that I also offered with Representative Jones, would have
removed the unnecessary 2002 Iraq Authorization for Use of Military
Force that continues to be on the books. This is years after the White
House has said they no longer needed it and encouraged Congress to
repeal it.
Mr. Speaker, it is past time for Congress to live up to its
constitutional obligations in matters of war and peace. We need to rip
up that 2001 blank check for endless war, and we need to repeal the
unnecessary 2002 Iraq AUMF instead of leaving it on the books
indefinitely.
I do want to thank the committee for making in order a commonsense,
bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Burgess, Schakowsky,
and myself that would require the DOD to rank all departments and
defense agencies in order of how advanced they are in their audit
readiness. As the only Federal agency that has yet to complete an
audit, the Pentagon has never been held accountable for the potential
loss of billions of dollars to waste, fraud, and abuse; so we need to
bring vital congressional oversight and accountability to the Pentagon
and to ensure that the Pentagon follows the law.
Let me also just address a few more troubling provisions in this
bill. This bill authorized $715 million to train and equip Iraqi forces
and an additional $600 million for Syrian opposition forces. That is
more than a billion dollars for the now 8-month-long war against ISIL.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. LEE. Let me go back and remind you how much that is. That is more
than a billion dollars for the now 8-month-long war against ISIL. That
is a war that Congress has yet to debate and authorize.
Again, I call on Speaker Boehner to make Congress do its job and to
schedule this critical debate.
I want to thank Congressman McGovern for offering a privileged
resolution. It is really a shame that we must do this, but we must take
our heads out of the sand here and be responsible to our constituents
and our country.
This bill also funnels $89 billion into the Pentagon slush fund known
as the overseas contingency account; $38 billion of this would go back
into the base
[[Page H2994]]
budget to avoid the budget cuts. This is simply unacceptable. Instead
of continuing to use budget gimmicks to further bloat the Pentagon
budget, Congress should be working to ensure accountability and
transparency by forcing an audit of the Pentagon.
I urge my colleagues to support the Burgess-Schakowsky-Lee amendment
and to oppose the underlying bill. It is time for Congress to stop the
policy of endless war and to bring some accountability to the Pentagon.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Curbelo).
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the
gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for the time.
I rise today with mixed feelings on this important legislation, the
FY 2016 National Defense Authorization Act. I appreciate the leadership
of Chairman Thornberry for bringing a transformative bill to the floor
that will strengthen our armed services and provide stability to the
brave men and women of our military.
I am also grateful for section 841, which includes the text of the
SESO Act, a bill I have introduced that ensures small entrepreneurs
have a fair seat at the table.
But on the other side of this dichotomy is what I fear to be a truly
unfortunate path for this body to take. Included in the underlying text
of this bill is language that would request the Defense Secretary study
the feasibility of allowing young men and women who were brought to
this country as children the opportunity to serve in our armed
services.
I am very supportive of this sentiment, Mr. Speaker, and let's keep
in mind, this is a nonbinding sense of the House. However, there are
Members of this body who are threatening to vote against final passage
of the NDAA if this sense of Congress isn't stricken from the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.
Mr. CURBELO of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, these young men and women were brought to our great
country very early in life, often by no choice of their own. They have
grown up in our neighborhoods and attended the same schools as our own
children. For most of these young people, the United States is the only
country they have ever called home. Allowing the Secretary of Defense
to consider their service in our military should be something our
country is proud to support, not something that will kill this bill.
With that, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Brooks amendment
and look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill that
will benefit all those who serve.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say I want to commend the
gentleman for his very sensible remarks, and I appreciate it.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Coffman).
Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to ask my esteemed
colleagues to stand with me in declaring, Let our DREAMers serve. Let
the young men and women who were brought here as children, through no
fault of their own, serve their country. Let them serve the country
that educated them. Let them serve the country they love. Their ability
to serve benefits us all. It provides an expanded pool of willing and
capable applicants helping to uphold and even increase the rigorous
standards to enlist in our military. The Army recently tripled its pool
of immigrant applicants, and DREAMers should be a part of that pool.
To those who claim that this is amnesty, I have a simple message. As
a Marine Corps combat veteran, I can assure you, Parris Island ain't
amnesty. As my late father, a career soldier, told me, serving your
nation in uniform is the highest expression of American citizenship.
From German immigrants serving in the Continental Army at Valley Forge
to over 100,000 who have been naturalized through the military since
2002, immigrants have always been a part of our fighting forces.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Colorado.
Mr. COFFMAN. If DREAMers want to put their life on the line for this
Nation, we should give them the opportunity and honor their willingness
to serve.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Brooks amendment, which
would strip this provision from the NDAA.
Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank the gentleman who just spoke as well. I
think we wouldn't be having any of this debate if my friends on the
other side of the aisle would have allowed us to vote on a
comprehensive immigration reform package last year, the one that the
Senate passed in a bipartisan way. Anyway, they chose to deny us that
ability to even have a debate and a vote on that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Norcross).
{time} 1515
Mr. NORCROSS. Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today allows for an
amendment that touches on a matter very personal to me, an issue that
impacts our Nation on the battlefield and for families struggling with
an immigration system that is certainly dysfunctional.
November 12, last year, right there in that seat, I was sitting by my
grandson's side when I was sworn in as a Member of this House, one of
the proudest days of my life. Certainly, my grandson was looking
forward to it.
If the Gallego amendment on DREAMers that we are debating here later
today were in effect, my grandson wouldn't be here. My granddaughter
wouldn't be here.
My son was serving in the Army in South Korea when he met a girl who
was serving our great Nation. They fell in love and got married. They
moved back to Fort Hood, Texas, serving our country, where they had my
first grandchild, one of the proudest days I have ever seen. They
continued to serve our great country, raising their child, when I got a
call late one night with my son crying, saying: ``They are going to
deport my wife.''
We didn't know she wasn't an American. She volunteered to lay down
her life for our country. My son didn't know she wasn't an American
citizen; yet she is that DREAMer that we are talking about. She is the
American Dream, one who comes to this country and decides to serve it.
This brings us forward to today. My grandson is here; yet we are
still debating. For the people that volunteer, the greatest thing they
can do is lay down their lives for our country, and we are denying them
an opportunity for them to serve our country.
Where are we as a nation, that great melting pot? The strength that
makes our country is where we all come from.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. NORCROSS. My daughter-in-law only knew America. As far as her
memory went, she was here. She went to school with all the other kids,
as you heard other people speak about. That is why I am urging us to
reject what I think is one of the most cruel things we can do to those
who come to our country and want to be American citizens.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the amendment and not deny
those people who want to serve our country that ability to serve.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Rules Committee for
allowing Mr. Brooks' amendment to be in order. I want to also address
these concerns about allowing people to join the military.
I fought with my own leadership against a bill that would allow
sequester, allow the gutting of our Defense Department. I said it was a
mistake. I was told it would never happen. Well, it did.
If both sides of the aisle want to find cuts in other programs so we
can rebuild our military and let anybody that wants to join the
military that is qualified, I am for it, but right now, we are gutting
our military. We are telling people who have put their lives in
[[Page H2995]]
harm's way for us that they are going to have to leave.
This language basically can be taken up as judicial notice by the
appellate courts to tell Judge Hanen in south Texas Federal court: You
were wrong. We are lifting the injunction, the very injunction that our
Republican leader said we were relying on in breaking our promise.
We need this language removed, and then let's work on building the
military back up.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would just say to the gentleman that we
are not cutting the military. My friends created a slush fund so they
can get around sequestration, with regard to the Pentagon.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman. I
know a lot of hard work has gone into the preparation of the underlying
bill. We are approaching Memorial Day and then celebrating Veterans
Day, as we acknowledge our soldiers on the front line.
I hope my colleagues will support the Jackson Lee amendments dealing
with the outreach to small businesses and minority-owned businesses
with the Department of Defense to deal with HBCUs, which are very, very
important in equalizing the research opportunities and working to
ensure the protection of the DOD software.
I am hopeful that we will have an opportunity to address my issue
dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. I put the first center
that was not in a veterans hospital in Houston. I believe we need to
realize how devastating PTSD is and ensure that we have the opportunity
for more funding.
The overseas contingency fund needs to be restrained and brought in.
I want to support the amendment by Mrs. Dingell to assist those
American citizens who are stuck in Yemen. We must address that.
I also want to make sure that we do not strike the very favorable
language dealing with our DREAMers who want to serve their country.
We should have comprehensive immigration form. We should not vote for
the Mo Brooks amendment.
Finally, let me say, Mr. Speaker--although not dealing with this--let
us acknowledge with sadness those who lost their lives in Pennsylvania
and do a better job in infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 1735, the
``National Defense Authorization Act of 2015'' and the underlying bill.
I would like to thank both Chairman Thornberry and Ranking Member
Smith for their dedication and hard work on the 2015 NDAA.
The U.S. war on terror has been waged for over a decade and the
lesson is clear: our adversaries adapt very quickly because they are
not constrained by geographic limitations.
In the beginning it was only Al Qaeda--now the list includes Boko
Haram, Al Shabaab, and ISIS/ISIL.
The message is clear--the United States must expand its capacity to
meet the terrorist threat where it emerges.
At the same time, we must be constantly searching for innovative ways
to utilize defense technologies and resources for the betterment of the
American people.
The National Defense Authorization Act of 2015 takes important steps
toward achieving these goals, and I am proud to have authored several
amendments which were made in order on this bill.
Jackson Lee Amendment #55 calls for outreach for small business
concerns owned and controlled by women and minorities prior to
conversion of certain functions to contractor performance.
Contracts issued by the Department of Defense represent a substantial
portion of.
These same concerns drove the proposal and adoption of Jackson Lee
Amendment #64, which provides guidance to the Secretary of Defense on
identifying HBCUs and minority serving institutions to assist them in
developing scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematics
capabilities.
Knowledge of STEM fields will be integral in the coming years, both
for a powerful economy and for the Department of Defense to operate at
its maximum potential.
By identifying and engaging HBCUs and other minority serving
institutions, such as Houston's own Texas Southern University, which
have strong science and engineering programs, the DOD can greatly
expand its pool of qualified applicants.
The final Jackson Lee Amendment which was made in order is #125,
which ensures that changes made to DOD computing systems using software
bought and modified for agency operations will not result in the
disruption of DOD operations.
Increasing cooperation between the DOD and other agencies has
resulted in incredible breakthroughs in operations and efficiency.
However, given the importance of DOD functions for the security of
our nation, it is imperative that steps be taken to ensure those
functions will continue unhindered by any changes to their computing
systems.
Although I am proud to have these amendments included in the NDAA of
2015, several of my other amendments were not included, each of which
would have a substantial impact on the well-being of the men and women
of the armed services as well as veterans who bravely serve our nation.
Jackson Lee Amendment #76 calls for increased collaboration between
the DOD and the National Institutes of Health to combat Triple Negative
Breast Cancer.
TNBC is a rare from of breast cancer which is highly difficult to
detect, and which disproportionately affects African American and
Hispanic women.
TNBC is especially difficult to treat, because it is unaffected by
what are normally the most effective and targeted treatments, as well
as being extremely aggressive.
70% of women with metastatic triple negative breast cancer do not
live more than five years after being diagnosed.
In addition, according to the Army Times, 874 military women were
diagnosed with breast cancer between 2000 and 2011.
As a breast cancer survivor myself, I believe that we should commit
all available resources to combating this horrible condition, including
those from the DOD.
Jackson Lee Amendment #77 seeks to relieve the terrible realities of
post-traumatic stress disorder by authorizing an additional $2.5
million in funding specifically for this purpose.
Post-traumatic stress disorder is a devastating condition that
affects an estimated 20% of veterans.
Less than 40% of individuals suffering from PTSD seek assistance, and
those who do often receive care that is only ``minimally adequate''.
When untreated, PTSD can cause veterans to lose their jobs, their
homes, and even their own lives.
Conservative estimates place the suicide rate for veterans at
approximately 5,000 per year, and male veterans are more than twice as
likely as civilians to attempt suicide.
In the State of Texas we have 1,099,141 veterans under the age of 65
and 590,618 who are over the age of 65. There are over 1,689,759
veterans living in our State.
These statistics are especially concerning for me, since Houston is
both the third largest military retirement community in the United
States and the second largest recruiting district among all the armed
services.
It is clear that our veterans deserve more from us, and we must do
everything in our power to ensure that they receive the proper care.
A final issue regarding the NDAA is the concerns expressed by the
White House over the spending levels and other provisions included in
the bill as written.
The administration has expressed its objection to funding levels that
it considers too low and incapable of adequately providing for
necessary force structure and weapon systems reforms, leading senior
advisors to recommend that the President veto the bill if it leaves
Congress in its current state.
I hope that the amendments proposed by myself and by my fellow
Members of Congress, as well as by the leaders in the Senate, will
address the President's concerns, and that we can resolve this impasse
quickly and effectively.
Mr. BYRNE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Crowley).
Mr. CROWLEY. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
No greater love is there than to lay down your life for another. It
is a paraphrase. It is biblical, secular.
Here, we have individuals, the DREAMers, who are American in every
way possible. They have been schooled here in America, raised here in
the United States. Their dream is to become American citizens, and they
want to give back to a nation that has helped make them who they are.
I want to congratulate Mr. Gallego for his amendment and his success
in committee. I want to congratulate the bipartisan Rules Committee
that saw this amendment through here to the floor. I want my Republican
colleagues to question the motivations of those who would try to strip
this out.
No greater love--we hope that it never comes to actually sacrificing
one's life, but please don't deny those who want to help serve and
protect the
[[Page H2996]]
interests of our country and deny them the opportunity to serve in some
capacity and to sacrifice maybe their lives for this country, the
country that we love, the country that they love, the only country that
they have ever known.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. CROWLEY. Don't deny the best, the brightest, and the bravest the
opportunity to serve in our Nation's Armed Forces.
Mr. BYRNE. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, there is a lot in this bill that we all
support, and there is much in this bill that many of us find very
objectionable.
I still have a tough time understanding why this House refuses to
deal with the fact that we are engaged in a number of wars around the
world and this Congress refuses to live up to its constitutional
responsibilities to deal with it.
The gentleman tells us that this is not the place. Well, the OCO
account is in this bill. It funds some of the wars, so the bill that
funds wars seems like the place you would go to talk about these wars;
yet not only the amendment that I offered, along with the ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Smith, and Walter Jones of
North Carolina, but the amendments that my colleague Barbara Lee of
California offered on the AUMFs, we were told we can't debate them--no
debate.
We have got men and women in harm's way, but we are not going to
debate the wars. We are not going to talk about whether this is a good
mission. We are not going to talk about the future of the missions. We
are not going to talk about how much it is going to cost. We are not
going to talk about anything. We are going to make believe that that is
not part of our national defense discussion. It is unconscionable.
For the life of me, I can't quite understand why the leadership of
this House and the leadership in the Senate refuse to do their job. If
you can't handle it, then maybe it is time to leave.
The second thing is this debate over the Gallego amendment. I remind
my colleagues it is germane to this bill. This is not some extraneous
thing that has nothing to do with this bill. The Parliamentarian said
it is germane. The Armed Services Committee, the committee of
jurisdiction, debated it. That is what committees are supposed to do.
They even voted on it, which is what committees are supposed to do, and
they voted ``yes'' in favor of it.
If you don't like it, fine; you can strike it, but save all this
anti-immigrant rhetoric, this nastiness. Stop belittling these men and
women who came to this country as children, who know no other country
than this country, who want to serve this country, who want to put
their lives on the line for this country. Please don't diminish what
they want to do or what some of them are already doing.
My colleague says this bill is not about immigration. It isn't about
immigration. This is about the military. The only people that are
making this about immigration are my friends on the other side of the
aisle, the ones that are saying: If we don't strip the Gallego
amendment from this bill, we are going to vote against the whole NDAA.
This resentment, this contempt for immigrants has resulted in this
kind of knee-jerk reaction that we can't support anything because of
that. It is ludicrous.
The bottom line here is that I hope my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle vote against the Brooks amendment and vote for the Gallego
amendment. We can do better than this.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
As I predicted in my opening statement, we have heard a lot about a
number of things that don't have to do with the defense of the United
States of America.
For 53 straight years, the Congress of the United States and the
Presidents of the United States have worked together in a bipartisan
fashion to pass a National Defense Authorization Act to provide for the
defense of the American people, the number one job we have under the
Constitution; yet we find ourselves here today literally tearing
ourselves apart as a body over issues that don't have anything to do
with defending America.
I want to urge people on both sides, however they feel about all
these issues, to understand that whether you win or lose your amendment
on the committee or the floor, at the end of the day, we come together
as Americans, and we defend our country. That is what our constituents
send us here to do. If we can't come together on that, then we are
truly lost as a nation.
I don't think we are lost, but we wander off in places we shouldn't
go when we have debates like we have had today. It is unfortunate.
I am the descendant of immigrants. I dare say virtually everybody in
this body is a descendant of immigrants. It is not even debatable that
immigration is good for this country, or the vast majority of us
wouldn't even be here. That is not the point of this bill. The point of
this bill is to defend the country.
We heard a lot about the OCO account. It was called a slush fund.
This President and Presidents before him have asked for an OCO account
every year since it was first created. Not once has it been a slush
fund. It has been used to defend the United States of America, as the
OCO account that is in this bill will be used to defend the United
States of America.
The gentleman from Massachusetts has been around here longer than I
have, but I am sure he knows that the primary jurisdiction of the House
for an AUMF--and this Congress--is with the Foreign Affairs Committee,
not with the Armed Services Committee that was the committee of
jurisdiction on this bill.
The Foreign Affairs Committee is working on an AUMF, but they are
waiting for information from the White House, which they haven't gotten
yet.
Maybe we can get that information from the White House, get to work
on the AUMF, and get it to this floor in the appropriate vehicle, but
the National Defense Authorization Act is not the appropriate vehicle
and so ruled the Rules Committee, and that is what is in this rule.
I have heard a lot of talk about what is germane to the bill and what
is not germane to the bill. This is not about germaneness. This is
about a central function of the Federal Government. It is about
defending the American people.
As I stand here today during this debate, I am reminded of the great
sacrifices our men and women in uniform and their families make on a
daily basis so that we may continue to debate and deliberate in an open
way.
{time} 1530
Debate and discussion have been the foundation of our democracy, and
we owe that to our Nation's military. The least we can do is honor that
tradition of service and sacrifice by continuing the bipartisan
tradition of passing an NDAA for the 54th straight year.
Whether there are people on one side that want to vote against the
bill because there is something in the there they don't like about
immigration or people on the other side are trying to make a partisan
point by telling their side, ``Don't vote for the bill because of
OCO,'' or because we are worried about what it might do to domestic
policy programs, we need to put that out of our minds.
At the end of the day, whatever amendments are added or not added to
this bill, it is our job to pass this bill to defend the country.
There will be plenty of opportunity for partisan disagreement down
the road, but not on this issue. At this time, we need to come
together, not as Democrats, not as Republicans, but as Americans.
Let's pass this rule. Let's debate these amendments, all 135 of them,
but most importantly, let's pass this act. Let's give our military men
and women the resources they need to do their job.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H2997]]
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute
votes on the motion to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate
amendments to H.R. 1191; and the motion to suspend the rules and pass
the bill, H.R. 2297.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 243,
nays 181, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 225]
YEAS--243
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Ryan (WI)
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Fattah
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
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)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--8
Barletta
Capps
Cleaver
Davis, Danny
Ribble
Sanchez, Loretta
Speier
Wasserman Schultz
{time} 1600
Mses. EDWARDS, SLAUGHTER, JACKSON LEE, Messrs. CARNEY and GARAMENDI
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
____________________