[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 143 (Thursday, October 1, 2015)]
[House]
[Pages H6752-H6761]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3457, JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF
IRANIAN TERRORISM ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 1735, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016;
AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 449 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 449
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3457) to
prohibit the lifting of sanctions on Iran until the
Government of Iran pays the judgments against it for acts of
terrorism, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
in the nature of a substitute printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
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 Foreign Affairs; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill
(H.R. 1735) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2016
for military activities of the Department of Defense, for
military construction, and for defense activities of the
Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel
strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All
points of order against the conference report and against its
consideration are waived. The conference report shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2)
one motion to recommit if applicable.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of October 1, 2015, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Polis),
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} 0915
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
[[Page H6753]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 449 provides a rule for the
consideration of H.R. 3457, the Justice for Victims of Iranian
Terrorism Act, and the conference report to accompany H.R. 1735, the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016.
Mr. Speaker, these two bills are directly related to one of the most
important functions of Congress, which is to provide for the national
security of our country. For 53 straight years, Congress has come
together in a bipartisan fashion to pass a National Defense
Authorization Act to ensure that our military men and women have the
resources and the policies they need to do their job. Even in an era of
deep partisanship in Congress, we have still been able to keep the
tradition alive and pass an NDAA each year. This rule would allow us to
keep that tradition alive.
The NDAA process has been a great example of following regular order
and doing congressional business the way it is supposed to be done. In
both the House and the Senate, the respective Armed Services Committees
held multiple hearings and markups that allowed all Members to have a
role in the process.
Here in the House, the NDAA came up for a vote on the floor with a
record number of amendments--135, to be exact. It passed with
bipartisan support by a vote of 269-151. The Senate followed a very
similar process and was able to approve their version of the bill by a
vote of 71-125, a veto-proof majority.
Since our bills were different, the last few months have been spent
in a conference committee to iron out the differences. The bill doesn't
include everything I would like, but it is the true definition of a
bipartisan collaborative work product. This NDAA is a textbook example
of how Congress should work.
Despite all of that, I am shocked to learn that some of my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle are not supporting this critical
legislation. Even worse, the President has threatened to veto this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, let's take a quick look at what is going on in the world
today. North Korea is trying to develop an ability to deliver a nuclear
warhead to our allies in South Korea and to other places. China is
building new islands in the western Pacific and daring America to come
into what they now claim is their new sea space and airspace. Russia
has pushed into Crimea, is consolidating its gains in the Donbass; Iran
has just now been given the ability to get a nuclear weapon; ISIS and
other terrorist groups are running wild in the area that used to be
Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Libya. Now we have Russia coming into that same
area in Syria and using their jets for military purposes and daring us
to get in those skies with them.
In the middle of all of this, we should be having a bipartisan,
unified front to tell the world, to tell our adversaries, to tell our
allies, and to tell our service men and women that we are united. There
is no Republican, there is no Democrat when it comes to the defense
policy of this country.
Instead, we are going to have a debate not about the defense policy
of our country, but about whether we are going to fund other functions
of government, whether we are going to fund the IRS at a high level
that the President wants, whether we are going to fund the
Environmental Protection Agency that is attacking businesses across
this country. We are going to talk about all those domestic issues and
not talk about the defense of the country at this critical juncture.
If there ever was a time when we should continue that tradition of
standing together, it would be today. And for our President, our
Commander in Chief, to threaten to veto this bipartisan bill is simply
beyond belief.
Now, I expect my friend from Colorado will argue that they oppose
this bill because we should be spending more money on nondefense
programs, and that is a debate worth having, but this is not the time
for that debate. There is nothing more important for us to do today
than to make sure that we are standing tall and standing unified for
the defense of our country, and we should never ever use the military
as a pawn in some political game to increase controversial nondefense
spending.
Today's debate should be about providing for our Nation's military
men and women and their families, and I hope my colleagues and the
President will reconsider their objections.
This rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 3457, the Justice
for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act.
A lot has been said on this floor recently about the threat and
dangers posed to the United States and our allies by the Islamic
Republic of Iran. I don't want to rehash that debate, but I do think it
is important to remember that Iran is the top state sponsor of
terrorism on the globe.
Over the past 15 years, more than 80 judgments have been handed down
against Iran under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act exception for
state sponsors of terrorism. These judgments add up to over $43.5
billion in unpaid damages. This straightforward bill would simply
require Iran to pay each of these Federal court judgments before the
President can lift, waive, or suspend any sanctions currently in place
against Iran. Let me briefly highlight a few examples of these
judgments.
In 1985, a Navy petty officer named Robert Stethem was killed during
the hijacking of TWA flight 847. Hezbollah, an Iran-financed terrorist
organization, was found responsible for the hijacking and his family is
now owed $329 million, and that is in a Federal court judgment.
My friend from Colorado might be particularly interested in this one.
Thomas Sutherland, a teacher at Colorado State University for 26 years,
was the former dean of agriculture at the American University of
Beirut. He was kidnapped on June 9, 1985, after Iran directed
terrorists to kidnap Americans in Lebanon. He was held in prison until
November 18, 1991. His judgment is for $323.5 million.
There is the story of Alan Beer, an American living in Israel who was
tragically killed after the Iranian-backed terrorist organization Hamas
blew up a bus in Jerusalem. There is a $300 million judgment against
Iran for Alan's death.
These are just a few stories of Americans who have been tragically
injured, killed, tortured, and kidnapped by Iranian-sponsored terrorist
organizations.
I simply can't understand why some of my colleagues and the President
won't support this bill. This shouldn't be a partisan debate. American
courts have already ruled that Iran owes money to these individuals and
their families, citizens of the United States. So why is it
controversial to require that these payments are made before rewarding
Iran with billions of dollars in sanctions relief?
This bill is really pretty simple to me. You can either stand with
American citizens or you can stand with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
You can stand with the Ayatollah or the families of servicemembers who
were killed by Iran-backed terrorists. To me, this is an obvious
choice.
Mr. Speaker, both of these bills are more than deserving of broad,
bipartisan support, and I hope that they receive just that. So I urge
my colleagues to support this rule.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama for
yielding me 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. POLIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today to this rule and
to both of the underlying bills.
Both of these bills, the conference report to accompany the annual
National Defense Authorization Act and the so-called Justice for
Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act, are simply partisan political
charades. They are not a serious effort at the lawmaking process. They
are not a serious effort at improving our national defense, nor do they
even attempt to solve the problems that the American people want this
Congress to take up.
I would first like to acknowledge that at least these two bills are
somewhat related under this rule. In the past, we have had bills in
vastly disparate areas.
A couple of points about these bills:
The National Defense Authorization bill is not a version of the bill
that is going anywhere. It contorts the budget
[[Page H6754]]
process in a way that doesn't make sense to anybody. It doesn't make
sense to budget hawks or defense hawks, and it is a way that many
Members of the majority party don't even seem to understand.
Neither bill will be signed into law. The President has indicated he
will veto them, nor will consideration of them today here on the floor
of the House advance national security one iota.
Even after knowing the budget plans on National Defense Authorization
for months, here we have a convoluted bill that won't make us any safer
or financially secure. What it does is it takes the emergency account,
the overseas contingency operations fund, and turns it into a slush
fund to temporarily fund all kinds of other programs. So effectively,
it is a deficit spending bill by fudging the different pots of money
that we have for defense.
Now, I should point out this doesn't even appeal to the Pentagon or
to the military. The Pentagon strongly dislikes this plan of using
overseas contingency money to fund items in the base budget.
So the question I pose, Mr. Speaker, is, if it is not being done to
satisfy defense hawks and the Pentagon and it is not being done to
satisfy budget hawks because it is an increased spending proposal, who
is the constituency for this and why are people even proposing this?
Now, it is completely fiscally irresponsible to disregard budget caps
in a way that anybody who cares about our deficit should find
maddening, and it is why so many of our colleagues on the majority,
from what we have heard, had to be pushed to even go along with this
highly flawed plan
As I mentioned, it doesn't make sense to the defense hawk contingency
in this body either. The Pentagon does not like the plan. Using short-
term money for base funding and long-term problems makes planning and
procurement nearly impossible on the ground. This budget plan hurts
national security, and it damages our fiscal responsibility in our
country.
Like many bills, it is simply not going anywhere. The President said
he opposes a version of the NDAA with this budget gimmick in it.
Congress, of course, needs to pass a National Defense Authorization
bill. Unfortunately, the time that we are spending on this today gets
us no closer.
Passing a National Defense Authorization Act is very important, and
it seems like an obvious and routine thing to do; but with this
Congress, nothing is surprising. Even routine matters are made
infinitely more difficult as we jump through these self-created hoops
to appeal to whoever is yelling loudest at the time, and that seems to
be what we are doing today on the floor of this body is turning our
national defense into a political football and missing yet another
opportunity to provide the stability that our national defense needs to
defend our country.
Now, this could have been an opportunity to address what voters want
us to address. We could have talked about an Authorization for Use of
Military Force. I have heard from so many of my constituents regarding
that.
We could be talking about the fact that just yesterday Russia is
supposedly bombing targets in Syria in support of Assad, and we have
been conducting military operations in that part of the world for over
a year without a specific Authorization for Use of Military Force.
We could have talked about Guantanamo Bay and how we can approach
finally leaving that chapter behind and closing down our extra-legal
detention facility there.
We could have debated how we can save money by right-sizing our
massive nuclear arsenal that would allow us to blow up the world
several times over to meet our needs here in the 21st century. Perhaps
being able to blow up the world once might be enough for our nuclear
arsenal, and that would save a lot of money that we could reduce the
deficit with.
Instead, this bill would have us spend billions upon billions of
dollars, reassign money to a slush fund, blow through budget caps that
we put in place to reduce the deficit in support of a war we have never
debated, never voted on, and in support of a failed policy in
continuing to fight wars that we have not approved and the military
arsenal that was meant to fight a cold war which ended decades ago.
This is simply a charade that does not advance our national security,
and I urge my colleagues to reject it.
The other bill under consideration is another charade. It is another
symbol of the failure of this body to take up the issues that matter to
the American people. It is a bill, as we talked about in our Rules
Committee, that had zero hearings, no markup, no amendments, and was
rushed to the floor for unknown reasons. This bill serves as nothing
more than another attempt to undermine the agreement that prevents Iran
from developing nuclear weapons.
Now, Members on my side of the aisle were on varied sides of that
Iran agreement. Some felt that the agreement was the best way to
prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Others felt that there
were other ways. But nearly everybody on my side agrees that this bill
is simply a terrible idea.
{time} 0930
Now we are in the stage of implementing the Iran Nuclear Review Act,
consistent with the agreement that was reached to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. If we want to advance national security,
let's have a discussion about how to enforce the agreement to prevent
Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
If there is a problem with the compensation of victims of state
terrorism, we should have a broad bipartisan bill that addresses that.
Iran is one of the countries, but there are certainly other sponsors of
state terrorism; and if there is a problem collecting court judgments,
let's add some teeth to that in a bipartisan proposal to do that rather
than attach it to sanctions that were put in place for the specific
purpose of deterring Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Congress said that was the purpose of those sanctions. They were part
of that discussion for Iran to open themselves up to inspections and
agree not to develop nuclear weapons. This is a separate and legitimate
issue that there are judgments against Iran that are not being
enforced.
There are probably judgments against a number of other nation-states
that are not being enforced. That is a perfectly fine issue and one
that there is no reason in the world for it to be partisan. We should
have a thoughtful, deliberative process with hearings and markup in
committee with the opportunity to take good ideas from both sides and
simply address that problem to make sure that we add some teeth to the
ability to make sure that payments are made to victims of terrorism, a
concept that this bill wouldn't even come close to accomplishing.
This bill adds no teeth to making sure that terrorist victims
actually get their money. It merely tries to reinstate sanctions that
are tied to the development of Iran's nuclear problem. It makes it no
more likely that a single victim of terrorism will ever see any kind of
restitution.
Now, if we are serious about national defense, what in the world have
we been doing the last few days? Because of this body's inaction in
maintaining government funding, you know what the Pentagon has been
doing the last few days? They have been focused on planning for a
shutdown, because we were just hours away from a shutdown when finally
this body figured out how to continue funding national defense. We
should have done that weeks ago.
Why did we put the Pentagon through the exercise these last few days
of figuring out who had to go home and what missions had to be
grounded? Do you think ISIS or Moscow or the Assad regime spent
yesterday wondering if they would have the money when they showed up
for work today? Well, that is what this Congress has done to our
military and risks doing again in December when we face another
government shutdown. We might as well be telling our generals: ``Okay,
keep doing what you are doing, but don't make any plans to combat ISIS
on December 12.''
Well done, Congress. I am sure America and the rest of the world is
impressed with your work.
It is completely incongruous to be discussing a budget trick for
defense authorization just a day after we risked closing down many
parts of our
[[Page H6755]]
military. Just yesterday, 151 Republicans voted to shut down the
Pentagon and the military. They voted to shut down the Department of
Homeland Security. They voted to shut down the State Department just
because they couldn't get their way on an unrelated healthcare
provision for low-income women. Now, suddenly, the Republicans support
national security? I don't think so.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and both of the underlying
bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Colorado made some interesting points. He said
this is not serious, that the President is going to veto it. If we go
back over the vote total in the Senate, this bill was passed in the
Senate by a veto-proof majority. It passed in this House by a near
veto-proof majority. If a couple more people from the other side will
join with us, we can override that veto, and we would stand united
behind our servicemen and -women. So it is, indeed, serious. If the
President were serious, he wouldn't be threatening a veto. He would
understand the importance at this point in time for the Congress and
the President to stand together across party lines.
We also heard about what is happening in Syria. I am a member of the
House Armed Services Committee. I served on the conference committee
that brought this report to us. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, this
bill contains things that are critical to what we are doing in Syria.
He talked about Guantanamo Bay. One of the main items that I was
appointed to the conference committee for was for the provision that
regards Guantanamo Bay and what we are going to do and not do with the
prisoners there. He talked about the military's view of this. I have
talked to dozens of generals and admirals about this very issue, and
they would like for us to find a different way, but they understand and
agree that this way gets us where we need to go. What is important to
them is really not which way we get there but the fact that we get
there. This gets us there.
He talks about the fact that there is a failed policy here. There is
a failed policy here. It is a failed policy of this administration in
the Middle East. If we had done what we should have done in the Middle
East, we wouldn't have Iran nuclearized. We wouldn't have Russia there
flying sorties with their jets and daring the United States. The
failure of policy here is the failure of the policy of the President of
the United States.
The House Armed Services Committee, the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Democrats and Republicans from both sides here have tried to
work together to give the President the authorization he needed to do
the right thing, to make sure we don't have the instability we have
today in the Middle East. Instead, we have seen a President that seems
to be inert, doing nothing. Russia comes in, makes this big play. What
is the President doing? Nothing.
We were asked this time last year to authorize the training of
certain Syrian troops to combat ISIS. Well, they trained 50-some-odd.
We have about six left. After all that, a year, all this time, all this
money, that is what the failed policy is. The whole idea was not going
to work, but we gave him the authorization because we are trying to
stand behind our President. We are trying to push him to do the right
thing. Still, nothing happens, except he threatens to veto this bill.
If he wants to be the Commander in Chief that we need, he needs to
stand with us. He needs to stand with the Congress. We need to stand
together as Republicans and Democrats--we support our men and women in
uniform--and do what needs to be done.
Now, my friend from Colorado referenced the Iran bill and called it a
charade. Let me assure him, this is not a charade to the people who
have these judgments. To the people who are victims or the families of
victims, this is far from a charade. This will get them real
compensation.
He says that there are no teeth here. Well, guess what. The sanctions
don't get lifted unless Iran pays this money. I call that real teeth,
because Iran wants that money more than anything else in the world
right now because, with that money, they will go out and fund terrorism
throughout the Middle East.
What we will do here is not only get money to American people who
have been victimized, but we will deny that money to Iran that will use
it to fund Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. That is what
this is all about. This is dead serious. This is as serious as you can
possibly get. I wish my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
come together with us so we can do right by the American military and
the men and women that wear our uniform and do right by American
citizens who have been victimized by the largest sponsor of state
terrorism.
I have said this before, and I am going to say it again, that Iran
bill is real clear. You stand with the Ayatollah or you stand with the
United States citizens. It is one or the other. If you stand with the
Ayatollah, you stand with the Ayatollah. I am going to stand with the
citizens of the United States that have these judgments. They deserve
to be paid.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up legislation that would
protect jobs in America to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
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
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal to save
American jobs.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me in
defeating the previous question so that this body can immediately take
up reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank and, in fact, immediately
take up legislation offered by Mr. Fincher, a Republican who, like many
Republicans in this House and every Democrat, supports the
reauthorization of an institution that has been reauthorized by this
body for eight decades, routinely, that is essential to supporting
small American manufacturers that I represent back home in Michigan.
During the recess, I spent some time with my local manufacturers. I
did a couple manufacturing roundtables; one in Flint, my hometown, and
one up in the Tri-Cities. These are small manufacturers. They are not
big companies. No one would recognize their names. They are small
manufacturers that have found that they have products that the world
wants, but they didn't feel comfortable entering into that kind of
global trade without some help, without some support, without their own
government standing behind them where they can. That was what the
Export-Import Bank provided for them. They told me, without exception,
that the failure of this Congress to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank
puts that kind of trade in jeopardy, puts the company itself in
jeopardy, and puts the workers who build great American products that
we can sell to the world in a position of some jeopardy as well.
We don't agree on a lot of things in this body, and that is the way
it is supposed to be; but when we do agree, the American people expect
us to do something about it. We agree in this body on the Export-Import
Bank, Democrats and Republicans. Why can't we see a bill come to the
floor to simply reauthorize something that is essential to supporting
American manufacturers, supporting American exports, supporting
American workers?
Sadly, almost ironically, there are more Republicans in this Congress
that support the Export-Import Bank than supported keeping the
government open itself. You would think--you would think--that somehow
we would figure out a way.
There is all this talk of bipartisanship. It is just a word unless we
do something about it. It doesn't mean anything unless it translates to
something that helps the American worker. Here is a chance to do that.
We should bring up the Export-Import Bank reauthorization, a Republican
bill, which I
[[Page H6756]]
will vote for, and we should do it today.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I just observed that the gentleman from
Michigan talked about something that had nothing to do with the defense
of this country or getting these judgments paid for American citizens
who were victims at the hands of Iran. What he is talking about may be
important at a time down the road, but it is not relevant to what we
are talking about today.
The bipartisanship we need today is to stand up for the American
people and defend the American people and to provide for our servicemen
and -women, to make the victims of Iranian tyranny, make them whole.
Let's get together and be bipartisan about that, and maybe there will
be more opportunities to be bipartisan about these other issues. Let's
not confuse what is on the floor today with what people want to talk
about down the road. Let's have a bipartisan majority, a big bipartisan
majority, a veto-proof majority, pass both of these bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just to be clear, what we are offering as a previous question, if we
win the previous question vote, this bill will then be amended and sent
back to include a reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank, so the
Democrats are choosing to focus on protecting American jobs rather than
partisan games.
Unfortunately, I wish either of these two bills under this rule had
something to do with national defense. They don't. One of them diverts
money from the overseas contingency fund to a slush fund, which the
military says will weaken their ability to prepare for conflict around
the world. The other one is another attempt to undermine a deal that
prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons and won't lead to
American victims seeing money.
If they were serious about making sure American victims were
compensated, we would be talking about putting teeth in the ability of
American courts to impound assets and make sure that judgments are paid
for victims of state terrorism. Why, instead, are we seeing a deal that
relates only to one particular sponsor of state terrorism and deals
with a set of tariffs that were put in place to prevent them from
developing nuclear weapons? The tariffs that are in place with regard
to Iranian sponsorship of state terrorism are still in place and
weren't even on the table during the discussions around the nuclear
agreement.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Heck), who wants to discuss our amendment that will protect and save
American jobs.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Mr. Speaker, one of the previous speakers,
the gentleman and my friend from Alabama, said today is not the time,
it is not now. I want to remind him that in my effort here to defeat
the previous question so that we may take up reauthorization of the
Export-Import Bank, the charter for the Bank expired 3 months ago
yesterday. You are right, the time isn't now; it was 3 months ago. The
fact is, in the ensuing 90 days, there has begun a drumbeat of job
loss, concrete and measurable. It is real.
{time} 0945
But I want to start over. Today is the first day of the new fiscal
year for the Federal Government. We can all give at least some thanks
that we avoided a government shutdown. So let's take a fresh start to
this thing. Take a step back.
The truth is, when I am home in the district talking with people, an
amazing number have a consciousness, an awareness, about the
termination of the charter of the Export-Import Bank and its impact.
The most frequently asked question I get is, ``How can anybody do
that?''
How can anybody do away with an institution that, as my friend, the
gentleman from Michigan, Congressman Kildee, so eloquently said, has in
81 years been almost unanimously reauthorized 16 times by 13 different
Presidents and has a track record of reducing the deficit and creating
jobs? How can anybody do that?
That is a very challenging question for me to answer. Adherence to
ideological purity is just not something somebody can compete with when
it stands up against the real-life job loss that we have begun to
experience.
So, in my effort--which I just digressed from--of taking a fresh
start, I want to say that this Chamber will take up later today the
National Defense Authorization Act. It is not unrelated to our effort
to reauthorize the Export-Import Bank.
Some people actually support what we call the NDAA because it creates
jobs. I frankly don't think that that is a good reason to support the
NDAA. One should support or oppose it because of how it reinforces us
and helps us fulfill our national security objectives and goals and
missions. That is why you support or don't support the NDAA. But some
people do support it because of the jobs it helps create.
Well, the truth of the matter is, as we have said so often, the
Export-Import Bank also creates jobs. In fact, for the last year for
which we have data, it supported 164,000 jobs.
We have an existential threat to those jobs. The fact is, as you all
have heard, both General Electric and The Boeing Company have announced
layoffs directly attributable to the demise of the Export-Import Bank.
People are not concluding negotiations for foreign sales as a
consequence of us not having that arrow in our quiver.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HECK of Washington. Because the fact of the matter is the Chinese
are developing a wide-body aircraft to compete in the international
market, code name C919. They think it will be online in 2 years. I
think it is more like 10 years.
They will take business away from us. When they do, they will take
jobs away from us. And I remind you that China has not one, but four,
export credit authorities.
It is also a relevant issue to the subject we take up later today--
the NDAA--because the truth of the matter is the Export-Import Bank
helps protect the homeland very directly.
There is a lot of talk about rebalancing the Pacific and Asia and the
pivot. But the fact of the matter is, in order for us to compete with
China, we have to retain the heart of our manufacturing base.
And, frankly, the production of aircraft, in the aggregate,
constitutes the largest concentration of engineers and manufacturing
capacity within that base.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HECK of Washington. This is vital to our national security.
Imagine a world 20, 30, 40 years from now in which The Boeing Company
no longer exists. I don't want to imagine that future, but think of
what it would it would do to our national security circumstance. It
would be devastating to our national security. And we are ceding this
territory. We are literally ceding this territory.
The irony of this debate and why, again, I find it so challenging to
answer the question of why would anybody do this is, truly, if we had
never had an Export-Import Bank, we would all be sitting around asking
ourselves, ``How do we compete with those other countries, all of whom
have export credit authorities?''
We would be devising and standing up an Export-Import Bank and we
would say, ``What do we want that to look like?'' First of all, we want
it to support American jobs. Secondly, we would say we want it to
protect American taxpayers and not have them on the hook. Well, guess
what, my friends. We already have--or had--that institution.
The Export-Import Bank in the last generation has transferred
billions of dollars to the Treasury and reduced the deficit. The
Export-Import Bank has helped create and support millions of jobs.
If you want to compete in the global economy, you need an export
credit authority that creates jobs. Please defeat the previous question
and take up the issue of reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the words of my good friend from the State of
Washington,
[[Page H6757]]
my co-chair for the Singapore Caucus. I know that he feels those words
deeply. I agree with him that manufacturing is very important to this
country.
Manufacturing aircraft is very important to my district. We just
opened up 3 weeks ago an Airbus facility that will make competing
aircraft against Boeing. It is good for America to have competition. So
I certainly agree with him about that.
It has nothing to do with these two bills. We are here today again,
amazingly, talking about the most important thing we do in our
government, and we get off on a side issue. It is a side issue today.
It may be a big issue tomorrow. But today we are here to talk about
these two bills.
My friend from Colorado for the second time has referred to the
overseas contingency fund as a slush fund. The President of the United
States, President Obama, has asked for that fund every year that he has
been President, and we, the Congress, have given him that fund every
year that he has been President.
I don't think when the President asked for it or when the Congress
gave it to him either side thought we were giving a slush fund. It has
been used to protect the people of the United States. Everyone has
agreed on that. It only became a slush fund when they didn't want it to
be used for a particular purpose. It is not a slush fund.
The purposes for which it will be used are spelled out in detail in
the National Defense Authorization Act, an act, as I said, we have gone
through in both Houses, through committees and floor debate and this
very lengthy process of trying to get to this conference report. This
is not a slush fund. This is something that is necessary to defending
the country.
So I hope, instead of using terms like that, which, quite frankly,
does not reflect very well on President Obama, who asked for it, I
think we should use other terms.
And let's get back to the heart of this argument: Are we going to
stand together for the defense of this country or are we not? Are we
going to stand with Ayatollah or are we going to stand with the people
who have been harmed by the Ayatollah.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We haven't even passed an Authorization for Use of Military Force to
establish the legal way for who we are supposed to be fighting against.
We are still operating under the post-9/11 Authorization for Use of
Military Force that names al Qaeda. But if you talk to most military
experts, al Qaeda is not the preeminent threat today.
There are a lot of threats in the world, including ISIS, including
threats in the Syrian civil war, including threats of the resurgence of
the Taliban in Afghanistan, and this body needs to take up an
Authorization for Use of Military Force to ensure that funds that we
appropriate for defense are used in a way that Congress is aware of and
has oversight of.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank my good friend from Colorado for
managing this bill.
Let me also thank the majority manager as well for coming to the
floor and doing the people's bidding.
Although we disagree in both the purpose of the underlying bill and
its effectiveness, there is no doubt that this bill has a good cause.
None of us take a backseat to protecting the American people, to
seeking compensation, to bringing those who are missing or those who
have been captured on false terms back home to American soil. And I
stand here to make that commitment.
As well, I recognize that we are going down the trail, Mr. Speaker,
that we have done for the Affordable Care Act, one more attempt to
undermine a legitimately debated initiative--the Iran nonnuclear
proliferation--where Members made a conscious decision, personal
decision, on reflecting on the best direction for the American people.
In both the Senate and the procedures set out for this Congress to
determine whether this bill, this initiative, will be turned back, it
did not work. So it is the law of the land. It is an effort to ensure
peace, to reconcile in the area, to stop the proliferation of nuclear
weapons by Iran. It does not in any way diminish the United States'
stance on Iran's terrorist activities. It does none of that.
But this legislation, under the pretense of not allowing the
sanctions to be relieved, has a very key component and a number of
measures in that initiative. It has a number of measures, another
roadblock, before those sanctions will be removed. It is under the
pretense of dealing with the individuals who we all want to be brought
home.
I don't know how this Congress does not know of the negotiations and
the engagement that is going on, but they know that this is legislation
that will be vetoed by the President.
I say this in the backdrop of the Madison Papers, No. 51, that says,
``Justice is the end of government.'' It means that we on this floor
must do things that really get us in the direction of justice, the end
result for the American people.
The reason why I am so disappointed is I listened to my two
colleagues speak eloquently about the Export-Import Bank. I can tell
them that I was in Africa with the President, and an American stood up
and pleaded that he was going to lose 400 jobs if we could not get that
Export-Import Bank. I hesitate to think that his contract and his
engagement--what we asked him to do--has collapsed.
Mr. Speaker, let me repeat again, ``Justice is the end of
government.'' So here we are on a bill that is going to be a copycat of
what we are doing with the Affordable Care Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. POLIS. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am so disappointed, Mr. Speaker, because here I am
on the floor discussing justice and we have yet another disappointing
representation of this Congress when a leader of the Congress can speak
and say that the Benghazi Committee is only a farce, it was only used
to besmirch a public servant.
That is not what Madison wanted for this Nation. They didn't want us
to stop the economic engine for the Export-Import Bank. They didn't
want us to over and over attack the Affordable Care Act that has been
passed and upheld by the Supreme Court. They didn't want us to pass a
bill like the underlying deal blocking the Iran sanctions process of
the bill that we passed to stop nuclear proliferation.
They didn't want us to do that, Mr. Speaker. They wanted us to have
justice established, and they wanted us to do what is right for the
American people.
I ask for a vote against the rule and the underlying bill. Justice
should be the end of government, not what we are doing here today.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I would just note that the gentlewoman from Texas talked
about justice. One of the bills that is in this rule is the Justice for
Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act.
It is about justice for the victims and for the families, victims of
state-sponsored terrorism by Iran. This doesn't undo the Iranian deal.
If Iran pays the judgments, the deal goes forward. That is the law.
So I would disagree with the gentlewoman with regard to the whole
concept of justice. This rule contains a bill that is directly about
justice.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It is remarkable the gentleman from Alabama hasn't been able to find
any other Republicans to support these bills and come down and help him
argue. I think that that speaks volumes about how these bills are
simply not consistent with promoting our national defense and are
fiscally irresponsible. They don't please the defense hawks or the
budget hawks. So my poor colleague, Mr. Byrne, is left alone to fend
for himself.
Here we are, trying to use the contingency funding as base funding
and use it to somehow form the base from which our military must fund
its everyday operations. The commanders and generals all agree this is
a bad idea, and the gentleman from Alabama has even acknowledged that.
Here we are, discussing a bill that won't result in any of the
victims of
[[Page H6758]]
state-sponsored terrorism actually seeing their settlement, when there
is another path and we certainly could have a deliberative process
around a bill that empowers the impoundment and collection of assets
from state sponsors of terrorism States here in our country to ensure
that victims see their judgments.
{time} 1000
What this bill does is it ties it to an unrelated set of sanctions
that were put in place to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons
to settlement of these claims when, actually, we should be giving our
courts, or if we are concerned about this issue with regard to
settlements against sponsors of state terrorism, we should give courts
the increased ability to make sure that they can see that restitution
and impound assets from sponsors of state terrorism.
Now, Democrats have come down and offered something, if we defeat the
previous question, that actually will improve our national defense. It
will ensure that we have a strong aerospace industry here in our
country.
The gentleman from Alabama has mentioned that Airbus is in his
district. Well, Airbus is a company that will do very well if we fail
to authorize the Export-Import Bank because it will put American
competitors like Boeing and Lockheed at a significant disadvantage.
Now, I hope that we are fighting to ensure that America maintains its
aerospace capacity and leadership and we don't cede all of that to
European companies like Airbus that are welcome to compete on a level
playing field. It is critical for our national security that we have
the ability to lead the world as we have in the aerospace industry.
I also want to bring up that we should be discussing an Authorization
for Use of Military Force. The National Defense Authorization Act does
contain some parameters about how money is used, but it is not a
substitute for an Authorization for Use of Military Force, and we
should be having that debate.
Who are we even fighting? Who are we even fighting? I don't think
that most people believe that it is still al Qaeda from the post-9/11
Authorization for Use of Military Force.
Now, I don't know what to call what we are doing in Iraq and Syria.
Maybe it is a war. Maybe it is a security operation. Maybe it is
occasional support to some Syrian rebels or support to the Iraqi
Government or on-and-off commitment to the Kurds. But whatever it is, I
don't think it is what Congress voted for in 2001 or 2003, before I was
here, before Mr. Byrne was here, before the vast majority of this body
that currently serves was even here.
Those authorizations should be in the history books, not being
invoked as legal justification for conducting operations in a world, in
2015, which is vastly different than the world of 2001 and 2003. And
who knows how much longer or how many different wars or security
operations will continue to be administered if Congress doesn't finally
specify and do our job with regard to an Authorization for Use of
Military Force.
Now, that is a hard debate. It is a hard issue. It is not a partisan
debate. There are Democrats and Republicans on all sides; and many
Members, when we have that debate, will make sure that we have the very
best information to act on.
But since we authorized military force against al Qaeda and
``affiliated'' groups in 2001, there have been over 300 new Members of
Congress elected, so the vast majority of this body, including myself
and Mr. Byrne, including Mr. Heck, including Mr. Kildee--I believe, of
all of us. I believe Ms. Jackson Lee was the only one who was actually
here when we even had that discussion. The rest of us talking about
defense and NDAA didn't even play any role in choosing what the target
and what our focus of our national security operations are.
The American people deserve and demand this debate. They don't want
yet another fight with Congresspeople playing budget tricks around
defense. They want to know what our Nation's plan is for the operations
that have been ongoing. They want to see Congress take its
constitutional responsibilities for actions in the world.
And whether any one of us ultimately votes in favor or against an
Authorization for Use of Military Force, we all, I hope, are for the
debate, and we should join in demanding one.
On the conference report, Madam Speaker, this plan will not work,
will not become law. The President will veto it. The generals oppose
it. The budget hawks oppose it. No one even came down to join Mr. Byrne
in arguing for it. It is a terrible plan. It will hurt our national
defense. We need to defeat it.
The Iran bill tries to get at a legitimate issue in completely the
wrong way. It is not a partisan issue that we want to see restitution
for victims of state terrorism. Let's get into that act and look at the
enforcement mechanisms rather than try to use these victims as yet
another attempt to go after the deal that prevents Iran from developing
nuclear weapons.
I think it is clear from our Rules Committee debate that everyone
supports efforts for American victims of terrorism to pursue
compensation. The Iran nuclear agreement has nothing to do with that,
and it certainly doesn't prevent that from happening.
No matter what country, whether it is Iran or other sponsors of state
terrorism, we all remain committed to this process of seeing justice.
Undermining the ability to enforce a nuclear agreement is not the
proper way or even a relevant way to achieve this goal.
The reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank is ready to go. If we
defeat the previous question, we will bring it to the floor. We have
the votes in the House. I hope my colleague, Mr. Byrne from Alabama,
will join us in that vote if we can defeat the previous question. We
have the votes in the Senate, the President. We can stop this
unnecessary loss of jobs every single day in districts across our
country solely due to our inability to act.
Hopefully, we can move to take up highway authorization, ESEA,
immigration reform, raising the minimum wage. These are some of the
issues that I hear from my constituents about every day that we need to
act on. So rather than waste time, waste money, hurt our national
defense, let's get to work and accomplish something.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and defeat the
rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate Mr. Polis being concerned that I am here by myself. I
think it has been a good debate, and I know I have the full support of
my colleagues behind me, and there will be a number of them here to
debate the bill when it comes up after we adopt this rule.
It is extremely important that we understand what we are about in
these two bills. It is not about the Export-Import Bank. It is not
about immigration. It is not about any of the other issues that he
brought up. It is about defending the American people and making
victims of Iran terrorism whole. That is what it is about.
Now, I have seen the public opinion polls on national security.
National security has rocketed up to be the number one issue for the
people of America. I didn't need to see those polls. I have done 18
townhall meetings in the last several weeks in my district, and I have
looked my constituents in the eyes and heard their concerns.
They don't bring up the Export-Import Bank to me. They bring up the
fact that they are worried about what is happening to our country's
standing abroad. They are worried about what is going on with these
brutal terrorists in the Middle East. They are worried about the fact
that we have just given Iran a nuclear weapon. They are worried about
whether we are going to have an adequate defense to continue to protect
them, as we have for decades now, in a bipartisan fashion. That is what
they are worried about, and that is what they expect us to come here
and do something about.
These two bills do something very important. The National Defense
Authorization Act, for 53 years, has been passed in a bipartisan
fashion, which has said to the world, which has said to our allies,
which has said to our enemies, which has said to the men and women in
uniform in the United States of America, we stand as one.
Now this President and some--not all of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle--some of my colleagues on
[[Page H6759]]
the other side of the aisle are going to break that, after five
decades, at this critical time. I find that hard to believe, but I
accept the fact that it is nonetheless true.
I would plead with them to reconsider that. I would plead with the
President, who is our Commander in Chief, not to veto this bill. This
is critically important at a critically important time.
On the Justice for Victims of Iranian Terrorism Act, you know, we
don't get very many opportunities where we in this body can do
something that will directly bring some measure of compensation to
people, citizens of the United States, who have been victimized by the
largest state sponsor of terrorism in the world. We don't get very many
opportunities like that, and we have it right now this with this bill.
We have the opportunity to make them whole, or come close to making
them whole.
They have got judgments from courts, valid judgments; and with the
passage of this bill, which should truly be a bipartisan thing, and if
the President signs it, with passage of this bill, we could give it to
them. What a wonderful thing we could give to them after all the
suffering they have been through. We would deny them that because we
want to stand with the Ayatollah, because we think Iran is more
important than they are?
If we think for one second that Iran is going to take this money that
is going to be released and use it for good and peaceful purposes, we
are excessively naive. They are going to take this money, based upon
what they have done in the past and what they are doing today, and they
will use it to fund Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, and other terrorist
groups around the Middle East and perhaps around the world not just
against other people outside the United States, against people in the
United States. So by passing that bill, we deny them tens of billions
of dollars. They won't be able to use it for that.
I wish that, for once, we could come into this room, on something of
this magnitude and stand shoulder to shoulder, not as Democrats, not as
Republicans, but as Americans, which we have done for decades. It
saddens me that the President and some of the members of his own party
in this House would not do that.
So I beg my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reconsider,
and I beg the President of the United States to reconsider. There has
never been a more important time for us to stand together for the
defense of this country and for the men and women in uniform.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 449 Offered by Mr. Polis of Colorado
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
3611) to reauthorize and reform the Export-Import Bank of the
United States, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3611.
____
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. BYRNE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen). 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.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 180, not voting 17, as follows:
[Roll No. 529]
YEAS--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brat
Bridenstine
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
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
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
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
[[Page H6760]]
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
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
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
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
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
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--180
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
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
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
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
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--17
Bishop (GA)
Brady (TX)
Brooks (AL)
Brown (FL)
Conyers
Culberson
Gutierrez
Hudson
Kelly (IL)
Neal
Nunes
Payne
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Reichert
Whitfield
Yoho
{time} 1039
Messrs. CONNOLLY and HOYER changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. YODER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 529, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yes.''
Stated against:
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, earlier today, I was unavoidably detained
and was not able to vote on the Motion Ordering the Previous Question
on the Rule for H.R. 3457, rollcall vote 529. Had I been able to vote,
I would have voted ``nay.''
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.
Recorded Vote
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 181, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 530]
AYES--241
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
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
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
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)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
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
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Renacci
Ribble
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
Vela
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--181
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
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
Grijalva
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Hinojosa
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
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
Massie
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
[[Page H6761]]
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--12
Brady (TX)
Brown (FL)
Culberson
Gutierrez
Hudson
Kelly (IL)
Neal
Perlmutter
Pompeo
Reichert
Whitfield
Yoho
{time} 1049
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.
____________________