[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.

                          ____________________