[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 18, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2721-H2728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4909, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 735 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 735
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4909) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2017 for military activities
of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against the further amendments
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment pursuant to this resolution the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such further
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.
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 Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 735 provides for continued
consideration of H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2017.
The resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 120
amendments. These amendments are on top of the 61 amendments that were
made in order by yesterday's rule. That is a combined 181 amendments on
one bill.
As I mentioned during yesterday's debate, the NDAA process has always
been bipartisan. In fact, Congress has successfully passed the NDAA for
each of the last 54 years. That is a really impressive accomplishment.
I hope this year is no different.
[[Page H2722]]
Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that the NDAA passed out
of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60-2. That vote total is
very, very impressive and demonstrates the bipartisan nature in which
our committee, the Armed Services Committee, operates.
Another thing I really appreciate about the NDAA process is how open
it is and how so many different Members are able to have input into the
final product. The first round of amendment debate yesterday was an
example of a healthy debate on a wide range of amendments.
You look around the country, and so many of our communities are home
to important military assets and programs. Some communities are home to
military bases where we are training our future fighters. Other
communities contribute to our military success with industry suppliers;
and every single community across the country is home to
servicemembers, whether Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. Each of these
communities faces unique challenges and offer different perspectives.
That is why I believe it is so important that we have such an open
process to allow a wide range of views to be discussed and debated.
During the Armed Services Committee process, we considered 248
amendments. When you add up the amendments considered at the committee
level to the amendments we will consider on the floor, it brings us to
a huge total of 429 amendments on one bill. These amendments cover a
range of important issues from National Guard to cybersecurity, to
sexual assault, to religious freedom, to military health care. Looking
at specific security threats we face, these amendments address issues
relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe, Russia, and
many more places.
I know my colleague from Massachusetts is particularly interested in
the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, debate, as I am.
Although the Foreign Affairs Committee, not the Armed Services
Committee, has jurisdiction over AUMFs, I was pleased that we were able
to obtain the committee's approval for Ms. Lee's amendment to be made
in order so the House can debate this issue on the floor. I know that
doesn't go as far as my colleague from Massachusetts would want it to
go, and I hope that there is a time when this body, after hearings in
appropriate committees of jurisdiction, can have a full and informed
debate on a new AUMF, but we cannot do that under these circumstances
today and give the American people the full and fair hearing that they
deserve.
A few of my colleagues have also expressed concerns about the way
this NDAA is funded. This rule makes in order an amendment by Mr.
Ellison that would cut money out of the overseas contingency operations
account. While I think these concerns are misguided, this rule allows
that debate to take place.
The rule makes in order an amendment by our Rules Committee
colleague, Mr. Polis, which would put in place a 1 percent across-the-
board reduction in total spending under the NDAA. Again, I think this
would be a grave error, but this rule provides for that important
debate.
We have heard bipartisan concerns about visa programs for certain at-
risk populations in Afghanistan, and this amendment makes in order a
bipartisan amendment by Mr. Blumenauer to reform the Special Immigrant
Visa program.
The rule allows for debate on another bipartisan amendment that would
require the Department of Defense to report on China's activities in
the South China Sea in their annual report on Chinese military power. I
think this is an issue that is particularly important.
I hope this gets my point across that we have taken a comprehensive
look at national security issues and allowed a wide range of Members,
both Republicans and Democrats, to bring their amendments forward.
We hear a lot about the need for an open process. Again, I am very
pleased that, between the Armed Services Committee and the House floor,
429 amendments will be considered. Given the large number of
amendments, I want to thank our Rules Committee staff who put in very
late hours to help sort through the amendments. I know it wasn't easy
work, but we certainly appreciate all that they do and the extra hours
they put in to help facilitate this debate.
Yesterday, I outlined why the National Defense Authorization Act is
so critically important. I talked about the critical investment the
bill makes to boost our military readiness. I discussed how the bill
increases accountability and efficiency at the Pentagon, and I
highlighted some of the critical reforms included in the bill.
I won't rehash these points, but I do want to reemphasize one key
point: every day we send our servicemembers into dangerous situations.
When we do so, we don't send them into battle as Democrats or
Republicans. We send them into battle as Americans.
So as we continue working through this bill, I want to again plead
with my colleagues to avoid making this about politics. Instead, let's
make this about America and about ensuring our servicemembers have
sound policy and the resources they need in order to keep our country
safe. We shouldn't--and, quite frankly, we can't--let politics get in
the way of passing this critical national security bill. Our military
men and women deserve nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 735 and
the underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1345
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honorable
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, and the
ranking member, Mr. Smith of Washington, for once again working in a
bipartisan manner to bring before this House H.R. 4909, the 2017
National Defense Authorization Act. I don't agree with everything that
is in this bill. In fact, there is a lot I do disagree with. But I
appreciate that the chairman and the ranking member always treat all
Members submitting amendments to the NDAA with respect, and that is
very much appreciated.
But I must rise in very strong opposition to this structured rule
because there are very serious issues that merit the time and attention
of this House that were submitted to the Rules Committee by Members
from both sides of the aisle, which have not been included in this
structured rule. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. As a
Democrat, I am used to being shut out by the Republican majority, but
dozens of Republican amendments were blocked as well.
Let me say to my Republican friends who did not have their amendment
made in order: If you don't want this to be a pattern, then vote ``no''
on this rule; if you don't want this to be a precedent, then vote
``no'' on this rule. Send a message to your leadership that, in fact,
you want a more open and transparent process. Don't go along just to
get along. Don't be a cheap date when it comes to an open process in
this House. The issues that are involved with the Defense Authorization
Act are too important to be just blocked with no debate, no
deliberation, and no votes. My friend talks about an open process. Open
process, my foot. It is not an open process. Almost 200 amendments were
not made in order. That is just not right.
Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that disturbs me in particular
about this structured rule, it is how it fails the American people once
again in not allowing substantial debate about the issues of war and
peace. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical than the issues of war and
peace.
And once again, the Republicans on the Rules Committee have ensured
that no amendment that deals with authorizing the current U.S. military
engagements in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan was made in order. The only
amendment made in order is the one offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee) to repeal the 2001 AUMF for Afghanistan, an
amendment that she has courageously offered for several years now.
Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments not made in order was an amendment
[[Page H2723]]
offered by me and several colleagues to prohibit the use of any U.S.
funds after April 30, 2017, for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to
Iraq or Syria in the fight against the Islamic State if an AUMF has not
been enacted. This was a bipartisan amendment offered by
Representatives Jones, Garamendi, Yoho, Lee of California, Cicilline,
and myself.
And let me make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker: this amendment is
not an AUMF. There is not one single syllable in this amendment that
reflects the language of an AUMF.
The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was very
clear during the committee markup of the NDAA that AUMF amendments were
not the jurisdiction of his committee but, rather, the Foreign Affairs
Committee. But this amendment is not an AUMF. And it is germane, by the
way.
My amendment only prohibits the obligation and expenditure of funds
after April 30, which is the chairman's chosen date for the cutoff of
all OCO funding, and then only for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces
to Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, unless an authorization for that
purpose has been enacted.
Quite simply, if you want the money to fight a war, then pass an
AUMF. This amendment doesn't care who writes it. It doesn't care when
it is debated or approved. It just requires that an AUMF be enacted by
April 30. If not, no more funds for U.S. troops in the air, on the
water, or on the ground until an AUMF is enacted.
All this amendment asks is that Congress do its job. We ask our men
and women in the military to do their jobs, and Heaven only knows, they
carry out their duty with courage, honor, and professionalism. I only
ask that Congress do the same. This should not be too much to ask.
We have sent our uniformed men and women into harm's way in Syria and
Iraq for nearly 2 years now and still Congress refuses to do its duty
and authorize their deployment. We have been bombing, we have got boots
on the ground and engaged in combat, and we have had troops killed in
action, yet this Congress can't seem to debate and vote on an AUMF.
I personally believe that endless wars, endless bombing, and an ever-
expanding U.S. military footprint in the Middle East is not a
substitute for efforts aimed at reconciliation and political solutions.
The status quo will not make the world more secure. I know some of my
colleagues differ with me, and that is fine, but let's have the debate.
Let's have clarity in what we are doing, and let's make sure that what
we are doing works. Dodging responsibility only means that these wars
will remain on remote control, and that is sad.
Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard lots and lots and lots of
excuses. One of my favorite excuses that we heard last night was that
10 minutes would not be enough time to debate such a serious matter as
what my amendment proposes. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee can
assign as much time as it wants to debate an amendment. That is what we
are there for. Two hours, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks if it wishes. That
is what the Rules Committee is supposed to do: provide serious time to
debate serious issues.
I heard that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be and would be
drafting an AUMF. Fine. Terrific. If it comes out and is enacted before
April 30, then it would fit right in with my amendment. But if this
House continues to dawdle and whine and shirk its duties, then there
should be no more money after April 30 for a war that hasn't been
authorized by Congress.
I was told that the Republican leadership doesn't like the AUMF that
the President sent to Congress over a year ago. Well, neither do I. I
think it is too broad. But, Mr. Speaker, if the majority or anyone here
doesn't like the President's AUMF, then it is the duty of Congress to
draft debate and vote upon its own version of an AUMF and send the bill
back to the President for his signature or veto. That is how the system
works, or at least that is how it would work if this House ever managed
to do its job.
I was told that the next President wouldn't have enough time to
figure out an AUMF for Iraq and Syria by April 30. But, Mr. Speaker, I
didn't choose April 30 as a date when all funds for the Overseas
Contingency Operations account would be cut off. That date is built
into the NDAA already. If April 30 is enough time for a new President
and new Congress to ask for more money for these wars that are
supplemental, then it should be plenty of time for Congress to take up
and debate an AUMF.
Now, of course, this Congress or the next one should and could take
up an AUMF any day it so desires. I remember, in 2014, that Speaker
Boehner told us that it would be better for the 114th Congress to
debate and pass an AUMF for Iraq and Syria rather than the 113th
Congress. Well, here we are 16\1/2\ months into the 114th Congress with
no thought of taking up an AUMF on battling the Islamic State.
I guess this Congress is just too damned chicken to do its job when
it comes to war, and we are going to kick the can into the 115th
Congress or maybe the 116th Congress. Enough with the excuses, enough.
In fact, I remember, last year, Speaker Ryan said an AUMF for Iraq and
Syria for the war against the Islamic State would be one of the first
things this Congress would take up this year. Well, here we are in the
middle of May and there is no AUMF in sight, just the same old tired
excuses, the same cowardice, the same political posturing.
There is no shortage of Members of Congress talking tough against
ISIS. We hear it all the time on the House floor. But let's be honest:
that takes absolutely no courage at all. None of us are on the
frontlines in Syria or Iraq. We are all safe and sound in the U.S.
Capitol.
But think for a minute. What must be going through the minds of our
troops when they see a Congress that doesn't even have the guts to
debate these wars while they have been put in harm's way?
Every single Member of this House should be ashamed. Our collective
silence--our collective indifference--is dismissive of our
constitutional responsibility. This Chamber is guilty of moral
cowardice.
Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 200 reasons to oppose this rule, and
that is how many of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee
were not made in order under either the first rule to the NDAA or
today's rule. Basically, 50 percent of all amendments submitted are not
being allowed a chance to be heard.
I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to
show some backbone and demand that the majority leadership of this
House carry out its constitutional duty to debate and vote on an AUMF
for Iraq and Syria.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
My colleague from Massachusetts raises some very important points. It
would be appropriate for our Foreign Affairs Committee to take up those
points and consider them after we have had a lot of hearings, including
an opportunity for a notice to the American people so the American
people can be heard.
Coming up with this sort of an idea that it is just going to come
through the Rules Committee without any hearing, without any real
expertise in the Rules Committee to consider it, and then putting it on
the floor for limited debate is not the way to do it.
Now, I must admit I have some reservations about establishing a hard
stop of April 30 of next year. Saying that we are going to allow the
next President to come forward with a new OCO proposal before April 30
of next year, which we did 8 years ago, is not the same thing. What my
colleague is proposing is a hard stop. That is exactly what the
President did in Iraq: a hard stop. We pulled out, and look what
happened: absolute chaos, a nation that has gone from being a nation
into being a nation in total dissolution.
We came close to doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the
President has pulled back from that. Because when we telegraph to our
enemies, ``Hey, we are out of here after a certain date,'' they know
when we are leaving, they know when we are stopping, and they know
exactly how to time their activities against us. I don't think we
should give that opportunity to our enemies.
Now, I completely agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that we
[[Page H2724]]
need a new AUMF. I have said that on multiple occasions. I have signed
letters to that effect. And I do believe that we have a situation in
Syria that is not authorized, as it should be under the law.
Why are we in this situation? Because we have yet to receive a
strategy from the Obama administration on how to prosecute that war. We
had the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) before the committee last
night. She has fought over there. She knows this better than just about
anybody in this room. She laid out clear deficiencies in the
administration's so-called plan, which they sent over to the Armed
Services Committee 45 days later, and only after we had to browbeat the
Secretary of Defense to meeting its statutory responsibility.
And she laid out clearly what we need to do in terms of a strategy.
We have yet to get that from the Commander in Chief of our own Armed
Forces. If we would get that, if we would get a clear strategy for
victory, not a clear strategy for some pie in the sky, we are going to
arm some Free Syrian Army that is not working, then I think we could
have something to work on to bring to this floor. The problem is we are
having to put ourselves in the place of the Commander in Chief, which
is not what the Constitution calls for, nor will it work. We are going
to continue to struggle with this because of the failure of this
administration, not because of the failure of this House.
I agree with the gentleman: I want to see a new AUMF. I want to see
it go through hearings. I want to see it debated on this floor so I can
vote for it or against it, and everybody can vote for it or against it.
But the proposal he makes is not the right way to do that, so I hope
that we continue to reject it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With respect to the gentleman, I don't think we agree with each
other. The reason why we are doing this is because Congress has failed
to act. The time for an AUMF is before you put troops in harm's way.
Some of us tried before we entered into this latest Syrian war to
actually have a debate on an AUMF, and we were denied that opportunity.
We are reengaged in Iraq. We asked before we did that, ``Let's have an
AUMF,'' and we were denied that opportunity. We have been denied and
denied and denied and denied.
All we are saying is that we ought to do our job. The President
submitted an AUMF to Congress. He did his job. You don't like it--I
don't like what he submitted either--but he did his job. He doesn't
control what we do here. We decide what to do. The Foreign Affairs
Committee 2 years ago could have taken this issue up. They didn't. They
are not taking it up now. Here we are 2 years into these latest
conflicts and nothing. It is shameful. Come on. We ought to come
together, even if we disagree on what our strategy should be, and
debate this.
{time} 1400
We have no trouble sending our young men and women into harm's way;
yet when it comes to doing our job, all of a sudden we have 1,000
excuses why we can't do it. That is unacceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Kilmer).
Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is about ensuring that we have the best trained
and equipped fighting force in the world. It is about honoring our
commitment to the men and women who serve and to their families. It is
not about targeting proud Americans simply based on who they love; but
this rule would effectively discriminate against LGBT men and women who
serve our Nation as private contractors.
This rule runs contrary to our values. It runs contrary to what we
believe in. It runs contrary to the idea that we treat everyone with
equal respect. It also runs contrary to what the majority said it
wants--a transparent process, allowing the House to work its will. This
rule blocks an amendment that was offered by my Republican colleague,
Charlie Dent, to strip this discriminatory provision from even being
considered.
As we approach Memorial Day, our focus should be on providing our
servicemembers with the proper tools so that they may carry out their
missions, not on pushing forward provisions that target LGBT Americans.
Let's vote down this rule. Let's strip this harmful policy from the
NDAA so that we remain committed to equal rights, and let's get back to
debating how best to support our troops.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman's comment. This is something that we had
some significant discussion about last night in the Committee on Rules.
Let's make sure that the facts are straight. There is not one single
thing in this bill that discriminates against anybody. In fact, in the
provision he is talking about, there is not one single mention of LGBT.
What is in that provision is a clear application by this law of
protections of religious liberties that people have enjoyed in this
country since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--one of the
hallmarks of the legislative achievements of this body and an act, I
believe, everybody in this body supports today. It says that the
religious protections in that law that we are all so proud of should be
enjoyed by people who have Federal contracts. Private parties that
contract with the government should enjoy religious freedom. That is
not discrimination. That is protecting the rights of the American
people. Sometimes we get confused around here about that, and we are
getting confused in the military bill about that, and that is very
troublesome.
Let's talk about the First Amendment.
The First Amendment says that the government can't do anything to
restrict the expression of religion, the practice of religion, the
belief of religion by anybody in this country. It is called the Free
Exercise Clause. We have forgotten the Free Exercise Clause in this
body and in this country. We need to go back to it.
About 20 years ago, this body passed the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act. It was so popular that it passed by a voice vote. It
had just a handful of people who voted against it in the Senate. It
specifically requires that we do exactly what is in this bill. We are
being consistent with that law by putting this provision in there.
What do we do with this particular provision?
We say that the provisions of title VII in the 1964 act and the
provisions that regard this in the Americans with Disabilities Act
apply to private contractors with the Federal Government. That is not
discrimination. By anybody's definition, that is not discrimination. To
try to turn it into that is doing something on a bill that is talking
about the defense of this country, which is just not appropriate.
It is absolutely appropriate that the Committee on Rules rejected
that amendment. If the people on the other side of the aisle or on our
side of the aisle want to have this debate, there are other forums and
other times to do it. When we are talking about the defense of this
country, it is not the right time.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In the dead of night in the Committee on Armed Services, House
Republicans added what we believe is discriminatory language to the
NDAA, which would effectively overturn President Obama's historic
executive order that protects LGBT workers in Federal contracts,
therefore, enabling discrimination with taxpayer funds. That is what we
believe.
We had a very vigorous debate in the Committee on Rules last night,
and the gentleman defended his position quite ferociously; but we
believe it is discrimination, plain and simple. An amendment was
offered by a Republican Member to strike that discriminatory language
from the bill. It was germane, and the Committee on Rules decided on
its own not to make it in order.
The Committee on Rules shouldn't be about making decisions on issues
that, I think, the entire Congress has an interest in debating and in
voting on, but, unilaterally, the Republicans in the Committee on Rules
last night said: No, we are not going to make a
[[Page H2725]]
Republican amendment in order that would have struck what we believe is
discriminatory language.
That is not an open and transparent process. That is shutting the
process down in a way that, I think, demeans this House.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This is not
consistent with what the Speaker and the other leaders of the
Republican Party have said they were going to do. It is inconsistent
with how they said they were going to manage this House. It is
inconsistent with the rights of the American people to have their
Representatives vote on issues of great importance, which, of course,
is what the Speaker and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Cantor said in this book,
``Young Guns.''
I am going to read a paragraph from this book. This is in Paul Ryan's
section, under his heading, the Speaker of the House:
``The new Washington way,'' in speaking about what was apparently the
stuff he didn't like, ``isn't open debate broadcast on C-SPAN; it is
closed-door, backroom deals. The Washington way doesn't seek input from
both sides of the issue; it muscles through bills on strict one-party
votes. And the Washington way,'' speaking clearly of the way the
majority of the Democrats were leading, ``isn't interested in honest
up-or-down votes on transformational programs. It rigs the process,''
it reads, ``to produce the outcome it desires through any means
necessary.''
That is exactly what is happening in this rule--exactly. Paul Ryan
and the young guns promised transparency, openness, and the House's
being allowed to work its will.
So what has happened in the Committee on Rules?
Exactly the opposite. No transparency--a muzzling of the Members of
the House of Representatives in not allowing a vote--but simply,
unilaterally, in the dead of night, pocketing an amendment that was
adopted in the committee that says that women would be treated just
like men.
Now, I know that is a revolutionary concept for some on your side of
the aisle here, and I know you certainly didn't want your Members to
vote on that extraordinarily controversial issue. So in the dead of
night, without any debate, without a vote in the Committee on Rules, it
was simply put in the chairman's pocket, and 434 of us were ripped out
of the process. The young guns said that wouldn't happen. Now, the
young guns, by the way, so we all understand, are the Speaker and the
majority leader now.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we ought to reject this rule, and
the American people ought to reject this rule. The American people
ought to say: bring the issues to the floor and let the House work its
will. That is why they elected us, not to have the chairman of the
Committee on Rules say: Sorry, you don't get to vote.
He wasn't elected dictator; Steny Hoyer wasn't elected dictator; Jim
McGovern wasn't elected dictator. We were elected to be one of 435
people to make policies for this country and for our people.
Reject this rule. Bring democracy back to the House of
Representatives. Let the people's representatives set policy in the
light of day.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland. He wasn't
on the floor when I spoke earlier. Perhaps he didn't hear that, between
the Committee on Armed Services and on this floor, 429 amendments have
been made in order--181 for this floor alone. That is an open process,
and it is a far more open process than what this House saw when other
people were in charge. This is the process that the American people
have a right to expect, and they are getting exactly what they were
told they were going to get.
Mr. Speaker, the provision that he is referring to, a provision
regarding including women in the draft, was, in fact, offered in the
middle of the night without there being any hearings in the Committee
on Armed Services, without there being any notice to the American
people. There wasn't an adequate hearing; there wasn't an adequate
opportunity for everybody to be heard. So the decision was made that
the better way to do it, if we are going to consider it--and it
probably is something we need to consider at some time--is to do it
through a regular committee process, where we notice it to the American
people, where we have hearings, and when people can be heard. Then we
can have a full and honest debate with the American people having had a
chance to weigh in.
I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think this is exactly
the appropriate process. If we are going to take up something of that
magnitude, we ought to do it right and not do it because of an
amendment that was offered as sort of a last-minute thing in the middle
of the night when we are considering this bill.
I have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland. He was not
there when it was offered. He was not there during the Committee on
Rules' consideration last night, so he is probably not fully aware of
the number of amendments that we have both in the committee and on the
floor today--429 amendments. This is an open process.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for protecting us from
ourselves. That seems to be somewhat paternalistic, of course.
As I understand it--and I was not there, but it wouldn't have
mattered whether I was in the Committee on Rules--it was not done in
open session in the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Armed Services
voted upon it, and apparently the majority of your side lost, and they
don't want us to consider it, and they don't want to subject your
Members to voting on it and letting the American people know where you
stand.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address all remarks
to the Chair and not to each other.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, while millions of Americans are struggling to get by and
sustain their families, Republicans are trying to make it easier for
employers to steal their wages. Right now we know that there are
reports of at least $5 million in stolen wages and penalties from the
U.S. contract companies.
Last month, Representative John Kline, my colleague and friend,
introduced an amendment to this bill to block the President's Fair Pay
and Safe Workplaces Executive Order at the Department of Defense. This
executive order that the President issued helps ensure companies with
Federal contracts are following Federal labor laws, like protections
against wage theft, workplace safety rules, and the right for workers
to organize. It is the result of years of advocacy by workers, labor
rights activists, members of the Progressive Caucus, and Members of
Congress generally.
This week I introduced an amendment to strike Mr. Kline's language.
Let's at least have a debate about it. Let's at least debate whether or
not workers should get protection from wage theft. I guess that was one
of those amendments that didn't quite make it through the process.
It is no surprise that the Republican-led Committee on Rules didn't
give us a vote on our amendment, because they don't want to have to
debate this in front of the American people. The American people might
like to know that there are companies that are stealing workers' wages
but that the President is trying to protect those workers. Now the
Republican majority is trying to stop the President from protecting
those workers.
{time} 1415
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30
seconds.
Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, now, the President's executive order isn't
punitive. It actually helps companies to follow the rules.
[[Page H2726]]
Debarment is the last resort, and it is the clear nuclear option for
companies that refuse to correct their behavior, but Republicans don't
like it. Instead of helping companies that are fair to workers, they
want to make it easier for companies that steal workers' wages.
Workers aren't the only ones who should be outraged. This amendment
actually gives a leg up to contractors who don't play by the rules,
putting companies who are doing right at a disadvantage.
Please vote ``no'' on this rule for this and many other reasons.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wasn't able to respond to that last comment from the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I want to make sure that he knows--and everybody
in the House knows--that during the consideration of the rule we passed
yesterday, an amendment was offered in the Rules Committee to strip out
this executing amendment. That was offered in the Rules Committee and
rejected by the Rules Committee in an open vote. Our meetings are on C-
SPAN. They are not behind closed doors. Everybody can watch what we do.
Then yesterday we came on the floor, and that rule was offered on
this floor and there was a full debate. I know; I was here for it. I
managed that rule as well. After that full debate, this House voted,
and voted by a clear majority to adopt the rule.
So we went through a democratic process. We went through an open and
clear process, both to consider that particular issue and consider the
rule itself, and the House acted its will.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Give me a break. To insinuate that this is somehow all on the level
or an open process, I take exception to that characterization.
The amendment that the distinguished minority whip was referring to
was put into the rule. It was a self-executing amendment so that the
majority here did not have an opportunity here to vote up or down on it
on its own merits. Instead, they were forced to vote up or down on a
rule that made in order a whole bunch of amendments on a variety of
issues where they could vote up or down on, but not on this. So to
defend this process, a process that is indefensible, is getting a
little tired.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for a
number of reasons: because it doesn't make a proper AUMF in order,
because it fails to make in order an amendment I cosponsored along with
Representatives Dent, Smith, and several others.
The bill contains language adopted by the Committee on Armed Services
at 1 in the morning the other day with no warning that would
effectively overturn President Obama's executive order protecting LGBT
workers for companies with private contracts. In other words, private
contractors using our Federal tax dollars in any area--not just in the
defense area, by the way--would be allowed to fire someone just because
they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. This is unacceptable,
it is cruel, and it is totally unnecessary.
Now, the distinguished gentleman said that the language contains
nothing referring to gay or lesbian people; it simply protects
religious liberty. It says that private contractors, in the exercise of
their religious liberty, may discriminate. It disallows the President's
executive order, and so the effect is that private contractors may
discriminate on the basis of sexual identity or gender if that is their
religious belief.
No one has said it for years on this floor, but they used to, that it
is okay to say: My religious belief says I shouldn't hire a Black
person or a Jewish person.
We don't think that is acceptable, and we don't call that religious
liberty. But we now call religious liberty the ability of a private
contractor to fire someone or refuse to hire them just because they are
gay or lesbian. That is cruel and unacceptable.
Why not allow the House to vote on whether or not to include this
type of hateful language in the defense bill? Why not allow a vote on
the Dent-Smith amendment? Must we let this bigotry and intolerance win
the day?
We ought to defeat this rule. I, for one, will not vote for the
entire bill if this language is included in it. We must strip this
toxic, hateful measure from the NDAA, if not through an amendment, then
in conference. We ought to ensure that no Federal contractor has the
ability to fire someone just because of who they are or who they love
and because they profess that it is their religious belief. So they
cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on hiring and
firing other people. We must continue to fight until all Americans have
the rights they deserve.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With regard to the amendment in question, it was considered late at
night because of the fair and open process we have in the committee.
And it took us that long--from 10 in the morning until that time of the
night--to get to it. Everybody knew it was coming because it was
noticed and everybody had a copy of it well in advance. So it wasn't a
surprise to anybody. Everybody knew it was coming.
Now, the particular provision itself does not contain anything close
to a word like discrimination. But just so we can make the record
straight, I am going to read it:
Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall, with
respect to any religious corporation, religious association,
religious educational institution, or religious society that
is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government
contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative
agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with
section 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990.
It doesn't provide discrimination. It provides protection for rights,
and, unfortunately, people want to try to twist it around to be
something it simply is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Many of us on this side, including many Republicans--because a
Republican actually offered the amendment to strike this provision that
the gentleman referred to because they thought it was discriminatory--
we think it is potential discrimination against members of the LGBT
community.
But here is the deal--I get you disagree with us--but what is wrong
with allowing an amendment that is germane, to debate it and vote on
it? I mean, where does the Rules Committee get off saying you can't
have that debate, you can't have that vote?
It is germane.
Now, we could disagree. We think it is discrimination. We ought to
have that vote, and the Rules Committee denied us. This is another
reason for Democrats and Republicans to vote down this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Loretta Sanchez).
Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
express a deep disappointment in the Rules Committee's decision to
throw out three of the amendments I put forward.
By not doing those amendments, you failed to provide to those serving
our country the same necessary health services that all of us get now
guaranteed under ACA. You refused to take steps to protect young
athletes attending United States military academies. And you neglected
to provide congressional oversight on over $1 trillion worth that this
country plans to invest in our nuclear deterrents.
We need to fix the current TRICARE system so that we can ensure that
servicemembers are provided the same access to preventive health
services as those ensured under the ACA, including gestational diabetes
with no copayments, smoking cessation, et cetera.
My second amendment was simple. It directed the Secretary of Defense
to conduct a study on the effects of concussions in contact sports,
including hockey, football, lacrosse, and soccer at our United States
service academies. We all know that we see what concussions can do to
people.
The third amendment was to simply direct the Department of Defense to
include a 25-year plan to look at our nuclear spending.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H2727]]
I was listening to my friend from Massachusetts talk about what he
considers to be discriminatory. Well, I am going to go through the list
again.
Do we consider the First Amendment to the Constitution to be
discriminatory? Do we consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
that passed this House by a voice vote to be discriminatory? Do we
consider title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be discriminatory?
Do we consider the Americans with Disabilities Act to be
discriminatory?
Because that and only those things are what are contained in this
provision.
So we can call things discriminatory, but when you look at the actual
text of it and understand what they actually are, they are protecting
basic rights. And that is what we should be all about.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentleman reciting the Republican talking points of
the Republican leadership, but that doesn't explain why the amendment
to strike this provision was not made in order.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying bill.
Our armed service chiefs and secretaries have requested two results
from Congress in defense: stability and predictability in the budget.
Instead of adhering to their requests, this bill actually creates a
contentious budget environment next April that causes even more harm to
our military.
The bill is full of contradiction. It authorizes funds for over
50,000 more troops, but no money to send them anywhere after April. It
authorizes much-needed equipment, but not any money to employ it on the
battlefield. It authorizes 9,800 troops in Afghanistan, just not any
money to keep them there during the actual fighting season.
It sends a message to our allies that we are only 60 percent
committed to our missions with them, and it sends the message to our
adversaries that we are only 60 percent committed to stopping them.
It is like we are a basketball team who bought new uniforms,
recruited highly skilled players, built a new facility, and didn't even
have any money left to play the second half of the season. No team wins
under those circumstances. It doesn't matter how many state-of-the-art
weapons you have or how well-trained your troops are, you can't win if
you don't show up.
Much like General Breedlove, who believes ``virtual presence means
actual absence,'' I believe this is a virtual plan and will be an
actual disaster.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the
underlying bill.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With great respect to the gentlewoman, she, I am sure, was not here
yesterday and was not listening when I said this: that provision she is
referring to, which gives the next President the opportunity to make
changes in the overseas contingency operation account, is exactly what
this House did in 2008, the last time we were about to change
administrations. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Then-Senator Kerry
voted for it. Then-Senator Biden voted for it. This is not new. This is
standard when you are changing administrations. Nothing more. Nothing
less.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many
more speakers he has on his side?
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker from my side.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this
rule. Almost 200 germane amendments, substantive amendments were not
made in order.
Again, I am used to, as a Democrat, having the Republicans shut me
out every chance they get; but to my Republican colleagues who were
shut out on their legitimate amendments, the germane amendments, stand
with us and send a signal to your leadership that this closed process
is unacceptable.
My colleague, Mr. Byrne, talks about this being an open process. We
must have different definitions of openness because when almost 200
amendments are shut out--and, by the way, on top of all of that, there
were really kind of unusual shenanigans in the Rules Committee about
self-executing amendments so that we don't have an opportunity to even
vote up or down on them--that is not an open process. That is something
we should try to move away from.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close as I began by saying to my
colleagues to please vote against this rule because it does not make in
order the opportunity for us to be able to debate the issues of war and
peace when it comes to Iraq and Syria.
We have been involved in Syria and again in Iraq now for almost 2
years. By the way, we left Iraq not because President Obama wanted us
to, but because the Iraqi Parliament voted us to leave. That is a
little bit of history that my colleague left out.
The time to debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of Military
Force, was before we commit our forces into harm's way. Many of us,
Democrats and Republicans, pleaded with the leadership to let us have
that opportunity, for us to work in a bipartisan way to see whether we
could come together. And time and time and time again, we were denied
that ability, that right.
Now, we are being told: Well, you know, this is not the time. We
don't have enough time to do it. Maybe the Committee on Foreign Affairs
should do it, but this is not the place to do it.
When is?
You have waited for over 2 years. Nothing. I will say that these
excuses, they are insulting to the American people, but more
importantly and more significantly, they are insulting to the men and
women who are in harm's way. They do their job. They do what we have
asked them to do, but yet we don't have the guts to do what we are
supposed to do. Shame on all of us for allowing this to go on this long
without debating these wars.
The President of the United States submitted an AUMF. I have problems
with it. I think it is too broad. If you don't like it, fine. Then come
up with a new idea, but doing nothing is not an option.
Read the Constitution. We have an obligation. We are not living up to
it. Do what is right by the American people, by the men and women who
risk their lives every day because we have put them into harm's way.
{time} 1430
It is absolutely unconscionable that we can't even have the ability
to debate the amendment that I offered to be able to say that we are
not going to continue funding these wars unless Congress does its job.
That is the least we can do, and yet the Committee on Rules said no. It
is germane, it is in order, there is no problem, but because some
majority in the Committee on Rules says, ``No, we are not going to do
it,'' everybody is denied that right? It is a bipartisan amendment.
This is not just a Democratic concern. There are a lot of Republicans
who share my views on this as well.
Let's do our job. Stop being so chicken when it comes to debating
issues of war and peace. This is the time when we ought to come
together and do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand all 1,271 pages of the underlying
bill, and it is filled with the things that we need to do to defend the
American people. As interesting as the debate we have just had has
been, think of how much of it had nothing to do with defending the
American people, which is what we are supposed to be here about, which
is the single most important thing that we do.
My colleague talked about guts. The guts I care about are the guts of
the fighting men and women of the United States. We have a solemn
obligation to them to pass this bill, to make sure that we are doing
everything to supply them, to train them, to make sure that they are
ready, to make sure we have reformed the Pentagon so that the Pentagon
is doing its job by them, so that we have a policy that will make sure
that we are defending the American people. That is what this law is all
about.
[[Page H2728]]
The rule itself makes in order, between yesterday and today, 181
amendments. That is on top of over 200 amendments that were considered
as part of this bill. This has been a completely open and transparent
process and will continue to be as we consider it over the next several
hours.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
735 and the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute
votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 736 and
adoption of House Resolution 736, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230,
nays 175, not voting 28, as follows:
[Roll No. 200]
YEAS--230
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Jolly
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--175
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brat
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
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
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gohmert
Gosar
Graham
Grayson
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Payne
Pelosi
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
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
Yoho
NOT VOTING--28
Bishop (GA)
Carson (IN)
Cohen
Edwards
Fattah
Fortenberry
Green, Al
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Johnson, Sam
King (IA)
LaMalfa
Lewis
Meeks
Moore
Pascrell
Perlmutter
Richmond
Roby
Schiff
Sessions
Sherman
Smith (TX)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takai
Westmoreland
Young (AK)
{time} 1452
Mr. VARGAS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 200: I intended to vote
``yes'' instead of ``no.''
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on 5/18/2016. Had
I been present, I would have voted as follows:
``Yes'' on rollcall No. 200.
Stated against:
Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 200.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 200.
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today, May 18, 2016, I was unable to vote
on H. Res. 735. Had I been present, I would have voted:
``Nay''--Rollcall No. 200--H.R. 735--Rule providing for consideration
of H.R. 4909--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following
vote:
H. Res 735--Rule Providing for consideration of H.R. 4909--National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``no.''
____________________