[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 94 (Tuesday, June 14, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3769-H3776]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5053, PREVENTING IRS ABUSE AND
PROTECTING FREE SPEECH ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
5293, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 778 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 778
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5053) to
amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the
Secretary of the Treasury from requiring that the identity of
contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual
returns. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
114-58 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 Ways and Means;
and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. 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 consideration of the bill (H.R.
5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, 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
Appropriations. After general debate, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Sec. 3. Section 10002 of H.R. 5293 shall be considered to
be a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d)
of House Resolution 5.
Sec. 4. (a) During consideration of H.R. 5293, it shall
not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a
decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not
so designated, or vice versa.
(b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an amendment between
the Houses.
Sec. 5. During consideration of H.R. 5293, section 3304 of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 shall not apply.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentleman from
Ohio is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. STIVERS. 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.
{time} 1230
General Leave
Mr. STIVERS. 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 Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for H.R. 5053, the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting
Free Speech Act, and H.R. 5293, the fiscal year 2017 Department of
Defense Appropriations Act. House Resolution 778 provides a closed rule
for consideration of H.R. 5053 and a general debate rule for H.R. 5293.
The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means
for H.R. 5053, and 1 hour equally divided between the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for H.R. 5293. The
resolution also provides for a motion to recommit for H.R. 5053, with
or without
[[Page H3770]]
instructions. In addition, the rule includes provisions related to
budget enforcement.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the
underlying legislation. Under current law, 501(c) nonprofit
organizations are required to collect personally identifiable
information on what are known as substantial donors and report that
information to the IRS. Substantial donors are defined as individuals
who donate $5,000 or more to an organization during the course of the
calendar year.
Normally, that information is reported by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt
organizations. However, the IRS expanded the substantial reporting
requirement to all tax-exempt organizations through the use of Form
990.
The security of personal information of American taxpayers is vital.
The IRS doesn't normally make this information public, yet there have
been instances involving IRS employees improperly accessing this
information and even releasing it to the public. One particular
instance saw the National Organization for Marriage have its donor list
information publicly disclosed in 2012.
In California, Mr. Speaker, the State attorney general wanted to
require that the information reported is made public, which prompted a
lawsuit. In April of this year, the U.S. district court ruled that
requiring an organization to disclose its donor list is
unconstitutional.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may make the accusation
that this bill will allow for a flood of foreign money into our
elections. Mr. Speaker, this argument rings hollow for two reasons.
First, we have laws on the books to specifically protect against that
very thing. It is called the Bank Secrecy Act. Federal regulations
under that law require every bank to file information with the Treasury
Department and report any suspicious transactions relevant to a
possible violation of law or regulation. H.R. 5053 does not change the
Bank Secrecy Act or those regulations in any way.
Second, and more importantly, the IRS doesn't even have authority to
share this information with the two organizations that enforce campaign
finance laws: the Federal Election Commission and the Department of
Justice. So only in limited circumstances in which there is already
evidence of a criminal act can these tax privacy laws allow the IRS to
share this information. The problem is the IRS doesn't share this
information anyway. It is up to the Federal Election Commission and the
Justice Department to enforce those laws, and they do so already.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the district court ruling because American
citizens have a right under the First Amendment to free speech and free
association. The IRS has demonstrated in the past that many of their
employees do not adequately protect personally identifiable information
of American taxpayers. Individuals should not be forced to disclose how
much of their hard-earned money and to whom they donate to charity.
Even the Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue
Service has publicly stated that the IRS is considering removing
Schedule B themselves. Let me repeat that. This is a democratically
appointed Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue
Service. This individual said that the IRS is considering removing
Schedule B themselves. That is exactly what this bill does. That makes
this a bipartisan bill.
I hope my colleagues will support this measure. It makes sense.
The second underlying bill is the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. The legislation includes $517
billion for our national security, a slight increase over last year's
enacted level.
The legislation includes $58.6 billion in funding to fight the global
war on terror, which includes funding for our forces in the field as
well as support to key allies to resist aggression from nation-states
and terrorist groups.
The bill includes a small 2.1 percent pay raise for our military,
which is more than the 1.6 percent requested by the administration, and
it includes $34 billion for the Defense Health Program to provide care
for our troops, their families, and retired members of the armed
services.
Important investments in cancer research, traumatic brain injury,
psychological health research, and suicide prevention outreach as well
as sexual assault prevention programs are also included in this bill.
A well-equipped, well-trained, effective military providing for the
common defense of our Nation is our most basic constitutional
responsibility. This bill helps preserve our military as the most
capable and superior armed force in the world, while providing funds
necessary to fight America's enemies abroad.
While there will be amendments offered by colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in the days to come, Mr. Speaker, the rule here today is only
for general debate of the overall bill. I look forward to continuing
the debate on these policies with our House colleagues, and I urge
support for the underlying bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for yielding
me the customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the
rule and the underlying bills that the rule would allow to be
considered, I do want to take a moment to reflect on what happened
yesterday here in the House of Representatives.
In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, the Speaker of
the House asked for a moment of silence to pray for the victims: those
who lost their lives, those who were injured, and their families. We
stood here and, for 10 seconds, had a moment of silence.
One of our leaders, Mr. Clyburn, sought to get the Speaker's
attention to ask a question. Basically, the question was: Is that it?
What about legislation? What about action to prevent these types of
tragedies from happening in the future? He was gaveled down.
There was a lot of outrage here on the House floor, and I think
justifiably so. We have been on this floor calling for moments of
silence after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando again and
again and again. It is not enough. Surely, this Congress, Democrats and
Republicans, can come together and do more than just have a moment of
silence.
Mr. Clyburn was asking about whether or not we could bring to the
floor the bill that basically says that, if you are a suspected
terrorist and you are on the FBI's no-fly list, then you ought not to
be able to go into a gun store and buy a weapon of war, could that come
up for a debate and could we have a vote on that.
He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we can
revisit legislation that would call for a ban on assault weapons. The
weapon that this killer used was an assault weapon, and it was
perfectly legal for him to buy. Is it worth a discussion as to whether
or not we ought to place limits on the purchase of such weapons?
He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we could
pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that would prevent
criminals who have been convicted of misdemeanor assaults against a
victim based on his or her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation,
or disability from causing further harm with a gun.
This is common sense, and both parties need to come together and take
action. For the life of me, I can't understand why there is a hesitancy
by the leadership of this House to grapple with some of these issues.
It is just not enough to come here after terrible tragedies like the
one in Orlando, where 49 people lost their lives and 53 were wounded,
and just have a moment of silence. It is becoming an empty gesture. We
need to follow it up with action.
The American people, I don't care what their political ideology or
political party may be, want us to do something. Instead, all we can do
is have a moment of silence. I would just say to my colleagues: It is
not enough. It is time for action.
Mr. Speaker, getting to this rule, I rise in strong opposition to the
rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 5053, the so-called
Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, under a completely
closed process. No amendments can be made in order.
[[Page H3771]]
The rule also provides for general debate of H.R. 5293, the
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2017, and we expect the
Rules Committee to report a structured rule later today for
consideration of amendments to that legislation.
When Speaker Ryan was elected to preside over the House, he made a
promise to return to regular order. He promised to fix this broken
House by making changes to the process by which the House does
business. He promised to ``open up the process,'' to ``let people
participate.'' He said it would be a ``relief'' to the American people
if we were to get our act together.
Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are light-years away from
regular order and have yet to get our act together. We are here on the
floor of this House considering another two pieces of legislation under
rules that violate the Speaker's promise of an open process for both
the majority and the minority.
{time} 1245
This week, the Republican leadership has chosen to shut down the
appropriations process even further, with the majority on the Rules
Committee indicating that they will issue a structured rule for
consideration of amendments to the FY17 Defense Appropriations bill.
Now I am saddened by the recent events that have led to the shutdown
of the appropriations process, and by the fact that my conservative
Republican colleagues voted down their own appropriations bill because
it included an amendment to protect LGBT rights, which was adopted
during consideration of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
bill a few weeks ago.
But I shouldn't be surprised. Last summer, the appropriations process
was upended because some of my conservative colleagues refused to vote
for legislation that banned the display of the Confederate flag. So
this is just more of the same dysfunction and misplaced priorities from
this Republican majority.
Mr. Speaker, Republicans have yet to issue a single open rule this
Congress, and we are now beginning a process that further restricts
what little opportunity we once had to offer amendments under a
modified-open appropriations process.
And let me say a few words about the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act bill that we are set to consider this week.
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I oppose and I have been deeply
troubled by these endless wars, by continuing to send tens of billions
of dollars each year to fund U.S. military operations and wars in
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.
In the cases of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq and Syria, I believe
that this Congress has failed in its most solemn constitutional duty to
debate and approve an authorization for the use of military force. I
believe that without Congress approving an AUMF, our troops should not
be there, quite frankly.
For me, this is not just a matter of principle, it is a matter of the
Constitution of the United States and the role and responsibility of
the United States Congress. It is also the duty that we owe every
single one of our men and women in uniform, to either formally
authorize their mission, or to bring them back home to the comfort and
security of their families.
Over the years, we have had a few debates on this serious issue, and
often those opposed to bringing forward an AUMF will argue that we
can't put in jeopardy the support of our troops.
Well, Mr. Speaker, for those Members who are concerned about cutting
off funds for our troops, they must stand up and be counted and oppose
this rule and the underlying Defense Appropriations bill.
H.R. 5293 cuts the funds in the overseas contingency operations
account so badly that it is estimated that all funds for all U.S.
military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere will
run out on or around the end of next April.
Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the defense authorization bill
actually sets a date for this national security disaster: April 30,
2017. And while the authors of the Defense Appropriations bill are too
coy to name a date, the amount of money is so limited that it is
guaranteed to run out just about this time.
Now the Republican leadership is gambling that the next President and
the next Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund
all these wars through the remainder of fiscal year 2017, just scarcely
2 months after being sworn into office.
Even I, as someone who does not support these wars, can see that this
is crazy.
How can anyone stand up and say that they support the troops, and
then support a bill that knowingly, deliberately, willfully cuts them
off at the knees at the beginning of next year? And why did the
Republican majority, with eyes wide open, take such a calculated move?
Well, they did it to pump up the funding of some of their favorite
pet projects in the defense base budget. They stole $15.17 billion of
OCO funds--that is nearly 27 percent of the OCO budget--funds that were
supposed to fund our troops, their equipment, and their supplies for an
entire fiscal year, and boosted the base budget.
To take this hypocrisy another step further, the rule that we are
debating right now forbids any amendments from being offered that would
take money from the base budget and put it back into OCO, not even to
fund our troops for 5 months until the end of the fiscal year.
This is ludicrous. This is a disgrace. And this is just one more
dishonorable act perpetrated by this Congress against our men and women
in uniform. We won't formally authorize their missions overseas, and
now we are not going to fund them for an entire year.
Now, the last piece of irony to this disgusting set of gimmicks is
that this type of prohibition in a rule is rarely, if ever, seen.
Why, you ask, Mr. Speaker?
Well, because that type of guidance is generally outlined in a budget
resolution.
You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that the Republican
leadership hasn't brought to the House floor this year because it can't
get a consensus out of its cantankerous caucus, and can't corral enough
votes to even pass a budget resolution.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to bring forward an AUMF for
Iraq and Syria, and if we continue to fail to do so, then we should
bring our troops home. If the Members of this House can sit here safe
and sound, then so should our troops. And we should stop purposely
robbing the funding for our troops and using that money for their pet
projects and weapons systems in the base budget.
Lastly, let me just say a few words about the other bill that we are
considering this week, to constrain the Internal Revenue Service's
ability to enforce our tax laws and reduce transparency.
H.R. 5053 removes one of the only tools available to ensuring that
foreign money is not illegally spent by tax-exempt groups in our
elections, and I strongly oppose this most recent effort to unleash a
new flood of unlimited, anonymous, unaccountable money into our
political system.
My colleague mentioned that this was about people being able to give
freely to charitable organizations. The charitable organizations that
they are referring to are groups like Crossroads GPS, Americans for
Prosperity, American Future Fund, funded by--these are the groups
headed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers.
The Koch brothers sent a nice letter to all of us asking us to
support this legislation with one goal in mind, to basically keep the
American people in the dark. They don't want you to know all the money
that is being pumped in to influence our elections and who is giving
that money. They want to keep the American people in the dark.
I think the one lesson on both the Democratic side and the Republican
side during this Presidential campaign that is clear, people want us to
open up the process. They think this process has been corrupted by
money. And rather than opening up the process, this is shutting the
process down, shutting transparency, and I think that goes against what
both Democrats and Republicans want.
I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and the underlying
legislation.
[[Page H3772]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Really quickly, on the IRS bill, it is already the interpretation of
the Federal district court that these contributions should not be made
public; that donor lists should not be made public because people have
a right to free association and free speech. These are constitutional
rights. So to argue that this information that is not allowed to be
made public is somehow going to lead to a flood of foreign money, is
nonsense.
Also, again, I will reiterate that the Bank Secrecy Act is in place
to make sure that that does not happen. So I just wanted to quickly
dispel with that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter), who is a distinguished member of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R.
5293, the fiscal year 2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
and to recognize the hard work that the House Appropriations
Committee's Defense Subcommittee has put into this bill.
I would also like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and all the members
of the subcommittee and the Rules Committee for their work on this
bill.
This legislation represents an opportunity for Members on both sides
of the aisle to work together to provide our Armed Forces the resources
they need to keep our country and Americans safe. We ask the courageous
men and women who volunteer in our Armed Forces to confront global
terrorism, and we must give them the tools to do so.
This year's Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 5293, funds the
programs that are not only essential to our national security, but
critical to the welfare of our military personnel.
The Ohio Replacement Program is set to become the most dominant leg
of our nuclear triad and is vital to our nuclear deterrence. This bill
progresses that project.
Townsend Bombing Range is being expanded to accommodate the needs of
the new fifth generation fighters coming online, and offers a unique
training aspect for those planes located on the East Coast. This bill
helps to clear up ongoing airspace concerns.
The A-10s, the most lethal close air support aircraft in the Air
Force's inventory, will continue to be funded, ensuring our warfighters
get the close-in air operations they need.
Cyber is, and will continue to be, a major issue for our military,
and I commend the committee's focus on establishing cyber protection
teams and partnerships with public universities.
End-strength has been another recurring issue, and this bill provides
the necessary funding to reduce the strain on the men and women who
serve.
Warfighters have also relied on the Joint Surveillance Target Attack
Radar Systems, or JSTARS, for up-to-date information on enemy
movements, and this bill ensures our legacy fleet can continue to fly
until the Air Force completes this recapitalization program.
Lastly, this bill also provides support to the Army's combat aviation
brigades through additional AH-64 Apache helicopters, and the Air
Force's airlift capacity is strengthened under the engine enhancement
programs for C-130s.
Chairman Frelinghuysen and the Defense Appropriations Committee have,
again, done a tremendous job on making the difficult decisions to
prioritize what is most needed for our Armed Forces. I commend the
subcommittee on their work.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of
reform organizations that are organized to protect the public from the
big money and from foreign donations, from the League of Women Voters,
to Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to the Campaign Legal Center, the
Center for Responsive Politics, Brennan Center for Justice, and so on.
There are many more.
I want to submit for the Record the letter they sent to every Member
of Congress saying, vote ``no'' on the Roskam bill, and vote against
opening loopholes for foreign money.
These organizations believe that we are opening a loophole for more
foreign money into our political system. And if that is what you want,
then support the bill. I personally do not, and ask that that be part
of the Record.
Reform Groups Urge No Vote on Roskam Bill, H.R. 5053--Vote Against
Opening Loophole for Foreign Money
June 13, 2016.
Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to
oppose H.R. 5053, Representative Peter Roskam's bill that
would eliminate the requirement for 501(c) groups to disclose
their donors to the IRS.
Our organizations include the Brennan Center for Justice,
Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common
Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of
Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The
Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress and Represent.Us.
The Roskam bill would open the door wide for secret money
from foreign donors to be illegally laundered into federal
elections through 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups. Foreign
money cannot be legally spent in U.S. elections, but it can
be given to 501(c) groups and they can spend money in our
elections. These groups are not required to disclose their
donors publicly, but they are required to make non-public
disclosure of their donors to the IRS.
This disclosure to the IRS is the only protection citizens
have to prevent 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups being used
to illegally spend foreign money in our elections. The fact
that 501(c) groups are required to disclose their donors to
the IRS means the groups know that donor information is
available as an accountability check against illegal conduct.
If donor disclosure to the IRS by 501(c) groups is
eliminated, however, as the Roskam bill would do, no one will
be in a position to determine if a 501(c) group illegally
spent foreign money in our elections--other than the group
and foreign donor involved. Any check will be gone and there
will be no way to hold a group and foreign donor accountable
for illegally spending foreign money in U.S. elections.
House members should vote against eliminating the existing
check against foreign countries, foreign companies and
foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our
elections.
We strongly urge you vote to protect the integrity of U.S.
elections by voting against H.R. 5053.
Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center
for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy
21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters,
Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers
Project at Demand Progress, Represent.Us.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that
would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's
terrorist watch list.
It is unconscionable that the majority in this House has repeatedly
refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole, which continues
to allow suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms.
The country can simply not wait any longer for this Congress to act.
And if my friends want to vote against it, then they can vote against
it. But denying the ability of this legislation to come to the floor, I
think, is just wrong.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
rule today and ask that we defeat the previous question.
The IRS portion of this bill that is included in the rule, the debate
regarding that, is nothing more than a political messaging debate, and
it is politically charged, and it really has no place on this floor
today, given the seriousness of this underlying issue that the
gentleman from Massachusetts just spoke about.
The American people don't need more partisan politics. The American
people need a Congress that will stand up and take action to help keep
Americans safe from a number of things, one of the most important of
which is gun violence in their neighborhoods and in their communities.
Thirty people are killed every day by someone using a gun in our
country. In
[[Page H3773]]
the 3 years since Sandy Hook, there have been over 1,000 mass
shootings, and more than 34,000 people have been killed by someone
using a gun.
Every time these tragedies take place, the response from my friends
on the Republican side of the aisle is the same. Thoughts and prayers
are sent and moments of silence are held, but no real action is taken.
In the 3 years since Sandy Hook, we have held 30 moments of silence
after a terrible tragedy such as the one that just occurred in Orlando.
{time} 1300
But we haven't taken a single vote on legislation that would help
keep guns out of dangerous hands.
One of the simplest solutions we have put forward to help keep
Americans safe is legislation to prohibit those on the FBI's terrorist
watch list from being able to legally purchase firearms.
Today, individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list can go into a
gun store anyplace in the United States of America and buy a firearm of
their choosing legally. As a matter of fact, since this watch list has
been established, over 2,000 individuals on the terrorist watch list
have gone into gun stores across the country and legally purchased
firearms. I think that is wrong. It is dangerous, it is unacceptable,
and it makes our country less safe.
I have bipartisan legislation that I have offered with my Republican
friend and colleague, Peter King from New York, that would prohibit
those on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase a firearm
legally in our country.
The American people are overwhelmingly in support of this, and if
House Republicans agree that suspected terrorists shouldn't be able to
legally buy guns, then let's take a vote. Vote it up or down, but give
the American people the right to have this measure voted on.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson). The gentleman was a colonel in
the United States Army, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a
great American.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr.
Stivers, for yielding time. I also greatly appreciate his work on the
committee and his service to our Nation. We appreciate the sacrifices
that he has rendered on our behalf and also from his family.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House Defense
Appropriations bill, a very important piece of legislation that
provides the resources for our servicemen and -women to defend this
cherished way of life and to protect our people. We are reminded of
that after this devastating terrorist attack this past weekend.
Mr. Speaker, dating back to the founding, we had a principle by which
we rally our national security, and that is peace through strength;
that is, we look to deter potential adversaries, always prepared, in
the event that deterrence fails, to fight and prevail to win and to
protect our people.
As part of this concept of deterrence, it is critically important at
this juncture, in my view, that we provide the resources necessary to
revitalize our Armed Forces. We are coming through a very long period
of focus on counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much
needs to be done. I think this bill does quite a bit on that score.
I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on
it. I also want to express my gratitude for them to include the bill
that I authored that deals with end strength of our Armed Forces. This
is the POSTURE Act. It is supported by 52 of my colleagues. It is a
bipartisan piece of legislation. In fact, I authored it with Chairman
Turner, Mike Turner from the House Armed Services Committee, and
Representative Tim Walz, the highest ranking enlisted man to ever serve
in this Chamber, a Democrat from Minnesota.
This bill effectively stops the drawdown that is planned over the
next 2 years. Right now we have end strength numbers that essentially
match where we were on September 11, 2001. If the administration's plan
is allowed to go into effect, we are looking at handing out
approximately 70,000 pink slips between now and 2018, bringing down the
size of our Armed Forces.
Now is not the time to be doing that, as we deal with Russia, China,
North Korea, Iran, and certainly the Islamic State. We have lots of
challenges out there, and if we are going to reassert peace through
strength, strengthening the hand of our diplomats, I think it is
critically important that we don't continue on that drawdown of our
land forces and of our forces in the Department of Defense.
So I appreciate the leadership's including this bill that I have
authored with my colleagues in the House Defense Appropriations bill.
It was critical that it come with the resources, because you just can't
increase end strength. It has to come with the money to do that. This
committee did that, and I appreciate that.
I also want to say there are important provisions in here to reassure
our allies, the European Reassurance Initiative. It is funded here
along with the Global Response Force, and a pay raise for our
servicemen and -women. They richly deserve this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). The time of the gentleman
has expired.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, 1 yield the gentleman from New York an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how important it is that we
bring forward all these initiatives: preserving our end strength,
reassuring our allies, and ensuring that the Global Response Force has
proper funding. All of these, Mr. Speaker, are going to help strengthen
the hand of diplomats.
When you look at our strengths, they are instantiated in our founding
documents. On our best day, other countries want to be like us. It is
the freedom and it is the prosperity that comes from arraying power the
way that we do. Of course, all of this is relying on the principle of
deterrence. This bill is very important toward that end.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and friend, Mr. Stivers,
yielding time. I urge my colleagues to support the House Defense
Appropriations bill.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Massachusetts
that I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, there are 1,000 reasons to be opposed to this rule. One
is that it brings forward two bills that are deeply flawed.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The New York Times editorial
against the Roskam bill, ``Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold.''
[From the New York Times Editorial, Apr. 28, 2016]
Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold
(By the Editorial Board)
It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to
American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning
that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed
bill advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and
Means Committee.
It would alter the current tax code provision that, while
permitting the identity of donors to 501(c) ``social
welfare'' groups to be kept firmly secret from the public,
requires that the donors be privately identified to Internal
Revenue Service officials responsible for enforcing the law.
Politically oriented groups claiming dubious exemptions as
``social welfare'' nonprofits have proliferated in recent
elections, allowing donors--including publicity-shy campaign
backers--to work from the shadows.
Under the proposal, the I.R.S. would no longer be told the
identities of contributors to these nonprofits. Watchdog
groups warn in a letter to the House that this would ``open
the door wide for secret, unaccountable money from foreign
governments, foreign corporations and foreign individuals to
be illegally laundered into federal elections.'' The letter,
signed by the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal
Center, Democracy 21 and five other groups, stressed that the
disclosure requirement is one of the few ways of guarding
against foreigners influencing American elections.
Representative Peter Roskam, the bill's sponsor, dismissed
the reform groups' warning, saying the I.R.S. ``has a
miserable track record when it comes to safeguarding
sensitive data'' and a history of targeting conservative
nonprofits that are critical of administration policies. His
office insisted that ending the disclosure requirement would
not affect the foreign-donation ban, but the reform groups
sensibly ask who else could monitor what has become a runaway
system of big-money stealth politicking.
[[Page H3774]]
Claiming a ``social welfare'' tax exemption has become a
tool for powerful political operatives like Karl Rove, the
Republican campaign guru. His Crossroads GPS group, which has
501(c) status, has spent $330 million on ads and candidates
since it was created in 2010. Other political groups,
including the Democrats' Priorities USA Action, which aided
in President Obama's re-election campaign, have followed suit
in claiming ``social welfare'' status. In the last four
years, more than $500 million in secretive election
contributions has been netted by those using the ploy.
Amid fierce Republican criticism, the I.R.S. has grown ever
more gun-shy about enforcement, with Tea Party and other
right-wing groups accusing tax officials of bias in daring to
investigate conservative ``social welfare'' claims. As I.R.S.
wariness grows, so does the attraction of 501(c)s for donors
more interested in stealth politicking than charity work.
Enabling foreigners to join this dark money debacle would be
disastrous.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will read the opening paragraph: ``It is
plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political
campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely
undermined by a little-noticed bill''--which is this bill--``advanced
Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.''
This is basically saying that this opens up a loophole that, quite
frankly, can be very, very dangerous. So I urge my colleagues that if
this rule gets passed, that they would vote against this bill.
Again, as I mentioned on the Defense Appropriations bill, it is a
bill that is based on budget gimmicks, and it is also a bill that
continues to fund endless wars without having any authorization from
this Congress. We have not voted on an AUMF for the most recent war in
Iraq and in Syria. I find it unconscionable that we have no problem
just putting these wars on automatic pilot and having our brave men and
women in uniform in harm's way, and we don't even have the guts to
debate it.
We have tried and tried and tried and tried on various bills--on
authorization bills and on appropriations bills--to be able to have
that debate. There is always an excuse--oh, it is a different committee
jurisdiction; oh, we have to give it more than 10 minutes; oh, we have
to do this, we have to do that--but this is our constitutional
responsibility. We have time to vote on all these other bills that,
quite frankly, are going nowhere that are political messaging pieces
written at the National Republican Congressional Committee, but we
can't find the time to debate these wars to clarify what our mission
is--these wars that our brave men and women in uniform have been put in
harm's way to deal with?
Come on. At some point, we have to find the courage to debate this.
If people think these wars are the right way to go or they want to
expand Presidential authority, then that is how you do it. If people
like me think our military footprint is too big in the Middle East and
that we need to have a more clearly defined mission about what we are
doing, then that is the forum in which we restrain these wars.
But to do nothing--to do nothing--is cowardly. It is just wrong. I am
hoping in the amendment process that we will have the opportunity to
debate some of these issues. But if history is any indication, the
answer is probably not.
Finally, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question.
Quite frankly, instead of these flawed bills, we should be debating how
to prevent more tragedies like the one that took place in Orlando.
If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up a bill that is a
bipartisan bill that would simply say that, if you are on an FBI watch
list so you are unable to fly, then you should be unable to buy a gun
at a gun store. It is that simple.
I don't quite understand why that is such a big deal. If the FBI
believes that you are potentially dangerous so that they will not allow
you to fly on an airplane, then how in the world can we allow that
person to go into a gun store and buy a gun? And not just any gun; they
can buy an assault weapon. It is crazy.
We have tried, on numerous occasions, to bring this issue to the
floor, and House Republicans have voted 11 times--11 times--to block
the bipartisan No Fly, No Buy legislation that was originally authored
by my Republican colleague, Congressman Peter King.
Since taking control of the House in 2011, my Republican friends have
drastically cut the resources available for law enforcement, slashing
the COPS program, which includes COPS hiring, COPS technology,
interoperability, et cetera, by 64 percent. We need to respond to these
terrible tragedies and make sure that our communities have what they
need to keep people safe.
According to the Government Accountability Office, as my colleague
from California (Mr. Thompson) pointed out, more than 2,000 suspects on
the FBI's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in
the United States--more than 2,000. These are people who can't fly on
airplanes because they are suspected of being terrorists, but they can
go in and buy a firearm. More than 90 percent of all suspected
terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked
away with the weapon they wanted, with just 190 rejected, despite their
ominous history.
This legislation that we want to bring to the floor--just so there is
no misunderstanding here--was originally crafted in 2007 and endorsed
by President Bush's Justice Department. It has bipartisan support in
the House and is supported by prominent Republicans and
counterterrorism and law enforcement experts. Yet we can't find the
time to bring it to the floor. All we can do in the aftermath of
terrible massacres like the one in Orlando is come to the floor and
have a moment of silence for 10 seconds, and that is it. That is our
obligation.
It is awful that we can't deal in a responsible way with legislation
like the bills that I have mentioned here. I think the American
people--and this goes beyond political affiliation--are getting sick of
our inaction on this stuff. I should just say, if my friends are afraid
of the NRA, according to a 2012 poll, 71 percent of current or former
NRA members and 80 percent of other gun owners support preventing
people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
I don't know what it is going to take, but I will tell you this: the
outrage is already beyond description here on the House floor of people
who are simply tired of our inaction.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to
defeat the previous question so we can actually have a debate and vote
on something that might save some lives, and also vote against the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The gentleman makes an impassioned argument, but today's rule is
about two bills. It is about a bill that will prevent IRS abuse and
make sure that our citizens have a right to free speech and free
association that they are guaranteed under the First Amendment of the
Constitution.
I thought it was really interesting that he read a portion of The New
York Times editorial that is very clear to say that reform groups claim
that this bill does X. The editorial writer did not make the claim that
it happened or that it will happen; he made the claim that reform
groups claim it will happen because the editorial writer can't verify
the validity of it, and it is simply not true.
The Bank Secrecy Act will make sure, as it does today, that foreign
money is kept out of our elections. The Federal Election Commission,
which is responsible for enforcing our election laws, will continue to
enforce our election laws.
{time} 1315
In fact, no one knows what Schedule B is used for. Today it has no
real purpose. The IRS' Director of Exempt Organizations has publicly
stated that they are considering doing away with Schedule B themselves.
That is all the first bill does.
The second bill we are talking about is providing for funding for our
troops. It is the DOD authorization for funding for 2017. The gentleman
talks about some other issues, but if we don't fund it, we are the ones
doing nothing. If we don't fund our troops, we are the ones doing
nothing. We have an obligation to fund our troops to provide for the
common defense. We need to make sure we do that. That is what this bill
does, and I want to make sure we do that.
[[Page H3775]]
I do want to make a quick comment on process because the gentleman is
apparently outraged about process. In this session of Congress, the
114th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the majority has allowed 1,269 amendments
on the House floor in this Congress. That is as of May--halfway through
this year. In the 113th Congress, the majority allowed 1,545 amendments
to be considered. When the gentleman from Massachusetts was in the
majority in the 111th Congress, his party only allowed 778 amendments
during the entire 111th Congress. The gentleman's claims ring a little
hollow. Maybe where you stand depends on where you sit.
I will say that these are important bills. The rule will make sure
that we can fully fund our national defense and make sure that we look
out for the constitutional rights of our citizens. Those are two very
important things. I don't argue with the gentleman that there may be
other things we want to talk about, but those things are important, and
that is what today is about, that is what this 1 hour of debate is
about, and that is what the 2 hours the rule provides are about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the
underlying bills.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 6. 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.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
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. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5049.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 171, not voting 27, as follows:
[Roll No. 299]
YEAS--236
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
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
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
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
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
[[Page H3776]]
NAYS--171
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
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
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jackson Lee
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
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)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--27
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Comstock
Dingell
Duffy
Farr
Fattah
Forbes
Gabbard
Goodlatte
Granger
Grijalva
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Hunter
Kirkpatrick
Labrador
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lipinski
McDermott
Meng
Rokita
Sanford
Takai
Waters, Maxine
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1337
Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, SERRANO, SIRES, and TAKANO changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia, Mrs. NOEM, and Mr. JOYCE changed their
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 299, had I been present,
I would have voted ``yes.''
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. McGOVERN. Mr. 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 239,
noes 179, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 300]
AYES--239
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Gosar
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)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
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
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
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
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
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NOES--179
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Bass
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
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
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
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)
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bishop (UT)
Dingell
Duffy
Fattah
Forbes
Goodlatte
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Lawrence
McDermott
Meng
Sanford
Takai
Torres
Waters, Maxine
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1344
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.
personal explanation
Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted:
No on rollcall No. 299.
No on rollcall No. 300.
____________________