[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 118 (Thursday, July 13, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H5777-H5783]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2810, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) has 
25\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern) has 20\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from Alabama is recognized.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, now that the gentleman's motion to adjourn has been 
defeated by a wide, bipartisan majority, the House can get back to work 
and do the people's business. I want to go back over some statistics we 
talked about earlier. This rule makes in order for floor consideration 
210 amendments which are on top of the 275 amendments that were offered 
in the Armed Services Committee.
  Now, let's go back to the days when the NDAA was considered on this 
floor and this floor was under the majority's control on the other side 
of the aisle. Let's start with 2007. 135 amendments were offered; only 
50 were made in order.
  In 2009, 129 amendments were offered; only 58 were made in order.
  In 2010, 129 were offered; only 69 were made in order.
  In 2011, 193 were offered; only 82 were made in order.
  And we are making in order in this rule, and yesterday's rule, 210. 
This has been an open process by any measure.
  The gentleman also referred to the fact that there are other needs in 
America that are not being met because we are spending money on 
defending the United States of America.
  Let me go back and remind what I said earlier. Only 16.8 percent of 
next year's Federal outlay will go to defending America if we adopt the 
National Defense Authorization Act as passed by the committee, less 
than 20 percent. That means almost 85 percent of Federal outlays are 
going to go to every other thing that we do in government. If there is 
a problem with something not being paid for, it is not because of the 
money we are spending on national defense.
  Then finally, the gentleman's comments about the need for us to make 
sure that we are properly authorized as we engage in military 
activities abroad; I do agree with him. We have had some mission creep 
over the last several years. We have gone from Iraq and Afghanistan, 
under President Obama, to Syria, to Libya, to Yemen, and many of us on 
both sides of the aisles decried the fact that we did that.
  It is, indeed, our responsibility, not the President's 
responsibility, to declare war, to authorize the use of military force. 
That is why this rule makes in order an amendment by the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) that will set in place a process that will lead to 
the consideration on this floor of the Authorization for Use of 
Military Force.
  So I believe this rule does exactly what the people of America expect 
us to do, and that is to stay in this room, stay on this floor, and act 
on the National Defense Authorization Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Kelly).
  Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
my amendment to H.R. 2810, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2018, to prohibit Federal funds from being used to 
implement the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty unless the Senate first 
ratifies the treaty.
  This language is identical to the version of my amendment that was 
enacted into law in last year's NDAA and reflects the consistent will 
of the American people and the unified position of Congress in 
opposition to this misguided and dangerous treaty.
  The U.N. ATT is a deeply flawed agreement signed by the Obama 
administration in 2013. It would undermine our national sovereignty, 
harm our most vulnerable allies, and threaten the Second Amendment 
rights of every single American. Turning over our arms trade policy to 
the United Nations is just wrongheaded.
  The U.N. ATT would force the United States, the world's most 
important defender of liberty and democracy, onto equal footing with 
the world's worst dictatorships and terror sponsors. It would be 
readily politicized by bad actors around the world to try to stop 
America from providing arms to our friends and allies, including 
Israel, South Korea, and others.
  In short, just like gun control, it would stop the good from doing 
good without stopping the bad from doing bad.
  Congress has stood strong for the past 6 years on this issue. 
Together, we were successful at stopping the Obama administration from 
ever implementing this treaty or using hardworking American taxpayer 
dollars to promote it.
  Nevertheless, our work is not over. One of former President Obama's 
parting shots as he left office was to submit the U.N. ATT to our 
colleagues in the Senate for ratification, even though he knew it was 
dead on arrival.
  Regardless of who is seated in the Oval Office, renewing this ban is 
important because no Presidency is permanent. A future administration 
may well try even harder to put this treaty into effect.
  Fortunately, in Donald Trump, we now have a President who believes in 
protecting our sovereignty in every possible way. America should never 
cede its sovereignty to the United Nations to determine its arms trade 
policies.
  Therefore, in addition to supporting this amendment, I strongly urge 
President Trump and Secretary Tillerson to take the final step and 
officially withdraw the United States from the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty 
once and for all. It is time to tear it up.
  I urge my colleagues to stand with me in support of the Second 
Amendment and our Nation's sovereignty and vote in support of my 
amendment.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  When asked about this process that we are now dealing with this 
morning, with respect to the Hartzler amendment, Speaker Ryan said: 
``It's a free process. It's open process. She can bring an amendment to 
the floor if she wants to.''
  Really? This is an open process? She should be able to bring an 
amendment that we all think is discriminatory and, quite frankly, 
bigoted, to the floor; yet amendments that we have tried to bring to 
the floor that deal with the issue of war and whether or not we should 
be in these endless wars are denied.
  What kind of free process is that? Maybe it is a free process in 
Russia, but it is not a free process in the United States of America.
  This process is a sham. Fifty-two percent of the amendments that were 
brought before the Rules Committee were rejected. You might want to 
defend that process, but I don't.
  The gentleman says that mission creep has occurred, and that we have 
a responsibility here in this House. You are absolutely right we have a 
responsibility. When are we going to live up to it?
  And the Cole amendment, which I am happy to support, is a report. We 
have had reports up to here that have been brought before the NDAA 
process over the years. Enough. Time to do our job.
  This is why people are cynical about Washington when they hear this 
kind of doubletalk. Yeah, we get it. We are worried about mission 
creep. Congress ought to do its job. And so what are we going to do? 
Not do our job, but we will issue a report.
  Come on, enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question, and I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
Representative Pocan's Leveraging Effective Apprenticeships to Rebuild 
National Skills Act, H.R. 2933, which will promote effective 
apprenticeships that will give

[[Page H5778]]

students and workers the skills they need to find well-paying jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Jody B. Hice of Georgia). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss that proposal, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a vital tool for 
ensuring workers are able to secure good-paying, family-supporting 
jobs, and that is apprenticeships.
  I grew up in Kenosha, Wisconsin, a working class town with a very 
large skilled trade presence. I understand what good, middle class jobs 
look like, and the impact they can have on a community. A good middle 
class paycheck ensures people can afford a mortgage, have healthcare 
for their families, take a family vacation, and send their kids to 
college if they want to; and that is what we need right now are more 
higher-paying jobs.
  But not everyone goes to a traditional 4-year college or university, 
nor does every job require this type of degree. That is why, for many, 
apprenticeships are the key to family-supporting wages.
  Apprenticeship programs have proven very effective at helping prepare 
workers for careers in highly skilled professions. This bill would 
increase the number of highly skilled workers in the United States and 
strengthen apprenticeship programs as an effective earn-and-learn model 
for students, workers, and employers.

                              {time}  1330

  It is a win-win for workers and businesses. The LEARNS Act supports 
closer connections between registered apprenticeship programs, 
employers, and others offering good-paying jobs.
  But there is a problem. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
like to talk about their support of apprenticeships. I hear the 
Secretary of Labor talk about them. I even hear the President talk 
about them. But that is all it is: talk.
  As a new member of the Appropriations Committee, I was shocked to see 
that Republicans' newly released Labor-HHS funding proposal entirely 
eliminates Department of Labor apprenticeship grants. Again, that 
appropriations proposal cuts $95 million from apprenticeship funding, 
every singer dollar in the program. There is not a penny left to 
connect workers and businesses with apprenticeships.
  You can't have it both ways. If you support apprenticeships and job 
training for workers, then you should support funding for job training 
and apprenticeship programs. It is pretty simple.
  If Republicans are serious about job creation, about training workers 
for a 21st century economy, and they actually want to do more than talk 
about jobs and apprenticeships, then we should move forward to defeat 
the previous question in order the bring forward the LEARNS Act.
  Walk the walk, Mr. Speaker. Talk is cheap. The American people 
deserve action. I urge all of my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right. Workforce training is 
very important, and that is why we passed on this floor a few weeks ago 
the reauthorization of the Perkins Act--not by a bipartisan majority, 
by a 100 percent vote.
  We have other bills that we are considering in the Education and the 
Workforce Committee that will deal with that because it is important 
that we build the workforce in America. But you don't do that in the 
National Defense Authorization Act. That is what we are here today 
about.
  I am afraid my colleagues on the other side have forgotten what this 
bill is about. It is about making the people of America safe and 
secure. We will deal with those other issues, as important as they are, 
in other legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Marshall).
  Mr. MARSHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on an important piece of 
legislation, the National Defense Authorization Act. This funding is 
vital to our national security and the readiness of our military.
  As our Nation continues to face threats around the globe, our 
soldiers must have the necessary equipment to complete missions and 
return home safely.
  Just 2 weeks ago, 4,000 of our troops returned home from South Korea 
to loved ones at Fort Riley, Kansas. In a short number of weeks ahead 
of us this fall, the Dagger Brigade, also from Fort Riley, will travel 
to Europe for a 9-month deployment.
  This legislation helps ensure readiness for brigade combat teams, 
such as the Dagger Brigade, and gives our troops a much-deserved 2.4 
percent military pay raise. It also allows for over 17,000 more 
soldiers, and allocates $2.3 billion over the administration's request 
for maintenance and repair, which is so necessary.
  Mr. Speaker, I refuse to send our troops to a gunfight with knives. I 
encourage my colleagues to support this legislation to give our men and 
women in uniform the tools and support they deserve.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that I agree with 
the gentleman from Alabama. This bill is about our national security 
and about protecting our country, which makes it all the more puzzling 
that the Republicans think this is an appropriate place to be debating 
amendments on transgender issues. But anyway, they are in charge, so 
they can do whatever they want to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear all these 
great amendments that have been made in order, and I was glad to hear 
my friend from Alabama reference the fact that this is a bill to make 
the people of America safe.
  I rise in opposition to this rule because there was one amendment 
that makes the people of America safe that was omitted from the list 
that was approved. It was a bipartisan amendment by myself, Mr. Young 
from Alaska, and Mr. Jones from North Carolina that would declassify a 
50-year-old DOD project that sprayed biological and chemical weapons on 
our servicemembers and some civilians, and that amendment was not made 
in order.
  Convulsions, paralysis, respiratory failure, and death--those are 
just a few of the most severe side effects of sarin gas, a chemical 
weapon so deadly and debilitating that it was outlawed as a weapon of 
mass destruction.
  When Syria's military used it, we retaliated. But in the 1960s and 
1970s, the United States Department of Defense sprayed biological and 
chemical weapons like sarin, VX nerve gas, and e. coli on our own 
servicemembers. In the years since, many of those exposed have suffered 
debilitating health effects.
  For 40 years, the Department of Defense has not provided a 
comprehensive public accounting of these tests nor have they notified 
all the veterans and all the civilians who were potentially exposed. We 
can't allow this information to continue to be released piecemeal. 
These veterans can't wait any longer. Their health continues to 
decline, and some have already passed away. To sweep this under the rug 
is shameful.
  These veterans served honorably for the security of our Nation. These 
tests are an ugly part of our history. They put veterans' lives at 
risk, and our veterans have every right to know what it was they were 
exposed to and how much they were exposed to. We need to think about 
their safety and their security.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer).

  Mr. MESSER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership.
  Congress' most important job is to provide for the national defense 
of this country. Yet, during the past 6 years, America's military 
resources have been downsized and slashed.
  Today, Congress is taking corrective action to rebuild our military, 
support our troops, and provide for a strong national defense. This 
Defense Authorization Act fulfills our promise to prioritize America's 
safety and protect our citizens from ongoing global threats, including 
radical Islamic terror.

[[Page H5779]]

  This bipartisan bill increases resources for every branch of the U.S. 
military and ensures that our troops receive the compensation they 
deserve, with the largest pay increase in 5 years. It also supports a 
robust missile defense program, and it strengthens America's cyber 
warfare capabilities.
  Simply put, this bill makes America safer, and I urge your support.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Khanna), and I also congratulate him on becoming a new 
dad.
  Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank his wife, 
Lisa McGovern, for being a great support to my wife.
  I rise today in opposition to this rule. It is not just because I am 
opposed to our policy of refueling planes into Yemen, refueling Saudi-
led planes. It is because of our view, a bipartisan view, of the place 
of Congress, Congress' Article I of the Constitution. It is Congress' 
responsibility and duty to have a public debate about our foreign 
policy, about who we ought to be arming, who we ought to be intervening 
in overseas. We are abdicating that responsibility.
  My amendments would have been very simple. They would have said that 
this body should debate whether we should be refueling Saudi-led 
airplanes that are leading to civilian deaths in Yemen, that are 
causing civil war in Yemen, a Saudi coalition that is aligned with al-
Qaida in Yemen, and al-Qaida has hurt the United States.
  Why wouldn't we debate this on the floor of the United States 
Congress? Why wouldn't we have transparency and let the American public 
weigh in on whether this policy is making us more safe and is upholding 
human rights?
  It is with great disappointment that we are not having this debate in 
the United States Congress. I believe it is an abdication of our 
responsibility to the oath we take to uphold the Constitution.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. I 
think that his issue comes within the broader question about the 
authorization of military force in various parts of the Middle East. I 
think he raises an important point. There is an amendment made in order 
under this rule that will put in place a process to get us to that 
debate.
  I appreciate what he just said. I hope that he will hold that idea, 
and when we have that debate on the floor, will bring it back so we can 
consider it among those other items we will consider at that time. I 
appreciate what he just said. This is not the place or the time to take 
that up.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take 1 minute to address something 
the gentleman from Alabama raised a while ago, and that is: Why would 
we be raising the issue of apprenticeships and workforce training as 
part of the Defense Authorization bill.
  There are a couple of reasons why. One is because we are routinely 
blocked from bringing any meaningful legislation to the floor, and we 
are routinely blocked from bringing amendments to the floor that I 
think can help with this issue.
  The gentleman mentioned the action we took in a bipartisan, unanimous 
way on the issue of Perkins loans and a few other programs. Those are 
important. But it is the beginning. We need to do much, much more in 
this country. We need to be able to prepare a workforce that can meet 
the needs of our manufacturers and be there for the jobs of tomorrow. 
That is why we brought this up. That is why we are bringing it up in 
this fashion.
  I would just go one step further to say, when we talk about national 
security, I think we ought to broaden that definition to include not 
just the number of bombs we have, but the quality of life that our 
people in this country enjoy: whether or not people have the security 
of a job, whether they can afford a college education for their kids, 
whether they can afford to buy a home, whether they can afford to put 
food on the table.
  We live in the richest country in the world, and there are 42 million 
Americans who are hungry, and yet we somehow can't get the political 
will to address that problem or fix some of these challenges.
  We are going to take any opportunity we have to bring to the floor 
serious ideas that we think will benefit the American people, uplift 
the American people, and that is why I think that this bill that we are 
trying to bring up, H.R. 2933, authored by my colleague, Mr. Pocan, is 
appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I really believe very strongly we need to do 
more in workforce training in America. I am a former chancellor of 
postsecondary education, former chair of workforce development for the 
State of Alabama. It is something that is very near and dear to me. I 
know that we are working very hard on these issues and have already 
produced this one bill, the Perkins bill that we passed in the 
absolutely 100 percent vote here on the floor. There will be more 
coming.
  But the National Defense Authorization Act authorizes what our 
military does and doesn't do and how it does it around the globe. This 
is a separate, different vehicle designed to provide for the defense of 
the American people.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comments. We need to take those comments 
up at another time as we take into consideration other bills that work 
on our workforce development.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a theme that is developing on the Republican 
side. We can always take it up at another time, at another time in the 
future. We can do the NDAA bill and this. That is the whole point of 
defeating the previous question. You can still debate the National 
Defense Authorization Act, and you can bring up this other thing that 
we think is of great value to workers in this country. It doesn't have 
to be one or the other.
  It is that same thinking when it comes to war. As I began this debate 
talking about the war in Afghanistan and the fact that it is the 
longest war in American history, we don't even talk about it here. We 
don't even debate it here.
  We ought to respect the men and women who we put in harm's way enough 
to make it a priority in this Chamber, and we don't even talk about it. 
We can't even bring amendments to the floor to deliberate on that. What 
we are told is: Well, we will vote on a study, another study. After 16 
years? That is the best we can do? Or we are told that it falls under 
the jurisdiction of another committee.
  Well, my friends on the Republican side are in charge. I am sorry to 
say that, but you are.

                              {time}  1345

  And I don't know what is standing in your way from asking the 
committees of jurisdiction or multiple committees to come together and 
to actually present to this Chamber an AUMF for these wars. There is 
nothing, other than the fact that you want to avoid an uncomfortable 
vote for your Members.
  Well, that is just too bad. War is a big deal. It ought to be a big 
deal, and we ought to treat it more seriously than we are. And I will 
repeat what I said at the beginning of this debate: What the Rules 
Committee did last night was shameful; blocking germane amendments, 
blocking serious amendments, to address an issue that, quite frankly, 
we should have been talking about a long time ago.
  Again, I regret that this is the rule that my Republican friends have 
come up with. They can say they are proud of it. Quite frankly, I am 
ashamed of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I remind all of us that the war in Afghanistan was authorized by an 
AUMF that was passed by Congress in 2001. So while we can have a debate 
about the other conflicts in other places, that conflict is, indeed, 
authorized, and has been authorized from the very beginning. So I would 
take exception to the gentleman's comments with regard to Afghanistan.
  There are provisions in the underlying bill that this rule makes in 
order and in those provisions that do things to help with that war 
effort, help the men and women over there fighting that war effort for 
us.

[[Page H5780]]

  So I think that this rule and the bill that underlies it are doing 
exactly what they should do with regard to Afghanistan, because 
Afghanistan is authorized.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the war and the authorization that 
the gentleman was talking about is 2001. We have been there for 16 
years. In 2001 we were going after al-Qaida. Al-Qaida is gone. We are 
now fighting the Taliban and propping up one of the most corrupt 
governments in the world. Our mission continues to change.
  The idea that we should be operating in Afghanistan under an AUMF 
from 2001, that somehow nothing has changed, is ludicrous. And the idea 
that we are using that authorization to justify our military operations 
in Syria and a whole bunch of other places in the world is ludicrous. 
Enough. Enough.
  This Chamber needs to do its job, and this leadership needs to get 
out of the way, and Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans--
need to come together and debate these issues seriously.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Speier), a distinguished member of the Armed Services Committee's 
Subcommittee on Military Personnel.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I voted for this bill in committee because we have brave 
servicemembers in harm's way that depend on it. But I want to make 
clear that I don't believe we have done our job to address the 
unbridled waste in this bill; billions of dollars, the sheer amount of 
waste in this bill, billions upon billions of dollars. And even worse, 
the bill, as currently written, sets us up to throw away billions more 
for years to come.
  I know it can be political suicide to take on defense contractors, 
but we owe the taxpayers a level of accountability and discipline. It 
is the same thing every single year, like the greatest hits of defense 
waste: the littoral combat ship, a combat ship that can't even survive 
combat, a ship on perpetual port call because it is always in need of 
repair, a ship the Navy said it needs only one of.
  But, apparently, the White House knows better, because they forced 
the Navy to ask for another one. And even that wasn't enough, because 
our committee decided to give them a third one. We are tripling the 
number of ships the Navy said they need.
  Now, how outrageous is that?
  That is $500 million a pop. That is $1 billion more than the Navy 
wanted.
  The F-35, the President has trumpeted how he brought down the price 
of this bloated program. But just a few days ago it was revealed that 
the bill for this program is actually going to jump 7 percent. You 
probably won't be seeing this on the President's Twitter feed, but the 
Pentagon now says it needs another $63 billion for the program.
  But instead of demanding accountability, this bill rewards Lockheed 
and the Pentagon by committing the government to block buy F-35s 
without the testing that is required.
  Then there is the USS Ford, a brand-new class of carrier that is at 
least 25 percent over budget right now. You would think that before 
sending a crew of 4,300 out to sea in a $13 billion carrier with a host 
of new mission-critical systems, we would want to ensure that the ship 
can actually survive in combat conditions. But you would be wrong. This 
bill actually eliminates the requirement for shock testing that 
Congress itself imposed just a few years back.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Katko). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, forgoing this testing could not only put our 
sailors at unnecessary risk, but could also lead to expensive retrofits 
for years to come. And for what?
  This is not what Americans expect when they tell us they want a 
strong defense. This is not what Americans expect of us in our 
congressional oversight role. We are not doing our job if we don't do 
oversight, if we don't say ``no'' to wasteful spending, and if we don't 
say ``no'' to blank checks to defense contractors.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. Most of those issues, if not 
all of them, were brought up in committee when this bill was considered 
as amendments, and they were defeated in virtually all cases by a 
bipartisan vote.
  I appreciate the fact that she voted for the overall bill, as did 
everybody but one Member after you take it all into consideration, 
because that is what this bill is about. We are authorizing a broad 
swath of the defense of this country. There are a lot of moving parts 
to it.
  Not everything in a bill this big is going to be satisfactory to 
everybody on the committee. I can pick out one or two things I don't 
like about it. But as a whole, it does the job that needs to be done 
for the people that we depend upon to defend America.
  So I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, but most of all, I 
appreciated her vote at the end of the day when we approved that bill 
after markup in committee.
  Now, I do want to respond to one thing that the gentleman from 
Massachusetts said. He talked about, we are still there fighting the 
Taliban. The 2001 AUMF specifically references the Taliban.
  So we can talk about how things in Syria that President Obama did, 
things in Libya that President Obama did, things in Yemen that 
President Obama did are outside the AUMF that was adopted in 2001 with 
regard to Afghanistan, and I think that is a legitimate debate. But 
there is no legitimate debate about whether or not the ongoing conflict 
in Afghanistan and our involvement with it has been authorized, because 
it has been authorized for 16 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Congressional Record a letter from 14 
conservative and liberal national organizations opposing a defense bill 
that busts the budget caps.

                                                    July 10, 2017.
       Dear Representative McGovern: As organizations representing 
     Americans across the political spectrum, we are writing to 
     voice our strong opposition to attempts by Members of 
     Congress to increase the Pentagon's fiscal year 2018 budget 
     above both the budget caps set by the Budget Control Act and 
     the President's budget request. The Pentagon is currently 
     funded at a higher level than at almost any time since World 
     War II, and the budget problems it faces should be solved by 
     better fiscal management, not by adding more money to an 
     already bloated and wasteful department.
       The challenges facing our military are partially the result 
     of years of failing to make the necessary, tough choices our 
     nation's security requires. Rather than prioritizing basic 
     needs of the warfighter, lawmakers have pursued huge, 
     expensive weapons systems that fail to meet technical 
     specifications and may never be ready for combat. Waste and 
     unnecessary overhead abound, with a Defense Business Board 
     study showing that the Department of Defense could save up to 
     $125 billion over five years just by eliminating excess 
     bureaucracy and inefficiencies.
       Claims of a so-called ``readiness crisis'' are exaggerated. 
     As former DoD Comptroller Robert Hale said in February, these 
     claims are just the services ``putting their worst foot 
     forward'' in the hopes of securing funding increases. General 
     David Petraeus has also said that this idea of a readiness 
     crisis is a myth. By opposing important cost-saving measures 
     like base realignment and closure which could save several 
     billion dollars a year just by closing excess infrastructure, 
     Congress is demonstrating that it is not prioritizing fiscal 
     responsibility or making the choices that will actually keep 
     us safe. Moreover, the Pentagon cannot be sure what it is 
     spending as it is the only federal agency that has never 
     passed an audit.
       Budgets necessitate tradeoffs. Pentagon spending increases 
     shortchange other important priorities, from domestic needs 
     including education, health and nutrition and affordable 
     housing, to paying down the national debt. Further increasing 
     the Pentagon's budget by tens of billions of dollars without 
     a clear strategy will do little to solve national security 
     challenges. Rather, it will simply guarantee further wasteful 
     spending at the Pentagon. We hope that you will oppose any 
     attempts to increase the Pentagon's budget for fiscal year 
     2018.
           Sincerely,
       American Friends Service Committee; Center for 
     International Policy; Coalition on Human Needs; Council for a 
     Livable World; Freedom Works; Friends Committee on National 
     Legislation; Iraq Veterans Against the War.

[[Page H5781]]

       National Coalition for the Homeless; Taxpayers Protection 
     Alliance; Taxpayers United of America; The Libertarian 
     Institute; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church 
     and Society; Win Without War; Women's Action for New 
     Directions.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I also include in the Record a letter to 
all Representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union in 
opposition to the Hartzler amendment, which it deems as discriminatory 
and unconstitutional.

                               American Civil Liberties Union,

                                    Washington, DC, July 13, 2017.
     Vote NO on Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA--
         Discriminatory and Unconstitutional.

       Dear Representative: The American Civil Liberties Union 
     (ACLU) is strongly opposed to Hartzler Amendment No. 315 to 
     the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 
     (NDAA), H.R. 2810. This amendment would bar transgender 
     members of the Armed Forces and military families from 
     receiving appropriate and medically necessary health care. 
     This is a discriminatory, unconstitutional attack on 
     transgender service members and their families, plain and 
     simple. It should be overwhelmingly rejected by members of 
     the House of Representatives.
       Barring access to appropriate and medically necessary 
     health care, including transition-related care, for 
     transgender service members and their families is not only 
     discriminatory, but runs counter to scientific evidence and 
     contemporary medical standards of care. It also puts the 
     health of certain service members at needless risk and 
     undermines the ability of military medical professionals to 
     provide necessary care for their patients.
       There is a clear and overwhelming consensus among the 
     leading medical organizations--including the American Medical 
     Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the 
     American Psychological Association--that transition-related 
     care is safe, effective, non-experimental, and medically 
     necessary. If a military doctor determines that transition-
     related care (e.g. hormone therapy) is medically necessary 
     for a transgender service member, then that treatment should 
     be provided just as it would be for any other medical 
     condition for any other service member.
       Members of the House of Representatives should 
     overwhelmingly reject this discriminatory attempt to deny 
     necessary health care to certain service members and their 
     families. All of the members of our Armed Forces willingly 
     put their lives on the line in defense of our nation. The 
     least that Congress can do is ensure that the health care 
     needs of our service members and their families are being 
     met.
       Accordingly, the ACLU is strongly opposed to Hartzler 
     Amendment No. 315 to the NDAA and urges all members to vote 
     NO on it.
       Please contact Ian Thompson, legislative representative.
           Sincerely,
     Faiz Shakir,
       National Political Director.
     Ian Thompson,
       Legislative Representative.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is ironic to me that we have time to 
debate a bill that discriminates against transgender members of the 
Armed Forces and military families, but we can't find the time to 
debate war. It really is sad. It is a sad commentary on the way the 
Rules Committee conducted itself last night.
  Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman believes that what we are doing in 
Afghanistan is consistent with what was envisioned 16 years ago, he can 
go on thinking that, but it isn't. And if he thinks it is okay that 
that authorization is used to justify every military involvement we 
have all around the world, he can go ahead and think that way. I think 
he is very much mistaken.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress has to stop kicking the can down the road. It 
is unconscionable that the Republican leadership continues to prevent 
meaningful debate on these wars. But let me say one thing about why our 
House colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, keep bringing these 
issues up, despite the opposition from the Republican leadership. And 
that is because it is our job.
  The American people sent us to Washington to debate the uncomfortable 
issues and to take difficult votes. Now, there were some in Congress--
maybe my friend is included in that--who think that it is acceptable to 
give this administration a blank check to continue these endless wars. 
Why anybody--no matter who is President, but especially with this 
President--would feel comfortable giving him a blank check is beyond my 
comprehension.
  There are others who would like to end them and bring our servicemen 
and -women home. And then there are others who look for a different 
policy somewhere between these two positions. This is why we need to 
debate these wars. This is why we need to bring updated AUMFs to the 
floor for a vote.
  If that is a debate that you would rather not have, if that is a vote 
that you would rather not take, then Mr. Speaker, let me suggest that 
you should look for a new job. You should go into a different vocation.
  I am sure that I speak for all of my colleagues when I say that 
protecting the lives and well-being of our uniform men and women is one 
of the highest priorities, if not the highest priorities, of this 
Congress. But they deserve more than a ``thank you'' on Veterans Day.
  We do not respect their service and sacrifice and that of their 
families when we refuse to debate and take any responsibility for 
sending them year after year into war. They deserve a thoughtful, 
reasoned, and engaged debate. They deserve a debate. They deserve a 
little attention in this Chamber, not excuses and not more reports and 
not more, ``We will get to it in the future.''
  And that is why, along with many of my Republican and Democratic 
colleagues, we will continue to demand that the Republican leadership 
of this House allow a debate and a vote on the future of these wars.
  I just want to say, finally, Mr. Speaker, I have been raising this 
issue not just when Republicans have been President, but when Democrats 
have been President. I really believe that Congress has forfeited its 
constitutional responsibilities. We have abrogated our constitutional 
responsibilities. We have acquiesced time and time again to Democratic 
and Republican administrations when it comes to war.
  We can't allow that to happen. That is not responsible governing. We 
have an obligation to make sure that whatever we are doing with regard 
to our military, that it is the right thing to do.
  The idea that we once again come to the floor with the National 
Defense Authorization bill and we are told we cannot debate any of 
these things, we can't vote on any of these things, I mean, give me a 
break. What are you thinking? Why is this such a big, difficult thing 
to overcome with the leadership?
  Again, if my friends don't want to take uncomfortable votes, then do 
something else. Don't vote. But it is not the right thing to do. We 
should be ashamed of this process. There is no justifying shutting out 
debate on war.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill, and vote ``no'' on the 
rule, too.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman said we can't debate anything. The rule we passed 
yesterday makes in order 210 different amendments to be debated on top 
of the general debate of the bill itself. And that is on top of 275 
amendments in the committee of jurisdiction, the Armed Services 
Committee.
  This is the most debated piece of legislation we have every year, and 
it should be for the very reasons the gentleman from Massachusetts 
itemized, because what we are doing here is of profound importance.
  Now, I know that there are other issues that people try to stick into 
this bill every year that, frankly, distract us from the underlying 
importance of the bill; and that is, we are trying to do everything we 
possibly can to protect the American people. The threats the American 
people face today are more diverse, more profound than we have seen 
since the end of World War II.
  So, yes, this bill authorizes a lot of very important and expensive 
things. I acknowledge they are expensive. But it is even more expensive 
if we don't do them, or don't do them right, and we leave the American 
people exposed.
  Just take into account one of our threats, Kim Jong-un in North 
Korea. That missile test he did recently was an ICBM, an 
intercontinental ballistic missile. He does not need such a missile to 
hit South Korea or Japan. He needs that missile to hit us, to hit 
Alaska, to hit the West Coast of the United States, and ultimately to 
hit the entirety of the United States.

[[Page H5782]]

  It is a direct threat to the safety of the people of the United 
States. This bill authorizes an increase in missile defense, just one 
of the things that it does.
  So I hope that all of us will take the many things that we are going 
to debate here over the next several days very seriously and that we 
will come to the bipartisan conclusion, as we did in the committee, 
that when you take the totality of this bill together after you have 
gone through all of these amendments, it does the most important thing 
we are here to do, which is to defend the American people.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
440 and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 440 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec 5. 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. 
     2933) to promote effective registered apprenticeships, for 
     skills, credentials, and employment, 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 Education and 
     the Workforce. 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. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 2933.
                                  ____


        The Vote On The Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BYRNE. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 187, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 354]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette

[[Page H5783]]


     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Peters
     Price (NC)
     Roskam
     Sanford
     Scalise

                              {time}  1425

  Messrs. GOTTHEIMER, COOPER, Ms. SPEIER, and Mr. CROWLEY changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Messrs. WEBSTER of Florida, HOLLINGSWORTH, and RUTHERFORD changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania). 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 will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 190, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 355]

                               AYES--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cooper
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--190

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Arrington
     Cleaver
     Cummings
     Davis, Rodney
     Johnson, Sam
     Lieu, Ted
     Moore
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Price (NC)
     Roskam
     Sanford
     Scalise

                              {time}  1435

  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. ARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 355.

                          ____________________