[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.
____________________