Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 126 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 126 (Wednesday, July 26, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6313-H6326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3219, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 473

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, 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 two hours equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-30 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma
amendments described in section 4 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be

[[Page H6314]]

considered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any
time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment
except as provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments
en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc
offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations or their respective designees,
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by
section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be subject to a
demand for division of the question in the House or in the
Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
20 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the
Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of
the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent
order of the House.
Sec. 6. (a) During consideration of H.R. 3219, it shall not
be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a
decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section
251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit
Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not
so designated, or vice versa.
(b) This paragraph shall not apply to an amendment between
the Houses.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded
is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure
Appropriations Act, 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Appropriations Committee.
Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the
end product of many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. In
this package, we will be considering four appropriations bills:
Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military
Construction and Veterans Affairs. Together, the four parts of the bill
make up the Make America Secure Appropriations Act for fiscal year
2018.
The legislation ensures that our most important government services
will be funded responsibly and appropriately and that we will fulfill
our most important responsibilities as legislators: funding the
government and keeping it open to serve our constituents.
The bill provides a total of $658.1 billion for defense, an increase
of $68.1 billion in discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017
levels, and an increase of $28.3 billion over the President's request.
It also includes $73.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations and
Global War on Terrorism funding.
These funds will help us enhance our military readiness, and the
substantial increase marks an end to the ongoing erosion of our
national military strength that occurred during the Obama
administration.
Importantly, this bill also provides an increase in funding for
veterans. Over the past several years, the House has worked to improve
the Department of Veterans Affairs and to ensure that all veterans
receive the care and benefits to which they are entitled.
The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a 5 percent increase
in this bill, including $74 billion for the Veterans Health
Administration.
The increased funding represents an important step toward fulfilling
our promise to improve care, reduce wait times at the VA, and enhance
benefits for our Nation's veterans.
The Energy and Water portion of this appropriations bill provides
$37.6 billion in funding for fiscal year 2018, a decrease of $209
million from fiscal year 2017.
The bill includes an increase in funding for the National Nuclear
Security Administration that includes funds to restart the licensing
process for Yucca Mountain, the national disposal repository for spent
nuclear fuel. It also provides $6.16 billion for the Army Corps of
Engineers, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2017.
H.R. 3219 also provides $3.58 billion for the Legislative Branch. It
does not recommend funding levels for the Senate, as per our
longstanding tradition.
The bill includes a significant increase in funding for U.S. Capitol
Police and adds additional funds for securing offices in Washington and
in congressional districts. Importantly, it continues the freeze on
Member pay.
The package before us represents the House fulfilling its primary
responsibility: to fund the government. This package funds hundreds, if
not thousands, of Member priorities, particularly on the defense side.
I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their
months of working and making this bill a reality. It shows what the
House can do as we move forward toward completion of the fiscal year
appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I
yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin, because
this process is so lousy, but I want to rise today in opposition to
this rule and the so-called underlying bill, H.R. 3219, the GOP fiscal
year 2018 so-called security minibus appropriations bill.
This rule makes in order 72 amendments for debate on the House floor,
blocking 100 amendments. It continues the terrible closed process that
this Republican majority has used since they took control of the House
in 2011.
When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised a fair and open process
with regular order where both the majority and the minority would have
the opportunity to have their voices heard, and I am happy to provide
the full text of that speech to my Republican friends.
I guess we were misinformed, because our collective voices are
repeatedly silenced in this Chamber, not just Democrats, but
Republicans as well.
Speaker Ryan's broken promise was clearly on display last week when
he waited until the dead of night to strip out of the Defense
Appropriations bill a provision requiring Congress to debate the issue
of the 2001 AUMF. That provision was adopted by the full House
Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis as an amendment offered
by our respected colleague, Representative Barbara Lee. The bipartisan
Lee amendment would sunset the outdated 2001 AUMF and give Congress 8
months to enact a new one, ensuring that Congress finally debate and
vote on the many wars in which the United States is engaged.

If the Republican leadership doesn't like the lead provision, then
the Rules Committee could have made in order an amendment to strike it
from the bill. That would have given Members the chance to vote up or
down either to keep or remove the provision. That would have been
regular order, that would have been fair, that would have been open,
but, instead, House Republican leadership took it upon themselves to
replace Ms. Lee's provision with alternative language calling upon the
administration to produce a report.

[[Page H6315]]

Republicans on the Rules Committee defended this action, saying that
the Lee amendment legislated on an appropriations bill. The trouble
with that logic, Mr. Speaker, is that the language that replaced Ms.
Lee's amendment also legislates on an appropriations bill. That is
right. House Republicans put in an amendment that violates the same
rule.
If this leadership is going to silence Members on flimsy procedural
grounds, they probably shouldn't break those same rules on the same
day.
Even more shameful, the Republican leadership's continued actions to
block every effort and refuse to allow Congress to debate and vote on
these wars, I believe, is an insult to the men and women in uniform,
who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country, and
to their families.
Americans deserve better, and the bipartisan voices calling for
action will not be silenced, but this is just one example of regular
order being abandoned in order to advance an extreme agenda.
Tomorrow, House Republicans will use another legislative trick, the
self-executing rule, to stick taxpayers with a $1.6 billion bill for
President Trump's reckless and ineffective border wall with Mexico.
Now, instead of bringing that measure to the floor for an up-or-down
vote in an open process where all voices could be heard, the Republican
leadership is sticking this provision into the rule so that as soon as
the rule is approved, the measure will automatically become part of the
bill.
President Trump, as you may recall, promised the American people that
he would make Mexico pay for this wall. He repeated it over and over
and over again during the campaign. But now, House Republicans want to
take $1.6 billion of hard-earned tax dollars from millions of Americans
to fund it.

{time} 1245

Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, this $1.6 billion is only targeted at
74 miles of the border: two small tracts in Texas and one small tract
in California.
And how did this provision on the border wall make its way into this
minibus of appropriations bills? It was literally lifted out of the
Homeland Security appropriations bill and its few sentences air-dropped
into this package.
Where is the rest of the Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker? Sitting
in limbo, that is where it is.
I guess there weren't any other national security priorities in the
Homeland Security Appropriations bill that merited the very special
treatment that the 74 miles of this lousy wall seem to be getting. I
see that the only priority that matters for my Republican friends when
it comes to the security of our Nation is 74 miles of wall costing $1.6
billion.
Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. This is just a disgrace.
And then, because it will be part of a self-executing rule,
Republicans won't even have to vote on this Republican priority. They
will just vote on the rule and, bingo, it is all taken care of. There
will be no separate vote on this. You get the funding for the wall, but
nothing on record that says you voted to waste $1.6 billion on 74 miles
of border wall. Republicans can go home and say they delivered on the
wall. I guess they better hope that their constituents don't ask them
to show them the vote.
But as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace on funding. It is a
disgrace on funding priorities, and it is a real disgrace on process. I
mean, we should be ashamed of the process in which this bill is being
brought to the floor.
I wish I could say that I am surprised by all of this, but the fact
is that House Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for quite
some time now. This week, you may have read about this: Kellyanne
Conway claimed that even if President Trump says something that isn't
true, it is not a lie if he believes it.
Well, you can't make this stuff up. Well, I take that back. I guess
you can make everything up.
It seems clear that this warped logic has infected this Chamber, with
the House Republican leadership employing this same kind of thinking
and underhanded methods on a regular basis. They defend a process that
is indefensible, plain and simple.
This is a rigged process. Let's be honest. This is a rigged process.
Is this really how we want Congress and this House to conduct the
business of the American people? Is this how we will conduct the
appropriations process not only now, but in the future: no debate for
individual appropriations bills and severely limiting amendments
overall? no regular order and a subversion the committee process?
Soon, maybe there will be no amendments on appropriations bills at
all. This is a slippery slope, and I urge my Republican colleagues to
carefully consider the dangerous road that we are going down.
Americans deserve better from their leaders in Congress, especially
when it comes to deciding how the American people's hard-earned tax
dollars will be spent. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility,
but what I see here today is another reckless and bloated budget
proposal that empties the Treasury vaults for wasteful military
spending when we have so many critical priorities here at home that are
in desperate need of funding.
Now, apparently, House Republicans have no problem with spending $1.6
billion on President Trump's border wall with Mexico, but when it comes
to investing in our own communities here at home, they can't be
bothered.
How about investing in our kids' schools? Why aren't we doing more to
ensure that our young people have the resources and the support they
need to get additional education? Make college more affordable, for
example. Wouldn't that be a radical idea?
Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility and the need
for Americans to work. Why aren't we investing $1.6 billion more in job
training programs and finding ways to increase wages?
We should be making sure that more families have access to good jobs
and that no one in America who works full-time has to raise their
family in poverty.
President Trump had what feels like countless infrastructure weeks,
but we have yet to see Republicans propose any legislation to make good
on their promise to finally invest in America's infrastructure and
finally fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges.
Instead of making any of these policies the top priorities that they
should be in this Congress, Republicans are just offering more of the
same: empty rhetoric and broken promises.
Now, to be clear, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R.
3219, does fund some important priorities. Our national security must
be our number one priority with policies that are both strong and
smart. I strongly support our men and women in uniform and believe that
Congress should provide our troops everything that they need. Yet
Republicans have deliberately created a security bill that raises
serious concerns.
Let's recap for a second, Mr. Speaker. The final version of this bill
will include $1.6 billion for the President's useless and immoral
border wall. It strips out the bipartisan Lee amendment that would have
ensured Congress finally grapples with the wars that we are sending our
troops to fight instead of continuing to write the White House a series
of blank checks. And to top it all off, Mr. Speaker, the four bills
contained in H.R. 3219 blow through the Budget Control Act cap on
defense spending by $72 billion, threatening a 13 percent sequester cut
to all defense accounts.
While obliterating the defense spending cap, House Republicans have
proposed reducing nondefense spending to $5 billion below its cap. It
is legislative malpractice that Republicans have ignored this reality
and have done nothing to work with Democrats to write a new bipartisan
budget agreement to raise the Budget Control Act caps for both defense
and nondefense spending. Republicans are setting us up for a train
wreck, a government shutdown, or worse.

This is not good, Mr. Speaker. This should concern every single
Member of this Chamber, both Democrat and Republican. And so I urge my
colleagues to reject this rule and finally take a stand against this
process, which is rigged and closed and restrictive, and to oppose the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
before I go to my first speaker in order to respond to some of my
friend's points. I want to begin by talking about the amendment process
just very quickly.

[[Page H6316]]

It is worth noting 72 amendments are made in order here; 47 of those
were actually Democratic amendments. Many of the amendments that my
friend referred to that had been submitted to the Rules Committee, at
least a third of them, were knocked out because they were simply out of
order.
But my friend is correct: it is not an open rule. I do remind him
that the first people to eliminate open rules on appropriations bills
were not Republicans. It was actually the Democratic majority in 2009
that ended the practice and, for 2 years, allowed almost no amendments
on any appropriations bills, and most appropriations bills never came
to the floor. So I think my friends bear a considerable amount of
responsibility for where we find ourselves today.
I do want to talk a little bit, too, briefly, about my friend's
comments about the AUMF, because he has been a good friend and a close
ally in an area that we have a similar concern.
I agree with my friend. We need to debate this, and we need to have
an AUMF that is more in tune with the times and, frankly, reintroduces
congressional power and congressional oversight. I have worked with my
friend in the past on that. I am going to continue to work with him on
it going forward.
But in the case of the Lee amendment, which, in full disclosure, I
supported in the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the
committee of jurisdiction, which is not the Appropriations Committee,
made it known that he would lodge a point of order; so, in other words,
that would never get to the floor.
In place, we have put something that, frankly, will at least require
the administration, on the passage of this bill or the Defense
Authorization Act, in which it is also found, to submit a report that
justifies where the administration is legally, lays out their strategy,
lays out their costs, and gives us a chance to begin a debate.
As a sign of good faith, I am happy to report that the Foreign
Relations Committee, which actually does have jurisdiction here,
actually had their first hearing on a new AUMF earlier this week. So I
think we are trying to get to the same place. My friend may have a
different way to get there, but I agree with him, we need to reexamine,
redebate, and, I think, reenact a new AUMF. I think we are trying to
get there in a step-by-step, logical progression.
Finally, while my friend is concerned about where we will end up in
this process and, I think, legitimately so, I also want to point out we
have actually managed to come together here the last couple of years
and, I suspect, will again.
In fiscal year 2016, we had the same series of events, and yet
Congress came to an agreement on full funding that was bipartisan and
passed by substantial numbers of both parties participating, a majority
in each party. The same thing was true in fiscal year 2017. My hope is
that it will be true again in fiscal year 2018.
But this is an important part of the process. We need to go through
this. At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right
and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan
appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the
Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne), my good friend, a member of the Rules Committee, but also a
distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the
underlying bill. The Make America Secure Appropriations Act is all
about protecting the American people and securing our homeland.
Unfortunately, years of underfunding have severely hurt our military.
With this bill, we can make real progress towards rebuilding the
military and adding more troops, sailors, airmen, and marines to the
force.
Building on our pledge to boost the Navy to a 355-ship fleet, the
bill funds 11 new ships. Included in this are three littoral combat
ships, of which the Independence class vessel is built by a fantastic
workforce in southwest Alabama.
Having state-of-the-art facilities and resources is vital to the
success of our military. To help repair dilapidated and aging military
infrastructure, the bill provides a 25 percent increase in military
construction funding.
Supporting our servicemembers and their families is also a high
priority of this bill, as it provides for the largest military pay
raise in 8 years.
That is not all it does. It also provides for our Nation's veterans,
the very people who devoted their lives to protecting our country and
the values we hold so dear. This bill provides the highest level of
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in our Nation's history.
This will help cut down on the claims backlog and move forward with a
new electronic medical health records system.
I am also pleased that this bill will allow us to begin increasing
our Nation's border security in an effort to keep bad actors out of our
country. The American people sent a strong message last November that
they wanted a wall securing our southern border. This bill will begin
this process by providing over $1.5 billion requested by President
Trump for physical barrier construction along the southern border.
Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend a lot of people in America went
to see a movie called ``Dunkirk'' about the evacuation of over 300,000
British and French troops back over to England. Prime Minister Winston
Churchill had only been in office a couple of weeks at that point in
time, but he had predicted for years before that in speeches before the
House of Commons that that day was coming, and they took his speeches
and they put them together in a book called, ``While England Slept.''
With this bill, we are sending a strong message to the world that
America is not asleep.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just remind my colleagues here that we are debating the rule,
and this is about process.
The gentleman from Oklahoma earlier talked about waivers and that the
Lee AUMF language would be subject to a point of order. Well, the
language that my Republican friends replaced the Lee amendment with is
protected by a waiver of all points of order because it was also
legislating on an appropriations bill. As I pointed out last night in
the Rules Committee, you made in order amendment No. 19 by Mr.
Griffith, which violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act,
and you provided a waiver for that.
My Republican friends routinely grant waivers in bills that come
before the Rules Committee. The problem is that the waivers are only
granted for your amendments and never for our amendments, and that is
just not fair and that is not right.
So if your policy is going to be we are going to grant no waivers,
then it ought to apply not just to Democrats; it ought to apply to
Republicans, too. But there is this double standard here, and voices
that you disagree with always seem to end up being cut off.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just point that out because this process and the
reason why so many of us are angry about this process is it is so
blatantly unfair.
The gentleman from Alabama talked about how we all want to commit to
upholding the national security of this Nation. I agree with him, but I
would say we are not doing our jobs if this floor is not a place where
we can have a free-flowing debate, where Members can offer different
ideas and be able to have a vote on them. I would just say, with all
due respect to my Republican colleagues, you do not have a monopoly on
all good ideas.

{time} 1300

You know, we have a couple of good ideas, too, and maybe some of your
Members agree with that as well.
The other thing we are going to object to is, again, the way my
Republican friends self-execute controversial measures like this border
wall at $1.6 billion, basically denying an up-or-down vote. Maybe it is
to protect your Members in swing districts; I have no idea. Maybe you
don't think you have the votes to do it. But if you don't have the
votes to do it, it ought not to be in this bill. That is just, to me, a
sound way to approach legislating. All the normal rules seem to be
thrown out the window here.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms.

[[Page H6317]]

McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the Make
America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.
Mr. Speaker, we are in a constrained fiscal environment, and we need
to make smart choices about the future of our country. I am
disappointed to see that many of the choices that the Republican
leaders have made in this bill are completely out of balance with the
needs of the American people.
Republicans have chosen to exclude eight of the appropriations bills
from this legislation: funding for roads and bridges to drive on,
quality healthcare for our family, protecting our clean air and our
drinking water, and the education of future generations. These critical
investments that all Americans depend upon are left by the wayside with
no path forward.
Republicans have chosen to put forward a bill that exceeds the
defense caps by $72 billion. With no budget agreement in sight, this
bill would trigger sequestration cuts that our military leaders have
warned us would have catastrophic consequences for our men and women in
uniform.
Republicans have also once again declined to make commonsense cuts to
defense spending by denying the Pentagon's request for a new BRAC
round. Make no mistake: this will waste billions of dollars over the
next decade.
At a time when countries like China are emphasizing research and
investments in clean energy, Republicans have chosen to eliminate
funding for ARPA-E, doing great harm--great harm--to America's global
competitiveness in advanced research energy.
Mr. Speaker, these choices are simply unacceptable to my constituents
and to the American people, and I urge my Republican colleagues to work
with Democrats to put forward appropriate funding bills that will
advance the appropriations bills for all of America and to make America
the strong country it should be.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume to respond to my friends.
First, to my good friend from Massachusetts, and he is very much my
good friend, but when I was in the minority, I asked repeatedly, I used
to come up to the Rules Committee, as a former member of the Rules
Committee, and I always got the warmest, most gracious reception, but I
don't think I ever got an amendment approved. You can legislate on
appropriations bills if the chairman of the authorizing committee
consents to allow you to do it.
I have a great deal of sympathy with my friend's position on Ms.
Lee's amendment. I actually supported that amendment in subcommittee,
but I recognize that we are not the appropriate committee, and if a
different authorizing chairman wanted to do something, he could.
Finally, with all due respect to my friend, we are not the ones that
began this process of eliminating open rules on appropriations. My
friend's party is. We actually tried to restore it. I regret that we
did not succeed in that. This was not something I like doing, but,
frankly, it has gotten around here where people are more interested in
``got you'' amendments than real amendments, and that is basically what
has happened here. I hope we can revisit that someday and go back to
the traditional way of doing this.
Finally, to my good friend from Minnesota, I want to make a pledge to
her, and she knows it is sincere: we will work together. I don't think
this bill ultimately will be passed without bipartisan cooperation, and
I look at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills that all did end up as
cooperative measures.
Just to refresh my friend's memory, it was back in April that we
passed a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for fiscal year 2017 that was
extremely bipartisan. A majority of my friends on the other side of the
aisle voted for it, the majority of my friends voted for it, and the
President of the United States signed it.
This is a long and lengthy process to fund the government, and I
suspect, at the end of it, we will come together. That is certainly
what I am going to try to do as I work through the process.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Gibbs), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 3219.
This bill provides funding for the Federal Government's most critical
function--national defense--with the Make America Secure Appropriations
Act, as we are making sure the men and women who protect and defend our
country have the best equipment and training in the world, and that
they get the pay raise they deserve.
Additionally, I am pleased to see my provisions I have worked on were
included in this legislation to protect Lake Erie by preventing the
Army Corps of Engineers from using open lake placement as a method of
disposal of dredged material unless a State water quality certification
is provided. This is ensuring that Lake Erie remains on the path
towards a healthier natural resource.
The bill also gives the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the
Army further authorization to withdraw the waters of the United States
rule.
Finally, this legislation provides the resources to better secure our
border and protect our citizens and our national security. We are
making good on our promises to build the wall.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I had a real
bipartisan amendment that had been in order repeatedly in recent
sessions, gaining bipartisan support, to be able to deal with the
crisis that our veterans face in terms of addiction, opioids.
The VA, sadly, has a horrible record in terms of how they deal with
these veterans. They suffer suicide 50 percent higher than the general
public. The opioid addiction rate is twice the general population.
Mr. Speaker, I have been working for years in the area of medical
marijuana. Twenty-nine States have now legalized it. I wish my friends
on the Rules Committee had taken the time to listen to the stories of
veterans and their families about what difference it made for people
suffering from PTSD, chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury.
Medical marijuana has helped change their lives, and it is not
addictive and doesn't kill them the way the abuse of opioids has. Yet
the VA, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't even allow VA doctors to talk
to veterans about medical marijuana in the States where it is legal.
Our amendment is simple. It would eliminate that prohibition. It
wouldn't dispense marijuana on public land. It allowed the VA doctor to
work with the patients--the people who know them best.
It passed last year with 40 votes on a bipartisan basis. There were
18 bipartisan cosponsors for the amendment, 9 and 9, Republican and
Democrat. It has already passed the Senate by a 3-to-1 margin in
committee.
It was actually approved by the House last Congress, but in
conference committee, it was stripped out, led by former Senator Kirk.
I sincerely believe that one of the reasons he is a former Senator is
because Illinois veterans and their families were outraged about that
action to reverse what Congress did.
Now we are not even allowed to vote on it. I think that is
incomprehensible. I don't think it is fair to our veterans. My friends
on the Rules Committee are on the wrong side of history. In Florida,
last November, 71 percent of the people voted for medical marijuana.
Our veterans deserve the right to work with their VA physicians to do
what is right for them and their families and, hopefully, avoid the
epidemic of opioid overdoses, overprescriptions, and not being able to
treat them with a methodology that is not highly addictive and not
dangerous.
Mr. Speaker, there is no reason on God's green earth that we
shouldn't have been allowed to at least vote on this bipartisan
amendment to protect our veterans.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very quickly to my good friend from
Oregon. I just remind him this is a long and

[[Page H6318]]

winding road. It is a long process. As he said, the Senate may very
well move in a different direction.
I tend to focus here on veterans' issues as issues that have largely
brought us together. Quite frankly, this bill has a very substantial
increase in spending at the VA, and that is something that I know, in
committee, garnered wide bipartisan support. Let's wait and see where
we go.
I just want to say I think there will be continuing discussion about
this, but there is also a concern, always, on something like this that
is controversial. We have seen our friends do this before. Sometimes
you will put an amendment in but you won't vote for the final bill.
When you are trying to calculate whether you pass something, you
can't have amendments that cost you votes, that don't get you votes. I
am not suggesting that is my friend's purpose. It is not at all. I know
it is not. I know he is very sincere in this. I am saying that could
easily be the effect.
All I can tell you is we will continue to work through the bill. I
suspect when we get there, at the end of the day, this will be a very
bipartisan bill. It will pass with a very bipartisan majority.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) so he may respond.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say this was an opportunity
to bring us together. It passed last Congress on the floor of the House
with a 40-vote margin. There is more support now, today, in the public
and in the other body.
This was an opportunity to avoid unnecessary controversy, to send a
signal to our veterans, to change a destructive policy from the
Veterans Administration that is overwhelmingly supported by the
American public. If you would have allowed us to vote on the floor of
the House, I will guarantee you we would have had even more votes this
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised to have
``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and
more participatory.''
My friends like to highlight a number of amendments made in order
today as if this is a good process. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker,
that, rather than taking up one issue at a time, this is a rule for
three appropriations bills. I say to my friends, you guys are worse
than you used to be.
There are 10 amendments allowed for the Legislative Branch. Last year
you made in order 13. We have fewer amendments this year.
For the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, there are 16
amendments. Just a short time ago, in fiscal year 2016, we had a
modified open rule. This rule is clearly much worse.
We have the same situation with the Energy and Water bill. We have a
structured rule this year, while we had a modified open rule just 2
years ago. The process in the House is getting worse.
For the first time in history, we have a Speaker of the House who has
never allowed a truly open rule. Now, we were not perfect, Mr. Speaker,
but Speaker Pelosi allowed the Rules Committee to report open rules.
Speaker Boehner allowed open rules. Every Speaker in modern history
allowed some open rules, but we don't even get modified open rules
anymore.
Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an alarming rise in the number of self-
executing rules, what Republicans used to call ``deem and pass rules.''
Now, let me explain what that is.
In his book, ``Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative
Leaders,'' our dear Speaker, Mr. Ryan, described the self-execution
process. This is on page 98, if you are following along. But he called
this process, ``legislative trickery to enact legislation that does not
have majority backing.''
Now, sometime today we are going to go back up to the Rules Committee
to do a little legislative trickery to fund the President's border
wall.
News flash: Mexico is not paying for the wall. The language that the
Speaker intends to deem passed without a vote uses good old-fashioned
American greenbacks to pay for Trump's wall. The American taxpayers are
going to be stuck with this bill for this ridiculous wall.
Mr. Speaker, this process is not good; it is not a better way; it is
rotten; and the rule the majority will put on this floor tomorrow will
be even worse. We are jamming through these important appropriation
bills together, limiting debate, and moving further away from regular
order.

{time} 1315

We don't need this rule, and we don't need a self-executing rule
tomorrow. Now, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, I will
offer an amendment to open up this process and consider the Department
of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Energy and
Water Appropriation bills each under an open rule.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Luetkemeyer). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker: Members have a chance to
vote for an open amendment process on these appropriations bills. That
is what this PQ vote is about. Republicans will not control this House
forever, and I hope that no Member who votes against this open rule
amendment today will have the audacity to criticize any future
Democratic majorities.
If they do, Mr. Speaker, I assure you, we will remind them of this
vote.
To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members don't know what a previous
question motion is, and that is not really a surprise, because it is
usually used to set up some issues, and it is a party-line vote. This
is different.
This is different because this would allow amendments to be offered
to these appropriations bills. Now, the amendment process in
appropriations is one of the few times that Members of Congress have an
opportunity to offer an amendment. And it is not just Democrats. It is
Republicans, too.
I recall very well--I am a member, I am a co-chair of the Fourth
Amendment Caucus. It is Congressman Ted Poe and myself. And what
members of the Fourth Amendment Caucus did was we put together an
amendment that actually reformed section 702 of the PATRIOT Act. What
it said was you can't query the database accumulated under section 702
without a warrant. It is pretty obvious the Fourth Amendment protects
Americans. That passed by a huge bipartisan vote twice. We don't get to
offer that amendment this time because it is not an open rule.
So I am just asking that we treat this previous question vote as very
different than the usual garden variety previous question vote, because
this is different. This isn't about idealogy. This isn't about 30-
second adds and all that nonsense that we both do. No. This is about
having the opportunity--Republicans and Democrats, Members of
Congress--to offer an amendment in important areas, especially the
Fourth Amendment.
So please vote ``yes'' on the previous question this time, and let's
have open rules. Let's have democracy in America.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it
wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was
my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say:
But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be
treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you.
I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for
a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would
still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in
my own conference.
But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy
and

[[Page H6319]]

Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was
perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got
that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the
amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because
of the amendment.
So there is always that calculus when you put these things together.
There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive
amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill
amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject
themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that
decision, but that is the reality of where we are.
There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation
that I think is worth noting. We are moving under an expedited
situation because we began this process late. I want to take
responsibility for that on our side of the aisle.
I think all of the appropriations bills could have and should have
been finished for FY17 in December of 2016. Instead, we started to
allow the new administration to have input. We pushed that off and did
a 4-month continuing resolution. During that period, we did not
negotiate back and forth. We finally passed a bill in April. So we are
moving with exceptional speed.
I think it is pretty remarkable at this point that all 12
appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, and are
preparing to go here. Our leadership made, I think, a smart decision,
in that here are four that all relate to a common theme of security for
the country. Let's get those done. That is sort of first things first.
Let's come back and deal with the other eight in September. It is my
hope that that is what we will do, probably in packages again. But we
are trying to move quickly.
It is also finally worth noting that, again, this process, compared
to the process my Democratic friends followed, is far more open. There
are far more amendments now, even under a structured rule like
this, than they allowed when they were in the majority on
appropriations bills.

We can go get the numbers and count, but we are at least trying to
get back to getting the bills to the floor and having a pretty generous
latitude for serious amendments. We will always disagree over which
ones are made in order. A lot of Republican amendments weren't made in
order either, but 72 amendments on an appropriations bill is a lot of
amendments.
Hopefully, this process can get better as we go forward. I want to
work with my friends in that regard, but I am still very proud of the
product that we are presenting and very proud of the number of
amendments that are being allowed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by
a number of civil rights groups, education groups, environmental
groups, and women's groups in opposition to this minibus.

July 25, 2017.
Re Oppose H.R. 3219 Security Minibus--Vote No on Border wall.

House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our coalition of almost
90 environmental, faith, immigration, and civil rights
organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to oppose
funding for the continued construction of a border wall along
the U.S.-Mexico border. The construction of a border wall
serves as a symbol of hostility towards immigrants, and
undermines the civil rights of communities living along our
southern border. It also imposes environmental costs and
natural disaster threats on border communities, especially
indigenous communities, harms native wildlife and wastes tens
of billions in taxpayer dollars.
As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 2018
Security Minibus, H.R. 3219, we are profoundly concerned
about the inclusion of $1.6 billion slated for border wall.
In addition to spending billions of taxpayer dollars, adding
funding for the border wall in this legislative package
undermines a fair and transparent legislative process.
Instead of allowing legislators and the public to fully
consider the impacts of funding wall construction, the
Majority is using rushed and underhanded legislative
maneuvers to circumvent the vast and legitimate opposition
that exists for this measure, even within their own party.
Including border wall funding in a Security Minibus is
based on the false premise that our borders are somehow
violent and insecure. This false premise has been used to
justify and advance anti-immigrant, anti-border, pro-
criminalization, and anti-environment legislation that has
negative economic and civil rights impacts on border
communities. The fact is that communities along the border
are some of the safest in the country. According to the FBI's
Uniformed Crime Reports, cities on the border are safer than
cities away from the border. Places like El Paso, Texas have
long topped the lists of safest cities for their low crime
and violence. Additionally, according to the American
Immigration Council, communities with more immigrants are
likely to be safer than places with fewer immigrants.
Border walls are an ineffective tool in curbing
undocumented migration between the United States and nations
south of the border. Rather than deter migration, the current
650-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border has forced
vulnerable migrant populations to pursue more dangerous
routes of travel. The continued construction of a border wall
portrays an attitude of hatred and animosity towards our
neighboring nations. Additionally, construction of this wall
would undermine indigenous border communities, potentially
destroying elements of their history, archeology, and
culture. Border security measures must consider the historic
Tribal lands and families occupying the southern border.
Finally, the current proposal in Fiscal Year 2018 Security
Minibus calls for the construction of 60 miles of levee
border wall in the South Texas Rio Grande Valley; 28 miles
would be levee-border wall, with 2.9 miles slated to be built
in the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge is home to
diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich
natural beauty. When levee border walls are constructed, they
negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding
risks, destroy natural habitats, and lead to potential
increased extinction rates. In order to construct existing
border-walls, dozens of laws protecting our environment,
public health, and sacred natural lands were waived. Our
nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and healthy
ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for
ineffective security measures.
For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to vote
NO on the Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus, and oppose
funding for border walls, levees, or additional
infrastructure along the southern border of the United
States.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,

Civil Rights

Mi Familia Vota, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC),
HONOR PAC, UnidosUS (formerly NCLR), American Civil Liberties
Union, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, The City
Project, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA),
League of United Latin American Citizens, EPCF.

Community Groups

Southern Border Communities Coalition, Indivisible, SER
Jobs for Progress National Inc., Junta for Progressive
Action, National Black Justice Coalition.

Education/Higher Education

National Education Association, Hispanic Association of
Colleges and Universities (HACU).

Environmental/Environmental Justice

Earthjustice, Wildlands Network, Sierra Club, International
League of Conservation Photographers, Students for a Just and
Stable Future, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth,
Environmental Protection Information Center, Turtle Island
Restoration Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Jesus
People Against Pollution, Food Empowerment Project.
San Juan Citizens Alliance, Ocean Futures Society,
SustainUS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest
Environmental Center, Conservationist Wilderness Areas
Committee, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, West
Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, NextGen
America, La Union Hace La Fuerza, Comite Civico del Valle.

Religious/Faith Organizations

American Friends Service Committee, Frontera de Cristo,
Friends Committee on National Legislation, NETWORK Lobby for
Catholic Social Justice, Ajo Samaritans, Francscian Action
Network, Franciscan Peace Center, American Friends Service
Committee, Reformed Church of Highland Park, Cruzando
Fronteras, Southern Arizona Interfaith, Southside
Presbyterian Church, Church World Service.
School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mennonite Central Committee
U.S. Washington Office, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--
Institute Justice Team, National Justice for Our Neighbors,
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Maryknoll Office
for Global Concerns, Leadership Conference of Women
Religious, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Latino
Commission on AIDS, Hispanic Health Network.

Human Rights/Women's Rights

National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health,
OneAmerica, Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans, Coalicion
Derechos Humanos, National Immigrant Justice Center, No More
Deaths, Architects, Designers, Planners For Social
Responsibility (ADPSR), Lidia' DelPiccolo--Morris, National
Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), Tucson
Samaritans, People Helping People in

[[Page H6320]]

the Border Zone, Friends of Broward Detainees.

Immigrant Rights

Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition,
Detention Watch Network, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, End
Streamline Coalition.

Labor/Workers Rights

Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA),
Jobs With Justice, Arkansas United Community Coalition.

Latino Civil/Human rights/Latino Labor

Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American
Advancement, Latinos for a Secure Retirement.

LGBTQ Rights

National Center for Transgender Equality, Equality
California, Entre Hermanos.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by
18 environmental groups opposed to H.R. 3219.

July 26, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members,
the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3219,
the so-called Make American Secure Appropriations Act, 2018,
which includes the Defense, Military Construction and
Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water
funding bills. This package includes provisions that are
harmful to water and ocean resources, cuts funding for clean
energy innovation, undermines safe nuclear waste storage, and
attacks border communities. Furthermore, this bill continues
the House Leadership's pattern of adding harmful policy
riders into spending bills in an attempt to avoid regular
order. Lastly, the inclusion of $1.6 billion for the
continued construction of a failed, divisive, and anti-
environmental wall along the southern border of the United
States would be the latest example of inserting harmful,
controversial and even radical policy proposals onto spending
bills, which undermines the legislative process and the
already complex budget process. This bill reflects a set of
values that is not shared by the American people--one of
clean air and clean water, one of equity and prosperity, one
of safety and security.

Border Wall Provisions

The border wall is a powerful symbol of hatred toward
immigrants and undermines the civil rights of communities
along our southern border, and it would increase the
environmental and natural disaster risks to border
communities, harm wildlife, and waste billions of taxpayer
dollars on an ineffective border security tool. The current
proposal would lead to the construction of 60 miles of new
border wall to be built in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas,
including levee-border walls and 2.9 miles built within the
Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is home to
diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich
natural beauty. When levee-border walls are constructed, they
negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding
risks, destroy natural habitats, and can increase the risk of
wildlife extinctions occurring. In order to construct
existing border walls, dozens of laws protecting our
environment, public health, and sacred natural lands were
waived. Our nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and
healthy ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for
ineffective security measures.

Water Provisions

The Energy and Water Appropriations division includes
damaging policy riders and report language in contravention
of regular order. Specifically, Sec. 108(a) aims to allow the
Trump administration to disregard countless laws as it
carries out a scheme to undermine clean water safeguards. The
provision would authorize EPA and the Army Corps to repeal
the Clean Water Rule without following basic and longstanding
processes aimed at giving people a voice in their
government's actions. For instance, a repeal could ignore
Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements
to meaningfully consider public comment. It could also
interfere with the courts' ability to review if the
withdrawal is ``arbitrary or capricious.'' This fact reveals
the real motivation for the rider--its proponents want to
shield the Trump administration's repeal of carefully-
developed clean water protections from public scrutiny and
from independent judicial review. Without the Clean Water
Rule, the streams that help supply public drinking water
systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk.
Additionally, Sec. 107 would exempt certain discharges of
dredged or fill material from Army Corps' permitting under
the Clean Water Act. The Act already exempts these kinds of
activities from such permits, but requires permitting when
the impacts to waterways would be more harmful. This rider
would have the effect of nullifying Congress's direction to
subject those nonexempt discharges to pollution control
officials' review. Another rider would undermine the
restoration of the San Joaquin River, the second longest
river in California. Sec. 203 would prohibit spending any
funds to implement the legal settlement between the United
States, fishing and conservation groups, and Friant water
users regarding the restoration of the river. The settlement
ended 20 years of litigation and continues to be supported by
water users, conservation and fishing groups, and state and
federal governments.
Finally, the bill also includes a provision to halt
implementation of the National Ocean Policy (Sec. 505), an
important planning tool to coordinate the work of dozens of
federal and state agencies with overlapping and sometimes
conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean
development. These riders, and any further damaging policy
provisions that will be offered, undercut the public process
for determining how to implement the laws that Congress has
passed. They are bad policies that will put American's health
and safety at risk and they have no place on a funding bill.

Energy Provisions

The bill also dramatically cuts federal clean energy
spending, which has consistently proven its worth by
directing RD&D funds that drive job creation, economic growth
and reduce health and environmental costs. The committee bill
cuts funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy by $1 billion (48% reduction) hurting
important programs that support the development and
deployment of wind energy, solar energy, advanced
manufacturing, sustainable transportation technologies, and
building technologies. Recklessly, the bill eliminates
funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy
(ARPA-E) and the Title 17 loan guarantee program. Defunding
ARPA-E cripples our ability to commercialize new technologies
that will serve to meet our future clean energy needs.
Furthermore, the Title 17 loan guarantee program has a strong
track record of lowering the risks on deploying projects that
can make cleaner and cheaper energy a reality.
The bill also includes $120 million in a continued attempt
to push the unworkable, long ago rejected proposal to dispose
of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. It also includes
a rider in Sec. 507 that prevents funds being used to close
the facility. Decades from now others will face the precise
predicament we find ourselves in today if Congress tries to
ram through unworkable nuclear waste solutions contentiously
opposed by States, lacking a sound legal structure of
science-based foundation, and devoid of public understanding
and consent. The current efforts to quickly open Yucca
Mountain and an interim storage facility simply will not
work.
This bill also rejects the sensible plan to cancel the
risky and enormously costly mixed oxide (MOX) program,
intended to dispose of excess plutonium from the U.S. nuclear
weapons program by turning it into nuclear reactor fuel.
Instead this bill mandates that the Department of Energy
waste an additional $340 million on construction of the MOX
fuel fabrication plant. Congress should reject the MOX
program and support an improved approach for disposing of
excess plutonium.
We strongly oppose this minibus package, which would put
our energy future at risk and would harm border communities,
and it includes poison pill riders that will harm our
nation's public health, air, water, lands, and wildlife. We
also urge opposition to any amendments that would harm health
and the environment.
Sincerely,
Alaska Wilderness League, Clean Water Action, Defenders of
Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental
Protection Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance,
League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense
Council, NextGen, Public Citizen, Restore America's
Estuaries, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Save EPA, Sierra Club,
Western Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds Project,
Wildlands Network.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
Coalition on Human Needs against this minibus.

Coalition on Human Needs,

Washington, DC, July 25, 2017.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human
Needs, I strongly urge you to vote against the package of
military-related appropriations bills expected to come to the
House floor this week. These appropriations bills--including
those for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans'
Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water--should not
be taken up until there is a bipartisan agreement to lift the
sequestration caps called for in the Budget Control Act in a
way that provides for increased funding for domestic and
international (non-defense discretionary, or NDD)
appropriations, not just for the military.
As you know, defense appropriations exceed the Budget
Control Act cap for FY 2018 by $72 billion. Without
legislation to raise the caps, sequestration will eliminate
that increase through across-the-board cuts to military
programs. Legislation to lift the caps requires bipartisan
support, and we expect that support will not be forthcoming
without an agreement to raise the caps for non-defense
discretionary spending as well.
The Coalition on Human Needs, which is made up of
organizations representing millions of human service
providers, faith organizations, policy experts, civil rights,
labor, and other advocates concerned with meeting the needs
of low-income and vulnerable people, strongly believes that
our national security depends on a balanced approach that
invests in our domestic needs. Our people gain economic
security from access to education and training, affordable
housing, a reliable and modern infrastructure, and child care

[[Page H6321]]

and other work supports. We need public health protections
from epidemics and environmental protections to ensure clean
air and water and to protect against climate disasters.
Stopping the erosion in domestic human needs programs is
necessary for our security and our future. NDD programs apart
from Veterans Affairs will be cut by $22 billion in FY 2018,
5 percent below the previous year and 17 percent below the
level in FY 2010, taking inflation into account. This harsh
cut abandons previous congressional commitments to provide
defense and non-defense programs with equal relief from
sequestration. We urge you to vote against this package of
defense-related bills because they should not be considered
without a comprehensive agreement to lift the caps for all
the programs that contribute to our security.
We also ask you to vote against this package of
appropriations bills because it includes wasteful funding for
the border wall that will not increase our security, and to
oppose extraneous and irresponsible policy riders such as
those restricting opportunities for young people in the
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to enter the
military or weakening the Congressional Budget Office.
Please vote no on this package of appropriations bills, and
instead make it a top priority to achieve a bipartisan
agreement to lift sequestration caps for non-defense
programs, not solely for the military.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah Weinstein,
Executive Director.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to my
colleagues from AFSCME opposed to this bill.

AFSCME,

Washington, DC, July 24, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the ``Minibus''
appropriations bill which packages together the Defense,
Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs, Legislative
Branch, and Energy and Water funding bills.
Congress should not craft funding bills that unilaterally
violate the Budget Control Act (BCA) and the parity
principle. In this case, defense is increased far above the
cap while non-defense discretionary (NDD) spending is
severely underfunded. In fact, passing this bill will not
promote American security; rather it charts a direct course
for deep cuts to the military. The defense funding levels
would trigger sequestration in January of 2018, requiring
cuts of $72 billion. Further, dramatically increasing only
defense funding endangers investments in essential public
services. This is evidenced by House Appropriations bills'
deep cuts of $5 billion below the current non-defense caps
and deep cuts that harm labor, health, human services,
education, housing, transportation and other important
programs. Instead of reaching a bipartisan agreement as
called for by many members of Congress, this bill makes it
harder to address urgent needs in other non-defense programs.
A budget deal remains the most likely path toward enactment
of appropriation bills that responsibly meet the nation's
national security commitments and domestic needs. AFSCME
urges Congress to focus attention on a budget solution that
provides commensurate increases for both defense and non-
defense funding. This is the best way to avoid a fall budget
showdown that would leave defense and all government
programs, including state and local governments, in the lurch
with considerable budget uncertainty and the threat of deep
and damaging cuts.
We also oppose this minibus package, because it includes
poison pill riders. This bill creates a new level of
egregious riders by air-dropping in controversial funding for
a border wall that is unrelated to any of the four bills.
It's time to address the most basic of congressional
responsibilities, which means passing clean funding bills in
a timely manner under regular order.
Sincerely,
Scott Frey,
Director of Federal Government Affairs.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record a letter
sent to my colleagues in opposition to this bill from American
Federation of Teachers.

American Federation of Teachers,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members
of the American Federation of Teachers, I write to express
our strong opposition to the Make America Secure
Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 3219), the fiscal year 2018
appropriations ``minibus'' bill that bundles together the
appropriations bills for defense, energy and water
development, military construction, Veterans Affairs and the
legislative branch. We oppose this bill because it moves in
the wrong direction by failing to lift the sequester caps in
a manner that maintains parity between defense and nondefense
discretionary funding, and by including ideological poison
pill riders.
Our national security is critical, but it requires
investments that help working families seize the
opportunities they need and deserve, and appropriations bills
must invest in critical public services that enable these
opportunities. Sequester caps have unduly restricted these
kinds of foundational investments; without removing arbitrary
caps, crucial investments will suffer. Yet instead of working
toward a bipartisan deal to lift these punitive funding caps
in a way that treats nondefense discretionary funding
equitably, the speaker is moving forward with a minibus
package that promotes a strategy to drastically cut
nondefense programs as a means to increase defense funding.
This must not be an either-or choice: National security
requires strength at home and opportunities for our next
generation, not the elimination of the funding they need to
create those opportunities.
In addition, the well-being of the nation is further
undermined in this bill by the inclusion of ideological
poison pill policy riders. We particularly object to the
inclusion of funding for an ill-conceived and mean-spirited
border wall that is unrelated to any of the four
appropriations bills included in the minibus.
As the defense portion of this bill violates the Budget
Control Act, the increases in funding proposed by this bill
are imaginary. The cuts this bill proposes are not.
I urge you to reject this bill and work to raise the
sequester caps, to allow balanced funding bills--ones that
adequately invest in the health, safety and education of our
nation, and do not include ideological poison pill policy
riders--to move forward. Until this has been accomplished, we
urge you to oppose this bill.
Sincerely,
Randi Weingarten,
President.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from
Oklahoma: The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in
history in the last session. In history. And this year you are on your
way to beating that record.
The gentleman talks about exceptional speed in which we are moving
these appropriations bills to the floor. I am not so much impressed
with exceptional speed when it comes to the spending of billions of
taxpayer dollars. I want to make sure we get it right. That is why we
are asking for an open process.
The gentleman talked about poison pills. Let me go back to the
Barbara Lee AUMF amendment. I hardly consider that a poison pill when
it was unanimously approved in the Appropriations Committee, and the
gentleman even voted for it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Sherman).
Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule, vote against the
bill. But the bill does contain one provision that I want to applaud
the committee for including, and that is section 8907, which states:
``None of the funds made available by this act may be used in
contravention of the War Powers Act.''
I first proposed this language in 2011. It failed at first, but now
it has been included in every Defense Appropriations bill since FY12.
It is necessary to enforce the War Powers Act because every Attorney
General since the 1970s has advised Presidents that the War Powers Act
isn't binding on the President, and that the President can send
unlimited numbers of troops anywhere in the world to fight any battle
without a declaration of war.
That is why we need this language, because Attorney General Mukasey,
a Republican Attorney General, testified before the Foreign Affairs
Committee yesterday that by including this language in the
appropriations bill, Congress enforces the War Powers Act and its
proper role in international affairs.
I thank the committee for including this language.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly would never expect my friend to vote for the rule. I
mean, I don't think I have ever voted for a Democratic rule. I know
very few Democrats have ever voted for our rules. I don't think I know
any. So that is kind of a normal part of the Chamber.
I want to commend the gentleman for getting that language into the
bill. Again, I respect the gentleman's right to not vote for the bill.
It is a big bill. There are lots of different things in it.
But I think he makes an important point, indirectly, that there are
lots of overlapping things where we do agree inside this bill. My
friends are certainly free to vote ``no,'' and I suspect many will.
There are many occasions in a bill like this, particularly related to
defense and particularly related to veterans, where the component parts
actually have enormous bipartisan support.

[[Page H6322]]

That is certainly true in the Veterans Administration. It is certainly
true with the gentleman's provision that he has gotten in now
successive bills even under Republican Congresses.
I want to commend him for his work in that regard. I agree very much
with his intention. My friend from Massachusetts and I may have some
differences on this and that process, but that is another person that I
agree with in terms of the War Powers Act and in terms of trying to get
a new AUMF and reclaim congressional power.
I actually think, strangely enough, even though we disagree on this,
that this bill starts us maybe down that road again by requiring the
administration to submit a report to justify legally where we are at
and why, to tell us the strategy, to lay out the costs.
I commend my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee,
Mr. Royce, for holding a hearing on that. I see us moving back in that
way toward regular order and, hopefully, toward common ground.
Again, I understand my friend's objections, even when I don't agree
with him. But I also thank my friend from California for pointing out
that there are parts where we do agree. They are important, and they
are incorporated in this bill. Maybe we can make it better in the
amendment process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I include in the Record a letter from Amnesty International rejecting
the border wall funding.

Amnesty International,

Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.

Amnesty International USA Urges House to Reject Southern Border Wall
Funding

Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA
and our more than one million members and supporters
nationwide, we strongly urge you to reject any and all
requests included in H.R. 3219 (Department of Defense
Appropriations Act, 2018 AKA Make America Secure
Appropriations Act, 2018) for the funding of a southern
border wall. The construction of such a wall would pose
serious human rights consequences and would violate
international law and standards in two major ways.
First, Congress should not approve funding for a wall that
will cut through tribal land unless the U.S. government first
obtains the free, prior, and informed consent of affected
Nations, as prescribed by Article 19 of the United Nations
(``UN'') Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The
U.S. must consult in good faith with Native American Nations
who would be impacted by the construction of the proposed
wall. The National Congress of American Indians and the
Legislative Council of the Tohono O'odham, the second-largest
tribe in the United States by land holdings, have both passed
resolutions opposing the construction of the wall without
tribal consent. Without the free, prior, and informed consent
of affected Native American Nations, the House cannot approve
border wall funding without violating the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Second, the construction of a border wall risks escalation
of the already serious violations experienced by asylum
seekers seeking to enter the U.S. In order to provide a fair
asylum process, the U.S. must ensure the existence of
sufficiently located, secure, regulated border crossing
points for asylum seekers. This is essential to ensure that
the U.S. government does not violate the principle of non-
refoulement, which is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention
Relating to the Status of Refugees and binding on States
Party to the 1967 Protocol.
Amnesty International strongly urges you to reject funding
for a southern border wall, in order to uphold U.S.
obligations with respect to Native Americans and arriving
asylum seekers.
Sincerely,

Joanne Lin,

Senior Managing Director, Advocacy
and Government Relations.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing
the funding for the wall from the League of United Latin American
Citizens.

League of United Latin

American Citizens,

Washington, DC, July 19, 2017.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: On behalf of the League of United
Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's oldest and
largest Latino civil rights organization, I write to oppose
any legislative attempts to keep funding the construction of
a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, the expansion of a Trump
deportation force, and the increase of detention beds in
immigrant incarceration centers.
As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 18
Department of Homeland Security Appropriation bill, and other
security related bills, LULAC is deeply concerned about
language that would provide billions for the construction of
a costly and divisive wall along the Southern border, as well
as hundreds of millions to hire a deportation force and
expand immigrant incarceration.
The continued criminalization of immigrants, militarization
of the border, and rush to build a costly, ineffective, and
destructive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border are aims of
radical politicians seeking to advance a xenophobic, anti-
Latino agenda in this Congress. Unfortunately, this
administration has failed to focus on legitimate staffing
concerns at ports of entry, rebuilding port infrastructure,
and protecting the land, water, and environment of the
border. Instead, it is looking to seize the private property
of border residents, destroy the natural habitat and wildlife
in border communities, endanger border water supplies, and
turn immigrant neighbors, families, and children into
criminals who merit incarceration and deportation.
The House of Representatives should not enable these aims
and should oppose any language seeking to advance the radical
right-wing agenda of demonizing border communities and
scapegoating immigrants. LULAC opposes any DHS appropriation
bill, or any other appropriation vehicle, that funds border
walls/levees, the hiring of Trump's deportation force and the
continued expansion immigrant incarceration.
Sincerely,
Roger C. Rocha, Jr.,
LULAC National President.

Mr. McGOVERN. I include in the Record a fact sheet by the Washington
Office on Latin America entitled: ``Key points about the $1.6 billion
border wall.''

July 24, 2017.
Please find below a rigorously sourced analysis of the $1.6
billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The border wall funding is expected to be attached to the
appropriations ``minibus'' in the Rules Committee later this
week.
As a leading research and advocacy organization with years
of field research and experience working on migration and
border security issues, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin
America) outlines a number of reasons why this proposal will
be costly, ineffective, and divisive.
WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose
President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote
against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national
security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion
spent to start building the wall is money wasted.
Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any
questions or would like more information.
Best regards,
Adam Isacson.

[From the Washington Office on Latin America, July 24, 2017]

Key Points about the $1.6 Billion Border Wall

A Costly, Ineffective, and Divisive Border Wall Doesn't Belong in a
``National Security'' Appropriation

The House of Representatives is rushing to the floor four
Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations bills related to
national security, which will be combined into a so-called
``minibus.'' In addition, the House Republican leadership is
expected to carve out the most controversial part of the
Homeland Security appropriations bill--President Trump's full
request to fund the border wall--and use a procedural
maneuver in the Rules Committee to attach it to this week's
funding bill. Along with money for our military, veterans,
and other defense-related items, the House is expected to
consider $1.6 billion to start building President Trump's
proposed border wall.

The border wall would be costly

The bill would fund the Trump administration's full request
for $1.6 billion to build 60 miles of new border wall and
fortify 14 miles of existing wall. That comes out to $21.2
million per mile. This is more than four times the $4.84
million per mile cost of fencing built since 2011.
At the rate proposed by President Trump, building
additional fencing along the 1,317 border miles that lack it
would cost $28 billion. And that figure doesn't count the
cost of building in more difficult terrain, access roads,
maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all
border landholdings are privately held.
Building the wall carries a huge opportunity cost. $1.6
billion could support many more important border security
priorities. These include upgrading and hiring more personnel
for ports of entry, the main vector for illegal drugs. The
ports have $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. They
could include more technology so that border-security
agencies have a better idea of what is happening along the
border. This would make continued National Guard deployments
unnecessary. They could include greatly increased investment
in moving costs and bonuses for Border Patrol agents who
agree to relocate from quieter border sectors to busier ones
in need of manpower.

The border wall would be ineffective

The proposed border wall will not stop drug trafficking. To
understand drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border,
it's first necessary to understand the difference

[[Page H6323]]

between ``ports of entry''--the 44 official land border
crossings--and the vast spaces between them, where fencing
exists or where Trump's wall would be built. The ports of
entry are where U.S. border authorities seize the majority of
heroin and opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine. ``The big
issue, really, right now on drugs coming into the United
States is the ports of entry,'' Homeland Security Secretary
John Kelly told a Senate committee in April. Building a wall
would have no effect on smuggling at ports of entry.
Meanwhile, in the rural border areas where the White House
proposes to build, a wall really isn't much of a barrier. It
slows individuals down for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes to
climb over. In a populated area, where authorities can
respond quickly, that 10 or 15 minutes makes a big
difference. But almost all of these areas already have high
fences, because of the hundreds of miles of building that
followed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. In emptier areas,
reducing a border crosser's head start by 10 to 15 minutes is
hardly a deterrent--and in Texas, the Rio Grande already
serves that purpose.

The border wall would be dangerous

More wall-building could have tragic consequences.
Violence, poverty, and family ties ensure that migrants will
continue attempting the risky journey through the border
region's inhospitable wilderness zones. Every year, U.S.
authorities find the remains of hundreds of migrants, dead of
dehydration and exposure in deserts and scrublands. With more
fencing, migrants may attempt the crossing in even more
remote areas, where the probability of death will be even
higher.

The border wall would be divisive

Building a wall sends a toxic message to one of our two
closest neighbors, a country on whose cooperation the United
States' national security and economic prosperity depends.
Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner.
Our common border is 1,970 miles long. Mexico collaborates on
efforts to guard against extra-regional terrorists
hypothetically using its territory to enter the United
States. After 12 years of steadily declining migration, more
Mexican citizens leave the United States than enter it each
year. In January, it extradited its most notorious drug lord
to the United States.
It makes no sense to undermine this relationship by
building a permanent barrier along our border with Mexico. It
makes no sense to jeopardize badly needed cooperation by
portraying Mexico as a sinister source of threats that should
foot the bill for the wall (which, the 2018 appropriation
makes clear, it will not have to do). Mexico certainly has
problems, particularly corruption and human rights abuse. But
these are aspects of the relationship the United States must
work on, rather than push Mexico away with an aggressive
construction project.

The border wall should be rejected

WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose
President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote
against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national
security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion
spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Let's stop
this now before it becomes even larger, more costly, more
counterproductive, and more divisive.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an NBC News
article on how the border wall is being planned to decimate the
National Butterfly Center in the wildlife corridor of the lower Rio
Grande Valley.

[From NBC News, July 26, 2017]

Border Wall Push Creates Flap in House--And at the National Butterfly
Center

(By Suzanne Gamboa)

Washington.--A national butterfly preserve is the latest
flashpoint in the border wall debate as Democrats accuse the
GOP of rigging the process to slip wall funding into a pack
of House spending bills possibly up for a vote this week.
While there are not specific details on exactly where $1.6
billion proposed for President Trump's border wall will be
spent, an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Carter, R-Texas,
calls for $498 million to go to 28 miles of ``new bollard
levee wall'' in Hidalgo County in Texas' Rio Grande Valley--
home to the National Butterfly Center.
The amendment also calls for $251 million to repair
secondary border fencing in the San Diego area and $38.2
million for planning future border wall construction. Another
$784 million is for 32 miles of ``border bollard fencing'' in
Starr County, Texas, also in the Rio Grande Valley.
The butterfly center's executive director Marianna Trevino
Wright said she found a work crew on the butterfly center's
property last week, and she worried that their efforts might
be related to construction of the proposed border wall. The
workers had chain saws and work trucks and had cut and shred
brush, trees and plants, she said. Trevino Wright said she
found surveyor stakes and ``X'' marks on the property. She
posted photos on the center's web site and Facebook page.
The 100-acre center is part of the wildlife corridor of the
lower Rio Grande Valley, which is a migratory flyway for
birds, butterflies and a host of other wildlife. The center's
property already is bisected by earthen levees. Two thirds of
the property is below the levee, Trevino Wright said.
``The property we have acquired here used to be a
commercial onion farm and we have spent the last 15 years
fundraising for our efforts and growing plants and purchasing
materials to revegetate this area, to plant native, host and
nectar plants and provide breeding and feeding areas to
support wildlife, especially butterflies,'' she said.
``We do have folks who come from around the state, nation,
world for the birds and butterflies and other things we have
here on the property. Sometimes people show up looking for
indigo snakes,'' Trevino Wright said.
In a previously issued statement, the Army Corps of
Engineers denied that its contractors cleared or removed
trees at the center, but acknowledged the crew placed X
markings on the ground for mapping and wooden stakes flagging
proposed locations to bore holes for possible construction.
The agency said its contractor collected two soil samples
from the levee but did so away from the butterfly center.
Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Army Corps
of Engineers, nor other agencies have outlined plans for the
proposed border wall on the center property.
Still, Trevino Wright and her supporters worry about what
the center called on Facebook the ``government secret
activity on our property.''
There also is angst over the possibility of border wall
construction in another refuge along the Rio Grande--the San
Ana Wildlife Refuge. It is considered the ``crown jewel'' of
wildlife refuges and one of the nation's top birding spots.
The Texas Observer first reported that crews were taking core
samples, setting off a reaction among birders who flock to
the spot that boasts 400 species of birds.
The American Birding Association put out a plea to its
members to write and call their members of Congress asking
that they stop construction of the wall.
Carlos Diaz, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection,
told NBC News he did not have information on what plans or
hopes there are for putting fencing or a wall on the
butterfly center's property or the Santa Ana Refuge.
In a previously issued news release following a meeting
with Rio Grande Valley mayors last week, Customs and Border
Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers said in a news
release they are conducting research activities in areas
slated for construction of new or replacement border wall,
with $20 million in reprogrammed funds approved by Congress.
Also money provided for fiscal 2017 is being used to
replace pedestrian barriers in San Diego and El Centro,
California; replace vehicle barriers and pedestrian barriers
in El Paso, Texas and install 35 new gates at gaps in border
fencing built already in the Rio Grande Valley, according to
Army Corps of Engineers information provided by Diaz.
In a hearing Monday held by the U.S. House Rules Committee,
Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., pointed out that American
taxpayers are footing the tab for the border wall work, not
Mexico as Trump had promised. That's a point that should be
debated and could be if the border wall funding was given
it's own vote, he said.
``This is a rigged process,'' McGovern said.
With Congress closing in on a summer recess, the House is
trying to push through a batch of four spending bills the GOP
has said are critical for security. But the GOP plan to
include $1.6 million for 74 miles of President Donald Trump's
border ``wall'' means those who oppose the border wall
funding have to vote against the military spending.
Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who chairs the Rules
Committee, said Monday he made the amendment providing the
border wall money ``self-executing,'' setting up the dilemma
for opponents of the wall funding.
``You are dadgum right I put it in there,'' Sessions said.
``We are going to comply with allowing the president to
have things he wants also,'' he said.
Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., called the move ``sneaky'' and
said House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP House members were doing
Trump's ``dirty work.''
``They want to make sure Trump can build his wall, but they
also want desperately to avoid a clean up or down vote on the
issue,'' Gallego told reporters in a call Monday.
Ashlee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said in an email
that House and Senate Republicans' agenda includes a
commitment to increased border security ``and we are
following through on that promise.''

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, process matters. And I have come to the
conclusion, after having served here for some time now, that a lousy
process leads to a lousy product and lousy legislation.
I know many of my colleagues were moved, like I was yesterday, when
Senator John McCain appeared on the Senate floor and not only engaged
in Senate business, but actually gave a very eloquent, passionate
speech.
I want to quote Senator McCain from yesterday. He said: ``Let's
return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many
important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without
help from across the aisle.

[[Page H6324]]

That's an approach that's been employed by both sides, mandating
legislation from the top down, without any support from the other side,
with all the parliamentary maneuvers that requires.
``We're getting nothing done.''
I agree with Senator McCain, and I believe that a majority in this
House, Democrats and Republicans, agree with Senator McCain. But at
some point we have to stop saying: ``Well, we will get better. We will
get better. It will be better next time. It will be better next time.''
Because what is happening is, it is getting worse each time we bring
legislations or appropriations to the floor. We are getting more and
more restrictive. We are shutting out more and more voices, not just
Democratic voices, but Republican voices as well.
This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to deliberate a
little bit. And both Democrats and Republicans have good ideas. Let us
use this opportunity to change things, to go back to the regular order
that Senator McCain talked so eloquently about yesterday.
There is an opportunity to do that. It doesn't stop us considering
the appropriations bills, but what it says is that we will do so under
an open rule. We will go back to the way we all say we want it to be,
an open process.
If you like some of these amendments, you vote for them. You make
this legislation better. If you don't like the amendments, then you
vote against them. I mean, that is the way this body is supposed to
operate; none of this underhanded, self-executing of controversial
provisions that may not have the support of the majority in this House.
Let's go back to regular order. This is the moment. This is a
defining moment.

{time} 1330

Democrats and Republicans, if you really mean it when you say you
want regular order, then you have to vote for regular order once in a
while. You can't keep on making excuses. I think this is the moment
that we have on these appropriations bills to send a message to the
leadership that we want things done differently here. We want to open
things up. I think that is what the majority on both sides really want.
But the question is whether or not we all have the guts to vote for an
open process. So we have an opportunity to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
we can bring this legislation up today under an open rule. Let
everybody offer their amendments. Let's bring it up. Let's do this
today. No more excuses.
If you mean what you say when you say you want regular order, this is
the opportunity to vote for it. So please vote ``no'' on the previous
question. And I oppose the underlying bill. Maybe I won't if we can fix
it through regular order. Maybe we can add a number of amendments, and
even I would support some of these amendments.
Let's give it a chance. Let's work in a bipartisan way. Let's go back
to the days when we did have open rules on appropriations. This is the
opportunity to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I thank, as always, my good friend for a spirited and
thoughtful debate. He always makes good points. Frankly, I always find
myself more comfortable when we are on the same side--as we
occasionally are--than when we are on opposite sides.
My friend has made many valuable contributions to this institution,
particularly pushing us relentlessly in the right direction of
reclaiming our war-making authority. Having said that, it is always
great to call for a new system, a new way, or a return to open rules
without admitting you are the ones that abandoned them. We actually
tried to restore them. I regret we failed in that, quite frankly, but I
will have to say both sides have gotten used to not doing open rules
because they don't want to cast tough votes. That is why my friends
abandoned the open rule process when they were in the majority in 2009,
and, honestly, that is why we abandoned it last year.
I regret that. I will work with my friend probably not today but
going forward in trying to reclaim that because I think when we lost
it, we diminished the power of every individual Member in Congress. We
thought we were protecting them, but the reality is they now can no
longer come to the floor as an individual and present their own idea.
But at least in this case there are 72 amendments. The majority of
them are from my friend's side of the aisle. I would hope going
forward, particularly when we consider the next eight appropriations
bills, we will continue to be very generous in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support
the rule. H.R. 3219 represents the first step toward fulfilling our
primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government.
We should all be proud of what we have accomplished in putting this
bill forward.
The bill contains the provisions of four of the bills passed out of
the Appropriations Committee representing the work of the Subcommittees
on Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies;
Legislative Branch; and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and
Related Agencies.
The bill will significantly increase funding for national defense and
ensure that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the tools they
need. We also increase funding to our veterans to ensure our fighting
men and women will be taken care of long after they leave the service
of their country, and we fund key Member priorities in the areas of
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; and Legislative
Branch.
Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for their hard work.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. McGovern

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
That at any time after the 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.
3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises
and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation
that the bill do pass, 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. 2. At any time after the 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. 2998) making appropriations for military construction,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of
the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the
Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of
whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be
printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated
for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so
printed shall be considered as read. When

[[Page H6325]]

the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House
with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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. 3. At any time after the 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. 3266) making appropriations for energy and water
development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2018, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for
amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and
reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that
the bill do pass, 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 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 3219, H.R. 2998, or H.R. 3266.
____

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. COLE. 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 230,
nays 193, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 414]

YEAS--230

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)
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
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
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)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
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
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--193

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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
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

[[Page H6326]]

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
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
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
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
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--10

Brat
Comstock
Cummings
Graves (MO)
Hollingsworth
Kuster (NH)
Napolitano
Palmer
Scalise
Westerman

{time} 1355

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 414.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was delayed in returning to the floor.
If present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 414.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 232,
noes 192, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 415]

AYES--232

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
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
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
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
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
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
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--192

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
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
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)
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)
Lieu, Ted
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
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
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
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--9

Cummings
Franks (AZ)
Graves (MO)
Hollingsworth
MacArthur
Napolitano
Nolan
Palmer
Scalise

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1402

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. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 415.

personal explanation

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
414 and No. 415 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R.
3219. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 473--Rule providing
for consideration of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure Appropriations
Act, 2018.''

____________________