Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 127 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 127 (Thursday, July 27, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6493-H6512]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

general leave

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3219, and that
I may include tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 478 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 3219.
Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) kindly take the chair.

{time} 1427

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 3129) making appropriations for the Department of
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Issa (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 63 printed in House Report 115-259 offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) had been disposed of.
Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the further amendment printed in
part A of the House Report 115-261 shall be considered as adopted.
The text of the further amendment printed in part A of House Report
115-261 is as follows:

After division D, insert the following:

DIVISION E--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE
CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION ACT, 2018

The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in
the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department
of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2018, namely:

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

procurement, construction, and improvements

For necessary expenses for U.S. Customs and Border
Protection for procurement, construction, and improvements,
$1,571,239,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020,
which shall be available as follows:
(1) $784,000,000 for 32 miles of new border bollard fencing
in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.
(2) $498,000,000 for 28 miles of new bollard levee wall in
the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.
(3) $251,000,000 for 14 miles of secondary fencing in San
Diego, California.
(4) $38,239,000 for planning for border wall construction.

TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

references to act

Sec. 101. Except as expressly provided otherwise, any
reference to ``this Act'' contained in this division shall be
treated as referring only to the provisions of this division.
This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland
Security Border Infrastructure Construction Appropriations
Act, 2018''.

The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 115-261,
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 478, and
available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of House
Resolution 473.
Each further amendment printed in part B of the report shall be
considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read,
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 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 House Resolution 473,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
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 amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc 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 House Resolution 473, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question.

Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Ms. Granger of Texas

Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
478, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28,
29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 54 printed in
part B of House Report 115-261, offered by Ms. Granger of Texas:

Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bridenstine of Oklahoma

Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $5,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal of California

Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $5,600,000)''.
Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount inset the
following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Collins of New York

Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Mast of Florida

Page 7, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $598,000)''.
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $598,000)''.

Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter of New Hampshire

Page 7, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $7,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $7,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert `` (reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 16, line 3, after the dollar amount insert ``
(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lance of New Jersey

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''.

Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano of California

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $194,897,000) (increased by
$194,897,000)''.

Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Gallagher of Wisconsin

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $26,200,000)''.
Page 23, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $26,200,000)''.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hunter of California

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced
by $20,000,000)''.
Page 27, line 24, after the dollar amount insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Rosen of Nevada

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $4,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $4,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $1,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

[[Page H6494]]

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,500,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $2,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $2,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Delaney of Maryland

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $8,000,000)''.
Page 87, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Knight of California

Page 28, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Cheney of Wyoming

Page 32, line 25, before the colon, insert ``, except for
missile defense requirements resulting from urgent or
emergent operational needs''.
Page 37, line 1, before the semicolon, insert ``, except
for missile defense requirements resulting from urgent or
emergent operational needs''.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota

Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Emmer of Minnesota

Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.

Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California

Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.

Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $4,135,000) (increased by $4,135,000)''.

Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut

In section 8010, strike ``SSN Virginia Class Submarine''
and insert ``up to 13 SSN Virginia Class Submarines''.

Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Palazzo of Mississippi

Page 49, line 18, strike ``up to 10''.

Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. _. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available under the heading ``Afghanistan Security Forces
Fund'' may be used to procure uniforms for the Afghan
National Army.

Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Delaney of Maryland

At the end of division A (before the short title) insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used for the closure of a biosafety level 4 laboratory.

Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Conyers of Michigan

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. _. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the
Azov Battalion.

Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Speier of California

Page 80, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $6,250,000)''.
Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
Page 37, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $5,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $24,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $27,500,000)''.

Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota

Page 129, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
Page 143, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $6,000,000)''.

Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentlewoman
from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc
were made in order by the rule for consideration of division A of H.R.
3219 and have been agreed to by both sides.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge its adoption, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge passage of my amendment
which supports the Army's unfunded requirements request for improved
munitions precision.
The continued development of missile cooling technology, which
releases a refrigerant at predetermined temperatures, maintains the
integrity of missile electronics when fired. This improves flight
control, extends range, and provides greater targeting precision.
My amendment improves current and future missile systems, furthering
our ability to reach every corner of the world in defense of our
Nation.
As we grapple with threats from adversaries such as North Korea,
Russia, and Iran and execute our counter-ISIL campaign, our military
deserves the greatest technological edge so that our troops never find
themselves in a fair fight.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important
amendment to maintain America's military technology superiority as our
servicemembers bravely safeguard our Nation.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would--it is
shocking that it would have to even do this--prohibit spending money on
these Afghan uniforms that met the sartorial taste of a general that
corresponded to lush tropical forests. Number one, what the general
wants for sartorial splendor of his troops is not our problem. Number
two, his sartorial taste had to do with tropical forests, which is not
what we have in Afghanistan.
I am very happy that General Mattis himself was outraged by this, and
I applaud him. But it is an opportunity for us to express our outrage
as well.
We all want to support our men and women in uniform, and we all want
them to have good uniforms. But it is not up to an Afghan general to
take taxpayer money on a vanity project that ultimately undercuts the
security of our troops.
So, Mr. Chairman, I believe I speak for everyone. Let's not do it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the
gentleman from Vermont for his amendment and for his thoughtful
approach to this problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Lowenthal).
Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan
amendment that I am leading on with Representative Comstock, along with
many of our colleagues on the STARBASE Caucus. I appreciate it being
included in the en bloc package of amendments.
This amendment would simply increase funding for the Department of
Defense's STARBASE program from 25 to $30 million for the fiscal year
2018, bringing funding back to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.
Providing science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM education,
to America's

[[Page H6495]]

youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our Nation.
The STARBASE program engages local fifth grade elementary students by
exposing them to STEM subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum.
Serving communities from Los Alamitos, California, to Winchester,
Virginia, and across the Nation, there are now 59 programs in
congressional districts throughout 30 States, including the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico. Close to 1 million fifth graders across the
Nation have now had the opportunity to participate in hands-on STEM
classes on military bases thanks to STARBASE.
Moreover, the Department of Defense's STARBASE program is one of the
most cost-effective programs across the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Delaney's
bipartisan amendment included in this en bloc that would increase
funding for the Fisher House Foundation.
Fisher House has now served our veterans and their families for 26
years providing valuable housing opportunities as veterans receive
medical treatment at military and VA medical centers across the
country. When I first learned of them--longer than I want to admit--
there were just a few of them. Now there are 72 and many more in the
pipeline. They have served 305,000 military families.
For many veterans and their families, the distance to their nearest
VA medical center can be too far to travel on a routine basis, and the
cost over time means many veterans are alone--nobody by their side--
during their treatment or hospital stay--a situation no one should be
in.
No veteran who has served their country should have to face medical
care or a hospital stay without the support of their loved ones by
their side. Fisher Houses provide the lodging and transportation
resources to help families stay together throughout the treatment
process.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a member of the full committee.

Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member very much for
yielding to me today.
I rise during this en bloc amendment debate to discuss an issue that
is raised in the amendment about the importance of the DDG-51 to our
Navy. In particular, I am grateful to our committee for the clear
guidance and language that was provided in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus
Appropriations Act that was passed in this body just 2 short months
ago.
That language called attention to the need not only to support the
DDG-51 program but to ensure we do so with a design and upgrade that is
technically mature and fiscally responsible.
It was clear in that language, and in report language that is
included in the bill before us today, that Congress continues to expect
the Navy to comply with the direction that the additional fiscal year
`16 DDG-51 ship be contracted and completed as a flight II-A ship.
Because there are concerns raised by the GAO about the new flight III
design radar upgrade for the DDG-51, there needs to be a thoughtful
process in place.
Again, I want to thank the chair and ranking member who have been
incredibly supportive of the DDG program in the past and the work that
it brings to States like Maine and across the country.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply, again, reiterate my support
for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I want to make a statement regarding the passage
of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.
Specifically, I would like to make a statement about my amendment, Soto
Number 20, to Division A, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act,
2018. My amendment moved $10 million from the Operation and
Maintenance, Defense-Wide account to the Defense Health Program's Peer-
Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program.
Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and is
the second most common cause of male death. In 2017, approximately
161,360 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and an
estimated 26,730 will die from it.
The Prostate Cancer Research Program is a unique research program in
that it prioritizes research that will lead to the elimination of death
from prostate cancer while enhancing the well-being of men experiencing
the impact of the disease.
I support funding prostate cancer research and thank my colleagues
for their support of my amendment.
Mr. Chair, I want to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R.
3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. Specifically, I
would like to make a statement about my amendment, Soto Number 19, to
Division A, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018. My
amendment moved $1 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide account to the Defense Health Program's Peer-Reviewed Gulf War
Illness Research Program.
If we are going to spend money on medical research within the
Department of Defense, the Department must adequately fund research on
those diseases that originate in war and wholly affect our servicemen
and women. Over a quarter of a million veterans display symptoms of
this disease, and the time has come to find, and fund, a cure for it.
I support funding Gulf War illness research and thank my colleagues
for their support of my amendment.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and
Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor
and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who
risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring
that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest
fighting force for peace on earth.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment,
which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the
national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on
earth.
The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the
Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to
provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women
in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism,
human trafficking, narcotics trafficking.
Mr. Chair, the United States is committed to combating violent
extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of
terrorism.
The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and
technological capability that will aid not only in combating and
defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent
persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly.
But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary
technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very
quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or
norms of morality and decency.
Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant
terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai
Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 helps provide the Department of Defense
with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries
on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources
that promote the security of the American people and allied nation
states.
Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact
on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on
us all.
According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by
terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war,
affecting over twenty thousand women and girls.
Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of
providing technical assistance through our military might, as this
enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the
United States.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making
available American technical military expertise to military in other
countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their
country and to keep those terrorists out of our country.
Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of
terrorists.
These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care
providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the
diplomatic corps and the Armed Services.
This is why the technical assistance offered by our military
personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence,
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local
forces to combat terrorism.

[[Page H6496]]

Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and
cannot be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our
national security and the security of the world.
Mr. Chair, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the
Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of our
highest national priorities.
Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity
to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics
trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe
serves our national interest.
I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1.
Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member
Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their
devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives
to keep our nation safe.
Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment,
which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last
year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2017 (H.R. 5293).
My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's
research and development by $10 million.
These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United
States military.
The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as
a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates;
in this instance, it is a triple negative.
But I raise an article: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer
and the Military.''
Breast cancer can affect both men and women.
The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women
in the military as combat.
Let me say that sentence again.
Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military
as combat.
More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan,
according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with
breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011.
And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.
The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add
my appreciation to the military.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25, however, will allow for the additional
research.
That research is particularly needed since women are joining the
Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to
leadership.
Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast
cancer.
Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at
an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their
dependents are at risk as well.
With a younger and generally healthier population, those in military
tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including
significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is
a different story.
Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are
at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer,
according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston
University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
on military breast cancer issues.
Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a
witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of
getting breast cancer.
So, I am asking that we do the right thing.
We are on the right track, we're on the right road.
But with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely
important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the
men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live
longer, healthier lives.
I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25.
Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the En Bloc Amendment also includes
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 that was made in order under the Rule.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 increases funding for the PTSD by $5
million.
These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard
to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in
underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD).
Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature
wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan,
Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.
For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it
is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen
and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see
on a daily basis.
In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can
obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.
Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission,
and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th
birthday.
But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the
stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your
thoughts and memories.
And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the
enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.
PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war
veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such
as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural
disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb
(especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close),
lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling
affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become
violent.
They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and
anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.
Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts
during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.
These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose
touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening
all over again.
Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD
also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.
These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression,
alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety
disorders.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 recognizes that these soldiers are first
and foremost, human, who live their experiences.
Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of
nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the
Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 will help ensure that ``no soldier is
left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward
hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are
homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.
I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for including Jackson Lee
Amendment No. 50 in the En Bloc Amendment and urge my colleagues to
support the En Bloc Amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
The en bloc amendments were agreed to.

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Langevin

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $10,000,000)''.
Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to support the DOD Cyber
Scholarship Program with strong bipartisan support from my good
friends, Mr. Ratcliffe, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Correa, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lieu,
and Ms. Shea-Porter.
Mr. Chairman, since 2001, DOD has run the Information Assurance
Scholarship Program in order to boost the Nation's cyber workforce
through scholarship and capacity-building grants. Scholarship
recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a
cybersecurity position at DOD upon graduation.
Mr. Chairman, this program had been extremely successful, bringing
nearly 600 students into the DOD workforce. However, due to budget
constraints, the Department has reduced funding and stopped recruiting
new students. This year we seek to reinvigorate the

[[Page H6497]]

program, calling it the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program.
As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I fully understand the budget
pressure the Department has been facing. However, cutting the pipeline
of cyber talent into the Department is incredibly shortsighted. We face
a critical workforce shortage right now, as we speak, when it comes to
cybersecurity across all sectors of the economy and in government.
The challenges of building up our cyber talent is something that
keeps me up at night. We know that cybersecurity is the national
security issue of the 21st century and that no conflict, both today or
in the future, will be fought without a cyber component as a part of
it.
Now, DOD has made significant strides in preparing to defend the
Nation in this new domain, standing up USCYBERCOM and improving its
cybersecurity posture through programs like the wildly successful Hack
the Pentagon program and DARPA's Cyber Grand Challenge. But these
initiatives need talented network engineers, cybersecurity researchers,
and, yes, hackers.
The Cyber Scholarship Program encourages students to look at
cybersecurity as an area of academic study and then exposes them to the
amazing mission set at the Department. While we may not be able to
compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis with the private sector in terms of
salary, public service certainly is its own reward, and DOD has the
most challenging and rewarding problems facing us today and the honor
that comes with protecting their fellow Americans.
We need as many digital natives to enter this exciting field and
experience the rewards of public service, which is why we must
reinvigorate the Cyber Scholarship Program with this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I worked with the same colleagues who joined me on this
amendment to include similar funding in the National Defense
Authorization Act. I would like to thank my friends, Senators Kaine,
Perdue, and Rounds for leading a similar effort across the Capitol in
the Senate.
So I would also like to, again, thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking
Member Visclosky for their steadfast commitment to our armed services.
This commonsense amendment will help ensure DOD is prepared for future
fights, and I urge its adoption.
Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.

{time} 1445

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Correa).
Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 8
offered by Mr. Langevin to provide funding for the Department of
Defense Cyber Scholarship Program.
Our country is facing a severe shortage of trained cyber
professionals, a shortage that includes about 10,000 cybersecurity
experts in government alone, and estimated to be about 1 million
shortages throughout our economy by 2019.
We need to give young people the incentive to follow careers in
cybersecurity to learn skills such as computer coding and ethical
hacking. This amendment provides $10 million for scholarships for
associate degrees at community colleges and assists with program
execution from DOD and NSA.
I cosponsored this amendment, and I want to thank Congressman
Langevin for offering this important piece of legislation. I urge all
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I thank my colleagues that
were speaking in favor of my amendment. I thank the majority for
accepting the amendment and supporting the effort to build up our
Nation's cyber workforce.
Cybersecurity is the national security challenge of the 21st century.
We are doing great things to meet those challenges. We just need to
make sure our workforce can meet those needs. I know this amendment
will be a major step in helping us to achieve that goal.
I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the
chair and ranking member for their support of this effort.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Suozzi

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $34,734,000)''.
Page 14, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $34,734,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Suozzi) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of a
bipartisan amendment that I am offering with Congressman Peter King and
Congressman Paul Cook.
Amendment No. 10 under the rule is to division A of the Defense
Appropriations bill. The purpose of the amendment is to match the $34
million in funding for the Navy's Environmental Restoration Account,
authorized unanimously in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act,
but was not included in the appropriations process.
In my district, for almost four decades, the people of Bethpage and
the surrounding areas have been dealing with an environmental crisis.
Groundwater pollution, stemming from the Navy and defense contractor
activity, has resulted in an underground plume of contaminated water
that is moving south through Long Island's sole source of drinking
water, towards Congressman King's district.
While costly remediation efforts ensure the water is safe to consume,
it doesn't change the fact that residents deserve to have this cleaned
up before it spreads any further.
The contamination, known as the Navy-Grumman Plume, is one of
thousands of sites at hundreds of locations that have experienced
environmental degradation because of defense-related activities.
Congressman Peter King, Congressman Paul Cook, and I have submitted
this bipartisan amendment that will increase funding for the Navy's
Environmental Restoration Account, which helps fund cleanup and
remediation efforts for these sites.
This is not a partisan issue. The funding levels sought by this
amendment received bipartisan support in the NDAA. Chairman
Thornberry's mark and my amendment together, which was joined by
Congressman Cook and Congresswoman Hanabusa, increased the authorized
amount by $42 million.
The amount sought here, $34 million, will match the appropriated
amount with the authorized funding levels. Our colleagues on both sides
of the aisle supported that effort because this funding will help clean
up sites from Maine to Hawaii, from Florida to Washington State, and
were provided for with the appropriate pay-for.
I ask for my colleagues' support for this bipartisan amendment so we
can help fund efforts across the country to help clean up environmental
contamination in our districts. People in my district and regions
across the country deserve to have these sites fully cleaned. It is
commonsense, bipartisan, and the right thing to do. I urge my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this
issue.
I am supportive of efforts to ensure that the Department of Defense
takes

[[Page H6498]]

responsibility for any potential contamination issues. That is why this
bill provides more than $1 billion for environmental restoration
accounts, nearly $48 million more than fiscal year 2017.
The bill includes an increase of $10 million specifically to support
water contamination efforts. In addition, the committee provided an
additional $57 million for those efforts in the fiscal year 2017
supplemental appropriations.
The committee has already provided a generous amount of funding to
address water contamination, and the Department of Defense has assured
me that they are addressing each side on a priority basis.
The amendment offered by the gentleman provides additional funding
that the Department may not be able to execute, and the funding comes
at the expense of the warfighter readiness account. Therefore, I must
oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the
gentlewoman, respectfully, that it will cost billions of dollars to
clean up these sites in the United States of America. The increase that
we are seeking here, in a bipartisan fashion, is $34 million to simply
match the amount of money that was authorized in the NDAA.
In addition, this percentage increase that we are seeking is
commensurate with the overall percentage increase in the overall NDAA
budget this year from last year. So we are just simply seeking the same
commensurate amount increase in this portion of the budget that there
is in another portion.
We are looking to have the pay-for to come from the operations and
maintenance defense-wide account, of which there is over $33 billion.
We are looking for $34 million just to try to advance some of these
cleanups.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SUOZZI. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would point out that the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. The
committee worked hard to increase funding for these accounts.
Also, I would point out, representing the First Congressional
District of Indiana, I am intimately familiar with the problems these
environmental sites have.
There is much to do, many resources we need to look for, and I would
support the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by saying that I
do appreciate the hard work that has been done by so many on both sides
of the aisle in this particular area. We all appreciate how important
the cleanup of these environmental sites are. The people in my district
have been suffering with this for 40 years, and we are trying to bring
attention to the issue and trying to get the resources focused on this.
We have met with people from the Navy, from the Army Corps of
Engineers, from the EPA, from the DEC, and from local State officials
in the State of New York that are interested. Congressman Peter King
and Congressman Paul Cook both understand how important it is that we
try and send the signal that we are trying to have a commensurate
increase in this account with the overall increase in the budget.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an
amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
Page 14, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $30,000,000''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a bit of
a complex issue, so I will do my best to explain. It is, unfortunately,
an issue that my constituents and a number in the suburban Philadelphia
area have been dealing with now for the last 2\1/2\ years.
The chemicals with the acronyms PFOS and PFOA are part of a class of
manmade, highly fluorinated chemicals that are highly persistent in our
environment.
In the 1970s, the Department of Defense began using a firefighting
foam with the acronym AFFF. Unfortunately, that firefighting foam to
extinguish petroleum fires contained these chemical compounds. These
chemicals have subsequently been linked to problems in liver, thyroid,
and pancreatic function, as well as changes in hormone levels.
Some studies have shown developmental issues in children, decreased
fertility, increased cholesterol, immune system deficiencies, and an
increased cancer risk. Production of AFFF has ceased, but stockpiles
remain.
Today, the Department of Defense is evaluating and testing the
drinking water systems of hundreds of communities nationwide due to
PFOA and PFOS contamination on or surrounding these defense
installations across the country that used AFFF.
So far, water contamination has been found near 27 military bases in
16 States. This includes the community that I represent and that my
colleagues share in representing. In my district alone, families
surrounding Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, as well
as the Horsham Air Guard Station, suffer from the uncertainty of
wondering whether their child's or their spouse's illness is caused by
the military's contamination on the base in their local community.
They have paid for endless stockpiles of bottled water and higher
utility fees, as their communities have taken steps to reduce the water
system's exposure. I commend the steps the military has taken to date,
but more can and must be done.
I know that our communities in the Philadelphia area are, sadly, just
the tip of the iceberg. This past year alone, since the EPA tightened
its lifetime health advisory under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
Department has completed testing of 480 drinking water systems at
locations where the Department supplies drinking water. It continues to
conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections under CERCLA to
identify sites where PFOA and PFOS may have been released by the
Department of Defense.
The Department spent approximately $200 million just last year in
response to PFOA and PFOS contamination nationwide. This funding has
been used to conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections, test
drinking water systems, and provide mitigation such as bottled water or
drinking water filtration systems where water system tests indicated
PFOA and PFOS are above the EPA advisory levels.
Unfortunately, though, the Department has been funding this response
using existing funds that were originally programmed for other response
actions.
In order to support near-term outreach and engagement in local
communities that have this impacted drinking water system and
adequately prepare for long-term remediation of what is likely to be
billions of dollars' and many years' worth of response, I worked with
the House Armed Services Committee to increase its authorization for
the Navy and Air Force environmental remediation accounts by an
additional $30 million each in the NDAA the House passed earlier this
month. My amendment would bring the

[[Page H6499]]

appropriation in line with that authorization.
This funding is a necessary response to an ongoing environmental
issue that is only going to get worse and more expensive for the
Department, not to mention the countless innocent communities impacted
across the country, both in Republican and Democratic districts.

{time} 1500

I want to thank my Republican neighbors Pat Meehan and Brian
Fitzpatrick for working with me on this issue in a truly bipartisan
manner. I hope the House comes together in a similar manner today to
strengthen our Department of Defense's response to drinking water
contamination it is causing in the communities we represent.
Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 15 seconds
remaining.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance
of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), my
neighbor and colleague from Bucks County.
Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, with my limited time, I just want to
say Brendan said it well. He has done a fabulous job working with
Congressman Meehan and me, all of whom have districts that have been
impacted by this real tragedy, and I stand in full support.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
amendment.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I share many of the gentleman's concerns, and
I appreciate him raising this issue. I support environmental
remediation efforts that ensure that drinking water is safe in
communities across the Nation. That is why this bill includes $1
billion for environmental restoration.
The amount represents $48 million more than the fiscal year 2017
level and includes $10 million above the request to specifically
address PFC contamination. In addition, we include an additional $57
million for drinking water cleanup in the fiscal year 2017 supplemental
appropriations.
This committee has included significant funding to address drinking
water contamination issues, and I am concerned that the Department will
not be able to execute the additional $60 million offered by this
amendment; therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded
vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Grothman

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $30,000,000)''.
Page 22, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their
collaborative effort to bring this bill forward.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3219. Nothing
is more important than the safety of our men and women in uniform, and
I believe that we in Congress are committed to ensuring our armed
services receive the best equipment possible. This equipment includes
platforms like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV. This vehicle
is the centerpiece of the Army and Marine Corps' tactical wheeled
vehicle modernization strategy and closes an existing critical
capability gap for both services.
The JLTV demonstrates many significant improvements over the current
vehicle fleet, including strengthened protection for passengers against
current and future battlefield threats, more payload capacity, and
better automotive performance.
This is basically what replaces years ago what you would call your
Jeep. Anybody who talks to veterans or hears about people being injured
and all, so many of them died or were seriously injured driving in a
vehicle that hit an explosive. These vehicles are going to be a
dramatic improvement over what we have now as far as saving lives in
our troops.
As long as we have troops in Afghanistan, it is important that, as
quickly as possible, we deliver the best equipment possible. To achieve
that goal, Congress should maintain its support for the existing JLTV
acquisition plan.
Recently, we in the House passed the National Defense Authorization
Act of 2018. My amendment to this appropriations bill would simply
transfer funds from the operations and maintenance account in the bill
and then appropriate those funds to the JLTV program to bring them in
line with what we in the House authorized in the NDAA.
The JLTV program supports American jobs with more than 300 suppliers
from 30 States. Pure and simple, the JLTV platform will save lives and
improve our troops' effectiveness in the field. I encourage my
colleagues to support this amendment.
Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROTHMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment.
The amendment proposes to add funding back to the JLTV program, cutting
the House defense bill due to a lack of information provided by the
Army budget justification.
The cut to the JLTV program reflects the committee's concern with the
Army's failure to provide the full budget justification information for
an $804 million program. Failure to provide this information makes it
impossible for the committee to exercise its fiscal oversight
responsibilities.
However, the JLTV program is important to the warfighter and is
executing well. I do not oppose this amendment.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Appropriations
Committee for the hard work they have done.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Dunn

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced
by $30,000,000) (increased by $30,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Dunn) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, throughout the country, there are remote areas where the
men and women of our armed services prepare for war in order to protect
the peace.
Although these places are often overlooked, our investments in
military test and training ranges are returned

[[Page H6500]]

to the Nation many times over in the projection of American military
supremacy around the globe protecting the homeland and preserving
international order.
In the Southeast, the Joint Gulf Range Complex facilities are for
testing and training of supersonic and hypersonic weapons systems,
including combat training and live-fire exercises of the frontline
fighters like the F-22 and F-35.
The 325th Fighter Wing and the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group at
Tyndall Air Force Base, the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, and
the Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field make extensive use of
the Joint Gulf Range Complex.
There is no comparable area in the United States near an established
base with instrumentation infrastructure that can support advanced
testing and joint training exercises like this. However, deployment of
the instrumentation necessary to collect the data during the training
on these fifth- and sixth-generation weapons systems is not in keeping
with the U.S. Air Force needs. Instrumentation limitations have
restricted the F-35 and F-22 training missions to the northernmost
portion of the range. According to a study by the 96th Test Wing at
Eglin Air Force Base, this limitation causes congestion and has
obstructed at least 80 missions per year.
This amendment, which I am offering with my Florida colleagues, Mr.
Tom Rooney, Mr. Matt Gaetz, and Mr. Francis Rooney, will accelerate
investments approved by Congress to deploy new infrastructure along the
Joint Gulf Range Complex. The amendment will maximize the utility of
this vast range, which is a true national treasure for combat training
and advanced testing and evaluation.
Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DUNN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the committee has no objection. The
amendment's funding for major test facilities is critical to ensuring
our military retains its competitive lead over our competitors. We are
prepared to accept the amendment.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Gaetz), my colleague and friend.
Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
our colleagues in the House for their agreement.
Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the brave men and women of the
greatest military on Earth and to ensure that they are properly
equipped for any and all challenges on the horizon. I support increased
investments in our military test and training ranges with help from our
Armed Forces to deal with the world's challenges.
In my district, the Gulf Test Range provides approximately 120,000
square miles of overwater airspace. It is used for high-altitude,
supersonic air combat training, air-to-air missile testing, drone
targeting, hypersonic weapons testing, space launches, and much more.
It is critical training space for our Armed Forces, including the Air
Force Special Operations Command, the 96th Test Wing, the 33rd Fighter
Wing, and others. This is why I ask my colleagues to support the
amendment to increase funding for the test range program.
I thank the Congressman from Florida, Dr. Dunn, for his leadership,
for the men and women in the military. I thank Chair Granger for her
agreement to this amendment. I thank the minority party.
Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I have no further comments or remarks; however,
I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to
enhance military readiness and national security.
Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).
The amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Speier

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $25,000,000) (increased by $25,000,000)''.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, the American people are becoming more and
more aware of the degenerative disease known as chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, CTE, due to the crisis in the NFL. The NFL, of course,
has been trying to sweep this under the rug.
Very recently, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a
premier journal that is peer-reviewed, provided a study that found
severe neurological damage in the vast majority of former football
players' brains that were donated for research after they developed
mental symptoms during life. Eighty-seven percent of all football
players' brains showed CTE, but a truly horrible figure, 99 percent of
the brains of NFL players showed CTE.
However, the dangers of CTE are not confined to football. Our
servicemen and -women are subject to similar--or, oftentimes, even
worse--dangers in the line of duty for the service they provide to our
Nation.
Last year, I was honored to host Dr. Bennet Omalu for the State of
the Union. He is the doctor portrayed in the film ``Concussion,''
exposing the impact of CTE on professional football players. He began
his research covering his own expenses and exposing a coverup of the
suicides of former athletes. However, his research and the research of
others is limited by the funding, which is why I am offering this
amendment.
Today we have an opportunity to prevent a similar kind of coverup
among our service agencies. This amendment would dedicate $25 million
in funding as part of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research
Programs to award grants to medical researchers and universities to
support early detection of CTE.

{time} 1515

This amendment would not increase spending, but take the funding
already allocated and put some of it--a very small part of it--towards
CTE.
Every hour, we lose another veteran to suicide. We have made great
strides towards supporting PTSD research, but the exposure to IEDs and
other blasts and blows to the head, may be doing similar damage, which
goes unseen until it is too late. By diagnosing CTE early among
servicemembers, perhaps we can begin to change the troubling trend of
suicides among our veterans.
You may hear arguments today that this amendment is not necessary,
since DOD is already spending $125 million on TBI research. But this
research is on short-term trauma, not on long-term effects of repeated
head injuries and, what are called, subconcussive blows. Servicemembers
at risk of CTE may not even have acute trauma. CTE can result from
minor events over a long period of time.
You may also hear that Congress shouldn't dictate the DOD research.
But it is absolutely Congress' role to have input into DOD spending,
and there is a huge need that is not being filled. And we already are
requiring that they do TBI research as it is.
Now, some have suggested: Well, there has been some projects funded.
Of the $125 million of funding, the amount of money going to CTE
projects has been, since 2012, only five projects, for a grand total
cost of $2.9 million. And not one dime has been spent since 2013.
It is time for us to accept that science is real here. JAMA has just
put out a stunning report that suggests that this is a very serious
problem, and it is time for us to combat this issue.
Creating dedicated grants for the early detection of CTE has the
potential to prevent suicides among our servicemembers and will have, I
think, a very important impact on how we look at CTE in the future and
how we make sure that our servicemembers are properly protected.

[[Page H6501]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern to
provide adequate funding for this very important research, and we have
spoken about it. I am a strong supporter of funding for research in
this area, and that is why the bill already provides $125 million
toward grants for PTSD and traumatic brain injury research, including
CTE, which has previously received millions of dollars in research
grants under this program.
A previous amendment would create a new research program, focused
solely on CTE research. And since CTE research is already eligible
under the PTSD-TBI research program, it is much more appropriate to add
funding to the PTSD-TBI program, rather than create a new research
program. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly join with the chair in opposition to the
gentlewoman's amendment and share the chair's concern over the issue
raised. However, I don't think the approach is an appropriate one in
that we would carve out another budget line.
Given my anticipation that we will not have a full 12-month fiscal
year for this money to be spent, I am very concerned that we will find
enough projects for this money to be spent on. In the meantime, they
would then be eliminated from the existing line for other possible
research.
Mr. Chairman, I would look to work with the gentlewoman to address
this issue in a fulsome fashion, but not in this manner.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues for their
expression of support for the concept of making sure that CTE is
studied.
I am just hopeful that we can guarantee, through this amendment, that
of that $125 million, some portion of it is set aside for CTE research.
The fact that only $2.9 million has gone to CTE research since 2012,
and not a dime since 2013, makes me worry that it is not a high
priority within the Department.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Strike sections 8094 and 8095.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike sections 8094 and 8095 of
the bill that prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the
United States and prohibit the use of funds to construct or modify
facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. These
provisions are designed to further delay the transfer of detainees out
of Guantanamo.
Guantanamo is costing us a fortune. It costs the American taxpayer
$10 million a year to keep a single detainee in Guantanamo, and only
$78,000 to keep a detainee in a Federal maximum security prison in the
United States. That is a waste of $440 million a year.
Perhaps, most importantly, it is a question of values. What is most
offensive is not that the prisoners are at Guantanamo, as opposed to
some prison in the United States, but that we are holding people
without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever. That
is against all American values.
Mr. Chairman, we have debated Guantanamo amendments every year,
multiple times a year. The last time was 2 weeks ago. It is an issue I
care deeply about, and I offer this amendment again. However,
yesterday, the President took an action that is so egregious, and so
offensive, that I feel compelled to use a portion of my time to address
it directly.
Yesterday's attack by the Commander in Chief on our military's
Active-Duty transgender personnel is appalling. Transgender individuals
are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our
military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not.
The arguments against allowing transgender servicemembers to serve
openly in our military are the same arguments that have been used
against every other group that has been prohibited from serving in our
country's history--including Black and Latino men, women, gays,
lesbians, and bisexuals. Each time the doors of our military open
farther to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired
and discredited arguments are brought back: that any individual in the
new group, regardless of his or her ability, is unfit to serve and that
their service will disrupt unit cohesion.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
Not only should all willing and able Americans be allowed and
encouraged to serve--they already do. A report prepared for the
Department of Defense estimates thousands of transgender individuals
serve today, without issue.
The President must not impose blanket bans that prejudge
servicemembers based on their identity, rather than their own merits.
President Trump is attacking people who have shown a willingness--
indeed, an eagerness--to risk their lives in the service of our
country. It is apparent that the decision to ban transgender people
from military service was taken without consulting Secretary of Defense
Mattis, who seemed surprised by the tweets, or the military, which
seems at a loss as to how to implement the order.
Even if this bigoted order is motivated by political opportunism, it
disgraces our country and must be rescinded.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, these important revisions have been
included in several appropriations bills for several years running.
They represent a strong and enduring consensus in Congress that
Guantanamo should remain open and that detainees should not be
transferred to the United States for any reason.
Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for U.S.
communities. It is impossible to know how many detainees might be
brought here, where they might be held, and the impacts on communities
and facilities holding them. It is also impossible to know what the
potential costs could be.
Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally
proposed, would be disruptive and, potentially, disastrous. Former FBI
Director Mueller has stated: ``To transfer detainees to local jails
could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of
affecting events outside the prison system.''
The idea of bringing detainees for trials in the U.S. quickly
collapsed as local jurisdictions voiced their strong opposition.
As everyone here is aware, several detainees who have been released
from Guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded
Americans. The threat is real, and Guantanamo is already equipped to
handle the detention and military trial of these individuals, as
appropriate.
Any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the United
States, for any reason, is simply the wrong policy.
I, therefore, oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote
against this amendment.

[[Page H6502]]

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time, and I thank him for his continued leadership on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would
remove a provision that prevents the Department of Defense from closing
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The continued use of this facility does not make our country safer
and only serves to undermine our national security.
Well respected military leaders and national security officials have
said that Guantanamo remains a propaganda tool for terrorist groups
that is used to incite violence against Americans.
In 2015, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe,
which is composed of 57 member states, including all NATO allies,
concluded that Guantanamo serves as an obstacle to counterterrorism
cooperation and that the facility should be closed.
In addition, the cost of housing detainees and maintaining the
facility continues to be a financial drain on the Department of
Defense.
According to Human Rights First, Guantanamo costs the U.S.
approximately $445 million per year to operate. The average cost per
detainee at Guantanamo is more than $10 million.
At the same time, the cost per prisoner at the Federal supermax
prison in Colorado, which houses such terrorists as 9/11 conspirator
Zacarias Moussaoui, World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, and Boston
Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is $78,000.
Mr. Chairman, this should not be a partisan issue. National security
experts on both sides of the aisle have concluded that keeping
Guantanamo open is harmful to American interests.
Secretaries of State from previous Republican administrations,
including Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Colin Powell, have all said
that closing Guantanamo would improve America's image around the world.
Former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey
and Admiral Mike Mullen, have both said that the detention facility
needs to be closed.
Former President George W. Bush has said that the detention facility
has ``become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for
our allies.''
Senator John McCain, the man whose credibility on the horrors of war
is unimpeachable, has repeatedly said that he favors closing the
detention facility because of the imagine of the United States that it
projects to the rest of the world.
Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will strengthen our
national security and show the rest of the world the principle of equal
justice under law is inviolable.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to send an important message about
the values discussed and support the Nadler amendment.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the ranking member, I
move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to rise in support of
the gentleman's amendment, as it relates to the detention facility at
Guantanamo Bay, and would simply make a few brief remarks.
This is, I believe, a very substantive and serious issue facing a
constitutional government, our government of laws.
I would point out that it is a sad state of affairs if somewhere in
the United States of America we cannot find a secure facility to detain
41 individuals at this late date, given the fact that President Bush
released over 500 people from Guantanamo, and President Obama released
197.
Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by observing that, within the last
week, the Attorney General of the United States of America could not
find a justification to have an alleged terrorist, who recruits for al-
Qaida, having been extradited from Spain, an Algerian, placed in
Guantanamo. That person, as I understand it, as I speak at this moment,
is being detained in the United States of America. That is what should
happen with the other 41 people.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
will be postponed.

{time} 1530

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 printed in part B of
House Report 115-261.

Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Foster

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used for the procurement, the deployment, or the research,
development, test, and evaluation of a space-based ballistic
missile intercept layer.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I just have a parliamentary inquiry.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I have a question on the procedure. I
understand that Mr. Foster is recognized. Did I lose track of an
amendment for Mr. Polis?
The Acting CHAIR. That amendment was called, and the gentleman was
not present.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Poe?
The Acting CHAIR. That amendment was also called, and the gentleman
was not present.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the information. Sorry for the
interruption very much.
The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018 tasks the Missile Defense Agency
with developing a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer.
There is no doubt that a space-based missile defense, if it is
technologically feasible and economically justifiable, would make an
important contribution to our national security. So would the Star Trek
transporter or the warp drive, but as a scientist and, in fact, the
only Ph.D. scientist in the U.S. Congress, I think that we need to do
our homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars into
attempting to develop this system. As such, my amendment would prohibit
the use of funds to attempt to develop a space-based missile intercept
layer.
It has been more than 30 years since President Reagan called for
defending the United States against a first strike by developing a
strategic defense system, commonly known as Star Wars.
The idea of a space-based version of this has gone in and out of
fashion for the last 30 years, but every time this space-based concept
has been looked at by technologically competent outside experts, it was
deemed to be unworkable, impossibly expensive, vulnerable to
countermeasures, easy for an opponent to destroy, easy to overwhelm
with a small number of enemy missiles, or all of the above. This
approach was judged technologically unworkable in

[[Page H6503]]

1983, and the status quo has not changed.
In order to reach a ballistic missile during the first few minutes of
flight, a large number of interceptors must be stationed in low-
altitude orbit. A report conducted by the American Physical Society in
2003 concluded that in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of 1,000
or more orbiting satellites would be required to intercept just a
single missile.
To put that in perspective, the United States currently has slightly
more than 600 satellites in Earth orbit, which includes commercial,
scientific, and military satellites. Moreover, the amount of launch
that is required to put this material into orbit in a reasonable amount
of time would greatly exceed the current U.S. launch capability.
The National Academies of Sciences estimated that it would cost at
least $300 billion--in 2003 dollars--for just such a limited
capability. And just last year, in his testimony to the House Armed
Services Committee, the former Director of the Missile Defense
Authority, Admiral Syring, concluded the same thing.
Setting aside the high cost, a space-based missile defense system has
inherent vulnerabilities that greatly limit its effectiveness. Even
with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be within
range to target an incoming missile, and those could be easily
overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles from one location. And
because interceptors must be stationed in low-altitude orbit, they are
easily detected, tracked, and destroyed.
Finally, there is a more fundamental question that we must ask
ourselves. And that is: Is it wise to deploy weapons in space,
especially when the required technology is becoming widely available
around the world?
Deploying such a system would strain strategic relationships around
the globe and almost certainly trigger a space arms race.
There is no doubt that ensuring our Nation's defense and national
security are of paramount priority, but spending hundreds of billions
of dollars on a system which will not work, without having serious
debate and at least some concept for how this might be remotely
practical or affordable, is indefensible.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on my
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the space-based missile defense
layer that we debate today will be one of the most significant
technological advancements in our missile defense capability since
Ronald Reagan first brought this possibility to the Nation.
Mr. Foster's amendment would prevent the next revolution in missile
defense as we seek to expand our umbrella protection into space, the
ultimate high ground.
Mr. Speaker, the most critical priority of this Congress is the
defense of the Nation. If we fail that task, little else we might do
will be of any consequence.
To prohibit the development of the next generation missile defense
capabilities because other countries will object is to grant our
potential adversaries a veto over our national security. Mr. Foster's
amendment would do just that.
It should be noted that every significant missile defense milestone
ever achieved by this Nation has been over the objections of gentlemen
like Mr. Foster and his supporters. They have been wrong about missile
defense for decades, and they have a consistent record of demonstrably
bad judgment on this issue. They have imposed their philosophy on the
science and physics involved. Theirs is a broken record which began
playing back in the 1970s. If we had listened to them, we would have no
missile defense today and we would all be completely vulnerable to the
likes of North Korea.

The reason it was called Star Wars was because they derisively
renamed Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative to Star Wars and said
it was impossible because it would be hitting a bullet with a bullet.
But, Mr. Chairman, today we not only hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit
a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet.
The technology is here. We have demonstrated it time and time again.
It is important to defeat this amendment for the sake of the
Constitution, for the sake of the United States of America.
Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I join Mr. Franks in his remarks, and I
urge rejection of this amendment.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have
remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.
Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Ronald
Reagan never illuminated the possibility of this to the American
public, because the possibility never existed.
What we have today is not a missile defense system. It has failed in
the great majority of tests. It has been tested against a very small
fraction of the countermeasures that are elementary to deploy against
it.
I hope that no one involved in the missile defense system is telling
President Trump that we have an effective antimissile system today,
because if he gambles counting on any defense from that system, he is
putting our country at risk.
Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining amount of my time to the ranking
member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
I simply would want to rise in support of his amendment. I would
point out that in 2010, the Ballistic Missile Defense Review made no
request for space-based interceptors. Currently, this is a matter under
review by the Department. I think we should allow that review to be
concluded before we expend moneys.
The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has
expired.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much
time I have remaining?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I think I would just say that
the opponents to missile defense, especially to space-based missile
defense, have hilariously overstated the cost of this system.
A regionally deployed system would cost in the range of $20 billion
over 30 years, and the cost would go down, as launch costs often do.
It is important to keep in mind that when two airplanes hit two
buildings, it cost us $2 trillion.
What would that cost have been like if it had been a nuclear warhead
that hit New York?
I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we do
all that we possibly can to make sure that that does not indeed occur.
I don't know what price we put on national security, but the systems
that we are talking about, our GMD system--our Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system--was just tested against an ICBM target recently, and it
was successful.
We have had 14 out of 14 successful tests with our THAAD system--our
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The technology has been
proven time and again.
We should not undersell the United States of America. We can build
the system. We will build it. It will help us get to the left of the
launch. It will help us to be able to have a boost-phase defense
against missiles when they are in their most vulnerable position and
over enemy territory.
This is vital for the American national security, for our future, for
our children, and for our children's children. I would hope that we
would defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

[[Page H6504]]

The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. 10004. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may
be used to plan for, begin, continue, complete, process, or
approve a public-private competition under the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-76.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that
would prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting what is called
new A-76 studies. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, as well
as Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop of
Utah, Mr. Donovan of New York, Mr. Cook of California, Mr. Ratcliffe of
Texas, Mr. Loebsack of Iowa, Mr. Kilmer of Washington, Ms. Shea-Porter
of New Hampshire, and Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
These flawed A-76 studies are relying on a process that both the GAO
and the inspector general of the Department of Defense determined could
not demonstrate any savings to the American taxpayer. That is why A-76
studies have been subject to a congressional moratorium since 2010. The
amendment I am offering today would continue that moratorium.
The fundamental flaw inherent in the A-76 process is the erroneous
underlying methodology used to determine whether or not Federal
civilian jobs would be outsourced. 2003 was the last time this process
was updated.
Mr. Chairman, the inspector general's report notes that it simply
fails to keep track of costs and savings. It has no anchor in reality,
and incorporates an arbitrary 12 percent overhead factor cost for
Federal employees as opposed to contractors.
The inspector general concluded that: ``. . . multimillion-dollar
decisions are based, in part, on a factor not supported by data . . .
Unless DOD develops a supportable rate or an alternative method to
calculate a fair and reasonable rate, the results of future
competitions will be questionable.''
Decisions involving taxpayer money should never be based on such a
faulty process, especially when American jobs are at risk as well.
We are debating the appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars,
the lion's share of our country's discretionary spending. This is as it
should be. We should spare no expense to provide the best care for our
veterans. We should not haggle over the national defense, but when we
spend this much money, we have a responsibility to do it carefully and
based on actual data.

{time} 1545

As legislators, we should exercise care to ensure that we represent
the interests of our constituents as well as possible. A flawed process
based on pseudocalculations has no basis, no place in that reputation.
Ultimately, the A-76 process uses faulty, antiquated methodology to
determine whether Federal civilian jobs should be outsourced, a matter
we simply cannot approach so haphazardly. Both the GAO and the
inspector general of the DOD concluded the process could not
demonstrate any savings for the American taxpayer. This A-76 process is
outdated, antiquated, and simply not anchored in reality.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Franks of Arizona). The gentleman from
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I support competition, and these
competitions, as a whole, have been beneficial to the Department of
Defense.
The OMB has reported that, regardless of whether the Federal
Government or the private contractor win the competition, the act of
competition alone has saved or generated a cost savings up to 10 to 40
percent--10 to 40 percent, just having the competition.
This amendment would block opportunities for the defense industrial
base, protect the status quo within the DOD civilian workforce, prevent
cost savings at the DOD, and negate the natural innovation that comes
from competition.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
Ms. GRANGER. I want to thank the gentleman for his valuable
contributions to the Defense Subcommittee. I join him in opposition to
this amendment that would limit the Defense Department's flexibility to
achieve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.
I urge rejection of the amendment.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this body owes a duty to our
warfighters, a duty to the taxpayers, and a duty to the civilian
workforce. Allowing these flawed A-76 studies to move forward, it
really is a breach to all three groups.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, to maintain
the moratorium currently in place on these A-76 studies and protect our
military readiness from a process in desperate need of radical
revision.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would say we have a duty to taxpayers to
perform the best we can, to give the best product to our warfighters at
the best price. I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.

Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Davidson

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made
available by this Act may be used with respect to Yemen in
contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et
seq.), including for the introduction of United States armed
or military forces into hostilities in Yemen, into situations
in Yemen where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly
indicated by the circumstances, or into Yemeni territory,
airspace, or waters while equipped for combat, in
contravention of the congressional consultation and reporting
requirements of sections 3 and 4 of such Resolution.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to
support this amendment which simply says that none of these funds may
be used in contravention of the War Powers Act in Yemen.
We are involved in a critical effort to defeat enemies of our country
who took action on 9/11. Al-Qaida and their affiliates have been
declared enemies, an authorized force, for nearly 16 years now. And in
Yemen, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has found sanctuary.
Unfortunately, we also find ourselves in conflict with other enemies
there. It is clear that the Houthis, who are Shia, are not affiliates
of al-Qaida. In fact, they are engaged in a civil war there.
Over the years, we have sold arms and munitions, built a great
alliance with a good ally in Saudi Arabia, and they are involved there.
An enemy of the United States, Iran, is also involved as supporters of
the Houthis, and so it is important to maintain our relationship with
our ally Saudi Arabia.
It is important to recognize the strategic, operational, and tactical
threats posed by Iran and their proxies like the Houthis, but it is
also important that

[[Page H6505]]

we restore the emphasis of Article I of our Constitution and our clear
duty in Congress to authorize our Nation's wars. So this amendment
simply says nothing outside of the War Powers Act may be engaged in
without further future authorization.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman proposes an amendment that cuts
all funding for the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in the
hostilities in Yemen. U.S. Forces need the flexibility to enter any
theater where terrorists target the United States. Just 2 months ago,
American Special Operations Forces conducted a ground raid against al-
Qaida's Yemen branch, killing seven suspected militants.
We consulted leadership at the Department of Defense regarding this
amendment. The Department recommends a more thorough legal review of
the implications of this amendment.
Further, the Joint Staff asserts that a U.S. provision of limited
support to the Saudi-led coalition might be construed in this context
as participation in civil war, in which case, removal of such support
could have a damaging effect on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia
and create further implications for regional security.
With Special Operations fighting terrorism around the globe to
protect our safety, does Congress want to show its lack of support?
This amendment is poorly timed and overly restrictive and has many
unforeseen complications. Therefore, the committee strongly opposes
this amendment.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. GRANGER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky),
the ranking member.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for
yielding and join her in opposition; although, I must tell you I am
always very reserved about opposing an amendment put forth by a Notre
Dame graduate.
But, in all seriousness, I would say that I do appreciate the
gentleman's concern with the devolving situation in Yemen in that we do
not want to get involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
I am also in agreement with much of the intent behind the amendment
and certainly agree that Congress has relinquished much of its
oversight role over Presidential decisions about sending U.S. Armed
Forces into hostilities provided under the War Powers Act. That is why
I am a strong supporter of efforts to develop a new Authorization for
Use of Military Force for the global war on terror. Congress needs to,
finally, after 16 years, carry out its constitutional duty and stop
hiding from this very important debate that the gentleman has raised in
his amendment.
However, I do have concerns that the gentleman's amendment, as
written, is overly broad and would place undue restrictions on U.S.
Forces within the Middle East to respond to legitimate threats within
Yemen.
So, again, very reluctantly, I join with the chairwoman in
opposition, and I appreciate her yielding.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I respect the arguments of my colleagues
in support of our national command authority. I wholeheartedly support
that. In fact, I wore our Nation's uniform for nearly 12 years, served
in Ranger Regiment, though I was not involved as a combat veteran.
I would not want to do anything to limit our ability to fight and win
the war on terror. Indeed, the sole intent of this is to keep us laser-
focused where we can. Resources are scarce, and the need to focus on
defeating our enemies who have already been authorized by combat to
engage in combat is critical.
In fact, it does alarm me to see that there is some concern that this
is overly broad and limiting, as it is the law of the land. The War
Powers Act is recognized as something that does give our Commanders
flexibility. It gives them 90 days to engage in combat anywhere where
there is a clear and present danger to the national security of the
United States.
That could very well happen in that region of the country. The waters
are tight. The threats are real. As I said, there are strategic,
operational, and tactical concerns at play.
But this is nothing different than what President Eisenhower foresaw.
In an enduring conflict, he said: ``We face a hostile ideology global
in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in
method.
``Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the
emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which
enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the
burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle--with liberty at stake.
Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted
course toward permanent peace and human betterment.''

I couldn't say it better, so I borrowed President Eisenhower's words.
I hope we can respect our Constitution, as our duty under it, the
oath we have sworn to support and defend it, to limit the scope of our
war to things that are Congress-authorized and not passive-aggressively
through funding and cutting the checks, but through full authorization.
We do not have such authorizations with respect to the Houthis, whether
they are in Yemen or other Iranian proxies outside the scope of the War
Powers Act.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Lamborn). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
The amendment was rejected.

Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

At the end of division A (before the short title), insert
the following:
Sec. _. None of the finds made available by this Act may
be used to purchase heavy water from Iran.

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple
limitation amendment: No funds made available by this act may be used
to purchase heavy water from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Why are we doing this?
If you remember, the JCPOA provided Iran with $150 billion in
sanctions relief, even had the appalling spectacle of planes hauling in
$1.7 billion in cold, hard cash, dropped off in Tehran. So this regime
has been flush with money as a result of the nuclear deal done during
the Obama administration.
One of the frustrating things about that was that, even after that
deal is enacted, even after all this money is flowing as a result of
the deal, the Obama administration--this was not even required by the
deal--sent millions of dollars to Iran in order to get heavy water. And
that was not required by the deal. That was a gratuitous transaction,
but it certainly provided more economic--an even greater economic
lifeline to Iran.
This is still, to this day, the world's leading state sponsor of
terrorism. They are fomenting discord all around the Middle East, in
Lebanon, in Syria. They fund Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They are
supporting the Houthis in Yemen. They have major control over portions
of Iraq, and the Shiite militias that they back are running rampant.
Remember, they were probably the leading source of U.S. servicemember
deaths in Iraq during the Iraq campaign. They funded Shiite militias.
They had their Quds Force from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps on the
ground in Iraq; and certainly, hundreds of our servicemembers, some
estimates say as many as 1,500 servicemembers, were killed from some of
these Iranian proxies. They have never been held accountable for that.

[[Page H6506]]

{time} 1600

Now this administration came in saying the Iran deal was a bad deal.
They haven't left the deal. They haven't really done anything to fight
back against the deal, and I hope that will happen. But in the
meantime, I want to make sure that this administration is not repeating
the mistakes of the Obama administration. No more taxpayer dollars to
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would acknowledge that Iran
is up to very nefarious purposes as far as sponsoring terrorism
internationally.
I also acknowledge the gentleman referenced the previous
administration more than once during his remarks as far as the issue
before the House today.
In 2016, last year, heavy water was purchased by the Department of
Energy and the State Department, but I would point out this is 2017
with a different administration, and essentially the amendment is a
solution to a problem that does not exist.
The current administration has recertified Iran's compliance with the
agreement twice. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is subject to
intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But importantly to the point raised today, I would suggest that the
Department of Energy consistently has indicated at the time of the 2016
heavy water purchase from Iran that the United States would not be a
regular buyer of Iranian heavy water.
Since that purchase, the United States has not purchased any
additional heavy water from that country. In fact, the U.S. has,
through refraining from purchases of excess supply, forced Iran to ship
excess heavy water abroad so that it can continue to adhere to the
agreement entered into.
It seems highly unlikely that the current administration would now
seek out an opportunity to purchase this heavy water.
Again, I believe the gentleman has a solution to a problem that does
not exist, and I am opposed to his amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, if you want money to go
to purchase heavy water from Iran, then obviously you should oppose the
amendment. But if you don't think that is a good idea, then it doesn't
hurt us to have this in here, given what has happened in the past.
I wish I had 100 percent confidence that we would not be repeating
mistakes. I hope that is where we go, but I have not yet seen the real
robust action to turn the tide away from a deal that has put Iran on
the path to a nuclear bomb. The danger with the deal was always less
that Iran would cheat on the deal. I think they probably are, but the
danger is they get a bomb by keeping the deal.
This is a major problem. This is one small area of this to protect
the taxpayer.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back
the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will
be postponed.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as we begin to conclude debate on
H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, I am sure I join
with Ranking Member Nita Lowey in thanking all the Members of the House
for the manner in which this debate has been conducted over the last
couple of days.
I thank the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and the Members
who presented well over 120 amendments that were made in order.
Let me reiterate why this package of appropriations bills is so
important. From 2010 to 2014, defense spending was cut 21 percent in
real terms. We heard that from Chairman Thornberry of the Armed
Services Committee. Yet, as we know, the world did not get 21 percent
safer.
In fact, we ask more of our military than ever before, and we need to
support them here at home and abroad.
Today--and I said this earlier in the debate--we have the oldest Air
Force in history, the Navy's fleet is smaller than it has been in
decades, and the Army has just three combat brigade teams fully
prepared to fight.
Moreover, we have too many aircraft that can't fly, too many ships
that cannot sail, too many troops who cannot deploy. We need better
equipment and training for our warfighters, and we need more of the
warfighters. We need a cyber component that is really effective.
In April--it seems like years ago--we began to rebuild our Armed
Forces with the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill.
Today, this legislation we are considering continues that critical
work.
Mr. Chairman, this four-bill package is carefully crafted to fund our
critical military priorities, reinforce our nuclear deterrent, support
veterans, make our borders more secure, and strengthen protection for
our constituents and for Members.
Once again, I thank Chairwoman Kay Granger; Chairmen Mike Simpson,
Charlie Dent, Kevin Yoder; all chairmen and their ranking counterparts;
and our remarkable staff for bringing us to the finish line this
afternoon, earlier than we thought.
I also thank the rest of the Members and the staff of the
Appropriations Committee for their extraordinary efforts over the past
several months. It was full speed ahead, and they performed in a
remarkable way.
I would like to note the work of our clerk Nancy Fox and her team,
Jim Kulikowski, Carol Murphy, Shannon O'Keefe, Stephen Sepp, Maureen
Holohan, Jennifer Hing, Marta Dehmlow Hernandez, Tammy Hughes, Rachel
Kahler, David Roth.
And in my personal office: Katie Hazlett.
And those who work with Mrs. Lowey--and this may be the short list--
Shalanda Young, Chris Bigelow, Adam Berg, and Becky Leggieri.
May I say that I didn't mean to leave out Chairman Carter of the
Homeland Security Committee for the work that he has done.
My colleagues, each and every one of these bills deserves to be sent
to the President's desk. I look forward to completing our work on all
12 appropriations bills when we return from the recess, or perhaps even
before then.
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish we were considering bills under
regular order, but I hope that in the weeks ahead we can work together
to raise the budget caps and enact bipartisan bills we can all support.
I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen, my friend; and Kay Granger, the
chair; and, of course, Pete Visclosky for your hard work on this bill.
However, this is not the regular way to proceed. I urge my colleagues
to vote ``no'' on this bill which would waste $1.6 billion on Trump's
border wall, use fraudulent defense numbers, gut critical investments
in clean energy, include poison pill riders, and leave the remaining
spending bills with no path forward.
Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, I thank again all of the Members, all of
my hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle. On this bill, I urge a
``no'' vote.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H6507]]

Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis

Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida to the end that the Chair puts the question de novo.
The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Indiana?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
The amendment was agreed to.

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report
115-261 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following
order:
Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Suozzi of New York.
Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania.
Amendment No. 38 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
Amendment No. 43 by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Suozzi

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Suozzi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214,
noes 211, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 430]

AYES--214

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
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--211

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
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)

NOT VOTING--8

Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Palmer
Roskam
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

{time} 1641

Messrs. POE of Texas, COLLINS of New York, McCARTHY, RICE of South
Carolina, HARRIS, JOYCE of Ohio, and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, CASTRO of Texas, KATKO, LOWENTHAL,
ELLISON, BEYER, COOPER, SIMPSON, TIBERI, GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. ROS-
LEHTINEN, Messrs. WALZ, COSTA, FLEISCHMANN, O'ROURKE, and YOUNG of Iowa
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement By the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The next amendment votes will be
2-minute votes. Members are advised to stay on the floor.

Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania) on which further
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice
vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256,
noes 169, not voting 8, as follows:

[Roll No. 431]

AYES--256

Abraham
Adams
Aguilar
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)

[[Page H6508]]

Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coffman
Cohen
Comstock
Conaway
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Franks (AZ)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gibbs
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hartzler
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Knight
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Mast
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
McSally
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Rothfus
Roybal-Allard
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walberg
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wenstrup
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
Yoder
Young (AK)
Zeldin

NOES--169

Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Cooper
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Flores
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gohmert
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lance
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rouzer
Rutherford
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Wagner
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young (IA)

NOT VOTING--8

Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Palmer
Roskam
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1646

Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. HUNTER and RODNEY DAVIS
of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Nadler

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 432]

AYES--172

Adams
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
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Garamendi
Gomez
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sanchez
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
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

NOES--252

Abraham
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
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
Cardenas
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Correa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Crist
Cuellar
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (TX)
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green, Gene
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
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lawson (FL)
Lewis (MN)

[[Page H6509]]

Lipinski
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
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
Rosen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Sewell (AL)
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Sires
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
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

NOT VOTING--9

Babin
Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Palmer
Roskam
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

{time} 1651

Mr. SCHNEIDER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) on which further proceedings were
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 433]

AYES--253

Abraham
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Barletta
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Bridenstine
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comstock
Connolly
Conyers
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Costello (PA)
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Curbelo (FL)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
Davis, Rodney
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
Denham
Dent
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Donovan
Doyle, Michael F.
Dunn
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Faso
Fitzpatrick
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
King (NY)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
LaMalfa
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Loebsack
Lofgren
Love
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marino
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McKinley
McNerney
Meehan
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (PA)
Nadler
Neal
Newhouse
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Palazzo
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Paulsen
Payne
Pearce
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Posey
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rogers (AL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Russell
Rutherford
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuster
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Stefanik
Stewart
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Westerman
Wilson (FL)
Wittman
Woodall
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--172

Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barr
Barton
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Davidson
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Ferguson
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
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)
Kelly (MS)
King (IA)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Sanford
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stivers
Taylor
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Yoder
Yoho

NOT VOTING--8

Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Palmer
Roskam
Ryan (OH)
Scalise

Announcement by the Acting Chair

The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). There is
1 minute remaining.

{time} 1656

Ms. STEFANIK and Mr. DENHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union,
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill
(H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the
fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, and,
pursuant to House Resolution 478, he reported the bill, as amended by
that resolution and by House Resolution 473, back to the House with
sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.

[[Page H6510]]

The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the
desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Strike division E.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the
bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as
amended.
In last year's election, no campaign rhetoric was more infamous than
the President's promise to ``build a great, great wall on our Southern
border'' and ``make Mexico pay for it.''
The reality is the funding would come from U.S. taxpayers, not from
Mexico, as the President promised. This motion to recommit strikes the
$1.6 billion appropriation for construction of nearly 74 miles of
border wall.
Beyond the initial 74 miles, we have no idea of how many miles of
border wall the President plans to build or how much it will cost
because we have not received the required report on the long-term plan
and justification for border security investments.
Even with the plan, we will need time to evaluate whether investments
in the border wall are more cost effective than alternatives and more
urgent than clearly established unmet needs.
With $1.6 billion, we could buy two of the four heavy Coast Guard
icebreakers we need to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic. This
purchase would help minimize the danger highlighted in a National
Academies of Science report, which concluded the Coast Guard requires
four new heavy icebreakers to protect U.S interests in the Arctic,
where Russia has an ever-increasing presence.
The Coast Guard is ready to solicit proposals for new icebreakers in
fiscal year 2018. In this bill there is no funding for essential
icebreakers. There is no acquisition funding for them in the Homeland
Security bill.
The $1.6 billion could also be used for investments in additional
scanning technology in the hiring of thousands of Customs officers at
every U.S. port of entry. This would reduce wait times for travelers,
better facilitate the flow of commerce, and contribute to economic
growth in many of our districts. It would also enhance our ability to
intercept contraband and illegal narcotics mostly smuggled directly
into the U.S. through our ports of entry, not where the wall would be
built.
The bill before us does not adequately address these and other areas
of security vulnerabilities.
As Members of Congress, protecting our Nation and the American public
is our greatest responsibility. It is our obligation to act in their
best interest and to invest their tax dollars wisely. If the only
Homeland Security item in this bill remains the funding for 74 miles of
border wall, we will fail to meet our obligations.
Unfortunately, the President's border wall is now a proxy for the
broader immigration debate. There is a false and misleading assumption
that building a border wall will solve the immigration challenges we
face. The reality is we will never be able to fix our broken
immigration system with an enforcement-only approach that turns a blind
eye to the desperate circumstances that compels so many to make the
often deadly journey to the U.S.
We will never be able to address our immigration challenges by
treating as criminals the millions of undocumented people in this
country, many of whom are our neighbors and friends.
For years or even decades, the vast majority have called the U.S.
their home. They have paid their taxes, acted responsibly, contributed
to their communities, and worked hard to provide opportunity for their
family.
Immigration enforcement is as much a moral issue as it is a legal
one. Our Statue of Liberty has always been a welcoming symbol of hope
for those who, like now, are fleeing poverty, oppression, famine, war,
and violence in their home country. Many of our ancestors come from
somewhere else, often within certain legal status, and made significant
contributions to help our country become the greatest in the world.
Today's immigrants continue to contribute to that noble legacy.
What we truly need is comprehensive immigration reform that protects
our homeland and reflects our American values. Democrats stand ready to
work with Republicans to achieve that goal, but Democrats will not
support the use of taxpayer dollars for an ill-conceived border wall
that has more to do with a campaign promise than the security of our
homeland.
In spite of the President's assurances, Mexico is not paying for this
wall. The American taxpayer is. My motion to recommit would prevent
that from happening. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the United States Senate is now considering what is
called a ``skinny bill'' on the Affordable Care Act.
The Senators are being told that they are voting for that bill to
send it over here so it can go to conference and be perfected.
The Rules Committee has just met and a provision was offered to the
martial law, which means that we can take something up right away, that
what we can take up is to go to conference. That was rejected by the
Rules Committee.
There is a suspicion that I have--and I see the majority leader on
the floor--that there may be an intent to send the bill immediately
back to the Senate and have it go to the President without 72 hours of
consideration, without hearings, without scoring. I would hope the
majority leader could give us assurances.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the
motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, nearly 250,000 men
and women in uniform are deployed in nearly 177 countries in all
corners of the globe. Another 2 million Active Guard and Reserve are
standing watch back here at home in the United States.
They are doing their jobs. We should do our jobs by providing them
with everything they need to complete their mission. They are trusting
us to do our jobs.
Defeat the motion to recommit, support national security, and vote
``yes'' on final passage.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute
vote on passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193,
noes 234, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 434]

AYES--193

[[Page H6511]]

Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
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

NOES--234

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
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
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
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
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Roskam
Scalise

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1713

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235,
nays 192, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 435]

YEAS--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
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
Crist
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
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
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
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

NAYS--192

Adams
Aguilar
Amash
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
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
Crowley
Cuellar
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan (TN)
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
Nolan
Norcross
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
Sanford
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)

[[Page H6512]]

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--6

Cummings
Fortenberry
Hollingsworth
Napolitano
Roskam
Scalise

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1719

Miss RICE of New York changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No.
430 through No. 435 due to my spouse's health situation in California.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Souzzi Amendment.
I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Boyle Amendment. I would have
also voted ``yea'' on the Nadler Amendment. I would have also voted
``yea'' on the Cartwright Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on
the Democratic Motion to Recommitt H.R. 3219. I would have also voted
``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure
Appropriations Act, 2018.''

____________________