[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 128 (Friday, July 28, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H6528-H6531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]





 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3180, INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION 
ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018; WAIVING A REQUIREMENT OF CLAUSE 6(a) OF RULE 
XIII WITH RESPECT TO CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN RESOLUTIONS REPORTED FROM 
THE COMMITTEE ON RULES; AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD 
             FROM JULY 31, 2017, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 4, 2017

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 481

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3180) to 
     authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 for 
     intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the 
     United States Government, the Community Management Account, 
     and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability 
     System, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Permanent Select 
     Committee on Intelligence now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of August 1, 2017.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from July 
     31, 2017, through September 4, 2017--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 6.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for 
     purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 7.  Each day during the period addressed by section 3 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
481, which provides a closed rule for consideration of H.R. 3180, the 
Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, there is nothing we do in this body that is more 
important than actions we take for the defense of our Nation. We now 
face a more complex array of threats than we have at any time since the 
end of World War II.
  North Korea continues to test ballistic missiles, has successfully 
tested an ICBM, and is continuing to move rapidly towards achieving the 
capability to strike U.S. soil.
  A resurgent Russia is imposing its will across Europe, occupies 
Crimea, and is now using its military to support the Assad regime in 
Syria.
  China is increasingly belligerent, continues to expand the size of 
its military and create bases on artificial islands in the South China 
Sea.
  And Iran, Mr. Speaker, continues to work on its ballistic missile 
program and expand its influence as it supports terror across the 
Mediterranean and the larger Middle East.
  Terrorist groups like al-Qaida and ISIS continue to carry out attacks 
across the West and threaten the United States.
  We have seen a dramatic increase in tensions on the Temple Mount, Mr. 
Speaker, in just the last few weeks, and we have men and women in 
uniform deployed around the globe fighting to defend our Nation.
  Our intelligence community plays a crucial role in ensuring our 
decision-makers and our warfighters have the information they need to 
keep our Nation secure.
  H.R. 3180 provides the intelligence community with the authorization 
it needs to continue working to protect and defend the United States, 
supports critical national security programs, such as those protecting 
Americans against terrorism, cyber attacks, and hostile foreign 
nations. The bill maintains critical congressional oversight of the 
activities of the intelligence community, and the bill makes no changes 
to any surveillance authorities, including those set to expire, which 
we will take up later this year in legislation separate from this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, earlier this week, H.R. 3180 was considered 
under suspension of the rules, which is not at all uncommon for bills, 
like this one, that receive unanimous bipartisan support in committee.
  While the bill received well over 50 percent of the votes of the 
House, it did not achieve the required two-thirds majority to pass 
under suspension, which is why we are here today debating this rule.
  A large portion of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is understandably, as it 
should be, classified, which requires Members of this body to review 
the bill in the SCIF.
  I want to personally thank members of the Intelligence Committee and 
their staff for facilitating that process and making it so easy for 
Members of this House to undertake. A bipartisan notice was sent out, 
provided to Members, informing us of the availability of the text for 
review. And the text, Mr. Speaker, was available for 10 days, twice as 
long as last year's bill.
  My staff simply had to call and inform the committee that I would 
like to review the bill, and the committee asked when I would be 
available, and they made sure that a member of the committee staff was 
also there to answer any questions I had.
  The process itself was seamless, was very easy, and was facilitated 
by the members of the Intelligence Committee staff.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good and important bill. It supports the men 
and women in our intelligence community and the work they do to keep us 
safe. This is not an issue we should politicize or subject to partisan 
debate.
  The intelligence community plays a critical role in the defense of 
our Nation, and we need to support them, Mr. Speaker, by supporting 
this bill. Therefore, I urge support for the rule to allow 
consideration of H.R. 3180.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. Cheney) for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I rise to debate 
the rule for H.R. 3180, the Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal 
Year 2018.
  I was somewhat dismayed earlier this week when my friends across the 
aisle attempted to jam today's bill through this body by jettisoning 
regular order and bringing the bill up under suspension.
  Luckily, we can add this shortsighted attempt at governing to their 
long list of legislative failures. And although I may be pleased that 
their suspension shenanigans failed, my frustration was born anew when 
we were informed that the bill would come to the floor under yet 
another closed rule.
  This is all bad enough, and I will come back to it in a moment, but 
first we need to discuss the blanket martial law provision that my 
friends on the other side put into this rule.
  This move, especially when considered in the context of those 
mentioned

[[Page H6529]]

above, truly elevated poor governing to an art form.

                              {time}  0945

  I want the American people, Republican and Democrat and Independents 
alike, to be crystal clear on what is happening here today. By putting 
a blanket martial law provision into this rule, my friends across the 
aisle were trying to make it as easy as possible for them to pass a 
healthcare bill that they had never seen. The bill would have surely 
ripped healthcare away from millions of Americans and unceremoniously 
upended one-sixth of our economy.
  Thankfully, Senators Collins, Murkowski, and McCain, and tens of 
thousands of regular Americans-turned-activists ensured that this 
effort failed.
  Since day one, the approach of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle on healthcare or, for that matter, any number of other important 
issues has been horrendous. It has been rushed; it has been secretive; 
it has been chaotic; and it has been inspired by the desire for a cheap 
win rather than the desire to make our healthcare system stronger and 
more widely available to all Americans.
  Truly, whether it is healthcare, veterans, or the authorization of 
funding for something as important as our intelligence community, the 
approach leaves some of us bewildered, dismayed, and gravely concerned 
for the well-being of our country.
  Indeed, when discussing something as important as the authorization 
for funding for the intelligence community, we ought to proceed in a 
manner that allows all Members of this body the opportunity to weigh in 
with their concerns. This closed process does a disservice not only to 
those of us who do not sit on the committee of jurisdiction, but also 
the intelligence community and the American people.
  As an example, when I did sit on this committee, I was vice chair of 
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and I worked 
diligently to ensure that minorities were given equal opportunity to 
break into the upper ranks of the intelligence community.
  Since leaving that committee, I have continued this important work 
and introduced an amendment to a previous iteration of the underlying 
bill that called for the Director of National Intelligence to put forth 
a plan that would encourage diversity hires throughout the intelligence 
community. Frustratingly, I am stripped of such an opportunity today 
because of the Republican leadership's unyielding devotion to 
perpetuating a closed process.
  Additionally, the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), my 
friend, has also offered amendments to the underlying bill in the past 
that call for an increase in the recruitment and training of minorities 
as officers and employees of the Central Intelligence Agency. She, like 
the majority of our colleagues, will not be afforded a similar 
opportunity this time around.
  This is troublesome because diversity is a mission imperative for the 
intelligence community. Not only do we need to see minorities have more 
opportunities to climb the ranks, but we also need to recruit Americans 
who will be able to blend in, speak foreign languages, and understand 
the cultures in countries that are now central to our foreign policy 
interests.
  At the end of the day, such diversity is achieved through the hiring 
process, and, therefore, we need to ensure that we are hiring Arab 
Americans, Iranian Americans, Pakistani Americans, Chinese Americans, 
Korean Americans, women, gays, and many other Americans from diverse 
backgrounds as we confront a myriad of threats and work harder to 
better understand our adversaries, wherever they may lurk. We do not 
seek this diversity in the name of political correctness but, rather, 
in the name of national security. As I have said before, if the 
intelligence community is to succeed in its global mission, it must 
have a global face.
  I have no doubt that scores of Members would like to have offered 
amendments addressing the issues I have just mentioned as well as many 
other issues that are of particular concern to them and their 
constituents. Unfortunately, under this rule, they will not be afforded 
such an opportunity today.
  Those who work in the intelligence community serve our country 
faithfully and bravely, knowing that they will never receive the public 
recognition they so richly deserve. In fact, they have served and 
continue to serve knowing that not only will they not receive well-
earned accolades, but that they will, upon occasion, have to endure 
unfounded and offensive statements from this administration. These 
statements began before the current administration even moved in down 
Pennsylvania Avenue.
  I quote the following from the administration's, President's, Twitter 
account: ``Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake 
news to `leak' into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in 
Nazi Germany?''
  I find that shameful and absolutely unfounded in making such a 
statement. Comparing these brave and patriotic Americans to Nazis? You 
really have to be kidding me.
  As a former member of HPSCI, I will not sit idly by while anyone 
maligns the honorable work these proud Americans do day in and day out 
to protect our country. But it seems that, with this closed process and 
their continued support of President Donald John Trump, even as he 
slowly erodes the foundation of our democracy one tweet at a time, is 
exactly what my friends and the Republican Congress are doing.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague from Florida, with whom I have had the privilege of 
spending many hours in the Rules Committee debating this and a range of 
other issues, raised a number of points I think that are important to 
clarify.
  First of all on the issue of minority recruitment, last night, in the 
Rules Committee, in open session, Chairman Nunes was asked about this, 
and he testified very clearly and directly that diversity is very 
important, that it is mission-critical for the reasons that my 
colleague from Florida stated.

  I can report that there are several provisions in the classified 
annex--I won't go into the details about them--with which my colleague 
may or may not be familiar that support the whole notion of Centers of 
Academic Excellence, which are particularly focused on recruiting young 
people, recruiting minorities and young people across the board for 
service in the intelligence community.
  We tend, in these rule discussions, Mr. Speaker, to have a lot of 
arguments and criticism of procedure. The Democrats this morning seem 
to be particularly concerned about our same-day authority. But I would 
just note, Mr. Speaker, I am certainly confident that my constituents 
who are watching this--and, I would say, probably most Americans 
watching--would understand the importance of the House of 
Representatives getting its work done in a timely manner. And 
certainly, when it comes to healthcare, the arguments and the criticism 
from the other side of the aisle lose a little bit of their credibility 
when they simultaneously attack the Republicans for moving too slowly 
and then also for moving too quickly.
  What I can tell you is we are debating hugely important issues and 
hugely important topics. We are absolutely committed to repealing and 
replacing ObamaCare. It is a system that is collapsing. It is a system 
that has devastated the lives of people across this country. It is a 
system that has driven premiums and deductibles through the roof. It 
has absolutely limited people's choice in terms of insurance plans, in 
terms of healthcare providers. It is a system that is failing.
  We have seen the Democrats' fundamental approach was a government 
mandate and their attempt to force people across this Nation to buy 
health insurance. They thought that, through a government mandate, they 
would be able to force young people into these insurance pools and, 
therefore, drive the cost down. That is not what happened. It didn't 
work.
  We know we have got to put in place a system that will be able to 
provide people the kind of care that they need, access, as well as 
lowering the cost and increasing availability. So there are a whole 
range of very important substantive efforts going on.
  I think that it is clear that the folks on the other side of the 
aisle don't support the direction we are going in, may

[[Page H6530]]

not support the policy, but the people across this Nation--certainly, 
in my home State of Wyoming--spoke very clearly last November that they 
wanted a change, that they wanted to see the government reduce its role 
in their lives, and that they wanted to see us begin the process of 
building our military, rebuilding what has been lost over the course of 
the last 8 years, as well as rebuilding the facilities and the 
capabilities of our intelligence community, and that is exactly what 
this bill does. That is exactly what we are here doing this morning.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is why it is so important that my 
colleagues support this rule, that we provide the authority that the 
intelligence community needs through this bill to continue to do its 
important work to keep us safe.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The brazen and reckless manner in which this bill was first brought 
to the floor is evidence that my friends across the aisle have still 
not figured out how to govern. The learning curve may be steep, but it 
is not that steep.
  Quite simply, my friends, it is time for you to start governing 
responsibly, not with closed rules and martial law, without hearings, 
and without CBO scores, but through regular order, with an opportunity 
for all Members and, through them, their constituents to take part in 
legislating. The White House may be in chaos, but that is no reason for 
the House to legislate in a similar manner.
  For the good of the country, we must return to regular order. We must 
work to ensure that those serving in the intelligence community are 
able to do their best work, to do it as safely as possible, and to do 
it knowing that they will receive the respect they deserve from all 
branches of their government. I worry that they, increasingly, do not 
receive this respect, and that this disrespect, should it continue, 
will make it more difficult for us to retain and recruit the talent we 
so desperately need to protect our national security.
  Of course, the intelligence community is only one part of our 
national security apparatus. The men and women in our military are an 
equally important part of maintaining our national security. And, 
unfortunately, we learned just yesterday that these brave 
servicemembers are not immune from baseless attacks from the 
administration.
  It was announced, on the 69th anniversary of President Truman's 
issuing an executive order that desegregated the Armed Forces, that 
transgender servicemembers would no longer be able to serve in the 
military. Were these individuals, numbering between 10,000 and 15,000, 
banned because they are not brave, because they are not patriotic, 
because they are incapable of meeting the rigorous requirements of 
being in the military? No, they have been banned because bigotry 
defeated decency yesterday, and they have been banned because of who 
they are.
  As I mentioned the other evening, I had three uncles who were in the 
Army. They served proudly. They served bravely. They served in a 
segregated Army. Two of them received purple hearts.

                              {time}  1000

  It was a great offense that they had to serve in a segregated Army in 
which they were made to feel that somehow their bravery, their 
patriotism, and their devotion to their brothers in arms was somehow 
less because of the color of their skin.
  President Truman knew this was wrong, and he ended it. Simply put, 
President Truman knew then what our current President is incapable of 
understanding today: the strength of our military is not found in the 
race or the religion or the creed or the sex or the gender identity of 
its servicemembers, but rather in the bravery and honor exhibited by 
these individuals on a daily basis. They, like all of us here today, 
are proud citizens of this country. They, like all of us here today, 
are God's children. I thank them for their service to our Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 and the underlying bill, H.R. 3180, 
ensure the men and women of our intelligence community have the tools 
and the resources they need to continue the vital role they play in 
helping us address the threats facing our Nation.
  I do want to point out, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is accusing the 
Republicans of being brazen and reckless because of our same-day 
rulemaking authority. I would only note that in the 111th Congress, 
when they were in the majority, they enacted this process 26 times; in 
the 110th Congress, 17 times.
  It is an important ability for us to have when we know we might need 
to move quickly on something. As a member of the Rules Committee, I am 
committed to ensuring we do everything possible to make sure that we 
are able to bring bills to this floor that carry out the kind of 
changes and improvements that the people of this Nation sent us all 
here to undertake.
  I was really disappointed, Mr. Speaker, earlier this week when this 
bill was defeated under suspension of the rules. There are many things 
that are partisan issues in this body, and it is too bad when the 
minority uses the Intelligence Authorization bill as part of a 
political stunt to make what should be a bipartisan process and a 
bipartisan committee appear partisan.
  The bill, H.R. 3108, received unanimous support in committee, and I 
certainly hope today, Mr. Speaker, that the minority members of that 
committee, and frankly all on the minority side who understand the 
importance of the intelligence community in keeping our Nation safe, 
will put aside the partisanship, will put aside the games that the 
American people are so tired of, and will join me in supporting a good, 
effective, and important bill, that, frankly, the minority members in 
the Intelligence Committee worked very hard to help craft.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule and H.R. 3180.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 224, 
nays 186, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 436]

                               YEAS--224

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     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
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)

[[Page H6531]]


     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)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (IA)

                               NAYS--186

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     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)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     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, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     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
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Bass
     Clay
     Collins (NY)
     Conyers
     Costello (PA)
     Cummings
     Donovan
     Engel
     Graves (MO)
     Gutierrez
     Hollingsworth
     Hunter
     King (NY)
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Napolitano
     Richmond
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Roskam
     Scalise
     Waters, Maxine
     Webster (FL)
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                              {time}  1027

  Messrs. SUOZZI and HOYER changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. FERGUSON changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________