[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 186 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H9191-H9199]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2874, 21ST CENTURY FLOOD REFORM 
 ACT, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 
     2810, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 616 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows

                              H. Res. 616

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2874) to 
     achieve reforms to improve the financial stability of the 
     National Flood Insurance Program, to enhance the development 
     of more accurate estimates of flood risk through new 
     technology and better maps, to increase the role of private 
     markets in the management of flood insurance risks, and to 
     provide for alternative methods to insure against flood 
     peril, and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, the 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part B of that report, 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 Committee on Financial Services; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill 
     (H.R. 2810) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2018 
     for military activities of the Department of Defense, for 
     military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.
       Sec. 3.  The Clerk shall not transmit to the Senate a 
     message that the House has adopted the conference report to 
     accompany H.R. 2810 until notified by the Speaker or by 
     message from the Senate that the Senate has passed H.R. 4374 
     without amendment.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 616 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, and the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 2810, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
  H.R. 2874, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act, reauthorizes the 
National Flood Insurance Program for 5 years, introduces great private 
market competition, and provides additional reforms to benefit 
policyholders and taxpayers.
  Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget has said that the 
National Flood Insurance Program, or NFIP, is not fiscally sustainable 
in its current form. The 21st Century Flood Reform Act helps transition 
it to a more sustainable program.
  Importantly, the bill will help foster a robust product market for 
flood insurance, which allows private insurers to compete, in turn, 
driving down the price of policies while creating greater consumer 
choice. This is a win for policyholders and taxpayers alike.
  Representing Alabama's Gulf Coast, it is important to me and my 
constituents that they have access to affordable flood insurance 
through the National Flood Insurance Program or a private insurer.
  I appreciate the inclusion of provisions in the 21st Century Flood 
Reform Act to protect current policyholders while making the program 
sustainable.
  I also appreciate Chairman Hensarling's willingness to work with 
Members whose constituents, such as mine, rely very heavily upon the 
NFIP to address concerns we raised about the initial version of the 
bill that passed out of committee.
  All in all, this bill is a positive step toward reauthorizing our 
Nation's flood insurance program, which is currently set to expire on 
December 8. We must take action to ensure coastal homeowners and others 
in flood-prone areas have access to affordable insurance.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the 
Senate to get a long-term reauthorization across the finish line and 
signed into law by President Trump.
  House Resolution 616 also allows for consideration of the final 
version of the National Defense Authorization Act that was conferenced 
between the House and the Senate, reconciling the differences between 
two different versions.
  Mr. Speaker, before I go into the substance of the bill, I would like 
to take a minute to commend the open and regular order process that has 
taken place from start to finish.
  As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and the Rules 
Committee, I have followed this bill throughout the legislative process 
and think we should all be proud of the regular order and the fact that 
a wide range of members played a role in crafting the final product.
  I applaud Chairman Thornberry, Ranking Member Smith, and the entire 
Armed Services Committee staff for their dedication to an open process. 
I also appreciate the countless hours they have poured into this 
conference report.
  Just as a quick reminder, we considered 275 amendments during the 
House Armed Services Committee back in June, and another 210 amendments 
when the NDAA was considered by the full House in July. In total, 485 
amendments have been considered in the House, and, just as important, 
there was a clear bipartisan split between the number of majority and 
minority amendments.
  The conference committee continued this bipartisan and collaborative 
process under the leadership of four chairmen and ranking members. Once 
again, this year's NDAA is truly a bipartisan and bicameral bill that 
provides the best for our military and national security.
  Mr. Speaker, this NDAA follows through on our promise to our 
servicemen and -women and our constitutional duty to provide for the 
common defense of the United States of America.
  The FY18 NDAA conference report authorizes a 10 percent increase in 
total military spending, reminiscent of the Reagan era defense buildup. 
The bill authorizes $626 billion for base budget requirements, $66 
billion for overseas contingency operations, and $8 billion for other 
defense activities.

[[Page H9192]]

That adds up for a total national defense top line of $700 billion.
  I am incredibly proud to support a top-line number high enough to 
begin reversing the readiness crisis that has endangered the lives of 
our servicemembers and made it harder to defend our country.
  Over the past 8 years, and under sequestration, our military has 
suffered. We have planes that can't fly, ships that can't sail, and 
soldiers who can't deploy, all while the number of threats around the 
world keep rising.
  I want to acknowledge that this top-line number is significantly 
higher than the Budget Control Act cap for defense. I look forward to 
continued dialogue with the Appropriations Committee to raise this cap 
that has crippled necessary defense spending in recent years.
  Every day we operate under a continuing resolution or the BCA caps is 
another day we are failing our men and women in uniform. The FY18 NDAA 
fulfills the authorization side of the equation, and I am hopeful the 
appropriations side will follow.
  The FY18 NDAA increases the size of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Army 
Guard and Reserve, Naval and Air Reserve, and Air Guard to repair and 
restore readiness.
  The bill also authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships, including 
three littoral combat ships, as we work to grow toward a 355-ship 
fleet.

  In a well-deserved benefit for our troops, the NDAA provides for a 
2.4 percent pay increase for servicemembers, which is the amount our 
troops are entitled to under current law.
  Another small but important provision in this bill eliminates the so-
called widow's tax, which requires surviving spouses of servicemembers 
killed in action to forfeit the survivor benefit pension annuity. The 
financial burden of this tax is something our military families should 
not bear.
  The bill also continues to advance Chairman Thornberry's priority of 
reforming and strengthening the military's acquisition process to make 
it more effective and efficient.
  Importantly, the legislation takes into account the Trump 
administration's $6 billion budget amendment to authorize more funding 
for missile defense threats against North Korea, Navy ship repairs, and 
more troops in Afghanistan.
  Our men and women in uniform all over the world are on a mission to 
protect and defend the freedoms we hold dear. The way I see it, our 
mission in Congress is to give these brave men and women the resources 
they need to succeed. The FY18 NDAA does exactly that and is another 
step in a multiyear process of restoring our military strength to 
further protect our national security. Ultimately, this bill is about 
keeping the American people safe and secure.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 616 and 
both of the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Alabama for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense 
Authorization Act, takes important steps towards strengthening our 
national security and supporting our troops.
  The conference report authorizes a total of $692 billion in 
discretionary budget authority, $26 billion more than the 
administration requested.
  I am pleased that it raises military pay by 2.4 percent, an increase 
from the President's request of 2.1 percent.

                              {time}  1230

  It also strengthens our efforts to counter Russia's campaign to 
undermine our democracy by fully funding cybersecurity and cyberspace 
operations at $8 billion and it drops harmful restrictions on funding 
the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty extension between the United 
States and Russia. This treaty continues a bipartisan tradition that 
began under President Reagan, verifiably reducing both countries' 
nuclear arsenals.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one glaring problem with this measure, and that 
is that the Budget Control Act imposes a $549 billion cap on defense 
spending for fiscal year 2018. This bill blows past that by more than 
$143 billion. Unless the Senate, the House, and the President come to 
an agreement on lifting or modifying the budget caps, there is no way 
that these spending levels can become law. So far, that agreement is 
not in the offing and it is past time for a bipartisan compromise on 
realistic spending levels for defense and nondefense spending alike.
  While I am glad to see this pay increase for our troops, this 
legislation does not exist in a vacuum. Later this week, the 
Republicans plan to bring to the floor a disastrous tax bill that would 
force military families and veterans to finance tax cuts for 
corporations and the superwealthy. The bill repeals tax credits that 
help veterans find employment. It makes education more expensive for 
veterans and undermines the GI Bill. It makes it more expensive for 
military families to sell their homes. It eliminates tax relief for 
veterans suffering from chronic illnesses.
  Veterans Day was just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, and it is no way 
for the majority to thank them for their service.
  Also before us today is H.R. 2874, which is known as the 21st Century 
Flood Reform Act. Now, everybody in this Chamber recognizes the 
National Flood Insurance Program is badly in debt, to the tune of $25 
billion. The hurricanes this year, together with the flooding across 
Louisiana last year, have stretched the program beyond its breaking 
point.
  Unfortunately, this package will cause more harm than good for the 
communities already struggling to rebuild. It will make flood insurance 
more expensive for families by increasing premiums.
  It also exempts businesses from the requirement to purchase flood 
insurance even though the vast majority of policyholders with this 
insurance only purchase it because they are required to by law. This 
change would take effect beginning in January 2019.
  The Independent Community Bankers and a number of other groups oppose 
this provision. As businesses pull out of the insurance market and the 
number of participating dwindles, responsible businesses that stay in 
the market will be forced to bear the burden of greatly increased 
premiums. I think these are shortsighted changes that will be felt all 
across the insurance market.
  Additionally, the legislation doesn't do enough to update the often 
out-of-date flood insurance rate maps being used in communities across 
the country and in my district. Accurate flood insurance maps prepared 
with the most recent mapping technologies would help constituents in 
all of our districts better prepare and protect themselves against 
flooding. Some current maps are so outdated that the maps don't reflect 
changing landscapes and critical flood mitigation improvements. This 
bill simply falls short in helping homeowners who want to do the right 
thing based off the best available information.
  We are in the wake of some of the worst hurricanes our Nation has 
ever experienced, and more of them. We are seeing how vital, 
affordable, and readily available flood insurance is to so many 
communities. It is unconscionable that the majority is moving forward 
with this partisan package of bills, unlikely to ever pass the Senate, 
because this will only further delay the extension of the program with 
1 month left before it expires.
  As the majority lurches from crisis to crisis and fritters away 
precious legislative time with this partisan approach, we will likely 
find ourselves right back here doing this over again in December.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Duffy), the sponsor of H.R. 2874.
  Mr. DUFFY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
for yielding.
  First, I want to make a comment about how this process has gone in 
coming up with this compromise with the amendment on the flood 
insurance package. We have worked in the Financial Services Committee 
with outside groups, whether it was the home builders or the realtors 
or the insurance industry. We have worked with Members of Congress from 
the Gulf States and

[[Page H9193]]

from the East Coast and from the West Coast. We worked with Democrats. 
We had a number meetings with the ranking member of the committee, all 
taking in their consideration, which has brought us to a compromise 
that I don't know that anybody loves, but everyone says is a pretty 
darn good bill that strives to make needed reforms in a program that 
hasn't been working well. When we have programs that don't work well, 
let's try to fix them.
  We have a program that, as was just mentioned, is $25 billion in 
debt, but that doesn't include the $16 billion we just gave the program 
and forgave. So really, it is $41 billion in debt.
  So when do we think through the policies of a program that continues 
to run deficits, number one, but, number two, continues to incentivize 
people to live in harm's way?
  I was down in Houston and I got to see a family who was talking about 
their next-door neighbor whose house was burning down. He was telling 
the story about his neighbor, and as the house started on fire, he sent 
the kids outside--like you would because your house is burning--as the 
flood waters are rising. The dad went to go put out the fire, and as he 
was putting out the fire, he looked out the window and saw his kids 
were being swept away by a flood. The current was too strong, so he ran 
outside to save his kids and let his house burn.

  What are we going to do in that neighborhood that had been flooded 
three times in the last 10 years?
  We are going to rebuild houses in the same flood plain. This doesn't 
make sense. Let's think about a reform that is going to improve the 
program, that helps people get out of dangerous areas and get into 
better areas that don't flood. Having a flooding house isn't a pleasant 
place to live.
  Not only that, first responders risk their lives to go save people, 
and they die. We are incentivizing through this policy to allow people 
to live in these dangerous areas. I don't have a lot of time left, but 
the reforms are going to, yes, gently increase some of the premiums for 
the most highly subsidized properties called the pre-FIRM properties. 
We offer over $1 billion in mitigation to help families flood-proof 
their home or get out of their home and go to a better place to live 
because this improves the solvency of flood insurance. We are helping 
them with mitigation.
  We are helping them with mapping, allowing communities that haven't 
been mapped to actually map themselves, to pay for it, to take care of 
their own future and destiny instead of waiting for the Federal 
Government. We allow for a private market to come in and offer you a 
premium that might be lower than the Federal Government.
  God forbid we offer a family a choice to let the private sector 
compete with a public offering. My God, if you get a lower price, that 
is great. If you don't get a lower price, you can stay in the Federal 
plan.
  My goodness, I am going to have some people come up in a second and 
say: But you could cherry-pick, and that could jeopardize the solvency 
of the program.
  The program is insolvent. It is $25 billion in debt--actually, $41 
billion, if you include that $16 billion. It is not a solvent program.
  Just think if in Houston and in Florida we had people who had bought 
insurance in the private market, we would be saving taxpayers money. 
This is a commonsense bill that makes the program better, that helps 
families, that empowers communities. Let's stand together. A little bit 
of reform might go a long way in making government actually work, so I 
would encourage all of my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote 
``yes'' for common sense.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 3440, the Dream 
Act. This bipartisan, bicameral legislation would help thousands of 
young people who are Americans in every way except on paper.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Espaillat) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 2,400 DACA recipients in my district. ``We are 
not one,'' ``no somos uno.'' There are 30,000 DACA recipients in my 
home State of New York. ``We are not 100,'' ``no somos cien.'' There 
are 800,000 DACA recipients in the country. As of this year, there were 
more than 10,000 noncitizens serving in the U.S. military and an 
additional 12,000 noncitizens under Reserve status. ``We are millions, 
count us well,'' ``somos millones, cuentanos bien.''
  DREAMers are veterans, teachers, nurses, college students; and 
DREAMers are also MacArthur genius fellows. Cristina Jimenez is a 
MacArthur genius fellow, a powerhouse championship for immigrant youth, 
and, like me, she is also a CUNY alum and she grew up undocumented.
  This is why I urge my colleagues to bring a clean Dream Act to the 
House floor. H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, would not provide automatic 
amnesty, as I have heard some of my colleagues incorrectly say. The 
Dream Act has an 8-year conditional basis of permanent residency 
status. You have to either work for 3 years, serve in the Armed Forces, 
or study. You have to keep a clean record, get a background check, and 
a medical exam. Then, and only after then, for a few more years, you 
can apply for citizenship.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question so that we can immediately bring the Dream Act to the floor 
and provide certainty, hope, and opportunity for 800,000 talented young 
people. Our country needs them and we cannot afford to wait another 
day.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Norman).

  Mr. NORMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of H.R. 2874, 
the 21st Century Flood Reform Act.
  This act is near and dear to my heart. That is how I make my 
livelihood. I am a real estate developer. We build houses. We build 
commercial projects. All that stops unless reform is made in the Flood 
Insurance Program. This bill proposes major reforms to one of the 
Federal Government's most broken programs, the National Flood Insurance 
Program.
  The Government Accountability Office has labeled the NFIP a high-risk 
program mainly because policyholders often pay premiums well below the 
actual risk of flooding on their properties.
  H.R. 2874 requires FEMA to conduct an annual actuarial review of the 
status of the NFIP that will allow FEMA to adjust rates appropriately 
and help maintain the program's financial stability.
  Currently, there are 4.92 million NFIP policies providing $1.23 
trillion in coverage to Americans. Many of these properties are what 
this bill defines as multiple loss properties, where NFIP claims have 
been filed repeatedly.
  This bill requires FEMA to raise premiums on multiple loss properties 
by 15 percent annually if the premiums do not reflect the full risk. 
This is just another step toward FEMA improving the financial stability 
of the NFIP.
  Often, with the Federal Government, there are changes and agreements 
made behind closed doors with little or no public comment. H.R. 2874 
requires FEMA to publish an explanation and to hold public hearings in 
regards to any changes to premiums on policies. This is an excellent 
example of making the government more transparent and helping 
policyholders more accountable.
  Lastly, the 21st Century Flood Reform Act requires the Government 
Accountability Office to conduct a study on how we can simplify the 
NFIP. With our country being battered by hurricanes and heavy rainfall, 
we need to ensure that the NFIP is placed in sound financial footing 
for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support this 
all-important legislation.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone), the distinguished ranking 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

[[Page H9194]]

  


                              {time}  1245

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from New York, 
the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill and also to the 
rule. Just a few weeks ago, we observed the fifth anniversary of 
Superstorm Sandy. New Jersey's recovery from that traumatic event has 
been prolonged in part by issues facing the National Flood Insurance 
Program. Too many of my constituents are still dealing with high 
premiums and inaccurate flood maps or are still waiting for their Sandy 
claims appeals to be decided.
  We need a long-term NFIP reauthorization that focuses on increasing 
affordability, investing in mitigation, capping the profits of flood 
insurance companies, and comprehensively restructuring the claims 
process--and this bill fails these tests.
  H.R. 3823 would undermine the NFIP by allowing the development of a 
private flood insurance market, opening the door to allowing insurance 
companies to cherry-pick low-risk properties while leaving high-risk 
ones in the NFIP. This bill does not do enough to address affordability 
issues and actually increases rates for some policyholders. It will 
allow commercial properties to opt out of mandatory coverage even if 
they are in a high-risk zone, which will further decrease the pool and 
weaken the program.
  Finally, this bill simply does not do enough to improve transparency 
and reform the claims process. Enactment of this legislation would make 
flood insurance more expensive and less available, while not actually 
addressing the program's many problems.
  I have actually introduced legislation to tackle NFIP's issues head-
on. The bill is the bipartisan SAFE NFIP Reauthorization Act, which 
would reauthorize the program, cap premium rate increases, authorize 
funding for more accurate flood mapping, reform the appeals process, 
and cap the compensation of flood insurance companies.
  I also offered amendments to the Rules Committee that would improve 
this bill, including a 10 percent cap on premium increases, increasing 
the increased cost of compliance from $30,000 to $100,000, capping the 
profits of flood insurance companies, and other pro-policyholder 
provisions, but none of these amendments were accepted by the Rules 
Committee.
  I hear my Republican colleagues talk about transparency. In fact, 
this is the 50th closed rule of the year, an all-time record for closed 
rules. They blocked both Democratic and Republican amendments. The 
Rules Committee says in its report this is a closed rule. If it is a 
closed rule, then how can they talk about transparency or process?
  Some of my Republican colleagues who offered amendments that were 
denied were Mr. Donovan of New York, affected by Sandy; Mr. Graves of 
Louisiana, affected by Katrina; and Mr. Pascrell and I, who went 
through Superstorm Sandy.
  It is incredible to me that we had a number of Democrats and 
Republicans who really wanted to reform the flood insurance program in 
an effective way based on their experiences--not some ideology--based 
on their experiences in the superstorms that we saw that impacted our 
districts, and the Rules Committee denied every one of those 
amendments.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I just would point out to the gentleman that 
the Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments not made in 
order during the first session of the 115th Congress; however, in the 
111th Congress, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with 
roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the first session. So, far be it 
from the case that Republicans have blocked an inordinate number of 
amendments. We blocked far less amendments than our Democratic 
colleagues did when they were in control of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. 
Cheney), who is my fellow colleague on the Rules Committee and the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. 
Byrne, for his hard work, both on the Armed Services Committee and on 
the Rules Committee, on this important rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule that will 
allow for consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, as elected Members of this body, we have no higher 
obligation or responsibility than to provide for the support and the 
defense of our Nation. No matter what else we do in this body--and we 
debate very big, important issues. We debate tax cuts, we debate 
healthcare, and these are crucial issues, but none of those issues 
matters if we fail to get the resources necessary to defend this Nation 
from our adversaries.
  For far too long, Mr. Speaker, we have failed to do that. Over the 
last 8 years, we have seen policies that have failed to provide the 
kind of resources our Defense Department needs. We have also seen, Mr. 
Speaker, legislation from this body--in particular, the Budget Control 
Act--that has caused significant damage to the military.
  We have heard on the Armed Services Committee, week after week, 
briefings from every layer of the military--from the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs, from the Secretary of Defense, and from the combatant 
commanders--briefings about the extent to which there is a gap that is 
growing between our abilities and the abilities of our adversaries. 
Now, this is a gap that people seem to want to ignore, Mr. Speaker, but 
we do so at our own peril.
  I think that we need, as Members of this body, to think very 
carefully about what we are going to say to our children and our 
grandchildren one day if they say to us: Why didn't you do all you 
could to ensure for the defense of this Nation? Why didn't you do all 
you could when you were in a position to provide the resources?
  Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we don't do all we can is because we 
enable the Senate rules. We have gotten ourselves in a situation, 
through the Budget Control Act and through the way that we do budgeting 
in this House, where we enable the dysfunction of the United States 
Senate, and we let the United States Senate be in a position where, in 
fact, they prevent us from doing what we know is right from a policy 
perspective.

  I am very proud of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because 
what this does, in a bipartisan fashion, is begin to fix that. It 
begins to remedy the situation. It begins to allow our military to get 
out from under the burden, the hole that they have been in for the last 
8 years.
  Funds authorized in this NDAA will ensure that we are able, for 
example, to modernize our strategic forces. It will also ensure, Mr. 
Speaker, that we are able to begin to provide funding for the kind of 
missile defense that we know we need in a situation in which our 
adversaries have gained tremendous ground.
  Mr. Speaker, when we have the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs come 
before the committee and tell us in public session that, if we continue 
on the path we are on, within 5 years we will not be able to project 
our power, every Member of this body needs to stop everything else they 
are doing and listen to that warning. If we can't project our power, 
then we cannot defend this Nation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Wyoming an 
additional 30 seconds
  Ms. CHENEY. There are many Members of this body, Mr. Speaker, on both 
sides, who like to quote a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs that the 
debt is the biggest national security threat we face. That is only half 
of his quote. The second half of his quote was that the debt is the 
most significant threat we face because it prevents us from being able 
to resource our military.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be here today to stand in support of 
this rule and to stand in support of the National Defense Authorization 
Act and the important progress that it allows us to begin to make to 
rebuild our military and undo the damage of the last 8 years.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this record-breaking closed rule, the 50th 
closed rule in a year, which is more than any time in any yearly period 
previously.

[[Page H9195]]

  I think our rules should be open. I think closed rules are not good 
for this institution regardless of who does it, and I would urge the 
majority party to think about open rules so that the legislature can 
truly work its way.
  The legislation itself includes a handful of measures that I 
authored--I am happy about that--to require reporting on Russia's role 
in the Balkans, including Serbia's defense relationship with Russia; to 
enhance congressional oversight of changes made to policies and legal 
interpretations that govern security operations; a strategy to improve 
transparency and civilian protection in Nigeria; and a requirement for 
a Defense Department official to protect cultural heritage, the looting 
and trafficking of which is a funding source for terrorism. We voted on 
that here on the floor and it has passed.
  I am also pleased that we have included continued support for 
Israel's missile defense. This system is critical to Israel's security, 
considering the threats that Israel faces from Iran, Hamas, and 
Hezbollah.
  Mr. Speaker, even though I am ranking member of the House Foreign 
Affairs Committee, I am glad to see these measures in this bill because 
they all belong in this bill. They are related to our national 
security. Indeed, I strongly support the measures in this bill that 
provide authorities and resources necessary for our military to carry 
out its missions.
  But, as we have seen again and again in recent years, this defense 
authorization continues an unsettling trend toward involving the 
Defense Department in activities outside its core competencies. In my 
view, we need to preserve and strengthen the important roles of the 
State Department and USAID.
  We wouldn't ask our diplomats or our development experts to do the 
jobs of our men and women in uniform, so we shouldn't be asking our 
servicemembers to do the work that has traditionally resided in our 
civilian foreign policy agencies.
  I want to caution against continuing down this road, and I hope that, 
in the years ahead, we can work to support our diplomatic and 
development efforts in the same way we support our national defense. 
After all, America's security depends on all these efforts working 
together.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from New York an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
  Let me say, in conclusion, I hope that, in the years ahead, we can 
work to support our diplomatic and development efforts in the same way 
we support our national defense. After all, America's security depends 
on all of these efforts working together, and it is important to 
remember that.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Graves).
  Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman 
from Alabama for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, there are fundamental problems with flood insurance. We 
all know that. The program, by some estimates, has a debt, recently, of 
up to $24 billion, and it is going to be compounded by Hurricanes 
Maria, Irma, and Harvey and the other disasters that we have had this 
year. We have had extraordinary damages this year.
  But what is being missed is that this legislation really doesn't even 
fix the problem. You can look back over the last 37 years. Since 1980, 
we have had 218 disasters that have exceeded $1 billion. We have spent 
$1.3 trillion responding to these disasters.
  This bill is projected to, perhaps, save $18 million a year--$18 
million, I will say it again. We have spent $1.3 trillion since 1980. 
There are fundamental problems that need to be addressed.
  Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of this Nation's population lives in just 10 
percent of the land area adjacent to the coast--10 percent. Forty 
percent of the population lives there, and it is growing. It is going 
up. We have got to get good at resiliently living in these coastal 
areas.
  Now, let me show you something, and this is what is happening in 
Louisiana. Louisiana drains, literally, from Montana to New York, and 
the Canadian Provinces are all coming down.
  Mr. Speaker, as we get additional development in the United States, 
what happens with that water? It comes down to us.
  So let me give you a scenario.
  Somebody builds their dream home or somebody starts a small business, 
and they fully comply with the regulations that are in place at the 
time for baseline elevation. They build a home or business exactly 
where it is supposed to be. They start getting additional water down 
from this watershed or maybe from the coast because the Corps of 
Engineers has caused 2,000 square miles of the coast of this Nation to 
erode.
  So, yes, we are more vulnerable. We are getting more water down or we 
have the Gulf of Mexico encroaching on our citizens.
  Why should our citizens be responsible for that? They have no control 
over what is happening. They have complied with the regulations and 
complied with the guidelines at the time of construction.
  Mr. Speaker, I view this as a tax. If our citizens are being burdened 
with additional fees or expense as a result of the government's 
inability to do its job to properly manage resources and water, then 
that is not a premium increase; that is a tax, Mr. Speaker.
  While I commend people for working on this bill and trying to address 
this, the fundamental premise of the bill is flawed. It is 
fundamentally flawed. You can't charge people for things over which 
they have no control. You can't charge people whenever they stepped up 
and did exactly what the government told them to do when they built a 
home or built a business.
  These things aren't portable structures. You can't just pick up a 
home and say, ``I am going to move it.'' You can't pick up a business 
and say, ``I am going to move it.''
  But that is exactly what this bill does. It increases the premiums 
and, in some cases, even kicks them out of their homes and businesses, 
these dream homes and these lifesaving investments.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself 30 seconds because I 
was very impressed, yesterday, with Mr. Graves and the thoughtful work 
that he had done. I am sorry his amendments were not made in order, but 
I appreciate very much his homework on this bill, and I agree with him.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy.
  I was listening to our friend from Louisiana, and I sympathize with 
much of what he was saying. I have been working on flood insurance 
reform for 20 years.

                              {time}  1300

  We are caught in a dynamic here where it is never really good enough 
and there are challenges for people who played by the rules at the 
time.
  The problem is that we are not doing a good job of evaluating, moving 
forward, and making the changes. It is true that some of this has an 
impact on Louisiana. I am sensitive to that. But at the same time, 
there are policies that have been resisted by some of those same state 
leaders.
  We must swallow hard and understand that we are on a path here that 
impacts people all across the country. We do not have accurate flood 
maps, and people resist updating them. We have many people who are 
paying far less than the actuarial costs for their flood insurance. 
There are millions more who are subsidizing all this because they are 
paying unfair premiums. We do not invest in pre-disaster mitigation. We 
will save $4 in disaster relief for each dollar we invest upfront to 
protect property and lives.
  I am prepared to support the underlying bill. It is not perfect. 
There are changes that I would make. I understand some of the 
challenges that people are going to suggest in terms of the impact on 
some lower-income citizens. I sympathize with that, but the answer is 
not to continue to keep people in harm's way. The answer is not to 
rebuild people's homes right back where they are going to be putting 
their property and their families at risk. We

[[Page H9196]]

should not continue to resist reform, because it is hard. Ultimately, 
that adds to the price tag and it adds to the dislocation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we don't lose an 
opportunity to start changing this situation.
  When the floods came in Houston, I got calls from some reporters 
because I had been dealing with problems in Houston going back 20 
years. This is an example of where we failed to deal with repetitive 
flood loss and where we have watched unchecked sprawl put millions of 
people at risk for greater harm.
  This bill isn't perfect, but I hope that it starts the process where 
we can come together as it goes through the legislative process. I hope 
we can make adjustments to start us along that path, and that we start 
swallowing hard, making sure that everybody gives up a little.
  The Federal Government needs to invest more. People need to stop 
building in harm's way. We need to do a better job of flood recovery 
and pre-disaster mitigation. I think this bill represents a good faith 
start along that path, and I hope we can use it as a foundation for 
further progress.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Ross), a very happy Auburn Tigers fan.
  Mr. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 2874.
  Homeowners deserve choice; they deserve competition; and, above all, 
they need to know the true risk their homes face from floods, the most 
costly of all natural disasters.
  I believe the underlying bill allows the freedom to insure against 
obvious danger that imperils people's homes and their wallets. I am 
particularly enthusiastic about the inclusion of my bipartisan 
legislation to facilitate the development of a robust private flood 
insurance marketplace.
  After months and even years of negotiations, we have produced 
legislation that appropriately balances the need for affordable flood 
insurance with our responsibility to act as faithful stewards of 
taxpayer dollars.
  Everyone knows that the National Flood Insurance Program is broken. 
We should act accordingly. We need to fix it. But before we do that, we 
must agree to proceed.
  Less than a month ago, many of us voted to bail out this floundering 
program, forgiving $16 billion of its debt. But we knew that it would 
be irresponsible to merely kick the can down the road. This is the 
opportunity to make things right.
  I believe we need to proceed with the debate because we need to have 
a reasonable and responsible conversation about fixing this problem 
before it gets worse. Americans deserve better than a Big Government 
insurance monopoly that is unable to pay for the risk it insures.
  The 21st Century Flood Reform Act will usher in a new era of consumer 
choice, competition, and affordability by empowering policyholders to 
purchase the insurance products that best meet their needs.
  We are getting rid of the top-down, single-payer approach to 
insurance where we pretend there is no danger until there is a tragedy.
  Giving consumers choice in a competitive marketplace will not only 
drive down costs, but will also help reduce the unacceptable number of 
homes that are not protected by flood insurance.
  The NFIP can be an important tool for mitigating flood risks and 
helping families recover from disasters after they strike, but it 
cannot be the only tool. A Federal program that conceals actual risk 
through artificially low rates is neither compassionate nor 
responsible.
  People deserve to know when they are in danger. When the Federal 
Government provides them with information that suggests otherwise, we 
do more harm than good.
  We cannot expect to have educated, thoughtful consumers if we deprive 
them of the market information that is needed to make the smart 
decisions. By putting policyholders on a slow path to sound premium 
rates, we are stepping towards a future where the threats of major 
floods are confronted before they are realized.
  I think we all agree that more needs to be done to mitigate flood 
risks and incentivize investments in resiliency. We can take the first 
steps by eliminating the false security that inoculates our society to 
the dangers of flooding.
  Let's remove the blindfold we have placed over the public's eyes. 
Let's gradually walk back the subsidies that conceal a homeowners risk. 
It is time for this Nation to confront this threat with clear eyes and 
a vision for the future. This bill is the first step in the right 
direction.
  In closing, I want to thank Chairman Hensarling and Housing and 
Insurance Subcommittee Chairman Duffy for their tenacity and commitment 
to paving the way for a safer and more affordable system for managing 
flood risks in this country. Flood insurance is one of those rare 
issues that transcends political boundaries.
  I once again urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and also 
on the underlying bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act isn't perfect. 
Most notably, it blows past the caps implemented under the Budget 
Control Act. But there are areas of common ground in this bill, 
including a pay raise for our military and investments to fill the 
genuine readiness gaps in our Armed Forces.
  I want to point out that they are the result of something that is all 
too often nonexistent under the majority, and that is regular order. I 
agree with what my colleague said, to see a bill under regular order is 
a downright joy. I hope we do more of it.
  A hearing and a markup were held for this bill and colleagues from 
both sides of the aisle were consulted. That is how the Chamber was 
designed to function, but, today, it hardly functions like that at all.
  It is a shame that we don't also see the majority put this model to 
use for other major legislation like healthcare and tax reform, which 
we will be rushing through to get to tomorrow.
  This is a process that we didn't see for the other measure before us 
today, which is H.R. 2874. No hearing was ever held on the package in 
its entirety. It was changed right up until it was considered by the 
Rules Committee earlier this week in an effort not to get Democrat 
support, but to get enough support from Members of the majority so that 
it could pass on a party-line vote.
  That is what we see under this leadership: no hearings and rarely any 
markups.
  Legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which would impact 
one-sixth of our economy, was passed without so much as a score from 
the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office outlining its impacts and 
its costs.
  This Congress has broken the record for the use of closed rules, 
which prevents any amendments from being offered by either side on the 
House floor. It is now the most closed Congress ever.
  In fact, one of the rules before us right now is closed. We are even 
likely to consider the majority's bipartisan tax plan this week--
actually, tomorrow--which would increase the deficit by $1.5 trillion, 
yet under another closed rule and without scoring.

  The United States Congress has been called the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. I think it is time the majority change course and 
actually allow the great debates about the issues that we face. The 
legislation we consider would certainly be better for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, the rule, 
and the bill; and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a coastal area of Alabama, and flood 
insurance is extremely important to many of my constituents. It is very 
important to me to fulfill my job on their behalf to make sure that we 
have a Flood Insurance Program that is there for many years to come. 
But we know that it is actuarially insolvent. So we have to make 
changes in the program.
  As the gentleman from Oregon said, change is hard and reforms are 
hard.

[[Page H9197]]

But the gentleman from Florida and, before him, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, the sponsor of the bill, made very good points. The reforms 
we are making in this bill for the Flood Insurance Program will allow 
it to be successful for years to come and also protect the taxpayers of 
America. I think we have a responsibility to do that.
  The other bill under this rule, the conference report on the National 
Defense Authorization Act, represents a very important inflection 
point.
  We are now moving to repair the damage we have done to our military 
these last several years. This is a 10 percent increase for our 
military so that we can help them rebuild their readiness and the 
equipment they need to defend us with this ever-increasing matrix of 
threats, not the least of which is North Korea. We put even more money 
in this authorization to defend against a missile attack from North 
Korea.
  We are at the beginning of something historic here with this bill, 
and that is rebuilding the United States military, much like it was 
done 30-plus years ago when President Reagan was in office.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support House Resolution 
616 and the underlying bills.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Ranking Member Slaughter for 
her tremendous leadership on so many of these very critical issues.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to H.R. 
2810, the Fiscal Year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act. This 
bill authorizes $700 billion in defense spending for our already out-
of-control Pentagon budget. It would also increase funding by $66 
billion for wars that Congress has never debated or voted on. And once 
again, my Republican colleagues have used off-the-books spending 
gimmicks to further expand the already-bloated Pentagon budget.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.
  Instead of writing blank checks to the Pentagon, Congress needs to 
live up to its constitutional obligation to debate matters of war and 
peace. We need to rip up the 2001 blank check for endless war. We need 
to stop funding wars without end.
  Simply put, Mr. Speaker, we need to do our job.
  And this Defense Authorization Act does just the opposite. It allows 
Congress to kick the can down the road AGAIN, while funding wars with 
no debate on the costs and consequences to our troops or to the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I do have to say that I am pleased by the passage of my 
amendment, which I co-authored with my good friend Congressman Burgess, 
to report on the audit-readiness of the Pentagon. This is a good first 
step, but much work remains to bring some accountability to Pentagon 
spending.
  So I call on Speaker Ryan to act to actually audit bloated Pentagon 
spending and to bring forth an authorization so Congress can vote up or 
down on these wars.
  I urge my colleagues to vote 'NO' on the Rule and the underlying bill 
and reject this wasteful spending.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 616 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3440) to authorize the cancellation of removal and adjustment 
     of status of certain individuals who are long-term United 
     States residents and who entered the United States as 
     children and for other purposes. The first reading of the 
     bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been 
     adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and 
     reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then 
     on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately 
     after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of 
     rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3440.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adopting the resolution, if ordered; and
  Agreeing to the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 189, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 626]

                               YEAS--234

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy

[[Page H9198]]


     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     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
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     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
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--189

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     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
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Black
     Bridenstine
     Dent
     Johnson, Sam
     McGovern
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Rush
     Visclosky
     Woodall

                              {time}  1337

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 187, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 627]

                               YEAS--233

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     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
     Rosen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     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
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     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
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)

[[Page H9199]]


     Soto
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Black
     Bridenstine
     Cole
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart
     Holding
     Johnson, Sam
     McGovern
     Pelosi
     Pocan
     Rush
     Visclosky
     Woodal


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1344

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 627.

                          ____________________