[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H690-H698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 695, CHILD 
                  PROTECTION IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2017

  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 714 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 714

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 695) 
     to amend the National Child Protection Act of 1993 to 
     establish a national criminal history background check system 
     and criminal history review program for certain individuals 
     who, related to their employment, have access to children, 
     the elderly, or individuals with disabilities, and for other 
     purposes, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider 
     in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a 
     single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or his designee that the House: (1) concur in 
     the Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the text with an amendment consisting of 
     the text of Rules Committee Print 115-56. The Senate 
     amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
     motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Walorski). The gentlewoman from Wyoming 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. CHENEY. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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. Madam 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. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 714, 
which provides for consideration of a single motion to concur in the 
Senate amendments to H.R. 695, the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act for Fiscal Year 2018.
  Madam Speaker, we meet here today, 122 days into the current fiscal 
year. FY 2018 is one-third over, and yet the United States Congress has 
been unable to appropriate funds for the defense of our Nation.
  I ask my colleagues, Madam Speaker, to pause and let that sink in. 
The fiscal

[[Page H691]]

year is over 30 percent done, and we have been unable to appropriate 
the funds our military needs to defend the Nation.
  Madam Speaker, this is nothing new. The United States Congress has 
forced the U.S. military to operate like this under continuing 
resolutions for 9 of the last 10 years. The rule and the underlying 
bill that we are debating and voting on today, Madam Speaker, is a 
crucial step towards reversing this dangerous trend.
  This Defense Appropriations bill is a clean bill. It clears away all 
the politics. It clears away all the posturing. It clears away all the 
jargon and the process arguments.
  Madam Speaker, this is an up-or-down vote on the one issue that 
matters more than any other: providing for the common defense of our 
Republic.
  The question before this House today is whether we will do our 
constitutional duty and provide the funds for those who are putting 
their lives on the line for all of us. There is no other question, 
Madam Speaker. And for those who vote ``no,'' there will be no place to 
hide when history comes to ask why they failed to do their duty.
  Our military has been strangled for the last decade, Madam Speaker. 
Obama-era budget cuts are certainly to blame. The Obama 
administration's defense budgets were based on a set of dangerous 
policies and false assumptions:
  They assumed we could withdraw from the Middle East and the 
terrorists would stop fighting.
  They assumed we could talk North Korea out of their nuclear program 
with a policy of ``strategic patience.''
  They assumed Russian and Chinese efforts to upend the global world 
order the United States built and sustained with our allies over 70 
years were no threat to our national security.
  Perhaps worst of all, Madam Speaker, they assumed that paying 
billions of dollars to the regime in Tehran in exchange for 
unverifiable promises from the mullahs about their nuclear program 
would serve America's interests. Never before, Madam Speaker, has an 
American President been so wrong about so much at the expense of so 
many.
  But we in Congress must also accept some of the blame. While the 
previous administration was pursuing policies that aided our 
adversaries and harmed our national interests, the United States 
Congress adopted the Budget Control Act, a law that has proven 
devastating to the security of our Nation.
  Beginning with the Budget Control Act in 2011, the United States 
Congress imposed arbitrary spending caps on domestic and defense 
discretionary spending. We handcuffed the military, Madam Speaker. No 
longer could they ask: What are the threats, and what do we need to 
defend ourselves? Instead, our men and women in uniform were faced with 
arbitrary caps and, in 2013, sequestration.
  When the supercommittee that was established by the Budget Control 
Act failed to come to any agreement on cuts in mandatory spending--
mandatory spending being the real driver, Madam Speaker, of our 
national debt--sequestration kicked in. This was like taking a meat 
cleaver to every account in the defense budget at a time of war when 
our adversaries are gaining in strength, readiness, and capability 
every day.
  By every measure, Madam Speaker, the Budget Control Act has failed. 
Since its passage in 2011, the national debt has grown by nearly $4 
trillion.

                              {time}  1230

  Five years ago, the CBO estimated that the U.S. debt would reach 80 
percent of GDP by 2029. Today, Madam Speaker, the CBO projects that 
will happen by 2022. The Budget Control Act has failed to do what it 
intended to do.
  Madam Speaker, we have got to acknowledge something else. The Budget 
Control Act created the concept on which our current budget 
negotiations are stalled. The idea, espoused especially by my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, that we must have 
``parity''--for every dollar we increase defense spending, they demand 
a dollar increase in domestic spending--is lunacy, Madam Speaker.
  We are the people's elected Representatives with the responsibility 
for stewardship over taxpayer dollars. We are responsible for 
appropriating funds for the Nation. Those funds should be appropriated 
based upon our determination of the needs and priorities, not based 
upon some arbitrary concept of parity.
  The dysfunction in this budget process is now so great, Madam 
Speaker, that, because of the BCA, we are in the process of actually 
spending more on programs we don't need. It is time to fully repeal the 
BCA.
  Madam Speaker, my colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern, 
will no doubt shortly point out that Republicans control the House and 
the Senate and the White House. He is right, of course. But Mr. 
McGovern also knows that it takes 60 votes to pass anything in the 
Senate, which gives the Democrats and their leader, Chuck Schumer, 
power far beyond what they would otherwise enjoy to block action.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know, we have passed all 12 appropriations bills 
through this body, including this Defense Appropriations bill, only to 
have these bills languish in the Senate.
  Mr. Speaker, the defense of this Nation must no longer be held 
hostage to the rules of the United States Senate. If 60 United States 
Senators cannot be found to do what is right and fund our military, 
then, Mr. Speaker, that body has a constitutional obligation to change 
its rules and stop allowing a small minority to hold our military 
hostage for political reasons.
  The threat is real and the situation is dire, Mr. Speaker. Today, we 
have the smallest Army since before World War II, the smallest Navy 
since before World War I, and the smallest and oldest Air Force we have 
ever had.
  Only 5 of 58 brigade combat teams in the Army are ``ready to fight 
tonight.'' Funding for future readiness against competitors like Russia 
and China has been cut by over 70 percent in the last 10 years. As 
North Korea's missile program advances, the U.S. inventory of missile 
defense interceptors is dangerously low. Less than half of the Navy's 
aircraft can fly, due to maintenance and spare parts issues. Only 50 
percent of the Air Force's combat forces are sufficiently ready for a 
highly contested fight against a peer adversary.
  Mr. Speaker, we are running out of bombs. Our supply of precision 
munitions has been depleted by budget cuts and increased operations. 
Fatal accidents are increasing. This is all happening, Mr. Speaker, as 
the global threat environment is more complex, more imminent, and more 
grave than at any time since World War II. Every day we fail to do our 
duty in this body, the risk to our troops increases, and it becomes 
easier for our adversaries to close the capabilities gap.
  Surely, Mr. Speaker, on this issue we can set politics aside and do 
what is right for our Republic, for our freedom, and for every man and 
woman standing watch on the front lines for all of us. Therefore, Mr. 
Speaker, I urge support of this rule and the underlying bill, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Ms. 
Cheney) for the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, here we go again, literally. Today we are considering, 
for the third time, the FY 2018 Defense Appropriations Act. The House 
took up and passed this bill in July. The House took up and passed this 
bill in September. And now, we will take it up and pass it once again 
under a completely closed process for the third time.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, that many people think that the third time is 
the charm, but in this case, I think the third time is a farce.
  There are a couple of minor changes to this version of the bill. For 
example, once again, it has $1.18 billion to fund President Trump's 
request to send 3,500 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, funding which 
has been attached to prior spending bills.
  It also has a general provision that turns off sequestration for 
defense spending. So it busts the budget caps but exempts itself from 
any consequences. That is a neat little trick, Mr. Speaker.
  But, really, why are we wasting our time on this bill for a third 
time?

[[Page H692]]

  Here is a little bit of a reality check, Mr. Speaker. Neither this 
defense bill nor any other appropriations bill can move until the House 
and Senate Republican leadership get their act together, negotiate a 
budget agreement that works for all our Federal programs, and finally 
set the top-line numbers for all the appropriations bills. Then, and 
only then, will our appropriators be able to begin negotiations on the 
final FY 2018 omnibus spending bill to fund all our Federal programs, 
defense and nondefense alike, through the rest of the fiscal year.
  It would have been nice if this had been done in September, Mr. 
Speaker, or maybe by October or the end of November or the end of 
December. One might have hoped to have finally completed the job by the 
end of this month. That would be 4 whole months into fiscal year 2018. 
But we all know that is not going to happen.
  Now, I don't know about you, Mr. Speaker, but I sure hope we can get 
these FY 2018 appropriations bills all done before we have to start 
working on the fiscal year 2019 appropriations bills.
  There is a very simple reason why there is no budget agreement. The 
Republicans are squabbling among themselves over either raising the 
budget caps or making even deeper cuts in domestic spending. It is like 
the Republican rightwing is fighting with the Republican extreme 
rightwing.
  I will again remind my colleagues, as my colleague from Wyoming did, 
Republicans control everything. They control the House. They control 
the Senate. They control the Presidency. I wish they didn't, but they 
are in charge. It is their job to keep the lights running. But there is 
an incompetence that is on display here that I have never, ever seen in 
all my years of government.
  What should be happening is that the Republican leadership should be 
reaching out to the House and Senate Democratic leadership and 
negotiating a real bipartisan budget agreement, one that has votes in 
both Chambers.
  What a radical idea, to actually sit down and negotiate a bipartisan 
agreement that will get bipartisan votes. The notion that they can 
present legislation on the House floor in this kind of my-way-or-the-
highway approach and expect Democrats to vote for it is ludicrous. We 
are not going to get everything we want. We know that. We are in the 
minority. But our values need to be represented in these overall budget 
negotiations as well.
  So they should do their job. Sit down and work out a deal. That is 
what they are supposed to do when they are in charge. Instead, here we 
are entering our fifth month of fiscal year 2018 and no budget 
agreement, which translates into no final appropriations bills because 
the appropriations committees don't know what their top-line spending 
ceiling is for any of the remaining bills, including defense.
  It doesn't matter how many times they send this same bill over to the 
Senate. It can't come back to us as a final House-Senate conference 
report without a budget agreement.
  They should do their job. We can't get a budget agreement until the 
Republicans stop fighting amongst themselves and decide to work for the 
good of the American people and the American military. They should do 
their job.
  I know today that we will hear a lot about how important it is to 
fund our military. Of course, that is important. You won't hear anybody 
in this House argue against that. But it is also important to fund 
things like the Department of Homeland Security. They help protect us 
here in the United States from potential terrorist attacks.
  It is also important to fund the Justice Department. There are many 
antiterrorism programs in the Justice Department that are important to 
protecting the citizens of this country. To suggest that somehow they 
don't matter, I think, is just wrong.
  Isn't it important that we support our Veterans Affairs Department to 
support our veterans who have sacrificed so much for this country? To 
say that somehow they are not a priority, I don't think that is right.
  It is important to fund the State Department. It is important to fund 
Transportation, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, Education, 
Housing and Urban Development, the Energy Department, the Interior 
Department, and all our Federal bureaus, agencies, and programs.
  America's national security is more than just our military. It is our 
local law enforcement. It is our courts. It is our hospitals, our 
schools, our roads, and our bridges. It is investing in our 
communities, cities, and our towns. It is taking care of our veterans, 
our seniors, and our children. It is helping our local farmers, 
businesses, and companies survive and thrive.
  If we fail in these duties, Mr. Speaker, then what is there left to 
defend?
  Time and time again, Secretary of Defense Mattis has declared that 
the greatest damage to our military comes from continuing to fund 
defense by a series of short-term continuing resolutions, one after 
another after another. Yet that is exactly what Republicans in Congress 
are doing.
  So, please, Mr. Speaker, let's have no more crocodile tears about 
defense spending and how important our military is. If the military 
were really a priority for the Republican leadership and not just a 
good sound bite, then they would have reached a budget agreement and 
finished the FY 2018 appropriation bills--all of them--last year.
  Mr. Speaker, right now, Federal agencies, including the Pentagon, are 
operating under a fourth continuing resolution. Even if, by some 
miracle, a budget agreement is reached today or by next Monday, 
Congress will still need to pass a fifth CR by next Thursday, February 
8, because there is no way the appropriators will be able to start and 
finish their negotiations on a final omnibus in just a few days.
  So, Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, under a completely closed 
process, is theater. It is not about our military. It is not about the 
defense of this country. It is about a sound bite. It is about trying 
to provide some smoke so the people don't realize that the Republicans 
who run this government don't know how to do their job. It is nothing 
more than face-saving for the most extreme Members of the Republican 
Conference. It does nothing that hasn't been done twice before. It 
means nothing. It is a waste of time.
  Since the House is really only working 1 day this week--namely, 
today--then we could have brought up legislation that hasn't already 
moved twice through the House but for which action is desperately 
overdue.
  We could have brought up the reauthorization of our community health 
centers, which help more than 24 million Americans access essential 
healthcare. Or how about the reauthorization of the Maternal, Infant, 
and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, which helps young families 
all across this country?
  The Republican leadership deliberately chose to let the authorization 
for each of these critical programs expire in September. They haven't 
even lifted a finger since to reauthorize them. We could have easily 
taken care of their reauthorization today in a couple of hours and sent 
those bills over to the Senate rather than spending the same amount of 
time passing the same defense bill for a third time.

  Mr. Speaker, defense spending and all other Federal programs are in a 
mess today because the Republicans are incapable of running the 
government. It is that simple. Each day it becomes even more clear that 
the Republican leadership not only can't govern, they are not even 
interested in governing. Everything we are doing on this day is going 
nowhere, and my Republican friends know that.
  This, again, is about theater. It is not about troops. It is not 
about our security. It is about giving them some cover to justify the 
incompetence that is on display here.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleagues on the 
Republican side that we don't need lectures from them about America's 
national security. When it comes to forcing their terrible policies on 
the American people, they say ``yes, yes, yes'' to President Trump; but 
when it comes to holding President Trump accountable and protecting 
American democracy, all they say is ``nyet.''
  Clearly, House Republicans' desire to protect President Trump has 
clouded their judgment and caused them to lose sight of what is at 
stake: the security and integrity of our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, President Trump's own CIA Director, our former 
colleague,

[[Page H693]]

CIA Director Mike Pompeo, recently admitted that Russia is currently 
working to undermine the upcoming election and has been doing so for 
decades.

                              {time}  1245

  And, just yesterday, President Trump refused to impose defense and 
intelligence sanctions on entities purchasing Russian military 
equipment. In July, Congress passed an overwhelmingly bipartisan bill 
requiring President Trump to impose defense and intelligence sanctions 
on entities purchasing Russian military equipment. His decision, 
yesterday, to refuse to do so tells us all we need to know about where 
his loyalties lie.
  And still, Mr. Speaker, all the other side continues to do, day after 
day, is assault the rule of law. They have led an all-out assault on 
our Department of Justice and on our FBI to smear Special Counsel 
Robert Mueller's investigation, attempting to tarnish the credibility 
of our Federal law enforcement along the way, and sowing doubt and 
confusion about the very ability of anyone in law enforcement to 
conduct an impartial investigation.
  And let's not forget that we are not talking about some hypothetical 
investigation. Here are the facts:
  The President's former National Security Advisor has pled guilty to 
lying to the FBI about his contacts with the Russian Ambassador.
  The President's former foreign policy adviser pled guilty after he 
lied about his contacts with the Russian Government.
  And the President's former campaign manager has been indicted by a 
grand jury for, among other things, conspiracy against the United 
States of America.
  Now the Republicans are trying to whip up a controversy out of thin 
air with a misleading cherry-picked memo written by their own staff, 
which contains significant inaccuracies and omissions that misrepresent 
the underlying intelligence.
  Associate Attorney General Stephen Boyd stated:
  ``We believe it would be extraordinarily reckless for the committee 
to disclose such information publicly without giving the Department and 
the FBI the opportunity to review the memorandum and to advise the 
committee of the risk of harm to national security and to ongoing 
investigations that could come from public release.''
  ``Indeed, we do not understand why the committee would possibly seek 
to disclose classified and law enforcement sensitive information 
without first consulting with the relevant members of the intelligence 
community.''
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans are doing this in a ridiculous attempt to 
discredit an entire investigation, which has already found a serious 
effort to attack our democracy.
  This is a deeply, deeply irresponsible attempt to undermine Special 
Counsel Mueller's investigation, regardless of the profound damage that 
it does to our democratic institutions and national security agencies. 
It is offensive to the Nation, and it is just plain wrong.
  I would remind my Republican colleagues that we are here to uphold 
the rule of law, not the rule of Trump. I understand that, in this 
Chamber, there are powerful political incentives to circle the wagons 
amongst my Republican friends around this White House, but the truth is 
the truth, and there is nobody, nobody in this country, including the 
President of the United States, who should be above the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleagues that when we are talking 
about defending the national security of our country, what has gone on 
in this Chamber these last few days, in my opinion, is a threat to our 
national security.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as always, the candor of my colleague, Mr. 
McGovern. But, I have to say, I am having a hard time understanding why 
it is, when he is so clearly knowledgeable about the damage that CRs do 
to the military, we are, today, presenting an opportunity for this 
entire House to stop that process for this entire House to provide the 
kind of reliable, secure, sufficient funding that our troops need; yet, 
I would imagine, many colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
going to vote ``no'' on that.
  I think it is important, though, to recognize some facts, Mr. 
Speaker:
  The first of those is, for all the talk about a budget agreement, it 
was the leadership on the other side of the aisle that refused to go to 
a meeting at the White House a couple of months ago and pulled out 
completely of the talks last year.
  It was also, with all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the leadership on the 
other side of the aisle, the Democrat leadership, that shut the 
government down 2 weeks ago. So it is awfully hard, I am sure, to be 
able to convince constituents back home that they really want to get 
this job done and get things moving when they continue to stop the 
process, to gum up the works, and even to shut down the government.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that every Member of this body cares deeply about 
the U.S. troops. And I know that every Member of this body wants what 
is right for this Nation. But there is a big difference between having 
the luxury of talking about support for the troops and actually voting 
for the funds they need to do their job. Talk does not buy equipment; 
talk does not get our planes back in the air; talk does not provide pay 
raises for our troops; talk does not provide the kind of protection our 
servicemen and -women need, the equipment that they need, to do their 
job; talk does not roll back Russia, or China, or Iran, or North Korea.
  For that, the Pentagon needs money. The only way that our military 
will get money is if we appropriate: if we break the cycle of 
continuing resolutions and pass this appropriations bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne), my dear friend and colleague from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
appreciate all of the work that she does on behalf of our Nation's 
military men and women.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are again. Once again, this House will vote to 
fully fund our Nation's military and critical national security 
programs.

  I have said this many times before, but I will continue saying it 
because the point is so very important: the global threat environment 
facing the United States today is greater than at any time since the 
conclusion of World War II.
  North Korea is continuing to build its nuclear weapon program, which 
poses a direct threat to the United States and our servicemembers 
stationed abroad.
  Terrorist groups, like ISIS and al-Qaida, may be weakened in Iraq and 
Syria, but their influence continues to spread to other areas 
throughout the Middle East and Africa.
  The situation in Afghanistan is deeply concerning. Look no further 
than the recent wave of attacks by the Taliban in Kabul.
  China is continuing to build up its military and exert aggression in 
the South China Sea.
  Russia and Putin remain emboldened as they take provocative actions 
in Ukraine, throughout Eastern Europe, and even in the Pacific.
  Other countries continue to catch up to our Nation's capabilities in 
the space domain.
  Iran is showing more and more involvement in the Middle East and 
continues to support terrorist groups that threaten our allies, like 
Israel.
  Not to even mention the evolving and serious threats posed to the 
United States by state actors and rogue actors when it comes to 
cybersecurity.
  Despite so many real and wide-ranging threats, our military has not 
received the funding that is necessary to keep up.
  As the gentlewoman said, we have the smallest Army since before World 
War II, the smallest Navy since before World War I, and the smallest 
and oldest Air Force we have ever had.
  The military does not work like a spigot. You can't just turn it on 
when a crisis happens and expect everything to work and all of our 
servicemembers to be ready. Training takes time, and building equipment 
takes even more time. We have to prepare now for the crisis of 
tomorrow.
  The commandant of the Marine Corps, General Robert Neller, put it 
best when he said:

[[Page H694]]

  ``Marines don't get ready when the crisis occurs.''
  ``The instability of the current fiscal environment, compounded by 
current shortfalls in our operation and maintenance accounts, impact 
our ability to maintain a `ready bench.'''
  Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson also recently stated that: 
``We are stretching the force to the limit, and we need to start 
turning the corner on readiness.''
  I could go on for hours talking about the real challenges facing our 
military. But, instead of looking back, I want this Congress to look 
ahead and solve these problems, instead of just continually talking 
about them.
  This Defense funding bill includes $659.2 billion in full-year 
funding for the Department of Defense. That includes increases in 
military operations and maintenance accounts. That includes a 2.4 
percent pay raise for our troops, which would be the largest in 8 
years. That includes increased funding for missile defense systems and 
programs, which is so important, given the threat posed by North Korea.
  That includes funding for 11 new Navy ships, including three littoral 
combat ships, which are built, in part, by Austal USA in my district. 
That includes critical funding for training and readiness operations.
  That also includes much-needed money for research and development to 
ensure our military continues to have the most innovative and state-of-
the-art equipment at their disposal.
  All told, this bill would be a landmark step toward rebuilding our 
military, standing up to our adversaries, and supporting the men and 
women who work every single day to keep the American people safe.
  Now, I hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle saying that 
this bill has no chance in the Senate. While I don't understand why our 
colleagues and the Senate would not want to fund our military, I have a 
strong rebuttal to that argument.
  If the Senate wants to add nondefense programs to this bill or make 
changes, then they should take this bill up, make whatever changes or 
additions that they desire, and send the bill back over to the House. 
It simply makes no sense to just declare this bill dead and not take a 
vote on it.
  I intend to talk to my two home State Senators about passing this 
bill, and I expect they will be supportive of this effort because they 
understand the need to fund our Nation's military.
  But I reject the notion that we shouldn't be passing this bill and 
sending it over to the Senate. I am tired of the Senate not acting on 
our government funding bills, and I think we should keep sending 
funding bills over there until they take one up and actually pass it. 
This ridiculous crisis of funding our government from one crisis to the 
next must end.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation 
and, once again, send a military funding bill over to the Senate. Here, 
in the House, we must continue to fulfill one of our most basic 
responsibilities outlined in the Constitution: to provide for the 
common defense.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The time of the 
gentleman has expired.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Alabama.
  Mr. BYRNE. With this funding bill, we can move back toward a position 
of peace through strength, and we can keep American families safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would just respond to my colleague from Wyoming who 
said that talk will not fund our military, or that talk will not 
upgrade our military equipment, and I agree. Nobody is asking the other 
side to talk. We are asking them to do their job. We are asking them to 
go and sit down with Republicans and Democrats and work out a deal on 
the budget caps.

  In order to do any of this stuff, we have to know how much we can 
spend. Before you go shopping, you have to know how much you are going 
to spend.
  I know my Republican friends don't want to take responsibility for 
what is clearly incompetence, but, the bottom line is, in the Senate, 
the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hasn't even marked up 
the Defense Appropriations bill yet. And the last time I checked, the 
Republicans controlled the Senate--I wish they didn't, but the 
Republicans control the Senate. And as my colleague from Wyoming knows, 
bills don't move in the House or the Senate without the Republican 
leadership moving it.
  So I think it is clear that this Republican-controlled government 
can't do its job, and November can't come soon enough, for me, because 
I think there needs to be a major change here. We need people in charge 
who understand that the American people come first, not some rightwing 
ideology, who understand the meaning that the American people comes 
first means doing your job.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that my colleagues vote to defeat the 
previous question, and I will give a little explanation why.
  Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, President Trump tweeted that he wants 
to show that ``Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it.'' 
Well, I would beg to differ. This is the 19th time that we have 
attempted to bring the bipartisan bill, H.R. 3440, the Dream Act, for a 
vote on the House floor, and, if we defeat the previous question, we 
will bring that bill up.
  We have made our position clear: we want immigration policies that 
make America safer, without betraying our core values as a nation.
  President Trump made his position clear as well. He has tweeted and 
said, time and time again: ``My standard is very simple: America First 
and Make America Great Again.''
  Exactly what does he mean by America First?
  According to the conservative Cato Institute, repealing DACA would 
cost the government over $60 billion and would reduce economic growth 
by $280 billion over the next decade. That doesn't sound like an 
America First policy to me.
  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 that would help hundreds of thousands of young people, who 
are American in every way, except on paper.
  I regret very much that the leadership in this House has refused, 
time and time again, to allow us to debate and deliberate on this 
issue. We have a bill called the Dream Act. If it was brought to the 
floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. Every Democrat would support it, 
and I bet a big chunk of Republicans would support it as well, and we 
could end this once and for all.

                              {time}  1300

  The Republican leadership is so pathetically terrified of a narrow, 
xenophobic, bigoted element of their base that they cannot bring 
themselves to allow us to even consider such a bill, and I regret that 
very much.
  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 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gonzalez) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question so that we can immediately bring the 
Dream Act to the floor.
  I stand before you today with a reopened government, ready to 
transform discussion into action. This is the 19th time that we have 
requested a vote on the Dream Act.
  Congress did not create this emergency. This is a mere negotiation 
tactic brought about by the actions of a single man.
  The time for tactics is over. Now is the time to put your vote to 
work and break the deadlock issue.
  We are a nation of immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers. A great 
man once said: ``The bosom of America is open to receive not only the 
opulent and the respected stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of 
all nations and religions, whom we shall welcome to a participation 
with all our rights and privileges. . . .''

[[Page H695]]

  That man was George Washington, Mr. Speaker, our country's first 
President.
  Now let us take a moment to reflect on this and how President 
Washington saw our country. George Washington would welcome an opulent 
and respected stranger, you know, like folks from Norway. However, we 
should also welcome the oppressed and the persecuted of all nations and 
all religions in the world.
  Compare George Washington's words to President Trump's, who said: ``I 
do business with the Mexican people, but you have people coming through 
the border that are from all over. And they are bad. They are really 
bad. You have people coming in, and I am not just saying Mexicans. I am 
talking about people who are from all over that are killers and 
rapists, and they are coming into this country.''
  Please, Mr. Speaker, do not let this era be known as the day that 
America surrendered. Do not let our country go down the path of 
religious persecution. Do not let our country fall to the dictates of 
convenience.
  The United States of America sets the tone for the rest of the world. 
In other words, Mr. Speaker, if we do not help the less fortunate than 
us, who can we count on?
  It is not easy to say no, Mr. Speaker. It is easy to surrender. It is 
a rare occasion where an easy choice is the right choice.
  It is up to us, the leaders of our country, to take the hard path, 
the path taken by our ancestors.
  About 800,000 young people living in our country, also known as 
DREAMers, are facing an uncertain future.
  Many criticize how DACA was created, some even criticize the granting 
of a status quo on immigrants. I say this is un-American. I say to 
these critics that it is time to become problem solvers for our 
country.
  We only have a few days left under the current continuing resolution 
to pass a bill that provides DACA recipients a pathway to citizenship. 
We made a promise to the American people and to 800,000 DREAMers who 
are American in every way except on paper.
  To all the DREAMers, I want you to know that I stand with you.
  Today I call on every Member of Congress to remember that we are a 
nation founded by immigrants. I call on you to give these DREAMers a 
chance. Let's get it done.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we have seen now on display in this debate exactly the 
problem and, frankly, it is despicable, Mr. Speaker.
  We are in a situation where our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are holding hostage funding for our troops over the issue of 
illegal immigration. There is no other way to describe it. There is no 
other way to--I can't put it into words. The people who are watching, I 
am sure, have seen it on the floor right now.
  If my colleagues feel so strongly about support for the troops, there 
is a very easy answer. And that answer is to vote for this bill, to 
vote to support this appropriation, not to try to divert attention, not 
to try to talk about other issues, not to try to talk about the extent 
to which we haven't reached a deal.
  We have got a bill and we are putting it on the floor. It funds the 
troops. It ends the damage that has been done by the continuing 
resolutions. They ought to vote for it, we ought to pass it, and then 
our colleagues in the Senate should do the same.
  They cannot, at the same time, say that they support our troops, that 
they support resources for the troops, and then go through all of these 
contortions trying to explain why it is they are going to vote ``no'' 
on this issue.
  I would also just say, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the United States 
Senate right now is either incapable or unable of doing its 
constitutional duty does not absolve us in this House of the obligation 
to do ours, and that is to provide funding and resources for the U.S. 
military.
  It is absolutely a broken system. We are in a situation where I would 
ask my colleagues to think, as they are arguing on this floor, debating 
on this floor today, about the parents of men and women who are 
deployed, to think about what this debate must sound like to them, to 
think about trying to explain to them why it is when we have a bill 
that provides the funding the military needs, our colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle are going to vote ``no'' because of some budget 
process, some budget procedure, because of negotiations over DACA, 
because of any other reason under the sun they can imagine.
  Vote ``yes'' on this bill, vote ``yes'' for this rule, and then we 
can go on and deal with these other issues. But, Mr. Speaker, none of 
those other issues will matter. If we fail to do what is right for the 
military, none of those other issues will matter.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate the people who write the Republican 
talking points because they keep on trying to change the subject to try 
to confuse the American people.
  My colleague knows that this battle is not over the DREAMers, 
although we all think it is immoral that these young people have been 
treated so terribly and so cruelly, and we believe that there needs to 
be a resolution to that.
  The bottom line is that we need to negotiate budget caps so we know 
how much we can spend on not only defense, but nondefense 
appropriations so we can keep our government running. This should have 
been done months ago.
  So if we really care about our troops, then where is the bipartisan 
agreement to raise the budget caps so that we know we have a budget 
deal? Where is this bipartisan agreement?
  My Republican friends have known that this is the deal for a long 
time, yet, again, they are tied in knots because they are fighting 
amongst themselves. Their rightwing is having a battle with their 
extreme rightwing; and there is even an extreme, extreme rightwing that 
not only does not want to raise any nondefense spending budget caps, 
but wants to cut domestic spending.
  I would say to my colleagues that this is about more than the 
DREAMers. In fact, this is about community health centers. I mean, 
people rely on community health centers all across this country to get 
their healthcare. We are not dealing with that.
  This is about funding our veterans. The men and women who serve our 
country, who we put their lives in harm's way, shouldn't we make sure 
that their budget is funded? I mean, Homeland Security.
  So, I mean, there is a whole bunch of stuff here, but this is really 
simple to fix. It requires the Republican leadership and this 
Republican government to do its job. That is all we are asking. Do your 
job, negotiate a deal for a budget agreement to fund the government for 
the rest of the year, then we are done, and we go on to fight other 
things. But there is an easy way to do this: come up with some numbers, 
work it out with your leadership, work it out with our leadership, and 
let's move that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that if my colleague on the other side of the 
aisle spent more time focused on doing his job and less time on telling 
us to do ours, we would be in a lot better shape. I think the American 
people deserve to know what is going on in these budget negotiations.
  What is going on in these budget negotiations, Mr. Speaker, is that 
the leadership on the other side of the aisle continues to move the 
goalpost. They enjoy this political fight, this political dance. They 
enjoy the sense that they can hold us hostage, they can hold the troops 
hostage.
  They seem to not have any concern at all about the fact that we are 
now 30 percent of the way through the fiscal year and our troops have 
not been funded.
  So behind closed doors, what is going on is moving the goalpost; it 
is Lucy and the football. They want to continue playing these games.
  So I would suggest that my colleague on the other side of the aisle 
ought to turn his focus and attention on his own leadership and ask 
them to do their job.
  In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we are in a position where we are today 
considering a bill that will fund the military.

[[Page H696]]

  I applaud my colleague's efforts to try again and again and again to 
make the case that he believes in funding the military, he believes we 
ought to have a full year appropriation, he believes we have got to get 
out from under the CR, and, therefore, he is going to vote ``no'' on 
this bill. It takes, really, focus and attention and talent to be able 
to do that, so I applaud that effort, but the reality is the reality, 
Mr. Speaker. We are in a position today where we have the opportunity 
to vote to fund the troops, and we ought to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say again, the Republicans are in charge. I wish 
we were in the majority. If we created this mess, the Republicans would 
have every right to criticize us, but we are not in charge. I regret 
that very much. I think it is not good for the country that we have a 
Republican House, a Republican Senate, and a Republican President, 
because I think a lot of the priorities of the American people are not 
being addressed.

  All the Republican leadership needs to do is get together and do 
their job and negotiate a deal on the budget caps, and let us approve 
defense and nondefense spending for the rest of the year and get away 
from these CRs. It is in their hands.
  As I said, the Senate Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations hasn't 
even had a markup in their committee. I mean, they are controlled by 
Republicans. You can't blame us for everything.
  Bottom line is you are in charge. When you are in charge, you have to 
keep the lights on. That is your responsibility. Unfortunately, my 
Republican friends don't want to do this.
  I have never, ever, seen this kind of incompetence in our government, 
ever, in all my years. This has to end. Again, the way it ends is when 
the Republican leadership decides to negotiate a budget agreement with 
the House and Senate leaders, Republicans and Democrats alike.
  Mr. Speaker, we all believe that we ought to support our military, we 
ought to make sure we have the best military, second to none. We want 
to fund that, but we also understand that it is important to fund the 
Department of Homeland Security, which protects us from terrorist 
attacks here at home. I am sorry my Republican friends don't see that 
as a priority.
  We also believe we ought to fund veterans' health. I am sorry my 
Republican friends don't see that as a priority.
  We believe in funding community health centers. We believe in making 
sure that our States have the money to be able to rebuild their aging 
infrastructures. I am sorry that that is not a priority, but it is to 
us.
  The entire budget is a priority to us, and I don't think it is too 
much to ask the leadership of this House and the leadership of the 
Senate to make sure that everything is funded and that the needs of the 
entire country are met, and not kind of picking one over another over 
another.
  The other thing I would say is that, if we want to have a talk about 
national security, we ought to focus on what is happening right here 
with the Republicans and the House Intelligence Committee playing 
politics with an investigation into Russia's attack on our democracy.
  You ought to be concerned about a President of the United States who 
doesn't seem at all worried that the Russians interfered in our 
election, that according to his own CIA head says they are still trying 
to interfere in our election, and we can't even get this President to 
impose congressionally mandated sanctions.
  Is there anything that Russia can do to us that will cause this 
President to stand up and defend our country or to even say something 
mildly critical about Vladimir Putin, whom he praises, a man who kills 
journalists and human rights defenders and political opponents?
  Enough. I mean, stop this politicization of the Russia investigation. 
This should be bipartisan, getting to the bottom of this. Wherever it 
leads, it leads, but this is serious. You want to talk about a threat 
to our country, to our homeland, and to our democracy, look at what 
Russia is doing to us each and every day.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the previous question so that we can bring up the Dream Act so we can 
actually protect these wonderful people who have been such great 
members of our community, who have been first responders, who have 
saved lives in the aftermaths of hurricanes, who serve in our military.
  We have to stop holding them for ransom. They are not hostages. We 
ought to stop holding them for ransom for a stupid wall that costs $25 
billion.
  When I think about $25 billion, I can think of a lot of things to do 
with $25 billion that could help the people of this country rather than 
building a ridiculous wall that someone could buy a ladder to climb 
over or a shovel to dig under.

                              {time}  1315

  We have to do better, so vote ``no'' on the previous question, vote 
``no'' on this rule, and send a message to the leadership of this 
House: Get back to work and do your job. You are in charge. It is your 
job to keep this government running. Work out a deal on the budget cap. 
Fund everything. That is your job.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, some things are complicated, but this one isn't. Our 
colleagues, if they are so concerned about the national security of 
this Nation, there is a very easy thing for them to do, and that is to 
vote for this Defense Appropriations bill.
  It is really important for us, as we are having this debate, to 
remember the facts; and the facts of the budget negotiations are that 
it was the Democrat leadership that walked away from the table and 
stalled the negotiations. It was the Democrat leadership, Mr. Speaker, 
that shut down the government.
  So the Republicans, right now, understanding and recognizing how 
crucial it is for us to get the Defense Department out from under these 
damaging continuing resolutions, to provide them with sufficient, 
secure funding, reliable funding, we are moving a clean Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle can yell all they want 
about having us do our job, and, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. Our 
job, our most important job, our job that is crucial and sacred above 
all others, is to provide funding and resources for the military of 
this Nation. That is what this bill does. That is why we are, today, 
presented with an opportunity to do the right thing.
  With this bill, with a vote in support of this rule, and a vote in 
support of the underlying bill, we can begin to reverse the damage of 
the last 7 years.
  It is time, Mr. Speaker, to stop with these political games. It is 
time to stop moving the goalposts. It is time to stop holding defense 
spending hostage to illegal immigration issues, holding defense 
spending hostage to increased domestic spending. It is time to stop. 
Our troops are on the front lines fighting and dying for us, and our 
actions in this body are putting them at greater risk.
  It is not, Mr. Speaker, as though we can sit here and fail to act, 
and we are just delaying. Our failure to act is putting our men and 
women in uniform at greater risk. Our failure to act is aiding our 
adversaries.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, frankly, 
to look in the mirror and to recognize that they are the ones right now 
who hold the key, as do the Members of the United States Senate, to 
making sure that we get these resources to our men and women in 
uniform.
  I would say, once again, Mr. Speaker, if we fail to do this, if we 
fail to do our constitutional duty, nothing else we do matters. There 
are no other individuals in this Nation who are charged the way we are 
with providing for the common defense, and it is an individual duty and 
obligation of every single one of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to mind the words spoken by Ronald 
Reagan 35 years ago. As we engage in the political theater that my 
colleague on the other side of the aisle mentioned in this House, it 
needs to stop,

[[Page H697]]

and we need to remember what is important.
  Ronald Reagan said: ``It is up to us in our time to choose, and 
choose wisely, between the hard but necessary task of preserving peace 
and freedom, and the temptation to ignore our duty and blindly hope for 
the best while the enemies of freedom grow stronger day by day.''
  Mr. Speaker, it is truly up to us. It is an individual obligation on 
each Member of this body. Therefore, I urge adoption of both the rule 
and the Senate amendments to H.R. 695.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 714 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. 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. 3. 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.

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 232, 
nays 187, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 47]

                               YEAS--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     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)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     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
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--187

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego

[[Page H698]]


     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)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Cardenas
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Curbelo (FL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Luetkemeyer
     McClintock
     Pearce
     Tenney

                              {time}  1343

  Ms. WILSON of Florida, Messrs. GARAMENDI and WELCH changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. CURBELO of Florida. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 045, ``yea'' on rollcall No. 046, and 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 047.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 236, 
noes 183, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 48]

                               AYES--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     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)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     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
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Blumenauer
     Cardenas
     Courtney
     Cummings
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kennedy
     Luetkemeyer
     McClintock
     Pearce
     Tenney
     Welch

                              {time}  1352

  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  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 against:
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 48.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 47 and ``yea'' on 
rollcall No. 48.

                          ____________________