[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.
____________________