[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H5667-H5673]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6157, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2083, 
        ENDANGERED SALMON AND FISHERIES PREDATION PREVENTION ACT

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 961 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 961

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, 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. 6157) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, 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 Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-77 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived except as follows: page 
     86, line 1, through page 86, line 7. No further amendment to 
     the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed 
     in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution and pro forma amendments 
     described in section 3 of this resolution. Each further 
     amendment printed in part A of the report shall be considered 
     only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
     by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as 
     provided by section 3 of this resolution, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question in the House 
     or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against 
     such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment pursuant to this 
     resolution, the Committee of the Whole shall rise without 
     motion. No further consideration of the bill shall be in 
     order except pursuant to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 2.  At any time after adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker may, 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. 
     2083) to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 to 
     reduce predation on endangered Columbia River salmon and 
     other nonlisted species, 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 Natural Resources. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider 
     as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
     five-minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 115-79. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived. No amendment to that 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment 
     may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may 
     be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time 
     specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the 
     proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
     points of order against such amendments 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. Any Member may 
     demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted 
     in the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute made in order as original text. 
     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.
       Sec. 3.  During consideration of H.R. 6157 for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 4.  (a) During consideration of H.R. 6157, it shall 
     not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a 
     decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not 
     so designated, or vice versa. (b) This paragraph

[[Page H5669]]

     shall not apply to an amendment between the Houses.
       Sec. 5.  House Resolution 952 is laid on the table.

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


                             General Leave

  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Wyoming?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 
961, which provides a structured rule for consideration of H.R. 2083, 
the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation Prevention Act and a 
structured rule for consideration of H.R. 6157, the Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2019.
  The rule makes in order amendments for both bills, including three 
amendments offered by the minority to H.R. 2083 and several amendments 
offered by members of both sides of the aisle for H.R. 6157. 
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I expect that we will consider a rule 
tomorrow to provide for the consideration of additional amendments to 
H.R. 6157.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2083, the Endangered Salmon and Fisheries Predation 
Prevention Act, authored by my colleague, Ms. Herrera Beutler of 
Washington, clarifies the authority and streamlines the process to 
manage sea lion populations that are decimating ESA-listed salmon, 
steelhead, and other non-listed species, such as white sturgeon in the 
lower Columbia River. It also provides ESA-listed salmon in the lower 
Columbia River a habitat where they can recover while controlling the 
stocks of sea lions on a limited basis. The bill will benefit the 
residents of the Pacific Northwest who have invested millions of 
dollars to protect, restore, and enhance salmon and other endangered 
species on the Columbia River.
  In my home State of Wyoming, Mr. Speaker, we are far too familiar 
with the abuses of the ESA. The goal of the Endangered Species Act 
should be to recover species, not place restrictive and unnecessary 
burdens and protections on threatened and endangered species in 
perpetuity.
  While the ESA process as a whole must be reformed, this bill provides 
a targeted approach to allow the citizens of the Pacific Northwest to 
achieve the original intent of the Endangered Species Act, which is to 
recover species. This is a good bill. I support its inclusion in this 
rule, and I urge its adoption.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, this rule allows for consideration of H.R. 
6157, the fiscal year 2019 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
authored by my colleague from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  Mr. Speaker, providing the funding needed by our men and women in 
uniform to defend this great Nation is by far the most important 
responsibility we have as Members of the United States Congress.
  For far too long, Congress has failed in this regard. For nearly a 
decade, we have forced our men and women in uniform to operate under 
continuing resolutions and the devastation of sequestration.
  In this Congress, Mr. Speaker, we have begun to change that. For 
fiscal year '18, we provided $700 billion to begin to rebuild our 
military from the cuts and misguided policy of the Obama years. But our 
job is far from done. Rebuilding our military and providing the 
resources needed will require dedicated efforts for years to come.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply must stop forcing our men and women in uniform 
and their families to pay the price for the dysfunction of the 
congressional budget process.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that this House is not the problem. In fact, 
since Republicans took control of the House in 2011, we have never 
failed to pass a defense appropriations bill on time and often with 
large, bipartisan majorities.
  With this week's consideration of H.R. 6157, we in this House intend 
to keep that streak alive. However, as we have too often found, the 
Senate is unable or unwilling to complete their work, and our men and 
women in uniform suffer.

                              {time}  1230

  Secretary Mattis spoke late last year about this issue when he 
released the National Defense Strategy. He said: ``As hard as the last 
16 years have been on our military, no enemy in the field has done more 
to harm the readiness of the U.S. military than the combined impact of 
the Budget Control Act's defense spending cuts, worsened by us 
operating, 9 of the last 10 years, under continuing resolutions, 
wasting copious amounts of precious taxpayer dollars.''
  Secretary Mattis then went on to say that: ``The consequences of not 
providing a budget are clear: Without a sustained budget, ships will 
not receive the required maintenance to put to sea; the ships already 
at sea will be extended outside of port; aircraft will remain on the 
ground, their pilots not at the sharpest edge; and, eventually, 
ammunition, training, and manpower will not be sufficient to deter 
war.''
  H.R. 6157 is a bipartisan bill that provides the resources necessary 
to continue the job of rebuilding our military. The bill provides our 
troops with the highest pay raise they have received in 9 years. It 
continues restoring readiness through increases in the operation and 
maintenance accounts, including providing needed flight time and battle 
training, as well as equipment and facility maintenance.
  This bill also provides procurement funding to ensure our troops have 
the tools and equipment they need, and increases the funding for 
research and development for future needs.
  We must, as General Dunford said in front of the Armed Services 
Committee earlier this year, ``ensure we never send America's sons and 
daughters into a fair fight.'' We need to ensure that they are armed to 
prevail every time.
  Mr. Speaker, we now face a more complex and dangerous set of threats 
than at any time since the end of World War II. Passing H.R. 6157 will 
help put us on the path we need to be on to restore the readiness of 
our military so we can deter and, if necessary, defeat those threats.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must end this cycle and this decade of 
budget dysfunction. We must repeal the Budget Control Act and provide 
the stable resources our military needs, if we are to continue to 
maintain an Armed Forces that is second to none. H.R. 6157 is an 
important, bipartisan, and necessary step down that path.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the rule to allow 
consideration of H.R. 6157, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman, my friend from Wyoming, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate, and I will proceed to 
debate the rule for H.R. 2083 and H.R. 6157.
  The first measure, H.R. 2083, in my opinion, is an overly broad bill 
that will lead to the needless slaughter of more than 1,000 sea lions 
without addressing the serious problems facing our country's endangered 
salmon stocks.
  Thirteen populations of salmon and steelhead in the Columbia River 
are listed under the Endangered Species Act, with their greatest threat 
to extinction coming from deadbeat dams, habitat loss, and climate 
change. This bill does nothing to address those issues and will not 
lead to the recovery of the salmon populations.
  Mr. Speaker, in a change of pace for this Republican-controlled 
Congress, H.R. 6157, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 
Fiscal Year 2019, is a largely bipartisan bill. Totaling $674.6 
billion, $20 billion above the fiscal year 2018 enacted level, H.R. 
6157, as my colleague said, increases military pay by 2.6 percent and 
funds military procurement, readiness, and research and development.
  The legislation, in a break from the strategy implemented by the 
Republican Trump administration, actually works to keep our commitments 
to our allies and provides resources for the

[[Page H5670]]

European Reassurance Initiative to counter Russian aggression, 
continues our support for Ukraine, and fulfills our obligations to 
Israel with funding for the U.S.-Israel joint anti-tunneling research 
technology initiative and the Israeli Missile Defense Cooperative 
program.
  H.R. 6157 also provides new funding for Department of Defense schools 
and Historically Black Colleges, Universities, and Minority-Serving 
Institutions, partnerships that are critical for preserving readiness 
into the future by investing in our servicemembers today.
  I was also pleased that the committee included parts of the Families 
of Fallen Servicemembers First Act in this bill, which will ensure that 
families of fallen servicemembers can always access the immediate death 
gratuities they are entitled to, even in the event of a lapse of 
government funding.
  Politics should never be a factor during such an unimaginable time, 
and yet that has been the case in each of the last three government 
shutdowns. I commend my colleagues, Representatives Gerry Connolly and 
Tom Rooney, for taking on this critically important issue.
  As you can see, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a lot of good. I wish 
that bipartisan legislation like this was the norm. I congratulate the 
committee for working together in a bipartisan fashion to ensure that 
our country's security needs are met without needlessly injecting 
partisan fights into the process.
  I would, however, be remiss if I did not mention the omission of any 
language pertaining to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military 
Force, known colloquially as the 2001 AUMF.
  We continue to give Presidents a blank check to wage war. Let me 
repeat that: We continue to give Presidents--not President Trump, not 
President Obama, not President Bush, not President Clinton--a blank 
check to wage war. Since the 2001 AUMF was enacted, it has been cited 
as the statutory authority for military actions more than 40 times in 
at least 18 countries. That is 18 countries, Mr. Speaker, using an 
authorization passed 17 years ago.
  I and other Members, like Congresswoman Barbara Lee and Congressman 
Jim McGovern, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, have been 
relentless on this issue, relentless on the need for this body to take 
its constitutional duties seriously and discuss how and if we will 
authorize the executive branch to wage war.

  In fact, last year, the Appropriations Committee adopted an amendment 
by Congresswoman Lee to begin the process of repealing and replacing 
the AUMF with an updated measure. In an underhanded move, the Rules 
Committee stripped the provisions in an undemocratic and underhanded 
way. Since then, Congress has done nothing to reassert its 
constitutional authority to decide when and where to commit our troops 
overseas.
  I don't know why it is that this continues, and I don't know what it 
is going to take for us to have a vote on a new AUMF, but I think that 
the people of this great country deserve to know why House Republicans 
are protecting the President's ability to wage unchecked war around the 
globe. I felt the same way when President Obama was in office, as well 
as previous Presidents.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Byrne), my friend and colleague on both the Armed Services 
Committee and the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding, and I 
appreciate her steadfast leadership on behalf of our Nation's 
servicemen and -women.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of a long-needed rebuilding of our 
Nation's military, and this funding bill will ensure the rebuilding 
process continues.
  I have spoken on this floor many times about the readiness crisis 
facing our military. We are finally getting our planes back in the air 
and troops who are fully prepared to deploy. This readiness crisis 
hurts our overall national security. But, Mr. Speaker, it also puts our 
servicemen and -women at great risk.
  Last year, we lost four times as many servicemembers in training 
accidents as we lost in combat. We owe it to these men and women to do 
everything in our power to avoid more of these accidents. That duty 
requires consistent and robust funding for all aspects of our defense.
  I am pleased to say that this funding bill builds on the progress 
made over the last 2 years, and I am proud to support the Defense 
Appropriations bill and this rule.
  This bill sets aside $674.6 billion for the Department of Defense, 
which is consistent with the National Defense Authorization Act that 
passed out of this body earlier this year.
  Importantly, the bill will help us recruit and retain the greatest 
fighting force on the face of the Earth. That includes full funding for 
a 2.6 percent pay raise for the military and an increase in overall end 
strength.
  The bill makes much-needed investments in training and equipment 
acquisition to ensure our men and women in uniform have the resources 
and tools they need to safely and successfully defend or country.
  As vice chair of the House Seapower and Projection Forces 
Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee, I am pleased to see the 
bill make progress toward rebuilding a 355-ship Navy fleet. The bill 
funds the construction of 12 new Navy ships, including three littoral 
combat ships.
  The bill also funds the procurement of additional F-35s, F/A-18 Super 
Hornets, Black Hawk helicopters, Abrams tanks, and C-130J aircraft, 
among many others.
  Given the current threat environment, the bill invests in our 
Nation's missile defense programs and ensures support for some of our 
key allies around the globe.
  Mr. Speaker, peace through strength should always be the position of 
the United States. There is no greater deterrent to war than a strong, 
fully equipped U.S. military.
  I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and her subcommittee for their 
work on this legislation, and I look forward to a strong bipartisan 
vote later this week.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up Ranking Member Nadler's bill, H.R. 
6135, the Keep Families Together Act, of which I am an original 
cosponsor. This much-needed proposal would prohibit the Department of 
Homeland Security from separating children from their families, except 
in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal prosecution of 
asylum seekers.
  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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and 
defeat the previous question so that we may protect these innocent 
children.
  Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague that I have no further 
speakers and am prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close as well, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
go forward now with my closing.
  Last week, we saw Republicans fail to protect Dreamers. These are 
young people who, in many cases, have known no other country than the 
United States. It is, like it is for you and for me, quite simply, 
their home. They are, but for one piece of paper, just as American as 
anyone in this room. Yet my friends across the aisle take pains to 
denigrate and belittle Dreamers.

                              {time}  1245

  We witnessed Republican leadership bring anti-immigrant legislation 
to the House floor that did nothing to solve the heartbreaking 
situation for children and their parents on the southern border. In 
fact, the bills pushed by my Republican friends would perpetuate child 
detention, further tarnishing our Nation's values.
  Democrats have put forward multiple bipartisan proposals to address 
the need for immigration reform in our

[[Page H5671]]

country and, now, for the need to address the completely self-made 
Republican crisis at our border involving the separation of infants and 
toddlers from their mothers and fathers. All of them have been 
dismissed out of hand.
  If my Republican colleagues can move past throwing red meat to their 
base and are willing to work in a serious and bipartisan manner to 
address the issues in our immigration system, then know that Democrats 
are ready to work with you. All you need to do is stand up to the 
extreme faction in your party and finally work with us.
  Let me say something else, finally, about that. The current occupant 
of the White House continues to say that Democrats believe in open 
borders and crime. I know I don't believe in open borders, and I know 
that I have spent a career in the field of law in trying to assist, not 
only my community, but here in our Congress, countless communities, to 
avoid criminal elements and crime in a variety of places throughout our 
country.
  I don't think it is right just to make political points at the 
expense of something that is so critical, and I deem it wrong that it 
is said that Democrats favor open borders and crime. That is just the 
farthest thing from the truth.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commitment to coming to some 
sort of a resolution on the challenges we are facing at our border.
  I think it is crucially important that we secure our border, and I 
respect very much my colleague from the Rules Committee. I appreciate 
that, perhaps, he doesn't believe in open borders, but certainly, Mr. 
Speaker, we have seen across the country, including most recently a 
Democratic candidate for Governor of New York referring to our ICE 
officials as ``terrorists.''
  That is the kind of rhetoric that really does a huge disservice and, 
frankly, is shameful to those who are making sure that our borders are 
secure, to those trying to protect us. We are a Nation of laws, and we 
have got to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that we enforce those laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a benefit and a positive move for 
the citizens across this country if both sides of the aisle were able 
to come together on this. Unfortunately, we have gotten into a 
situation where there are a number of people on the other side of the 
aisle who believe we ought to have open borders, and we simply can't 
accept that and can't defend that. We have got to make sure we secure 
our borders, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a statue that stands at the Antietam National 
Battlefield, which is just about 70 miles from here. Antietam, as 
Members know, was the site of the single bloodiest day in American 
history. Close to 23,000 Americans were killed, wounded, or lost that 
day.
  The statue, Mr. Speaker, is a statue of a Union soldier that 
overlooks the graves of the fallen. There is an inscription on the 
statue which says, ``Not for themselves, but for their country.''
  It should be a reminder to all of us, regardless of party, Mr. 
Speaker, that the ultimate sacrifice has been paid by so many Americans 
in every single battle of this Republic's history, that those who fight 
to secure our freedom do it willingly. They do it by saying they are 
willing, as Secretary Mattis has said, to write a blank check to the 
Republic.
  They do it to defend everything we hold sacred and, indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, to defend what we are doing here today, to defend our right to 
debate, to defend our right to make laws, to defend our right to vote.
  Those are the freedoms that are so crucial to the founding and the 
establishment of this Republic. I am really proud, Mr. Speaker, that 
with this Defense Appropriations bill, we were able to come together in 
a bipartisan way to demonstrate our support for our men and women in 
uniform.
  What we need to do now, Mr. Speaker, is come together in a bicameral 
way. We need to ensure that our actions are worthy of those men and 
women on the front lines who are defending us every day.
  We are considering a rule, Mr. Speaker, that will allow the debate 
and the passage of this bill to fund our troops. For generations, young 
Americans have--and again I am going to quote Secretary Mattis--``been 
willing to shoulder the patriot's burden,'' to put on the cloth of our 
Nation and to fight to defend all of us and all we hold sacred and 
dear.
  It is time for us in the United States Congress, the House and the 
Senate, to shoulder our burden and to provide the funding our men and 
women in uniform need.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the Rules Committee, I also serve on the 
Natural Resources Committee and the Armed Services Committee. Over the 
course of the last 18 months that I have been in Congress, we have 
received repeated testimony on the funding, modernization, and 
readiness crisis facing the United States military.
  I can say, Mr. Speaker, that no experience that I have had since I 
have been a Member of this body has had a greater impact on me than 
hearing from the Secretary of Defense, from the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, from all the combatant commanders, from all the 
service Secretaries, time and time again, hearing them come before this 
body and say that no foe in the field has done more damage to the 
United States military than has the United States Congress.
  I think it is really important for people to stop, think, and listen 
to what that means. Our men and women in uniform and the leaders of our 
military are making the case--an accurate case--that we have done more 
damage than has any enemy.

  We have absolutely got to stop that, Mr. Speaker. We have got to end 
this process of sequestration. We have got to end the continuing 
resolutions. We have got to end the dysfunctional budget process. We 
simply cannot allow this situation to continue.
  The threats that we face as a Nation are real, and they are growing. 
Yet, as a Congress, we have continually forced our military to operate 
on continuing resolutions of varying lengths for nearly a decade. We 
have got to end this cycle of dysfunction. We cannot force our men and 
women in uniform and their families to pay the price for our 
dysfunction. That is simply reprehensible, Mr. Speaker.
  I fully expect and hope that we will pass H.R. 6157 this week, and I 
urge my Democratic colleagues in the Senate to forgo attempts to 
filibuster this important bill and to work with Republicans in the 
Senate and Members of this House to fulfill our most solemn and sacred 
obligation, providing funding for the men and women in uniform who 
volunteer to put their lives on the line to defend this great Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of both the rule, H.R. 6157, and H.R. 
2083.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 961 Offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. That 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. 6135) to limit the separation of families at or near 
     ports of entry. 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 among and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Homeland Security. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6135.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page H5672]]

     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. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this 
15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
  Adoption of the resolution, if ordered; and
  The motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 4294.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 172, not voting 36, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 291]

                               YEAS--219

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     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
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--172

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

                             NOT VOTING--36

     Aderholt
     Barletta
     Black
     Butterfield
     Clarke (NY)
     Cole
     Crowley
     Curtis
     DeGette
     Delaney
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Ellison
     Engel
     Frelinghuysen
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Holding
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Meeks
     Payne
     Polis
     Richmond
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoder

                              {time}  1320

  Mmes. TORRES and LAWRENCE, Mr. CONNOLLY, and Mrs. NAPOLITANO changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HOLDING. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on No. 291.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H5673]]

  



                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 222, 
noes 172, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 292]

                               AYES--222

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Granger
     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)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamb
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     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
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--172

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

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Aderholt
     Black
     Carter (TX)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cole
     Crowley
     Curtis
     DeGette
     Delaney
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Ellison
     Engel
     Frelinghuysen
     Gowdy
     Graves (GA)
     Gutierrez
     Hoyer
     Johnson, Sam
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Meeks
     Payne
     Polis
     Roby
     Rogers (KY)
     Rush
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Taylor
     Thompson (MS)
     Wilson (SC)
     Yoder

                              {time}  1329

  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.

                          ____________________