[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 126 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7693-H7699]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 5515, NATIONAL 
             DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1027 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1027

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 
     2019 for military activities of the Department of Defense, 
     for military construction, and for defense activities of the 
     Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against the conference report and against its 
     consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit if applicable.
       Sec. 2.  The Committee on Appropriations may, at any time 
     before 3 p.m. on Thursday, August 2, 2018, file privileged 
     reports to accompany measures making appropriations for the 
     fiscal year ending September 30, 2019.
       Sec. 3.  House Resolution 1020 is laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the 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

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  0915

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1027 provides for consideration of the 
conference report to accompany H.R. 5515, the John S. McCain National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
  This NDAA process has once again been a textbook example of how 
Congress should work. After extensive hearings in the House and the 
Senate, lengthy committee markups, hundreds of amendments, separate 
passage in both Chambers, and a conference committee, we have reached 
the point of final passage.
  This has been a process that has followed regular order and allowed 
so many Members to have a role in the process. Here in the House, that 
is a testament to Chairman Mac Thornberry, Ranking Member Adam Smith, 
and their very capable staffs.
  This is the earliest the House has passed the final version of the 
NDAA in 41 years, which is a remarkable feat. A considerable amount of 
time and effort has been put into this product, and I know I join other 
Members of the House in expressing our deep gratitude for their 
efforts.
  This year's NDAA offers the next steps in our effort to rebuild our 
military and reform the Pentagon. I know many of us have been deeply 
troubled by the readiness crisis that struck the military over the last 
several years. This has resulted in training accidents and failures 
that took the lives of our servicemembers.
  To reverse that trend, this year's NDAA allows for increased funding 
for training, as well as $2.8 billion for the procurement of spare 
airplane parts.
  In response to recent naval incidents in the Pacific, the NDAA 
directs the Navy to review their operational chain of command and 
current training plans for surface warfare officers. The strategy of 
peace through strength requires us to continue to produce and procure 
the best tools and resources possible.
  In an effort to build toward President Trump's goal of a 355-ship 
Navy fleet, the NDAA authorizes the construction of new ships, 
including a Ford-class aircraft carrier, additional Virginia-class 
attack submarines, and three littoral combat ships.
  Given the range of challenges in the nuclear domain, the NDAA 
supports the Nuclear Posture Review's recommendation to pursue a lower-
yield ballistic warhead while also making important investments in our 
missile defense programs.
  Very important, the NDAA authorizes a 2.6 percent pay raise for our 
servicemembers, which is the highest increase in 9 years. This is 
critical to recruiting and retaining the best and the brightest.
  Additionally, this NDAA focuses on policies specific to Russia, 
China, North Korea, and Iran, as well as provisions relating to 
nonstate actors and terrorist organizations.
  I am also pleased that the conference report contains a compromise 
final version of the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. 
Congress has come together in a strong bipartisan manner to recognize 
the growing threat of countries like China in weaponizing financial 
investment, threatening our advanced technologies, and undermining our 
defense industrial base.
  The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, known as 
CFIUS, is an interagency body led by the Treasury Department tasked 
with reviewing foreign investment for national security concerns. 
However, United States law governing CFIUS has not been modernized for 
more than a decade, and it is not designed to address today's modern, 
evolving threats.
  The Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act gives CFIUS 
much-needed additional authority to address real national security 
threats without unduly burdening foreign investment in the American 
economy and slowing American economic growth in the process.
  I could go on and on about the important reforms and priorities in 
this legislation, but these should give you an idea of our focus on 
standing up to our adversaries and supporting our servicemen and -
women.
  Mr. Speaker, just this past weekend, I was able to spend time with 
some of these fine servicemen and -women in the Pacific, where they are 
taking part in the RIMPAC naval exercise, the largest in the world.
  It is amazing to see the work these young men and women, some of them 
very young, do on a daily basis. Whether it is landing planes on an 
aircraft carrier or steering a massive warship, these individuals are 
asked to carry out incredibly complicated and dangerous tasks, and they 
do it exceedingly well.
  It is the least we can do to show these courageous and patriotic 
Americans we have their backs by passing this NDAA on a strong 
bipartisan basis.
  We deal with a lot of complicated and, frankly, divisive issues in 
this body, but, today, on this issue, I hope we can show, for our 
national security and the people who devote so much to keep us safe, we 
can rise above the divisiveness of today's politics.
  Let's pass the NDAA for the 58th straight year and make sure all our 
servicemen and -women know we have their backs. I urge my colleagues to 
join me in supporting House Resolution 1027 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, 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 gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne) for the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the work of the conferees this year is to be commended. 
I don't want the gentleman from Alabama to faint that I am saying 
something nice, but the bottom line is that the conferees did a great 
job. They worked hard and fast to get this NDAA conference report to 
the floor today. It has been just 2 months since we brought the rule 
for the House version of the bill forward for consideration.

[[Page H7694]]

  In fact, and I don't get to say this enough, this process has been an 
example of how Congress should operate. Members brought their ideas 
forward when the original bill was being considered. The Rules 
Committee made amendments in order. We had some real debates here on 
the floor, and the conference committee has now done its job. That is 
how this body is supposed to work.

  But under this majority, it is the exception and not the norm. Bills 
often come before the Rules Committee without being considered by the 
relevant committees first. More than half of the rules that the 
majority brings to the floor are unamendable.
  All too often, the Rules Committee is where democracy goes to die. 
Regular order seems like a thing of the past. It shouldn't be that way, 
but, all too often, it is. That is why this process is so notable.
  Mr. Speaker, why are we using this process for only things like the 
NDAA bill? Why not for other urgent matters, like addressing gun 
violence, stabilizing our healthcare market, or reforming our Tax Code? 
Wouldn't it be nice if Congress tackled all problems like this?
  Now, this process made the NDAA bill better. Many harmful 
environmental provisions, thankfully, were removed. That includes 
language that would have prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from 
listing the sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act for a decade.
  I am also grateful that the conferees honored the sacrifice of the 
atomic veterans. The past three House versions of the NDAA included 
language that would award them a service medal honoring their sacrifice 
and service, which was carried out in secret and at great personal 
cost. It was adopted with near-unanimous votes. But, each time, it has 
been dropped in conference.
  This year, though, the conferees have agreed to provide the atomic 
veterans a certificate of recognition and, in the manager's statement, 
have gone further by encouraging the Secretary of Defense to consider 
an appropriate medal or award to recognize radiation-exposed 
servicemembers.
  For the life of me, I can't understand why it is so hard for the 
Pentagon to honor these proud veterans with a service medal. Over 
three-quarters of atomic vets have already passed away, many 
prematurely from health problems directly related to their service to 
our Nation. They and their families deserve a medal.
  For the Record, I would like to say that I remain committed to making 
sure that they receive that recognition, and I hope the chairman and 
ranking member will add their voices to encouraging the Secretary of 
Defense to do the right thing and confer a medal that recognizes the 
courage, the sacrifice, and the service of the atomic veterans.
  So, there are good things in this bill. That includes the increase in 
pay for our Nation's military. Many members of our caucus will support 
this conference report as a result.
  Now, you would think the majority would want more bipartisan votes. 
It is possible, if they undertake a process like this more often. Let's 
bring regular order back from the dead.
  Although this bill has been strengthened, Mr. Speaker, I cannot 
support it because very real weaknesses remain.
  This conference report still endorses President Trump's plan to 
develop new low-yield nuclear warheads. A ban on developing these 
warheads has been in place for 15 years. Lifting it now could 
drastically impact our strategic stability at a time when the President 
is already upending our foreign policy.
  Now, let's also talk about what is not included here. The conference 
report does not have language that would finally force this Congress to 
debate its role abroad. That is not because an amendment wasn't 
offered. In fact, I put a bipartisan amendment forward with my 
colleagues, Representatives Jones, Lee, Garamendi, Kildee, and Welch.
  The amendment was pretty simple. It said any escalation of U.S. 
troops in Afghanistan over the next fiscal year put forward by the 
President or the Pentagon would have to be debated by Congress. We 
would have 30 days after a report was issued for Congress to either 
disapprove of the escalation or allow it to move forward. That is it.
  It wasn't a radical idea, at least not to me or many of my 
colleagues. But it must have been to Republican leadership, because 
they did what they always do when pressed to pass a new AUMF or to have 
legitimate debates on the war in Afghanistan and other wars: They 
blocked us from even having a debate on the House floor.
  Republicans will apparently try anything to avoid a debate on this 
subject. We submitted a similar amendment to the Rules Committee last 
year during the NDAA consideration, and the majority advanced an 
alternative amendment that called for the administration to release a 
report on our strategy in Afghanistan instead.
  A study is not a serious attempt at congressional oversight of our 
foreign policy. The Trump administration must not have thought so 
either, since they never even bothered to send the report to Congress. 
It was more than 100 days late. Magically, it appeared shortly after 
the House had already debated and approved the NDAA. And, frankly, Mr. 
Speaker, it wasn't worth the paper it was written on.
  Mr. Speaker, do my Republican friends even care that Congress is 
abdicating our responsibilities? We should be debating our role in 
Afghanistan. The administration has sent more than 4,000 additional 
servicemembers to fight over there in this last year. There are now 
more than 12,000 of our constituents there today.
  Mr. Speaker, don't my Republican colleagues want to have a say over 
whether their constituents are sent to fight abroad? We are 17 years 
into this war. There is no end in sight. The least we could do is spend 
10 minutes debating our foreign policy on the House floor.
  There are reports that the President is frustrated with his Afghan 
policy, that he may call for a review of our role there. Well, Mr. 
Speaker, shouldn't Congress have a role in that new strategy? Maybe the 
Republicans are afraid to take on President Trump. They send angry 
tweets and critical press releases sometimes, but when it comes to 
actually doing something, they lose their nerve.

  Just take ZTE. Many members of the majority were outraged when the 
President announced plans to prop up this Chinese tech company. 
President Trump tweeted: ``Too many jobs in China lost.'' Apparently, 
his policy of ``America First'' quickly became ``China First.''
  His move came after the Secretary of Commerce had banned U.S. 
companies from exporting any parts to ZTE. President Trump undercut his 
own Commerce Secretary, urging him to reverse this ban. It was an 
about-face from an administration that has become defined by saying one 
thing one day and doing another the next.
  Republicans joined Democrats on both sides of the Capitol in pledging 
to reimpose the penalties the President reversed. Language banning 
government agencies from using or procuring technology made by ZTE were 
included in both the House and Senate bills. The Senate had stronger 
language, which I was hoping would be included here. If it were, I 
think it would pass. But a funny thing happened as this report was 
hashed out. Republicans went with the watered down House language 
instead.
  Mr. Speaker, actual leadership requires standing up and doing 
something and going against the President when he is wrong. But this 
majority has proven again and again and again that they aren't willing 
to do that, no matter what the President says or does.
  We saw that after President Trump cozied up to Vladimir Putin in 
Helsinki. He stood with a dictator over the American intelligence 
community. It was a disgrace, and the majority did nothing.
  They even blocked our attempt to get a simple debate on the Quigley 
amendment. That would have provided funds to strengthen our election 
system against future hacking by bad foreign actors like Russia.
  Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with this President? What is wrong with my 
friends on other side of the aisle? We should be passing amendments to 
protect our election system. We ought to be passing the Engel 
resolution, condemning what the President did.
  This is already the most closed Congress in history. Most bills that 
come to the floor can't even be amended by anybody, Republican or 
Democrat.

[[Page H7695]]

  


                              {time}  0930

  It is ``my way or the highway'' with this majority. That is bad 
enough, Mr. Speaker. But now we can't even debate protecting our 
democracy, just like we can't debate our military's role abroad.
  We have gone from being the people's House to being more like Putin's 
House. It is disgusting, quite frankly. The last time I checked, this 
was still America, where Congress is supposed to actually debate. Let's 
act like it.
  Mr. Speaker, I have spoken about the need for bills to go through the 
committee and conference process. That happened here. The NDAA report 
was crafted in a bipartisan manner.
  I can't vote for the underlying bill for all of the reasons I have 
discussed. That includes the lack of an AUMF. But when the process is 
better, we should recognize that. For that reason, I will be voting for 
this rule. I hope that we consider more bills through a similar 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the gentleman.
  I would remind the gentleman that this so-called closed Congress has 
passed over 600 bills. Record numbers of bills have been passed by this 
Congress. This is a remarkably productive Congress, and all of us 
should take pride in the fact that over 80 percent of those bills were 
passed in a bipartisan fashion. So we have every reason to be proud of 
the work that we have done here not just this year, but last year as 
well.
  I also want to address what the gentleman had to say about an AUMF. 
We, indeed, as a Congress have a role to play in the foreign defense 
policy of this country. The bill that underlies this resolution that we 
have today is the National Defense Authorization Act. It is several 
hundred pages of policy that is set by the Congress. So we are 
participating in a very active fashion, both in oversight and in 
helping set this policy.
  I am very proud of the work that the members, Democrats and 
Republicans, in the House Armed Services Committee have done. This bill 
shows that Congress has a constitutional role that we are fulfilling. 
And I believe the very strong, bipartisan vote we are going to see on 
the bill demonstrates that all of us, or at least most of us, the vast 
majority of us, feel the same way.
  I want to say this very clearly. The young men and women who serve us 
every day abroad and put their lives at risk deserve from us not 
partisan divisiveness on this day, they deserve our unity. They deserve 
to hear from us that we are not going to sit and have some partisan 
bickering but that we have their back. If we can't do that on this day, 
then we need to all go home this August and reexamine our consciences.
  There are other days and other times to debate other issues, but on 
this day, let's stand up as one House and as one country for the men 
and women who wear the uniform of the United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Alabama that he 
may want to defend a process where the majority of bills that have come 
to this floor have come under a process where nobody can offer an 
amendment. I think that is undemocratic. I think that goes against what 
this House is supposed to be about. It is one of the reasons why so 
many of the bills that come through here, quite frankly, are deeply 
flawed, because everybody is shut out of the process.
  This is the most closed Congress in the history of the United States 
of America. Nearly 60 percent of the bills that have come to the floor 
have come under closed rules. Now, you expect that in Russia, you 
expect that in China or Turkey, but you don't expect that in the 
people's House.
  It is unbelievable to me that my friends defend this process. When 
you throw in bills that don't need a rule, the suspension bills--post 
offices and a lot of bills that, quite frankly, are inconsequential--
you can rack up the numbers.
  The bottom line is the Rules Committee has become a place where good 
ideas are blocked on a regular basis, and not just Democratic ideas, 
but a lot of Republican ideas.
  I respect the Members of this House, both Republicans and Democrats, 
enough to be able to say that, if they have good ideas, they ought to 
be brought to the floor. They ought not be blocked in the Rules 
Committee behind closed doors and never even know why they are blocked. 
But that is the pattern here. It has to stop.
  Maybe it is going to take an election for it to stop, but this is 
unacceptable. I think most people around the country who are paying 
attention to what is going on here are fed up.
  And just one other thing. When I talk about the need to debate the 
war in Afghanistan and these other wars where we put American lives in 
jeopardy, that is not partisan bickering. Most of these amendments have 
been bipartisan. What we are responding to is many of our constituents 
who have been deployed halfway around the world who come back and say: 
What the hell are you doing? Do you guys have any idea what is going on 
over here? Why aren't you talking about this? Why aren't you debating 
it?
  We have been in a war for 17 years and we can't even have a debate. 
We can't even have 10 minutes on the war in Afghanistan or our growing 
involvement in military conflicts around the world. It is outrageous.
  You can defend it if you want. It is irresponsible. And the fact that 
this Congress won't debate these issues, that is moral cowardice, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed one of the most disgraceful displays 
by an American President on foreign soil in our Nation's history when 
President Trump refused to stand behind our intelligence community and 
to, instead, side with Vladimir Putin. Putin, he sided with Putin.
  Then on Tuesday, via Twitter, the President changed his tune and 
said, ``I'm very concerned that Russia will be fighting hard to have an 
impact in the upcoming election,'' I guess apparently embracing the 
intelligence community again. And then he tweeted another tweet, 
basically saying that Russia is not involved in meddling in an 
election.
  I have to tell you, this President is messed up when it comes to the 
issue of Russia meddling in our election. I don't know what the 
Russians have on him, if anything, but the behavior out of this 
President is not normal, and it should concern every single person, no 
matter what your party affiliation is.
  Russia attacked our country. They meddled in our election. Everybody 
knows it. And we have a President of the United States who is going out 
of his way to cover it up, to make it seem like it never happened, to 
dodge the issue. We cannot count on him to protect our election system; 
let's just be honest about that.
  We need to step up in a bipartisan way. We need to hold Russia 
accountable for its election meddling, and we need to insist that these 
attacks on our democracy stop. Russia is not our ally. They are not a 
competitor. They are not our friends. We have to start acting like 
that.
  I am going to ask that if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Engel's and 
Representative Connolly's bill, H.R. 6494, the SECURE Our Democracy 
Act. Their bill would punish foreign entities who interfered with our 
elections, going back to 2015, and punish future attacks.
  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, the White House cannot be counted on to 
protect our elections. All they are interested in is protecting the 
President. We need to do the right thing.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Engel) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise because we will soon have a chance to vote on 
legislation that would punish those who attacked American democracy in 
2016

[[Page H7696]]

and would deter anyone who tries to do so in the future.
  The bill I introduced with Mr. Connolly, the SECURE Our Democracy 
Act, would slap tough sanctions on anyone found to interfere with an 
American election from overseas. It goes back to 2015, so it would 
include those who tried to put their thumb on the scale in favor of 
Donald Trump.
  We first introduced this bill in January of 2017, when it was 
becoming clear that Russia had waged a cyber warfare campaign against 
our election. Our updated version of this bill includes new 
congressional oversight provisions.
  Why?
  Because even if this bill passes, we don't trust the President to do 
the right thing, quite frankly. We don't believe he will do what it 
takes to protect our democracy, even after his own administration has 
told us over and over that Russia is at it again. After standing next 
to Vladimir Putin and accepting his lies over the unanimous conclusion 
of our intelligence community, how could we?
  So when the next vote is called, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have a choice to make. Will they vote to say to Putin, to our 
chief adversary, that we won't tolerate his attacks on our democracy, 
or will they again cede Congress' oversight role and continue to cover 
up for the President, who cozies up to Putin, who sides with him over 
our allies, and who continues to deny what everyone else knows is a 
fact?
  Make no mistake: The next vote is our opportunity to punish the 
criminals who interfered in our election, to send a message that there 
will be consequences for anyone who does so in the future. After this 
vote, every Member will be on the record, letting the world know where 
they stand.
  So I urge all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: vote to 
defeat the previous question. Vote to show Russia and Putin that we 
won't stand by while they continue to attack American democracy.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a vote against the previous question is a vote against 
this bill, which is there to defend America and support our servicemen 
and -women.
  Make no mistake about it: You can't change the subject. The subject 
is the defense of the country. The subject is standing behind our 
servicemen and -women.
  Now, let's make this clear. It was under the previous administration 
that Russia meddled in our elections, not under this administration. It 
was under the previous administration that Russia illegally seized 
Crimea. It was under the previous administration that we refused to arm 
the Ukrainians, who were simply trying to defend themselves. We are now 
arming them. This administration is doing that.
  I remember in the Presidential election of 2012, the Republican 
nominee for President said that the biggest threat to the United States 
of America is Russia, and he was laughed at. They are not laughing now.
  This bill provides what we need to have to pushback against Russia, 
to arm the people who want to fight against Russia, and to stand with 
our servicemen and -women. To try to distract from that with some 
debate over a previous question on something that has nothing to do 
with defending this country, I wish we wouldn't do that in this House.
  But I understand we have to make some partisan points before we leave 
here for August, and I a disappointed we are making those partisan 
points. We have an opportunity to stand up as one body and as one 
nation for our servicemen and -women.

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just correct the gentleman on one thing. Voting 
against the previous question is not voting against the bill. What it 
means is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It means that 
we can not only debate and vote on the defense conference report, but 
we can also debate Mr. Engel's and Mr. Connolly's bill. The gentleman 
is on the Rules Committee. He should know that. If we want to have this 
debate, we ought to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  And, by the way, we are talking about defending our country. Russia 
attacked us, in case you forgot, and we are trying to protect that from 
happening again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Connolly) to discuss our proposal for the previous question.
  Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Massachusetts 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just say to my friend from Alabama, he wraps himself 
in the uniform of our brave men and women who serve this country 
overseas and here at home as if there is a zero-sum game here. He 
either chooses them or he chooses to address the threat from Russia, 
but he can't do both. And I say to my friend: You go to those men and 
women and explain to them how our President of the United States could 
sit next to an adversary--a thug, a killer, someone who interfered in 
our election--and explain to them, out fighting for their country, the 
Commander in Chief wouldn't do it. You explain to them how that same 
Commander in Chief actually opined that maybe Crimea should be given 
up.
  What are we fighting for? What are our values?
  This is relevant. We need to defeat the previous question so that we 
can consider a debate about the role of Russia in interfering with the 
most sacred thing Americans do: vote.
  Our bill would sanction any foreign individual or entity found to 
have unlawfully meddled with a Federal election and would bar entry to 
this country and freeze U.S.-based assets of anyone involved in such 
interference.

                              {time}  0945

  President Trump's performance at the Helsinki Summit with Vladimir 
Putin underscores the need for this legislation, the very opposite of 
what my friend from Alabama is asserting.
  Time and again, the President refuses to acknowledge the unanimous 
conclusion of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that that happened; 
that Russia was a threat and directly interfered with our 2016 
elections.
  Mr. Trump's own Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coats, 
recently said: ``The warning lights are blinking red again. Today, the 
digital infrastructure that serves this country is literally under 
attack.''
  That is not some liberal Democrat. That is a former Republican 
Senator and the Republican appointee of a Republican President warning 
us this is a clear and imminent threat. So this is directly relevant.
  Defeating the previous question will allow us to have that discussion 
on the floor, because we love our country and we want to have a good 
answer to the men and women in uniform, my friend from Alabama keeps on 
invoking; that America hasn't given up. We are not going to roll over 
and play dead to our adversaries.
  We are going to candidly, on a bipartisan basis, acknowledge the 
threat to this country. And we are going to resist it, because we 
recognize their service and their willingness to put themselves on the 
line. Are we, is the question.
  I urge the defeat of the previous question and support for the bill 
Mr. Engel and I have introduced to try to address this very grave 
subject.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind my friends on the other side of the aisle 
that today Russia faces more sanctions than they have faced since the 
end of the Cold War; more sanctions today than under the previous 
administration. This Congress and this President is pushing back 
against Russia. I am proud of what we are doing to push back on him, 
and we may not be done with that yet. We may need to do more. I stand 
ready to do more.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman's proud of the 
President's performance in Helsinki, but I assure you, the majority of 
Americans were disgusted.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, first, thank the 
House and Senate conferees for their work. This fiscal year 2019 
Defense Authorization Act takes the crucial next steps to rebuild our 
military by making greater investments in training,

[[Page H7697]]

equipping, and providing for our forces. This bipartisan bill is 
essential to helping our troops prepare and respond to the complex 
security challenges we are facing around the world.
  But as we authorize the largest budget for defense since World War 
II, it is imperative that President Trump lead responsibly so we can 
ably defend ourselves and the values we stand for around the world.
  That includes: Enhancing U.S. defense posture in Europe and 
confronting Russian aggression.
  We provide record funding for the European Deterrence Initiative that 
deepens our commitment to our NATO allies.
  We strengthen our ability to combat ongoing Russian cyber campaigns 
that seek to undermine our democracy.
  And we prevent the administration from recognizing Putin's illegal 
annexation of Crimea.
  It requires the President to spend our defense dollars wisely.
  We should be focusing on increasing readiness and extending our 
warfighting edge, which is why the NDAA increases funding for training 
in each service, modernizes range and test facilities and boosts 
spending on maintenance and spare parts.
  And we in invest in modern equipment that have the capabilities to 
confront Russia and China and other emerging threats.
  We must also support the men and women who choose to wear the 
uniform. That is why we are providing our servicemembers with the 
largest pay raise in nearly a decade.
  And we are overhauling the Transition Assistance Program to provide 
servicemembers better-tailored resources as they prepare to enter 
civilian life.
  But we must do more to ensure that we extend and preserve the ability 
to honorably serve to every person in our armed forces, such as:
  The men and women deserving a harassment-free workplace.
  The Dreamer promised citizenship.
  Or the transgender American who wants to continue serving.
  The array of national security threats facing the United States is 
more complex and diverse and the strategic environment has never been 
more competitive. The Defense Authorization Act gives our military 
service components the tools and resources for the United States to 
maintain its military advantage, counter adversaries, and defend the 
international order that has created a safer and more prosperous world.
  Congress has done its job. Now the President must make the tough 
choices to implement the national defense strategy and truly safeguard 
our national security.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today with serious concerns about the missed 
opportunity in this legislation to take strong action against the 
Chinese firm, ZTE.
  Our telecommunications systems are the backbone of our national 
security operations, and those systems need to be protected to ensure 
the safety of our citizens.
  Not only did ZTE violate U.S. sanctions by illegally selling 
components to North Korea and Iran, it also paid full bonuses to the 
employees who engaged in illegal conduct, and then lied to U.S. 
authorities about it.

  Instead of sending a strong message to ZTE, the NDAA Conference 
Committee stripped language from the Senate bill to ban ZTE from doing 
business with all U.S. firms and replaced it with watered-down language 
that merely prohibits ZTE from doing business with the U.S. Government.
  This effectively gives ZTE a free pass for its past violations, and 
prioritizes a foreign company's interests over the security of the 
American people. This is wrong. Deal-making with ZTE is bad policy, and 
it sends a clear message to our adversaries that America is not willing 
to enforce our own sanctions.
  Earlier this year, I wrote to Secretary Ross raising my concerns with 
reports that the administration was backtracking on its recently 
imposed 7-year ban on ZTE. To my dismay, and I think to many others, 
the administration lifted the ban.
  The Senate-passed version of the bill would have restored the ban in 
full. So I am distressed that my colleagues have succumbed to pressure 
from the White House and watered down critically needed security 
protections.
  We are all public servants of the American people. The number one 
responsibility we have is to protect and defend them.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from California an additional 
30 seconds.
  Ms. ESHOO. We must not make deals with foreign entities that have a 
proven history of compromising our telecommunications sector and 
treating our laws with disdain. When we know for a fact that a certain 
company or country does not have our national interests at heart, we 
have no business doing business with them, period.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind the gentlewoman that in this bill, ZTE is 
prohibited from doing any business with the United States Government, 
and any company that does business with the ZTE is prohibited from 
doing business with the United States Government.
  If we did what she suggested we do, we would have to find some way to 
save a billion dollars out of mandatory spending under the Defense 
Department. There is very little mandatory spending over at the Defense 
Department.
  Let me tell you what it is. It is the retirement. It is what we 
require people to pay for their TRICARE, the people who have already 
served in the armed services. We have to make them pay more money for 
their healthcare.
  I don't want to penalize those people who have already served our 
country. I stand with them. For that reason, I think this bill is 
plenty strong against ZTE. I think we have reached a good compromise 
here.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ruiz).
  Mr. RUIZ. Mr. Speaker, the military burns their trash, including 
computers, plastic, and medical waste, in open-air burn pits, creating 
smoke with toxic chemicals like metals and carcinogens that pose 
serious health risks to our troops.
  Our servicemembers and veterans are developing severely debilitating 
pulmonary diseases, like pulmonary fibrosis and constrictive 
bronchiolitis, leaving them oxygen-dependent. And other young veterans 
are dying from rare cancers in the brain, pancreas, blood cells, and 
other locations.
  I am an emergency medicine physician and a public health expert. In 
public health and in medicine, it is practice that if there is a high 
enough suspicion of a harm that causes a severe enough illness, then we 
need to act on that suspicion, remove the harm, and treat the person.
  We can't wait 10 or 20 years for the perfect research study. We must 
act now. We must do that by simultaneously and immediately addressing 
these 4 points: First, stop our troops' exposure to dangerous burn pits 
out in the battlefield.
  Second, educate doctors, veterans, and servicemembers to help doctors 
understand the risks of being exposed to burn pits, and to help 
veterans and servicemembers understand the early signs of potential 
serious illness so they can get treatment early.
  Third, take care of burn pit exposed veterans and servicemembers at 
the VA and DOD, and ensure illnesses caused by burn pit exposure are 
recognized in their claims for disability benefits.
  Fourth, do more research that is needed to identify all the different 
health impacts exposure to burn pits can cause.
  The conference report for Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense 
Authorization Act includes two of my amendments

[[Page H7698]]

that will help address the first 2 points: Stopping the use of burn 
pits. And educating veterans and their caregivers about the health 
risks that could be connected to exposure to burn pits.
  My first amendment directs the Department of Defense to conduct a 
feasibility study on ending the use of dangerous burn pits by using 
incinerators and other technology.
  My second amendment requires the Department of Defense to conduct an 
annual education and outreach campaign to veterans exposed to burn pits 
and who are qualified to enroll in the burn pit registry.
  The burn pit registry will improve our understanding of the different 
health effects of exposure to burn pits and help our ability to 
communicate with veterans and increase their awareness of subtle 
changes in their health so that they could understand the early signs 
of potential serious illness.
  The Government must acknowledge the dangers of burn pits and the 
suffering of burn pit exposed veterans with severe illnesses. The 
Government has a responsibility to immediately provide them with the 
care and benefits they have earned while defending our freedoms.

  I want to thank the conferees and the ranking member and chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee for their support of my amendment and for 
including these amendments in the final conference report.
  Congress must continue to work together to provide solutions for our 
veterans and servicemembers exposed to these dangerous chemicals, 
toxins, carcinogens, and the smoke of burn pits.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the gentleman's amendments were 
included in the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 1 
minute remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, while I oppose the underlying conference report, for 
reasons that I have already articulated, I do support the rule because 
it reflects a good process where committees were respected, where the 
ranking members were respected. We went through a conference committee, 
which is something almost unheard of in this body, and so I think many 
of us, myself included, are reasonable when the majority behaves 
reasonably.
  But the bottom line is, there are a lot of issues that need to be 
addressed that aren't being addressed, and they are not being addressed 
because the Rules Committee routinely blocks good ideas from coming to 
the floor. So the only way we have an opportunity to bring up important 
issues is through procedural motions like defeating the previous 
question so we can bring up the Engel-Connolly bill, so we could 
actually stand up to Russia.
  So we are going to vote for the rule. We are asking you to stand up 
to Russia. I don't think that that is a bad exchange.
  So vote ``no'' on the previous question. Let's stand up to Russia 
before we go home. Let's do the right thing. Let's show the President 
that we have a spine, that we disagree with what he did and we are 
going to do the right thing here.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today we are here to talk about not only defending the 
United States of America from all of our adversaries, Russia, 
especially, but to stand behind the men and women in uniform. And, yes, 
I do associate myself with them.

                              {time}  1000

  I am not one of them, but I am one of their supporters. And I hope 
that the vast majority of us in this body will stand up with them and 
be their supporters today both on the previous question on the rule and 
also on the bill when it comes before the body.
  If we really want to push back against Russia, we will stop the 
games, and we will pass the rule, and we will pass the bill. That is 
how we stand up against Russia. Having a bitter, partisan debate before 
we do so only helps our enemies.
  Let's stand together on this issue. We will come back after the break 
in August and debate the other issues, but let's send a clear message 
to those brave young men and women, that we have their back. We can do 
that by doing our duty today.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
1027 and the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 1027 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     6494) to expose and deter unlawful and subversive foreign 
     interference in elections for Federal office, 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 
     Foreign Affairs. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At 
     the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6494.

        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

[[Page H7699]]

     for those who oppose the Republican majority's agenda and 
     allows those with alternative views the opportunity to offer 
     an alternative plan.

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  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 226, 
nays 183, not voting 19, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 378]

                               YEAS--226

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     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
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vela
     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--183

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     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
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--19

     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     Ellison
     Gohmert
     Hanabusa
     Hudson
     Jones
     Labrador
     Marino
     Moore
     Pelosi
     Rice (NY)
     Rokita
     Speier
     Walz

                              {time}  1025

  Ms. WILSON of Florida changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. CHENEY and Mr. MacARTHUR changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________