[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8746-8753]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1960, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
             OF H.R. 1256, SWAP JURISDICTION CERTAINTY ACT

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 256 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 256

       Resolved, That at any time after the 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. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2014 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, 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 
     Armed Services. After general debate, 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.  Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1256) to 
     direct the Securities and Exchange Commission and the 
     Commodity Futures Trading Commission to jointly adopt rules 
     setting forth the application to cross-border swaps 
     transactions of certain provisions relating to swaps that 
     were enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 
     Consumer Protection Act. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendments 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill shall be considered as adopted. The bill, 
     as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate, 
     with 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Agriculture; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 3.  The chair of the Committee on Agriculture is 
     authorized, on behalf of the committee, to file a 
     supplemental report to accompany H.R. 1947.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. NUGENT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. House Resolution 256 provides for House consideration of 
two separate pieces of legislation. The first of these bills is H.R. 
1256, the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act, which will be considered for 
1 hour, with time divided between the Committees on Financial Services 
and Agriculture, under a closed rule.
  Secondly, and the reason why I am so proud to be the sponsor of this 
rule, H. Res. 256 provides for 1 hour of general debate for this year's 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  The Rules Committee traditionally receives hundreds of amendments to 
the NDAA; and with just under 300 submitted by the end of the day 
yesterday, this year is no different. Therefore, as is the tradition 
for this bill, this first rule in the NDAA consideration process 
provides for general debate while a second will provide for 
consideration of the plethora of amendments we have before us.
  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the 
honor of helping craft this legislation for the past few months. As I 
think anybody can imagine, when you're talking about a bill that 
authorizes the Department of Defense, there is a lot to discuss and 
consider. That point was illustrated by our full committee markup in 
the Armed Services Committee last week, which started first thing 
Wednesday morning and went through to almost 3 a.m. on Thursday, 16 
hours. We worked long and hard, and I'm proud of the product we've 
presented to this House for consideration.
  But for as much time and effort that we on the Committee on Armed 
Services put into the Defense Authorization Act, I know that other 
Members who don't serve on our committee will want to make their mark 
on this bill, too. To ensure that the House has an opportunity to 
really have a comprehensive, free-flowing debate on such an important 
topic, we've decided to break the rule for the Defense Authorization 
Act into two parts.
  That's why today's rule provides us with 1 hour of general debate 
time. It gets us started on the path to consideration. It also allows 
Members from both sides of the aisle to have a full discussion about 
the broader themes running through this base legislation. There are 
important debates, and the sooner we get them started, the better. But 
with nearly 300 amendments submitted to the National Defense 
Authorization Act, the truth is we on the Rules Committee couldn't give 
each and every amendment the full weight and consideration it deserves 
and produce a comprehensive rule that starts debate on the full bill 
and all amendments today.

                              {time}  1350

  If something's worth doing, it's worth doing it right. Therefore, 
while the House works on the Swap Jurisdiction Certainty Act and starts 
general debate on the NDAA, we, on the Rules Committee, will return to 
the committee room and we'll continue to sift through all the 
amendments that Members have offered on this bill.
  We want to make sure the House has the opportunity to weigh in on 
each and every important issue in the NDAA. That's why we need to take 
our time. And once we have a full understanding of the amendments 
submitted to the committee, we'll come back with a second rule setting 
the universe of amendments for this legislation.
  I know that we all share the same commitment to making this a fair 
and collaborative process. Quite frankly, it's the spirit of 
cooperation and the knowledge that we're serving a common purpose that 
has been one of the most gratifying parts of serving on HASC to date. 
As Chairman McKeon said to the Rules Committee yesterday, we may 
disagree sometimes, but it doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. 
We're able to put partisanship aside, and we know that our work 
directly impacts the life of each and every servicemember and his or 
her family in a personal and direct way.
  We're providing for the common defense, which is part of the Federal 
Government's most fundamental roles, part of our core mission, as I 
like to say. And if you want proof of how collaboratively we worked on 
this bill as a committee, you only need to look at the fact that we 
passed this bill out of committee 59-2. And as the father of three sons 
serving in the Army, I'm heartened to know that politics can be set 
aside when it comes down to making sure our troops are equipped with 
the tools that are required, funded at the levels they need, and 
trained for the mission at hand.
  This is an important time for our country and an important time for 
those members of the military who serve us every day. These young men 
and women put their lives on the line for us so we could be here today 
and debate the issues of the day. So they deserve our undivided 
attention and support when it comes to making sure

[[Page 8747]]

that they have everything that they need, and there's no more essential 
role for our Federal Government, in my opinion, as to what we are doing 
today.
  H.R. 1960 fulfills the promise to our warfighters and to their loved 
ones. I'm proud of this rule, which gets us on the road towards 
considering and passing this essential bill. For that reason, I support 
the rule. I support the underlying pieces of legislation and look 
forward to coming back here tomorrow in the next step of getting the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 passed.
  I encourage all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Nugent) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this should be a simple rule. Every year, this House 
considers the annual National Defense Authorization Act. It's a bill 
that reauthorizes our Nation's defense programs and a place where we 
should have the opportunity to debate some of the most important issues 
facing this country and the world.
  The process is typically broken up into two parts: a rule providing 
for general debate on the National Defense Authorization Act and a rule 
providing for consideration of amendments to that bill. It's generally 
not a controversial process; although, the decisions made by the Rules 
Committee in allowing and preventing amendments from being considered 
can be controversial.
  And that's where this rule goes wrong. This is not the normal rule 
providing for general debate for the defense authorization bill. No, 
Madam Speaker, this rule is much more than that.
  Over the past 3 years, we've seen the Republican leadership in the 
House fixated on several things:
  They want to take health care away from millions of Americans by 
repealing ObamaCare;
  They want to destroy the social safety net through mindless budget 
cuts; and
  They want to weaken our financial system by repealing the Dodd-Frank 
Act that came out of the greatest fiscal crisis since the Great 
Depression.
  This rule, the rule that should be a simple general debate rule for 
the Defense Authorization Act, also makes in order H.R. 1256, the Swap 
Jurisdiction Certainty Act. Not only does this rule cram in this 
controversial bill, it does not allow one single amendment. That's 
right. This is a closed rule. That's not an open and transparent 
process, certainly not the one that Speaker Boehner promised.
  H.R. 1256 would require the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and 
the Securities Exchange Commission to jointly issue rules on the 
regulations of swaps transactions between the United States and foreign 
entities.
  H.R. 1256 automatically exempts transactions in countries with the 
nine largest swaps markets from U.S. regulations unless the CFTC and 
the SEC jointly determine that the regulations aren't broadly 
equivalent. Because many large U.S. financial institutions have 
subsidiaries outside of the United States, there are serious concerns 
that banks will seek to conduct swap transactions in countries with 
looser regulations to avoid U.S. oversight. And, Madam Speaker, it is 
important to note that many countries are far behind the United States 
in promulgating their rules on swaps.
  Why are we looking to allow foreign regulations to govern 
transactions involving U.S. companies that could ultimately impact our 
economy?
  During the markup in the Financial Services Committee, Ranking Member 
Maxine Waters offered an amendment to strike the presumption that 
foreign regulatory requirements satisfy U.S. swaps requirements, 
allowing the CFTC and the SEC to determine whether foreign regulatory 
requirements are comparable to U.S. requirements. Unfortunately, under 
this closed rule, the full House will not have the opportunity to 
consider a similar amendment to strengthen this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, this is yet another attempt to slow down the Dodd-
Frank rulemaking process, undermine the CFTC's work in regulating 
derivatives trading, and weaken the financial market regulations needed 
to protect our economy.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  This rule also allows, believe it or not, the Agriculture Committee 
to file a supplemental report to H.R. 1947, the farm bill 
reauthorization. Madam Speaker, this is a bill that cuts $20.5 billion 
from SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. While this report is just 
technical, and fulfills the committee's responsibilities following the 
markup of H.R. 1947, this rule is not the place for this report. And, 
more importantly, I want to make it crystal clear that I do not support 
these egregious cuts. It's a rotten thing to do to poor people during 
this tough economic time.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, let me discuss the least controversial part 
of this rule, the defense authorization bill. This rule allows the 
House to begin general debate on H.R. 1960, the FY 2014 National 
Defense Authorization Act.
  There is much to admire and support in this bill, and I commend the 
chairman and ranking member for working together to ensure the programs 
that provide benefits and support to our veterans and military retirees 
are adequately funded and that there will be no increases in TRICARE 
fees. Regrettably, there's also a great deal in this bill that should 
make every Member of this Chamber pause and think about our national 
security priorities:
  Should we be spending additional billions on Cold War nuclear weapons 
rather than on our troops, their families, and our veterans?
  Should we really be cutting funds and putting obstacles in the way of 
implementing the New START Treaty with Russia, limiting both our 
nations' ability to further reduce and verify our nuclear arsenals?
  Should we be committing hundreds of millions this year and billions 
of dollars in the future to an east coast missile defense site that the 
Pentagon says it doesn't want and doesn't need?
  Should we continue to set up roadblocks and obstruct the President's 
efforts to resolve the issue of how to effectively and safely close the 
detention facilities at Guantanamo Naval Station, appropriately release 
and return to their families those prisoners who have been cleared of 
all charges, and bring to justice once and for all those few remaining 
prisoners who were indeed engaged in heinous acts of terrorism?
  And once again, Madam Speaker, the committee provides $85.8 billion 
for the war in Afghanistan through the Overseas Contingency Operations 
account. That's $5 billion more than what the President and the 
Pentagon asked for.
  Now let me just say a couple of words about the OCO account. It is an 
off-budget account. It is another $85 billion on the Nation's credit 
card--deficit spending, pure and simple. It is the lingo of ``emergency 
spending,'' as if it were an unexpected surprise that we will still be 
in Afghanistan throughout all of FY 2014.
  I have always been concerned that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
and the ever more amorphous and hard-to-define global war on terror, 
have not been included in the Pentagon's base budget but always outside 
that budget, with an ``emergency'' designation so that we don't have to 
figure out how to pay for it now. We'll just pay for it later and later 
and later. I'm increasingly concerned that, even after we transition 
all combat military and security operations over to the Afghan 
Government by the end of 2014, the OCO will still go on.
  It is time to phase out the OCO, put this spending back into the base 
spending bill, and if we want to make war, then we ought to figure out 
a way to pay for it or make the appropriate cuts in other Pentagon 
programs to make room for the funding of these operations.

                              {time}  1400

  Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say a few words about the strong 
concerns this Congress has, on both sides of the aisle, about the 
epidemic of sexual assault in all branches of our military.

[[Page 8748]]

This bill includes several measures that will strengthen the 
investigation and prosecution of these heinous crimes inside our 
military. It also provides new protections for victims of military 
sexual assault. It reflects the bipartisan work of Representative 
Turner, my Massachusetts colleague, Representative Tsongas, as well as 
Representatives Walorski, Noem, Castro, and Loretta Sanchez. However, 
Mr. Speaker, there is still much more that should and can be done to 
ensure these brutal rapes and assaults are fully investigated and 
prosecuted, the victims treated with respect, and to advance education 
in our military academies and among our ranks and our officer corps.
  Several amendments were submitted to the Rules Committee, and I hope 
that they will be made in order so that we can more fully debate this 
critical issue and how to end rape and sexual assault within our Armed 
Forces.
  Let me just add, Mr. Speaker, that while the NDAA looks to strengthen 
protections and prosecutions inside our military, we here in Congress 
are also to blame for having failed in our oversight responsibilities. 
Congress has not given the attention to military sexual assault that it 
deserves. So I think that we do need to clean up our own House and 
ensure that Congress does a far better job of oversight to ensure that 
the Pentagon and all our military members are held accountable for 
preventing, reducing, and prosecuting cases of sexual assault and abuse 
in our Armed Forces and providing victims with the services and support 
that they deserve.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm always ambivalent about the annual defense 
authorization bill. I support the programs for our veterans and our 
retirees, and I support providing for the genuine needs of our 
servicemen and -women, whether they are based here at home or abroad. 
But I cannot support the amount of waste, the spending on unnecessary 
and often ridiculous programs, on more nukes, on outdated weapons, and 
on wars that never end.
  As we begin general debate on the defense bill later today, I ask my 
colleagues to keep these questions in mind.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, this rule is unnecessarily complicated and 
misguided. There is no reason to include yet another bill gutting Dodd-
Frank in this rule, and there's no reason to cram into this rule a 
report from the Agriculture Committee about a bill that will make 
hunger worse in America.
  For these reasons, I oppose this rule, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the rule for these three measures, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, about 5 years ago in my community, we were 
saddened to hear of the news of the tragic death of Marie Lauterbach. 
Marie Lauterbach was a marine who came forward to report the sexual 
assault that she had endured and came forward and reported her belief 
of a subsequent pregnancy from that sexual assault, only to have the 
Marines inform her and the accused in the sexual assault, the 
perpetrator, that they would wait until her baby was born, and when the 
baby was born, they would do DNA testing. And if the DNA testing 
showed, in fact, that the baby was the accused's, then they would move 
forward with the prosecution. Until then, they left the two in close 
proximity until the accused murdered Marie Lauterbach in her eighth 
month of pregnancy and burned her in her backyard in a bonfire.
  It was at that time that I saw that the issue of sexual assault in 
the military was not just one of unacceptable numbers, it was an issue 
of an environment where victims were re-victimized and perpetrators 
felt safe.
  Mr. Speaker, a recent survey in the military indicated that 28,000 
servicemembers have indicated that they were sexually assaulted, but 
less than 3,000 of those were willing to actually report it in a manner 
that would result in charges against their accused. We think we know 
why: because 62 percent of the slightly less than 3,000 indicated that 
they felt that they were persecuted in the workplace for having done 
so. They were re-victimized.
  What we're doing in this NDAA is to ensure that that culture shifts, 
that the perpetrators are those that fear the system, and the victims 
are those that will feel embraced. We change the relationship between 
the commander and the victim, moving the responsibility for both the 
prosecution and the handling of those cases and diminishing the direct 
commander's authority over the disposition of sexual assault cases when 
a conviction has occurred. We expand legal counsel for victims, making 
certain that victims have beside them someone who can advise them in 
the legal processes, and we remove the chain of command's authority in 
the disposition of these cases and establish a mandatory minimum.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we include mandatory minimums that say if 
you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military, you will be 
dishonorably discharged, and if you are a trainer and you enter into a 
trainer-trainee relationship that is inappropriate, you are out. No 
longer will a victim be forced to salute their predator or their 
accused. These provisions are incredibly important. They're ones we 
worked with on a bipartisan basis.
  I want to thank my cochair of the Military Sexual Assault Prevention 
Caucus, Niki Tsongas. I also want to thank Ranking Member Smith and the 
chairman, Buck McKeon, and also the chairs of the Subcommittee on 
Military Personnel, Susan Davis and Joe Wilson.
  This is a matter on which we've worked together very thoughtfully. At 
the same time, we know that Chairman Dempsey, Secretary Hagel, and 
former Secretary Panetta have made this a significant issue to address 
in the military. What we're trying to do on a legislative basis is to 
give them the tools to, once again, make perpetrators fear the system 
and hold them accountable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the Financial Services 
Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises, 
Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership. I commend the work of Mr. Turner and 
others for strengthening protections for women in the military, but 
it's not enough. The amendments from Jackie Speier and other women 
leaders were not included. We need an open rule where all of these 
ideas can come to the floor to protect our men and women in the 
military.
  The status quo in the military is not a way to solve the problem of 
sexual abuse. Too often, it is the problem. Every year that I have been 
in Congress, the military brass has come to us and said that they will 
stop this abuse. Yet each year, it seems to be getting worse. Women are 
even afraid to report it. They're then afraid that they'll be punished 
in some way.
  Despite the widespread public and congressional outrage, some top 
military officers still seem to resist important, fundamental changes 
to a culture that has clearly failed in one of its single, most 
important missions: keeping its own people safe. And the casualties are 
mounting every day.
  For example, a U.S. military officer overseeing sexual assault 
prevention at Fort Hood in Texas is under investigation for his sexual 
assault of soldiers. The officer in charge of the Air Force's sexual 
abuse prevention program was recently arrested for groping women. We 
need to end the culture of tolerating the abuser and punishing the 
victims.
  We created a database for them to report in, but they won't report 
because they are afraid of retaliation. Too often they've seen if 
you're a woman who's been raped and abused, then you're told to be 
quiet. If you report it, you'll be punished, but if you're the abuser, 
you might end up in charge of the sexual abuse prevention program and 
get a promotion.

[[Page 8749]]

  The strongest military in the world has got to learn how to protect 
its own soldiers. It's got to keep them from being wounded by rape and 
sexual assault. We need to stop this, allow an open rule, and allow 
amendments on this important protection of our soldiers.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that everybody 
knows that there were almost 300 amendments that have been submitted, 
and they'll be discussed later today, and Mr. McGovern is a part of 
that process and will be discussing those amendments today.
  But I agree with both of my colleagues as it relates to sexual 
assault in the military. Having only been on Armed Services now for 6 
months, I will tell you that I agree with Mr. McGovern, particularly as 
it relates to oversight. And I believe that this Congress should 
exhibit and utilize its oversight capacity to the fullest, especially 
as it relates to sexual assault within the military.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from New York, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Appropriations, Mrs. Lowey.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, military cohesion is eroding and trust is 
disintegrating throughout the ranks as sexual assault infests the 
services. An Air Force officer charged with sexual assault prevention 
efforts here in Washington was arrested for sexual battery last month.

                              {time}  1410

  West Point and the Naval Academy have made recent headlines about 
assaults involving athletes. Alarmingly, the military academies 
reported 80 cases of sexual assault last year, a 23 percent increase; 
and too many cases go unreported.
  We trust the service academies to mold our sons and daughters for 
service to our country. Cadets and midshipmen are of an impressionable 
and often vulnerable age, requiring stronger protections against sexual 
assault and better support for victims.
  The culture that is propelling this epidemic must change. I urge 
support for the sexual assault provisions in the NDAA.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), the ranking member of the 
Armed Services Subcommittee on Intelligence, Emerging Threats and 
Capabilities.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, while I rise in opposition to this rule, I want to 
express my strong support for the underlying bill, H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act.
  This legislation is not perfect; however, it ensures support for our 
men and women in uniform who sacrifice so much on our behalf, and 
includes provisions that are crucial to our military's future 
capabilities in this fiscally constrained environment.
  Now, among other things, it fully supports the President's request 
for the peerless Virginia-class submarines, as well as critical future 
enablers such as the Ohio Class Replacement and the Virginia Payload 
Module.
  It also includes the Oversight of Sensitive Military Operations Act 
which, for the first time, requires prompt notification to the defense 
committees of any overseas lethal or capture operations outside of 
Afghanistan, including those conducted with unmanned aerial vehicles.
  Furthermore, I'm pleased that this measure begins to tackle the 
epidemic of sexual assault in our military. Our people in uniform need 
to know that they are protected from and against sexual assault, and 
God forbid if there is a sexual assault that occurs, that the 
perpetrator is held accountable.
  While far more must be done, there are important first steps in this 
bill that are worthy of our strong support.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm also proud to work closely with Chairman Mac 
Thornberry, both in this bill and in numerous other provisions which 
fall under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Intelligence, 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities. Together, we have worked hard to 
increase resources for our Special Operations Forces, who are helping 
us confront shifting threats and unconventional battlefields, and to 
support our efforts in the cybersecurity realm.
  There are many other positive steps with regard to cyber in this 
legislation, including incentivizing new cybersecurity standards, 
ensuring U.S. Cyber Command has the proper authorities and the 
personnel in coordinating cybersecurity efforts with related 
disciplines.
  However, the reality is that our Nation's cybersecurity challenges 
cannot simply be handed over to the Department of Defense. With the 
vast majority of our critical infrastructure in private hands, we 
absolutely must require minimum standards for their owners and 
operators. It is way past time for Congress to move aggressively to 
partner with the private sector and address what I believe is our 
greatest national security vulnerability.
  Meanwhile, though I applaud DHS's efforts to coordinate the various 
approaches to cybersecurity found across the Federal Government, I 
continue to believe that there must be an office within the White House 
with the policy and budgetary authority to enforce appropriate actions 
across the whole government. I'm disappointed the procedural and 
jurisdictional issues precluded offering such an amendment to the NDAA, 
but I am going to continue to work with my colleagues to enact what I 
believe to be a crucial provision.
  Finally, I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, as 
well as Chairman Thornberry and all of my colleagues on the committee, 
but most especially the tireless HASC, for all of their efforts, which 
have been really Herculean in bringing this bill to the process of 
where we are today.
  I certainly urge my colleagues to support the National Defense 
Authorization Act.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak about the U.S. detention facility 
at Guantanamo Bay.
  Continued operation of the facility at Guantanamo weakens U.S. 
national security, wastes resources, damages our relationships with key 
allies, and reinforces anti-American propaganda led by groups like al 
Qaeda to recruit new enemies against the United States.
  In a time of war, the Commander in Chief must have the flexibility to 
execute important foreign policy and national security determinations. 
This includes how to treat detainees captured on the battlefield. The 
Commander in Chief having this authority is not a new concept to this 
Congress. In fact, under President Bush, some 530 detainees were 
transferred from Gitmo with Congress' support. Restrictions placed by 
Congress to prevent this President from making these decisions are not 
prudent.
  In addition to foreign policy and national security consideration, 
the facility at Guantanamo is also a waste of scarce resources. DOD 
estimates that the cost to run Guantanamo Bay is around $150 million a 
year. In a time when we're making sequestration cuts to programs here 
at home, we're spending approximately $1 million per detainee each 
year. This makes Guantanamo Bay literally the most expensive detention 
facility in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to give the President the flexibility he needs 
to operate Guantanamo Bay.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, sexual assault in the military continues to 
be a serious problem. Given both the headlines and the reality, this is 
an understatement. It impacts thousands of servicemen and -women each 
year. And while Congress has investigated and discussed this problem 
for more than

[[Page 8750]]

two decades, the issue remains pervasive. It's time for us to act. 
Recent reports that assault is happening by individuals who are 
supposed to protect and command our servicemembers make this all the 
more concerning.
  According to a recent 2012 Pentagon survey, an estimated 26,000 
sexual assaults in the military occurred in that year. That's a 35 
percent increase since 2010. It means that roughly 70 servicemen and -
women are sexually assaulted every single day. And I know from my own 
long history and experience of working on these issues that where there 
are 26,000, there are many, many more. And we know that only a fraction 
of these incidents are reported; fewer than 3,400 reported incidents 
every year.
  Sexual violence has a longstanding impact on servicemen and -women 
and their families. According to the Service Women's Action Network, 
while experiences of sexual violence are strongly associated with a 
wide range of mental health conditions for men and for women veterans, 
military sexual trauma is the leading cause of PTSD among women. Due to 
shame, guilt, or fear of not being believed, fewer than 15 percent of 
these sexual assaults are reported to the proper authorities.
  As a former domestic violence and sexual assault advocate, I 
understand that coming forward is an unimaginably tough thing to do, 
and I commend every single one of the men and women who had the courage 
to come forward and name their accused. Their fear of coming forward is 
not imagined; it's real. Victims of sexual assault face a lack of 
confidentiality, protection, support, and access to legal counsel once 
an incident is reported. This is profound in the military and it has 
profound consequences.
  We have to act and stand together as a Congress and as a Nation to 
declare that the problem can't go on, and we have to work now to stamp 
out the violence within the military.
  We have to ensure that the Guard and Reserve have response 
coordinators available at all times regardless of their duty status, 
and to ensure that each service has a robust investigative team, with 
clarity and consistency among the services.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady 1 additional minute.
  Ms. EDWARDS. Our hope is to ensure that zero tolerance for sexual 
assault in the military is the norm.
  I want to say that some have pointed to a culture issue within the 
military that contributes to the problem. You know what, that might be 
true; but we cannot use culture as an excuse. It has to be a challenge 
and a commitment to change throughout the chain of command.
  Some have pointed as well to say that this is just endemic within the 
military. As somebody who grew up in a servicemember family as one of 
four daughters, I can't lay this blame on the fact of service. I know 
that in the civilian sector a relatively small number of perpetrators 
commit the overwhelming number of crimes. So let's root out the 
criminals within the military. We have to commit ourselves to making 
sure that we do that and hold them accountable, hold their commanders 
accountable, punish people for crime, and stop promoting perpetrators 
and transferring the problem from one installation to the next 
installation. This enforceability and accountability has to happen 
throughout the command structure, no excuses and no exceptions.

                              {time}  1420

  It's the service that my father sacrificed for and that millions of 
others do that we have to honor. We do that by protecting the men and 
women who serve by saying to them: We want you to serve your country, 
but we want to make sure that you can do it in safety and that those 
who are criminals are held accountable.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for 
yielding.
  I rise in support of the progress this underlying bill makes in 
combating military sexual assault. Sexual assault in the military 
continues to be a serious problem. In 2012, an average of 70 servicemen 
and -women were sexually assaulted each and every day. This is 
unacceptable. Moreover, only a fraction of these are reported. Fewer 
yet are prosecuted.
  More needs to be done at every level to establish comprehensive 
uniform solutions. I am pleased to see that this bill offers a renewed 
determination to stop these unacceptable crimes that undermine the 
strength and honor of our military. The included provisions make 
progress to increase transparency with new victim protections and 
services, and improved processes to hold offenders accountable.
  But we must do more. We must work diligently to put an end to this 
problem so we can again--with full confidence--encourage our daughters 
and sons to serve this great country.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me time.
  Seventy men and women serving in the military every single day are 
sexually assaulted and raped. While we sit here and we talk, that's 
going on.
  For over 25 years--for over 25 years--we have known about this 
problem and we have done very little. Aberdeen, Tailhook, the military 
academies, Lackland, all of these are happening under our collective 
watch, and we have found it acceptable to hold hearings, to bring the 
brass up here, have them say the right words--``zero tolerance''--and 
then we would go about our business. That is not good enough. And while 
the NDAA has some good fixes on the end of the process, we still have 
much to do on the front end.
  There is a reason why there are 26,000 sexual assaults and rapes a 
year in the military and only 3,300 have the guts to come forward. It's 
because if you come forward, you're retaliated against. Some 63 percent 
are retaliated against. And of those 3,300 that report, only 500 of 
those cases are going to go to court-martial and only 200 will end up 
in a conviction.
  So why would anyone report? Because your odds of getting justice are 
just not there. That's why it is important for us to have a debate on 
this House floor about taking these cases out of the chain of command. 
If it's in the chain of command, then you have the potential of having 
the assailant be the person making the decision, or the person making 
the decision--the commander--being the friend of the assailant, or the 
commander itching for a promotion, who is fearful that if they find out 
that there was a rape under their watch, that they won't get that 
promotion.
  Other countries have a similar Uniform Code of Military Justice. Ours 
is based on the British system. And the Brits and the Canadians and the 
New Zealanders and the Australians and the Israelis have all taken 
these cases out of the chain of command, and it's working. It's time 
for us to have that discussion as well.
  I urge my colleagues to embrace an amendment that I will take up in 
Rules Committee that will at least give us the opportunity to have this 
debate--this healthy debate--on the House floor. Otherwise, I will 
guarantee you in another 6 months, in another year, we will see yet 
another scandal, and we will not have changed anything.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Small 
Business, Ms. Velazquez.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this rule. Our Armed Forces face an epidemic 
that is tearing away this institution's moral credibility. Millions of 
patriotic young men and women who are considering

[[Page 8751]]

donning our Nation's uniform, must contend with the fact that our 
military has become a safe haven for sexual assault and rape.
  According to DOD's own estimate, on average, 70 servicemembers are 
sexually assaulted every day, with 26,000 of these incidents occurring 
last year alone. That represents a 30 percent increase from just 2 
years before.
  Keep in mind, this is the Department of Defense data. It is likely 
this problem is even more widespread than these numbers suggest. 
Equally troubling, only a sliver of about 3 percent of these cases were 
prosecuted. The horrifying fact is that tolerance of sexual assault has 
become part of the Armed Forces' culture. In too many cases, victims 
are further harmed by a system that protects offenders in the name of 
the chain of command. This is unacceptable. It must change, and it must 
change now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. The men and women who serve our Nation sacrifice 
enough. They should not have to worry about sexual assault at the hands 
of superiors and colleagues.
  It is time for real steps that end this permissive culture, hold 
sexual offenders accountable, and restore trust in our Armed Forces.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Brownley).
  Ms. BROWNLEY of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman of 
Massachusetts for yielding.
  It has already been stated--but it is worth repeating again--in 2012, 
26,000 servicemembers were sexually assaulted. If only one 
servicemember was assaulted, that is one too many.
  Sexual assault in the military is intolerable--period. It is a 
terrible entrenched cultural flaw of our military that allows victims 
to be abused without accountability or justice.
  While there are a number of legislative proposals to address this 
issue, the consensus is clear: we need a fail-safe solution that 
increases transparency and accountability so that the military no 
longer is a place where sexual assault is tolerated.
  I am pleased that H.R. 1960 takes steps to improve the military 
justice system. However, I do believe the bill does not go far enough. 
We must do a better job.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, I am loath to turn attention away from this 
critical topic, and I agree with all of my colleagues on it. But also 
part of this rule is H.R. 1256, which is entitled the Swaps 
Jurisdiction Certainty Act. This is a closed rule--they're not allowing 
any amendments on it--and it is bad policy. I urge members to vote 
``no.''
  This bill reminds me of the old adage that's often said that ``the 
past isn't dead. It isn't even past.''
  I'm referring to the global crisis--the global financial crisis--that 
a few years ago had every Member of this body absolutely on razor's 
edge as we wondered what was going to happen to the American economy, 
and we ended up seeing the TARP passed and all types of things to try 
to avert collapse.
  $13 trillion in lost wealth, Mr. Speaker, and still here we are 
looking at a bill--in a closed rule, mind you--that would allow 
offshore derivative swap trading to be beyond the jurisdiction of 
American regulators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

                              {time}  1430

  Mr. ELLISON. Let me just cut straight to the chase.
  Congress granted the Commodity Futures Trading Commission explicit 
authority in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 
Act to oversee all derivatives transactions with a direct and 
significant connection to the U.S. economy.
  That's a good idea--a $223 trillion industry. I think we need to 
protect our interests. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much.
  I rise to oppose the closed rule on H.R. 1256.
  H.R. 1256 really has no business being hidden in this bill at all. It 
is another attempt to keep the debate from taking place so that people 
will know what is happening when we are trying to have a regulatory 
regime that will protect us from having to bail out big institutions.
  We are simply saying that we can't allow our financial institutions 
to have subsidiaries overseas that are doing business and trading and 
putting us at risk. Every time they get involved in a trade in which 
they don't have comparable rules in that country, what we are doing is 
putting this country at risk that we are going to have to bail out a 
big financial institution because the harm will come right back to the 
parent company.
  We, in Dodd-Frank, have said that we must have comparable rules, that 
we must have regulatory regimes that are comparable to ours in order to 
do business and to do trading in order to protect against big 
institutions failing. So now we have this H.R. 1256 that would undo all 
of that and drag it back into the shadows, this derivatives trading, 
and put us all at risk. We can't even debate it. We can't even have an 
amendment because, again, they're trying to kill Dodd-Frank.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I would like to inquire of the gentleman from Florida 
how many additional speakers he may have.
  Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 1 additional minute to the ranking member of 
the Committee on Financial Services, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so much. I do appreciate this. This is so 
important.
  I am against this closed rule simply because we have mandated the 
kind of reform in Dodd-Frank that would keep us from ever being in the 
position in which we have to bail out these big institutions, and now 
we have so much organized push back and undermining of Dodd-Frank in 
which they are attempting to undo the reforms that we have done.
  Simply put, we cannot allow the branches and subsidiaries of these 
big broker dealers--these big banks--to go over and do trading with 
countries that don't have comparable rules. If we allow that to happen, 
we will be forced to do what we have seen with AIG, which was to bail 
them out to the tune of billions of dollars, and supposedly, we'd done 
reforms to keep from having to be in that position again. We will find 
that we will again be experiencing what happened with Goldman Sachs and 
others who ended up being the beneficiaries of our failed regulatory 
regime.
  So I am opposed to the closed rule. Vote against the closed rule, and 
then vote against the bill.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, I get it. The Republican majority wants to repeal Dodd-
Frank, and they're using every possible vehicle they can to undermine 
Dodd-Frank, which puts consumers at risk by their constant attack on 
protections that, I think, most people in this country think are 
reasonable.
  As you heard from Ms. Waters, the ranking member on the Committee on

[[Page 8752]]

Financial Services, and from Mr. Ellison, there is controversy around 
this bill. The thought that you would bring a bill like this to the 
floor that would weaken Dodd-Frank under a closed rule is really 
unforgivable, quite frankly. We ought to debate this. This is important 
stuff. There ought to be debates, and there ought to be amendments.
  On the defense authorization bill, I just want to say this for the 
record: while I have no opposition to your bringing the DOD bill up for 
general debate, I do want to express my concern that when the Rules 
Committee considers the amendments that they be fair-minded about it 
and that all major issues, including the issues raised by a number of 
my colleagues on sexual assault, are addressed.
  I also want to say that the war in Afghanistan ought to be debated on 
this floor. A central part of our defense budget right now is going to 
this war, and last year, we were shut out. I'm hoping that this year we 
will at least have the opportunity to bring an amendment to the floor, 
debate what our policy should be, and will let Members on both sides 
vote up or down.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' because this does allow H.R. 1256 
to come to the floor under a closed rule. That is wrong. This should be 
a more open and transparent process, especially when it comes to an 
issue that is so important.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, in closing, I support this rule and 
encourage my colleagues to support it as well. It allows the House to 
take action on two different but very important pieces of legislation.
  It provides us with an opportunity to force the SEC and the CFTC to 
finally and jointly promulgate rules governing the U.S. institutions' 
use of swaps and other financial derivatives while accessing 
international markets. This action will help ensure that we have a 
vibrant financial system and that American companies can manage the 
risks while remaining competitive in an international market. 
Additionally, it begins our consideration on the National Defense 
Authorization Act, providing the House with an hour of general debate 
on programs that make up our Department of Defense.
  As a Member of Congress, as a three Blue Star parent, and as an 
American, I can think of nothing more important than providing our 
military the tools that they need to carry out their missions. These 
brave men and women put their lives on the line for our Nation each and 
every day. This legislation isn't a thank-you to the troops, it's our 
duty as citizens to acknowledge that we live in the land of the free 
only because of the service of the brave.
  Mr. Speaker, we've heard a lot of discussion here on the floor, 
particularly as it relates to Dodd-Frank. First of all, this does not 
repeal Dodd-Frank. If it were a vote for a repeal of Dodd-Frank, I'd 
vote for it, but it's not a repeal of Dodd-Frank. As a matter of fact, 
this piece of legislation, the Swap Act, was actually voice voted out 
of the Agriculture Committee, which has joint jurisdiction over this 
piece of legislation. It was voice voted. In the Committee on Financial 
Services, 100 percent of the Republicans and two-thirds of the 
Democrats voted for its passage, so it isn't exactly as one would hear 
the other side say.
  When we talk about open rules, I think one of the things that 
distinguishes this Congress versus the 111th Congress is that this is 
one of the most open Congresses in the 112th Congress versus the 111th, 
which had absolutely zero open rules. I will remind my colleagues of 
that just because, as we talk about this and move forward on both of 
these issues, it's important to know that we have an open rule coming 
up in which we have almost 300 amendments that we are going to be 
considering in the Rules Committee in just a short period of time with 
the NDAA.
  Lastly, I hear my colleagues talk about how for 25 years they have 
allowed sexual assault to go unabated. I can hardly stomach the fact 
that this body would allow that to happen over the last 25 years. As a 
former law enforcement officer, as one who vigorously prosecuted cases 
of sexual assault and rape, it should be no different for our armed 
services.
  That is where my good friend Mr. McGovern had mentioned the oversight 
of armed services and of this House to make sure that we hold people 
accountable; to make sure, as other Members have talked about, that 
members of our military are kept safe, and that those who would prey 
upon members of their own military unit will find swift justice so that 
nobody can say there is not justice in regards to the fact, if you 
commit a rape or a sexual assault in the military, that you will be 
prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law; that we make sure that we 
have victim advocates for those who are assaulted, and that we have 
good investigators who focus on those types of crimes and have the 
forensics to back it up so you have a strong prosecution. I think 
that's what this NDAA bill is an attempt to do.

                              {time}  1440

  I strongly support the bill and the underlying legislation.
  With that, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  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 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of House Resolution 256 will be followed by 5-
minute votes on motions to suspend the rules on H.R. 634 and H.R. 742.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 239, 
nays 184, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 214]

                               YEAS--239

     Aderholt
     Alexander
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costa
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garcia
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Lankford
     Latham
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Radel
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stockman
     Stutzman
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack

[[Page 8753]]


     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--184

     Andrews
     Barrow (GA)
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera (CA)
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cicilline
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Enyart
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinojosa
     Holt
     Honda
     Horsford
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Campbell
     Cantor
     Chu
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Graves (GA)
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Meeks
     Slaughter
     Wasserman Schultz

                              {time}  1510

  Ms. McCOLLUM, Messrs. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, PETERSON, THOMPSON of 
Mississippi, CUMMINGS, and VEASEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mr. HURT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.

                          ____________________