[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8888-8898]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1960, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2014

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 260

       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 further 
     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. No further general debate shall 
     be in order.
       Sec. 2. (a) In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now 
     printed in the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 113-13, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. That 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute are waived.
       (b) No amendment to the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute made in order as original text shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules and amendments en bloc described in section 3 of 
     this resolution.
       (c) Each amendment printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole.
       (d) All points of order against amendments printed in part 
     B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 
     offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, 
     shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Armed Services or their designees, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. The original proponent of an amendment included 
     in such amendments en bloc may insert a statement in the 
     Congressional Record immediately before the disposition of 
     the amendments en bloc.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any 
     Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any 
     amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the bill 
     or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made in 
     order as original text. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.

                              {time}  1250

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. NUGENT. 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. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 260 is a structured rule 
that provides House consideration of amendments to this year's National 
Defense Authorization Act.

[[Page 8889]]

  As I explained when I was down here yesterday, the Rules Committee 
receives hundreds of amendments to the NDAA every single year. This 
time we had 299 amendments to make our way through.
  While the volume of amendments was massive, the Rules Committee 
evaluated each and every one in developing this rule. We were not able 
to make every amendment in order, but I believe this rule will allow 
for the exhaustive debate of a vast majority of the issues presented in 
committee.
  Yesterday's rule provided for 1 hour of general debate on the 
underlying bill, H.R. 1960. Today, we're considering a structured rule 
that provides Members of the House with the opportunity to have copious 
and free-flowing debate on many of the issues contained in the 
underlying legislation.
  As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee, I know how complicated and far-reaching the National Defense 
Authorization Act can be. I've sat through multiple subcommittee marks 
on this legislation. We had a nearly 16-hour-long full committee markup 
on this bill, a meeting that started early Wednesday and lasted into 
Thursday morning. And now we've had two Rules Committee hearings on 
this bill, including yesterday's hearing, which took almost 10 hours 
from start to finish.
  Having spent as much time with this legislation as I have, I can 
promise you this: the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal 
year 2014 is a good bill. That's why the Armed Services Committee 
passed it with an overwhelming vote of 59-2. And we need to acknowledge 
Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for fostering such a 
bipartisan and collaborative approach. This rule is the next step in 
that transparent and cooperative process.
  Of the 299 amendments that we received in the Rules Committee, H. 
Res. 260 makes 172 of them in order. To use a technical term, that's a 
lot of amendments. Despite that, my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle will remind us that even with 172 amendments allowed on the 
floor, it's still not an open rule; and, clearly, they're right. But 
let me assure you that this is also a fair and inclusive rule.
  Having considered each of the amendments that was offered in the 
Rules Committee, I can honestly say that what we have here today is a 
rule that gives the House the opportunity to debate all of the major 
topics contained in the underlying legislation without duplicating 
efforts and having multiple amendments on the same issue.
  For example, we heard many Members speak on the House floor yesterday 
about sexual assault in the military. The underlying legislation takes 
significant and necessary steps to combat, prosecute, and prevent this 
heinous crime. But given the importance of this issue, the Rules 
Committee understandably received five different amendments all related 
to sexual assault. So I'm proud to say that H. Res. 260 provides the 
House with the opportunity to debate this issue and ask ourselves if 
there isn't more that we can do.
  Another major topic, one that none of us can ignore, is the nature of 
our military's operation in Afghanistan. We need to ask ourselves 
what's going to happen at the end of 2014, at which time President 
Obama has indicated we will have moved strictly to a security operation 
in that country.
  The Rules Committee received no less than four different amendments 
on Afghanistan. I'm happy to say the rule allows for debate on the 
issue by way of an amendment offered by my colleague from the Rules 
Committee, Mr. McGovern, and I look forward to that. I look forward to 
having the opportunity to join the gentleman from Massachusetts in 
supporting that important--and I think commonsense--amendment, and my 
hat's off to you for that.
  And the list goes on--energy, the use of drones, Guantanamo Bay, 
missile defense. The rule allows for amendments on all these important 
topics. I am going to vote for some of the amendments that this rule 
makes in order; I'm going to vote against others. But first and 
foremost, I'm going to vote for this rule.
  The bill was done the right way. It went through the subcommittee 
process; it had a thorough and lively markup in the full committee; and 
it went to the Rules Committee, where we were diligent about making 
sure we gave it the consideration it deserves and provided it with two 
rules.
  H. Res. 260 is the next step in a thoughtful, bipartisan process. I'm 
proud of this rule and the underlying legislation and the process that 
has gotten us to where we are today. For that reason, I encourage all 
of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in passing this 
rule, passing the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 
2014, and making sure our men and women in uniform have the tools and 
resources they need to complete the mission safely and successfully.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Nugent), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule for the defense authorization bill is a 
structured rule. Over 300 amendments were submitted to the Rules 
Committee, and 172 were made in order.
  This was a very difficult task, made even more difficult because the 
majority scheduled only 2 days for debate on amendments to this 850-
page bill. But I would like to add a special word of appreciation for 
the Rules Committee staff, both majority and minority, who worked 
tirelessly for long hours to prepare this bill and its amendments for 
debate. I think most of my colleagues do not have the appreciation for 
what the staff and even the members of the Rules Committee have to go 
through, but I think they should appreciate their work even more after 
this rule that is being brought before the floor today.
  I am pleased that one of the amendments included in this rule is my 
amendment on the war in Afghanistan. This is a bipartisan amendment 
which will be debated and voted on later today. It is cosponsored by 
Walter Jones of North Carolina and Ranking Member Adam Smith of 
Washington, along with Representatives Lee and Garamendi of California.
  A very similar amendment was not allowed debate last year; and I want 
to particularly thank Chairman Sessions, members of the Rules 
Committee, my good friend, Mr. Nugent, and the Republican leadership of 
the House for allowing a debate on the war to occur this year. It is 
the right thing to do; and I appreciate that they take seriously the 
responsibilities of the House to debate issues of war and peace and to 
sending and keeping our servicemen and -women in harm's way.
  However, I'm a little disappointed that the debate will only last for 
10 minutes. That's the amount of time designated for this amendment. 
Ten minutes is not really enough time for a genuine debate on the war 
in Afghanistan and what might next be required of our troops, and how 
much staying in Afghanistan will cost us.
  Afghanistan has turned into the longest war in American history--over 
12 years so far. And heaven only knows, Mr. Speaker, it has cost us 
dearly in both blood and treasure. Those costs will haunt us for 
decades to come, as so many of our veterans have returned wounded in 
body, mind, and soul: 2,235 American military personnel have been 
killed in Afghanistan, and even more will be sacrificed before our 
troops come home. Over 17,000 have been wounded. It's estimated that 
over 30,000 Afghan civilians have been killed since 2001; 349 of our 
veterans committed suicide last year, more than the 310 servicemen and 
-women who were killed in theater in Afghanistan.
  Since 2001, including the money in this bill, we have spent $778 
billion for Operation Enduring Freedom, nearly all of that in 
Afghanistan. Right now, as we speak on the floor of this House, we're 
spending over $7 billion each month in Afghanistan. Every hour costs us 
nearly $10 million. And all this time we have helped support a corrupt 
Karzai government, a government that

[[Page 8890]]

gets billions of dollars each year and billions more under the table.

                              {time}  1300

  Surely this war and the possible extended deployment of our brave 
troops for an indefinite period of time are worth a little bit more 
time than has been given for debate.
  But, Mr. Speaker, Members will have the opportunity to debate and 
vote later today on ensuring the President completes his timeline to 
transfer all combat military and security operations to Afghan control 
by the end of 2014, at which time U.S. involvement in combat operations 
is to end; and to express that should the President determine to extend 
the deployment of U.S. troops in Afghanistan after 2014, then the 
United States Congress should specifically vote to authorize that 
mission.
  I would urge all of my colleagues--Democrats and Republicans--to join 
us in supporting this very, very important amendment.
  Again, I do want to express my appreciation to my colleagues on the 
Rules Committee for making it in order. While I am pleased that my 
amendment was made in order under the rule, several other amendments on 
very serious military security issues were excluded from debate. I 
would just like to mention a couple of them.
  In a bipartisan fashion, Members of Congress have expressed their 
shock and outrage over the epidemic of rape and sexual abuse and 
assault in all branches of our military and at all ranks and military 
institutions. It is unacceptable, and it is intolerable. While H.R. 
1960 has many provisions that address aspects of this crisis, there 
were several amendments that were not allowed, in particular, 
amendments dealing with military sexual assault offered by 
Representatives Speier and Gabbard.
  These amendments were serious efforts to advance this debate and to 
let Members of this House as a whole decide whether more needs to be 
done to prevent and reduce the level of military sexual assault, to 
prosecute and to bring to justice the perpetrators of sexual abuse, and 
to hold accountable the military chain of command and institutions that 
have allowed, facilitated, or tolerated this abuse. They should have 
not been excluded from this rule, and they deserve our most serious 
attention.
  So because these and some other important issues fail to be included 
in the rule, I reluctantly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Again, I thank my colleague, Mr. Nugent, for his courtesies and for 
his kind words about my amendment, and I will now reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
South Dakota (Mrs. Noem).
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today, during this debate, you may hear that some of the reforms that 
are in H.R. 1960 do not go far enough, that commanders absolutely have 
to be taken out of the decision process in sex-related offenses. Well, 
I disagree, Mr. Speaker, and let me tell you why. Holding commanders 
responsible and accountable for their actions and decisions is the most 
effective way to change the military culture, especially with regard to 
sex-related events.
  Proposals to take the commander out of the military justice decision 
process, they believe that it will improve those prosecutions. I 
disagree. They believe it will improve convictions and overall 
confidence of victims in the military justice system. There is no 
evidence to support these assertions.
  In fact, in 2005, the HASC heard similar assertions about the need to 
conform the UCMJ section on rape and sexual assault to the Federal law 
on those offenses. Congress made that revolutionary change and found 
that it did not make things better. In fact, the change made things 
worse. Cases were thrown out, the court of military appeals declared 
parts of the changes were unconstitutional, and justice for victims was 
delayed and ignored completely in some instances. Congress had to 
rewrite the UCMJ to fix the harm done. The lesson from that is to slow 
down when you're making major changes to UCMJ to make sure that you're 
doing the right thing.
  H.R. 1960 does exactly that. It asks both the Secretary of Defense 
and the independent panel established by fiscal year '13 NDAA to 
closely examine the role of the commanders under the UCMJ and make 
recommendations for change as appropriate. It's time that we focus on 
what's best for our victims of sexual assault in the military and how 
to bring those perpetrators to justice.
  Let me talk a little bit about some of the reforms that are included 
in the bill because there are so many of them on a bipartisan basis 
that were added to the bill that are going to help reduce the 
incidences of sexual assault in our military.
  One of them is that it would strip the commanders of their authority 
to dismiss a finding by a court-martial. It would limit commanders' 
ability to reduce, suspend, or dismiss a sentence. It would also 
establish minimum sentencing guidelines--dismissal or dishonorable 
discharge for sex-related offenses. Currently, such guidelines only 
exist in the military for the crimes of murder and espionage. Now it 
would include those that have to do with sexual assault in the 
military.
  There are whistleblower protections that were put in here, advocated 
by Members of both parties--Republicans and Democrats--that would add 
rape, sexual assault, or other sexual misconduct to the protected 
communications of servicemembers with a Member of Congress or an 
Inspector General.
  I want to talk about some provisions that I championed that were 
included in this bill. One of them, that it would review the practices 
by military criminal investigative organizations in sex-related crimes. 
It will put forward standardized training procedures that every branch 
of the military would have to adhere to. It would make our commanders 
much more accountable throughout that process.
  The last one that I will mention today, Mr. Speaker, is development 
of uniform criteria for selection of sexual assault response 
coordinators.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlelady.
  Mrs. NOEM. Mr. Speaker, in the past, yes, absolutely justice has been 
delayed and we have not seen the answers for our victims that they need 
that have been victims of sexual assault in our military. I wasn't here 
to work on the other NDAA bills. I wasn't here to have the debate 
during those conversations that were had in the past. A lot of the 
things that were done and discussed were empty words and broken 
promises.
  Today, I'm here to say that these reforms that are included in H.R. 
1960 will help our victims and will stop sexual assault in the military 
today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Maryland, the Democratic whip, Mr. Hoyer.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
rise in opposition to this rule as it fails to make in order several 
important amendments, including ones from Representatives Speier and 
Gabbard, that would have continued a critical debate on the urgent 
problem of sexual assault in the military.
  The previous speaker has pointed out how important an issue this is. 
If it's such an important issue, it really deserves broader debate in 
this House fully. Unfortunately, the Rules Committee saw fit not to 
allow those amendments in order.
  But I want to thank the Rules Committee for making in order by the 
ranking member, Mr. Smith, to close the detention facility in 
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. I've been to Guantanamo--I don't know how many of 
my colleagues have been there, but I've been to Guantanamo--and 
Guantanamo is a significant drain on the Department of Defense's 
resources.
  There are other reasons to close Guantanamo, which I will speak of, 
but the numbers speak for themselves. It costs us $1.6 million per 
detainee. That's versus $34,000 for Federal prisoners. $1.6 million per 
detainee. $247

[[Page 8891]]

million authorized in this bill to replace temporary facilities at 
Guantanamo. Overall, $264 million a year to keep this facility 
operational for 166 people. For every dollar spent on a detainee we 
spend one less dollar on our troops in the field. At a time of great 
fiscal uncertainty, it is astounding that this facility stays open.
  Guantanamo costs us not only in economic might, but in moral might as 
well. We are a Nation of laws, and it is our continued adherence to the 
Founders' vision of a lawful society that allows us to lead the world 
in confronting threats to peace and stability.
  I urge all of my colleagues to think about the damage Guantanamo's 
continued operation causes to our national security as our moral might 
slips, as terrorists continue to use Guantanamo as a recruitment tool, 
and as our allies grow leery of cooperating with us for fear that a 
transferred detainee could end up at Guantanamo.
  I also urge all of us to remember that hundreds of terrorists--
hundreds--have faced justice in civilian courts and are currently 
serving time in prison in the United States. Among them are Faisal 
Shahzad, the Times Square bomber; Richard Reid, the shoe bomber; 
Zacarias Moussaoui, who conspired to kill nearly 3,000 innocent 
Americans on 9/11--all of them in our prisons here.

                              {time}  1310

  We don't have to worry about these individuals because our system 
works. Not a single terrorist--not one--or anyone else has ever escaped 
from one of our maximum security prisons.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Since 9/11, 494 terrorists have been convicted in our 
civilian court system. In stark contrast, there have been only seven 
terrorists convicted by the military commissions in Guantanamo. Five of 
these, by the way, were pleas.
  To quote General Colin Powell from 2010:

       We have 300 terrorists--it's now less--who have been put in 
     jail not by a military commission but by a regular court 
     system . . . We ought to remove this incentive that exists in 
     the presence of Guantanamo to encourage people and give 
     radicals an opportunity to say, ``You see? This is what 
     America is all about.''

  That's Colin Powell.
  We should be proud of our Nation's long history of bringing to 
justice those who commit crimes that threaten the peace and freedom of 
innocent people around the world. Guantanamo is a stain on that record. 
It should be closed.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman 30 additional seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Additionally, let me say there are a few other amendments 
that, I hope, Members will support.
  One is the amendment from my friend Jim McGovern--a sense of Congress 
that this body should have the right--indeed, the duty--to engage in a 
debate about the continued path forward in Afghanistan.
  I urge my colleagues to support that amendment.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. I rise today to speak in support of this rule.
  Being new to the HASC Committee, I was very encouraged to see the 
bipartisan fashion in which this bill was crafted. We worked together 
as a committee, and we had vigorous debates on these issues in the 
committee. I even had the privilege to work with colleagues across the 
aisle to address the issue of sexual assault language.
  I want to thank Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith for making 
efforts to combat sexual assault as a cornerstone of this bill.
  Within this bill are provisions that would strip commanders of their 
authority to dismiss findings. My bipartisan provision adds rape, 
sexual assault or other sexual misconduct to the protected 
communications of servicemembers with a Member of Congress or with an 
inspector general. This bill also establishes minimum sentencing 
guidelines. It establishes an independent panel to examine the role of 
the commander in sex-related offenses. It also reviews the practices of 
military criminal investigative organizations in sex-related crimes.
  Mr. Speaker, we spent months debating and drafting all of the reforms 
I just mentioned in this bill. There are a lot of good things in the 
overall bill. The time for Congress to eradicate sexual abuse in the 
military is now. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we 
can move these much-needed reforms one step closer to becoming law.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank my good friend, and I thank the manager of 
the underlying legislation and this rule.
  Happy Father's Day to all of the men who serve in the United States 
military, for this legislation points, in some instances, to the needs 
of these great servants--and to the women who serve in the United 
States military as well.
  I, too, would have wanted to see the Speier-Gabbard amendment be 
included. I am glad for an amendment that I submitted to post sexual 
assault prevention information and to be able to ensure that there are 
ways of getting resources to those victims, the number of whom we want 
to see diminished. I am also glad to note that Mr. McGovern's amendment 
has been put in another amendment by Mr. Conyers that has to do with 
not using force in Iran. Also, we recognize that our soldiers suffer 
from PTSD, and I am glad that an amendment has been made to extend the 
mental health services and counselors for our soldiers.
  One that I have been working on for a long time has come to 
fruition--and I want to thank the Rules Committee and, of course, the 
Armed Services Committee--which is to collaborate between the National 
Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense on finding the 
biomarkers on triple-negative breast cancer. It will save the lives of 
so many women.
  I had hoped that we could have moved the 1.8 percent salary increase 
to 2.2 percent. I know that it costs money--yes, it does--but our 
soldiers are valuable.
  Finally, I wish we could have had a thoughtful discussion to restore 
the trust of Americans around our civil liberties, and to simply rein 
in the number of private contractors that deal with intelligence 
gathering, and I intend to introduce legislation.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. We have a significant problem of sexual assaults in the 
military, and this bill addresses many of the issues that we know 
legislatively will help both change the culture and change the 
environment in the military.
  Recent surveys indicate that over 28,000 people have indicated that 
they have been sexually assaulted in the military, but slightly fewer 
than 3,000 are willing to come forward and actually ask that their 
perpetrators be prosecuted. When you look at that number further, the 
survey indicates that 62 percent of those who came forward indicated 
that they felt they were persecuted in the workplace for having done 
so.
  Many victims of sexual assault in the military report that they have 
been re-victimized, that they, in fact, fear the system, and that there 
is a sense that if one reports a sexual assault that it will negatively 
impact one's career and perhaps even put one at risk for further 
violence.
  What we have tried to do in this bill on a bipartisan basis, in 
working with Niki Tsongas--my cochair of the Sexual Assault Prevention 
Caucus--and in working with Chairman McKeon and Ranking Member Smith, 
is to look at ways in which the commander's role can be restricted and 
to require that the decisionmaking on sexual assaults be pushed up the 
chain of command, and to instill upon the entire system an evaluation 
process so that those

[[Page 8892]]

who are making decisions are held accountable for those decisions.
  We have taken away from the commander the ability to set aside a 
conviction for sexual assault, and we have added a mandatory minimum so 
that, if you commit a sexual assault, you are out of the military. If 
there is an inappropriate relationship between a trainee and a trainer, 
you are out of the military.
  We tried to make certain in this that we had bipartisan consensus. 
Now, there are those who say that we need a whole new judicial system 
in order to be able to address sexual assault, but, in fact, the 
judicial system hasn't been the failure; the chain of command has been 
the failure, and we have addressed that by restricting the authority of 
the chain of command by requiring decisions be pushed up the chain of 
command and by imposing criteria of holding them accountable.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).
  Mr. GARAMENDI. Thank you, Mr. McGovern.
  I want to follow up on the previous comments.
  A strong case was made for changing the way in which rape is handled 
and sexual assault is handled, but it doesn't go far enough. 
Unfortunately, the rule doesn't allow for a full discussion and a full 
vote by the House on this very, very important issue being brought to 
us by my colleague from California (Ms. Speier). We need to have that 
debate here. We need to really go outside the chain of command for the 
most important piece, and that is the charging of the incident.
  Beyond that, the Rules Committee did pick up an issue that I put 
forward. The Afghan National Army is going to receive $7.7 billion in 
this legislation. Unfortunately, $2.6 billion has been added to last 
year's money, and there is no indication as to how that $2.6 billion 
will be spent. So the Rules Committee did adopt my amendment, and it 
will be en bloc. It deals with: we can't spend that money until we find 
out how it is going to be spent, which is the basic policy that we 
apply to every military acquisition in our own military.
  The east coast missile defense site remains and is not to be debated 
on the floor. That's unfortunate. It's $2.25 million this year and more 
in the future. Language in this bill about Syria ought to be debated on 
the floor. Fortunately, it will. We are going to also debate the 
authorization to use force.

                              {time}  1320

  We need that debate. Unfortunately, in the committee markup, only 
moments were spent on the Afghanistan war, and more than $80 billion 
will be spent there.
  At a time when we are reducing our forces by 40 percent, we're 
actually spending at least as much as we're spending in the current 
year. Why? We need to ask that question. Why are we spending that 
amount of money as we reduce our forces? It was not discussed at all 
during the markup. We need that full debate on the floor. And 
therefore, for these reasons, I oppose the rule.
  We must debate this $700 billion bill in full.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Bishop), my colleague on both the Rules Committee and the Armed 
Services Committee.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Florida yielding. I now owe you one more.
  This is an impeccably good rule. It made in order 172 amendments, 
which makes someone wonder why we have committees in the first place. I 
wish to bring to light three of those particular amendments so they're 
not overlooked in the rhetoric that we have going here today, because 
each does have an impact on the readiness taking place.
  The first one is one by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), 
which would ask the agencies of this government to communicate with the 
military when something actually would impact the military; in this 
case, BLM making a decision which would have a great deal of impact on 
our military lands in New Mexico. We saw this earlier when NASA decided 
to change its flight program--it had a great deal of impact on the cost 
of our missile defense system--and when the FAA decided to close 
towers, which impacted three military bases and made their security 
much more tenuous, and all of these cases without ever discussing the 
impact of those decisions with the military. We have an administration 
that seems to have the problem of interagency communication--when the 
actions of one impact the actions of the other--and this is the first 
step to move it that way.
  Mrs. Lummis of Wyoming has an amendment which would create a warm 
line for the ICBM. Not only would this increase our security, but it 
ensures we have an adequate industrial base. We cannot turn on and off 
our industrial base like a spigot: when we need them, they're there; 
and when we don't need them, they can go off. This would require us to 
have a strong industrial base and would move us forward in the area of 
security.
  Finally, I wish to address an amendment by Mr. Rigell of Virginia 
which deals with A-76. On the surface, this looks like a wonderful 
idea. Who can be opposed to competition? Especially when it's fair and 
apples to apples. Unfortunately, this particular amendment is comparing 
artichokes to avocados, which have only the fact that they start with 
the letter ``A'' in common and the fact that I hate both of them 
equally.
  Five years ago, the Office of Management and Budget asked the 
Government Accountability Office to review A-76, as well as the 
inspector general of the Department of Defense. They concluded that 
this program should be suspended because there were structural flaws 
within the system that was dealt with on its implementation. None of 
those suggested structural flaws have been fixed in the meantime. This 
system has been studied and found wanting.
  At the same time, the Department of Defense has come up with a DTM 
process, which is required to be reviewed by the underlying base bill. 
Now is not the time to change that process of A-76 until that review 
has also been completed.
  Let me be kind of honest here. The idea before A-76 is really about 
lowest price but not necessarily best value. With lowest price, you're 
doing a product that will be put on the open market that will sell or 
not sell. Who really cares what happens to it. But when you're dealing 
with the military, you're dealing with military equipment that must be 
repaired on a timely basis and be available on a timely basis or lives 
are lost, and that becomes the significance of this particular issue.
  What we should be doing, instead of trying to go backwards to A-76, 
is do a public-private partnership, which many of our depots are 
actually doing. In that case, I am appreciative that Mr. Rigell did put 
one sentence that would not interfere with any public-private 
partnerships that we are doing at the present time. But the idea of 
allowing the creativity of the private sector to meet with the 
stability of the workforce from a public sector would be the ideal 
solution, rather than trying to do some other program which would 
create a food fight, which would be costly, counterproductive, harm our 
readiness, and destroy the morale of our workforce, which is already 
harmed because of the furloughs they're facing.
  In this particular amendment, the Office of Management and Budget is 
opposed to it. The Department of Defense is opposed to this amendment, 
and so should we be on the floor of the House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it's my privilege to yield 1\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Castro).
  Mr. CASTRO of Texas. I thank my friend, Mr. McGovern, for yielding.
  I rise to speak today on sexual assault in the military and the need 
for justice and reform. This issue carries great significance for me, 
as I represent the area around Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, 
Texas.
  The community in San Antonio, like communities across the country, 
was appalled to learn of the events that took place at Lackland. The 
sexual

[[Page 8893]]

misconduct by military training instructors at Lackland has been one of 
the largest sexual misconduct scandals and investigations within the 
military. Similar stories have also surfaced from the academies to 
forward operating bases and now in the Pentagon.
  When events like this occur, we must do two things: first, we must 
provide justice swiftly, and second, we must implement reforms to 
prevent future transgressions.
  I'll continue to work with the committee to make sure that the 
recommendations for reform are implemented and serve as a model for the 
other branches of service.
  This legislation does make progress in combating military sexual 
assault, but let us not forget that there is still much work to be 
done.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
  Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and I rise in support of this very fair rule which has 
allowed 172 amendments.
  I rise in strong support of the amendment by the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Jones), which would accelerate the paced withdrawal from 
Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people do not want forever wars that now 
have lasted three or four times longer than World War II. Afghanistan 
has simply become little more than a gigantic money pit, with President 
Karzai and his cronies ripping off American taxpayers for billions of 
dollars. President Karzai has made it very clear that even he wants us 
out, but, of course, he still wants us to send him our billions. It is 
long past the time.
  In fact, Mr. Speaker, there never should have been a time in the 
first place for needless wars that keep resulting in the killing and 
maiming of young American soldiers. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan 
have always been more about money and power than about any real threat 
to the American people.
  William F. Buckley changed his views before he died and came out 
strongly against the war in Iraq. What he said in 2005 regarding the 
war in Iraq can be said about Afghanistan today. Mr. Buckley said:

       A respect for the power of the United States is engendered 
     by our success in engagements in which we take part. A point 
     is reached when tenacity conveys not steadfastness of 
     purpose, but misapplication of pride.

  Mr. Speaker, as other speakers have pointed out before me, the 
underlying bill calls for a spending of $85 billion, or $7 billion a 
month, for the war in Afghanistan. That is too much.
  It is time to bring our troops home.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I'm here today, and I stand in support of 
the Smith amendment to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay.
  Guantanamo Bay has become a symbol around the world for an America 
that has lost sight of its own cherished principles: due process, 
habeas corpus, and the rule of law.
  I recently visited the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Seeing this 
camp made it clear to me that we cannot keep these detainees forever 
without charging them with crimes and giving them their day in court. 
It is not humane. It is not just. It is not American.
  Some prisoners must go home; some must face trial; some prisoners 
will spend the rest of their lives in jail. In the end, though, we must 
close this chapter and ensure that justice is done. Guantanamo must 
close.
  Keeping the Guantanamo camp open is a complete waste of taxpayers' 
money. The solution is to support Congressman Smith's amendment to 
close the Guantanamo detention center.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
formerly from the great State of Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule, and I appreciate 
the time to talk about a very critical issue that the underlying bill 
addresses. As the father of a 16-year-old daughter, I don't know how 
comfortable I would be if she came to me and said she would like to 
join the military, especially given the current culture regarding 
sexual assault. This year alone, 26,000 men and women in the military 
have been impacted by sexual assault.
  The National Defense Authorization Act is a step in the right 
direction in ending this culture and establishing an intolerance, as it 
includes mandatory sentencing requirements and strips commanders of 
their authority to dismiss a conviction by court-martial.
  The Department of Defense estimates there were 19,000 victims of 
sexual assault in FY 2011 alone, but only 2,700 victims actually filed 
a report.
  In early May, I was pleased to cosponsor H.R. 1864, a military 
whistleblower bill which extends whistleblower protections to those who 
report instances of sexual misconduct. This valuable provision has been 
added to the National Defense Authorization Act. I am pleased to see 
Congress respond to the issues of sexual assault within the military. I 
look forward to the day when all fathers will be comfortable sending 
daughters like mine into the military to fight for our freedoms, and 
without second thoughts about their safety.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Oregon (Ms. Bonamici).
  Ms. BONAMICI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I thank 
Mr. McGovern for yielding.
  Last week, this House passed the Ruth Moore Act to help support the 
victims of sexual assault and trauma in the military, but more must 
still be done to stop those crimes before they occur.
  I thank the Armed Services Committee members for their work on this 
issue to date; but, unfortunately, the Sexual Assault Training 
Oversight and Prevention amendment, sponsored by Representative Jackie 
Speier, was not made in order. This amendment would help stop sexual 
violence in our military and remove sexual predators from its ranks, 
and we should have an opportunity to vote up or down on the provision. 
We're missing a crucial opportunity to stop the unwanted sexual contact 
that is now experienced by one in five servicewomen.
  I've heard from Oregonians who live with the painful memory of sexual 
assault they experienced while serving and veterans associations 
concerned for the safety of those who answer the call of duty.
  We all agree that these crimes have no place in our society and no 
place in our military. It's too bad that we were deprived of an 
opportunity to do something meaningful about it.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
allowing me to speak.
  My colleagues have all spoken eloquently on the floor today about the 
importance of addressing this issue of sexual assault and rape in the 
military. What we hasten to do around here is pat ourselves on the back 
for all the things we have done.
  But let me tell you what the elephant in the room is here today. The 
elephant in the room here today is we have not had a robust debate on 
chain of command. And why are my good friends on the Republican side of 
the aisle unwilling to have that debate? Let's just air it. The Senate 
has taken up this issue in their committee. They've had a full-out 
hearing on it, and yet we have not done that in the House in the Armed 
Services Committee. I had an amendment that was taken up last night by 
the Rules Committee. It had 134 cosponsors. It was bipartisan in 
nature. What's wrong with taking up an amendment with over a quarter of 
the membership of this House on the floor in what is supposed to be an 
open debate on this issue?
  We will not fix this issue, Members, if we don't fix it on the front 
end; and the problem is on the front end where people feel they cannot 
file their complaint for fear of retaliation. And when

[[Page 8894]]

complaints are filed, and there were 3,300 of them filed in 2011, only 
500 of them were investigated and sent to court-martial, and less than 
200 actually had convictions. So why would anyone who was raped or 
sexually assaulted in the military feel with confidence that they will 
receive justice?
  We deserve an opportunity to have a robust debate on the chain of 
command and whether or not we should take these cases out of the chain 
of command.
  Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel all have taken 
these cases out of the chain of command. At the very least, we should 
be able to debate it.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, there are two things that I think are 
important to note about the Speier amendment. First is that the author 
of the amendment is actually a full member of the Armed Services 
Committee and chose not to offer this amendment in the Armed Services 
Committee where there could have been unlimited debate on the substance 
of the amendment; instead choosing to offer it in this more limited 
format where there were hundreds of amendments and certainly limited 
time and issues of great import.
  Also, it is cast in the light of the fact that you have bipartisan, 
full support for the provisions that are in our bill that do address 
sexual assault. The second thing that is important about the Speier 
amendment is that, as the author noted, there had been debate on this 
in the Senate. And in that debate, in fact, it was rejected--the 
structure that was being proposed in the Speier amendment. So we 
already have the Senate's view, and we also have a bipartisan view of 
this House on what needs to be done. And we share with the author the 
absolute commitment that this needs to be addressed.
  The manner in which we've done it, again on a bipartisan basis, is by 
moving it up the chain of command and restricting the chain of command. 
No more can a commander, by their signature, set aside a conviction for 
sexual assault. No more can someone who's convicted of a sexual assault 
stay in the military. We will never have another victim who has to 
report that after a conviction of a perpetrator for sexual assault, 
that they were forced to salute their attacker. That attacker will be 
out.
  Now, there is more that we can do. In fact, I want to thank the Rules 
Committee for having ruled in order my amendment, the Turner amendment, 
that would also include 2 years of incarceration along with the 
mandatory minimum of being thrown out. I would encourage everyone to 
support the Turner amendment that actually would like to increase the 
penalties beyond what we've done.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).
  Mr. O'ROURKE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  I rise today in support of the McGovern-Smith-Lee-Jones-Garamendi 
amendment to responsibly end the war in Afghanistan.
  I have the distinct honor of representing Fort Bliss in El Paso, 
Texas, home to 33,000 Active Duty Army servicemembers and their 
families.
  Since the start of this war in Afghanistan, 41 soldiers from Fort 
Bliss have lost their lives in combat. In April of this year, five Fort 
Bliss soldiers lost their lives in a single IED attack. All five of 
them had already been awarded both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart. 
Just this past month, three Fort Bliss soldiers were killed in a single 
attack. More than 100 have been injured in combat and awarded the 
Purple Heart. Countless soldiers are coming back to our community with 
unseen mental injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder. And 
already this year, three soldiers at Fort Bliss have committed suicide.
  This terrible loss of life should focus us on our solemn 
responsibility to know when to bring our soldiers home to their 
families. We are grateful to their service and their achievements. 
Because of them, Osama bin Laden has been killed. The Taliban has been 
weakened, and the Afghan people have been given the opportunity to 
develop a stable and democratic state, if they so choose.
  I believe now is the right time to responsibly end the longest war in 
our Nation's history. The amendment would help ensure that the 
President sticks to his timetable to end combat operations by the end 
of this year and bring our soldiers home from Afghanistan by the end of 
next year. This amendment will save lives, and it honors the sacrifice 
of our soldiers who have lost their lives by guaranteeing that Congress 
fulfills our constitutional responsibility to decide when to send our 
soldiers into harm's way and how long to keep them there.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support it, and bring our soldiers 
home.
  Mr. NUGENT. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Veasey).
  Mr. VEASEY. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud today to stand with my colleagues, 
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Dr. Benishek, in support of their 
amendment to include the Military Justice Improvement Act of 2013 in 
the National Defense Authorization Act, and I regret that this rule for 
this bill did not allow that.
  The Military Justice Improvement Act will reform the military legal 
procedure for handling sexual assault cases by giving a military 
attorney outside the victim's chain of command the ability to initiate 
legal proceedings. This is a fundamental change from currently 
requiring a sexual assault victim to first turn to their commanding 
officer to investigate and decide how to advance the case.

                              {time}  1340

  As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I'm proud to 
support this bill that will decrease the occurrence of sexual assault 
within our military ranks.
  The current state of 26,000 reported sexual assault incidents in 2012 
is completely unacceptable. This amendment will strengthen initiatives 
already in the Defense bill that aim to reduce this way-too-high 
number. Our military men and women deserve better, and this bill is a 
strong step in the right direction.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the amendment by Mr. 
Coffman that would direct the Defense Department to contract any 
function not considered to be inherently governmental, with no regard 
to policy, risk, or costs.
  At a time when service and contract costs to our military have risen 
by 200 percent in the last 10 years and civilian personnel costs have 
remained relatively flat, I believe it's irresponsible to require our 
military to outsource important governmental work like developing 
budgets, overseeing contracts, and interpreting regulations to private 
contractors.
  We cannot allow our Federal employees and civilian personnel to 
continue to serve at the first line of cuts and furloughs in an effort 
to cut costs. Federal employees and civilian personnel are a critical 
component to our national security and consistently deliver their 
services at significantly lower costs than private contractors. In 
fiscal year 2010, the Pentagon reported saving nearly $900 million by 
using civilian workers instead of private contractors.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment and let the defense 
workers continue their service.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, 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, yesterday, I joined with many of my 
colleagues here on the floor to urge the Congress and the Rules 
Committee to take seriously the disturbingly high incidences of sexual 
assault in the military and to act quickly and responsively to address 
the issue.
  Yesterday, on this floor, we were promised full consideration and 
open debate on an issue that affects, at a

[[Page 8895]]

minimum, 26,000 individuals in the United States armed services. And 
yet here we are today with a closed rule, consideration of only some 
amendments. And, frankly, the amendments that would actually do the 
most to strengthen the hand of survivors and prosecutors aren't being 
considered on this floor, and that's really unfortunate.
  I feel that we have let 26,000 victims of sexual assault down. We've 
just let them down. And for all the good intentions--and I think that 
there were good intentions. The Congress has considered, for the last 
20 years, testimony and information from the Department of Defense on 
its efforts to eliminate sexual assault from its ranks. These well-
intentioned efforts are falling well short, and we know that.
  But we can't wake up on another day, or in another 20 years to say, 
You know what? We still have to solve the problem. And so I would urge 
us, we have to do that today for those victims. And with the estimated 
26,000--that's up even 19,000 from 2011--we know that something is not 
working.
  While some of the provisions that are being considered today are 
good-faith efforts, the dozens, including the Speier amendment, 
supported by experts, advocates, and legal experts and proposed before 
the Rules Committee to take additional steps to show that we really do 
mean business are not being considered. It's really unfortunate that 
only half of those amendments were made in order. And with an issue as 
pervasive and damaging as this, where Republicans and Democrats, men 
and women, agree that we have to do something, why, for those 26,000 
victims, aren't we doing everything that we can?
  We can't stand on the side of the perpetrators. We must stand on the 
side of victims and survivors.
  Mr. NUGENT. I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree).
  Ms. PINGREE of Maine. Thank you to my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we confront the issue of sexual assault in the 
military, we can't forget the survivors who continue to serve.
  One area that has needed reform is the questionnaire that must be 
filled out to obtain or renew a security clearance. One of the 
questions, Question 21, asks if you have ever sought mental health 
counseling. Knowing the question is there, and believing that answering 
``yes'' might jeopardize their chances at a security clearance, 
survivors of sexual assault often decided not to get the mental health 
counseling that they needed.
  The Director of National Intelligence has listened to us on this and 
has issued guidance saying survivors of sexual trauma do not have to 
report counseling related to that assault. But that change won't do the 
survivors any good unless they know it has taken place, which is why 
I've introduced an amendment that is part of a package we are 
considering later today that would require the Department of Defense to 
inform servicemembers of this change.
  Mr. Speaker, I regularly hear from survivors of sexual assault who 
want to know when the change will be made. It's time they get their 
answer.
  It's unfortunate that this rule does not allow more time for debate 
on these critical topics.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me thank the gentleman for yielding, for 
your support, and for your tremendous leadership on so many issues.
  Let me rise, first of all, in strong opposition to this rule. I am 
extremely disappointed that Congress was denied the opportunity on this 
floor to have a full and necessary debate about our constitutional role 
in declaring war and our obligation to conduct vigorous oversight, 
accountability, and to demand transparency.
  While I appreciate the committee making my bipartisan amendment with 
Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen with regard to HIV discrimination in 
order, I offered a number of other amendments to audit the Pentagon and 
to end the overly broad 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, which 
is a blank check.
  I have long called for repeal of this authorization, dating back to 
the horrific days of 9/11, right when we debated that resolution for no 
more than an hour on September 14. We did not have a meaningful debate 
12 years ago, and by blocking my amendment, this Congress will not be 
able to exercise its constitutional war-making duties today.
  Let me also say that I am pleased to join Representatives McGovern, 
Jones, Garamendi, and our Armed Services ranking member, Adam Smith, on 
an amendment which was made in order, which will at least give us an 
opportunity to open that door and begin to talk about the fact that it 
is time to bring our troops home, and that once 2014 is here, then we 
need to determine what Congress will authorize, if anything.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 10 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. Also, let me just say it's important, the 
amendment that was made in order, Congressman Hank Johnson and myself, 
with regard to prohibiting permanent military bases, so important.
  So finally let me just say, Congress must debate and authorize any 
future troop presence in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 2\1/4\ minutes.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Ms. Sinema).
  Ms. SINEMA. Mr. Speaker, I'm very disappointed that the Rules 
Committee chose to disallow my amendment from being heard today. The 
amendment that I offered, in conjunction with Representative Benishek 
and Representative Gabbard, simply allowed for victims of sexual 
violence in the military to have an opportunity to seek justice in 
court, in the light of day, without fear of retribution or 
recrimination from their superiors.
  This amendment, Mr. Speaker and Members, would have taken the policy 
outside of the chain of command so that victims of sexual assault would 
have the opportunity to seek justice, and that those perpetrators who 
have committed sexual assault against their fellow servicemembers would 
be held accountable, accountable for the acts which they have 
committed.
  In this instance, Mr. Speaker and Members, this amendment would 
ensure that the victims could report the crimes, seek justice without 
fear of retribution or, even worse, having a superior who ignores or 
downplays the severity of the incident which has occurred.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire from my friend how many more 
speakers he has on his side?
  Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Okay. Then I will yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm going to urge that we defeat the previous question. 
And if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to 
make this an open rule so that Members have the opportunity to offer 
any amendment allowed under the rules of the House.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include for the Record the 
text of the amendment in the Record along with extraneous materials 
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, let me just say that I think the Rules 
Committee had a difficult task given the

[[Page 8896]]

fact that the leadership of this House has kind of only allocated 2 
days for debate on the defense authorization bill. They had to deal 
with 300 amendments. They made 172 in order. I know that everybody 
worked hard to try to be fair. I appreciate, again, the courtesy 
extended to me on my amendment with regard to Afghanistan, and I 
appreciate my colleagues on the Republican side for their support.
  I think the controversy still is around the issue of sexual assault 
in the military. A number of amendments, particularly those offered by 
Ms. Speier and Ms. Gabbard, were not made in order. That, 
unfortunately, makes it very difficult for many on our side to support 
this rule.
  But I want to thank, again, the staff of the Rules Committee and the 
Members for work on this. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question 
and a ``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, this may be my third National Defense 
Authorization Act as a Member of Congress, but it's my first NDAA as a 
member of the Armed Services Committee. Let me tell you, it's been an 
experience. It's an educational, time-consuming and sometimes an 
exhausting experience, but it's always been a gratifying one.
  As the father of three sons that currently serve in the United States 
Army, I never forget the overarching purpose for all of our work on the 
Defense Authorization Act. I know that my HASC colleagues never forget 
it either.
  I've had sons that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, sometimes 
simultaneously. I know what it's like to send a son or a daughter off 
to war. As a family, it's something that causes you anguish all the 
time. It's not something that should be done lightly. So I appreciate 
the McGovern amendment because it's going to provide the opportunity to 
actually discuss and put on the floor an ability for this House to 
actually authorize or continue authorization of any force.
  I think this House has been, unfortunately, somewhat derelict in its 
duties because of what we've done in the past and what we've called the 
President to do when we went into Libya, even though limited by air 
support only. We should never put our men and women at risk unless this 
House has a say in that which is so precious to us, and that's our sons 
and daughters.
  You heard Mr. Turner speak as relates to sexual assault, and I heard 
a lot on the floor about Ms. Speier. She had the ability in the Armed 
Services Committee--the committee I serve on--she had the ability to 
bring that up in committee and have unlimited debate--unlimited 
debate--within that body in regards to her amendment. She chose not to 
do that. Instead, she chose to bring it in front of the Rules Committee 
that has a limited time slot.
  Of the 299 amendments that were brought forward, 172 were made in 
order that are going to be heard on this floor today. That's what this 
rule is about, about giving everybody access and to be heard on all the 
important aspects of the NDAA. So to say that she was locked out just 
isn't so. The ability was there. As a Member of the HASC Committee, she 
had the ability to have unlimited debate.
  Remember, the NDAA passed out of that committee 59-2. That's about as 
bipartisan as you can get, and it really talks about the issues that 
are important to America and particularly as it relates to protecting 
our sons and daughters that are called upon to protect this Nation and 
called upon to go out and sacrifice for this Nation. We owe them that 
much. We want to make sure that they're successful in any mission that 
they're sent forward to participate in to protect the interests of this 
Nation and our Allies.
  The American people hear in the news media about how partisan 
Congress is today. Although we have our disagreements, and I know those 
reports and folks back home can't be looking at the work we're doing on 
the Armed Services Committee if all they see is partisanship, because 
it's not there. If they were looking at the Armed Services Committee 
and this year's National Defense Authorization Act, they'd see the kind 
of collaboration that legislation is supposed to be about. They'd see a 
chairman and a ranking member who work together on a common goal. 
They'd see staff that works to benefit our warfighters and not a 
political party. They'd see an NDAA that was passed out of the largest 
committee in the House of Representatives with only two people opposing 
it.
  And, tomorrow, I hope they'll see a House of Representatives that can 
put politics aside and support our troops by overwhelmingly passing the 
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2014.
  It's a good bill. H. Res. 260 makes it even better by allowing the 
House to consider amendments covering all the major issues covered by 
NDAA and the Department of Defense at large. I always like to say that 
nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. And that truism is evidenced by 
the 299 amendments that were offered to this legislation. The rule 
provides time for a vote on the majority of those ideas. That's why I 
support the rule, I support the underlying legislation, and I hope the 
House, as a whole, can do the same.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment in 
the Rules Committee for not making my amendment to H.R. 1960, the 
National Defense Authorization Act or Fiscal Year 2014, in order.
  House Republicans have once again failed to live up their promises of 
openness and transparency by denying me the opportunity to offer this 
important amendment to protect the privacy of students and parents with 
regard to military recruiters.
  I sought to offer this amendment in support of parents and students 
within my own Silicon Valley district and from across the country. The 
privacy of high school students across our nation is compromised by a 
provision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as 
No Child Left Behind, which requires school districts to provide the 
personal, private information of students to military recruiters at the 
risk of losing scarce federal education dollars, unless parents opt out 
in writing.
  Parents in my district complained to me that, in some instances, 
their children were persistently contacted at home by military 
recruiters. These parents wanted to know how the military got their 
children's personal, confidential information, including home phone 
numbers and addresses. They wanted to know why they were getting calls 
during dinner, especially when they had already gotten off of 
telemarketing lists.
  My amendment sought to change this to an ``opt in'' requirement, 
under which parents would need to provide written permission in order 
for schools to be allowed share student information with recruiters.
  The decision to join the military is a solemn one. Ideally, this 
decision should be made in consultation with people who love and care 
for the child--not with a government official, however well-
intentioned, whose very job is to recruit for the military. This cannot 
be guaranteed if recruiters are able to contact students without 
explicit parental approval, as those parents may not realize their 
students are receiving such calls.
  Other federal privacy statutes explicitly recognize individual 
privacy rights, particularly those of minors. The Children's Online 
Privacy Act prohibits commercial websites or online services from 
releasing personally identifiable information of minors. Federal 
agencies are prohibited from divulging personal information without 
written consent. Yet under current law it is acceptable to force 
schools to provide military recruiters with personal information of 
their students. This violates the trust between schools and students.
  Our nation has the best-trained and most powerful armed forces in the 
world, and maintaining our military superiority depends on effective 
recruiting. This country also has a proud history of personal rights 
and privacy protection. I believe we can sustain one while preserving 
the other.
  We must protect the children and students who represent the future of 
our country. This includes protecting their privacy.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 260 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       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 further consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 1960) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2014 
     for

[[Page 8897]]

     military activities of the Department of Defense and for 
     military construction, to prescribe military personnel 
     strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes. No 
     further general debate shall be in order. It shall be in 
     order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of 
     amendment under the five-minute rule the amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed 
     Services now printed in the bill. The amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute shall be considered as read. All points of 
     order against that amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. 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.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. NUGENT. With that, 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 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 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 233, 
nays 195, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 220]

                               YEAS--233

     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
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     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
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     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
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--195

     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     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
     Maffei
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (CA)
     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
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires

[[Page 8898]]


     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Campbell
     Chu
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Shea-Porter

                              {time}  1422

  Messrs. WELCH, GARCIA, and CARNEY changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Mrs. HARTZLER changed her 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. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 238, 
noes 189, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 221]

                               AYES--238

     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
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     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)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     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
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--189

     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
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Fattah
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia
     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
     Meeks
     Meng
     Michaud
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Negrete McLeod
     Nolan
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters (MI)
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Campbell
     Chu
     Herrera Beutler
     Markey
     McCarthy (NY)
     Pascrell
     Shea-Porter

                              {time}  1431

  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.

                          ____________________