[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10331-10337]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4870, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE 
         AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 3230, PAY OUR GUARD AND RESERVE ACT

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 628 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 628

       Resolved, That (a) at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4870) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     Points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to 
     comply with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
        (b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
       (1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in 
     paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent and 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in 
     paragraph (2);
       (2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate; and
       (3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read.
       (c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3230) 
     making continuing appropriations during a Government shutdown 
     to provide pay and allowances to members of the reserve 
     components of the Armed Forces who perform inactive-duty 
     training during such period, with the Senate amendments 
     thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention 
     of any point of order or question of consideration, a single 
     motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs or his designee that the House: (1) concur in the 
     Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the Senate 
     amendment to the text with the amendment printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be 
     considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to adoption without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question. If the motion is adopted, then it 
     shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on Veterans' 
     Affairs or his designee to move that the House insist on its 
     amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 3230 and request a 
     conference with the Senate thereon.

  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, H. Res. 628 provides for the consideration 
of H.R. 4870, the Department of Defense Appropriation Act for FY 2015 
under a modified open rule.
  This resolution will give Members on both sides of the aisle the 
opportunity to offer as many amendments to the bill as they wish, 
provided they comply with the rules of the House. It ensures that all 
Members can be active participants in shaping this bill. I think my 
colleague on the Rules Committee from Georgia described it best when he 
called this process a ``festival of democracy.''
  The underlying legislation will give the Department of Defense the 
resources it needs to protect our country at home and abroad. I am 
encouraged that both sides of the aisle can usually unite around this 
cause. This bill is another example of that bipartisanship, as it was 
reported out of the committee unanimously.
  The DOD Appropriations Act will also provide support for our 
warfighters, the 1 percent who risk all in defense of this Nation. It 
is critical that we give our troops the tools they need to carry out 
their mission abroad and the resources they need to support their 
families here at home. This legislation will fully fund a 1.8 percent 
pay increase for the military instead of the 1 percent raise requested 
by the President.
  Secondly, this rule allows us to begin ironing out the differences 
between the House and the Senate attempts to address the VA scandal. 
While we have yet to uncover the full scope of this scandal, it is 
apparent the problems are systemic to that institution.
  There have been secret wait lists, unacceptable patient wait times, 
inadequate care, backlogs, a culture of retaliating against 
whistleblowers, and a serious lack of leadership, to name only a few of 
the issues plaguing the VA.
  Tragically--tragically--veterans have died because of these problems. 
Mr. Speaker, it is disgraceful. The fact that a veteran died waiting 
for care from this country that they fought for, it is just tough to 
come to grips with that reality, but it is a reality.
  As a father of three sons serving in the military, I am appalled, I 
am horrified, and I believe the American people are, too, as to the 
treatment of our veterans. Our veterans deserve a whole lot more, a 
whole heck of a lot more from their government than to have the 
government turn their back on them. They deserve to be treated with 
respect and dignity, and the House will make every effort to ensure 
that these problems never happen again.
  One of the ways we can begin this effort is by giving the VA the 
authority to terminate employees for performing poorly, much like the 
private sector, much like I had as sheriff. It is what most employers 
have the ability to do. This will give the Secretary of the VA the 
ability to quickly remove bureaucrats who falsified, in this instance, 
wait times.
  As we have come to find out with all other scandals this 
administration is engulfed in, it is difficult to hold people 
accountable in the executive branch, try as we might. Therefore, the 
provisions are sorely needed.
  We can also require the VA to reimburse private health care for 
veterans who live more than 40 miles from a VA facility or those who 
have not received timely medical treatment at the VA.

                              {time}  1230

  This will allow our veterans to get the care that they need when they 
need it.
  Finally, it is a bit discouraging that we even have to codify this 
into law, but we need to end the bonuses and awards at the VA for at 
least the next two fiscal years. Incredibly, the Phoenix VA--where 
veterans actually died waiting for care--felt it was appropriate to pay 
out $10 million in bonuses over the last 3 years.
  By prohibiting this practice, we can ensure that the funds we provide 
to the VA are going where they are needed: toward the care of our 
veterans and not to fatten bureaucrats' pockets.
  I stand in strong support of this rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

[[Page 10332]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Florida, my friend Mr. Nugent, for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we debate the rule to consider two measures: H.R. 
4870, the fiscal year 2015 Defense Appropriations bill; and the motion 
to go to conference on legislation addressing the problems at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
  I regret that this is not an open rule. Strict time limits have been 
placed on debate, which make it impossible to adequately discuss 
important issues. On issues regarding our national security, we should 
have ample time for discussion. This is hardly a festival of democracy, 
as my friend from Florida described this process--this is muzzling 
democracy. But less debate in a more closed process has become the 
signature of the Republican majority, I am sad to say.
  I am pleased that legislation addressing the problems at the VA is 
moving forward in a timely way. However, I want to echo the statement 
of my friend from Maine, the ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee, Mr. Michaud. The distinguished ranking member correctly 
pointed out in testimony presented to the Rules Committee that while 
this bill is important, it is shortsighted and should include many of 
the bipartisan measures that have been worked on at the Veterans' 
Affairs Committee. Like Mr. Michaud, I would prefer that this process 
be more open, and it is just another example of how this closed process 
denies many good bipartisan ideas from being considered and adopted.
  Although I have serious concerns with the final Defense 
Appropriations product, I do want to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for working together in a bipartisan way on 
this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, we take up this bill at a very serious moment in time. 
Every day we turn on our TVs and see conflict, war, and turmoil around 
the world. It is often hard to remember that most of the world is not 
at war.
  I am very concerned that this bill continues funding the longest war 
in United States history: the war in Afghanistan. Even though the 
President has announced that he will draw down most of our combat 
forces by the end of this year, he has also said that he will keep 
10,000 of our servicemen and -women in Afghanistan through 2016.
  I believe strongly that Congress should debate and vote on approving 
the President's proposal to keep our uniformed men and women in harm's 
way for another 2 years. What are these 10,000 troops supposed to 
accomplish that 100,000 troops have not yet done? Our own generals were 
quoted in Monday's Washington Post saying that security is not the 
problem in Afghanistan, corruption is the problem. Ten thousand U.S. 
troops are now going to magically eliminate corruption in Afghanistan.
  Just last month, at the end of May, during consideration of the NDAA, 
Armed Services Ranking Member Adam Smith, Congressman Walter Jones, and 
I attempted to offer a germane amendment that would have required the 
House to vote early next year on whether to maintain U.S. military 
forces in Afghanistan as the President has proposed.
  Outrageously, the Republican leadership of this House refused to let 
us offer that amendment. We were denied the chance to debate one of the 
most important questions facing this Congress, the American people, our 
troops, and their families. So, as we get ready to deliver in this 
Defense Appropriations bill a $79.4 billion blank check to the 
President to continue the war in Afghanistan, I call upon the Speaker 
and the leadership of this House to promise--to promise--that before 
the 113th Congress adjourns they will bring before this House a joint 
resolution whether to approve the President's proposal to maintain U.S. 
Armed Forces in Afghanistan through 2016.
  Let the House debate it, and let the House vote on it, up or down. 
Let's do our jobs. I have no idea what the result of such a vote might 
be, but I do know that we owe that vote to our troops, their families, 
and to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am tired of endless wars. I am increasingly anxious as 
I listen to talk shows where politicians and pundits rattle their 
sabers and advocate for more full-scale war in Iraq, and many other 
places around the world.
  It is especially galling to listen to the people who got us into this 
mess in Iraq in the first place. In The Wall Street Journal today, Dick 
Cheney actually had the audacity to write:

       Rarely has a U.S. President been so wrong about so much at 
     the expense of so many.

  Are you kidding me? How pathetic. If it is possible to have less than 
zero credibility, then Dick Cheney has it on Iraq.
  I believe in our military, Mr. Speaker. I believe in our men and 
women in uniform. I believe we should have a military second to none. I 
believe we shouldn't hesitate to use that military when our Nation is 
directly threatened and when the cause is serious enough to warrant the 
sacrifice of American lives.
  But there are many problems--indeed most problems--in the world where 
sending the U.S. military is not the solution. The crisis facing Iraq 
has been years in the making. It is not happening because Iraq does not 
have a well-trained and well-equipped military. The United States took 
great pains to make sure that it is.
  No, Mr. Speaker, Iraq is facing this current crisis because a 
corrupt, exclusive, power-hungry, sectarian government, headed by Prime 
Minister Nouri al-Maliki, deliberately chose to exclude ethnic and 
religious minorities and other factions of Iraqi society from 
government decisionmaking. Indeed, the Maliki government often went out 
of its way to deliberately fan the flames of sectarianism and extend 
the power of the Shiite majority. Now it is reaping the whirlwind that 
it created, but in ways it likely never imagined.
  If Iraq is to be saved from this crisis, then Iraqi leaders need to 
learn real fast how to lead--not just their own faction, but how to 
lead a Nation, to stand up for all their people, and to order their 
troops and their militias to protect all the Iraqi people: Sunni, 
Christian, Jewish, Bahai, north, south, and center. They know how to do 
it. They just have to choose to do it and pray it is not too late. 
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, it is time for the governments and powers 
in the region to stand up against the vicious militias and violent 
jihadists wreaking havoc in their own countries and among their 
neighbors. They are the ones who need to lead the way to a political 
solution to the challenges facing the entire region, or watch it go up 
in flames around them.
  Several of our generals and commanders have commented in recent news 
articles that it is difficult for the U.S. to respond with air power or 
drones or special operations because the Iraqis rebelling against the 
central government are not just made up of extremist ISIS members, but 
they include local Sunnis and other disenfranchised Iraqis. So who do 
you target? How do you target them? Should you target groups at all?
  If one thing has become clear after watching the crisis unfold and 
listening to all the pundits, the solution to the crisis in Iraq will 
depend on Iraqis, not on American bombs or firepower, let alone 
manpower.
  Mr. Speaker, as we take up the Defense Appropriations bill, these 
matters weigh heavily on the minds of all of us who serve in this 
House. While we work to ensure that our uniformed men and women have 
what they need to carry out their duties and missions, let us also be 
clear that there are many problems confronting the world today that, 
unfortunately, our military simply cannot fix.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Benishek).
  Mr. BENISHEK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Today, I rise in support of going to a conference committee with the 
Senate

[[Page 10333]]

on VA reform. I am pleased that the Senate has followed our lead in 
swiftly passing legislation that will help the thousands of veterans 
waiting for care in a dysfunctional VA system.
  While I don't agree with everything in the Senate bill, we all agree 
that our veterans deserve better than the VA has been giving them. 
Today, Congress will renew its commitment, on a bipartisan basis, to 
overhauling the VA and working to give our veterans the care they have 
earned.
  I was a surgeon at the VA for 20 years treating our veterans, and 
today I am grateful for the opportunity to continue that care by 
working to get a VA reform bill to the President's desk.
  The bottom line is this: we cannot allow the VA to continue operating 
as a failed, bloated bureaucracy.
  I believe we can give the VA the tools to be smarter, leaner, and 
much more responsive to the needs of our veterans. As a father of a 
veteran, I am dedicated to making this a reality. The time for excuses 
is over, the time for action is now.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I certainly 
appreciate the gentleman's very expansive assessment on the two 
underlying bills that we are about to address today.
  Let me, first of all, say that I live in a community of a very major 
veterans hospital. In fact, I carried the legislation to name it after 
Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, who created the MASH units in World War II. We 
care about veterans, as do my colleagues across the aisle in both the 
House and the Senate.
  I believe that it is important to move the Veterans' Access to Care 
Through Choice, Accountability, continue through the process, and to 
make sure that our veterans, after the many audits that we have 
received on the individual hospitals, know that there is a long period 
of time for those veterans newly accessing veterans health care.
  Who does that include? That includes the recent returnees of 
Afghanistan veterans or Iraq veterans or even those veterans who have 
maintained good health and now find themselves in senior years, such as 
Vietnam veterans, and are coming to the system for the first time. It 
is intolerable for them to have to wait. I believe this is a very 
important initiative. If we are to send soldiers overseas or in the 
line of battle, as many are promoting now in light of the violence in 
Iraq, can we not without shame stand and provide them the kind of 
health care for them and their families?
  I rise as well to comment on the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, and I am glad that there has been attention to PTSD. I intend to 
offer an amendment addressing resources for PTSD and resources for the 
epidemic of breast cancer among military women in the Appropriations 
Act.
  But I do think it is important that again we have a prohibition 
against the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the United States. That 
means that this facility continues to be open.
  Then, of course, we have appropriations for the overseas contingency 
operations, for which the President has not yet made a request. But I 
think in the context of providing an increase in wages for our military 
personnel, I congratulate the chairman and ranking member for working 
so cooperatively.
  But I raise a point in the backdrop of the crisis in Iraq, the ISIS, 
and all of the disjangled chords of calling for troops on the ground 
and to do airstrikes when in actuality we live in a world family, we 
live in a family with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, we live in a 
family with NATO alliances, and we need to be able to work together to 
demand why an untoward leader in Iraq, who was given an opportunity for 
a consensus government, never made any effort. Yes, these individuals 
are horrific, they are radicalized, they are vicious, they are vile. 
But there are Sunnis and Shiites who have worked together, there are 
Sunnis who are moderate, who want to be in the government, who want 
their children to have an opportunity for education, they want their 
young people to have jobs, they want an Iraq where they can pledge 
allegiance to their flag, a united Iraq. Where was the leadership, the 
selfish leadership of Maliki, to be able to do that--and now we must 
clean up his dirty kitchen? I think not.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield an additional minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman.
  This must be a unified effort. Frankly, the President is right to be 
deliberative. We yet do not know, as I speak--there may be some news 
announcement--what his decision may be. But I do believe he has done 
the right thing by providing security and safety for the thousands of 
Americans that are in Baghdad and protecting our Embassy. That is the 
right thing to do. He has done the right thing by finding one of the 
perpetrators of Benghazi.
  I would ask we do the right thing by not ignoring again another 
terrorist threat, Boko Haram in northeast Nigeria, that is fueling the 
flames, taking over municipalities, ready to pounce on places other 
than the northeast. These are threats that need the collective body of 
the United Nations--in this instance, the African Union, the ECOWAS, 
and all the states surrounding Nigeria, and, of course, the Nigerian 
government, of which we are friends with.
  But I will say that America cannot continuously go it alone. We have 
given our treasure. Our young men and women never say ``no.'' When they 
are called to duty, they go, reservists and all.
  I believe it is time to be responsible, respectful, and cautious in 
the way we move forward using our troops around the world. I ask my 
colleague to consider this as we deliberate on this appropriations 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the rule for H.R. 4860, the 
``Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015'' and the underlying 
bill.
  I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky for their 
work on this legislation to the floor and for their devotion to the men 
and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives to keep our nation 
safe.
  I also want to extend thanks and appreciation to the men and women in 
and out of uniform who defend our nation and serve honor and 
distinction.
  My work in the 18th Congressional District of Texas has allowed me 
the privilege of working with men and women in the military, the 
workers in aeronautics and space industries that contribute to our 
nation's defense as well as those in the Department of Defense who work 
in and around our nation's capital.
  Through my work as a Member of Congress I know those who have served 
and returned home to a tough economy, struggles with physical 
disabilities and life changing injuries associated with their service 
to our nation.
  The men and women who serve in the military are not a collection of 
statistics and data points, but individuals with names and faces--real 
people who depend on us to ensure they are the best trained, best 
equipped, and best led defense force in the world.
  I appreciate the Committee's continued support for providing funding 
that assists military men and women's ability in operating in 
unconventional and irregular warfare and countering unconventional 
threats, supports capacity-building efforts with foreign military 
forces, and supports ongoing operations, as well as programs that will 
improve the health and well-being of the force, including sexual 
assault prevention.
  This bill before us does much but not enough to recognize the 
sacrifices of the men and women serving in the military.
  The fiscal year 2015 Department of Defense military personnel budget 
request was for $128.95 billion. The Committee appropriated $128.127 
billion, nearly $800 million less the request and less than the need.
  While we watch Al Qaeda-inspired terrorists in Nigeria in the form of 
Boko Haram and ISIS in Iraq carry out terrible acts of violence, it is 
important to ensure that military has the resources needed to respond 
to any threat to our nation or its allies.
  The bill recognizes that the military is changing due to the expanded 
roles for women who pursue careers in the armed services and it is 
essential that this change not lead to a diminution of rights or 
opportunities from what women would enjoy had they pursued a different 
career path.
  That is why I will be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee No. 1) to 
provide $5 million in

[[Page 10334]]

increased funding and support for medical research related to breast 
cancer research. The identical amendment was offered and adopted by the 
House last year.
  This additional funding will be made available for Triple Negative 
Breast Cancer research. TNBC is one of the most deadly forms of the 
disease that is extremely difficult to detect, and has an extremely 
high mortality rate.
  I will also be offering an amendment (Jackson Lee Amendment No. 2) to 
reprogramming $500,000 toward outreach programs targeting hard to reach 
veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in underserved 
urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD). An identical amendment was offered by me and adopted by the 
House last year.
  PTSD, along with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI), are the signature 
wounds of the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation 
Iraqi Freedom.
  The need for treatment and support of those afflicted will be with us 
long after the conflict ceases and our heroes have returned home.
  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire of the gentleman as to how many more 
speakers he has.
  Mr. NUGENT. I have none.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks I will insert in the Record a 
Statement of Administration Policy on this bill, but first I would just 
highlight a couple of points.

                              {time}  1245

  The administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 4870, as it 
now stands--and so do I--for a number of reasons. I want to highlight 
one. There are provisions in this bill that make it difficult, if not 
impossible, for the President to close down Guantanamo.
  Let me read from the administration's statement in reference to some 
of these restrictive provisions that prevent them from shutting down 
something that I think does nothing to enhance our security:
  Operating the detention facility at Guantanamo weakens our national 
security by draining resources, damaging our relationships with key 
allies and partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These 
provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the executive 
branch's ability to determine the appropriate disposition of detainees 
and its flexibility to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo 
detainees based on the facts and circumstances of each case and our 
national security interests.
  There are other issues as well, but that is something that Members 
ought to know. This bill does contain these extraneous provisions.
  Let me close by saying to my colleagues that it is no secret to 
people in this House that I believe that the war in Afghanistan--the 
longest war in U.S. history--should be brought to a close.
  It is also no secret that I have expressed my frustration loudly on 
this House floor over the fact that we have not been given the 
opportunity to discuss that war in an open debate.
  When the defense authorization bill came up before us, a germane 
bipartisan amendment was offered that would give Members of Congress 
the ability to vote on whether we should continue to maintain troops 
there or not. That is an important question. That is an important 
issue, certainly, as we discuss the defense authorization and the 
Defense Appropriations bills.
  We were denied that opportunity in this House of Representatives, 
which my friend is saying is a festival of democracy, on the most 
important issue that is confronting this country right now, the fact 
that we are at war. We were denied the opportunity to be able to 
deliberate on that issue.
  As I said in my opening statement, we have Members of Congress and 
pundits that are rattling sabers and trying to get us recommitted to a 
war in Iraq. I think that would be a horrible mistake.
  I want to close by making a plea to the leadership of this House to 
let us discuss these issues openly on the House floor. Let us 
deliberate on those issues. Let us live up to our responsibilities, as 
Members of Congress, to have a role in some of these discussions. Let's 
not abdicate that responsibility.
  In fact, it has become a habit with this leadership to just kind of 
brush aside those issues, to allow no debate, to allow no deliberation. 
I find that appalling.
  When you go to Walter Reed and talk to those veterans who have been 
wounded and who suffered enormously as a result of their service, when 
you talk to their parents and their loved ones, we owe those men and 
women a hell of a lot better than they have received on this House 
floor. The least we can do is deliberate on those issues.
  I make a plea to this leadership to let us talk about these things. 
This is important. If this isn't important, I don't know what is.
  I oppose the final passage of the bill for a number of reasons, but I 
do want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the Defense 
Appropriations Subcommittee for their hard work, as well as their 
staff, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


       H.R. 4870--Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015

                   (Rep. Rogers, R-KY, June 17, 2014)

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     4870, making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other 
     purposes. The Administration appreciates the bill's continued 
     support for providing funding that assists the warfighter in 
     operating in unconventional and irregular warfare and 
     countering unconventional threats, supports capacity-building 
     efforts with foreign military forces, and supports on-going 
     operations, as well as the support for programs that would 
     improve the health and well-being of the force, including 
     sexual assault prevention. While there are a number of areas 
     of agreement with the bill, the Administration has serious 
     concerns with provisions that would constrain the ability of 
     the Department of Defense (DOD) to align military 
     capabilities and force structure with the President's defense 
     strategy and to reduce unneeded costs.
       The Administration will soon submit a budget amendment to 
     request funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). 
     This request will reflect the President's decision on troop 
     levels in Afghanistan and include funding for the U.S. 
     military mission in Afghanistan, DOD's supporting presence in 
     the broader region, as well as the recently proposed 
     Counterterrorism Partnerships Fund and European Reassurance 
     Initiative. The Administration looks forward to working with 
     the Congress on this request.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress on an orderly appropriations process that supports 
     economic growth, opportunity, and our national security while 
     avoiding unnecessary fiscal crises that hold the Nation's 
     economy back. This process should include reconciling funding 
     levels for individual appropriations bills to promote 
     economic growth and national security, and passing bills 
     without ideological provisions that could undermine an 
     orderly appropriations process.
       The President's fiscal year (FY) 2015 Budget provides a 
     roadmap for making investments to accelerate economic growth, 
     expand opportunity for all hard-working Americans, and ensure 
     our national security, while continuing to improve the 
     Nation's long-term fiscal outlook. At the same time, the 
     Budget takes key steps to both continue and enhance the 
     Administration's efforts to deliver a Government that is more 
     effective, efficient, and supportive of economic growth.
       The President's Budget adheres to the FY 2015 spending 
     levels agreed to in the Bipartisan Budget Act (BBA) and shows 
     the choices the President would make at those levels. 
     However, the levels agreed to in the BBA are already below FY 
     2007 funding levels adjusted for inflation and are not 
     sufficient--either in FY 2015 or beyond--to ensure the Nation 
     is achieving its full potential. For that reason, the Budget 
     also includes a fully paid for Opportunity, Growth, and 
     Security Initiative--evenly split between defense and non-
     defense priorities--that presents additional investments to 
     grow the economy, expand opportunity, and enhance security. 
     The Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative would 
     provide $26.4 billion for DOD to make progress on restoring 
     readiness lost under sequestration, accelerate modernization 
     of key weapons systems, and improve DOD facilities across the 
     United States.
       In the Administration's view, the risk to the Nation will 
     grow significantly should the Congress not accept reforms 
     proposed in the FY 2015 Budget. Without congressional support 
     for meaningful compensation reforms and other cost saving 
     measures, force structure changes, and flexibility to manage 
     weapon systems and infrastructure, there is an increased risk 
     to the Department's ability to implement the President's 
     defense strategy, which will contribute to a military that

[[Page 10335]]

     will be less capable of responding effectively to future 
     challenges.
       The Administration would like to take this opportunity to 
     share additional views regarding the Committee's version of 
     the bill and urges the Congress to resolve these issues 
     during the FY 2015 appropriations process.


                         Department of Defense

       Prohibition on Retirement, Divesture, Realignment, or 
     Transfer of Aircraft. The Administration appreciates the 
     Committee's support of the Air Force's A-10 fleet divesture 
     plans. Divesting the A-10 fleet will help the Air Force meet 
     near-term readiness and achieve long-term modernization 
     objectives. However, the Administration strongly objects to 
     provisions that restrict the Department's ability to retire 
     other weapon systems and aircraft platforms in accordance 
     with current strategic and operational plans. These 
     divestitures are critical and would provide funding for 
     higher priority programs.
       Specifically, the Administration strongly objects to 
     sections 8122, 8133, and 8136 of the bill, consistent with 
     previously stated objections to provisions in the FY 2015 
     National Defense Authorization Act. Section 8122 of the bill 
     would prohibit the cancellation or modification of the C-130 
     Avionics Modernization Program (AMP). DOD plans to replace 
     the C-130 AMP with a less expensive, fully capable 
     alternative that has been validated by independent study to 
     ensure that the fleet continues to meet future requirements. 
     Section 8133 would prevent the Air Force from using funds to 
     divest or to disestablish any units of the active or reserve 
     component associated with E-3 airborne warning and control 
     system aircraft. This provision would force the Air Force to 
     take funding from higher priority defense needs in order to 
     operate, sustain, and maintain aircraft that are not needed 
     and are unaffordable in today's constrained fiscal 
     environment. Section 8136, which limits the transfer of 
     Apaches from the Army National Guard to the active Army, 
     would result in gaps in the Army's armed reconnaissance units 
     that would require approximately $4 billion to fill. As DOD 
     transitions out of a decade of war, aircraft force structure 
     changes are necessary to shape a force that is more agile and 
     ready to respond to the requirements of the defense strategy.
       Compensation Reform. To achieve a proper balance between 
     DOD's obligation to provide competitive pay and benefits to 
     servicemembers and its responsibility to provide troops with 
     the training and equipment they need to do their jobs, it is 
     imperative to slow the growth of basic pay and housing 
     allowances, modernize military healthcare, and reform how 
     commissaries operate. The Administration strongly urges the 
     Congress to support these reforms, which would save $2 
     billion in FY 2015 and $31 billion through FY 2019. While the 
     Committee restored funding to offset the FY 2015 savings 
     associated with proposals that were not supported, the 
     rejection of these proposals will likely require DOD to find 
     over $27 billion in additional reductions to readiness, 
     modernization, and force structure for FY 2016 through FY 
     2019. The Administration looks forward to the recommendations 
     of the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization 
     Commission on long-term compensation and retirement issues, 
     but delaying DOD's holistic package of proposed initial 
     changes will only result in increased costs, degradation in 
     training and modernization efforts, and risks to the force.
       Guantanamo Detainee Restrictions. The Administration 
     strongly objects to sections 8107, 8108, 8139, and 9015 of 
     the bill, each of which would restrict the Executive Branch's 
     ability to manage the Guantanamo detainee population. The 
     President has repeatedly objected to the inclusion of these 
     or similar provisions in prior legislation and this year has 
     reiterated his call to the Congress to lift such 
     restrictions. As the President said in his State of the Union 
     Address, ``this needs to be the year Congress lifts the 
     remaining restrictions on detainee transfers and we close the 
     prison at Guantanamo Bay.'' Operating the detention facility 
     at Guantanamo weakens our national security by draining 
     resources, damaging our relationships with key allies and 
     partners, and emboldening violent extremists. These 
     provisions are unwarranted and threaten to interfere with the 
     Executive Branch's ability to determine the appropriate 
     disposition of detainees and its flexibility to determine 
     when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees based on the 
     facts and circumstances of each case and our national 
     security interests. Sections 8107, 8139, and 9015 would, 
     moreover, violate constitutional separation-of-powers 
     principles under certain circumstances.
       Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). The Administration 
     strongly objects to the proposed $4.8 million reduction in 
     funds that would support a BRAC 2017 round. This impairs the 
     ability of the Executive Branch to plan for contingencies or 
     make other needed adjustments that would improve military 
     effectiveness and efficiency. The Administration strongly 
     urges the Congress to provide the BRAC authorization and 
     funding as requested, which would allow DOD to rightsize its 
     infrastructure while providing important assistance to 
     affected communities. Without authorization for a new round 
     of BRAC, DOD will not be able to properly align the 
     military's infrastructure with the needs of our evolving 
     force structure, which is critical to ensuring that limited 
     resources are available for the highest priorities of the 
     warfighter and national security.
       Limitation on Funds Available to Procure Equipment. The 
     Administration objects to section 8116 of the bill which 
     would continue and expand prohibitions on using funds to 
     procure certain equipment, including maintenance for the 
     Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF). This section would 
     severely limit DOD's ability to sustain military-use 
     helicopters and other equipment that is already in ANSF's 
     inventory and is critical to their ability to continue the 
     fight against extremists who threaten the security of 
     Afghanistan, the United States, and our allies. If enacted, 
     this section could force DOD to seek more costly alternatives 
     than contracting with the Russian helicopter industry to 
     sustain ANSF aircraft, increasing costs to the U.S. taxpayer.
       Liquid Rocket Engine Development. The Administration 
     objects to the unrequested $220 million for a new rocket 
     engine. An independent study recently concluded that such a 
     program would take eight years to field and could cost $1.5 
     billion with another $3 billion needed to develop a suitable 
     launch vehicle. This approach prematurely commits significant 
     resources and would not reduce our reliance on Russian 
     engines for at least a decade. With a goal of promptly 
     reducing our reliance on Russian technology, the 
     Administration is evaluating several cost-effective options 
     including public-private partnerships with multiple awards 
     that will drive innovation, stimulate the industrial base, 
     and reduce costs through competition. The Administration 
     looks forward to working with the Congress on this issue once 
     the analysis is complete.
       Limitations on Phased Modernization of Weapon Systems. 
     While appreciative of the bill's overall support for cruiser 
     modernization, the Administration objects to the unnecessary 
     limitations on the current plan, which would preclude 
     modernization in the most cost effective and timely manner 
     and may hinder the Navy's ability to retain 11 modernized 
     cruisers into the 2040s.
       Reducing the Force Structure at Lajes Air Force Base. The 
     Administration objects to section 8123 of the bill, which 
     would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from reducing 
     the force structure at Lajes Air Force Base and is 
     duplicative of section 341 of the FY 2014 National Defense 
     Authorization Act. Because DOD is nearing completion of the 
     section 341 requirements for Lajes, duplicating and 
     amplifying these requirements is unnecessarily onerous.
       Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). The Administration objects to 
     finding reductions for the LCS program. The reductions leave 
     the program with insufficient funds to procure three LCS in 
     FY 2015, delaying the delivery of much needed capability to 
     the Fleet. Deferring additional ships into FY 2016 would 
     compound the already significant challenges the Navy faces in 
     funding the shipbuilding account in a fiscally constrained 
     environment while increasing overall costs to the Navy and 
     increasing risk to the industrial base, including sub-tier 
     suppliers.
       Reallocation of Missile Defense Agency Funding. The 
     Administration objects to the reallocation of $370 million 
     from the FY 2015 Budget request. These changes would reduce 
     capability and capacity, and may possibly hinder the 
     Department's ability to effectively manage the Agency. 
     Specifically, this reallocation of funds would delay critical 
     engineering, testing, command and control, and weapons system 
     development, and would affect homeland and regional 
     commitments, including a likely delay of one year for the 
     European Phased Adaptive Approach Phase 3--a national 
     commitment to our allies. Also, the reduction in advanced 
     procurement funding for the Standard Missile-3 IB could 
     increase its planned procurement cost by about $140 million.
       Opposition to Unrequested Funding. The Administration 
     objects to the billions of dollars provided for items DOD did 
     not request and does not need, such as additional EA-18G 
     aircraft, High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles, M-1 
     Abrams upgrades, and a significantly larger amount of funding 
     for the National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account than 
     provided in recent years. The Administration is also 
     concerned that section 8006 of the bill makes spending on 
     these and other unnecessary items statutorily required, 
     diverting scarce resources from more important defense 
     programs and limiting the Secretary's flexibility to manage 
     the Department efficiently.
       Classified Programs. The Administration looks forward to 
     providing its views on the adjustments contained in the 
     Classified Annex to the bill once it becomes available.
       The Administration looks forward to working with the 
     Congress as the FY 2015 appropriations process moves forward.

  Mr. NUGENT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us allows for an open and transparent 
consideration of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act of 2015. 
Chairman Frelinghuysen has done an excellent job in the appropriations 
area, working with his minority member, to

[[Page 10336]]

craft this appropriations bill to fit the needs of our military. They 
have done an excellent job.
  Providing for the common defense is a constitutional responsibility 
that we share with the President. This Congress shares that with the 
President. Without a strong defense, we have no way of ensuring that 
our liberties we enjoy and the safety of our citizens from threats, 
both foreign and domestic, keep us safe here at home.
  The underlying legislation helps fulfill Congress' responsibility to 
provide for our national defense by funding the Armed Forces and 
addressing critical readiness gaps.
  The DOD Appropriations bill provides $1 million to be used 
exclusively for improving military readiness. That commitment is vital 
because we need to give our warfighters the best possible chance to 
complete their mission and make it home safe and sound.
  As a father of three soldiers, I can only tell you that the ability 
to train and equip our men and women that have volunteered to serve 
this country is the utmost responsibility that this country has to them 
to make sure that they have the ability to come back. We need to give 
them the best possible fighting chance to come home to their families.
  As a father who has sons serving in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we 
have got to make sure this country provides the best possible military, 
second to none in the world.
  We want to make sure that our men and women have the ability to have 
the medical treatment that they so rightly deserve when they come back 
after serving their country. I think that we have taken the steps in 
the Rules Committee to do just that.
  This rule and this appropriations bill actually rejects, again, the 
President's proposed cuts to TRICARE. Once again, in the last 4 years, 
TRICARE has come under fire.
  We don't believe that we should balance the budget on the backs of 
our men and women who fight for this country. We need to make sure of 
our priorities that we owe our troops, which is a debt we can never 
repay, but you don't repay it by cutting their benefits, and you don't 
repay it by cutting their pay, you don't repay it by ignoring them as 
it relates to when they come back with a service-connected disability, 
go in front of the VA, and be denied the service they rightfully 
earned.
  Finally, the rule provides for the motions necessary to go to 
conference with the Senate because, if you remember right, the Senate 
passed a bill, the House passed a bill as it relates to the VA, in 
regards to trying to fix the VA. It is a good first step.
  Those bills have already been passed. Now, it is the opportunity to 
provide an opportunity to conference with the Senate to come up with a 
compromise that puts our veterans first--not last, not behind 
bureaucrats, but in front of the line, not the back of the line.
  We can quickly resolve those issues between the House and the Senate 
by going to conference, and that is what this bill helps us do.
  I think we all agree the treatment of our veterans has been shameful. 
It is a complete disservice to those who risked their lives for us. The 
severity of this issue, the sheer gravity of it, demands input from 
both Chambers.
  We have heard about how keeping GTMO open makes us less safe. Well, 
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that releasing five members of 
Taliban's senior leadership positions makes America less safe--which we 
just did, without input from this House or without input from the 
Senate, as required by law. It was just done.
  Are we safer because we released these five Taliban leaders? They are 
not the trigger pullers. They are not the guys on the ground. These are 
the guys that actually helped design and implement the Taliban and the 
attacks on us. Some of those leaders are purported to be members of 
that group that helped design and implement those.
  I agree with my good friend from Massachusetts. We agree on a lot of 
issues, particularly as it relates to our military and open-ended 
conflicts. We do agree on that.
  Having sons that have served both in Iraq and Afghanistan, I want to 
make sure that this body has a say in what happens. I want to make sure 
this body hears from the President in a cohesive way in regards to what 
he expects to accomplish and what our mission is.
  I have two sons in Iraq in the conflict. I happened to travel there 
and got to see my two kids. The night that I was there, a U.S. base was 
struck by an IRAM, which is an Iranian rocket warhead.
  The only place you get that is from Iran. You don't find it on the 
shelf at a store. Iran provided a warhead that killed five troops the 
night I was in Iraq. They were part of the division where my youngest 
son served.
  Here we are, talking about working with Iran, who has been the most 
destablizing country in the world, as it relates to Afghanistan and 
Iraq. This is a sectarian issue going on between the Sunnis and the 
Shiites.
  I don't know what the best way forward is, but I want to hear from 
the President what his plan is. We sent more troops to Iraq. I want to 
hear specifically what we expect to get out of that. What do we expect?
  I will tell you that the ISIL in the media, they want to hurt 
America. They are the ones that are advancing towards Baghdad. They 
have the ability, from what I am reading in the press, to reach out and 
touch America.
  Do we have a vested interest in seeing what happens in Iraq? I 
believe we do, but I want to hear from this President about how you 
move forward and how you fix something that my good friend from 
Massachusetts talked about, the corrupt government within Iraq.
  We have some of the same issues in Afghanistan. How do we do that?
  I think he hit it on the head. The people of those countries have got 
to stand up and take control. The problem is we don't want terrorists 
to take control. The ISIL is a terrorist organization; there is no 
doubt about it.
  Lastly, I just want to touch on the conference allowing us to give 
instructions to conferees as relates to the Senate. We want to make 
sure that that gets done--and it gets done right and done in a timely 
fashion. It is amazing that the Senate, when motivated, can do the 
right thing and move a piece of legislation through.
  I support this straightforward rule and the much-needed underlying 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  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 vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 244, 
nays 163, not voting 24, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 315]

                               YEAS--244

     Aderholt
     Amash
     Amodei
     Bachmann
     Barber
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bentivolio
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Broun (GA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Bustos
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Cotton
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Daines
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duckworth
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Enyart
     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 (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guthrie
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones

[[Page 10337]]


     Jordan
     Joyce
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Kuster
     Labrador
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     Latta
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Maffei
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McAllister
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McIntyre
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nolan
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peters (CA)
     Petri
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     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
     Ruiz
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shea-Porter
     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
     Walz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IN)

                               NAYS--163

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

                             NOT VOTING--24

     Bachus
     Beatty
     Bera (CA)
     Bridenstine
     Cantor
     Costa
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Garamendi
     Hall
     Hanna
     Horsford
     Lankford
     McKeon
     Meeks
     Meng
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mulvaney
     Nunnelee
     Rangel
     Ryan (OH)
     Waxman
     Welch

                              {time}  1322

  Ms. KUSTER, Mr. LIPINSKI and Ms. SHEA-PORTER changed their 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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably 
detained today and missed roll No. 315. Had I been present, I would 
have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________