[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6572-6579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4909, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
                 AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 735 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 735

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 4909) to authorize 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2017 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.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
        (b) Each further amendment printed in 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.
       (c) All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in the report of the Committee on Rules or 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 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.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such further 
     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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 735 provides for continued 
consideration of H.R. 4909, the National Defense Authorization Act for 
Fiscal Year 2017.
  The resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order 120 
amendments. These amendments are on top of the 61 amendments that were 
made in order by yesterday's rule. That is a combined 181 amendments on 
one bill.
  As I mentioned during yesterday's debate, the NDAA process has always 
been bipartisan. In fact, Congress has successfully passed the NDAA for 
each of the last 54 years. That is a really impressive accomplishment. 
I hope this year is no different.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to remind my colleagues that the NDAA passed out 
of the Armed Services Committee by a vote of 60-2. That vote total is 
very, very impressive and demonstrates the bipartisan nature in which 
our committee, the Armed Services Committee, operates.
  Another thing I really appreciate about the NDAA process is how open 
it is and how so many different Members are able to have input into the 
final product. The first round of amendment debate yesterday was an 
example of a healthy debate on a wide range of amendments.
  You look around the country, and so many of our communities are home 
to important military assets and programs. Some communities are home to 
military bases where we are training our future fighters. Other 
communities contribute to our military success with industry suppliers; 
and every single community across the country is home to 
servicemembers, whether Active Duty, Guard, or Reserve. Each of these 
communities faces unique challenges and offer different perspectives. 
That is why I believe it is so important that we have such an open 
process to allow a wide range of views to be discussed and debated.
  During the Armed Services Committee process, we considered 248 
amendments. When you add up the amendments considered at the committee 
level to the amendments we will consider on the floor, it brings us to 
a huge total of 429 amendments on one bill. These amendments cover a 
range of important issues from National Guard to cybersecurity, to 
sexual assault, to religious freedom, to military health care. Looking 
at specific security threats we face, these amendments address issues 
relating to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Europe, Russia, and 
many more places.
  I know my colleague from Massachusetts is particularly interested in 
the Authorization for Use of Military Force, or AUMF, debate, as I am. 
Although the Foreign Affairs Committee, not the Armed Services 
Committee, has jurisdiction over AUMFs, I was pleased that we were able 
to obtain the committee's approval for Ms. Lee's amendment to be made 
in order so the House can debate this issue on the floor. I know that 
doesn't go as far as my colleague from Massachusetts would want it to 
go, and I hope that there is a time when this body, after hearings in 
appropriate committees of jurisdiction, can have a full and informed 
debate on a new AUMF, but we cannot do that under these circumstances 
today and give the American people the full and fair hearing that they 
deserve.
  A few of my colleagues have also expressed concerns about the way 
this NDAA is funded. This rule makes in order an amendment by Mr. 
Ellison that would cut money out of the overseas contingency operations 
account. While I think these concerns are misguided, this rule allows 
that debate to take place.
  The rule makes in order an amendment by our Rules Committee 
colleague, Mr. Polis, which would put in place a 1 percent across-the-
board reduction in total spending under the NDAA. Again, I think this 
would be a grave error, but this rule provides for that important 
debate.
  We have heard bipartisan concerns about visa programs for certain at-
risk populations in Afghanistan, and this amendment makes in order a 
bipartisan amendment by Mr. Blumenauer to reform the Special Immigrant 
Visa program.
  The rule allows for debate on another bipartisan amendment that would 
require the Department of Defense to report on China's activities in 
the South China Sea in their annual report on Chinese military power. I 
think this is an issue that is particularly important.
  I hope this gets my point across that we have taken a comprehensive 
look at national security issues and allowed a wide range of Members, 
both Republicans and Democrats, to bring their amendments forward.
  We hear a lot about the need for an open process. Again, I am very 
pleased

[[Page 6573]]

that, between the Armed Services Committee and the House floor, 429 
amendments will be considered. Given the large number of amendments, I 
want to thank our Rules Committee staff who put in very late hours to 
help sort through the amendments. I know it wasn't easy work, but we 
certainly appreciate all that they do and the extra hours they put in 
to help facilitate this debate.
  Yesterday, I outlined why the National Defense Authorization Act is 
so critically important. I talked about the critical investment the 
bill makes to boost our military readiness. I discussed how the bill 
increases accountability and efficiency at the Pentagon, and I 
highlighted some of the critical reforms included in the bill.
  I won't rehash these points, but I do want to reemphasize one key 
point: every day we send our servicemembers into dangerous situations. 
When we do so, we don't send them into battle as Democrats or 
Republicans. We send them into battle as Americans.
  So as we continue working through this bill, I want to again plead 
with my colleagues to avoid making this about politics. Instead, let's 
make this about America and about ensuring our servicemembers have 
sound policy and the resources they need in order to keep our country 
safe. We shouldn't--and, quite frankly, we can't--let politics get in 
the way of passing this critical national security bill. Our military 
men and women deserve nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 735 and 
the underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the honorable chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Thornberry, and the ranking member, Mr. 
Smith of Washington, for once again working in a bipartisan manner to 
bring before this House H.R. 4909, the 2017 National Defense 
Authorization Act. I don't agree with everything that is in this bill. 
In fact, there is a lot I do disagree with. But I appreciate that the 
chairman and the ranking member always treat all Members submitting 
amendments to the NDAA with respect, and that is very much appreciated.
  But I must rise in very strong opposition to this structured rule 
because there are very serious issues that merit the time and attention 
of this House that were submitted to the Rules Committee by Members 
from both sides of the aisle, which have not been included in this 
structured rule. Almost 200 amendments were not made in order. As a 
Democrat, I am used to being shut out by the Republican majority, but 
dozens of Republican amendments were blocked as well.
  Let me say to my Republican friends who did not have their amendment 
made in order: If you don't want this to be a pattern, then vote ``no'' 
on this rule; if you don't want this to be a precedent, then vote 
``no'' on this rule. Send a message to your leadership that, in fact, 
you want a more open and transparent process. Don't go along just to 
get along. Don't be a cheap date when it comes to an open process in 
this House. The issues that are involved with the Defense Authorization 
Act are too important to be just blocked with no debate, no 
deliberation, and no votes. My friend talks about an open process. Open 
process, my foot. It is not an open process. Almost 200 amendments were 
not made in order. That is just not right.
  Mr. Speaker, if there is one thing that disturbs me in particular 
about this structured rule, it is how it fails the American people once 
again in not allowing substantial debate about the issues of war and 
peace. Mr. Speaker, nothing is more critical than the issues of war and 
peace.
  And once again, the Republicans on the Rules Committee have ensured 
that no amendment that deals with authorizing the current U.S. military 
engagements in Iraq, Syria, or Afghanistan was made in order. The only 
amendment made in order is the one offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) to repeal the 2001 AUMF for Afghanistan, an 
amendment that she has courageously offered for several years now.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the amendments not made in order was an amendment 
offered by me and several colleagues to prohibit the use of any U.S. 
funds after April 30, 2017, for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to 
Iraq or Syria in the fight against the Islamic State if an AUMF has not 
been enacted. This was a bipartisan amendment offered by 
Representatives Jones, Garamendi, Yoho, Lee of California, Cicilline, 
and myself.
  And let me make one thing very clear, Mr. Speaker: this amendment is 
not an AUMF. There is not one single syllable in this amendment that 
reflects the language of an AUMF.
  The distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee was very 
clear during the committee markup of the NDAA that AUMF amendments were 
not the jurisdiction of his committee but, rather, the Foreign Affairs 
Committee. But this amendment is not an AUMF. And it is germane, by the 
way.
  My amendment only prohibits the obligation and expenditure of funds 
after April 30, which is the chairman's chosen date for the cutoff of 
all OCO funding, and then only for the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces 
to Iraq and Syria to combat ISIS, unless an authorization for that 
purpose has been enacted.
  Quite simply, if you want the money to fight a war, then pass an 
AUMF. This amendment doesn't care who writes it. It doesn't care when 
it is debated or approved. It just requires that an AUMF be enacted by 
April 30. If not, no more funds for U.S. troops in the air, on the 
water, or on the ground until an AUMF is enacted.
  All this amendment asks is that Congress do its job. We ask our men 
and women in the military to do their jobs, and Heaven only knows, they 
carry out their duty with courage, honor, and professionalism. I only 
ask that Congress do the same. This should not be too much to ask.
  We have sent our uniformed men and women into harm's way in Syria and 
Iraq for nearly 2 years now and still Congress refuses to do its duty 
and authorize their deployment. We have been bombing, we have got boots 
on the ground and engaged in combat, and we have had troops killed in 
action, yet this Congress can't seem to debate and vote on an AUMF.
  I personally believe that endless wars, endless bombing, and an ever-
expanding U.S. military footprint in the Middle East is not a 
substitute for efforts aimed at reconciliation and political solutions. 
The status quo will not make the world more secure. I know some of my 
colleagues differ with me, and that is fine, but let's have the debate. 
Let's have clarity in what we are doing, and let's make sure that what 
we are doing works. Dodging responsibility only means that these wars 
will remain on remote control, and that is sad.
  Last night in the Rules Committee, we heard lots and lots and lots of 
excuses. One of my favorite excuses that we heard last night was that 
10 minutes would not be enough time to debate such a serious matter as 
what my amendment proposes. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee can 
assign as much time as it wants to debate an amendment. That is what we 
are there for. Two hours, 3 hours, 3 days, 3 weeks if it wishes. That 
is what the Rules Committee is supposed to do: provide serious time to 
debate serious issues.
  I heard that the Foreign Affairs Committee should be and would be 
drafting an AUMF. Fine. Terrific. If it comes out and is enacted before 
April 30, then it would fit right in with my amendment. But if this 
House continues to dawdle and whine and shirk its duties, then there 
should be no more money after April 30 for a war that hasn't been 
authorized by Congress.
  I was told that the Republican leadership doesn't like the AUMF that 
the President sent to Congress over a year ago. Well, neither do I. I 
think it is too broad. But, Mr. Speaker, if the majority or anyone here 
doesn't like the

[[Page 6574]]

President's AUMF, then it is the duty of Congress to draft debate and 
vote upon its own version of an AUMF and send the bill back to the 
President for his signature or veto. That is how the system works, or 
at least that is how it would work if this House ever managed to do its 
job.
  I was told that the next President wouldn't have enough time to 
figure out an AUMF for Iraq and Syria by April 30. But, Mr. Speaker, I 
didn't choose April 30 as a date when all funds for the Overseas 
Contingency Operations account would be cut off. That date is built 
into the NDAA already. If April 30 is enough time for a new President 
and new Congress to ask for more money for these wars that are 
supplemental, then it should be plenty of time for Congress to take up 
and debate an AUMF.
  Now, of course, this Congress or the next one should and could take 
up an AUMF any day it so desires. I remember, in 2014, that Speaker 
Boehner told us that it would be better for the 114th Congress to 
debate and pass an AUMF for Iraq and Syria rather than the 113th 
Congress. Well, here we are 16\1/2\ months into the 114th Congress with 
no thought of taking up an AUMF on battling the Islamic State.
  I guess this Congress is just too damned chicken to do its job when 
it comes to war, and we are going to kick the can into the 115th 
Congress or maybe the 116th Congress. Enough with the excuses, enough. 
In fact, I remember, last year, Speaker Ryan said an AUMF for Iraq and 
Syria for the war against the Islamic State would be one of the first 
things this Congress would take up this year. Well, here we are in the 
middle of May and there is no AUMF in sight, just the same old tired 
excuses, the same cowardice, the same political posturing.
  There is no shortage of Members of Congress talking tough against 
ISIS. We hear it all the time on the House floor. But let's be honest: 
that takes absolutely no courage at all. None of us are on the 
frontlines in Syria or Iraq. We are all safe and sound in the U.S. 
Capitol.
  But think for a minute. What must be going through the minds of our 
troops when they see a Congress that doesn't even have the guts to 
debate these wars while they have been put in harm's way?
  Every single Member of this House should be ashamed. Our collective 
silence--our collective indifference--is dismissive of our 
constitutional responsibility. This Chamber is guilty of moral 
cowardice.
  Mr. Speaker, there are nearly 200 reasons to oppose this rule, and 
that is how many of the amendments submitted to the Rules Committee 
were not made in order under either the first rule to the NDAA or 
today's rule. Basically, 50 percent of all amendments submitted are not 
being allowed a chance to be heard.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to 
show some backbone and demand that the majority leadership of this 
House carry out its constitutional duty to debate and vote on an AUMF 
for Iraq and Syria.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My colleague from Massachusetts raises some very important points. It 
would be appropriate for our Foreign Affairs Committee to take up those 
points and consider them after we have had a lot of hearings, including 
an opportunity for a notice to the American people so the American 
people can be heard.
  Coming up with this sort of an idea that it is just going to come 
through the Rules Committee without any hearing, without any real 
expertise in the Rules Committee to consider it, and then putting it on 
the floor for limited debate is not the way to do it.
  Now, I must admit I have some reservations about establishing a hard 
stop of April 30 of next year. Saying that we are going to allow the 
next President to come forward with a new OCO proposal before April 30 
of next year, which we did 8 years ago, is not the same thing. What my 
colleague is proposing is a hard stop. That is exactly what the 
President did in Iraq: a hard stop. We pulled out, and look what 
happened: absolute chaos, a nation that has gone from being a nation 
into being a nation in total dissolution.
  We came close to doing the same thing in Afghanistan. Thankfully, the 
President has pulled back from that. Because when we telegraph to our 
enemies, ``Hey, we are out of here after a certain date,'' they know 
when we are leaving, they know when we are stopping, and they know 
exactly how to time their activities against us. I don't think we 
should give that opportunity to our enemies.
  Now, I completely agree with my colleague from Massachusetts that we 
need a new AUMF. I have said that on multiple occasions. I have signed 
letters to that effect. And I do believe that we have a situation in 
Syria that is not authorized, as it should be under the law.
  Why are we in this situation? Because we have yet to receive a 
strategy from the Obama administration on how to prosecute that war. We 
had the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Ms. Gabbard) before the committee last 
night. She has fought over there. She knows this better than just about 
anybody in this room. She laid out clear deficiencies in the 
administration's so-called plan, which they sent over to the Armed 
Services Committee 45 days later, and only after we had to browbeat the 
Secretary of Defense to meeting its statutory responsibility.
  And she laid out clearly what we need to do in terms of a strategy. 
We have yet to get that from the Commander in Chief of our own Armed 
Forces. If we would get that, if we would get a clear strategy for 
victory, not a clear strategy for some pie in the sky, we are going to 
arm some Free Syrian Army that is not working, then I think we could 
have something to work on to bring to this floor. The problem is we are 
having to put ourselves in the place of the Commander in Chief, which 
is not what the Constitution calls for, nor will it work. We are going 
to continue to struggle with this because of the failure of this 
administration, not because of the failure of this House.
  I agree with the gentleman: I want to see a new AUMF. I want to see 
it go through hearings. I want to see it debated on this floor so I can 
vote for it or against it, and everybody can vote for it or against it. 
But the proposal he makes is not the right way to do that, so I hope 
that we continue to reject it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With respect to the gentleman, I don't think we agree with each 
other. The reason why we are doing this is because Congress has failed 
to act. The time for an AUMF is before you put troops in harm's way. 
Some of us tried before we entered into this latest Syrian war to 
actually have a debate on an AUMF, and we were denied that opportunity. 
We are reengaged in Iraq. We asked before we did that, ``Let's have an 
AUMF,'' and we were denied that opportunity. We have been denied and 
denied and denied and denied.
  All we are saying is that we ought to do our job. The President 
submitted an AUMF to Congress. He did his job. You don't like it--I 
don't like what he submitted either--but he did his job. He doesn't 
control what we do here. We decide what to do. The Foreign Affairs 
Committee 2 years ago could have taken this issue up. They didn't. They 
are not taking it up now. Here we are 2 years into these latest 
conflicts and nothing. It is shameful. Come on. We ought to come 
together, even if we disagree on what our strategy should be, and 
debate this.

                              {time}  1400

  We have no trouble sending our young men and women into harm's way; 
yet when it comes to doing our job, all of a sudden we have 1,000 
excuses why we can't do it. That is unacceptable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Kilmer).
  Mr. KILMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the NDAA is about ensuring that we have the best trained

[[Page 6575]]

and equipped fighting force in the world. It is about honoring our 
commitment to the men and women who serve and to their families. It is 
not about targeting proud Americans simply based on who they love; but 
this rule would effectively discriminate against LGBT men and women who 
serve our Nation as private contractors.
  This rule runs contrary to our values. It runs contrary to what we 
believe in. It runs contrary to the idea that we treat everyone with 
equal respect. It also runs contrary to what the majority said it 
wants--a transparent process, allowing the House to work its will. This 
rule blocks an amendment that was offered by my Republican colleague, 
Charlie Dent, to strip this discriminatory provision from even being 
considered.
  As we approach Memorial Day, our focus should be on providing our 
servicemembers with the proper tools so that they may carry out their 
missions, not on pushing forward provisions that target LGBT Americans. 
Let's vote down this rule. Let's strip this harmful policy from the 
NDAA so that we remain committed to equal rights, and let's get back to 
debating how best to support our troops.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman's comment. This is something that we had 
some significant discussion about last night in the Committee on Rules.
  Let's make sure that the facts are straight. There is not one single 
thing in this bill that discriminates against anybody. In fact, in the 
provision he is talking about, there is not one single mention of LGBT.
  What is in that provision is a clear application by this law of 
protections of religious liberties that people have enjoyed in this 
country since the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act--one of the 
hallmarks of the legislative achievements of this body and an act, I 
believe, everybody in this body supports today. It says that the 
religious protections in that law that we are all so proud of should be 
enjoyed by people who have Federal contracts. Private parties that 
contract with the government should enjoy religious freedom. That is 
not discrimination. That is protecting the rights of the American 
people. Sometimes we get confused around here about that, and we are 
getting confused in the military bill about that, and that is very 
troublesome.
  Let's talk about the First Amendment.
  The First Amendment says that the government can't do anything to 
restrict the expression of religion, the practice of religion, the 
belief of religion by anybody in this country. It is called the Free 
Exercise Clause. We have forgotten the Free Exercise Clause in this 
body and in this country. We need to go back to it.
  About 20 years ago, this body passed the Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act. It was so popular that it passed by a voice vote. It 
had just a handful of people who voted against it in the Senate. It 
specifically requires that we do exactly what is in this bill. We are 
being consistent with that law by putting this provision in there.
  What do we do with this particular provision?
  We say that the provisions of title VII in the 1964 act and the 
provisions that regard this in the Americans with Disabilities Act 
apply to private contractors with the Federal Government. That is not 
discrimination. By anybody's definition, that is not discrimination. To 
try to turn it into that is doing something on a bill that is talking 
about the defense of this country, which is just not appropriate.
  It is absolutely appropriate that the Committee on Rules rejected 
that amendment. If the people on the other side of the aisle or on our 
side of the aisle want to have this debate, there are other forums and 
other times to do it. When we are talking about the defense of this 
country, it is not the right time.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In the dead of night in the Committee on Armed Services, House 
Republicans added what we believe is discriminatory language to the 
NDAA, which would effectively overturn President Obama's historic 
executive order that protects LGBT workers in Federal contracts, 
therefore, enabling discrimination with taxpayer funds. That is what we 
believe.
  We had a very vigorous debate in the Committee on Rules last night, 
and the gentleman defended his position quite ferociously; but we 
believe it is discrimination, plain and simple. An amendment was 
offered by a Republican Member to strike that discriminatory language 
from the bill. It was germane, and the Committee on Rules decided on 
its own not to make it in order.
  The Committee on Rules shouldn't be about making decisions on issues 
that, I think, the entire Congress has an interest in debating and in 
voting on, but, unilaterally, the Republicans in the Committee on Rules 
last night said: No, we are not going to make a Republican amendment in 
order that would have struck what we believe is discriminatory 
language.
  That is not an open and transparent process. That is shutting the 
process down in a way that, I think, demeans this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. This is not 
consistent with what the Speaker and the other leaders of the 
Republican Party have said they were going to do. It is inconsistent 
with how they said they were going to manage this House. It is 
inconsistent with the rights of the American people to have their 
Representatives vote on issues of great importance, which, of course, 
is what the Speaker and Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Cantor said in this book, 
``Young Guns.''
  I am going to read a paragraph from this book. This is in Paul Ryan's 
section, under his heading, the Speaker of the House:
  ``The new Washington way,'' in speaking about what was apparently the 
stuff he didn't like, ``isn't open debate broadcast on C-SPAN; it is 
closed-door, backroom deals. The Washington way doesn't seek input from 
both sides of the issue; it muscles through bills on strict one-party 
votes. And the Washington way,'' speaking clearly of the way the 
majority of the Democrats were leading, ``isn't interested in honest 
up-or-down votes on transformational programs. It rigs the process,'' 
it reads, ``to produce the outcome it desires through any means 
necessary.''
  That is exactly what is happening in this rule--exactly. Paul Ryan 
and the young guns promised transparency, openness, and the House's 
being allowed to work its will.
  So what has happened in the Committee on Rules?
  Exactly the opposite. No transparency--a muzzling of the Members of 
the House of Representatives in not allowing a vote--but simply, 
unilaterally, in the dead of night, pocketing an amendment that was 
adopted in the committee that says that women would be treated just 
like men.
  Now, I know that is a revolutionary concept for some on your side of 
the aisle here, and I know you certainly didn't want your Members to 
vote on that extraordinarily controversial issue. So in the dead of 
night, without any debate, without a vote in the Committee on Rules, it 
was simply put in the chairman's pocket, and 434 of us were ripped out 
of the process. The young guns said that wouldn't happen. Now, the 
young guns, by the way, so we all understand, are the Speaker and the 
majority leader now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. HOYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we ought to reject this rule, and 
the American people ought to reject this rule. The American people 
ought to say: bring the issues to the floor and let the House work its 
will. That is why they elected us, not to have the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules say: Sorry, you don't get to vote.
  He wasn't elected dictator; Steny Hoyer wasn't elected dictator; Jim

[[Page 6576]]

McGovern wasn't elected dictator. We were elected to be one of 435 
people to make policies for this country and for our people.
  Reject this rule. Bring democracy back to the House of 
Representatives. Let the people's representatives set policy in the 
light of day.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Maryland. He wasn't 
on the floor when I spoke earlier. Perhaps he didn't hear that, between 
the Committee on Armed Services and on this floor, 429 amendments have 
been made in order--181 for this floor alone. That is an open process, 
and it is a far more open process than what this House saw when other 
people were in charge. This is the process that the American people 
have a right to expect, and they are getting exactly what they were 
told they were going to get.
  Mr. Speaker, the provision that he is referring to, a provision 
regarding including women in the draft, was, in fact, offered in the 
middle of the night without there being any hearings in the Committee 
on Armed Services, without there being any notice to the American 
people. There wasn't an adequate hearing; there wasn't an adequate 
opportunity for everybody to be heard. So the decision was made that 
the better way to do it, if we are going to consider it--and it 
probably is something we need to consider at some time--is to do it 
through a regular committee process, where we notice it to the American 
people, where we have hearings, and when people can be heard. Then we 
can have a full and honest debate with the American people having had a 
chance to weigh in.
  I disagree with the gentleman from Maryland. I think this is exactly 
the appropriate process. If we are going to take up something of that 
magnitude, we ought to do it right and not do it because of an 
amendment that was offered as sort of a last-minute thing in the middle 
of the night when we are considering this bill.
  I have great respect for the gentleman from Maryland. He was not 
there when it was offered. He was not there during the Committee on 
Rules' consideration last night, so he is probably not fully aware of 
the number of amendments that we have both in the committee and on the 
floor today--429 amendments. This is an open process.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for protecting us from 
ourselves. That seems to be somewhat paternalistic, of course.
  As I understand it--and I was not there, but it wouldn't have 
mattered whether I was in the Committee on Rules--it was not done in 
open session in the Committee on Rules. The Committee on Armed Services 
voted upon it, and apparently the majority of your side lost, and they 
don't want us to consider it, and they don't want to subject your 
Members to voting on it and letting the American people know where you 
stand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address all remarks 
to the Chair and not to each other.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  Mr. ELLISON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, while millions of Americans are struggling to get by and 
sustain their families, Republicans are trying to make it easier for 
employers to steal their wages. Right now we know that there are 
reports of at least $5 million in stolen wages and penalties from the 
U.S. contract companies.
  Last month, Representative John Kline, my colleague and friend, 
introduced an amendment to this bill to block the President's Fair Pay 
and Safe Workplaces Executive Order at the Department of Defense. This 
executive order that the President issued helps ensure companies with 
Federal contracts are following Federal labor laws, like protections 
against wage theft, workplace safety rules, and the right for workers 
to organize. It is the result of years of advocacy by workers, labor 
rights activists, members of the Progressive Caucus, and Members of 
Congress generally.
  This week I introduced an amendment to strike Mr. Kline's language. 
Let's at least have a debate about it. Let's at least debate whether or 
not workers should get protection from wage theft. I guess that was one 
of those amendments that didn't quite make it through the process.
  It is no surprise that the Republican-led Committee on Rules didn't 
give us a vote on our amendment, because they don't want to have to 
debate this in front of the American people. The American people might 
like to know that there are companies that are stealing workers' wages 
but that the President is trying to protect those workers. Now the 
Republican majority is trying to stop the President from protecting 
those workers.

                              {time}  1415

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, now, the President's executive order isn't 
punitive. It actually helps companies to follow the rules.
  Debarment is the last resort, and it is the clear nuclear option for 
companies that refuse to correct their behavior, but Republicans don't 
like it. Instead of helping companies that are fair to workers, they 
want to make it easier for companies that steal workers' wages.
  Workers aren't the only ones who should be outraged. This amendment 
actually gives a leg up to contractors who don't play by the rules, 
putting companies who are doing right at a disadvantage.
  Please vote ``no'' on this rule for this and many other reasons.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I wasn't able to respond to that last comment from the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). I want to make sure that he knows--and everybody 
in the House knows--that during the consideration of the rule we passed 
yesterday, an amendment was offered in the Rules Committee to strip out 
this executing amendment. That was offered in the Rules Committee and 
rejected by the Rules Committee in an open vote. Our meetings are on C-
SPAN. They are not behind closed doors. Everybody can watch what we do.
  Then yesterday we came on the floor, and that rule was offered on 
this floor and there was a full debate. I know; I was here for it. I 
managed that rule as well. After that full debate, this House voted, 
and voted by a clear majority to adopt the rule.
  So we went through a democratic process. We went through an open and 
clear process, both to consider that particular issue and consider the 
rule itself, and the House acted its will.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Give me a break. To insinuate that this is somehow all on the level 
or an open process, I take exception to that characterization.
  The amendment that the distinguished minority whip was referring to 
was put into the rule. It was a self-executing amendment so that the 
majority here did not have an opportunity here to vote up or down on it 
on its own merits. Instead, they were forced to vote up or down on a 
rule that made in order a whole bunch of amendments on a variety of 
issues where they could vote up or down on, but not on this. So to 
defend this process, a process that is indefensible, is getting a 
little tired.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule for a 
number of reasons: because it doesn't make a proper AUMF in order, 
because it fails to make in order an amendment I cosponsored along with 
Representatives Dent, Smith, and several others.
  The bill contains language adopted by the Committee on Armed Services 
at 1 in the morning the other day with no warning that would 
effectively overturn President Obama's executive order protecting LGBT 
workers for

[[Page 6577]]

companies with private contracts. In other words, private contractors 
using our Federal tax dollars in any area--not just in the defense 
area, by the way--would be allowed to fire someone just because they 
are gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. This is unacceptable, it is 
cruel, and it is totally unnecessary.
  Now, the distinguished gentleman said that the language contains 
nothing referring to gay or lesbian people; it simply protects 
religious liberty. It says that private contractors, in the exercise of 
their religious liberty, may discriminate. It disallows the President's 
executive order, and so the effect is that private contractors may 
discriminate on the basis of sexual identity or gender if that is their 
religious belief.
  No one has said it for years on this floor, but they used to, that it 
is okay to say: My religious belief says I shouldn't hire a Black 
person or a Jewish person.
  We don't think that is acceptable, and we don't call that religious 
liberty. But we now call religious liberty the ability of a private 
contractor to fire someone or refuse to hire them just because they are 
gay or lesbian. That is cruel and unacceptable.
  Why not allow the House to vote on whether or not to include this 
type of hateful language in the defense bill? Why not allow a vote on 
the Dent-Smith amendment? Must we let this bigotry and intolerance win 
the day?
  We ought to defeat this rule. I, for one, will not vote for the 
entire bill if this language is included in it. We must strip this 
toxic, hateful measure from the NDAA, if not through an amendment, then 
in conference. We ought to ensure that no Federal contractor has the 
ability to fire someone just because of who they are or who they love 
and because they profess that it is their religious belief. So they 
cannot be allowed to impose their religious beliefs on hiring and 
firing other people. We must continue to fight until all Americans have 
the rights they deserve.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With regard to the amendment in question, it was considered late at 
night because of the fair and open process we have in the committee. 
And it took us that long--from 10 in the morning until that time of the 
night--to get to it. Everybody knew it was coming because it was 
noticed and everybody had a copy of it well in advance. So it wasn't a 
surprise to anybody. Everybody knew it was coming.
  Now, the particular provision itself does not contain anything close 
to a word like discrimination. But just so we can make the record 
straight, I am going to read it:

       Any branch or agency of the Federal Government shall, with 
     respect to any religious corporation, religious association, 
     religious educational institution, or religious society that 
     is a recipient of or offeror for a Federal Government 
     contract, subcontract, grant, purchase order, or cooperative 
     agreement, provide protections and exemptions consistent with 
     section 702(a) and 703(e)(2) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 
     and section 103(d) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 
     1990.

  It doesn't provide discrimination. It provides protection for rights, 
and, unfortunately, people want to try to twist it around to be 
something it simply is not.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Many of us on this side, including many Republicans--because a 
Republican actually offered the amendment to strike this provision that 
the gentleman referred to because they thought it was discriminatory--
we think it is potential discrimination against members of the LGBT 
community.
  But here is the deal--I get you disagree with us--but what is wrong 
with allowing an amendment that is germane, to debate it and vote on 
it? I mean, where does the Rules Committee get off saying you can't 
have that debate, you can't have that vote?
  It is germane.
  Now, we could disagree. We think it is discrimination. We ought to 
have that vote, and the Rules Committee denied us. This is another 
reason for Democrats and Republicans to vote down this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Loretta Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
express a deep disappointment in the Rules Committee's decision to 
throw out three of the amendments I put forward.
  By not doing those amendments, you failed to provide to those serving 
our country the same necessary health services that all of us get now 
guaranteed under ACA. You refused to take steps to protect young 
athletes attending United States military academies. And you neglected 
to provide congressional oversight on over $1 trillion worth that this 
country plans to invest in our nuclear deterrents.
  We need to fix the current TRICARE system so that we can ensure that 
servicemembers are provided the same access to preventive health 
services as those ensured under the ACA, including gestational diabetes 
with no copayments, smoking cessation, et cetera.
  My second amendment was simple. It directed the Secretary of Defense 
to conduct a study on the effects of concussions in contact sports, 
including hockey, football, lacrosse, and soccer at our United States 
service academies. We all know that we see what concussions can do to 
people.
  The third amendment was to simply direct the Department of Defense to 
include a 25-year plan to look at our nuclear spending.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I was listening to my friend from Massachusetts talk about what he 
considers to be discriminatory. Well, I am going to go through the list 
again.
  Do we consider the First Amendment to the Constitution to be 
discriminatory? Do we consider the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
that passed this House by a voice vote to be discriminatory? Do we 
consider title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be discriminatory? 
Do we consider the Americans with Disabilities Act to be 
discriminatory?
  Because that and only those things are what are contained in this 
provision.
  So we can call things discriminatory, but when you look at the actual 
text of it and understand what they actually are, they are protecting 
basic rights. And that is what we should be all about.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman reciting the Republican talking points of 
the Republican leadership, but that doesn't explain why the amendment 
to strike this provision was not made in order.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill.
  Our armed service chiefs and secretaries have requested two results 
from Congress in defense: stability and predictability in the budget.
  Instead of adhering to their requests, this bill actually creates a 
contentious budget environment next April that causes even more harm to 
our military.
  The bill is full of contradiction. It authorizes funds for over 
50,000 more troops, but no money to send them anywhere after April. It 
authorizes much-needed equipment, but not any money to employ it on the 
battlefield. It authorizes 9,800 troops in Afghanistan, just not any 
money to keep them there during the actual fighting season.
  It sends a message to our allies that we are only 60 percent 
committed to our missions with them, and it sends the message to our 
adversaries that we are only 60 percent committed to stopping them.
  It is like we are a basketball team who bought new uniforms, 
recruited highly skilled players, built a new facility, and didn't even 
have any money left to play the second half of the season. No team wins 
under those circumstances. It doesn't matter how many state-of-the-art 
weapons you have or how well-trained your troops are, you can't win if 
you don't show up.

[[Page 6578]]

  Much like General Breedlove, who believes ``virtual presence means 
actual absence,'' I believe this is a virtual plan and will be an 
actual disaster.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and ``no'' on the 
underlying bill.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With great respect to the gentlewoman, she, I am sure, was not here 
yesterday and was not listening when I said this: that provision she is 
referring to, which gives the next President the opportunity to make 
changes in the overseas contingency operation account, is exactly what 
this House did in 2008, the last time we were about to change 
administrations. Then-Senator Obama voted for it. Then-Senator Kerry 
voted for it. Then-Senator Biden voted for it. This is not new. This is 
standard when you are changing administrations. Nothing more. Nothing 
less.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many 
more speakers he has on his side?
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I believe I am the only speaker from my side.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this 
rule. Almost 200 germane amendments, substantive amendments were not 
made in order.
  Again, I am used to, as a Democrat, having the Republicans shut me 
out every chance they get; but to my Republican colleagues who were 
shut out on their legitimate amendments, the germane amendments, stand 
with us and send a signal to your leadership that this closed process 
is unacceptable.
  My colleague, Mr. Byrne, talks about this being an open process. We 
must have different definitions of openness because when almost 200 
amendments are shut out--and, by the way, on top of all of that, there 
were really kind of unusual shenanigans in the Rules Committee about 
self-executing amendments so that we don't have an opportunity to even 
vote up or down on them--that is not an open process. That is something 
we should try to move away from.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am going to close as I began by saying to my 
colleagues to please vote against this rule because it does not make in 
order the opportunity for us to be able to debate the issues of war and 
peace when it comes to Iraq and Syria.
  We have been involved in Syria and again in Iraq now for almost 2 
years. By the way, we left Iraq not because President Obama wanted us 
to, but because the Iraqi Parliament voted us to leave. That is a 
little bit of history that my colleague left out.
  The time to debate an AUMF, an Authorization for Use of Military 
Force, was before we commit our forces into harm's way. Many of us, 
Democrats and Republicans, pleaded with the leadership to let us have 
that opportunity, for us to work in a bipartisan way to see whether we 
could come together. And time and time and time again, we were denied 
that ability, that right.
  Now, we are being told: Well, you know, this is not the time. We 
don't have enough time to do it. Maybe the Committee on Foreign Affairs 
should do it, but this is not the place to do it.
  When is?
  You have waited for over 2 years. Nothing. I will say that these 
excuses, they are insulting to the American people, but more 
importantly and more significantly, they are insulting to the men and 
women who are in harm's way. They do their job. They do what we have 
asked them to do, but yet we don't have the guts to do what we are 
supposed to do. Shame on all of us for allowing this to go on this long 
without debating these wars.
  The President of the United States submitted an AUMF. I have problems 
with it. I think it is too broad. If you don't like it, fine. Then come 
up with a new idea, but doing nothing is not an option.
  Read the Constitution. We have an obligation. We are not living up to 
it. Do what is right by the American people, by the men and women who 
risk their lives every day because we have put them into harm's way.

                              {time}  1430

  It is absolutely unconscionable that we can't even have the ability 
to debate the amendment that I offered to be able to say that we are 
not going to continue funding these wars unless Congress does its job. 
That is the least we can do, and yet the Committee on Rules said no. It 
is germane, it is in order, there is no problem, but because some 
majority in the Committee on Rules says, ``No, we are not going to do 
it,'' everybody is denied that right? It is a bipartisan amendment. 
This is not just a Democratic concern. There are a lot of Republicans 
who share my views on this as well.
  Let's do our job. Stop being so chicken when it comes to debating 
issues of war and peace. This is the time when we ought to come 
together and do the right thing. Vote ``no'' on this closed rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I hold in my hand all 1,271 pages of the underlying 
bill, and it is filled with the things that we need to do to defend the 
American people. As interesting as the debate we have just had has 
been, think of how much of it had nothing to do with defending the 
American people, which is what we are supposed to be here about, which 
is the single most important thing that we do.
  My colleague talked about guts. The guts I care about are the guts of 
the fighting men and women of the United States. We have a solemn 
obligation to them to pass this bill, to make sure that we are doing 
everything to supply them, to train them, to make sure that they are 
ready, to make sure we have reformed the Pentagon so that the Pentagon 
is doing its job by them, so that we have a policy that will make sure 
that we are defending the American people. That is what this law is all 
about.
  The rule itself makes in order, between yesterday and today, 181 
amendments. That is on top of over 200 amendments that were considered 
as part of this bill. This has been a completely open and transparent 
process and will continue to be as we consider it over the next several 
hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 
735 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the resolution will be followed by 5-minute 
votes on ordering the previous question on House Resolution 736 and 
adoption of House Resolution 736, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 175, not voting 28, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 200]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Clawson (FL)
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Goodlatte
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hanna
     Hardy
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Heck (NV)
     Hensarling
     Hice, Jody B.
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren

[[Page 6579]]


     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Neugebauer
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--175

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brat
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hahn
     Hastings
     Heck (WA)
     Higgins
     Himes
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Israel
     Jackson Lee
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Kuster
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meng
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--28

     Bishop (GA)
     Carson (IN)
     Cohen
     Edwards
     Fattah
     Fortenberry
     Green, Al
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Johnson, Sam
     King (IA)
     LaMalfa
     Lewis
     Meeks
     Moore
     Pascrell
     Perlmutter
     Richmond
     Roby
     Schiff
     Sessions
     Sherman
     Smith (TX)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takai
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1452

  Mr. VARGAS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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 for:
  Mr. YOHO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 200: I intended to vote 
``yes'' instead of ``no.''
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote on 5/18/2016. Had 
I been present, I would have voted as follows:
  ``Yes'' on rollcall No. 200.
  Stated against:
  Ms. EDWARDS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 200.
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 200.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, today, May 18, 2016, I was unable to vote 
on H. Res. 735. Had I been present, I would have voted:
  ``Nay''--Rollcall No. 200--H.R. 735--Rule providing for consideration 
of H.R. 4909--National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, today I missed the following 
vote:
  H. Res 735--Rule Providing for consideration of H.R. 4909--National 
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________