[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 8697-8705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5053, PREVENTING IRS ABUSE AND 
  PROTECTING FREE SPEECH ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
          5293, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 778 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 778

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5053) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to prohibit the 
     Secretary of the Treasury from requiring that the identity of 
     contributors to 501(c) organizations be included in annual 
     returns. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and Means now 
     printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-58 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     5293) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, 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

[[Page 8698]]

     Committee of the Whole shall rise without motion. No further 
     consideration of the bill shall be in order except pursuant 
     to a subsequent order of the House.
       Sec. 3.  Section 10002 of H.R. 5293 shall be considered to 
     be a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) 
     of House Resolution 5.
       Sec. 4.  (a) During consideration of H.R. 5293, it shall 
     not be in order to consider an amendment proposing both a 
     decrease in an appropriation designated pursuant to section 
     251(b)(2)(A)(ii) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 
     Control Act of 1985 and an increase in an appropriation not 
     so designated, or vice versa.
        (b) Subsection (a) shall not apply to an amendment between 
     the Houses.
       Sec. 5.  During consideration of H.R. 5293, section 3304 of 
     Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 shall not apply.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of New York). The gentleman from 
Ohio is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. STIVERS. 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.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. STIVERS. 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 Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for H.R. 5053, the Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting 
Free Speech Act, and H.R. 5293, the fiscal year 2017 Department of 
Defense Appropriations Act. House Resolution 778 provides a closed rule 
for consideration of H.R. 5053 and a general debate rule for H.R. 5293.
  The resolution provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means 
for H.R. 5053, and 1 hour equally divided between the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations for H.R. 5293. The 
resolution also provides for a motion to recommit for H.R. 5053, with 
or without instructions. In addition, the rule includes provisions 
related to budget enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the resolution and the 
underlying legislation. Under current law, 501(c) nonprofit 
organizations are required to collect personally identifiable 
information on what are known as substantial donors and report that 
information to the IRS. Substantial donors are defined as individuals 
who donate $5,000 or more to an organization during the course of the 
calendar year.
  Normally, that information is reported by 501(c)(3) tax-exempt 
organizations. However, the IRS expanded the substantial reporting 
requirement to all tax-exempt organizations through the use of Form 
990.
  The security of personal information of American taxpayers is vital. 
The IRS doesn't normally make this information public, yet there have 
been instances involving IRS employees improperly accessing this 
information and even releasing it to the public. One particular 
instance saw the National Organization for Marriage have its donor list 
information publicly disclosed in 2012.
  In California, Mr. Speaker, the State attorney general wanted to 
require that the information reported is made public, which prompted a 
lawsuit. In April of this year, the U.S. district court ruled that 
requiring an organization to disclose its donor list is 
unconstitutional.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may make the accusation 
that this bill will allow for a flood of foreign money into our 
elections. Mr. Speaker, this argument rings hollow for two reasons.
  First, we have laws on the books to specifically protect against that 
very thing. It is called the Bank Secrecy Act. Federal regulations 
under that law require every bank to file information with the Treasury 
Department and report any suspicious transactions relevant to a 
possible violation of law or regulation. H.R. 5053 does not change the 
Bank Secrecy Act or those regulations in any way.
  Second, and more importantly, the IRS doesn't even have authority to 
share this information with the two organizations that enforce campaign 
finance laws: the Federal Election Commission and the Department of 
Justice. So only in limited circumstances in which there is already 
evidence of a criminal act can these tax privacy laws allow the IRS to 
share this information. The problem is the IRS doesn't share this 
information anyway. It is up to the Federal Election Commission and the 
Justice Department to enforce those laws, and they do so already.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with the district court ruling because American 
citizens have a right under the First Amendment to free speech and free 
association. The IRS has demonstrated in the past that many of their 
employees do not adequately protect personally identifiable information 
of American taxpayers. Individuals should not be forced to disclose how 
much of their hard-earned money and to whom they donate to charity.
  Even the Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue 
Service has publicly stated that the IRS is considering removing 
Schedule B themselves. Let me repeat that. This is a democratically 
appointed Director of Exempt Organizations at the Internal Revenue 
Service. This individual said that the IRS is considering removing 
Schedule B themselves. That is exactly what this bill does. That makes 
this a bipartisan bill.
  I hope my colleagues will support this measure. It makes sense.
  The second underlying bill is the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017. The legislation includes $517 
billion for our national security, a slight increase over last year's 
enacted level.
  The legislation includes $58.6 billion in funding to fight the global 
war on terror, which includes funding for our forces in the field as 
well as support to key allies to resist aggression from nation-states 
and terrorist groups.
  The bill includes a small 2.1 percent pay raise for our military, 
which is more than the 1.6 percent requested by the administration, and 
it includes $34 billion for the Defense Health Program to provide care 
for our troops, their families, and retired members of the armed 
services.
  Important investments in cancer research, traumatic brain injury, 
psychological health research, and suicide prevention outreach as well 
as sexual assault prevention programs are also included in this bill.
  A well-equipped, well-trained, effective military providing for the 
common defense of our Nation is our most basic constitutional 
responsibility. This bill helps preserve our military as the most 
capable and superior armed force in the world, while providing funds 
necessary to fight America's enemies abroad.
  While there will be amendments offered by colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle in the days to come, Mr. Speaker, the rule here today is only 
for general debate of the overall bill. I look forward to continuing 
the debate on these policies with our House colleagues, and I urge 
support for the underlying bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I want to thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Stivers) for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the rule and the 
underlying bills that the rule would allow to be considered, I do want 
to take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday here in the 
House of Representatives.
  In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, the Speaker of 
the House asked for a moment of silence to pray for the victims: those 
who lost their lives, those who were injured, and their families. We 
stood here and, for 10 seconds, had a moment of silence.
  One of our leaders, Mr. Clyburn, sought to get the Speaker's 
attention to ask a question. Basically, the question was: Is that it? 
What about legislation? What about action to prevent

[[Page 8699]]

these types of tragedies from happening in the future? He was gaveled 
down.
  There was a lot of outrage here on the House floor, and I think 
justifiably so. We have been on this floor calling for moments of 
silence after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando again and 
again and again. It is not enough. Surely, this Congress, Democrats and 
Republicans, can come together and do more than just have a moment of 
silence.
  Mr. Clyburn was asking about whether or not we could bring to the 
floor the bill that basically says that, if you are a suspected 
terrorist and you are on the FBI's no-fly list, then you ought not to 
be able to go into a gun store and buy a weapon of war, could that come 
up for a debate and could we have a vote on that.
  He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we can 
revisit legislation that would call for a ban on assault weapons. The 
weapon that this killer used was an assault weapon, and it was 
perfectly legal for him to buy. Is it worth a discussion as to whether 
or not we ought to place limits on the purchase of such weapons?
  He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we could 
pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that would prevent 
criminals who have been convicted of misdemeanor assaults against a 
victim based on his or her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, 
or disability from causing further harm with a gun.
  This is common sense, and both parties need to come together and take 
action. For the life of me, I can't understand why there is a hesitancy 
by the leadership of this House to grapple with some of these issues. 
It is just not enough to come here after terrible tragedies like the 
one in Orlando, where 49 people lost their lives and 53 were wounded, 
and just have a moment of silence. It is becoming an empty gesture. We 
need to follow it up with action.
  The American people, I don't care what their political ideology or 
political party may be, want us to do something. Instead, all we can do 
is have a moment of silence. I would just say to my colleagues: It is 
not enough. It is time for action.
  Mr. Speaker, getting to this rule, I rise in strong opposition to the 
rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 5053, the so-called 
Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, under a completely 
closed process. No amendments can be made in order.
  The rule also provides for general debate of H.R. 5293, the 
Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2017, and we expect the 
Rules Committee to report a structured rule later today for 
consideration of amendments to that legislation.
  When Speaker Ryan was elected to preside over the House, he made a 
promise to return to regular order. He promised to fix this broken 
House by making changes to the process by which the House does 
business. He promised to ``open up the process,'' to ``let people 
participate.'' He said it would be a ``relief'' to the American people 
if we were to get our act together.
  Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are light-years away from 
regular order and have yet to get our act together. We are here on the 
floor of this House considering another two pieces of legislation under 
rules that violate the Speaker's promise of an open process for both 
the majority and the minority.

                              {time}  1245

  This week, the Republican leadership has chosen to shut down the 
appropriations process even further, with the majority on the Rules 
Committee indicating that they will issue a structured rule for 
consideration of amendments to the FY17 Defense Appropriations bill.
  Now I am saddened by the recent events that have led to the shutdown 
of the appropriations process, and by the fact that my conservative 
Republican colleagues voted down their own appropriations bill because 
it included an amendment to protect LGBT rights, which was adopted 
during consideration of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations 
bill a few weeks ago.
  But I shouldn't be surprised. Last summer, the appropriations process 
was upended because some of my conservative colleagues refused to vote 
for legislation that banned the display of the Confederate flag. So 
this is just more of the same dysfunction and misplaced priorities from 
this Republican majority.
  Mr. Speaker, Republicans have yet to issue a single open rule this 
Congress, and we are now beginning a process that further restricts 
what little opportunity we once had to offer amendments under a 
modified-open appropriations process.
  And let me say a few words about the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act bill that we are set to consider this week.
  Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I oppose and I have been deeply 
troubled by these endless wars, by continuing to send tens of billions 
of dollars each year to fund U.S. military operations and wars in 
Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.
  In the cases of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq and Syria, I believe 
that this Congress has failed in its most solemn constitutional duty to 
debate and approve an authorization for the use of military force. I 
believe that without Congress approving an AUMF, our troops should not 
be there, quite frankly.
  For me, this is not just a matter of principle, it is a matter of the 
Constitution of the United States and the role and responsibility of 
the United States Congress. It is also the duty that we owe every 
single one of our men and women in uniform, to either formally 
authorize their mission, or to bring them back home to the comfort and 
security of their families.
  Over the years, we have had a few debates on this serious issue, and 
often those opposed to bringing forward an AUMF will argue that we 
can't put in jeopardy the support of our troops.
  Well, Mr. Speaker, for those Members who are concerned about cutting 
off funds for our troops, they must stand up and be counted and oppose 
this rule and the underlying Defense Appropriations bill.
  H.R. 5293 cuts the funds in the overseas contingency operations 
account so badly that it is estimated that all funds for all U.S. 
military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere will 
run out on or around the end of next April.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the defense authorization bill 
actually sets a date for this national security disaster: April 30, 
2017. And while the authors of the Defense Appropriations bill are too 
coy to name a date, the amount of money is so limited that it is 
guaranteed to run out just about this time.
  Now the Republican leadership is gambling that the next President and 
the next Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund 
all these wars through the remainder of fiscal year 2017, just scarcely 
2 months after being sworn into office.
  Even I, as someone who does not support these wars, can see that this 
is crazy.
  How can anyone stand up and say that they support the troops, and 
then support a bill that knowingly, deliberately, willfully cuts them 
off at the knees at the beginning of next year? And why did the 
Republican majority, with eyes wide open, take such a calculated move?
  Well, they did it to pump up the funding of some of their favorite 
pet projects in the defense base budget. They stole $15.17 billion of 
OCO funds--that is nearly 27 percent of the OCO budget--funds that were 
supposed to fund our troops, their equipment, and their supplies for an 
entire fiscal year, and boosted the base budget.
  To take this hypocrisy another step further, the rule that we are 
debating right now forbids any amendments from being offered that would 
take money from the base budget and put it back into OCO, not even to 
fund our troops for 5 months until the end of the fiscal year.
  This is ludicrous. This is a disgrace. And this is just one more 
dishonorable act perpetrated by this Congress

[[Page 8700]]

against our men and women in uniform. We won't formally authorize their 
missions overseas, and now we are not going to fund them for an entire 
year.
  Now, the last piece of irony to this disgusting set of gimmicks is 
that this type of prohibition in a rule is rarely, if ever, seen.
  Why, you ask, Mr. Speaker?
  Well, because that type of guidance is generally outlined in a budget 
resolution.
  You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that the Republican 
leadership hasn't brought to the House floor this year because it can't 
get a consensus out of its cantankerous caucus, and can't corral enough 
votes to even pass a budget resolution.
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to bring forward an AUMF for 
Iraq and Syria, and if we continue to fail to do so, then we should 
bring our troops home. If the Members of this House can sit here safe 
and sound, then so should our troops. And we should stop purposely 
robbing the funding for our troops and using that money for their pet 
projects and weapons systems in the base budget.
  Lastly, let me just say a few words about the other bill that we are 
considering this week, to constrain the Internal Revenue Service's 
ability to enforce our tax laws and reduce transparency.
  H.R. 5053 removes one of the only tools available to ensuring that 
foreign money is not illegally spent by tax-exempt groups in our 
elections, and I strongly oppose this most recent effort to unleash a 
new flood of unlimited, anonymous, unaccountable money into our 
political system.
  My colleague mentioned that this was about people being able to give 
freely to charitable organizations. The charitable organizations that 
they are referring to are groups like Crossroads GPS, Americans for 
Prosperity, American Future Fund, funded by--these are the groups 
headed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers.
  The Koch brothers sent a nice letter to all of us asking us to 
support this legislation with one goal in mind, to basically keep the 
American people in the dark. They don't want you to know all the money 
that is being pumped in to influence our elections and who is giving 
that money. They want to keep the American people in the dark.
  I think the one lesson on both the Democratic side and the Republican 
side during this Presidential campaign that is clear, people want us to 
open up the process. They think this process has been corrupted by 
money. And rather than opening up the process, this is shutting the 
process down, shutting transparency, and I think that goes against what 
both Democrats and Republicans want.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Really quickly, on the IRS bill, it is already the interpretation of 
the Federal district court that these contributions should not be made 
public; that donor lists should not be made public because people have 
a right to free association and free speech. These are constitutional 
rights. So to argue that this information that is not allowed to be 
made public is somehow going to lead to a flood of foreign money, is 
nonsense.
  Also, again, I will reiterate that the Bank Secrecy Act is in place 
to make sure that that does not happen. So I just wanted to quickly 
dispel with that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Carter), who is a distinguished member of the Homeland Security 
Committee.
  Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on H.R. 
5293, the fiscal year 2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
and to recognize the hard work that the House Appropriations 
Committee's Defense Subcommittee has put into this bill.
  I would also like to thank Chairman Frelinghuysen and all the members 
of the subcommittee and the Rules Committee for their work on this 
bill.
  This legislation represents an opportunity for Members on both sides 
of the aisle to work together to provide our Armed Forces the resources 
they need to keep our country and Americans safe. We ask the courageous 
men and women who volunteer in our Armed Forces to confront global 
terrorism, and we must give them the tools to do so.
  This year's Defense Appropriations bill, H.R. 5293, funds the 
programs that are not only essential to our national security, but 
critical to the welfare of our military personnel.
  The Ohio Replacement Program is set to become the most dominant leg 
of our nuclear triad and is vital to our nuclear deterrence. This bill 
progresses that project.
  Townsend Bombing Range is being expanded to accommodate the needs of 
the new fifth generation fighters coming online, and offers a unique 
training aspect for those planes located on the East Coast. This bill 
helps to clear up ongoing airspace concerns.
  The A-10s, the most lethal close air support aircraft in the Air 
Force's inventory, will continue to be funded, ensuring our warfighters 
get the close-in air operations they need.
  Cyber is, and will continue to be, a major issue for our military, 
and I commend the committee's focus on establishing cyber protection 
teams and partnerships with public universities.
  End-strength has been another recurring issue, and this bill provides 
the necessary funding to reduce the strain on the men and women who 
serve.
  Warfighters have also relied on the Joint Surveillance Target Attack 
Radar Systems, or JSTARS, for up-to-date information on enemy 
movements, and this bill ensures our legacy fleet can continue to fly 
until the Air Force completes this recapitalization program.
  Lastly, this bill also provides support to the Army's combat aviation 
brigades through additional AH-64 Apache helicopters, and the Air 
Force's airlift capacity is strengthened under the engine enhancement 
programs for C-130s.
  Chairman Frelinghuysen and the Defense Appropriations Committee have, 
again, done a tremendous job on making the difficult decisions to 
prioritize what is most needed for our Armed Forces. I commend the 
subcommittee on their work.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of 
reform organizations that are organized to protect the public from the 
big money and from foreign donations, from the League of Women Voters, 
to Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to the Campaign Legal Center, the 
Center for Responsive Politics, Brennan Center for Justice, and so on. 
There are many more.
  I want to submit for the Record the letter they sent to every Member 
of Congress saying, vote ``no'' on the Roskam bill, and vote against 
opening loopholes for foreign money.
  These organizations believe that we are opening a loophole for more 
foreign money into our political system. And if that is what you want, 
then support the bill. I personally do not, and ask that that be part 
of the Record.

  Reform Groups Urge No Vote on Roskam Bill, H.R. 5053--Vote Against 
                   Opening Loophole for Foreign Money

                                                    June 13, 2016.
       Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to 
     oppose H.R. 5053, Representative Peter Roskam's bill that 
     would eliminate the requirement for 501(c) groups to disclose 
     their donors to the IRS.
       Our organizations include the Brennan Center for Justice, 
     Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common 
     Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of 
     Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The 
     Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress and Represent.Us.
       The Roskam bill would open the door wide for secret money 
     from foreign donors to be illegally laundered into federal 
     elections through 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups. Foreign 
     money cannot be legally spent in U.S. elections, but it can 
     be given to 501(c) groups and they can spend money in our 
     elections. These groups are not required to disclose their 
     donors publicly, but they are required to make non-public 
     disclosure of their donors to the IRS.
       This disclosure to the IRS is the only protection citizens 
     have to prevent 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups being used 
     to illegally

[[Page 8701]]

     spend foreign money in our elections. The fact that 501(c) 
     groups are required to disclose their donors to the IRS means 
     the groups know that donor information is available as an 
     accountability check against illegal conduct.
       If donor disclosure to the IRS by 501(c) groups is 
     eliminated, however, as the Roskam bill would do, no one will 
     be in a position to determine if a 501(c) group illegally 
     spent foreign money in our elections--other than the group 
     and foreign donor involved. Any check will be gone and there 
     will be no way to hold a group and foreign donor accountable 
     for illegally spending foreign money in U.S. elections.
       House members should vote against eliminating the existing 
     check against foreign countries, foreign companies and 
     foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our 
     elections.
       We strongly urge you vote to protect the integrity of U.S. 
     elections by voting against H.R. 5053.
         Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center 
           for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 
           21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters, 
           Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers 
           Project at Demand Progress, Represent.Us.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that 
would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's 
terrorist watch list.
  It is unconscionable that the majority in this House has repeatedly 
refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole, which continues 
to allow suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms.
  The country can simply not wait any longer for this Congress to act. 
And if my friends want to vote against it, then they can vote against 
it. But denying the ability of this legislation to come to the floor, I 
think, is just wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record along with extraneous material immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes 
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
rule today and ask that we defeat the previous question.
  The IRS portion of this bill that is included in the rule, the debate 
regarding that, is nothing more than a political messaging debate, and 
it is politically charged, and it really has no place on this floor 
today, given the seriousness of this underlying issue that the 
gentleman from Massachusetts just spoke about.
  The American people don't need more partisan politics. The American 
people need a Congress that will stand up and take action to help keep 
Americans safe from a number of things, one of the most important of 
which is gun violence in their neighborhoods and in their communities.
  Thirty people are killed every day by someone using a gun in our 
country. In the 3 years since Sandy Hook, there have been over 1,000 
mass shootings, and more than 34,000 people have been killed by someone 
using a gun.
  Every time these tragedies take place, the response from my friends 
on the Republican side of the aisle is the same. Thoughts and prayers 
are sent and moments of silence are held, but no real action is taken.
  In the 3 years since Sandy Hook, we have held 30 moments of silence 
after a terrible tragedy such as the one that just occurred in Orlando.

                              {time}  1300

  But we haven't taken a single vote on legislation that would help 
keep guns out of dangerous hands.
  One of the simplest solutions we have put forward to help keep 
Americans safe is legislation to prohibit those on the FBI's terrorist 
watch list from being able to legally purchase firearms.
  Today, individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list can go into a 
gun store anyplace in the United States of America and buy a firearm of 
their choosing legally. As a matter of fact, since this watch list has 
been established, over 2,000 individuals on the terrorist watch list 
have gone into gun stores across the country and legally purchased 
firearms. I think that is wrong. It is dangerous, it is unacceptable, 
and it makes our country less safe.
  I have bipartisan legislation that I have offered with my Republican 
friend and colleague, Peter King from New York, that would prohibit 
those on the terrorist watch list from being able to purchase a firearm 
legally in our country.
  The American people are overwhelmingly in support of this, and if 
House Republicans agree that suspected terrorists shouldn't be able to 
legally buy guns, then let's take a vote. Vote it up or down, but give 
the American people the right to have this measure voted on.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gibson). The gentleman was a colonel in 
the United States Army, a member of the Armed Services Committee, and a 
great American.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. 
Stivers, for yielding time. I also greatly appreciate his work on the 
committee and his service to our Nation. We appreciate the sacrifices 
that he has rendered on our behalf and also from his family.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the House Defense 
Appropriations bill, a very important piece of legislation that 
provides the resources for our servicemen and -women to defend this 
cherished way of life and to protect our people. We are reminded of 
that after this devastating terrorist attack this past weekend.
  Mr. Speaker, dating back to the founding, we had a principle by which 
we rally our national security, and that is peace through strength; 
that is, we look to deter potential adversaries, always prepared, in 
the event that deterrence fails, to fight and prevail to win and to 
protect our people.
  As part of this concept of deterrence, it is critically important at 
this juncture, in my view, that we provide the resources necessary to 
revitalize our Armed Forces. We are coming through a very long period 
of focus on counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Much 
needs to be done. I think this bill does quite a bit on that score.
  I want to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their work on 
it. I also want to express my gratitude for them to include the bill 
that I authored that deals with end strength of our Armed Forces. This 
is the POSTURE Act. It is supported by 52 of my colleagues. It is a 
bipartisan piece of legislation. In fact, I authored it with Chairman 
Turner, Mike Turner from the House Armed Services Committee, and 
Representative Tim Walz, the highest ranking enlisted man to ever serve 
in this Chamber, a Democrat from Minnesota.
  This bill effectively stops the drawdown that is planned over the 
next 2 years. Right now we have end strength numbers that essentially 
match where we were on September 11, 2001. If the administration's plan 
is allowed to go into effect, we are looking at handing out 
approximately 70,000 pink slips between now and 2018, bringing down the 
size of our Armed Forces.
  Now is not the time to be doing that, as we deal with Russia, China, 
North Korea, Iran, and certainly the Islamic State. We have lots of 
challenges out there, and if we are going to reassert peace through 
strength, strengthening the hand of our diplomats, I think it is 
critically important that we don't continue on that drawdown of our 
land forces and of our forces in the Department of Defense.
  So I appreciate the leadership's including this bill that I have 
authored with my colleagues in the House Defense Appropriations bill. 
It was critical that it come with the resources, because you just can't 
increase end strength. It has to come with the money to do that. This 
committee did that, and I appreciate that.
  I also want to say there are important provisions in here to reassure 
our

[[Page 8702]]

allies, the European Reassurance Initiative. It is funded here along 
with the Global Response Force, and a pay raise for our servicemen and 
-women. They richly deserve this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McClintock). The time of the gentleman 
has expired.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, 1 yield the gentleman from New York an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mr. GIBSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to say how important it is that we 
bring forward all these initiatives: preserving our end strength, 
reassuring our allies, and ensuring that the Global Response Force has 
proper funding. All of these, Mr. Speaker, are going to help strengthen 
the hand of diplomats.
  When you look at our strengths, they are instantiated in our founding 
documents. On our best day, other countries want to be like us. It is 
the freedom and it is the prosperity that comes from arraying power the 
way that we do. Of course, all of this is relying on the principle of 
deterrence. This bill is very important toward that end.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and friend, Mr. Stivers, 
yielding time. I urge my colleagues to support the House Defense 
Appropriations bill.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I advise the gentleman from Massachusetts 
that I have no more speakers, and I am prepared to close.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there are 1,000 reasons to be opposed to this rule. One 
is that it brings forward two bills that are deeply flawed.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The New York Times editorial 
against the Roskam bill, ``Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold.''

                  [From the New York Times Editorial,
                             Apr. 28, 2016]

                   Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to 
     American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning 
     that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed 
     bill advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and 
     Means Committee.
       It would alter the current tax code provision that, while 
     permitting the identity of donors to 501(c) ``social 
     welfare'' groups to be kept firmly secret from the public, 
     requires that the donors be privately identified to Internal 
     Revenue Service officials responsible for enforcing the law. 
     Politically oriented groups claiming dubious exemptions as 
     ``social welfare'' nonprofits have proliferated in recent 
     elections, allowing donors--including publicity-shy campaign 
     backers--to work from the shadows.
       Under the proposal, the I.R.S. would no longer be told the 
     identities of contributors to these nonprofits. Watchdog 
     groups warn in a letter to the House that this would ``open 
     the door wide for secret, unaccountable money from foreign 
     governments, foreign corporations and foreign individuals to 
     be illegally laundered into federal elections.'' The letter, 
     signed by the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal 
     Center, Democracy 21 and five other groups, stressed that the 
     disclosure requirement is one of the few ways of guarding 
     against foreigners influencing American elections.
       Representative Peter Roskam, the bill's sponsor, dismissed 
     the reform groups' warning, saying the I.R.S. ``has a 
     miserable track record when it comes to safeguarding 
     sensitive data'' and a history of targeting conservative 
     nonprofits that are critical of administration policies. His 
     office insisted that ending the disclosure requirement would 
     not affect the foreign-donation ban, but the reform groups 
     sensibly ask who else could monitor what has become a runaway 
     system of big-money stealth politicking.
       Claiming a ``social welfare'' tax exemption has become a 
     tool for powerful political operatives like Karl Rove, the 
     Republican campaign guru. His Crossroads GPS group, which has 
     501(c) status, has spent $330 million on ads and candidates 
     since it was created in 2010. Other political groups, 
     including the Democrats' Priorities USA Action, which aided 
     in President Obama's re-election campaign, have followed suit 
     in claiming ``social welfare'' status. In the last four 
     years, more than $500 million in secretive election 
     contributions has been netted by those using the ploy.
       Amid fierce Republican criticism, the I.R.S. has grown ever 
     more gun-shy about enforcement, with Tea Party and other 
     right-wing groups accusing tax officials of bias in daring to 
     investigate conservative ``social welfare'' claims. As I.R.S. 
     wariness grows, so does the attraction of 501(c)s for donors 
     more interested in stealth politicking than charity work. 
     Enabling foreigners to join this dark money debacle would be 
     disastrous.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will read the opening paragraph: ``It is 
plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political 
campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely 
undermined by a little-noticed bill''--which is this bill--``advanced 
Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.''
  This is basically saying that this opens up a loophole that, quite 
frankly, can be very, very dangerous. So I urge my colleagues that if 
this rule gets passed, that they would vote against this bill.
  Again, as I mentioned on the Defense Appropriations bill, it is a 
bill that is based on budget gimmicks, and it is also a bill that 
continues to fund endless wars without having any authorization from 
this Congress. We have not voted on an AUMF for the most recent war in 
Iraq and in Syria. I find it unconscionable that we have no problem 
just putting these wars on automatic pilot and having our brave men and 
women in uniform in harm's way, and we don't even have the guts to 
debate it.
  We have tried and tried and tried and tried on various bills--on 
authorization bills and on appropriations bills--to be able to have 
that debate. There is always an excuse--oh, it is a different committee 
jurisdiction; oh, we have to give it more than 10 minutes; oh, we have 
to do this, we have to do that--but this is our constitutional 
responsibility. We have time to vote on all these other bills that, 
quite frankly, are going nowhere that are political messaging pieces 
written at the National Republican Congressional Committee, but we 
can't find the time to debate these wars to clarify what our mission 
is--these wars that our brave men and women in uniform have been put in 
harm's way to deal with?
  Come on. At some point, we have to find the courage to debate this. 
If people think these wars are the right way to go or they want to 
expand Presidential authority, then that is how you do it. If people 
like me think our military footprint is too big in the Middle East and 
that we need to have a more clearly defined mission about what we are 
doing, then that is the forum in which we restrain these wars.
  But to do nothing--to do nothing--is cowardly. It is just wrong. I am 
hoping in the amendment process that we will have the opportunity to 
debate some of these issues. But if history is any indication, the 
answer is probably not.
  Finally, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question. 
Quite frankly, instead of these flawed bills, we should be debating how 
to prevent more tragedies like the one that took place in Orlando.
  If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up a bill that is a 
bipartisan bill that would simply say that, if you are on an FBI watch 
list so you are unable to fly, then you should be unable to buy a gun 
at a gun store. It is that simple.
  I don't quite understand why that is such a big deal. If the FBI 
believes that you are potentially dangerous so that they will not allow 
you to fly on an airplane, then how in the world can we allow that 
person to go into a gun store and buy a gun? And not just any gun; they 
can buy an assault weapon. It is crazy.
  We have tried, on numerous occasions, to bring this issue to the 
floor, and House Republicans have voted 11 times--11 times--to block 
the bipartisan No Fly, No Buy legislation that was originally authored 
by my Republican colleague, Congressman Peter King.
  Since taking control of the House in 2011, my Republican friends have 
drastically cut the resources available for law enforcement, slashing 
the COPS program, which includes COPS hiring, COPS technology, 
interoperability, et cetera, by 64 percent. We need to respond to these 
terrible tragedies and make sure that our communities have what they 
need to keep people safe.
  According to the Government Accountability Office, as my colleague 
from California (Mr. Thompson) pointed out, more than 2,000 suspects on 
the

[[Page 8703]]

FBI's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in the 
United States--more than 2,000. These are people who can't fly on 
airplanes because they are suspected of being terrorists, but they can 
go in and buy a firearm. More than 90 percent of all suspected 
terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked 
away with the weapon they wanted, with just 190 rejected, despite their 
ominous history.
  This legislation that we want to bring to the floor--just so there is 
no misunderstanding here--was originally crafted in 2007 and endorsed 
by President Bush's Justice Department. It has bipartisan support in 
the House and is supported by prominent Republicans and 
counterterrorism and law enforcement experts. Yet we can't find the 
time to bring it to the floor. All we can do in the aftermath of 
terrible massacres like the one in Orlando is come to the floor and 
have a moment of silence for 10 seconds, and that is it. That is our 
obligation.
  It is awful that we can't deal in a responsible way with legislation 
like the bills that I have mentioned here. I think the American 
people--and this goes beyond political affiliation--are getting sick of 
our inaction on this stuff. I should just say, if my friends are afraid 
of the NRA, according to a 2012 poll, 71 percent of current or former 
NRA members and 80 percent of other gun owners support preventing 
people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.
  I don't know what it is going to take, but I will tell you this: the 
outrage is already beyond description here on the House floor of people 
who are simply tired of our inaction.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
defeat the previous question so we can actually have a debate and vote 
on something that might save some lives, and also vote against the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The gentleman makes an impassioned argument, but today's rule is 
about two bills. It is about a bill that will prevent IRS abuse and 
make sure that our citizens have a right to free speech and free 
association that they are guaranteed under the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.
  I thought it was really interesting that he read a portion of The New 
York Times editorial that is very clear to say that reform groups claim 
that this bill does X. The editorial writer did not make the claim that 
it happened or that it will happen; he made the claim that reform 
groups claim it will happen because the editorial writer can't verify 
the validity of it, and it is simply not true.
  The Bank Secrecy Act will make sure, as it does today, that foreign 
money is kept out of our elections. The Federal Election Commission, 
which is responsible for enforcing our election laws, will continue to 
enforce our election laws.

                              {time}  1315

  In fact, no one knows what Schedule B is used for. Today it has no 
real purpose. The IRS' Director of Exempt Organizations has publicly 
stated that they are considering doing away with Schedule B themselves. 
That is all the first bill does.
  The second bill we are talking about is providing for funding for our 
troops. It is the DOD authorization for funding for 2017. The gentleman 
talks about some other issues, but if we don't fund it, we are the ones 
doing nothing. If we don't fund our troops, we are the ones doing 
nothing. We have an obligation to fund our troops to provide for the 
common defense. We need to make sure we do that. That is what this bill 
does, and I want to make sure we do that.
  I do want to make a quick comment on process because the gentleman is 
apparently outraged about process. In this session of Congress, the 
114th Congress, Mr. Speaker, the majority has allowed 1,269 amendments 
on the House floor in this Congress. That is as of May--halfway through 
this year. In the 113th Congress, the majority allowed 1,545 amendments 
to be considered. When the gentleman from Massachusetts was in the 
majority in the 111th Congress, his party only allowed 778 amendments 
during the entire 111th Congress. The gentleman's claims ring a little 
hollow. Maybe where you stand depends on where you sit.
  I will say that these are important bills. The rule will make sure 
that we can fully fund our national defense and make sure that we look 
out for the constitutional rights of our citizens. Those are two very 
important things. I don't argue with the gentleman that there may be 
other things we want to talk about, but those things are important, and 
that is what today is about, that is what this 1 hour of debate is 
about, and that is what the 2 hours the rule provides are about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bills.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 778 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

[[Page 8704]]

     then controls the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, 
     or yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. STIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on adopting the resolution, if ordered, and 
suspending the rules and passing H.R. 5049.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236, 
nays 171, not voting 27, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 299]

                               YEAS--236

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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)
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     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
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     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
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Pitts
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price, Tom
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rice (SC)
     Rigell
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NAYS--171

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

                             NOT VOTING--27

     Bass
     Bishop (UT)
     Comstock
     Dingell
     Duffy
     Farr
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Gabbard
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Grijalva
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Hunter
     Kirkpatrick
     Labrador
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lipinski
     McDermott
     Meng
     Rokita
     Sanford
     Takai
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1337

  Messrs. RYAN of Ohio, SERRANO, SIRES, and TAKANO changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. JENKINS of West Virginia, Mrs. NOEM, and Mr. JOYCE changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. COMSTOCK. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 299, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239, 
noes 179, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 300]

                               AYES--239

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Babin
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Benishek
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     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)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Donovan
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers (NC)
     Emmer (MN)
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Garrett
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     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)

[[Page 8705]]


     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Hurt (VA)
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jolly
     Jordan
     Joyce
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Knight
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     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
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney (FL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce
     Russell
     Salmon
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     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
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Young (IN)
     Zeldin
     Zinke

                               NOES--179

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Ashford
     Bass
     Beatty
     Becerra
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardenas
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duckworth
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Esty
     Farr
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Graham
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     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)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham (NM)
     Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rangel
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Speier
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bishop (UT)
     Dingell
     Duffy
     Fattah
     Forbes
     Goodlatte
     Herrera Beutler
     Hinojosa
     Lawrence
     McDermott
     Meng
     Sanford
     Takai
     Torres
     Waters, Maxine
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  1344

  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.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted:
  No on rollcall No. 299.
  No on rollcall No. 300.

                          ____________________