[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 11665-11678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3219, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                        APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call 
up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 473

       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 consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department 
     of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, 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 two hours equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-30 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill shall be in 
     order except those printed in the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma 
     amendments described in section 4 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, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided 
     by section 4 of this resolution, 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 further amendments printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments 
     en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further 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 Appropriations or their respective designees, 
     shall not be subject to amendment except as provided by 
     section 4 of this resolution, 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.  During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to 
     20 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of 
     debate.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.
       Sec. 6. (a) During consideration of H.R. 3219, 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) This paragraph shall not apply to an amendment between 
     the Houses.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), my good friend, 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. COLE. 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule for consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure 
Appropriations Act, 2018. The rule provides for 2 hours of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, the appropriations package in front of us represents the 
end product of many months of work by the Appropriations Committee. In 
this package, we will be considering four appropriations bills: 
Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military 
Construction and Veterans Affairs. Together, the four parts of the bill 
make up the Make America Secure Appropriations Act for fiscal year 
2018.
  The legislation ensures that our most important government services 
will be funded responsibly and appropriately and that we will fulfill 
our most important responsibilities as legislators: funding the 
government and keeping it open to serve our constituents.
  The bill provides a total of $658.1 billion for defense, an increase 
of $68.1 billion in discretionary funding above the fiscal year 2017 
levels, and an increase of $28.3 billion over the President's request. 
It also includes $73.9 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations and 
Global War on Terrorism funding.
  These funds will help us enhance our military readiness, and the 
substantial increase marks an end to the ongoing erosion of our 
national military strength that occurred during the Obama 
administration.
  Importantly, this bill also provides an increase in funding for 
veterans. Over the past several years, the House has worked to improve 
the Department of Veterans Affairs and to ensure that all veterans 
receive the care and benefits to which they are entitled.
  The Department of Veterans Affairs will receive a 5 percent increase 
in this bill, including $74 billion for the Veterans Health 
Administration.
  The increased funding represents an important step toward fulfilling 
our promise to improve care, reduce wait times at the VA, and enhance 
benefits for our Nation's veterans.
  The Energy and Water portion of this appropriations bill provides 
$37.6 billion in funding for fiscal year 2018, a decrease of $209 
million from fiscal year 2017.
  The bill includes an increase in funding for the National Nuclear 
Security Administration that includes funds to restart the licensing 
process for Yucca Mountain, the national disposal repository for spent 
nuclear fuel. It also provides $6.16 billion for the Army Corps of 
Engineers, a $10 million increase over fiscal year 2017.
  H.R. 3219 also provides $3.58 billion for the Legislative Branch. It 
does not recommend funding levels for the Senate, as per our 
longstanding tradition.
  The bill includes a significant increase in funding for U.S. Capitol 
Police and adds additional funds for securing offices in Washington and 
in congressional districts. Importantly, it continues the freeze on 
Member pay.
  The package before us represents the House fulfilling its primary 
responsibility: to fund the government. This package funds hundreds, if 
not thousands, of Member priorities, particularly on the defense side.
  I applaud my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee for their 
months of working and making this bill a reality. It shows what the 
House can do as we move forward toward completion of the fiscal year 
appropriations process.

[[Page 11666]]

  Mr. Speaker, I urge support of the rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to know where to begin, because this process 
is so lousy, but I want to rise today in opposition to this rule and 
the so-called underlying bill, H.R. 3219, the GOP fiscal year 2018 so-
called security minibus appropriations bill.
  This rule makes in order 72 amendments for debate on the House floor, 
blocking 100 amendments. It continues the terrible closed process that 
this Republican majority has used since they took control of the House 
in 2011.
  When Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised a fair and open process 
with regular order where both the majority and the minority would have 
the opportunity to have their voices heard, and I am happy to provide 
the full text of that speech to my Republican friends.
  I guess we were misinformed, because our collective voices are 
repeatedly silenced in this Chamber, not just Democrats, but 
Republicans as well.
  Speaker Ryan's broken promise was clearly on display last week when 
he waited until the dead of night to strip out of the Defense 
Appropriations bill a provision requiring Congress to debate the issue 
of the 2001 AUMF. That provision was adopted by the full House 
Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis as an amendment offered 
by our respected colleague, Representative Barbara Lee. The bipartisan 
Lee amendment would sunset the outdated 2001 AUMF and give Congress 8 
months to enact a new one, ensuring that Congress finally debate and 
vote on the many wars in which the United States is engaged.
  If the Republican leadership doesn't like the lead provision, then 
the Rules Committee could have made in order an amendment to strike it 
from the bill. That would have given Members the chance to vote up or 
down either to keep or remove the provision. That would have been 
regular order, that would have been fair, that would have been open, 
but, instead, House Republican leadership took it upon themselves to 
replace Ms. Lee's provision with alternative language calling upon the 
administration to produce a report.
  Republicans on the Rules Committee defended this action, saying that 
the Lee amendment legislated on an appropriations bill. The trouble 
with that logic, Mr. Speaker, is that the language that replaced Ms. 
Lee's amendment also legislates on an appropriations bill. That is 
right. House Republicans put in an amendment that violates the same 
rule.
  If this leadership is going to silence Members on flimsy procedural 
grounds, they probably shouldn't break those same rules on the same 
day.
  Even more shameful, the Republican leadership's continued actions to 
block every effort and refuse to allow Congress to debate and vote on 
these wars, I believe, is an insult to the men and women in uniform, 
who put their lives on the line every day to protect our country, and 
to their families.
  Americans deserve better, and the bipartisan voices calling for 
action will not be silenced, but this is just one example of regular 
order being abandoned in order to advance an extreme agenda.
  Tomorrow, House Republicans will use another legislative trick, the 
self-executing rule, to stick taxpayers with a $1.6 billion bill for 
President Trump's reckless and ineffective border wall with Mexico.
  Now, instead of bringing that measure to the floor for an up-or-down 
vote in an open process where all voices could be heard, the Republican 
leadership is sticking this provision into the rule so that as soon as 
the rule is approved, the measure will automatically become part of the 
bill.
  President Trump, as you may recall, promised the American people that 
he would make Mexico pay for this wall. He repeated it over and over 
and over again during the campaign. But now, House Republicans want to 
take $1.6 billion of hard-earned tax dollars from millions of Americans 
to fund it.

                              {time}  1245

  Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, this $1.6 billion is only targeted at 
74 miles of the border: two small tracts in Texas and one small tract 
in California.
  And how did this provision on the border wall make its way into this 
minibus of appropriations bills? It was literally lifted out of the 
Homeland Security appropriations bill and its few sentences air-dropped 
into this package.
  Where is the rest of the Homeland Security bill, Mr. Speaker? Sitting 
in limbo, that is where it is.
  I guess there weren't any other national security priorities in the 
Homeland Security Appropriations bill that merited the very special 
treatment that the 74 miles of this lousy wall seem to be getting. I 
see that the only priority that matters for my Republican friends when 
it comes to the security of our Nation is 74 miles of wall costing $1.6 
billion.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. This is just a disgrace.
  And then, because it will be part of a self-executing rule, 
Republicans won't even have to vote on this Republican priority. They 
will just vote on the rule and, bingo, it is all taken care of. There 
will be no separate vote on this. You get the funding for the wall, but 
nothing on record that says you voted to waste $1.6 billion on 74 miles 
of border wall. Republicans can go home and say they delivered on the 
wall. I guess they better hope that their constituents don't ask them 
to show them the vote.
  But as I said, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace on funding. It is a 
disgrace on funding priorities, and it is a real disgrace on process. I 
mean, we should be ashamed of the process in which this bill is being 
brought to the floor.
  I wish I could say that I am surprised by all of this, but the fact 
is that House Republicans have been doing this kind of thing for quite 
some time now. This week, you may have read about this: Kellyanne 
Conway claimed that even if President Trump says something that isn't 
true, it is not a lie if he believes it.
  Well, you can't make this stuff up. Well, I take that back. I guess 
you can make everything up.
  It seems clear that this warped logic has infected this Chamber, with 
the House Republican leadership employing this same kind of thinking 
and underhanded methods on a regular basis. They defend a process that 
is indefensible, plain and simple.
  This is a rigged process. Let's be honest. This is a rigged process.
  Is this really how we want Congress and this House to conduct the 
business of the American people? Is this how we will conduct the 
appropriations process not only now, but in the future: no debate for 
individual appropriations bills and severely limiting amendments 
overall? no regular order and a subversion the committee process?
  Soon, maybe there will be no amendments on appropriations bills at 
all. This is a slippery slope, and I urge my Republican colleagues to 
carefully consider the dangerous road that we are going down.
  Americans deserve better from their leaders in Congress, especially 
when it comes to deciding how the American people's hard-earned tax 
dollars will be spent. Republicans talk about fiscal responsibility, 
but what I see here today is another reckless and bloated budget 
proposal that empties the Treasury vaults for wasteful military 
spending when we have so many critical priorities here at home that are 
in desperate need of funding.
  Now, apparently, House Republicans have no problem with spending $1.6 
billion on President Trump's border wall with Mexico, but when it comes 
to investing in our own communities here at home, they can't be 
bothered.
  How about investing in our kids' schools? Why aren't we doing more to 
ensure that our young people have the resources and the support they 
need to get additional education? Make college more affordable, for 
example. Wouldn't that be a radical idea?
  Republicans love to talk about personal responsibility and the need 
for

[[Page 11667]]

Americans to work. Why aren't we investing $1.6 billion more in job 
training programs and finding ways to increase wages?
  We should be making sure that more families have access to good jobs 
and that no one in America who works full-time has to raise their 
family in poverty.
  President Trump had what feels like countless infrastructure weeks, 
but we have yet to see Republicans propose any legislation to make good 
on their promise to finally invest in America's infrastructure and 
finally fix our Nation's crumbling roads and bridges.
  Instead of making any of these policies the top priorities that they 
should be in this Congress, Republicans are just offering more of the 
same: empty rhetoric and broken promises.
  Now, to be clear, the legislation that we will consider today, H.R. 
3219, does fund some important priorities. Our national security must 
be our number one priority with policies that are both strong and 
smart. I strongly support our men and women in uniform and believe that 
Congress should provide our troops everything that they need. Yet 
Republicans have deliberately created a security bill that raises 
serious concerns.
  Let's recap for a second, Mr. Speaker. The final version of this bill 
will include $1.6 billion for the President's useless and immoral 
border wall. It strips out the bipartisan Lee amendment that would have 
ensured Congress finally grapples with the wars that we are sending our 
troops to fight instead of continuing to write the White House a series 
of blank checks. And to top it all off, Mr. Speaker, the four bills 
contained in H.R. 3219 blow through the Budget Control Act cap on 
defense spending by $72 billion, threatening a 13 percent sequester cut 
to all defense accounts.
  While obliterating the defense spending cap, House Republicans have 
proposed reducing nondefense spending to $5 billion below its cap. It 
is legislative malpractice that Republicans have ignored this reality 
and have done nothing to work with Democrats to write a new bipartisan 
budget agreement to raise the Budget Control Act caps for both defense 
and nondefense spending. Republicans are setting us up for a train 
wreck, a government shutdown, or worse.
  This is not good, Mr. Speaker. This should concern every single 
Member of this Chamber, both Democrat and Republican. And so I urge my 
colleagues to reject this rule and finally take a stand against this 
process, which is rigged and closed and restrictive, and to oppose the 
underlying bill.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
before I go to my first speaker in order to respond to some of my 
friend's points. I want to begin by talking about the amendment process 
just very quickly.
  It is worth noting 72 amendments are made in order here; 47 of those 
were actually Democratic amendments. Many of the amendments that my 
friend referred to that had been submitted to the Rules Committee, at 
least a third of them, were knocked out because they were simply out of 
order.
  But my friend is correct: it is not an open rule. I do remind him 
that the first people to eliminate open rules on appropriations bills 
were not Republicans. It was actually the Democratic majority in 2009 
that ended the practice and, for 2 years, allowed almost no amendments 
on any appropriations bills, and most appropriations bills never came 
to the floor. So I think my friends bear a considerable amount of 
responsibility for where we find ourselves today.
  I do want to talk a little bit, too, briefly, about my friend's 
comments about the AUMF, because he has been a good friend and a close 
ally in an area that we have a similar concern.
  I agree with my friend. We need to debate this, and we need to have 
an AUMF that is more in tune with the times and, frankly, reintroduces 
congressional power and congressional oversight. I have worked with my 
friend in the past on that. I am going to continue to work with him on 
it going forward.
  But in the case of the Lee amendment, which, in full disclosure, I 
supported in the Appropriations Committee, the chairman of the 
committee of jurisdiction, which is not the Appropriations Committee, 
made it known that he would lodge a point of order; so, in other words, 
that would never get to the floor.
  In place, we have put something that, frankly, will at least require 
the administration, on the passage of this bill or the Defense 
Authorization Act, in which it is also found, to submit a report that 
justifies where the administration is legally, lays out their strategy, 
lays out their costs, and gives us a chance to begin a debate.
  As a sign of good faith, I am happy to report that the Foreign 
Relations Committee, which actually does have jurisdiction here, 
actually had their first hearing on a new AUMF earlier this week. So I 
think we are trying to get to the same place. My friend may have a 
different way to get there, but I agree with him, we need to reexamine, 
redebate, and, I think, reenact a new AUMF. I think we are trying to 
get there in a step-by-step, logical progression.
  Finally, while my friend is concerned about where we will end up in 
this process and, I think, legitimately so, I also want to point out we 
have actually managed to come together here the last couple of years 
and, I suspect, will again.
  In fiscal year 2016, we had the same series of events, and yet 
Congress came to an agreement on full funding that was bipartisan and 
passed by substantial numbers of both parties participating, a majority 
in each party. The same thing was true in fiscal year 2017. My hope is 
that it will be true again in fiscal year 2018.
  But this is an important part of the process. We need to go through 
this. At the end of the day, and I tell this to my friends on the right 
and the left, we will end up with a bicameral, bipartisan 
appropriations bill. There is simply no other way to fund the 
Government of the United States, and we pledge to work toward that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne), my good friend, a member of the Rules Committee, but also a 
distinguished member of the House Armed Services Committee.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the 
underlying bill. The Make America Secure Appropriations Act is all 
about protecting the American people and securing our homeland.
  Unfortunately, years of underfunding have severely hurt our military. 
With this bill, we can make real progress towards rebuilding the 
military and adding more troops, sailors, airmen, and marines to the 
force.
  Building on our pledge to boost the Navy to a 355-ship fleet, the 
bill funds 11 new ships. Included in this are three littoral combat 
ships, of which the Independence class vessel is built by a fantastic 
workforce in southwest Alabama.
  Having state-of-the-art facilities and resources is vital to the 
success of our military. To help repair dilapidated and aging military 
infrastructure, the bill provides a 25 percent increase in military 
construction funding.
  Supporting our servicemembers and their families is also a high 
priority of this bill, as it provides for the largest military pay 
raise in 8 years.
  That is not all it does. It also provides for our Nation's veterans, 
the very people who devoted their lives to protecting our country and 
the values we hold so dear. This bill provides the highest level of 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in our Nation's history. 
This will help cut down on the claims backlog and move forward with a 
new electronic medical health records system.
  I am also pleased that this bill will allow us to begin increasing 
our Nation's border security in an effort to keep bad actors out of our 
country. The American people sent a strong message last November that 
they wanted a wall securing our southern border. This bill will begin 
this process by providing over $1.5 billion requested by President 
Trump for physical barrier construction along the southern border.

[[Page 11668]]

  Mr. Speaker, over this last weekend a lot of people in America went 
to see a movie called ``Dunkirk'' about the evacuation of over 300,000 
British and French troops back over to England. Prime Minister Winston 
Churchill had only been in office a couple of weeks at that point in 
time, but he had predicted for years before that in speeches before the 
House of Commons that that day was coming, and they took his speeches 
and they put them together in a book called, ``While England Slept.'' 
With this bill, we are sending a strong message to the world that 
America is not asleep.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just remind my colleagues here that we are debating the rule, 
and this is about process.
  The gentleman from Oklahoma earlier talked about waivers and that the 
Lee AUMF language would be subject to a point of order. Well, the 
language that my Republican friends replaced the Lee amendment with is 
protected by a waiver of all points of order because it was also 
legislating on an appropriations bill. As I pointed out last night in 
the Rules Committee, you made in order amendment No. 19 by Mr. 
Griffith, which violates section 306 of the Congressional Budget Act, 
and you provided a waiver for that.
  My Republican friends routinely grant waivers in bills that come 
before the Rules Committee. The problem is that the waivers are only 
granted for your amendments and never for our amendments, and that is 
just not fair and that is not right.
  So if your policy is going to be we are going to grant no waivers, 
then it ought to apply not just to Democrats; it ought to apply to 
Republicans, too. But there is this double standard here, and voices 
that you disagree with always seem to end up being cut off.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I just point that out because this process and the 
reason why so many of us are angry about this process is it is so 
blatantly unfair.
  The gentleman from Alabama talked about how we all want to commit to 
upholding the national security of this Nation. I agree with him, but I 
would say we are not doing our jobs if this floor is not a place where 
we can have a free-flowing debate, where Members can offer different 
ideas and be able to have a vote on them. I would just say, with all 
due respect to my Republican colleagues, you do not have a monopoly on 
all good ideas.

                              {time}  1300

  You know, we have a couple of good ideas, too, and maybe some of your 
Members agree with that as well.
  The other thing we are going to object to is, again, the way my 
Republican friends self-execute controversial measures like this border 
wall at $1.6 billion, basically denying an up-or-down vote. Maybe it is 
to protect your Members in swing districts; I have no idea. Maybe you 
don't think you have the votes to do it. But if you don't have the 
votes to do it, it ought not to be in this bill. That is just, to me, a 
sound way to approach legislating. All the normal rules seem to be 
thrown out the window here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. 
McCollum), the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations 
Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong opposition to the Make 
America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018.
  Mr. Speaker, we are in a constrained fiscal environment, and we need 
to make smart choices about the future of our country. I am 
disappointed to see that many of the choices that the Republican 
leaders have made in this bill are completely out of balance with the 
needs of the American people.
  Republicans have chosen to exclude eight of the appropriations bills 
from this legislation: funding for roads and bridges to drive on, 
quality healthcare for our family, protecting our clean air and our 
drinking water, and the education of future generations. These critical 
investments that all Americans depend upon are left by the wayside with 
no path forward.
  Republicans have chosen to put forward a bill that exceeds the 
defense caps by $72 billion. With no budget agreement in sight, this 
bill would trigger sequestration cuts that our military leaders have 
warned us would have catastrophic consequences for our men and women in 
uniform.
  Republicans have also once again declined to make commonsense cuts to 
defense spending by denying the Pentagon's request for a new BRAC 
round. Make no mistake: this will waste billions of dollars over the 
next decade.
  At a time when countries like China are emphasizing research and 
investments in clean energy, Republicans have chosen to eliminate 
funding for ARPA-E, doing great harm--great harm--to America's global 
competitiveness in advanced research energy.
  Mr. Speaker, these choices are simply unacceptable to my constituents 
and to the American people, and I urge my Republican colleagues to work 
with Democrats to put forward appropriate funding bills that will 
advance the appropriations bills for all of America and to make America 
the strong country it should be.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, before I go to my next speaker, I yield myself 
such time as I may consume to respond to my friends.
  First, to my good friend from Massachusetts, and he is very much my 
good friend, but when I was in the minority, I asked repeatedly, I used 
to come up to the Rules Committee, as a former member of the Rules 
Committee, and I always got the warmest, most gracious reception, but I 
don't think I ever got an amendment approved. You can legislate on 
appropriations bills if the chairman of the authorizing committee 
consents to allow you to do it.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with my friend's position on Ms. 
Lee's amendment. I actually supported that amendment in subcommittee, 
but I recognize that we are not the appropriate committee, and if a 
different authorizing chairman wanted to do something, he could.
  Finally, with all due respect to my friend, we are not the ones that 
began this process of eliminating open rules on appropriations. My 
friend's party is. We actually tried to restore it. I regret that we 
did not succeed in that. This was not something I like doing, but, 
frankly, it has gotten around here where people are more interested in 
``got you'' amendments than real amendments, and that is basically what 
has happened here. I hope we can revisit that someday and go back to 
the traditional way of doing this.
  Finally, to my good friend from Minnesota, I want to make a pledge to 
her, and she knows it is sincere: we will work together. I don't think 
this bill ultimately will be passed without bipartisan cooperation, and 
I look at the 2015, 2016, and 2017 bills that all did end up as 
cooperative measures.
  Just to refresh my friend's memory, it was back in April that we 
passed a $1 trillion-plus spending bill for fiscal year 2017 that was 
extremely bipartisan. A majority of my friends on the other side of the 
aisle voted for it, the majority of my friends voted for it, and the 
President of the United States signed it.
  This is a long and lengthy process to fund the government, and I 
suspect, at the end of it, we will come together. That is certainly 
what I am going to try to do as I work through the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Gibbs), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
  Mr. GIBBS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 3219. 
This bill provides funding for the Federal Government's most critical 
function--national defense--with the Make America Secure Appropriations 
Act, as we are making sure the men and women who protect and defend our 
country have the best equipment and training in the world, and that 
they get the pay raise they deserve.
  Additionally, I am pleased to see my provisions I have worked on were 
included in this legislation to protect Lake Erie by preventing the 
Army Corps of Engineers from using open lake placement as a method of 
disposal of dredged material unless a State

[[Page 11669]]

water quality certification is provided. This is ensuring that Lake 
Erie remains on the path towards a healthier natural resource.
  The bill also gives the EPA Administrator and the Secretary of the 
Army further authorization to withdraw the waters of the United States 
rule.
  Finally, this legislation provides the resources to better secure our 
border and protect our citizens and our national security. We are 
making good on our promises to build the wall.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I had a real 
bipartisan amendment that had been in order repeatedly in recent 
sessions, gaining bipartisan support, to be able to deal with the 
crisis that our veterans face in terms of addiction, opioids.
  The VA, sadly, has a horrible record in terms of how they deal with 
these veterans. They suffer suicide 50 percent higher than the general 
public. The opioid addiction rate is twice the general population.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been working for years in the area of medical 
marijuana. Twenty-nine States have now legalized it. I wish my friends 
on the Rules Committee had taken the time to listen to the stories of 
veterans and their families about what difference it made for people 
suffering from PTSD, chronic pain, and traumatic brain injury.
  Medical marijuana has helped change their lives, and it is not 
addictive and doesn't kill them the way the abuse of opioids has. Yet 
the VA, in its infinite wisdom, doesn't even allow VA doctors to talk 
to veterans about medical marijuana in the States where it is legal.
  Our amendment is simple. It would eliminate that prohibition. It 
wouldn't dispense marijuana on public land. It allowed the VA doctor to 
work with the patients--the people who know them best.
  It passed last year with 40 votes on a bipartisan basis. There were 
18 bipartisan cosponsors for the amendment, 9 and 9, Republican and 
Democrat. It has already passed the Senate by a 3-to-1 margin in 
committee.
  It was actually approved by the House last Congress, but in 
conference committee, it was stripped out, led by former Senator Kirk. 
I sincerely believe that one of the reasons he is a former Senator is 
because Illinois veterans and their families were outraged about that 
action to reverse what Congress did.
  Now we are not even allowed to vote on it. I think that is 
incomprehensible. I don't think it is fair to our veterans. My friends 
on the Rules Committee are on the wrong side of history. In Florida, 
last November, 71 percent of the people voted for medical marijuana.
  Our veterans deserve the right to work with their VA physicians to do 
what is right for them and their families and, hopefully, avoid the 
epidemic of opioid overdoses, overprescriptions, and not being able to 
treat them with a methodology that is not highly addictive and not 
dangerous.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no reason on God's green earth that we 
shouldn't have been allowed to at least vote on this bipartisan 
amendment to protect our veterans.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very quickly to my good friend from 
Oregon. I just remind him this is a long and winding road. It is a long 
process. As he said, the Senate may very well move in a different 
direction.
  I tend to focus here on veterans' issues as issues that have largely 
brought us together. Quite frankly, this bill has a very substantial 
increase in spending at the VA, and that is something that I know, in 
committee, garnered wide bipartisan support. Let's wait and see where 
we go.
  I just want to say I think there will be continuing discussion about 
this, but there is also a concern, always, on something like this that 
is controversial. We have seen our friends do this before. Sometimes 
you will put an amendment in but you won't vote for the final bill.
  When you are trying to calculate whether you pass something, you 
can't have amendments that cost you votes, that don't get you votes. I 
am not suggesting that is my friend's purpose. It is not at all. I know 
it is not. I know he is very sincere in this. I am saying that could 
easily be the effect.
  All I can tell you is we will continue to work through the bill. I 
suspect when we get there, at the end of the day, this will be a very 
bipartisan bill. It will pass with a very bipartisan majority.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) so he may respond.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I would just say this was an opportunity 
to bring us together. It passed last Congress on the floor of the House 
with a 40-vote margin. There is more support now, today, in the public 
and in the other body.
  This was an opportunity to avoid unnecessary controversy, to send a 
signal to our veterans, to change a destructive policy from the 
Veterans Administration that is overwhelmingly supported by the 
American public. If you would have allowed us to vote on the floor of 
the House, I will guarantee you we would have had even more votes this 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he promised to have 
``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, and 
more participatory.''
  My friends like to highlight a number of amendments made in order 
today as if this is a good process. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, 
that, rather than taking up one issue at a time, this is a rule for 
three appropriations bills. I say to my friends, you guys are worse 
than you used to be.
  There are 10 amendments allowed for the Legislative Branch. Last year 
you made in order 13. We have fewer amendments this year.
  For the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill, there are 16 
amendments. Just a short time ago, in fiscal year 2016, we had a 
modified open rule. This rule is clearly much worse.
  We have the same situation with the Energy and Water bill. We have a 
structured rule this year, while we had a modified open rule just 2 
years ago. The process in the House is getting worse.
  For the first time in history, we have a Speaker of the House who has 
never allowed a truly open rule. Now, we were not perfect, Mr. Speaker, 
but Speaker Pelosi allowed the Rules Committee to report open rules. 
Speaker Boehner allowed open rules. Every Speaker in modern history 
allowed some open rules, but we don't even get modified open rules 
anymore.
  Mr. Speaker, we are seeing an alarming rise in the number of self-
executing rules, what Republicans used to call ``deem and pass rules.'' 
Now, let me explain what that is.
  In his book, ``Young Guns: A New Generation of Conservative 
Leaders,'' our dear Speaker, Mr. Ryan, described the self-execution 
process. This is on page 98, if you are following along. But he called 
this process, ``legislative trickery to enact legislation that does not 
have majority backing.''
  Now, sometime today we are going to go back up to the Rules Committee 
to do a little legislative trickery to fund the President's border 
wall.
  News flash: Mexico is not paying for the wall. The language that the 
Speaker intends to deem passed without a vote uses good old-fashioned 
American greenbacks to pay for Trump's wall. The American taxpayers are 
going to be stuck with this bill for this ridiculous wall.
  Mr. Speaker, this process is not good; it is not a better way; it is 
rotten; and the rule the majority will put on this floor tomorrow will 
be even worse. We are jamming through these important appropriation 
bills together, limiting debate, and moving further away from regular 
order.

[[Page 11670]]



                              {time}  1315

  We don't need this rule, and we don't need a self-executing rule 
tomorrow. Now, if we defeat the previous question on this rule, I will 
offer an amendment to open up this process and consider the Department 
of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Energy and 
Water Appropriation bills each under an open rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Luetkemeyer). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just conclude with this, Mr. Speaker: Members have a chance to 
vote for an open amendment process on these appropriations bills. That 
is what this PQ vote is about. Republicans will not control this House 
forever, and I hope that no Member who votes against this open rule 
amendment today will have the audacity to criticize any future 
Democratic majorities.
  If they do, Mr. Speaker, I assure you, we will remind them of this 
vote.
  To discuss our proposal, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, a lot of Members don't know what a previous 
question motion is, and that is not really a surprise, because it is 
usually used to set up some issues, and it is a party-line vote. This 
is different.
  This is different because this would allow amendments to be offered 
to these appropriations bills. Now, the amendment process in 
appropriations is one of the few times that Members of Congress have an 
opportunity to offer an amendment. And it is not just Democrats. It is 
Republicans, too.
  I recall very well--I am a member, I am a co-chair of the Fourth 
Amendment Caucus. It is Congressman Ted Poe and myself. And what 
members of the Fourth Amendment Caucus did was we put together an 
amendment that actually reformed section 702 of the PATRIOT Act. What 
it said was you can't query the database accumulated under section 702 
without a warrant. It is pretty obvious the Fourth Amendment protects 
Americans. That passed by a huge bipartisan vote twice. We don't get to 
offer that amendment this time because it is not an open rule.
  So I am just asking that we treat this previous question vote as very 
different than the usual garden variety previous question vote, because 
this is different. This isn't about idealogy. This isn't about 30-
second adds and all that nonsense that we both do. No. This is about 
having the opportunity--Republicans and Democrats, Members of 
Congress--to offer an amendment in important areas, especially the 
Fourth Amendment.
  So please vote ``yes'' on the previous question this time, and let's 
have open rules. Let's have democracy in America.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I just want to quickly respond to my friends and remind them that it 
wasn't Republicans that got rid of open rules on appropriations. It was 
my friends. So you can't set one standard for yourself, and then say: 
But you now have to go back to the way it was. We now have to be 
treated as a minority, in contrast to the way that we treated you.
  I am sorry, that is just difficult. We actually tried to do that for 
a couple of years, and we did come back to open rules. And I would 
still prefer that, to tell you the truth. I have lost this argument in 
my own conference.
  But if my friends will recall, last year on, I believe, the Energy 
and Water Appropriations bill, they slipped an amendment in. It was 
perfectly legitimate for them to do so. It was an open rule. They got 
that amendment adopted. They did not vote for the bill, even though the 
amendment was adopted. We lost a lot of votes, in consequence, because 
of the amendment.
  So there is always that calculus when you put these things together. 
There is a difference between an amendment that is a substantive 
amendment, and an amendment that is unrelated and a poison-pill 
amendment. Our side just decided they weren't going to subject 
themselves to that any longer. I am not sure that I agree with that 
decision, but that is the reality of where we are.
  There is a second consideration here, too, in terms of limitation 
that I think is worth noting. We are moving under an expedited 
situation because we began this process late. I want to take 
responsibility for that on our side of the aisle.
  I think all of the appropriations bills could have and should have 
been finished for FY17 in December of 2016. Instead, we started to 
allow the new administration to have input. We pushed that off and did 
a 4-month continuing resolution. During that period, we did not 
negotiate back and forth. We finally passed a bill in April. So we are 
moving with exceptional speed.
  I think it is pretty remarkable at this point that all 12 
appropriations bills have been reported out of committee, and are 
preparing to go here. Our leadership made, I think, a smart decision, 
in that here are four that all relate to a common theme of security for 
the country. Let's get those done. That is sort of first things first.
  Let's come back and deal with the other eight in September. It is my 
hope that that is what we will do, probably in packages again. But we 
are trying to move quickly.
  It is also finally worth noting that, again, this process, compared 
to the process my Democratic friends followed, is far more open. There 
are far more amendments now, even under a structured rule like this, 
than they allowed when they were in the majority on appropriations 
bills.
  We can go get the numbers and count, but we are at least trying to 
get back to getting the bills to the floor and having a pretty generous 
latitude for serious amendments. We will always disagree over which 
ones are made in order. A lot of Republican amendments weren't made in 
order either, but 72 amendments on an appropriations bill is a lot of 
amendments.
  Hopefully, this process can get better as we go forward. I want to 
work with my friends in that regard, but I am still very proud of the 
product that we are presenting and very proud of the number of 
amendments that are being allowed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 
a number of civil rights groups, education groups, environmental 
groups, and women's groups in opposition to this minibus.

                                                    July 25, 2017.
     Re Oppose H.R. 3219 Security Minibus--Vote No on Border wall.

     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our coalition of almost 
     90 environmental, faith, immigration, and civil rights 
     organizations, we are writing to strongly urge you to oppose 
     funding for the continued construction of a border wall along 
     the U.S.-Mexico border. The construction of a border wall 
     serves as a symbol of hostility towards immigrants, and 
     undermines the civil rights of communities living along our 
     southern border. It also imposes environmental costs and 
     natural disaster threats on border communities, especially 
     indigenous communities, harms native wildlife and wastes tens 
     of billions in taxpayer dollars.
       As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 2018 
     Security Minibus, H.R. 3219, we are profoundly concerned 
     about the inclusion of $1.6 billion slated for border wall. 
     In addition to spending billions of taxpayer dollars, adding 
     funding for the border wall in this legislative package 
     undermines a fair and transparent legislative process. 
     Instead of allowing legislators and the public to fully 
     consider the impacts of funding wall construction, the 
     Majority is using rushed and underhanded legislative 
     maneuvers to circumvent the vast and legitimate opposition 
     that exists for this measure, even within their own party.
       Including border wall funding in a Security Minibus is 
     based on the false premise that our borders are somehow 
     violent and insecure. This false premise has been used to 
     justify and advance anti-immigrant, anti-border, pro-
     criminalization, and anti-environment legislation that has 
     negative economic

[[Page 11671]]

     and civil rights impacts on border communities. The fact is 
     that communities along the border are some of the safest in 
     the country. According to the FBI's Uniformed Crime Reports, 
     cities on the border are safer than cities away from the 
     border. Places like El Paso, Texas have long topped the lists 
     of safest cities for their low crime and violence. 
     Additionally, according to the American Immigration Council, 
     communities with more immigrants are likely to be safer than 
     places with fewer immigrants.
       Border walls are an ineffective tool in curbing 
     undocumented migration between the United States and nations 
     south of the border. Rather than deter migration, the current 
     650-mile barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border has forced 
     vulnerable migrant populations to pursue more dangerous 
     routes of travel. The continued construction of a border wall 
     portrays an attitude of hatred and animosity towards our 
     neighboring nations. Additionally, construction of this wall 
     would undermine indigenous border communities, potentially 
     destroying elements of their history, archeology, and 
     culture. Border security measures must consider the historic 
     Tribal lands and families occupying the southern border.
       Finally, the current proposal in Fiscal Year 2018 Security 
     Minibus calls for the construction of 60 miles of levee 
     border wall in the South Texas Rio Grande Valley; 28 miles 
     would be levee-border wall, with 2.9 miles slated to be built 
     in the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge is home to 
     diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich 
     natural beauty. When levee border walls are constructed, they 
     negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding 
     risks, destroy natural habitats, and lead to potential 
     increased extinction rates. In order to construct existing 
     border-walls, dozens of laws protecting our environment, 
     public health, and sacred natural lands were waived. Our 
     nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and healthy 
     ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for 
     ineffective security measures.
       For all of the above reasons, we strongly urge you to vote 
     NO on the Fiscal Year 2018 Security Minibus, and oppose 
     funding for border walls, levees, or additional 
     infrastructure along the southern border of the United 
     States.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,


                              Civil Rights

       Mi Familia Vota, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination 
     Committee, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC), 
     HONOR PAC, UnidosUS (formerly NCLR), American Civil Liberties 
     Union, Asian Americans Advancing Justice Atlanta, The City 
     Project, National Council of Asian Pacific Americans (NCAPA), 
     League of United Latin American Citizens, EPCF.


                            Community Groups

       Southern Border Communities Coalition, Indivisible, SER 
     Jobs for Progress National Inc., Junta for Progressive 
     Action, National Black Justice Coalition.


                       Education/Higher Education

       National Education Association, Hispanic Association of 
     Colleges and Universities (HACU).


                  Environmental/Environmental Justice

       Earthjustice, Wildlands Network, Sierra Club, International 
     League of Conservation Photographers, Students for a Just and 
     Stable Future, Earthworks, Friends of the Earth, 
     Environmental Protection Information Center, Turtle Island 
     Restoration Network, Center for Biological Diversity, Jesus 
     People Against Pollution, Food Empowerment Project.
       San Juan Citizens Alliance, Ocean Futures Society, 
     SustainUS, Natural Resources Defense Council, Southwest 
     Environmental Center, Conservationist Wilderness Areas 
     Committee, Defenders of Wildlife, Clean Water Action, West 
     Berkeley Alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs, NextGen 
     America, La Union Hace La Fuerza, Comite Civico del Valle.


                     Religious/Faith Organizations

       American Friends Service Committee, Frontera de Cristo, 
     Friends Committee on National Legislation, NETWORK Lobby for 
     Catholic Social Justice, Ajo Samaritans, Francscian Action 
     Network, Franciscan Peace Center, American Friends Service 
     Committee, Reformed Church of Highland Park, Cruzando 
     Fronteras, Southern Arizona Interfaith, Southside 
     Presbyterian Church, Church World Service.
       School Sisters of Notre Dame, Mennonite Central Committee 
     U.S. Washington Office, Sisters of Mercy of the Americas--
     Institute Justice Team, National Justice for Our Neighbors, 
     American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Maryknoll Office 
     for Global Concerns, Leadership Conference of Women 
     Religious, Columban Center for Advocacy and Outreach, Latino 
     Commission on AIDS, Hispanic Health Network.


                      Human Rights/Women's Rights

       National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, 
     OneAmerica, Green Valley/Sahuarita Samaritans, Coalicion 
     Derechos Humanos, National Immigrant Justice Center, No More 
     Deaths, Architects, Designers, Planners For Social 
     Responsibility (ADPSR), Lidia' DelPiccolo--Morris, National 
     Asian Pacific American Women's Forum (NAPAWF), Tucson 
     Samaritans, People Helping People in the Border Zone, Friends 
     of Broward Detainees.


                            Immigrant Rights

       Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, 
     Detention Watch Network, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, End 
     Streamline Coalition.


                          Labor/Workers Rights

       Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO (APALA), 
     Jobs With Justice, Arkansas United Community Coalition.


                 Latino Civil/Human rights/Latino Labor

       Hispanic Federation, Labor Council for Latin American 
     Advancement, Latinos for a Secure Retirement.


                              LGBTQ Rights

       National Center for Transgender Equality, Equality 
     California, Entre Hermanos.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by 
18 environmental groups opposed to H.R. 3219.

                                                    July 26, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of our millions of members, 
     the undersigned organizations urge you to oppose H.R. 3219, 
     the so-called Make American Secure Appropriations Act, 2018, 
     which includes the Defense, Military Construction and 
     Veterans Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water 
     funding bills. This package includes provisions that are 
     harmful to water and ocean resources, cuts funding for clean 
     energy innovation, undermines safe nuclear waste storage, and 
     attacks border communities. Furthermore, this bill continues 
     the House Leadership's pattern of adding harmful policy 
     riders into spending bills in an attempt to avoid regular 
     order. Lastly, the inclusion of $1.6 billion for the 
     continued construction of a failed, divisive, and anti-
     environmental wall along the southern border of the United 
     States would be the latest example of inserting harmful, 
     controversial and even radical policy proposals onto spending 
     bills, which undermines the legislative process and the 
     already complex budget process. This bill reflects a set of 
     values that is not shared by the American people--one of 
     clean air and clean water, one of equity and prosperity, one 
     of safety and security.


                         Border Wall Provisions

       The border wall is a powerful symbol of hatred toward 
     immigrants and undermines the civil rights of communities 
     along our southern border, and it would increase the 
     environmental and natural disaster risks to border 
     communities, harm wildlife, and waste billions of taxpayer 
     dollars on an ineffective border security tool. The current 
     proposal would lead to the construction of 60 miles of new 
     border wall to be built in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, 
     including levee-border walls and 2.9 miles built within the 
     Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is home to 
     diverse wildlife species, ecotourism opportunities, and rich 
     natural beauty. When levee-border walls are constructed, they 
     negatively impact wildlife migration, pose severe flooding 
     risks, destroy natural habitats, and can increase the risk of 
     wildlife extinctions occurring. In order to construct 
     existing border walls, dozens of laws protecting our 
     environment, public health, and sacred natural lands were 
     waived. Our nation's natural habitats, vibrant wildlife, and 
     healthy ecosystems are an unacceptable sacrifice to make for 
     ineffective security measures.


                            Water Provisions

       The Energy and Water Appropriations division includes 
     damaging policy riders and report language in contravention 
     of regular order. Specifically, Sec. 108(a) aims to allow the 
     Trump administration to disregard countless laws as it 
     carries out a scheme to undermine clean water safeguards. The 
     provision would authorize EPA and the Army Corps to repeal 
     the Clean Water Rule without following basic and longstanding 
     processes aimed at giving people a voice in their 
     government's actions. For instance, a repeal could ignore 
     Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act requirements 
     to meaningfully consider public comment. It could also 
     interfere with the courts' ability to review if the 
     withdrawal is ``arbitrary or capricious.'' This fact reveals 
     the real motivation for the rider--its proponents want to 
     shield the Trump administration's repeal of carefully-
     developed clean water protections from public scrutiny and 
     from independent judicial review. Without the Clean Water 
     Rule, the streams that help supply public drinking water 
     systems serving one in three Americans will remain at risk.
       Additionally, Sec. 107 would exempt certain discharges of 
     dredged or fill material from Army Corps' permitting under 
     the Clean Water Act. The Act already exempts these kinds of 
     activities from such permits, but requires permitting when 
     the impacts to waterways would be more harmful. This rider 
     would have the effect of nullifying Congress's direction to 
     subject those nonexempt discharges to pollution control 
     officials' review. Another rider would undermine the 
     restoration of the San Joaquin River, the second longest 
     river in California. Sec. 203

[[Page 11672]]

     would prohibit spending any funds to implement the legal 
     settlement between the United States, fishing and 
     conservation groups, and Friant water users regarding the 
     restoration of the river. The settlement ended 20 years of 
     litigation and continues to be supported by water users, 
     conservation and fishing groups, and state and federal 
     governments.
       Finally, the bill also includes a provision to halt 
     implementation of the National Ocean Policy (Sec. 505), an 
     important planning tool to coordinate the work of dozens of 
     federal and state agencies with overlapping and sometimes 
     conflicting responsibilities for addressing ocean 
     development. These riders, and any further damaging policy 
     provisions that will be offered, undercut the public process 
     for determining how to implement the laws that Congress has 
     passed. They are bad policies that will put American's health 
     and safety at risk and they have no place on a funding bill.


                           Energy Provisions

       The bill also dramatically cuts federal clean energy 
     spending, which has consistently proven its worth by 
     directing RD&D funds that drive job creation, economic growth 
     and reduce health and environmental costs. The committee bill 
     cuts funding for the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
     Renewable Energy by $1 billion (48% reduction) hurting 
     important programs that support the development and 
     deployment of wind energy, solar energy, advanced 
     manufacturing, sustainable transportation technologies, and 
     building technologies. Recklessly, the bill eliminates 
     funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy 
     (ARPA-E) and the Title 17 loan guarantee program. Defunding 
     ARPA-E cripples our ability to commercialize new technologies 
     that will serve to meet our future clean energy needs. 
     Furthermore, the Title 17 loan guarantee program has a strong 
     track record of lowering the risks on deploying projects that 
     can make cleaner and cheaper energy a reality.
       The bill also includes $120 million in a continued attempt 
     to push the unworkable, long ago rejected proposal to dispose 
     of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada. It also includes 
     a rider in Sec. 507 that prevents funds being used to close 
     the facility. Decades from now others will face the precise 
     predicament we find ourselves in today if Congress tries to 
     ram through unworkable nuclear waste solutions contentiously 
     opposed by States, lacking a sound legal structure of 
     science-based foundation, and devoid of public understanding 
     and consent. The current efforts to quickly open Yucca 
     Mountain and an interim storage facility simply will not 
     work.
       This bill also rejects the sensible plan to cancel the 
     risky and enormously costly mixed oxide (MOX) program, 
     intended to dispose of excess plutonium from the U.S. nuclear 
     weapons program by turning it into nuclear reactor fuel. 
     Instead this bill mandates that the Department of Energy 
     waste an additional $340 million on construction of the MOX 
     fuel fabrication plant. Congress should reject the MOX 
     program and support an improved approach for disposing of 
     excess plutonium.
       We strongly oppose this minibus package, which would put 
     our energy future at risk and would harm border communities, 
     and it includes poison pill riders that will harm our 
     nation's public health, air, water, lands, and wildlife. We 
     also urge opposition to any amendments that would harm health 
     and the environment.
           Sincerely,
       Alaska Wilderness League, Clean Water Action, Defenders of 
     Wildlife, Earthjustice, Environment America, Environmental 
     Protection Information Center, Klamath Forest Alliance, 
     League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense 
     Council, NextGen, Public Citizen, Restore America's 
     Estuaries, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Save EPA, Sierra Club, 
     Western Environmental Law Center, Western Watersheds Project, 
     Wildlands Network.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the 
Coalition on Human Needs against this minibus.

                                     Coalition on Human Needs,

                                    Washington, DC, July 25, 2017.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human 
     Needs, I strongly urge you to vote against the package of 
     military-related appropriations bills expected to come to the 
     House floor this week. These appropriations bills--including 
     those for Defense, Military Construction and Veterans' 
     Affairs, Legislative Branch, and Energy and Water--should not 
     be taken up until there is a bipartisan agreement to lift the 
     sequestration caps called for in the Budget Control Act in a 
     way that provides for increased funding for domestic and 
     international (non-defense discretionary, or NDD) 
     appropriations, not just for the military.
       As you know, defense appropriations exceed the Budget 
     Control Act cap for FY 2018 by $72 billion. Without 
     legislation to raise the caps, sequestration will eliminate 
     that increase through across-the-board cuts to military 
     programs. Legislation to lift the caps requires bipartisan 
     support, and we expect that support will not be forthcoming 
     without an agreement to raise the caps for non-defense 
     discretionary spending as well.
       The Coalition on Human Needs, which is made up of 
     organizations representing millions of human service 
     providers, faith organizations, policy experts, civil rights, 
     labor, and other advocates concerned with meeting the needs 
     of low-income and vulnerable people, strongly believes that 
     our national security depends on a balanced approach that 
     invests in our domestic needs. Our people gain economic 
     security from access to education and training, affordable 
     housing, a reliable and modern infrastructure, and child care 
     and other work supports. We need public health protections 
     from epidemics and environmental protections to ensure clean 
     air and water and to protect against climate disasters. 
     Stopping the erosion in domestic human needs programs is 
     necessary for our security and our future. NDD programs apart 
     from Veterans Affairs will be cut by $22 billion in FY 2018, 
     5 percent below the previous year and 17 percent below the 
     level in FY 2010, taking inflation into account. This harsh 
     cut abandons previous congressional commitments to provide 
     defense and non-defense programs with equal relief from 
     sequestration. We urge you to vote against this package of 
     defense-related bills because they should not be considered 
     without a comprehensive agreement to lift the caps for all 
     the programs that contribute to our security.
       We also ask you to vote against this package of 
     appropriations bills because it includes wasteful funding for 
     the border wall that will not increase our security, and to 
     oppose extraneous and irresponsible policy riders such as 
     those restricting opportunities for young people in the 
     Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to enter the 
     military or weakening the Congressional Budget Office.
       Please vote no on this package of appropriations bills, and 
     instead make it a top priority to achieve a bipartisan 
     agreement to lift sequestration caps for non-defense 
     programs, not solely for the military.
           Sincerely yours,
                                                Deborah Weinstein,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to my 
colleagues from AFSCME opposed to this bill.

                                                       AFSCME,

                                    Washington, DC, July 24, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal 
     Employees (AFSCME), I urge you to oppose the ``Minibus'' 
     appropriations bill which packages together the Defense, 
     Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs, Legislative 
     Branch, and Energy and Water funding bills.
       Congress should not craft funding bills that unilaterally 
     violate the Budget Control Act (BCA) and the parity 
     principle. In this case, defense is increased far above the 
     cap while non-defense discretionary (NDD) spending is 
     severely underfunded. In fact, passing this bill will not 
     promote American security; rather it charts a direct course 
     for deep cuts to the military. The defense funding levels 
     would trigger sequestration in January of 2018, requiring 
     cuts of $72 billion. Further, dramatically increasing only 
     defense funding endangers investments in essential public 
     services. This is evidenced by House Appropriations bills' 
     deep cuts of $5 billion below the current non-defense caps 
     and deep cuts that harm labor, health, human services, 
     education, housing, transportation and other important 
     programs. Instead of reaching a bipartisan agreement as 
     called for by many members of Congress, this bill makes it 
     harder to address urgent needs in other non-defense programs.
       A budget deal remains the most likely path toward enactment 
     of appropriation bills that responsibly meet the nation's 
     national security commitments and domestic needs. AFSCME 
     urges Congress to focus attention on a budget solution that 
     provides commensurate increases for both defense and non-
     defense funding. This is the best way to avoid a fall budget 
     showdown that would leave defense and all government 
     programs, including state and local governments, in the lurch 
     with considerable budget uncertainty and the threat of deep 
     and damaging cuts.
       We also oppose this minibus package, because it includes 
     poison pill riders. This bill creates a new level of 
     egregious riders by air-dropping in controversial funding for 
     a border wall that is unrelated to any of the four bills.
       It's time to address the most basic of congressional 
     responsibilities, which means passing clean funding bills in 
     a timely manner under regular order.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Scott Frey,
                           Director of Federal Government Affairs.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, finally, I include in the Record a letter 
sent to my colleagues in opposition to this bill from American 
Federation of Teachers.


[[Page 11673]]




                              American Federation of Teachers,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the 1.6 million members 
     of the American Federation of Teachers, I write to express 
     our strong opposition to the Make America Secure 
     Appropriations Act, 2018 (H.R. 3219), the fiscal year 2018 
     appropriations ``minibus'' bill that bundles together the 
     appropriations bills for defense, energy and water 
     development, military construction, Veterans Affairs and the 
     legislative branch. We oppose this bill because it moves in 
     the wrong direction by failing to lift the sequester caps in 
     a manner that maintains parity between defense and nondefense 
     discretionary funding, and by including ideological poison 
     pill riders.
       Our national security is critical, but it requires 
     investments that help working families seize the 
     opportunities they need and deserve, and appropriations bills 
     must invest in critical public services that enable these 
     opportunities. Sequester caps have unduly restricted these 
     kinds of foundational investments; without removing arbitrary 
     caps, crucial investments will suffer. Yet instead of working 
     toward a bipartisan deal to lift these punitive funding caps 
     in a way that treats nondefense discretionary funding 
     equitably, the speaker is moving forward with a minibus 
     package that promotes a strategy to drastically cut 
     nondefense programs as a means to increase defense funding. 
     This must not be an either-or choice: National security 
     requires strength at home and opportunities for our next 
     generation, not the elimination of the funding they need to 
     create those opportunities.
       In addition, the well-being of the nation is further 
     undermined in this bill by the inclusion of ideological 
     poison pill policy riders. We particularly object to the 
     inclusion of funding for an ill-conceived and mean-spirited 
     border wall that is unrelated to any of the four 
     appropriations bills included in the minibus.
       As the defense portion of this bill violates the Budget 
     Control Act, the increases in funding proposed by this bill 
     are imaginary. The cuts this bill proposes are not.
       I urge you to reject this bill and work to raise the 
     sequester caps, to allow balanced funding bills--ones that 
     adequately invest in the health, safety and education of our 
     nation, and do not include ideological poison pill policy 
     riders--to move forward. Until this has been accomplished, we 
     urge you to oppose this bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Randi Weingarten,
                                                        President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from 
Oklahoma: The Republicans presided over the most closed Congress in 
history in the last session. In history. And this year you are on your 
way to beating that record.
  The gentleman talks about exceptional speed in which we are moving 
these appropriations bills to the floor. I am not so much impressed 
with exceptional speed when it comes to the spending of billions of 
taxpayer dollars. I want to make sure we get it right. That is why we 
are asking for an open process.
  The gentleman talked about poison pills. Let me go back to the 
Barbara Lee AUMF amendment. I hardly consider that a poison pill when 
it was unanimously approved in the Appropriations Committee, and the 
gentleman even voted for it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Sherman).
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Speaker, vote against the rule, vote against the 
bill. But the bill does contain one provision that I want to applaud 
the committee for including, and that is section 8907, which states: 
``None of the funds made available by this act may be used in 
contravention of the War Powers Act.''
  I first proposed this language in 2011. It failed at first, but now 
it has been included in every Defense Appropriations bill since FY12. 
It is necessary to enforce the War Powers Act because every Attorney 
General since the 1970s has advised Presidents that the War Powers Act 
isn't binding on the President, and that the President can send 
unlimited numbers of troops anywhere in the world to fight any battle 
without a declaration of war.
  That is why we need this language, because Attorney General Mukasey, 
a Republican Attorney General, testified before the Foreign Affairs 
Committee yesterday that by including this language in the 
appropriations bill, Congress enforces the War Powers Act and its 
proper role in international affairs.
  I thank the committee for including this language.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I certainly would never expect my friend to vote for the rule. I 
mean, I don't think I have ever voted for a Democratic rule. I know 
very few Democrats have ever voted for our rules. I don't think I know 
any. So that is kind of a normal part of the Chamber.
  I want to commend the gentleman for getting that language into the 
bill. Again, I respect the gentleman's right to not vote for the bill. 
It is a big bill. There are lots of different things in it.
  But I think he makes an important point, indirectly, that there are 
lots of overlapping things where we do agree inside this bill. My 
friends are certainly free to vote ``no,'' and I suspect many will.
  There are many occasions in a bill like this, particularly related to 
defense and particularly related to veterans, where the component parts 
actually have enormous bipartisan support. That is certainly true in 
the Veterans Administration. It is certainly true with the gentleman's 
provision that he has gotten in now successive bills even under 
Republican Congresses.
  I want to commend him for his work in that regard. I agree very much 
with his intention. My friend from Massachusetts and I may have some 
differences on this and that process, but that is another person that I 
agree with in terms of the War Powers Act and in terms of trying to get 
a new AUMF and reclaim congressional power.
  I actually think, strangely enough, even though we disagree on this, 
that this bill starts us maybe down that road again by requiring the 
administration to submit a report to justify legally where we are at 
and why, to tell us the strategy, to lay out the costs.
  I commend my friend, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, 
Mr. Royce, for holding a hearing on that. I see us moving back in that 
way toward regular order and, hopefully, toward common ground.
  Again, I understand my friend's objections, even when I don't agree 
with him. But I also thank my friend from California for pointing out 
that there are parts where we do agree. They are important, and they 
are incorporated in this bill. Maybe we can make it better in the 
amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I include in the Record a letter from Amnesty International rejecting 
the border wall funding.

                                        Amnesty International,

                                    Washington, DC, July 26, 2017.

 Amnesty International USA Urges House to Reject Southern Border Wall 
                                Funding

       Dear Representative: On behalf of Amnesty International USA 
     and our more than one million members and supporters 
     nationwide, we strongly urge you to reject any and all 
     requests included in H.R. 3219 (Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 2018 AKA Make America Secure 
     Appropriations Act, 2018) for the funding of a southern 
     border wall. The construction of such a wall would pose 
     serious human rights consequences and would violate 
     international law and standards in two major ways.
       First, Congress should not approve funding for a wall that 
     will cut through tribal land unless the U.S. government first 
     obtains the free, prior, and informed consent of affected 
     Nations, as prescribed by Article 19 of the United Nations 
     (``UN'') Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The 
     U.S. must consult in good faith with Native American Nations 
     who would be impacted by the construction of the proposed 
     wall. The National Congress of American Indians and the 
     Legislative Council of the Tohono O'odham, the second-largest 
     tribe in the United States by land holdings, have both passed 
     resolutions opposing the construction of the wall without 
     tribal consent. Without the free, prior, and informed consent 
     of affected Native American Nations, the House cannot approve 
     border wall funding without violating the UN Declaration on 
     the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
       Second, the construction of a border wall risks escalation 
     of the already serious violations experienced by asylum 
     seekers seeking to enter the U.S. In order to provide a fair 
     asylum process, the U.S. must ensure the existence of 
     sufficiently located, secure, regulated border crossing 
     points for asylum seekers. This is essential to ensure that 
     the U.S. government does not violate the principle of non-
     refoulement, which is enshrined in the 1951 UN Convention 
     Relating to the Status of Refugees and binding on States 
     Party to the 1967 Protocol.

[[Page 11674]]

       Amnesty International strongly urges you to reject funding 
     for a southern border wall, in order to uphold U.S. 
     obligations with respect to Native Americans and arriving 
     asylum seekers.
           Sincerely,

                                                   Joanne Lin,

                                Senior Managing Director, Advocacy
                                         and Government Relations.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter opposing 
the funding for the wall from the League of United Latin American 
Citizens.

                                            League of United Latin


                                            American Citizens,

                                    Washington, DC, July 19, 2017.
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Representative: On behalf of the League of United 
     Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the nation's oldest and 
     largest Latino civil rights organization, I write to oppose 
     any legislative attempts to keep funding the construction of 
     a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, the expansion of a Trump 
     deportation force, and the increase of detention beds in 
     immigrant incarceration centers.
       As the House moves to consider the Fiscal Year 18 
     Department of Homeland Security Appropriation bill, and other 
     security related bills, LULAC is deeply concerned about 
     language that would provide billions for the construction of 
     a costly and divisive wall along the Southern border, as well 
     as hundreds of millions to hire a deportation force and 
     expand immigrant incarceration.
       The continued criminalization of immigrants, militarization 
     of the border, and rush to build a costly, ineffective, and 
     destructive wall on the U.S.-Mexico border are aims of 
     radical politicians seeking to advance a xenophobic, anti-
     Latino agenda in this Congress. Unfortunately, this 
     administration has failed to focus on legitimate staffing 
     concerns at ports of entry, rebuilding port infrastructure, 
     and protecting the land, water, and environment of the 
     border. Instead, it is looking to seize the private property 
     of border residents, destroy the natural habitat and wildlife 
     in border communities, endanger border water supplies, and 
     turn immigrant neighbors, families, and children into 
     criminals who merit incarceration and deportation.
       The House of Representatives should not enable these aims 
     and should oppose any language seeking to advance the radical 
     right-wing agenda of demonizing border communities and 
     scapegoating immigrants. LULAC opposes any DHS appropriation 
     bill, or any other appropriation vehicle, that funds border 
     walls/levees, the hiring of Trump's deportation force and the 
     continued expansion immigrant incarceration.
           Sincerely,
                                              Roger C. Rocha, Jr.,
                                         LULAC National President.

  Mr. McGOVERN. I include in the Record a fact sheet by the Washington 
Office on Latin America entitled: ``Key points about the $1.6 billion 
border wall.''

                                                    July 24, 2017.
       Please find below a rigorously sourced analysis of the $1.6 
     billion in funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. 
     The border wall funding is expected to be attached to the 
     appropriations ``minibus'' in the Rules Committee later this 
     week.
       As a leading research and advocacy organization with years 
     of field research and experience working on migration and 
     border security issues, WOLA (the Washington Office on Latin 
     America) outlines a number of reasons why this proposal will 
     be costly, ineffective, and divisive.
       WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose 
     President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote 
     against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national 
     security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion 
     spent to start building the wall is money wasted.
       Please don't hesitate to reach out to me if you have any 
     questions or would like more information.
           Best regards,
                                                     Adam Isacson.

      [From the Washington Office on Latin America, July 24, 2017]

             Key Points about the $1.6 Billion Border Wall


  A Costly, Ineffective, and Divisive Border Wall Doesn't Belong in a 
                  ``National Security'' Appropriation

       The House of Representatives is rushing to the floor four 
     Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 appropriations bills related to 
     national security, which will be combined into a so-called 
     ``minibus.'' In addition, the House Republican leadership is 
     expected to carve out the most controversial part of the 
     Homeland Security appropriations bill--President Trump's full 
     request to fund the border wall--and use a procedural 
     maneuver in the Rules Committee to attach it to this week's 
     funding bill. Along with money for our military, veterans, 
     and other defense-related items, the House is expected to 
     consider $1.6 billion to start building President Trump's 
     proposed border wall.


                    The border wall would be costly

       The bill would fund the Trump administration's full request 
     for $1.6 billion to build 60 miles of new border wall and 
     fortify 14 miles of existing wall. That comes out to $21.2 
     million per mile. This is more than four times the $4.84 
     million per mile cost of fencing built since 2011.
       At the rate proposed by President Trump, building 
     additional fencing along the 1,317 border miles that lack it 
     would cost $28 billion. And that figure doesn't count the 
     cost of building in more difficult terrain, access roads, 
     maintenance, or acquiring land in Texas, where almost all 
     border landholdings are privately held.
       Building the wall carries a huge opportunity cost. $1.6 
     billion could support many more important border security 
     priorities. These include upgrading and hiring more personnel 
     for ports of entry, the main vector for illegal drugs. The 
     ports have $5 billion in unmet infrastructure needs. They 
     could include more technology so that border-security 
     agencies have a better idea of what is happening along the 
     border. This would make continued National Guard deployments 
     unnecessary. They could include greatly increased investment 
     in moving costs and bonuses for Border Patrol agents who 
     agree to relocate from quieter border sectors to busier ones 
     in need of manpower.


                  The border wall would be ineffective

       The proposed border wall will not stop drug trafficking. To 
     understand drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border, 
     it's first necessary to understand the difference between 
     ``ports of entry''--the 44 official land border crossings--
     and the vast spaces between them, where fencing exists or 
     where Trump's wall would be built. The ports of entry are 
     where U.S. border authorities seize the majority of heroin 
     and opioids, methamphetamine, and cocaine. ``The big issue, 
     really, right now on drugs coming into the United States is 
     the ports of entry,'' Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly 
     told a Senate committee in April. Building a wall would have 
     no effect on smuggling at ports of entry.
       Meanwhile, in the rural border areas where the White House 
     proposes to build, a wall really isn't much of a barrier. It 
     slows individuals down for the 10 or 15 minutes it takes to 
     climb over. In a populated area, where authorities can 
     respond quickly, that 10 or 15 minutes makes a big 
     difference. But almost all of these areas already have high 
     fences, because of the hundreds of miles of building that 
     followed the Secure Fence Act of 2006. In emptier areas, 
     reducing a border crosser's head start by 10 to 15 minutes is 
     hardly a deterrent--and in Texas, the Rio Grande already 
     serves that purpose.


                   The border wall would be dangerous

       More wall-building could have tragic consequences. 
     Violence, poverty, and family ties ensure that migrants will 
     continue attempting the risky journey through the border 
     region's inhospitable wilderness zones. Every year, U.S. 
     authorities find the remains of hundreds of migrants, dead of 
     dehydration and exposure in deserts and scrublands. With more 
     fencing, migrants may attempt the crossing in even more 
     remote areas, where the probability of death will be even 
     higher.


                   The border wall would be divisive

       Building a wall sends a toxic message to one of our two 
     closest neighbors, a country on whose cooperation the United 
     States' national security and economic prosperity depends. 
     Mexico is the United States' third-largest trading partner. 
     Our common border is 1,970 miles long. Mexico collaborates on 
     efforts to guard against extra-regional terrorists 
     hypothetically using its territory to enter the United 
     States. After 12 years of steadily declining migration, more 
     Mexican citizens leave the United States than enter it each 
     year. In January, it extradited its most notorious drug lord 
     to the United States.
       It makes no sense to undermine this relationship by 
     building a permanent barrier along our border with Mexico. It 
     makes no sense to jeopardize badly needed cooperation by 
     portraying Mexico as a sinister source of threats that should 
     foot the bill for the wall (which, the 2018 appropriation 
     makes clear, it will not have to do). Mexico certainly has 
     problems, particularly corruption and human rights abuse. But 
     these are aspects of the relationship the United States must 
     work on, rather than push Mexico away with an aggressive 
     construction project.


                   The border wall should be rejected

       WOLA believes that these are overwhelming reasons to oppose 
     President Trump's request for a border wall and to vote 
     against its inclusion in a bill claiming to fund national 
     security. Regardless of party, it is clear that $1.6 billion 
     spent to start building the wall is money wasted. Let's stop 
     this now before it becomes even larger, more costly, more 
     counterproductive, and more divisive.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an NBC News 
article on how the border wall is being planned to decimate the 
National Butterfly Center in the wildlife corridor of the lower Rio 
Grande Valley.


[[Page 11675]]

                     [From NBC News, July 26, 2017]

 Border Wall Push Creates Flap in House--And at the National Butterfly 
                                 Center

                          (By Suzanne Gamboa)

       Washington.--A national butterfly preserve is the latest 
     flashpoint in the border wall debate as Democrats accuse the 
     GOP of rigging the process to slip wall funding into a pack 
     of House spending bills possibly up for a vote this week.
       While there are not specific details on exactly where $1.6 
     billion proposed for President Trump's border wall will be 
     spent, an amendment sponsored by Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, 
     calls for $498 million to go to 28 miles of ``new bollard 
     levee wall'' in Hidalgo County in Texas' Rio Grande Valley--
     home to the National Butterfly Center.
       The amendment also calls for $251 million to repair 
     secondary border fencing in the San Diego area and $38.2 
     million for planning future border wall construction. Another 
     $784 million is for 32 miles of ``border bollard fencing'' in 
     Starr County, Texas, also in the Rio Grande Valley.
       The butterfly center's executive director Marianna Trevino 
     Wright said she found a work crew on the butterfly center's 
     property last week, and she worried that their efforts might 
     be related to construction of the proposed border wall. The 
     workers had chain saws and work trucks and had cut and shred 
     brush, trees and plants, she said. Trevino Wright said she 
     found surveyor stakes and ``X'' marks on the property. She 
     posted photos on the center's web site and Facebook page.
       The 100-acre center is part of the wildlife corridor of the 
     lower Rio Grande Valley, which is a migratory flyway for 
     birds, butterflies and a host of other wildlife. The center's 
     property already is bisected by earthen levees. Two thirds of 
     the property is below the levee, Trevino Wright said.
       ``The property we have acquired here used to be a 
     commercial onion farm and we have spent the last 15 years 
     fundraising for our efforts and growing plants and purchasing 
     materials to revegetate this area, to plant native, host and 
     nectar plants and provide breeding and feeding areas to 
     support wildlife, especially butterflies,'' she said.
       ``We do have folks who come from around the state, nation, 
     world for the birds and butterflies and other things we have 
     here on the property. Sometimes people show up looking for 
     indigo snakes,'' Trevino Wright said.
       In a previously issued statement, the Army Corps of 
     Engineers denied that its contractors cleared or removed 
     trees at the center, but acknowledged the crew placed X 
     markings on the ground for mapping and wooden stakes flagging 
     proposed locations to bore holes for possible construction. 
     The agency said its contractor collected two soil samples 
     from the levee but did so away from the butterfly center.
       Neither U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Army Corps 
     of Engineers, nor other agencies have outlined plans for the 
     proposed border wall on the center property.
       Still, Trevino Wright and her supporters worry about what 
     the center called on Facebook the ``government secret 
     activity on our property.''
       There also is angst over the possibility of border wall 
     construction in another refuge along the Rio Grande--the San 
     Ana Wildlife Refuge. It is considered the ``crown jewel'' of 
     wildlife refuges and one of the nation's top birding spots. 
     The Texas Observer first reported that crews were taking core 
     samples, setting off a reaction among birders who flock to 
     the spot that boasts 400 species of birds.
       The American Birding Association put out a plea to its 
     members to write and call their members of Congress asking 
     that they stop construction of the wall.
       Carlos Diaz, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection, 
     told NBC News he did not have information on what plans or 
     hopes there are for putting fencing or a wall on the 
     butterfly center's property or the Santa Ana Refuge.
       In a previously issued news release following a meeting 
     with Rio Grande Valley mayors last week, Customs and Border 
     Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers said in a news 
     release they are conducting research activities in areas 
     slated for construction of new or replacement border wall, 
     with $20 million in reprogrammed funds approved by Congress.
       Also money provided for fiscal 2017 is being used to 
     replace pedestrian barriers in San Diego and El Centro, 
     California; replace vehicle barriers and pedestrian barriers 
     in El Paso, Texas and install 35 new gates at gaps in border 
     fencing built already in the Rio Grande Valley, according to 
     Army Corps of Engineers information provided by Diaz.
       In a hearing Monday held by the U.S. House Rules Committee, 
     Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., pointed out that American 
     taxpayers are footing the tab for the border wall work, not 
     Mexico as Trump had promised. That's a point that should be 
     debated and could be if the border wall funding was given 
     it's own vote, he said.
       ``This is a rigged process,'' McGovern said.
       With Congress closing in on a summer recess, the House is 
     trying to push through a batch of four spending bills the GOP 
     has said are critical for security. But the GOP plan to 
     include $1.6 million for 74 miles of President Donald Trump's 
     border ``wall'' means those who oppose the border wall 
     funding have to vote against the military spending.
       Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, who chairs the Rules 
     Committee, said Monday he made the amendment providing the 
     border wall money ``self-executing,'' setting up the dilemma 
     for opponents of the wall funding.
       ``You are dadgum right I put it in there,'' Sessions said.
       ``We are going to comply with allowing the president to 
     have things he wants also,'' he said.
       Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., called the move ``sneaky'' and 
     said House Speaker Paul Ryan and GOP House members were doing 
     Trump's ``dirty work.''
       ``They want to make sure Trump can build his wall, but they 
     also want desperately to avoid a clean up or down vote on the 
     issue,'' Gallego told reporters in a call Monday.
       Ashlee Strong, a spokeswoman for Ryan, said in an email 
     that House and Senate Republicans' agenda includes a 
     commitment to increased border security ``and we are 
     following through on that promise.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, process matters. And I have come to the 
conclusion, after having served here for some time now, that a lousy 
process leads to a lousy product and lousy legislation.
  I know many of my colleagues were moved, like I was yesterday, when 
Senator John McCain appeared on the Senate floor and not only engaged 
in Senate business, but actually gave a very eloquent, passionate 
speech.
  I want to quote Senator McCain from yesterday. He said: ``Let's 
return to regular order. We've been spinning our wheels on too many 
important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without 
help from across the aisle. That's an approach that's been employed by 
both sides, mandating legislation from the top down, without any 
support from the other side, with all the parliamentary maneuvers that 
requires.
  ``We're getting nothing done.''
  I agree with Senator McCain, and I believe that a majority in this 
House, Democrats and Republicans, agree with Senator McCain. But at 
some point we have to stop saying: ``Well, we will get better. We will 
get better. It will be better next time. It will be better next time.''
  Because what is happening is, it is getting worse each time we bring 
legislations or appropriations to the floor. We are getting more and 
more restrictive. We are shutting out more and more voices, not just 
Democratic voices, but Republican voices as well.
  This is a deliberative body. We ought to be able to deliberate a 
little bit. And both Democrats and Republicans have good ideas. Let us 
use this opportunity to change things, to go back to the regular order 
that Senator McCain talked so eloquently about yesterday.
  There is an opportunity to do that. It doesn't stop us considering 
the appropriations bills, but what it says is that we will do so under 
an open rule. We will go back to the way we all say we want it to be, 
an open process.
  If you like some of these amendments, you vote for them. You make 
this legislation better. If you don't like the amendments, then you 
vote against them. I mean, that is the way this body is supposed to 
operate; none of this underhanded, self-executing of controversial 
provisions that may not have the support of the majority in this House.
  Let's go back to regular order. This is the moment. This is a 
defining moment.

                              {time}  1330

  Democrats and Republicans, if you really mean it when you say you 
want regular order, then you have to vote for regular order once in a 
while. You can't keep on making excuses. I think this is the moment 
that we have on these appropriations bills to send a message to the 
leadership that we want things done differently here. We want to open 
things up. I think that is what the majority on both sides really want. 
But the question is whether or not we all have the guts to vote for an 
open process. So we have an opportunity to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
we can bring this legislation up today under an open rule. Let 
everybody offer their amendments. Let's bring it up. Let's do this 
today. No more excuses.
  If you mean what you say when you say you want regular order, this is 
the

[[Page 11676]]

opportunity to vote for it. So please vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. And I oppose the underlying bill. Maybe I won't if we can fix 
it through regular order. Maybe we can add a number of amendments, and 
even I would support some of these amendments.
  Let's give it a chance. Let's work in a bipartisan way. Let's go back 
to the days when we did have open rules on appropriations. This is the 
opportunity to do it. Vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank, as always, my good friend for a spirited and 
thoughtful debate. He always makes good points. Frankly, I always find 
myself more comfortable when we are on the same side--as we 
occasionally are--than when we are on opposite sides.
  My friend has made many valuable contributions to this institution, 
particularly pushing us relentlessly in the right direction of 
reclaiming our war-making authority. Having said that, it is always 
great to call for a new system, a new way, or a return to open rules 
without admitting you are the ones that abandoned them. We actually 
tried to restore them. I regret we failed in that, quite frankly, but I 
will have to say both sides have gotten used to not doing open rules 
because they don't want to cast tough votes. That is why my friends 
abandoned the open rule process when they were in the majority in 2009, 
and, honestly, that is why we abandoned it last year.
  I regret that. I will work with my friend probably not today but 
going forward in trying to reclaim that because I think when we lost 
it, we diminished the power of every individual Member in Congress. We 
thought we were protecting them, but the reality is they now can no 
longer come to the floor as an individual and present their own idea.
  But at least in this case there are 72 amendments. The majority of 
them are from my friend's side of the aisle. I would hope going 
forward, particularly when we consider the next eight appropriations 
bills, we will continue to be very generous in that regard.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to encourage all Members to support 
the rule. H.R. 3219 represents the first step toward fulfilling our 
primary obligation as Members of Congress: to fund the government.
  We should all be proud of what we have accomplished in putting this 
bill forward.
  The bill contains the provisions of four of the bills passed out of 
the Appropriations Committee representing the work of the Subcommittees 
on Defense; Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; 
Legislative Branch; and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and 
Related Agencies.
  The bill will significantly increase funding for national defense and 
ensure that the men and women in the Armed Forces have the tools they 
need. We also increase funding to our veterans to ensure our fighting 
men and women will be taken care of long after they leave the service 
of their country, and we fund key Member priorities in the areas of 
Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies; and Legislative 
Branch.
  Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleagues for their hard work.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 473 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert:
       That at any time after the 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. 
     3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. 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. 2. At any time after the 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. 2998) making appropriations for military construction, 
     the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for 
     the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Appropriations. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Points 
     of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply 
     with clause 2 of rule XXI are waived. During consideration of 
     the bill for amendment, the chair of the Committee of the 
     Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of 
     whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be 
     printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated 
     for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so 
     printed shall be considered as read. When the committee rises 
     and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation 
     that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. 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. 3. At any time after the 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. 3266) making appropriations for energy and water 
     development and related agencies for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2018, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate 
     shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. Points of order against 
     provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of 
     rule XXI are waived. During consideration of the bill for 
     amendment, the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
     shall be considered as read. When the committee rises and 
     reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that 
     the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. 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 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3219, H.R. 2998, or H.R. 3266.
                                  ____


        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.

[[Page 11677]]

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

  Mr. COLE. 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 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 193, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 414]

                               YEAS--230

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--193

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Brat
     Comstock
     Cummings
     Graves (MO)
     Hollingsworth
     Kuster (NH)
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Scalise
     Westerman

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BRAT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 414.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was delayed in returning to the floor. 
If present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. 
Had I

[[Page 11678]]

been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 414.
  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 232, 
noes 192, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 415]

                               AYES--232

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--192

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Cummings
     Franks (AZ)
     Graves (MO)
     Hollingsworth
     MacArthur
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Palmer
     Scalise


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1402

  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. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 415.


                          personal explanation

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
414 and No. 415 due to my spouse's health situation in California. Had 
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on the Motion on Ordering 
the Previous Question on the Rule providing for consideration of H.R. 
3219. I would have also voted ``nay'' on H. Res. 473--Rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure Appropriations 
Act, 2018.''

                          ____________________