[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11975-11985]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 478 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 478

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for further 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 3219) making appropriations 
     for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2018, and for other purposes. The further 
     amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution, and available pro forma amendments described in 
     section 4 of House Resolution 473.
       (b) Each further amendment printed in part B of the report 
     of the Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may 
     be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments 
     described in section 4 of House Resolution 473, 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 part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or against 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment except 
     amendments described in section 4 of House Resolution 473, 
     and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
       Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
     amended, to the House with such further amendments as may 
     have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final 
     passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 5. It shall be in order at any time on the legislative 
     day of July 27, 2017, or July 28, 2017, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), my 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. NEWHOUSE. 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 Washington?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the House Rules Committee met yesterday 
and reported a rule, House Resolution 478, providing for further 
consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act 
of 2018. This legislation includes four individual appropriations 
bills: Defense, Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military 
Construction-Veterans Affairs. The rule provides for further 
consideration of H.R. 3219 under a structured rule.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a critical 
measure that will prioritize funding for important components of our 
national security. This legislation directs funding for our troops and 
their families, our Nation's veterans, the legislative branch and 
United States Capitol Police, border and nuclear security, energy and 
water infrastructure investments, and vital appropriations to ensure 
our military has the equipment and readiness necessary to keep the 
Nation safe.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation is composed of the serious and 
essential work conducted by the House Appropriations Committee over the 
past many months. As an appropriator and a member of this committee, I 
fully appreciate and understand the hard work my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle have put in to report these key measures we have 
before us today.
  The most important job we have as Members of Congress is ensuring the 
safety of our Nation. By supporting this rule, we can move the national 
security package forward.
  H.R. 3219 includes a 2.4 percent pay increase for our troops. That is 
the largest military pay increase in 8 years. It keeps our military on 
the cutting edge of defense technology by investing in research and 
development

[[Page 11976]]

and in equipment and weapons procurement. Under the legislation, we 
will restore readiness shortfalls and make much-needed critical 
investments for our troops to address ongoing threats around the globe.
  We must provide support for our troops to combat terrorism and defeat 
ISIS. With the legislation, we take a major step forward in restoring 
the devastating cuts our Armed Forces faced under the Obama 
administration. The bill also increases funding for construction of 
critical military infrastructure to keep our troops safe and prepared.
  The bill also provides for critical safety and enhanced security 
functions for the United States Capitol. In light of the recent 
horrific attack on our colleagues, on staff, and on the Capitol Police, 
the legislation provides increased funding for the Capitol Police 
toward increased training, equipment, and technology-related support.
  The men and women who guard these hallowed Halls deserve to have 
access to every resource needed to do their job as safely and as 
effectively as possible. Under this bill, H.R. 3219, we can ensure that 
the Capitol Police and House Sergeant at Arms are equipped with these 
critical enhancements.
  Regarding the important Energy and Water provisions included in the 
bill, the underlying legislation will improve public safety, will 
create jobs, and will grow our economy by funding the Army Corps of 
Engineers, prioritizing navigation projects and studies.
  H.R. 3219 reduces regulatory red tape, including authorizing the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as well as the 
Secretary of the Army to withdraw from the devastating waters of the 
United States rule.
  The bill also funds important Department of Energy programs, 
including nuclear cleanup efforts, such as the Hanford Site, which is 
located in my district in central Washington State, as well as nuclear 
weapons programs to strengthen our national security.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also provides the highest level of 
funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs in our Nation's history, 
ensuring that we keep the commitment to those who have defended our 
Nation. It supports vital medical care for our veterans, including 
mental healthcare services, suicide prevention activities, traumatic 
brain treatment, opioid abuse prevention, and homeless veteran 
services.
  There are some issues here in Congress that are nonpartisan. Every 
single one of our colleagues here in the U.S. House of Representatives 
believes we must provide the best care possible for our Nation's 
veterans. I am proud of the significant strides this legislation takes 
to support veterans across the country.
  The rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of a 
bill that is critically important to keeping our Nation safe.

                              {time}  1245

  By passing this legislation, we will continue to rebuild our 
military, ensure we maintain our military superiority, and boost 
defense efforts in the face of rising global threats.
  The bill will aid in supporting our troops and their families, and 
improve access to care for our veterans. It will increase the safety of 
the United States Capitol complex for Members and staff who serve here; 
for constituents, as well as the tourists from around the globe who 
visit this campus; and for the valued Capitol Police, who protect us 
all.
  It will also aid in important infrastructure and construction 
investments to move the United States towards energy independence, 
improve our economic competitiveness, and fund nonproliferation efforts 
to prevent, counter, and respond to global nuclear threats.
  Most importantly, this legislation will make major strides to 
projects our men and women in uniform serving across the globe who are 
protecting our freedoms.
  I urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I certainly thank the 
gentleman from Washington, my friend, for his kindness. I think he is 
one of the best Members we have, but I am going to have to disagree 
with Mr. Newhouse today.
  When Speaker Ryan assumed the gavel, he told the American people that 
he wanted to have ``a process that is more open, more inclusive, more 
deliberative, more participatory.''
  When the majority took control of both the Congress and the White 
House, they again promised to abide by standard congressional 
procedure.
  But we are here, 3 months from the end of the fiscal year. The 
majority hasn't passed a budget resolution, and legislation moves at a 
glacial pace. The majority working to rush through a massive minibus 
before any individual appropriations bills have been considered on the 
floor is also a mistake.
  This may sound pedantic, but we do have rules.
  Every one of us wants to improve our security, but this bill, I am 
afraid, is a little more than smoke and mirrors. The increase in 
defense spending under this bill will never see the light of day.
  That is because we operate under the Budget Control Act, and that 
mandates that any breach of the defense cap, which this bill does, will 
trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut of all defense accounts, 
making what we do here a useless exercise, I am afraid.
  The majority has also inserted an amendment to provide $1.6 billion 
President Trump requested to begin construction of the wall on the 
U.S.-Mexico border.
  This is surely just the beginning of making taxpayers pay for the 
entire wall, which experts have estimated could cost as much as $21 
billion, with nary a peso from Mexico. If we are investing $1.6 billion 
now, I see no reason why they do not plan to go on to reach the $21 
billion expenditure.
  Let me put that in some perspective: $21 billion could be used to 
double the Federal investments in public schools. Think of that. Just 
the money to build that wall, it could provide 6 million people with 
healthcare under Medicaid, it could buy school lunches for tens of 
millions of low-income children. But these investments are not a 
priority for this majority.
  President Trump's own budget director famously said that it isn't 
worth feeding hungry children if the nutrition does not improve their 
school performance, and that Meals on Wheels ``sounds great,'' but 
doesn't work.
  I never thought I would hear either of those things come from the 
mouth of a Federal official. The idea that we should not feed hungry 
children unless their school work improves, frankly, I am baffled by 
that, let me say it that way.
  The opposition to the wall is bipartisan. Republican Representative 
Hurd from Texas, a former CIA officer, sits on the Homeland Security 
Committee and represents the largest border district in the State of 
Texas. He testified before the Rules Committee late Monday night 
against it, saying, ``having a one-size-fits-all solution to border 
security makes no sense.'' Yet this amendment was included without 
debating the merits on the floor and without giving Members an up-or-
down vote.
  Let me explain that a little bit. This amendment is in the bill, but 
there will be no vote on it. It has been what we call self-executed to 
keep people from being recorded in any way, whether they are for or 
against the wall.
  The last statistic that I saw from the American public is that 68 
percent of them oppose it. They will never know whether their 
Representatives did or not. It is a sort of a bait-and-switch idea.
  Mr. Speaker, immigration has enriched our country beyond measure. It 
is what has allowed our country to shape the world, rather than to fear 
it. A wall will lock the United States away from the rest of the world.
  The President's new communications director, Anthony Scaramucci, 
wrote

[[Page 11977]]

online: ``Walls don't work. Never have. Never will.''
  We don't know whether he is going to change his mind about that or 
not, but that is what he said.
  One of our famous Republican Presidents that everybody knew and 
loved, Ronald Reagan, 30 years ago last month stood in West Berlin and 
demanded that another wall be torn down.
  I said in the Rules Committee yesterday and I will say it again here 
this afternoon: if the President and the majority build this wall, it, 
too, will be torn down, not by someone crossing the border or by an 
outside force. It will crumble because the public understands in a way 
that this President and majority do not, that our Nation does not 
barricade itself away from the rest of the world.
  We will not build walls to keep us in. What kind of superpower would 
we be if we built a wall around the outside of our Nation and crumbled 
from the inside because the money we put on the wall kept us from 
updating our infrastructure, which is in such terrible shape, and a 
shredded social safety net?
  None of us want to find that out, but the majority is putting us on 
such a path.
  Just yesterday, President Trump announced a ban on transgender 
servicemembers serving in the military. It appears today that he made 
that announcement all on his own and that neither the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff or the Pentagon had any idea that he was going to do that.
  The announcement came 69 years to the day that President Truman 
desegregated our military. Think about that for a minute. Sixty-nine 
years ago, on the very day that President Trump said transgender people 
couldn't serve, was the day President Truman integrated the military 
services.
  This is an insult to the approximately 15,000 transgender soldiers 
who sacrifice for our country every day. Transgender servicemembers are 
being attacked from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  Just days ago, Republicans joined Democrats to defeat an amendment 
that would bar transgender servicemembers from receiving the necessary 
healthcare that they deserve. I will note that these same treatments 
would have been available to other servicemembers under this amendment. 
Apparently to the majority, it is not about the treatment, but the 
person who receives it.
  The amendment is especially cruel when you consider that a Pentagon 
report has found that gender transition-related treatment costs between 
$2.4 and $8.4 million a year. That is the cost of just four of the 
President's trips to Mar-a-Lago. Think about that: several millions 
dollars to go to Mar-a-Lago would have paid for operations for 
transgender persons.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from USA Today that 
details this fact.

                    [From USA Today, July 26, 2017]

    OnPolitics Today: Trump's Mar-a-Lago Trips Cost More Than Trans 
                         Soldiers' Health Care

                            (By Josh Hafner)

       President Trump tweeted this morning that the U.S. military 
     wouldn't allow transgender troops ``in any capacity,'' an 
     apparent rejection of the military's roughly 6,000 trans 
     troops and the Obama-era policy that embraced them.
       The U.S. ``cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical 
     costs and disruption that transgender in the military would 
     entail,'' Trump said.
       Except trans troops don't really cost that much, as many 
     soon pointed out.
       A report for the Pentagon last year found that transition-
     related care would cost between about $2.4 and $8.4 million 
     per year--less than 0.14% of the military's medical budget.
       That's roughly the cost of four of Trump's trips to Mar-A-
     Lago, GQ noted, even using a conservative estimate of $2 
     million per trip. And it's way less than the $84 million 
     spent on Viagra and similar meds by the Department of Defense 
     in 2014, as others also said.
       It was, as Sen. John McCain noted, ``yet another example of 
     why major policy announcements should not be made via 
     Twitter.''

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I believe all of our soldiers deserve our thanks and 
support. They are Americans. They don't need to be attacked based on 
who they are.
  Lastly, Mr. Speaker, it is also outrageous--and I saved this for the 
end--that the majority stripped from the bill Congresswoman Barbara 
Lee's bipartisan amendment to repeal the 2001 Authorization for Use of 
Military Force.
  Until this AUMF, which, as I said, came into law in 2001, is 
rescinded and replaced, the President of the United States can usurp 
our power and effectively declare war without Congress' concurrence. In 
fact, that has already happened.
  Matters of war are the most serious issues that Congress considers. 
We should not--and we don't want to--shirk those responsibilities. We 
want to fulfill our constitutional duties.
  Yet Speaker Ryan removed it from the bill without any debate or 
single vote because he was afraid of it. He replaced it with weaker 
language requiring a 30-day study. After those 30 days, we are not 
assured of anything at all, just a study.
  That is not the type of open and transparent process that the Speaker 
promised. More than just bad process, it silences the debate we need to 
have. All Americans, especially our men and women in uniform, deserve 
better from us, as they volunteered to save us with their very lives.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Carter), the chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee 
of the Appropriations Committee.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule, which makes an amendment 
that I offered part of the security package by the adoption of this 
rule.
  I want to acknowledge the frustration of my colleagues at adding 
funds to construct three barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.
  Like many of you, I would have preferred a package which included all 
12 appropriations bills. However, this is the process that we are going 
forward with, and, of course, I am supportive of it.
  Despite my reservations about the process, I believe that each of 
these three projects included in this amendment are absolutely 
necessary for national security.
  The funds that are in what we call the ``wall'' part of this bill are 
28 miles of levee wall in Hidalgo County, Texas.
  Many people have asked me what that is. Mostly everybody knows a 
levee is a big mound of dirt that keeps the water from flooding. Well, 
it is a big pile of dirt with a 20-foot wall on one side made of 
concrete to keep it from washing out and a 6-foot fence on top of that. 
It serves for water retention, as well as defending our borders.
  The funds pay for the construction of 32 miles of bollard wall in 
Starr County, Texas, which is Rio Grande City and that area. Bollard 
fence is a bunch of steel poles about the size of a small corner post 
on a cedar post fence. They rise up about 20 feet in the air and have a 
cement base.
  Also, the funds pay for 14 miles of wall in San Diego, replacing an 
existing 14 miles of wall or fence with a better product because it has 
been deteriorating since the 1990s, when it went in.
  That is what is in this bill.
  Many people claim it isn't necessary to put up barriers between the 
border of the United States and Mexico. They say the border is more 
secure than it has ever been, apprehensions are way down, and that 
border walls do not prevent people crossing. In fact, I disagree, and 
they do, too.
  It is a fact that apprehensions are down relative to the mid-2000s. 
In fact, in the late nineties, in San Diego, before their barrier 
fences were built, 500,000 people stormed across that border. Last 
year, the number is 25,000. That is a substantial reduction.
  More than a million people crossed our Southern border every year in 
the early-2000s. However, today, we continue to apprehend certain 
people, and it is down to 200,000 a year on the border. That is a 
substantial number.
  What concerns me more than the number of apprehensions is the fact 
that if migrants are crossing the border illegally, then so are 
terrorists, drug smugglers, and human traffickers.

[[Page 11978]]



                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, many Members of this body probably remember illegal 
immigrants rushing the border in San Diego back in the 1990s. Illegal 
immigrant entries decreased significantly, as I said. The number of 
illegal crossings fell, crime rates declined, commerce increased, and 
neighborhoods became safe all because of fences and barriers on the 
border.
  The Border Patrol cautions that illegal border migration seeks the 
path of least resistance and that these commendable results do not mean 
that the flow has steadied. It has simply moved to another unprotected 
place like the Rio Grande Valley in my home State of Texas. We want to 
change that dynamic.
  This amendment is important because it is committed to dedicated men 
and women who stand in harm's way on our behalf.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. CARTER of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask Members' support for this 
bill and for this amendment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, there is a really disturbing story in 
Politico today.
  Speaker Ryan was apparently afraid that he wouldn't be able to pass 
the defense spending bill, including $1.6 billion for Trump's dumb wall 
because conservatives wanted to block Medicare for transgender 
servicemembers, so he called the President asking for help.
  What did Donald Trump do to get Speaker Ryan out of this jam? Trump 
decided to ban brave transgender Americans from serving. That is right, 
Mr. Speaker, Trump is kicking transgender men and women out of our 
Armed Services to make sure he can get money to build his stupid, 
irresponsible, unnecessary wall. He is implementing one bigoted policy 
in order to achieve another one.
  This is hatred in the service of injustice. This is transphobia in 
the service of racism. This is stupidity in the service of foolishness.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to stop doing Trump's dirty work. Not only is 
President Trump's border wall expensive and unnecessary, Members of 
this body who care deeply about our national defense shouldn't be 
forced to decide between voting for this ridiculous proposal and voting 
to fund our military.
  More importantly, on such a momentous issue, the American people 
deserve to know where their elected representatives stand.
  Mr. Speaker, let us defeat this rule. Let us stop this wall. Let us 
enable every American patriot, regardless of their gender identity, to 
do what I did: to fight for this country with pride, courage, and 
selflessness.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, we do have a couple of speakers coming who 
are not here yet.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time at this point but look 
forward to having them participate as soon as they get here.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
gentlewoman from New York for her consistent leadership. Being a 
frequent visitor to the Rules Committee as a Member, I want to thank 
the manager for the courtesies extended to all of us.
  Let me say that I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I want to 
associate my stance with the gentlewoman from New York. We do not have 
a budget, but, in fact, the budget is not a roadmap that we are even 
attempting to do. The budget was a slash and burn of Medicare, 
Medicaid, only to give tax cuts, and it had no vision but to plus-up 
the Defense Appropriations.
  So now we come with a minibus that wants to do more damage. I have no 
quarrel with my friend from Texas, but it is very clear that this 
budget is based upon this wall, and this rule is based upon this wall. 
It is important for the American people to know that, while we are 
fighting for Medicaid and Meals on Wheels, better policing, and better 
education for our children, the wall that was supposed to be paid for 
by Mexico--let me say it again, the wall that was supposed to be paid 
by Mexico, as evidenced by the Commander in Chief--is now, in this 
rule, not for $100 million, not for $200 million, not for $50 million, 
but for $1,571,239,000. That is what this rule is all about.
  Frankly, I believe that this is a shame. Frankly, I oppose it because 
the Commander in Chief swore that Mexico would pay for the wall. Now we 
are paying for the wall, and, as indicated, a Member of Congress from 
Texas who represents the area is adamantly against it. I would only 
argue to say that there are other needs in this minibus that the 
American people desire.
  I also rise to express strong opposition to the fact that the Lee 
amendments were not put in. Congresswoman Lee had an amendment for us 
to debate the AUMF, two amendments, and those amendments were rejected. 
Let us go back to regular order and pass appropriations for the 
American people and debate whether we go to war. Going to war is a 
point for the American people to hear and discuss.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to register my opposition to the exclusion from 
H. Res. 478 of the amendments offered by colleague, Congresswoman 
Barbara Lee of California.
  This rule makes in order 54 amendments to Division A of H.R. 3219, 
the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2018 and an amendment by 
Congressman Carter, the chairman of the Homeland Security 
Appropriations Subcommittee, providing $1.57 billion in funding to 
begin construction of the infamous ``Trump Border Wall'' that the 
presidential candidate Trump promises, assured, and guaranteed American 
and the would be paid for by Mexico.
  Mr. Speaker, it is passing strange indeed that the Lee Amendments, 
which were offered, debated, and approved in the regular order were 
excluded from the rule while the Carter Amendment, which was introduced 
at the 11th hour, was included.
  Lee Amendment No. 95 would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of 
enactment of this Act.
  Lee Amendment No. 96 does not repeal the 2001 AUMF but would prohibit 
the expenditure of any funds to implement, administer, or enforce the 
2001 AUMF beginning 240 days of enactment of this Act.
  They knew that the decision to go to war was too important to be left 
to the whim of a single person, no matter how wise or well-informed he 
or she might be.
  Over the last 16 years, we have seen 3 Presidents use the 2001 
Afghanistan AUMF as a blank check to engage in serious military action.
  In 2016, the Congressional Research Service issued a report detailing 
37 unclassified uses of this authorization in 14 countries, including 
for operations at Guantanamo Bay, warrantless wiretapping, and recent 
military action in Libya, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen.
  The overly broad 2001 AUMF represents a critical deterioration of 
Congressional oversight, which should be repealed, rather than repeated 
with respect to North Korea.
  As our brave service members are deployed around the world in combat 
zones, Congress is missing in action.
  As provided under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, absent a 
Congressional declaration of war or authorization for the use of 
military force, the President as Commander-in-Chief has constitutional 
power to engage the U.S. armed forces in hostilities only in the case 
of a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States, 
its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.
  As a co-equal branch of government, it is Congress's right and 
responsibility to be fully consulted regarding any potential plans to 
conduct military operations in foreign lands and to assess whether such 
action is in the national security interest of the United States and 
its allies, and to withhold or grant authorization for the use of 
military force based on this assessment.
  As we have learned from the painful and bitter experience of the past 
16 years, at the initiation of hostilities, the costs in terms of blood 
and treasure of U.S. military interventions abroad are often 
underestimated and the benefits overstated.
  For example, more than 6,800 American service members gave the last 
full measure of

[[Page 11979]]

devotion to their country on battlefields in Afghanistan and Iraq, with 
hundreds of thousands more returning with physical, emotional, or 
psychological wounds that may never heal.
  The direct economic cost of the war in Afghanistan exceeds $1.07 
trillion, including $773 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations 
funds, an increase of $243 billion to the Department of Defense base 
budget, and an increase of $54.2 billion to the Veterans Administration 
budget to address the human costs of the military involvement in 
Afghanistan.
  I am confident that affording Members the opportunity to debate and 
vote on the Lee Amendments would strengthen our democracy and help 
restore Congress's preeminent constitutional role in the decision to 
take the nation to war.
  Mr. Speaker, I also rise in strong opposition to the Carter Amendment 
to H.R. 3219, Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2018.
  I oppose the amendment because it is ineffective, costly, and 
wasteful legislation for three reasons: it is costly and ineffective; 
President Trump broke his promise that Mexico would fund the wall; and 
a policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the 
Committees of Jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American 
people should a wall be built.
  First, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is costly and 
ineffective.
  It wastes $1.6 billion to build an unnecessary wall with our already 
peaceful neighbors to the south.
  Only $32 million dollars of that $1.6 billion would actually go 
towards the wall.
  That leaves over $1.5 billion simply wasted.
  The wall throws away American taxpayers' money when it could and 
should be spent on a number of necessary initiatives like education, 
healthcare, transportation, infrastructure, or even military 
preparedness.
  Second, I oppose H.R. 3219 because Trump swore Mexico would pay for 
the wall.
  The President has broken his promise to the American people and is 
asking American taxpayers to foot a $1.6 billion bill for a useless, 
expensive wall.
  No wonder the wall is strongly opposed by Democrats and many 
Republicans.
  There is no assurance that Americans would ever be reimbursed by 
Mexico.
  Trump's cost estimations do not include the cost of building in more 
treacherous terrain, access roads, maintenance, or acquiring land in 
Texas, where almost all border landholdings are privately held.
  Building this wall would require stripping landholders in my very own 
home state of Texas of their private land.
  Instead of wasting $1.6 billion on building a wall, that money could 
be appropriated to maintaining our effective border security and 
immigration practices, like those currently in place for asylum 
seekers.
  The United States already enforces the most extensive immigration and 
border security practices in the world. We have
  This is a bad business deal for the American people.
  Third, I oppose the Carter Amendment because it is represents a 
policy shift that will have dire consequences for our economy that far 
exceed the $50 billion estimated cost of this wall.
  A policy shift of this magnitude requires regular order with the 
committees of jurisdiction weighing in on the real cost to the American 
people should a wall be built.
  Mexico happens to be one of the United States' strongest trading 
partners.
  U.S. goods and services trade with Mexico totaled an estimated $579.7 
billion in 2016.
  Exports were $262.0 billion; imports were $317.6 billion.
  The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with Mexico was $55.6 
billion in 2016.
  Mexico is currently our 3rd largest goods trading partner with $525.1 
billion in total (two way) goods trade during 2016.
  Goods exports totaled $231.0 billion; goods imports totaled $294.2 
billion.
  The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $63.2 billion in 2016.
  Trade in services with Mexico (exports and imports) totaled an 
estimated $54.5 billion in 2016.
  Services exports were $31.1 billion; services imports were $23.5 
billion.
  The U.S. services trade surplus with Mexico was $7.6 billion in 2016.
  According to the Department of Commerce, U.S. exports of Goods and 
Services to Mexico supported an estimated 1.2 million jobs in 2015.
  Mexico was the United States' 2nd largest goods export market in 
2016.
  U.S. exports to Mexico in 2016 were $231.0 billion, down 2.0 percent 
($4.8 billion) from 2015 but up 72.7 percent from 2006. U.S. exports to 
Mexico are up 455 percent from 1993 (pre-NAFTA).
  U.S. exports to Mexico account for 15.9 percent of overall U.S. 
exports in 2015.
  The top export categories in 2016 were: machinery ($42 billion), 
electrical machinery ($41 billion), vehicles ($21 billion), mineral 
fuels ($20 billion), and plastics ($16 billion).
  U.S. total exports of agricultural products to Mexico totaled $18 
billion in 2016, our 3rd largest agricultural export market.
  Leading domestic export categories include: corn ($2.6 billion), 
soybeans ($1.5 billion), pork & pork products ($1.4 billion), dairy 
products ($1.2 billion), and beef & beef products ($975 million).
  U.S. exports of services to Mexico were an estimated $31.1 billion in 
2016, 1.4 percent (441 million) less than 2015, but 30.5 percent 
greater than 2006 levels. It was up roughly 199 percent from 1993 (pre-
NAFTA).
  Leading services exports from the U.S. to Mexico, in 2015, were in 
the travel, transport, and intellectual property (computer software, 
industrial processes) sectors.
  Mexico was the United States' 2nd largest supplier of goods imports 
in 2016.
  U.S. goods imports from Mexico totaled $294.2 billion in 2016, down 
0.8 percent ($2.3 billion) from 2015, but up 48.4 percent from 2006.
  U.S. imports from Mexico are up 637 percent from 1993 (pre-NAFTA). 
U.S. imports from Mexico account for 13.4 percent of overall U.S. 
imports in 2015.
  The top import categories (2-digit HS) in 2016 were: vehicles ($75 
billion), electrical machinery ($62 billion), machinery ($51 billion), 
optical and medical instruments ($13 billion), and furniture and 
bedding ($11 billion).
  U.S. total imports of agricultural products from Mexico totaled $23 
billion in 2016, our 1st largest supplier of agricultural imports.
  Leading categories include: fresh vegetables ($5.6 billion), other 
fresh fruit ($4.9 billion), wine and beer ($3.1 billion), snack foods 
($2.0 billion), and processed fruit & vegetables ($1.5 billion).
  U.S. imports of services from Mexico were an estimated $23.5 billion 
in 2016, 7.0 percent ($1.5 billion) more than 2015, and 57.9 percent 
greater than 2006 levels. It was up roughly 216 percent from 1993 (pre-
NAFTA). Leading services imports from Mexico to the U.S., in 2015, were 
in the travel, transport, and technical and other services sectors.
  The U.S. goods trade deficit with Mexico was $63.2 billion in 2016, a 
4.2 percent increase ($2.5 billion) over 2015.
  The United States has a services trade surplus of an estimated $7.6 
billion with Mexico in 2016, down 20.7 percent from 2015.
  U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in Mexico (stock) was $92.8 
billion in 2015 (latest data available), a 3.5 percent increase from 
2014. U.S. direct investment in Mexico is led by manufacturing, nonbank 
holding companies, and mining.
  Mexico's FDI in the United States (stock) was $16.6 billion in 2015 
(latest data available), up 0.2 percent from 2014. Mexico's direct 
investment in the U.S. is led by manufacturing, wholesale trade, and 
depository institutions.
  Sales of services in Mexico by majority U.S.-owned affiliates were 
$45.9 billion in 2014 (latest data available), while sales of services 
in the United States by majority Mexico-owned firms were $8.5 billion.
  We share one of the longest peaceful borders in the world with our 
neighbors to the north and to the south. We are not at war with our 
peaceful neighbors; we do not need to build an almost 2,000 mile wall 
to divide us from our neighbor.
  This tragic initiative is inconsistent with the American character of 
building bridges not walls.
  These are just some of the facts that Committees of Jurisdiction 
would have to weigh before we make any decision.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in opposing this Rule so 
that this bill can return to the Rules Committee to have Division E 
removed from this appropriations package.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, the American people spoke loud and clear 
last November. They voted to support a stronger military, an unyielding 
national defense, and that includes the need for a much-improved border 
security. As the gentleman from Texas said, we have threats of human 
traffickers, drug smugglers, terrorists coming across our borders, and 
this is something that the American people said that they wanted, and 
we are responding to that with recommendations from the Customs and 
Border Protection agency.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 11980]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of disorder in Washington, 
D.C.:
  There is chaos and conflict and confrontation in the White House.
  There is conflict within the majority party in the House of 
Representatives.
  There was a representation that we were going to follow regular 
order. We have not.
  There is no budget, which was supposed to be adopted some 3 months 
ago. A budget should have told all the Members of Congress and the 
country how much discretionary spending we were going to have.
  The majority party has been unable to bring a budget to this floor 
and to pass it because of the disarray and disorder that we find in 
this House. This rule represents a litany of broken promises and 
exposes, frankly, the hypocrisy of this Republican majority.
  This rule would add an amendment to the underlying bill that directs 
$1.6 billion of American taxpayer dollars toward the construction of 
President Trump's proposed border wall. This was not in the original 
bill.
  The irony is, in the Rules Committee, an amendment that was in the 
original bill has been struck not by a vote of the Defense Committee or 
by the Appropriations Committee, but by the Rules Committee. They just 
struck out an amendment.
  Let me remind my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, of the words of our 
Speaker, Paul Ryan. He said this: ``We will advance major legislation 
one issue at a time.''
  Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, I have been here for some years--
36, to be exact. I have never seen, in 36 years, an omnibus or minibus 
brought to the floor before September. Why? Because the regular order 
is to consider the bills one at a time, or, as the Speaker said: ``We 
will advance major legislation one issue at a time.''
  But what the Republicans have done, Mr. Speaker, is to bring a bill 
and put so much in it, they dare people to vote against it because of 
the national security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this rule ought to be rejected. It is not the 
regular order, it is not good policy, and it is not good for the 
institution of the House of Representatives or for the country.
  The border wall is controversial, and many people in the Trump 
administration do not believe the border wall will be effective, and 
they believe it is a waste of money. And, of course, the President told 
us all the Mexicans were going to pay for the wall.
  Well, this is $1.6 billion of about $20 billion that would have to 
come not to be paid for by the Mexicans, but to be paid for by the U.S. 
taxpayer for an ineffective effort to make this country more secure.
  Everybody on this floor believes we ought to know who comes into this 
country and that people ought not to come into this country unless they 
are authorized to do so. We all agree on that.
  I ask the majority leader: Bring this border wall to the floor; let 
us debate it; put it open for amendment. That is the regular order.
  The Speaker went on to say: ``We will not duck the tough issues. We 
will take them head on.'' That is Speaker Paul Ryan, October 29, 2015.
  They had an amendment offered on the authorization bill by Mrs. 
Hartzler of Missouri. It was controversial, and the majority party 
lost. So what did they do? They didn't add it to the bill as Mrs. 
Hartzler wanted to do, have an amendment on this floor so we could 
debate it again on its demerits or merits depending upon your 
perspective, but they went around not by regular order, not by taking 
issues head-on, but by having the President issue some tweet that the 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says he never was talked to about 
it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let us stand up for this institution. Let us 
stand up for regular order. Let us stand up for not ducking the tough 
issues. Let us reject this rule, and then let us go back to regular 
order and hopefully do so in a bipartisan way and do what the American 
public expects us to do: make tough decisions for them, for our 
country, for our security, and for our children.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the debate on both sides on this 
very important issue.
  Let me just say that this has been a very open process. Not all may 
want to acknowledge that, but let me just point out that this rule 
makes 54 amendments in order: 21 of those amendments are from the 
Democrats, 16 from Republicans, and fully, 17 are led by bipartisan 
cosponsors. So that tells me that the openness of this process, the 
ability for people to bring their perspectives, their opinions in this 
important debate is real.
  As far as the Rules Committee unilaterally striking language and 
reinserting other language, that is true. We struck section 9021 of the 
Defense Appropriations Act of 2018 and replaced it, though, with 
language from an amendment offered by Mr. Cole to the NDAA, the 
National Defense Authorization Act of 2018, which was adopted by the 
full House on July 13 of this year. It was replaced with language that 
was approved by this body. So again, Mr. Speaker, I think that points 
to the openness of this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Price), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban 
Development.
  Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to 
this so-called security minibus.
  The Republican majority has rushed through the fiscal year 2018 
appropriations process, passing 12 bills without benefit of a budget 
resolution. Now they have failed to secure the votes on the floor for 
that Republican-only omnibus package, so they have decided to move 
forward with what is before us today--four appropriations bills 
stitched together that would bust the Budget Control Act defense cap 
and, if enacted, result in a $72 billion sequester against all defense 
accounts.
  The entire fiscal year '18 appropriations process has been a 
Republican exercise in sham accounting and wishful thinking: ignore 
current law, jack up defense spending, and impose huge, unnecessary, 
and detrimental cuts on domestic appropriations.
  When future students learn about congressional appropriations, this 
episode should be exhibit A of what not to do.
  The four bills before us today are also full of objectionable and 
unreasonable policy riders, including the ridiculous inclusion in the 
rule of $1.6 billion to be spent on 74 miles of border wall. Nobody 
would know it from the President's hysterical rhetoric, but there are 
already 700 miles of fence along the border--vehicular fencing and 
pedestrian fencing. I know about it because most of that fence was 
built when I was chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations 
Subcommittee.
  When Congress appropriated funds to build that fence, we required 
segment-by-segment analyses and environmental impact studies. This bill 
doesn't include that. It doesn't include any language regarding 
congressional oversight. There are no requirements for Homeland 
Security to submit a cost-benefit analysis or to work with Congress 
through any modifications.
  Mr. Speaker, funding an unnecessary wall, especially without 
congressional oversight, is not a defensible use of taxpayer dollars. 
We would simply become complicit in what we all know was campaign 
demagoguery.

[[Page 11981]]

  Speaking of which, wasn't the Mexican Government going to pay for 
this wall? Weren't they going to pick up the tab?
  This $1.6 billion should be spent on much more important priorities, 
within and beyond homeland security, that would actually improve the 
lives of our citizens.
  It is time for Republicans to stop playing games with taxpayer money 
and start negotiating with Democrats. We know this is going to have to 
happen eventually. We need a bipartisan budget and appropriations 
package that actually has a chance of becoming law and that addresses 
the need of a great country for serious investment.
  Oppose the border wall. Oppose this sham appropriations minibus.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York has 8\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, for our Nation of immigrants, a wall 
rejects our very history. A wall is not about America leading the 
world. A wall is about trying to shut off the rest of the world.
  Ignored today, of course, is the history of how poorly laws have 
worked to stop desperate people. Most all of those who are coming to 
America--risking their lives, suffocating in the back of a truck, going 
over a perilous desert--are not here to cause us harm; they are not 
here to do wrong and mooch off of our social services. They are trying 
to escape violence or provide a little hope to their family. And they 
do it by taking the dirtiest, toughest jobs in our society, as 
immigrants have done since the very founding of our Nation. A wall only 
makes their path more perilous without offering us more security.
  Last year, Trump's most famous and oft repeated claim was that he 
would build a wall that Mexico would pay for. But, this year, we just 
have one broken Trump campaign promise after another.
  Today, we have confirmation that Trump is just putting taxpayers on 
the hook to pay for another section of a wall--yes, a wall of broken 
campaign promises. Instead of a wall, we ought to be building 
opportunity. As Austin Mayor Steve Adler said, ``bridges make money, 
and walls cost money.''
  Building Trump's boondoggle in the desert, at the same time he says 
we can't afford medical research or educational opportunity or job 
training, just shows how backward these priorities are. Let's oppose a 
wall of ignorance, a wall of prejudice, and create a bridge of 
opportunity. To achieve both true security and economic growth, we need 
to reject this narrow-minded approach in favor of comprehensive 
immigration reform.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I do know that even though some people 
would like to ignore the situation we have on our southern border, we 
do need to respond to those border protection agents who are asking us 
for help. We do need to respond to the crisis that we see along our 
southern border to keep our country as safe as possible. And we do need 
to confirm to people across the country that help is on the way.
  Certainly, the border is one aspect of this important piece of 
legislation, but there are many things in this bill that will help our 
country and help our military forces keep our Nation safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I 
continue to reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the security 
minibus.
  I actually happen to sit on the Homeland Security Subcommittee, and I 
know what it is like to make sure that national security is our number 
one priority.
  I also happen to know that I have heard testimony from experts, and I 
have heard bipartisan opposition to this wall in my committee. Because 
when we hear from experts, they tell us a wall is not going to stop a 
terrorist, and they tell us that the drug cartels are not going to be 
stopped either, they are just going to build a tunnel under the wall.
  So when you talk about homeland security, I know exactly what you are 
talking about. The reality is that this $1.6 billion is just a waste of 
taxpayer dollars. It is a dubious political promise that was made, and 
now the American people are being asked to foot the bill.
  Let me repeat. I sit on Homeland Security. The border on the south is 
not our number one terrorist target. We know that what is there now is 
already an existing wall. We already have fencing there. Some of the 
areas we are talking about are even just areas in the Rio Grande, where 
it is not going to make the biggest difference.
  If we are going to secure our borders, we could spend money on 
technology and other areas, or we could secure our borders by putting 
more money into port security, where there is a greater threat of 
terrorism.
  This is just another way to bully Congress into funding a border wall 
that the majority of people don't want. I hope that my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle will not be bullied by this because it is 
being packaged in with other bills that would otherwise get passed 
without the partisanship.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the House to consider 
Representative Lee's AUMF amendment--authority to use military force. 
This will provide all Members the chance for an up-or-down vote, which 
we have, thus far, been denied.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, first, let me thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me time and for her tremendous leadership as our ranking 
member on the Rules Committee. It is a true testament to her love for 
our country and for our troops.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition, first, to this terrible rule, but, 
of course, also in strong support of this amendment to sunset funding 
for the 2001 AUMF, after 240 days after enactment of this act.
  This important amendment would provide Congress plenty of time to do 
our job and finally have a debate and vote on matters of war and peace.
  Mr. Speaker, last week, Republicans unilaterally decided to kill my 
bipartisan amendment to sunset the 2001 AUMF, which would allow 8 
months to debate and vote on a new one before it would be enacted.
  This amendment was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the full 
Appropriations Committee. It was stripped out of the bill in the dead 
of the night, with no debate or vote from the Rules Committee.
  This undemocratic and underhanded behavior really makes me wonder: 
What is Speaker Ryan so afraid of?
  I came to the Rules Committee this week and asked them to rectify a 
wrong and allow a debate and a vote on this important measure, and they 
refused.
  I even offered a second amendment, which we have before us today, 
which would sunset the funding for the 2001 AUMF, 240 days after 
enactment--that is 8 months--which would allow ample time to debate and 
vote on any replacement. This would be repeal, but remain in place, 
allowing 8 months to debate this.
  Even though this amendment was germane to the bill, Republicans 
refused to even allow a debate on this important measure and a vote.

[[Page 11982]]

  I understand Speaker Ryan has said that it was a mistake to include 
my original amendment and that it would endanger our national security.
  Initially, on June 29, according to press accounts, my colleague and 
friend, who supported this amendment, Chairman Cole responded and said: 
It is time for leadership to wake up, and the administration to wake 
up, and send over a recommended AUMF, mark it up, and take it to the 
floor. I don't know any other way to get their attention because we 
have been talking about it for years.
  Now, instead of listening to their own party, what do they do? They 
stripped our bipartisan amendment.
  Some Members have said that the funding would be cut immediately with 
this amendment, but that is furthest from the truth. That is very 
disingenuous. That would be irresponsible, and I would in no way offer 
an amendment like that.
  It would allow 8 months for Congress to debate and vote on any new 
AUMF.
  Some have said that this is political, and I say it is just the 
opposite.
  Our brave troops deserve us to come together and do this so they know 
their country has their back.
  I voted for the 2001 authorization because I believed it opened the 
door for any President to wage endless war without a congressional 
debate or vote. Quite frankly, unfortunately, history has borne that 
out.
  According to a Congressional Research Service report, the 2001 AUMFs 
have been used more than 37 times in 14 countries to justify military 
actions.
  This report only examines the unclassified incidents. How many other 
operations have been conducted without the knowledge of Congress or the 
American people?
  These authorizations have also been used to justify perpetual wars 
that are thousands of miles away.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. LEE. Let me conclude by saying, now any President can 
unilaterally wage war under the outdated authorization forever unless 
it is repealed.
  The American people--our constituents--know that Congress is missing 
in action. They deserve better. Surely, Congress can muster the courage 
to do our constitutional duty and debate and vote on a new AUMF within 
8 months if that is our decision.
  We passed the 2001 AUMF within 3 days, and it never came to the 
Foreign Affairs Committee, where I served for 11 years.
  So let's stand up for the Constitution, our servicemen and -women, 
and our national security by bringing forward this amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so we can finally have this debate, vote ``no'' on the rule, 
and vote ``no'' on the underlying bill.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from 
California, I agree that a new authorization on the use of military 
force is something that is necessary, something that we owe our 
military, and something that we should do.
  The language with the Cole amendment, I think, starts us down that 
path. In fact, the Foreign Affairs Committee, just this week, is 
holding hearings on this very important topic.
  I look forward to working with Ms. Lee on this, as well as all of us 
here in this House, to get us to the end result that I think is 
absolutely necessary, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Biggs).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. BIGGS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Newhouse), and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important 
issue.
  I am an Arizona native. I grew up in southern Arizona, and trips to 
the southern Arizona border were not infrequent and not unusual. I have 
gone from San Luis to Naco, to Nogales, to Agua Prieta. I have been 
along the border many times, most recently just a couple months ago, 
and during that time, I used it as kind of a fact-finding expedition. I 
wanted to know what people who live right along the border talk about 
and think about as we in Congress consider things like a Presidential 
promise to build a wall, even in this bill, a partial wall, a good 
start.
  I will tell you what I know is that the number one drug and human 
smuggling corridor in the United States of America is through the 
Tucson sector. That is right through the heart of the Arizona-Mexico 
border. It impacts, literally, 75 to 80 miles into the border. Where we 
have wilderness preserves, our agents can't go in, they don't go in, 
and yet roadways are cut in this pristine desert by those who enter 
from the cartels, cutting roads with their vehicles that they know that 
our agents cannot traverse.
  So I am familiar with the area. I am familiar with the issue.
  I had the privilege of talking to Border Patrol agents over the last 
few years, but in particular the last time I was at the border, and I 
talked to a number of them. I wondered what the men and women think who 
actually service the border for us. I asked them whether they supported 
a wall. It was 100 percent, it was unanimous: they want a wall. They 
want additional infrastructure. They want a road that parallels that 
wall so they can have access to that wall and make the apprehensions 
that they need to.
  I talked to ranchers and farmers. It was unanimous then as well. 
Everyone wanted that wall, all recognizing the need for additional 
infrastructure of a roadway.
  When you go to various portions of the border now, it is a single 
strand of wire. You can step over it. We had one of the ranchers, an 
81-year-old gentleman, demonstrate how he crawls underneath the wire at 
81 years of age.
  Where there are small areas of fencing outside Nogales, either side 
from Nogales, that has cut down the number of folks who come that way; 
but since that fence only goes about 3 or 4 miles onto each side of the 
city, what happens is there is a flood of people who come around that 
fence.
  A border wall is important. It is imperative. Those of us who feel 
the direct brunt of the influx of people who come across the border, 
whether for hostile or benign intentions, we feel very strongly that a 
border wall would benefit our State.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support this initiative, and I can tell 
you that my constituency also supports this initiative. With that, I 
urge everyone to support this initiative.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say that one of the beauties 
of Congress is being able to hear from people firsthand their 
experiences, who speak not just in theoretical senses but because of 
the life they live and their constituents, and so I appreciate very 
much the gentleman from Arizona and his testimony.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for 
the way that he has worked with other colleagues in terms of trying to 
move this bill and this process forward. It would take Solomon in all 
of his wisdom to get it completely right, and in that regard, I give 
you due deference in the way that you all have put this bill together.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to rise in support of what my colleague from 
California spoke about just a moment ago, which is the fact that 
neither one of Ms. Lee's amendments were ultimately made in order. I 
have a problem with that from the standpoint of the construction of 
this rule, because one of those amendments was tied to, in essence, the 
base bill that actually passed at the committee level, and then the 
other one was an adaptation of that same notion.
  What she is getting at, I think, is incredibly important. I think it 
is incredibly important, because the saying is that the road to hell is 
paved with good intentions, and we have been meaning and meaning and 
meaning and meaning to do something about the Authorization for Use of 
Force in the Middle

[[Page 11983]]

East since 2001 in terms of bringing it up to date, but we haven't, for 
whatever reason, done so. What she is getting at with her amendment is 
saying, simply, it is time, it is well past time, and I think there is 
real legitimacy to that point.
  I would say, secondly, what doesn't work in life are blank checks. In 
essence, if you sign on to this notion that an Authorization for Use of 
Force back in 2001 will apply now, why doesn't it apply 30 years from 
now or 50 years from now, if you follow that logic out.
  I think our Founding Fathers were so concrete in their constitutional 
premise that only Congress should declare war because what they knew 
was that body bags don't return to Washington, D.C. They return to 
congressional districts and States across this country. And knowing 
that, they said you have got to go to the people's House to have the 
Authorization for Use of Force so that you do not put people in harm's 
way without Congress debating that subject and actually coming up with 
a decision to the affirmative.
  Finally, I would simply say this: This is important in terms of 
sending a clear signal to soldiers and to the public at large that we 
are behind them, we are behind the soldiers. We say this is what you 
ought to do. We are going to give you the tools necessary to do the 
job; and to the public: This is why we think it ought to be done. 
Authorization for Use of Force is about those two things.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Mr. Newhouse's efforts here.
  Hearing a concern about the $1.6 billion for the wall, let me just 
say, living in Texas, spending a lot of time on the border, spending 
time in Mexico--it is where my wife and I went on our honeymoon--there 
is only one reason Mexico is not one of the top 10 economies in the 
world, and it is because the drug cartels make tens of billions of 
dollars they use for corruption to keep it from being that.
  The best thing we could do as a good neighbor to Mexico is to build a 
wall where it is needed, just like President Trump has talked about, 
stop that flow of tens of billions of dollars to Mexico used for 
corruption to keep down the Mexican people--hardworking, God-fearing 
people--and bring that country up by being a good neighbor; because, in 
this case, a good fence or wall will make a good neighbor, and Mexico 
will have its rightful place in the economic hierarchy of the world.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Poe), my good friend.
  Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, having lived in Texas all my life, I, 
like many other Texans, have been to the Texas border numerous times. I 
have been to the border from San Diego to Brownsville while I have been 
in Congress, the entire length of the border. Some things are working 
on the border, and one of those things that is working is a wall in the 
big cities.
  One of my friends from El Paso likes to talk about how El Paso is the 
safest city in America. Well, one reason is El Paso has multiple 
fencing, a canal, and a river between the U.S., Texas, and Mexico.
  The sheriff of El Paso told me after that fencing was created, cross-
border crime is almost nonexistent. That is one reason--not the only 
reason--why El Paso is the safest city in America is because they have 
a wall, a fence, the Rio Grande River--a barrier. Let's use that term.
  Sure, not everybody from Mexico is coming to commit crimes, of course 
not, but a wall works.
  It also works where they have fencing in San Diego. It also works 
where they have fencing in Brownsville, Texas, between Brownsville and 
Mexico. It stops and reduces the cross-border individuals coming in 
without permission. So a partial fence will work.
  This bill, let's make it clear, is not a complete border wall of the 
whole border. It is only 74 miles. And we need to do everything. We 
need to have that 74 miles. We need to have aerostats in the air. We 
need to have more Border Patrol on the ground. We need to have all 
types of technology to have a virtual wall, if you will, to protect the 
United States' security.
  People need to come to the United States. We want people to come to 
the United States, but come the right way.
  Lastly, as my friend from Tyler, Texas, said, the drug cartels are 
the major problem, and the criminal gangs, like the MS-13 gang, are the 
ones who come into the United States because there is no barrier to 
stop them.
  And that is just the way it is.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, if we hadn't had this last election and the campaign 
that went with it, we wouldn't be talking about any wall. One of the 
candidates threw out that he would like to have a wall and was sure--he 
gave us the absurd notion that somehow Mexico would pay for it.
  Not many of us believed that, but I will tell you, now that we have 
put in this $1.6 billion for this wall, I will bet you that we are 
going to finish it, and we don't know how much it costs--somewhere 
between $20 billion and $40 billion for a wall.
  Now, if I have heard correctly what my colleagues have said over 
there, the walls are working already, the ones they have got. There are 
walls there. I heard San Diego had three. So the idea, I guess, if one 
works, we will build us another one. Oh, my goodness.
  This funding bill that we are talking about spending on a wall is 
needed to repair roads and bridges and bring down the cost of 
education, but the majority refuses to have debate on the AUMF, 
something that is critically important, life and death to many people 
who live in this country who are presently in the armed services. This 
amendment should have been included here.
  And I appreciate what my colleague, Mr. Sanford, said. He is 
absolutely right. But if we were to get a new AUMF, it would put 
Congress back into its duty to declare war. That is something that the 
Constitution gave us that we no longer have.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the discussion we have had this past hour 
from all Members that have participated. Although we may have our 
differences, some difference of opinion, I believe that this rule and 
the underlying bill are strong measures that are important to ensuring 
the security and the prosperity of our country. The rule provides for 
further consideration of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure 
Appropriations Act of 2018.
  Let me say again, while my friends on the other side may not want to 
acknowledge it, this rule makes 54 amendments in order; 21 of those 54 
are from my Democratic friends, 16 are Republican, and 17 are 
bipartisan, led by bipartisan cosponsors. In fact, the majority of the 
amendments that were made in order under yesterday's rule that provide 
for the initial consideration of this bill were also led by Democrats, 
so this reflects the balanced approach of the process under this rule.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. Speaker, it is our job, it is Congress' job, to appropriate the 
necessary funds to keep our Nation safe and our defense strong. This 
rule allows us to complete our efforts to complete the appropriations 
process for our top priorities, those of national security. I look 
forward, though, to bringing the other eight appropriation bills to the 
floor to fulfill the rest of our duty. Certainly, as an appropriator, 
no one wants to see this effort completed more than our committee and 
as I do.
  I have appreciated the important advocacy my colleagues on both sides 
have brought forward through this process, from within the 
subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee, through the full 
committee, through the Rules Committee, and now, here on the House 
floor.
  The measures included in this rule will provide vital resources for 
our national defense and for our military infrastructure. As I said, it 
will boost the

[[Page 11984]]

pay of our troops, support our military families who sacrifice so much 
for our country; it will strengthen the care we provide for our 
veterans and enforce our border security to protect all of the American 
people.
  This rule will also allow for further security improvements for the 
Capitol campus to protect all who visit here. It will also provide 
robust funding to improve our Nation's waterways, our infrastructure, 
our important nuclear clean-up, as well as nonproliferation efforts.
  It also reinstates our top priority, providing funding for our 
national defense. We must begin to rebuild our Nation's military, and I 
am proud of this as a major step forward, restoring military readiness 
in order to keep our country safe.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying appropriations within this rule are of 
the utmost importance to the Nation, and we must move forward with this 
rule in order to get our job done. The men and women in uniform serving 
our Nation around the globe are depending on us.
  I hope our colleagues, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, will 
support this rule so that we can do that, get our job done.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 478 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the amendment described in section 7 shall be in 
     order as though printed as the last amendment in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution if offered by Representative Lee of California or 
     her designee. Such amendment shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and 
     an opponent.
       Sec. 7. The amendment referred to in section 6 is as 
     follows:
       ``At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec__. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement, enforce, or administer the 
     Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 
     50 U.S.C. 1541 note).
       (b) Subsection (a) shall apply beginning on the date that 
     is 240 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.''.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

  Mr. NEWHOUSE. 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.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 185, not voting 15, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 426]

                               YEAS--233

     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)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     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
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     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
     Massie
     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
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     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
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--185

     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

[[Page 11985]]


     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
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Sanchez
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     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--15

     Collins (GA)
     Cummings
     Hollingsworth
     Lowey
     Napolitano
     Nolan
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Rogers (AL)
     Roskam
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sarbanes
     Scalise
     Speier

                              {time}  1408

  Messrs. CAPUANO and COSTA changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 426.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 426.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hill). 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

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. 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 230, 
noes 196, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 427]

                               AYES--230

     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
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     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
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     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
     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
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--196

     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)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hurd
     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
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     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--7

     Cummings
     Hollingsworth
     Issa
     Napolitano
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1415

  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.

                          ____________________