[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 11987-12007]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2018


                             general leave

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include 
extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 3219, and that 
I may include tabular material on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 478 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 3219.
  Will the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1427


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 3129) making appropriations for the Department of 
Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Issa (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 63 printed in House Report 115-259 offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the further amendment printed in 
part A of House Report 115-261 shall be considered as adopted.
  The text of the further amendment printed in part A of House Report 
115-261 is as follows:

       After division D, insert the following:

[[Page 11988]]



   DIVISION E--DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE 
                  CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATION ACT, 2018

       The following sums are appropriated, out of any money in 
     the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the Department 
     of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     2018, namely:

                   U.S. Customs and Border Protection

              procurement, construction, and improvements

       For necessary expenses for U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for procurement, construction, and improvements, 
     $1,571,239,000, to remain available until September 30, 2020, 
     which shall be available as follows:
       (1) $784,000,000 for 32 miles of new border bollard fencing 
     in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.
       (2) $498,000,000 for 28 miles of new bollard levee wall in 
     the Rio Grande Valley, Texas.
       (3) $251,000,000 for 14 miles of secondary fencing in San 
     Diego, California.
       (4) $38,239,000 for planning for border wall construction.

                      TITLE I--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                           references to act

       Sec. 101. Except as expressly provided otherwise, any 
     reference to ``this Act'' contained in this division shall be 
     treated as referring only to the provisions of this division.
        This Act may be cited as the ``Department of Homeland 
     Security Border Infrastructure Construction Appropriations 
     Act, 2018''.

  The Acting CHAIR. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall 
be in order except those printed in part B of House Report 115-261, 
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of House Resolution 478, and 
available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of House 
Resolution 473.
  Each further amendment printed in part B of the report shall be 
considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only 
by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided 
and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by 
the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject 
to amendment except as provided by section 4 of House Resolution 473, 
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
  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 amendments printed in part B of the report not earlier disposed of. 
Amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective 
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, except as provided by 
section 4 of House Resolution 473, and shall not be subject to a demand 
for division of the question.


        Amendments En Bloc No. 1 Offered by Ms. Granger of Texas

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
478, as the designee of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Frelinghuysen), I offer amendments en bloc.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
  Amendments en bloc No. 1 consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 
6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 
29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 40, 44, 46, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 54 printed in 
part B of House Report 115-261, offered by Ms. Granger of Texas:


          Amendment No. 1 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 3, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000) (increased by $2,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Bridenstine of Oklahoma

       Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Lowenthal of California

       Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $5,600,000)''.
       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount inset the 
     following: ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Collins of New York

       Page 7, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Mast of Florida

       Page 7, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $598,000)''.
       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $598,000)''.


      Amendment No. 6 Offered by Ms. Shea-Porter of New Hampshire

       Page 7, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $7,000,000)''.


         Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Meehan of Pennsylvania

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert `` (reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 16, line 3, after the dollar amount insert `` 
     (increased by $10,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Lance of New Jersey

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $100,000) (increased by $100,000)''.


       Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mrs. Napolitano of California

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $194,897,000) (increased by 
     $194,897,000)''.


         Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Gallagher of Wisconsin

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $26,200,000)''.
       Page 23, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $26,200,000)''.


          Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hunter of California

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert ``(reduced 
     by $20,000,000)''.
        Page 27, line 24, after the dollar amount insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.


            Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Rosen of Nevada

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Wilson of South Carolina

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $4,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $4,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mr. Shuster of Pennsylvania

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(decreased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.


            Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.


            Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Soto of Florida

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


       Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $2,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Delaney of Maryland

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $8,000,000)''.
       Page 87, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Knight of California

       Page 28, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $16,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $16,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 25 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 31, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 26 Offered by Ms. Cheney of Wyoming

       Page 32, line 25, before the colon, insert ``, except for 
     missile defense requirements resulting from urgent or 
     emergent operational needs''.
       Page 37, line 1, before the semicolon, insert ``, except 
     for missile defense requirements

[[Page 11989]]

     resulting from urgent or emergent operational needs''.


          Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Paulsen of Minnesota

       Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Emmer of Minnesota

       Page 33, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $2,500,000)''.


        Amendment No. 32 Offered by Mr. Garamendi of California

       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,500,000)''.


        Amendment No. 33 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $20,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $20,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 34 Offered by Mr. Brown of Maryland

       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $4,135,000) (increased by $4,135,000)''.


        Amendment No. 36 Offered by Mr. Courtney of Connecticut

       In section 8010, strike ``SSN Virginia Class Submarine'' 
     and insert ``up to 13 SSN Virginia Class Submarines''.


         Amendment No. 37 Offered by Mr. Palazzo of Mississippi

       Page 49, line 18, strike ``up to 10''.


            Amendment No. 40 Offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available under the heading ``Afghanistan Security Forces 
     Fund'' may be used to procure uniforms for the Afghan 
     National Army.


          Amendment No. 44 Offered by Mr. Delaney of Maryland

       At the end of division A (before the short title) insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used for the closure of a biosafety level 4 laboratory.


          Amendment No. 46 Offered by Mr. Conyers of Michigan

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to provide arms, training, or other assistance to the 
     Azov Battalion.


          Amendment No. 49 Offered by Ms. Speier of California

       Page 80, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.


          Amendment No. 50 Offered by Ms. Jackson Lee of Texas

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $6,250,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $5,000,000)''.


        Amendment No. 52 Offered by Mr. Langevin of Rhode Island

       Page 33, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $24,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $27,500,000)''.


           Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Nolan of Minnesota

       Page 129, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $12,000,000)''.
       Page 143, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $6,000,000)''.


           Amendment No. 54 Offered by Mr. Raskin of Maryland

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Granger) and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) 
each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc 
were made in order by the rule for consideration of division A of H.R. 
3219 and have been agreed to by both sides.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment and urge its adoption, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen).
  Ms. ROSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to urge passage of my amendment 
which supports the Army's unfunded requirements request for improved 
munitions precision.
  The continued development of missile cooling technology, which 
releases a refrigerant at predetermined temperatures, maintains the 
integrity of missile electronics when fired. This improves flight 
control, extends range, and provides greater targeting precision.
  My amendment improves current and future missile systems, furthering 
our ability to reach every corner of the world in defense of our 
Nation.
  As we grapple with threats from adversaries such as North Korea, 
Russia, and Iran and execute our counter-ISIL campaign, our military 
deserves the greatest technological edge so that our troops never find 
themselves in a fair fight.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this important 
amendment to maintain America's military technology superiority as our 
servicemembers bravely safeguard our Nation.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that would--it is 
shocking that it would have to even do this--prohibit spending money on 
these Afghan uniforms that met the sartorial taste of a general that 
corresponded to lush tropical forests. Number one, what the general 
wants for sartorial splendor of his troops is not our problem. Number 
two, his sartorial taste had to do with tropical forests, which is not 
what we have in Afghanistan.
  I am very happy that General Mattis himself was outraged by this, and 
I applaud him. But it is an opportunity for us to express our outrage 
as well.
  We all want to support our men and women in uniform, and we all want 
them to have good uniforms. But it is not up to an Afghan general to 
take taxpayer money on a vanity project that ultimately undercuts the 
security of our troops.
  So, Mr. Chairman, I believe I speak for everyone. Let's not do it.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the 
gentleman from Vermont for his amendment and for his thoughtful 
approach to this problem.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Lowenthal).
  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the bipartisan 
amendment that I am leading on with Representative Comstock, along with 
many of our colleagues on the STARBASE Caucus. I appreciate it being 
included in the en bloc package of amendments.
  This amendment would simply increase funding for the Department of 
Defense's STARBASE program from 25 to $30 million for the fiscal year 
2018, bringing funding back to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. 
Providing science, technology, engineering, and math, STEM education, 
to America's youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our 
Nation.
  The STARBASE program engages local fifth grade elementary students by 
exposing them to STEM subjects through an inquiry-based curriculum.
  Serving communities from Los Alamitos, California, to Winchester, 
Virginia, and across the Nation, there are now 59 programs in 
congressional districts throughout 30 States, including the District of 
Columbia and Puerto Rico. Close to 1 million fifth graders across the 
Nation have now had the opportunity to participate in hands-on STEM 
classes on military bases thanks to STARBASE.
  Moreover, the Department of Defense's STARBASE program is one of the 
most cost-effective programs across the Federal Government.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Mrs. Dingell).
  Mrs. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of Mr. Delaney's 
bipartisan amendment included in this en bloc that would increase 
funding for the Fisher House Foundation.
  Fisher House has now served our veterans and their families for 26 
years providing valuable housing opportunities as veterans receive 
medical treatment at military and VA medical centers across the 
country. When I first

[[Page 11990]]

learned of them--longer than I want to admit--there were just a few of 
them. Now there are 72 and many more in the pipeline. They have served 
305,000 military families.
  For many veterans and their families, the distance to their nearest 
VA medical center can be too far to travel on a routine basis, and the 
cost over time means many veterans are alone--nobody by their side--
during their treatment or hospital stay--a situation no one should be 
in.
  No veteran who has served their country should have to face medical 
care or a hospital stay without the support of their loved ones by 
their side. Fisher Houses provide the lodging and transportation 
resources to help families stay together throughout the treatment 
process.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Maine (Ms. Pingree), who is a member of the full committee.
  Ms. PINGREE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member very much for 
yielding to me today.
  I rise during this en bloc amendment debate to discuss an issue that 
is raised in the amendment about the importance of the DDG-51 to our 
Navy. In particular, I am grateful to our committee for the clear 
guidance and language that was provided in the fiscal year 2017 Omnibus 
Appropriations Act that was passed in this body just 2 short months 
ago.
  That language called attention to the need not only to support the 
DDG-51 program but to ensure we do so with a design and upgrade that is 
technically mature and fiscally responsible.
  It was clear in that language, and in report language that is 
included in the bill before us today, that Congress continues to expect 
the Navy to comply with the direction that the additional fiscal year 
`16 DDG-51 ship be contracted and completed as a flight II-A ship.
  Because there are concerns raised by the GAO about the new flight III 
design radar upgrade for the DDG-51, there needs to be a thoughtful 
process in place.
  Again, I want to thank the chair and ranking member who have been 
incredibly supportive of the DDG program in the past and the work that 
it brings to States like Maine and across the country.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I simply, again, reiterate my support 
for the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SOTO. Mr. Chair, I want to make a statement regarding the passage 
of H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. 
Specifically, I would like to make a statement about my amendment, Soto 
Number 20, to Division A, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 
2018. My amendment moved $10 million from the Operation and 
Maintenance, Defense-Wide account to the Defense Health Program's Peer-
Reviewed Prostate Cancer Research Program.
  Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men and is 
the second most common cause of male death. In 2017, approximately 
161,360 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer and an 
estimated 26,730 will die from it.
  The Prostate Cancer Research Program is a unique research program in 
that it prioritizes research that will lead to the elimination of death 
from prostate cancer while enhancing the well-being of men experiencing 
the impact of the disease.
  I support funding prostate cancer research and thank my colleagues 
for their support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I want to make a statement regarding the passage of H.R. 
3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, 2018. Specifically, I 
would like to make a statement about my amendment, Soto Number 19, to 
Division A, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2018. My 
amendment moved $1 million from the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-
Wide account to the Defense Health Program's Peer-Reviewed Gulf War 
Illness Research Program.
  If we are going to spend money on medical research within the 
Department of Defense, the Department must adequately fund research on 
those diseases that originate in war and wholly affect our servicemen 
and women. Over a quarter of a million veterans display symptoms of 
this disease, and the time has come to find, and fund, a cure for it.
  I support funding Gulf War illness research and thank my colleagues 
for their support of my amendment.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and 
Ranking Member Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor 
and for their devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who 
risk their lives to keep our nation safe and for their work in ensuring 
that they have resources needed to keep our Armed Forces the greatest 
fighting force for peace on earth.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is simple and straightforward and affirms an example of the 
national goodness that makes America the most exceptional nation on 
earth.
  The purpose of Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 is to provide the 
Secretary of Defense flexibility to allocate resources needed to 
provide technical assistance by U.S. military women to military women 
in other countries combating violence as a weapon of war, terrorism, 
human trafficking, narcotics trafficking.
  Mr. Chair, the United States is committed to combating violent 
extremism, protecting our borders and the globe from the scourge of 
terrorism.
  The United States Armed Forces possess an unparalleled expertise and 
technological capability that will aid not only in combating and 
defeating terrorists who hate our country and prey upon innocent 
persons, especially women, girls, and the elderly.
  But we must recognize that notwithstanding our extraordinary 
technical military capabilities, we face adversaries who adapt very 
quickly because they are not constrained by geographic limitations or 
norms of morality and decency.
  Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, ISIS/ISIL and other militant 
terrorists, including the Sinai's Ansar Beit al-Maqdis in the Sinai 
Peninsula which poses a threat to Egypt.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 helps provide the Department of Defense 
with the resources needed to provide technical assistance to countries 
on innovative strategies to provide defense technologies and resources 
that promote the security of the American people and allied nation 
states.
  Terrorism, human trafficking, narcotics trafficking and their impact 
on women and girls across the globe has had a great adverse impact on 
us all.
  According to a UNICEF report, rape, torture and human trafficking by 
terrorist and militant groups have been employed as weapons of war, 
affecting over twenty thousand women and girls.
  Looking at the history of terrorism highlights the importance of 
providing technical assistance through our military might, as this 
enables us to combat terrorism which now can plague us here in the 
United States.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1 will help curb terrorism abroad by making 
available American technical military expertise to military in other 
countries, like Nigeria, who are combating violent jihadists in their 
country and to keep those terrorists out of our country.
  Time and again American lives have been lost at the hands of 
terrorists.
  These victims include Christians, Muslims, journalists, health care 
providers, relief workers, schoolchildren, and members of the 
diplomatic corps and the Armed Services.
  This is why the technical assistance offered by our military 
personnel is integral to promoting security operation of intelligence, 
surveillance, and reconnaissance aircraft for missions to empower local 
forces to combat terrorism.
  Terrorists across the globe have wreaked havoc on our society and 
cannot be tolerated or ignored, for their actions pose a threat to our 
national security and the security of the world.
  Mr. Chair, from the United States to Africa to Europe to Asia and the 
Middle East, it is clear that combating terrorism remains one of our 
highest national priorities.
  Collectively, helping our neighbors and their military build capacity 
to combat terrorism, eradicate human trafficking, stop narcotics 
trafficking and negate their impact on women and girls across the globe 
serves our national interest.
  I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 1.
  Mr. Chair, I want to thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking Member 
Visclosky for shepherding this legislation to the floor and for their 
devotion to the men and women of the Armed Forces who risk their lives 
to keep our nation safe.
  Mr. Chair, thank you for the opportunity to explain my amendment, 
which is identical to an amendment that I offered and was adopted last 
year to the Defense Appropriations Act for FY2017 (H.R. 5293).

[[Page 11991]]

  My amendment increases funding for the Defense Health Program's 
research and development by $10 million.
  These funds will address the question of breast cancer in the United 
States military.
  The American Cancer Society calls several strains of breast cancer as 
a particularly aggressive subtype associated with lower survival rates; 
in this instance, it is a triple negative.
  But I raise an article: ``Fighting a Different Battle; Breast Cancer 
and the Military.''
  Breast cancer can affect both men and women.
  The bad news is breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women 
in the military as combat.
  Let me say that sentence again.
  Breast cancer has been just about as brutal on women in the military 
as combat.
  More than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, 
according to the Army Times; 874 military women were diagnosed with 
breast cancer just between 2000 and 2011.
  And according to that same study, more are suspected. It grows.
  The good news is that we have been working on it, and I want to add 
my appreciation to the military.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25, however, will allow for the additional 
research.
  That research is particularly needed since women are joining the 
Armed Services in increasing numbers and serving longer, ascending to 
leadership.
  Within increased age comes increased risk and incidence of breast 
cancer.
  Not only is breast cancer striking relatively young military women at 
an alarming rate, but male service members, veterans and their 
dependents are at risk as well.
  With a younger and generally healthier population, those in military 
tend to have a lower risk for most cancers than civilians--including 
significantly lower colorectal, lung and cervical--but breast cancer is 
a different story.
  Military people in general, and in some cases very specifically, are 
at a significantly greater risk for contracting breast cancer, 
according to Dr. Richard Clapp, a top cancer expert at Boston 
University who works at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
on military breast cancer issues.
  Dr. Clapp notes that life in the military can mean exposure to a 
witch's brew of risk factors directly linked to greater chances of 
getting breast cancer.
  So, I am asking that we do the right thing.
  We are on the right track, we're on the right road.
  But with the expansion of women in the military, it is extremely 
important to move forward with this amendment to help ensure that the 
men and women who risk their lives to protect our freedom can live 
longer, healthier lives.
  I urge my colleagues to support Jackson Lee Amendment No. 25.
  Mr. Chair, I am pleased that the En Bloc Amendment also includes 
Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 that was made in order under the Rule.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 increases funding for the PTSD by $5 
million.
  These funds should be used toward outreach activities targeting hard 
to reach veterans, especially those who are homeless or reside in 
underserved urban and rural areas, who suffer from Post-Traumatic 
Stress Disorder (PTSD).
  Mr. Chair, along with traumatic brain injury, PTSD is the signature 
wound suffered by the brave men and women fighting in Afghanistan, 
Iraq, and far off lands to defend the values and freedom we hold dear.
  For those of us whose daily existence is not lived in harm's way, it 
is difficult to imagine the horrific images that American servicemen 
and women deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other theaters of war see 
on a daily basis.
  In an instant a suicide bomber, an IED, or an insurgent can 
obliterate your best friend and right in front of your face.
  Yet, you are trained and expected to continue on with the mission, 
and you do, even though you may not even have reached your 20th 
birthday.
  But there always comes a reckoning. And it usually comes after the 
stress and trauma of battle is over and you are alone with your 
thoughts and memories.
  And the horror of those desperate and dangerous encounters with the 
enemy and your own mortality come flooding back.
  PTSD was first brought to public attention in relation to war 
veterans, but it can result from a variety of traumatic incidents, such 
as torture, being kidnapped or held captive, bombings, or natural 
disasters such as floods or earthquakes.
  People with PTSD may startle easily, become emotionally numb 
(especially in relation to people with whom they used to be close), 
lose interest in things they used to enjoy, have trouble feeling 
affectionate, be irritable, become more aggressive, or even become 
violent.
  They avoid situations that remind them of the original incident, and 
anniversaries of the incident are often very difficult.
  Most people with PTSD repeatedly relive the trauma in their thoughts 
during the day and in nightmares when they sleep.
  These are called flashbacks; a person having a flashback may lose 
touch with reality and believe that the traumatic incident is happening 
all over again.
  Mr. Chair, the fact of the matter is that most veterans with PTSD 
also have other psychiatric disorders, which are a consequence of PTSD.
  These veterans have co-occurring disorders, which include depression, 
alcohol and/or drug abuse problems, panic, and/or other anxiety 
disorders.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 recognizes that these soldiers are first 
and foremost, human, who live their experiences.
  Ask a veteran of Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan about the frequency of 
nightmares they experience, and one will realize that serving in the 
Armed Forces leaves a lasting impression, whether good or bad.
  Jackson Lee Amendment No. 50 will help ensure that ``no soldier is 
left behind'' by addressing the urgent need for more outreach toward 
hard to reach veterans suffering from PTSD, especially those who are 
homeless or reside in underserved urban and rural areas of our country.
  I thank the Chair and Ranking Member for including Jackson Lee 
Amendment No. 50 in the En Bloc Amendment and urge my colleagues to 
support the En Bloc Amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendments en bloc offered 
by the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Granger).
  The en bloc amendments were agreed to.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Langevin

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $10,000,000)''.
       Page 34, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $10,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment today to support the DOD Cyber 
Scholarship Program with strong bipartisan support from my good 
friends, Mr. Ratcliffe, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Correa, Ms. Rosen, Mr. Lieu, 
and Ms. Shea-Porter.
  Mr. Chairman, since 2001, DOD has run the Information Assurance 
Scholarship Program in order to boost the Nation's cyber workforce 
through scholarship and capacity-building grants. Scholarship 
recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation by working in a 
cybersecurity position at DOD upon graduation.
  Mr. Chairman, this program had been extremely successful, bringing 
nearly 600 students into the DOD workforce. However, due to budget 
constraints, the Department has reduced funding and stopped recruiting 
new students. This year we seek to reinvigorate the program, calling it 
the DOD Cyber Scholarship Program.
  As the ranking member of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on 
Emerging Threats and Capabilities, I fully understand the budget 
pressure the Department has been facing. However, cutting the pipeline 
of cyber talent into the Department is incredibly shortsighted. We face 
a critical workforce shortage right now, as we speak, when it comes to 
cybersecurity across all sectors of the economy and in government.
  The challenges of building up our cyber talent is something that 
keeps me up at night. We know that cybersecurity is the national 
security issue of the 21st century and that no conflict, both today or 
in the future, will be

[[Page 11992]]

fought without a cyber component as a part of it.
  Now, DOD has made significant strides in preparing to defend the 
Nation in this new domain, standing up USCYBERCOM and improving its 
cybersecurity posture through programs like the wildly successful Hack 
the Pentagon program and DARPA's Cyber Grand Challenge. But these 
initiatives need talented network engineers, cybersecurity researchers, 
and, yes, hackers.
  The Cyber Scholarship Program encourages students to look at 
cybersecurity as an area of academic study and then exposes them to the 
amazing mission set at the Department. While we may not be able to 
compete on a dollar-to-dollar basis with the private sector in terms of 
salary, public service certainly is its own reward, and DOD has the 
most challenging and rewarding problems facing us today and the honor 
that comes with protecting their fellow Americans.
  We need as many digital natives to enter this exciting field and 
experience the rewards of public service, which is why we must 
reinvigorate the Cyber Scholarship Program with this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I worked with the same colleagues who joined me on this 
amendment to include similar funding in the National Defense 
Authorization Act. I would like to thank my friends, Senators Kaine, 
Perdue, and Rounds for leading a similar effort across the Capitol in 
the Senate.
  So I would also like to, again, thank Chairwoman Granger and Ranking 
Member Visclosky for their steadfast commitment to our armed services. 
This commonsense amendment will help ensure DOD is prepared for future 
fights, and I urge its adoption.
  Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Correa).
  Mr. CORREA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment No. 8 
offered by Mr. Langevin to provide funding for the Department of 
Defense Cyber Scholarship Program.
  Our country is facing a severe shortage of trained cyber 
professionals, a shortage that includes about 10,000 cybersecurity 
experts in government alone, and estimated to be about 1 million 
shortages throughout our economy by 2019.
  We need to give young people the incentive to follow careers in 
cybersecurity to learn skills such as computer coding and ethical 
hacking. This amendment provides $10 million for scholarships for 
associate degrees at community colleges and assists with program 
execution from DOD and NSA.
  I cosponsored this amendment, and I want to thank Congressman 
Langevin for offering this important piece of legislation. I urge all 
my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, just briefly, I thank my colleagues that 
were speaking in favor of my amendment. I thank the majority for 
accepting the amendment and supporting the effort to build up our 
Nation's cyber workforce.
  Cybersecurity is the national security challenge of the 21st century. 
We are doing great things to meet those challenges. We just need to 
make sure our workforce can meet those needs. I know this amendment 
will be a major step in helping us to achieve that goal.
  I thank all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I thank the 
chair and ranking member for their support of this effort.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Suozzi

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 10 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $34,734,000)''.
       Page 14, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $34,734,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Suozzi) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chair, I rise today to speak in support of a 
bipartisan amendment that I am offering with Congressman Peter King and 
Congressman Paul Cook.
  Amendment No. 10 under the rule is to division A of the Defense 
Appropriations bill. The purpose of the amendment is to match the $34 
million in funding for the Navy's Environmental Restoration Account, 
authorized unanimously in the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act, 
but was not included in the appropriations process.
  In my district, for almost four decades, the people of Bethpage and 
the surrounding areas have been dealing with an environmental crisis. 
Groundwater pollution, stemming from the Navy and defense contractor 
activity, has resulted in an underground plume of contaminated water 
that is moving south through Long Island's sole source of drinking 
water, towards Congressman King's district.
  While costly remediation efforts ensure the water is safe to consume, 
it doesn't change the fact that residents deserve to have this cleaned 
up before it spreads any further.
  The contamination, known as the Navy-Grumman Plume, is one of 
thousands of sites at hundreds of locations that have experienced 
environmental degradation because of defense-related activities. 
Congressman Peter King, Congressman Paul Cook, and I have submitted 
this bipartisan amendment that will increase funding for the Navy's 
Environmental Restoration Account, which helps fund cleanup and 
remediation efforts for these sites.
  This is not a partisan issue. The funding levels sought by this 
amendment received bipartisan support in the NDAA. Chairman 
Thornberry's mark and my amendment together, which was joined by 
Congressman Cook and Congresswoman Hanabusa, increased the authorized 
amount by $42 million.
  The amount sought here, $34 million, will match the appropriated 
amount with the authorized funding levels. Our colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle supported that effort because this funding will help clean 
up sites from Maine to Hawaii, from Florida to Washington State, and 
were provided for with the appropriate pay-for.
  I ask for my colleagues' support for this bipartisan amendment so we 
can help fund efforts across the country to help clean up environmental 
contamination in our districts. People in my district and regions 
across the country deserve to have these sites fully cleaned. It is 
commonsense, bipartisan, and the right thing to do. I urge my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman raising this 
issue.
  I am supportive of efforts to ensure that the Department of Defense 
takes responsibility for any potential contamination issues. That is 
why this bill provides more than $1 billion for environmental 
restoration accounts, nearly $48 million more than fiscal year 2017.
  The bill includes an increase of $10 million specifically to support 
water

[[Page 11993]]

contamination efforts. In addition, the committee provided an 
additional $57 million for those efforts in the fiscal year 2017 
supplemental appropriations.
  The committee has already provided a generous amount of funding to 
address water contamination, and the Department of Defense has assured 
me that they are addressing each side on a priority basis.
  The amendment offered by the gentleman provides additional funding 
that the Department may not be able to execute, and the funding comes 
at the expense of the warfighter readiness account. Therefore, I must 
oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the 
gentlewoman, respectfully, that it will cost billions of dollars to 
clean up these sites in the United States of America. The increase that 
we are seeking here, in a bipartisan fashion, is $34 million to simply 
match the amount of money that was authorized in the NDAA.
  In addition, this percentage increase that we are seeking is 
commensurate with the overall percentage increase in the overall NDAA 
budget this year from last year. So we are just simply seeking the same 
commensurate amount increase in this portion of the budget that there 
is in another portion.
  We are looking to have the pay-for to come from the operations and 
maintenance defense-wide account, of which there is over $33 billion. 
We are looking for $34 million just to try to advance some of these 
cleanups.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SUOZZI. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would point out that the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. The 
committee worked hard to increase funding for these accounts.
  Also, I would point out, representing the First Congressional 
District of Indiana, I am intimately familiar with the problems these 
environmental sites have.
  There is much to do, many resources we need to look for, and I would 
support the gentleman's amendment.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to close by saying that I 
do appreciate the hard work that has been done by so many on both sides 
of the aisle in this particular area. We all appreciate how important 
the cleanup of these environmental sites are. The people in my district 
have been suffering with this for 40 years, and we are trying to bring 
attention to the issue and trying to get the resources focused on this.
  We have met with people from the Navy, from the Army Corps of 
Engineers, from the EPA, from the DEC, and from local State officials 
in the State of New York that are interested. Congressman Peter King 
and Congressman Paul Cook both understand how important it is that we 
try and send the signal that we are trying to have a commensurate 
increase in this account with the overall increase in the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Suozzi).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SUOZZI. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.


    Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 12 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I have an 
amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
       Page 14, line 13, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 15, line 8, after the dollar amount insert the 
     following: ``(increased by $30,000,000''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this is a bit of 
a complex issue, so I will do my best to explain. It is, unfortunately, 
an issue that my constituents and a number in the suburban Philadelphia 
area have been dealing with now for the last 2\1/2\ years.
  The chemicals with the acronyms PFOS and PFOA are part of a class of 
manmade, highly fluorinated chemicals that are highly persistent in our 
environment.
  In the 1970s, the Department of Defense began using a firefighting 
foam with the acronym AFFF. Unfortunately, that firefighting foam to 
extinguish petroleum fires contained these chemical compounds. These 
chemicals have subsequently been linked to problems in liver, thyroid, 
and pancreatic function, as well as changes in hormone levels.
  Some studies have shown developmental issues in children, decreased 
fertility, increased cholesterol, immune system deficiencies, and an 
increased cancer risk. Production of AFFF has ceased, but stockpiles 
remain.
  Today, the Department of Defense is evaluating and testing the 
drinking water systems of hundreds of communities nationwide due to 
PFOA and PFOS contamination on or surrounding these defense 
installations across the country that used AFFF.
  So far, water contamination has been found near 27 military bases in 
16 States. This includes the community that I represent and that my 
colleagues share in representing. In my district alone, families 
surrounding Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove, as well 
as the Horsham Air Guard Station, suffer from the uncertainty of 
wondering whether their child's or their spouse's illness is caused by 
the military's contamination on the base in their local community.
  They have paid for endless stockpiles of bottled water and higher 
utility fees, as their communities have taken steps to reduce the water 
system's exposure. I commend the steps the military has taken to date, 
but more can and must be done.
  I know that our communities in the Philadelphia area are, sadly, just 
the tip of the iceberg. This past year alone, since the EPA tightened 
its lifetime health advisory under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the 
Department has completed testing of 480 drinking water systems at 
locations where the Department supplies drinking water. It continues to 
conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections under CERCLA to 
identify sites where PFOA and PFOS may have been released by the 
Department of Defense.
  The Department spent approximately $200 million just last year in 
response to PFOA and PFOS contamination nationwide. This funding has 
been used to conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections, test 
drinking water systems, and provide mitigation such as bottled water or 
drinking water filtration systems where water system tests indicated 
PFOA and PFOS are above the EPA advisory levels.
  Unfortunately, though, the Department has been funding this response 
using existing funds that were originally programmed for other response 
actions.
  In order to support near-term outreach and engagement in local 
communities that have this impacted drinking water system and 
adequately prepare for long-term remediation of what is likely to be 
billions of dollars' and many years' worth of response, I worked with 
the House Armed Services Committee to increase its authorization for 
the Navy and Air Force environmental remediation accounts by an

[[Page 11994]]

additional $30 million each in the NDAA the House passed earlier this 
month. My amendment would bring the appropriation in line with that 
authorization.
  This funding is a necessary response to an ongoing environmental 
issue that is only going to get worse and more expensive for the 
Department, not to mention the countless innocent communities impacted 
across the country, both in Republican and Democratic districts.

                              {time}  1500

  I want to thank my Republican neighbors Pat Meehan and Brian 
Fitzpatrick for working with me on this issue in a truly bipartisan 
manner. I hope the House comes together in a similar manner today to 
strengthen our Department of Defense's response to drinking water 
contamination it is causing in the communities we represent.
  Mr. Chair, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fitzpatrick), my 
neighbor and colleague from Bucks County.
  Mr. FITZPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, with my limited time, I just want to 
say Brendan said it well. He has done a fabulous job working with 
Congressman Meehan and me, all of whom have districts that have been 
impacted by this real tragedy, and I stand in full support.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, I share many of the gentleman's concerns, and 
I appreciate him raising this issue. I support environmental 
remediation efforts that ensure that drinking water is safe in 
communities across the Nation. That is why this bill includes $1 
billion for environmental restoration.
  The amount represents $48 million more than the fiscal year 2017 
level and includes $10 million above the request to specifically 
address PFC contamination. In addition, we include an additional $57 
million for drinking water cleanup in the fiscal year 2017 supplemental 
appropriations.
  This committee has included significant funding to address drinking 
water contamination issues, and I am concerned that the Department will 
not be able to execute the additional $60 million offered by this 
amendment; therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. BRENDAN F. BOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Grothman

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 13 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 8, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000)''.
       Page 22, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their 
collaborative effort to bring this bill forward.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my amendment to H.R. 3219. Nothing 
is more important than the safety of our men and women in uniform, and 
I believe that we in Congress are committed to ensuring our armed 
services receive the best equipment possible. This equipment includes 
platforms like the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, or JLTV. This vehicle 
is the centerpiece of the Army and Marine Corps' tactical wheeled 
vehicle modernization strategy and closes an existing critical 
capability gap for both services.
  The JLTV demonstrates many significant improvements over the current 
vehicle fleet, including strengthened protection for passengers against 
current and future battlefield threats, more payload capacity, and 
better automotive performance.
  This is basically what replaces years ago what you would call your 
Jeep. Anybody who talks to veterans or hears about people being injured 
and all, so many of them died or were seriously injured driving in a 
vehicle that hit an explosive. These vehicles are going to be a 
dramatic improvement over what we have now as far as saving lives in 
our troops.
  As long as we have troops in Afghanistan, it is important that, as 
quickly as possible, we deliver the best equipment possible. To achieve 
that goal, Congress should maintain its support for the existing JLTV 
acquisition plan.
  Recently, we in the House passed the National Defense Authorization 
Act of 2018. My amendment to this appropriations bill would simply 
transfer funds from the operations and maintenance account in the bill 
and then appropriate those funds to the JLTV program to bring them in 
line with what we in the House authorized in the NDAA.
  The JLTV program supports American jobs with more than 300 suppliers 
from 30 States. Pure and simple, the JLTV platform will save lives and 
improve our troops' effectiveness in the field. I encourage my 
colleagues to support this amendment.
  Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GROTHMAN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his amendment. 
The amendment proposes to add funding back to the JLTV program, cutting 
the House defense bill due to a lack of information provided by the 
Army budget justification.
  The cut to the JLTV program reflects the committee's concern with the 
Army's failure to provide the full budget justification information for 
an $804 million program. Failure to provide this information makes it 
impossible for the committee to exercise its fiscal oversight 
responsibilities.
  However, the JLTV program is important to the warfighter and is 
executing well. I do not oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the Appropriations 
Committee for the hard work they have done.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 31 Offered by Mr. Dunn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 31 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 34, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced 
     by $30,000,000) (increased by $30,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Dunn) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.

[[Page 11995]]


  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chair, throughout the country, there are remote areas where the 
men and women of our armed services prepare for war in order to protect 
the peace.
  Although these places are often overlooked, our investments in 
military test and training ranges are returned to the Nation many times 
over in the projection of American military supremacy around the globe 
protecting the homeland and preserving international order.
  In the Southeast, the Joint Gulf Range Complex facilities are for 
testing and training of supersonic and hypersonic weapons systems, 
including combat training and live-fire exercises of the frontline 
fighters like the F-22 and F-35.
  The 325th Fighter Wing and the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group at 
Tyndall Air Force Base, the 96th Test Wing at Eglin Air Force Base, and 
the Special Operations Command at Hurlburt Field make extensive use of 
the Joint Gulf Range Complex.
  There is no comparable area in the United States near an established 
base with instrumentation infrastructure that can support advanced 
testing and joint training exercises like this. However, deployment of 
the instrumentation necessary to collect the data during the training 
on these fifth- and sixth-generation weapons systems is not in keeping 
with the U.S. Air Force needs. Instrumentation limitations have 
restricted the F-35 and F-22 training missions to the northernmost 
portion of the range. According to a study by the 96th Test Wing at 
Eglin Air Force Base, this limitation causes congestion and has 
obstructed at least 80 missions per year.
  This amendment, which I am offering with my Florida colleagues, Mr. 
Tom Rooney, Mr. Matt Gaetz, and Mr. Francis Rooney, will accelerate 
investments approved by Congress to deploy new infrastructure along the 
Joint Gulf Range Complex. The amendment will maximize the utility of 
this vast range, which is a true national treasure for combat training 
and advanced testing and evaluation.
  Mr. Chair, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DUNN. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the committee has no objection. The 
amendment's funding for major test facilities is critical to ensuring 
our military retains its competitive lead over our competitors. I am 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I am pleased to accept the gentleman's 
amendment.
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Gaetz), my colleague and friend.
  Mr. GAETZ. Mr. Chair, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank 
our colleagues in the House for their agreement.
  Mr. Chair, I rise in support of the brave men and women of the 
greatest military on Earth and to ensure that they are properly 
equipped for any and all challenges on the horizon. I support increased 
investments in our military test and training ranges with help from our 
Armed Forces to deal with the world's challenges.
  In my district, the Gulf Test Range provides approximately 120,000 
square miles of overwater airspace. It is used for high-altitude, 
supersonic air combat training, air-to-air missile testing, drone 
targeting, hypersonic weapons testing, space launches, and much more. 
It is critical training space for our Armed Forces, including the Air 
Force Special Operations Command, the 96th Test Wing, the 33rd Fighter 
Wing, and others. This is why I ask my colleagues to support the 
amendment to increase funding for the test range program.
  I thank the Congressman from Florida, Dr. Dunn, for his leadership, 
for the men and women in the military. I thank Chair Granger for her 
agreement to this amendment. I thank the minority party.
  Mr. DUNN. Mr. Chair, I have no further comments or remarks; however, 
I would like to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment to 
enhance military readiness and national security.
  Mr. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 35 Offered by Ms. Speier

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 35 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Page 37, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert 
     ``(reduced by $25,000,000) (increased by $25,000,000)''.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Speier) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, the American people are becoming more and 
more aware of the degenerative disease known as chronic traumatic 
encephalopathy, CTE, due to the crisis in the NFL. The NFL, of course, 
has been trying to sweep this under the rug.
  Very recently, the Journal of the American Medical Association, a 
premier journal that is peer-reviewed, provided a study that found 
severe neurological damage in the vast majority of former football 
players' brains that were donated for research after they developed 
mental symptoms during life. Eighty-seven percent of all football 
players' brains showed CTE, but a truly horrible figure, 99 percent of 
the brains of NFL players showed CTE.
  However, the dangers of CTE are not confined to football. Our 
servicemen and -women are subject to similar--or, oftentimes, even 
worse--dangers in the line of duty for the service they provide to our 
Nation.
  Last year, I was honored to host Dr. Bennet Omalu for the State of 
the Union. He is the doctor portrayed in the film ``Concussion,'' 
exposing the impact of CTE on professional football players. He began 
his research covering his own expenses and exposing a coverup of the 
suicides of former athletes. However, his research and the research of 
others is limited by the funding, which is why I am offering this 
amendment.
  Today we have an opportunity to prevent a similar kind of coverup 
among our service agencies. This amendment would dedicate $25 million 
in funding as part of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research 
Programs to award grants to medical researchers and universities to 
support early detection of CTE.

                              {time}  1515

  This amendment would not increase spending, but take the funding 
already allocated and put some of it--a very small part of it--towards 
CTE.
  Every hour, we lose another veteran to suicide. We have made great 
strides towards supporting PTSD research, but the exposure to IEDs and 
other blasts and blows to the head, may be doing similar damage, which 
goes unseen until it is too late. By diagnosing CTE early among 
servicemembers, perhaps we can begin to change the troubling trend of 
suicides among our veterans.
  You may hear arguments today that this amendment is not necessary, 
since DOD is already spending $125 million on TBI research. But this 
research is on short-term trauma, not on long-term effects of repeated 
head injuries and, what are called, subconcussive blows. Servicemembers 
at risk of CTE may not even have acute trauma. CTE can result from 
minor events over a long period of time.
  You may also hear that Congress shouldn't dictate the DOD research. 
But it is absolutely Congress' role to have input into DOD spending, 
and there is a huge need that is not being filled. And we already are 
requiring that they do TBI research as it is.

[[Page 11996]]

  Now, some have suggested: Well, there has been some projects funded. 
Of the $125 million of funding, the amount of money going to CTE 
projects has been, since 2012, only five projects, for a grand total 
cost of $2.9 million. And not one dime has been spent since 2013.
  It is time for us to accept that science is real here. JAMA has just 
put out a stunning report that suggests that this is a very serious 
problem, and it is time for us to combat this issue.
  Creating dedicated grants for the early detection of CTE has the 
potential to prevent suicides among our servicemembers and will have, I 
think, a very important impact on how we look at CTE in the future and 
how we make sure that our servicemembers are properly protected.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman's concern to 
provide adequate funding for this very important research, and we have 
spoken about it. I am a strong supporter of funding for research in 
this area, and that is why the bill already provides $125 million 
toward grants for PTSD and traumatic brain injury research, including 
CTE, which has previously received millions of dollars in research 
grants under this program.
  A previous amendment would create a new research program, focused 
solely on CTE research. And since CTE research is already eligible 
under the PTSD-TBI research program, it is much more appropriate to add 
funding to the PTSD-TBI program, rather than create a new research 
program. Therefore, I oppose the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Visclosky).
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly join with the chair in opposition to the 
gentlewoman's amendment and share the chair's concern over the issue 
raised. However, I don't think the approach is an appropriate one in 
that we would carve out another budget line.
  Given my anticipation that we will not have a full 12-month fiscal 
year for this money to be spent, I am very concerned that we will find 
enough projects for this money to be spent on. In the meantime, they 
would then be eliminated from the existing line for other possible 
research.
  Mr. Chairman, I would look to work with the gentlewoman to address 
this issue in a fulsome fashion, but not in this manner.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank both of my colleagues for their 
expression of support for the concept of making sure that CTE is 
studied.
  I am just hopeful that we can guarantee, through this amendment, that 
of that $125 million, some portion of it is set aside for CTE research. 
The fact that only $2.9 million has gone to CTE research since 2012, 
and not a dime since 2013, makes me worry that it is not a high 
priority within the Department.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).
  The amendment was rejected.


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 38 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Strike sections 8094 and 8095.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will strike sections 8094 and 8095 of 
the bill that prohibit the transfer of Guantanamo detainees to the 
United States and prohibit the use of funds to construct or modify 
facilities in the United States for Guantanamo detainees. These 
provisions are designed to further delay the transfer of detainees out 
of Guantanamo.
  Guantanamo is costing us a fortune. It costs the American taxpayer 
$10 million a year to keep a single detainee in Guantanamo, and only 
$78,000 to keep a detainee in a Federal maximum security prison in the 
United States. That is a waste of $440 million a year.
  Perhaps, most importantly, it is a question of values. What is most 
offensive is not that the prisoners are at Guantanamo, as opposed to 
some prison in the United States, but that we are holding people 
without any hearing, without any due process, essentially forever. That 
is against all American values.
  Mr. Chairman, we have debated Guantanamo amendments every year, 
multiple times a year. The last time was 2 weeks ago. It is an issue I 
care deeply about, and I offer this amendment again. However, 
yesterday, the President took an action that is so egregious, and so 
offensive, that I feel compelled to use a portion of my time to address 
it directly.
  Yesterday's attack by the Commander in Chief on our military's 
Active-Duty transgender personnel is appalling. Transgender individuals 
are part of the fabric of America and have always been part of our 
military, whether we have historically acknowledged them or not.
  The arguments against allowing transgender servicemembers to serve 
openly in our military are the same arguments that have been used 
against every other group that has been prohibited from serving in our 
country's history--including Black and Latino men, women, gays, 
lesbians, and bisexuals. Each time the doors of our military open 
farther to better reflect the diversity of our Nation, the same tired 
and discredited arguments are brought back: that any individual in the 
new group, regardless of his or her ability, is unfit to serve and that 
their service will disrupt unit cohesion.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself an additional 1 minute.
  Not only should all willing and able Americans be allowed and 
encouraged to serve--they already do. A report prepared for the 
Department of Defense estimates thousands of transgender individuals 
serve today, without issue.
  The President must not impose blanket bans that prejudge 
servicemembers based on their identity, rather than their own merits. 
President Trump is attacking people who have shown a willingness--
indeed, an eagerness--to risk their lives in the service of our 
country. It is apparent that the decision to ban transgender people 
from military service was taken without consulting Secretary of Defense 
Mattis, who seemed surprised by the tweets, or the military, which 
seems at a loss as to how to implement the order.
  Even if this bigoted order is motivated by political opportunism, it 
disgraces our country and must be rescinded.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, these important revisions have been 
included in several appropriations bills for several years running. 
They represent a strong and enduring consensus in Congress that 
Guantanamo should remain open and that detainees should not be 
transferred to the United States for any reason.
  Striking these provisions would have unknown consequences for U.S. 
communities. It is impossible to know how many detainees might be 
brought here, where they might be held, and the impacts on communities 
and facilities

[[Page 11997]]

holding them. It is also impossible to know what the potential costs 
could be.
  Putting detainees in U.S. prisons, as the administration originally 
proposed, would be disruptive and, potentially, disastrous. Former FBI 
Director Mueller has stated: ``To transfer detainees to local jails 
could affect or infect other prisoners or have the capability of 
affecting events outside the prison system.''
  The idea of bringing detainees for trials in the U.S. quickly 
collapsed as local jurisdictions voiced their strong opposition.
  As everyone here is aware, several detainees who have been released 
from Guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded 
Americans. The threat is real, and Guantanamo is already equipped to 
handle the detention and military trial of these individuals, as 
appropriate.
  Any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the United 
States, for any reason, is simply the wrong policy.
  I, therefore, oppose the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time, and I thank him for his continued leadership on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, which would 
remove a provision that prevents the Department of Defense from closing 
the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
  The continued use of this facility does not make our country safer 
and only serves to undermine our national security.
  Well respected military leaders and national security officials have 
said that Guantanamo remains a propaganda tool for terrorist groups 
that is used to incite violence against Americans.
  In 2015, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, 
which is composed of 57 member states, including all NATO allies, 
concluded that Guantanamo serves as an obstacle to counterterrorism 
cooperation and that the facility should be closed.
  In addition, the cost of housing detainees and maintaining the 
facility continues to be a financial drain on the Department of 
Defense.
  According to Human Rights First, Guantanamo costs the U.S. 
approximately $445 million per year to operate. The average cost per 
detainee at Guantanamo is more than $10 million.
  At the same time, the cost per prisoner at the Federal supermax 
prison in Colorado, which houses such terrorists as 9/11 conspirator 
Zacarias Moussaoui, World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef, and Boston 
Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is $78,000.
  Mr. Chairman, this should not be a partisan issue. National security 
experts on both sides of the aisle have concluded that keeping 
Guantanamo open is harmful to American interests.
  Secretaries of State from previous Republican administrations, 
including Henry Kissinger, James Baker, and Colin Powell, have all said 
that closing Guantanamo would improve America's image around the world.
  Former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey 
and Admiral Mike Mullen, have both said that the detention facility 
needs to be closed.
  Former President George W. Bush has said that the detention facility 
has ``become a propaganda tool for our enemies and a distraction for 
our allies.''
  Senator John McCain, the man whose credibility on the horrors of war 
is unimpeachable, has repeatedly said that he favors closing the 
detention facility because of the imagine of the United States that it 
projects to the rest of the world.
  Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will strengthen our 
national security and show the rest of the world the principle of equal 
justice under law is inviolable.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to send an important message about 
the values discussed and support the Nadler amendment.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, as the designee of the ranking member, I 
move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to rise in support of 
the gentleman's amendment, as it relates to the detention facility at 
Guantanamo Bay, and would simply make a few brief remarks.
  This is, I believe, a very substantive and serious issue facing a 
constitutional government, our government of laws.
  I would point out that it is a sad state of affairs if somewhere in 
the United States of America we cannot find a secure facility to detain 
41 individuals at this late date, given the fact that President Bush 
released over 500 people from Guantanamo, and President Obama released 
197.
  Mr. Chairman, I would simply close by observing that, within the last 
week, the Attorney General of the United States of America could not 
find a justification to have an alleged terrorist, who recruits for al-
Qaida, having been extradited from Spain, an Algerian, placed in 
Guantanamo. That person, as I understand it, as I speak at this moment, 
is being detained in the United States of America. That is what should 
happen with the other 41 people.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 39 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-261.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 41 printed in part B of 
House Report 115-261.

                              {time}  1530


                 Amendment No. 42 Offered by Mr. Foster

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 42 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used for the procurement, the deployment, or the research, 
     development, test, and evaluation of a space-based ballistic 
     missile intercept layer.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Foster) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.


                         parliamentary inquiry

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I just have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I have a question on the procedure. I 
understand that Mr. Foster is recognized. Did I lose track of an 
amendment for Mr. Polis?
  The Acting CHAIR. That amendment was called, and the gentleman was 
not present.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. And Mr. Poe?
  The Acting CHAIR. That amendment was also called, and the gentleman 
was not present.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. I appreciate the information. Sorry for the 
interruption very much.

[[Page 11998]]

  The Acting CHAIR. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the National Defense 
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2018 tasks the Missile Defense Agency 
with developing a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer.
  There is no doubt that a space-based missile defense, if it is 
technologically feasible and economically justifiable, would make an 
important contribution to our national security. So would the Star Trek 
transporter or the warp drive, but as a scientist and, in fact, the 
only Ph.D. scientist in the U.S. Congress, I think that we need to do 
our homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars into 
attempting to develop this system. As such, my amendment would prohibit 
the use of funds to attempt to develop a space-based missile intercept 
layer.
  It has been more than 30 years since President Reagan called for 
defending the United States against a first strike by developing a 
strategic defense system, commonly known as Star Wars.
  The idea of a space-based version of this has gone in and out of 
fashion for the last 30 years, but every time this space-based concept 
has been looked at by technologically competent outside experts, it was 
deemed to be unworkable, impossibly expensive, vulnerable to 
countermeasures, easy for an opponent to destroy, easy to overwhelm 
with a small number of enemy missiles, or all of the above. This 
approach was judged technologically unworkable in 1983, and the status 
quo has not changed.
  In order to reach a ballistic missile during the first few minutes of 
flight, a large number of interceptors must be stationed in low-
altitude orbit. A report conducted by the American Physical Society in 
2003 concluded that in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of 1,000 
or more orbiting satellites would be required to intercept just a 
single missile.
  To put that in perspective, the United States currently has slightly 
more than 600 satellites in Earth orbit, which includes commercial, 
scientific, and military satellites. Moreover, the amount of launch 
that is required to put this material into orbit in a reasonable amount 
of time would greatly exceed the current U.S. launch capability.
  The National Academies of Sciences estimated that it would cost at 
least $300 billion--in 2003 dollars--for just such a limited 
capability. And just last year, in his testimony to the House Armed 
Services Committee, the former Director of the Missile Defense 
Authority, Admiral Syring, concluded the same thing.
  Setting aside the high cost, a space-based missile defense system has 
inherent vulnerabilities that greatly limit its effectiveness. Even 
with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be within 
range to target an incoming missile, and those could be easily 
overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles from one location. And 
because interceptors must be stationed in low-altitude orbit, they are 
easily detected, tracked, and destroyed.
  Finally, there is a more fundamental question that we must ask 
ourselves. And that is: Is it wise to deploy weapons in space, 
especially when the required technology is becoming widely available 
around the world?
  Deploying such a system would strain strategic relationships around 
the globe and almost certainly trigger a space arms race.
  There is no doubt that ensuring our Nation's defense and national 
security are of paramount priority, but spending hundreds of billions 
of dollars on a system which will not work, without having serious 
debate and at least some concept for how this might be remotely 
practical or affordable, is indefensible.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on my 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, the space-based missile defense 
layer that we debate today will be one of the most significant 
technological advancements in our missile defense capability since 
Ronald Reagan first brought this possibility to the Nation.
  Mr. Foster's amendment would prevent the next revolution in missile 
defense as we seek to expand our umbrella protection into space, the 
ultimate high ground.
  Mr. Speaker, the most critical priority of this Congress is the 
defense of the Nation. If we fail that task, little else we might do 
will be of any consequence.
  To prohibit the development of the next generation missile defense 
capabilities because other countries will object is to grant our 
potential adversaries a veto over our national security. Mr. Foster's 
amendment would do just that.
  It should be noted that every significant missile defense milestone 
ever achieved by this Nation has been over the objections of gentlemen 
like Mr. Foster and his supporters. They have been wrong about missile 
defense for decades, and they have a consistent record of demonstrably 
bad judgment on this issue. They have imposed their philosophy on the 
science and physics involved. Theirs is a broken record which began 
playing back in the 1970s. If we had listened to them, we would have no 
missile defense today and we would all be completely vulnerable to the 
likes of North Korea.
  The reason it was called Star Wars was because they derisively 
renamed Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative to Star Wars and said 
it was impossible because it would be hitting a bullet with a bullet. 
But, Mr. Chairman, today we not only hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit 
a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet.
  The technology is here. We have demonstrated it time and time again. 
It is important to defeat this amendment for the sake of the 
Constitution, for the sake of the United States of America.
  Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I join Mr. Franks in his remarks, and I 
urge rejection of this amendment.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire how much time I have 
remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Illinois has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. FOSTER. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that Ronald 
Reagan never illuminated the possibility of this to the American 
public, because the possibility never existed.
  What we have today is not a missile defense system. It has failed in 
the great majority of tests. It has been tested against a very small 
fraction of the countermeasures that are elementary to deploy against 
it.
  I hope that no one involved in the missile defense system is telling 
President Trump that we have an effective antimissile system today, 
because if he gambles counting on any defense from that system, he is 
putting our country at risk.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining amount of my time to the ranking 
member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
  I simply would want to rise in support of his amendment. I would 
point out that in 2010, the Ballistic Missile Defense Review made no 
request for space-based interceptors. Currently, this is a matter under 
review by the Department. I think we should allow that review to be 
concluded before we expend moneys.
  The Acting CHAIR. The time of the gentleman from Illinois has 
expired.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, can I inquire as to how much 
time I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. FRANKS of Arizona. Mr. Chairman, I think I would just say that 
the opponents to missile defense, especially to space-based missile 
defense, have hilariously overstated the cost of this system.

[[Page 11999]]

  A regionally deployed system would cost in the range of $20 billion 
over 30 years, and the cost would go down, as launch costs often do.
  It is important to keep in mind that when two airplanes hit two 
buildings, it cost us $2 trillion.
  What would that cost have been like if it had been a nuclear warhead 
that hit New York?
  I would just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is important that we do 
all that we possibly can to make sure that that does not indeed occur.
  I don't know what price we put on national security, but the systems 
that we are talking about, our GMD system--our Ground-based Midcourse 
Defense system--was just tested against an ICBM target recently, and it 
was successful.
  We have had 14 out of 14 successful tests with our THAAD system--our 
Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system. The technology has been 
proven time and again.
  We should not undersell the United States of America. We can build 
the system. We will build it. It will help us get to the left of the 
launch. It will help us to be able to have a boost-phase defense 
against missiles when they are in their most vulnerable position and 
over enemy territory.
  This is vital for the American national security, for our future, for 
our children, and for our children's children. I would hope that we 
would defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).
  The amendment was rejected.


               Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 43 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. 10004.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may 
     be used to plan for, begin, continue, complete, process, or 
     approve a public-private competition under the Office of 
     Management and Budget Circular A-76.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would prohibit the Department of Defense from conducting what is called 
new A-76 studies. I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, as well 
as Mr. Cole of Oklahoma, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. Bishop of 
Utah, Mr. Donovan of New York, Mr. Cook of California, Mr. Ratcliffe of 
Texas, Mr. Loebsack of Iowa, Mr. Kilmer of Washington, Ms. Shea-Porter 
of New Hampshire, and Mr. Beyer of Virginia.
  These flawed A-76 studies are relying on a process that both the GAO 
and the inspector general of the Department of Defense determined could 
not demonstrate any savings to the American taxpayer. That is why A-76 
studies have been subject to a congressional moratorium since 2010. The 
amendment I am offering today would continue that moratorium.
  The fundamental flaw inherent in the A-76 process is the erroneous 
underlying methodology used to determine whether or not Federal 
civilian jobs would be outsourced. 2003 was the last time this process 
was updated.
  Mr. Chairman, the inspector general's report notes that it simply 
fails to keep track of costs and savings. It has no anchor in reality, 
and incorporates an arbitrary 12 percent overhead factor cost for 
Federal employees as opposed to contractors.
  The inspector general concluded that: ``. . . multimillion-dollar 
decisions are based, in part, on a factor not supported by data . . . 
Unless DOD develops a supportable rate or an alternative method to 
calculate a fair and reasonable rate, the results of future 
competitions will be questionable.''
  Decisions involving taxpayer money should never be based on such a 
faulty process, especially when American jobs are at risk as well.
  We are debating the appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars, 
the lion's share of our country's discretionary spending. This is as it 
should be. We should spare no expense to provide the best care for our 
veterans. We should not haggle over the national defense, but when we 
spend this much money, we have a responsibility to do it carefully and 
based on actual data.

                              {time}  1545

  As legislators, we should exercise care to ensure that we represent 
the interests of our constituents as well as possible. A flawed process 
based on pseudocalculations has no basis, no place in that reputation.
  Ultimately, the A-76 process uses faulty, antiquated methodology to 
determine whether Federal civilian jobs should be outsourced, a matter 
we simply cannot approach so haphazardly. Both the GAO and the 
inspector general of the DOD concluded the process could not 
demonstrate any savings for the American taxpayer. This A-76 process is 
outdated, antiquated, and simply not anchored in reality.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Franks of Arizona). The gentleman from 
California is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I support competition, and these 
competitions, as a whole, have been beneficial to the Department of 
Defense.
  The OMB has reported that, regardless of whether the Federal 
Government or the private contractor win the competition, the act of 
competition alone has saved or generated a cost savings up to 10 to 40 
percent--10 to 40 percent, just having the competition.
  This amendment would block opportunities for the defense industrial 
base, protect the status quo within the DOD civilian workforce, prevent 
cost savings at the DOD, and negate the natural innovation that comes 
from competition.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
  Ms. GRANGER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. GRANGER. I want to thank the gentleman for his valuable 
contributions to the Defense Subcommittee. I join him in opposition to 
this amendment that would limit the Defense Department's flexibility to 
achieve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.
  I urge rejection of the amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this body owes a duty to our 
warfighters, a duty to the taxpayers, and a duty to the civilian 
workforce. Allowing these flawed A-76 studies to move forward, it 
really is a breach to all three groups.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment, to maintain 
the moratorium currently in place on these A-76 studies and protect our 
military readiness from a process in desperate need of radical 
revision.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I would say we have a duty to taxpayers to 
perform the best we can, to give the best product to our warfighters at 
the best price. I urge a ``no'' on this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
will be postponed.


                Amendment No. 45 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 45 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.

[[Page 12000]]


  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
     available by this Act may be used with respect to Yemen in 
     contravention of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1541 et 
     seq.), including for the introduction of United States armed 
     or military forces into hostilities in Yemen, into situations 
     in Yemen where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly 
     indicated by the circumstances, or into Yemeni territory, 
     airspace, or waters while equipped for combat, in 
     contravention of the congressional consultation and reporting 
     requirements of sections 3 and 4 of such Resolution.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage my colleagues to 
support this amendment which simply says that none of these funds may 
be used in contravention of the War Powers Act in Yemen.
  We are involved in a critical effort to defeat enemies of our country 
who took action on 9/11. Al-Qaida and their affiliates have been 
declared enemies, an authorized force, for nearly 16 years now. And in 
Yemen, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula has found sanctuary.
  Unfortunately, we also find ourselves in conflict with other enemies 
there. It is clear that the Houthis, who are Shia, are not affiliates 
of al-Qaida. In fact, they are engaged in a civil war there.
  Over the years, we have sold arms and munitions, built a great 
alliance with a good ally in Saudi Arabia, and they are involved there. 
An enemy of the United States, Iran, is also involved as supporters of 
the Houthis, and so it is important to maintain our relationship with 
our ally Saudi Arabia.
  It is important to recognize the strategic, operational, and tactical 
threats posed by Iran and their proxies like the Houthis, but it is 
also important that we restore the emphasis of Article I of our 
Constitution and our clear duty in Congress to authorize our Nation's 
wars. So this amendment simply says nothing outside of the War Powers 
Act may be engaged in without further future authorization.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chair, the gentleman proposes an amendment that cuts 
all funding for the introduction of U.S. Armed Forces in the 
hostilities in Yemen. U.S. Forces need the flexibility to enter any 
theater where terrorists target the United States. Just 2 months ago, 
American Special Operations Forces conducted a ground raid against al-
Qaida's Yemen branch, killing seven suspected militants.
  We consulted leadership at the Department of Defense regarding this 
amendment. The Department recommends a more thorough legal review of 
the implications of this amendment.
  Further, the Joint Staff asserts that a U.S. provision of limited 
support to the Saudi-led coalition might be construed in this context 
as participation in civil war, in which case, removal of such support 
could have a damaging effect on the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia 
and create further implications for regional security.
  With Special Operations fighting terrorism around the globe to 
protect our safety, does Congress want to show its lack of support?
  This amendment is poorly timed and overly restrictive and has many 
unforeseen complications. Therefore, the committee strongly opposes 
this amendment.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. GRANGER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky), 
the ranking member.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentlewoman for 
yielding and join her in opposition; although, I must tell you I am 
always very reserved about opposing an amendment put forth by a Notre 
Dame graduate.
  But, in all seriousness, I would say that I do appreciate the 
gentleman's concern with the devolving situation in Yemen in that we do 
not want to get involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran.
  I am also in agreement with much of the intent behind the amendment 
and certainly agree that Congress has relinquished much of its 
oversight role over Presidential decisions about sending U.S. Armed 
Forces into hostilities provided under the War Powers Act. That is why 
I am a strong supporter of efforts to develop a new Authorization for 
Use of Military Force for the global war on terror. Congress needs to, 
finally, after 16 years, carry out its constitutional duty and stop 
hiding from this very important debate that the gentleman has raised in 
his amendment.
  However, I do have concerns that the gentleman's amendment, as 
written, is overly broad and would place undue restrictions on U.S. 
Forces within the Middle East to respond to legitimate threats within 
Yemen.
  So, again, very reluctantly, I join with the chairwoman in 
opposition, and I appreciate her yielding.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I respect the arguments of my colleagues 
in support of our national command authority. I wholeheartedly support 
that. In fact, I wore our Nation's uniform for nearly 12 years, served 
in Ranger Regiment, though I was not involved as a combat veteran.
  I would not want to do anything to limit our ability to fight and win 
the war on terror. Indeed, the sole intent of this is to keep us laser-
focused where we can. Resources are scarce, and the need to focus on 
defeating our enemies who have already been authorized by combat to 
engage in combat is critical.
  In fact, it does alarm me to see that there is some concern that this 
is overly broad and limiting, as it is the law of the land. The War 
Powers Act is recognized as something that does give our Commanders 
flexibility. It gives them 90 days to engage in combat anywhere where 
there is a clear and present danger to the national security of the 
United States.
  That could very well happen in that region of the country. The waters 
are tight. The threats are real. As I said, there are strategic, 
operational, and tactical concerns at play.
  But this is nothing different than what President Eisenhower foresaw. 
In an enduring conflict, he said: ``We face a hostile ideology global 
in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in 
method.
  ``Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite 
duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the 
emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which 
enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the 
burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle--with liberty at stake. 
Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted 
course toward permanent peace and human betterment.''
  I couldn't say it better, so I borrowed President Eisenhower's words.
  I hope we can respect our Constitution, as our duty under it, the 
oath we have sworn to support and defend it, to limit the scope of our 
war to things that are Congress-authorized and not passive-aggressively 
through funding and cutting the checks, but through full authorization. 
We do not have such authorizations with respect to the Houthis, whether 
they are in Yemen or other Iranian proxies outside the scope of the War 
Powers Act.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to the amendment, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Lamborn). The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  The amendment was rejected.

[[Page 12001]]




                Amendment No. 47 Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 47 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of division A (before the short title), insert 
     the following:
       Sec. _.  None of the finds made available by this Act may 
     be used to purchase heavy water from Iran.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 478, the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. DeSantis) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a very simple 
limitation amendment: No funds made available by this act may be used 
to purchase heavy water from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
  Why are we doing this?
  If you remember, the JCPOA provided Iran with $150 billion in 
sanctions relief, even had the appalling spectacle of planes hauling in 
$1.7 billion in cold, hard cash, dropped off in Tehran. So this regime 
has been flush with money as a result of the nuclear deal done during 
the Obama administration.
  One of the frustrating things about that was that, even after that 
deal is enacted, even after all this money is flowing as a result of 
the deal, the Obama administration--this was not even required by the 
deal--sent millions of dollars to Iran in order to get heavy water. And 
that was not required by the deal. That was a gratuitous transaction, 
but it certainly provided more economic--an even greater economic 
lifeline to Iran.
  This is still, to this day, the world's leading state sponsor of 
terrorism. They are fomenting discord all around the Middle East, in 
Lebanon, in Syria. They fund Hamas in the Gaza Strip. They are 
supporting the Houthis in Yemen. They have major control over portions 
of Iraq, and the Shiite militias that they back are running rampant.
  Remember, they were probably the leading source of U.S. servicemember 
deaths in Iraq during the Iraq campaign. They funded Shiite militias. 
They had their Quds Force from Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps on the 
ground in Iraq; and certainly, hundreds of our servicemembers, some 
estimates say as many as 1,500 servicemembers, were killed from some of 
these Iranian proxies. They have never been held accountable for that.

                              {time}  1600

  Now this administration came in saying the Iran deal was a bad deal. 
They haven't left the deal. They haven't really done anything to fight 
back against the deal, and I hope that will happen. But in the 
meantime, I want to make sure that this administration is not repeating 
the mistakes of the Obama administration. No more taxpayer dollars to 
the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chair, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would acknowledge that Iran 
is up to very nefarious purposes as far as sponsoring terrorism 
internationally.
  I also acknowledge the gentleman referenced the previous 
administration more than once during his remarks as far as the issue 
before the House today.
  In 2016, last year, heavy water was purchased by the Department of 
Energy and the State Department, but I would point out this is 2017 
with a different administration, and essentially the amendment is a 
solution to a problem that does not exist.
  The current administration has recertified Iran's compliance with the 
agreement twice. Iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is subject to 
intense scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
  But importantly to the point raised today, I would suggest that the 
Department of Energy consistently has indicated at the time of the 2016 
heavy water purchase from Iran that the United States would not be a 
regular buyer of Iranian heavy water.
  Since that purchase, the United States has not purchased any 
additional heavy water from that country. In fact, the U.S. has, 
through refraining from purchases of excess supply, forced Iran to ship 
excess heavy water abroad so that it can continue to adhere to the 
agreement entered into.
  It seems highly unlikely that the current administration would now 
seek out an opportunity to purchase this heavy water.
  Again, I believe the gentleman has a solution to a problem that does 
not exist, and I am opposed to his amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, if you want money to go 
to purchase heavy water from Iran, then obviously you should oppose the 
amendment. But if you don't think that is a good idea, then it doesn't 
hurt us to have this in here, given what has happened in the past.
  I wish I had 100 percent confidence that we would not be repeating 
mistakes. I hope that is where we go, but I have not yet seen the real 
robust action to turn the tide away from a deal that has put Iran on 
the path to a nuclear bomb. The danger with the deal was always less 
that Iran would cheat on the deal. I think they probably are, but the 
danger is they get a bomb by keeping the deal.
  This is a major problem. This is one small area of this to protect 
the taxpayer.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. DeSANTIS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida will 
be postponed.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, as we begin to conclude debate on 
H.R. 3219, the Make America Secure Appropriations Act, I am sure I join 
with Ranking Member Nita Lowey in thanking all the Members of the House 
for the manner in which this debate has been conducted over the last 
couple of days.
  I thank the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and the Members 
who presented well over 120 amendments that were made in order.
  Let me reiterate why this package of appropriations bills is so 
important. From 2010 to 2014, defense spending was cut 21 percent in 
real terms. We heard that from Chairman Thornberry of the Armed 
Services Committee. Yet, as we know, the world did not get 21 percent 
safer.
  In fact, we ask more of our military than ever before, and we need to 
support them here at home and abroad.
  Today--and I said this earlier in the debate--we have the oldest Air 
Force in history, the Navy's fleet is smaller than it has been in 
decades, and the Army has just three combat brigade teams fully 
prepared to fight.
  Moreover, we have too many aircraft that can't fly, too many ships 
that cannot sail, too many troops who cannot deploy. We need better 
equipment and training for our warfighters, and we need more of the 
warfighters. We need a cyber component that is really effective.
  In April--it seems like years ago--we began to rebuild our Armed 
Forces with the fiscal year 2017 consolidated appropriations bill. 
Today, this legislation we are considering continues that critical 
work.

[[Page 12002]]

  Mr. Chairman, this four-bill package is carefully crafted to fund our 
critical military priorities, reinforce our nuclear deterrent, support 
veterans, make our borders more secure, and strengthen protection for 
our constituents and for Members.
  Once again, I thank Chairwoman Kay Granger; Chairmen Mike Simpson, 
Charlie Dent, Kevin Yoder; all chairmen and their ranking counterparts; 
and our remarkable staff for bringing us to the finish line this 
afternoon, earlier than we thought.
  I also thank the rest of the Members and the staff of the 
Appropriations Committee for their extraordinary efforts over the past 
several months. It was full speed ahead, and they performed in a 
remarkable way.
  I would like to note the work of our clerk Nancy Fox and her team, 
Jim Kulikowski, Carol Murphy, Shannon O'Keefe, Stephen Sepp, Maureen 
Holohan, Jennifer Hing, Marta Dehmlow Hernandez, Tammy Hughes, Rachel 
Kahler, David Roth.
  And in my personal office: Katie Hazlett.
  And those who work with Mrs. Lowey--and this may be the short list--
Shalanda Young, Chris Bigelow, Adam Berg, and Becky Leggieri.
  May I say that I didn't mean to leave out Chairman Carter of the 
Homeland Security Committee for the work that he has done.
  My colleagues, each and every one of these bills deserves to be sent 
to the President's desk. I look forward to completing our work on all 
12 appropriations bills when we return from the recess, or perhaps even 
before then.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the bill, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 48 
printed in part B of House Report 115-261.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I wish we were considering bills under 
regular order, but I hope that in the weeks ahead we can work together 
to raise the budget caps and enact bipartisan bills we can all support.
  I thank Chairman Frelinghuysen, my friend; and Kay Granger, the 
chair; and, of course, Pete Visclosky for your hard work on this bill.
  However, this is not the regular way to proceed. I urge my colleagues 
to vote ``no'' on this bill which would waste $1.6 billion on Trump's 
border wall, use fraudulent defense numbers, gut critical investments 
in clean energy, include poison pill riders, and leave the remaining 
spending bills with no path forward.
  Mr. Chairman, as I conclude, I thank again all of the Members, all of 
my hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle. On this bill, I urge a 
``no'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


 Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment Offered by Mr. DeSantis

  Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Florida to the end that the Chair puts the question de novo.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings 
will now resume on those amendments printed in part B of House Report 
115-261 on which further proceedings were postponed, in the following 
order:
  Amendment No. 10 by Mr. Suozzi of New York.
  Amendment No. 12 by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania.
  Amendment No. 38 by Mr. Nadler of New York.
  Amendment No. 43 by Mr. Cartwright of Pennsylvania.
  The Chair will reduce to 2 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Suozzi

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Suozzi) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 214, 
noes 211, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 430]

                               AYES--214

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     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
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tiberi
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--211

     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 (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Engel
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Flores
     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)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn

[[Page 12003]]


     Lance
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     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)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise

                              {time}  1641

  Messrs. POE of Texas, COLLINS of New York, McCARTHY, RICE of South 
Carolina, HARRIS, JOYCE of Ohio, and Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois, CASTRO of Texas, KATKO, LOWENTHAL, 
ELLISON, BEYER, COOPER, SIMPSON, TIBERI, GENE GREEN of Texas, Ms. ROS-
LEHTINEN, Messrs. WALZ, COSTA, FLEISCHMANN, O'ROURKE, and YOUNG of Iowa 
changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Announcement By the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Poe of Texas). The next amendment votes will be 
2-minute votes. Members are advised to stay on the floor.


    Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Brendan F. Boyle of Pennsylvania) on which further 
proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice 
vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 256, 
noes 169, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 431]

                               AYES--256

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aguilar
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Byrne
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coffman
     Cohen
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Franks (AZ)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gibbs
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hartzler
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Hunter
     Hurd
     Issa
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Knight
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamborn
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latta
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Mast
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McSally
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mooney (WV)
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Rothfus
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schweikert
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Smucker
     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wenstrup
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--169

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Barr
     Barton
     Biggs
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Cooper
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     Denham
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Flores
     Foxx
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gohmert
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Holding
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hultgren
     Jenkins (KS)
     Jenkins (WV)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mullin
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young (IA)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1646

  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York, Messrs. HUNTER and RODNEY DAVIS 
of Illinois changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 38 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Nadler) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

[[Page 12004]]




                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 172, 
noes 252, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 432]

                               AYES--172

     Adams
     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
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sanchez
     Sanford
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Speier
     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

                               NOES--252

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     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
     Cardenas
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Correa
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Crist
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gallego
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green, Gene
     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
     Jones
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Katko
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latta
     Lawson (FL)
     Lewis (MN)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     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
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Peterson
     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
     Rosen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Sewell (AL)
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Sires
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Suozzi
     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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Babin
     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (during the vote). There is 1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1651

  Mr. SCHNEIDER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


               Amendment No. 43 Offered by Mr. Cartwright

  The Acting CHAIR. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The Acting CHAIR. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The Acting CHAIR. This is a 2-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 253, 
noes 172, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 433]

                               AYES--253

     Abraham
     Adams
     Aderholt
     Aguilar
     Barletta
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Bergman
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bost
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Bridenstine
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Buchanan
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comstock
     Connolly
     Conyers
     Cook
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Costello (PA)
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     Davis, Rodney
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donovan
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Dunn
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Faso
     Fitzpatrick
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     LaMalfa
     Lance
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Love
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lujan Grisham, M.
     Lujan, Ben Ray
     Lynch
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Marino
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McKinley
     McNerney
     Meehan
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (PA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Newhouse
     Nolan
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     O'Rourke
     Palazzo
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Paulsen
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Posey
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rosen
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, Austin
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuster
     Sinema
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)

[[Page 12005]]


     Soto
     Speier
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Tenney
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thompson (PA)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Westerman
     Wilson (FL)
     Wittman
     Woodall
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--172

     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barr
     Barton
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Davidson
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Ferguson
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     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
     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)
     Kelly (MS)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Knight
     Kustoff (TN)
     Labrador
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lewis (MN)
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Sanford
     Schweikert
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Yoder
     Yoho

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Palmer
     Roskam
     Ryan (OH)
     Scalise


                    Announcement by the Acting Chair

  The Acting CHAIR (Mr. Collins of Georgia) (during the vote). There is 
1 minute remaining.

                              {time}  1656

  Ms. STEFANIK and Mr. DENHAM changed their vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The Acting CHAIR. There being no further amendments, under the rule, 
the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. Poe 
of Texas) having assumed the chair, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Acting 
Chair of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 3219) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, and for other purposes, and, 
pursuant to House Resolution 478, he reported the bill, as amended by 
that resolution and by House Resolution 473, back to the House with 
sundry further amendments adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from 
the Committee of the Whole? If not, the Chair will put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the 
desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill?
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Yes, I am opposed to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Strike division E.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from California is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, this is the final amendment to the 
bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. If 
adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage, as 
amended.
  In last year's election, no campaign rhetoric was more infamous than 
the President's promise to ``build a great, great wall on our Southern 
border'' and ``make Mexico pay for it.''
  The reality is the funding would come from U.S. taxpayers, not from 
Mexico, as the President promised. This motion to recommit strikes the 
$1.6 billion appropriation for construction of nearly 74 miles of 
border wall.
  Beyond the initial 74 miles, we have no idea of how many miles of 
border wall the President plans to build or how much it will cost 
because we have not received the required report on the long-term plan 
and justification for border security investments.
  Even with the plan, we will need time to evaluate whether investments 
in the border wall are more cost effective than alternatives and more 
urgent than clearly established unmet needs.
  With $1.6 billion, we could buy two of the four heavy Coast Guard 
icebreakers we need to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic. This 
purchase would help minimize the danger highlighted in a National 
Academies of Science report, which concluded the Coast Guard requires 
four new heavy icebreakers to protect U.S. interests in the Arctic, 
where Russia has an ever-increasing presence.
  The Coast Guard is ready to solicit proposals for new icebreakers in 
fiscal year 2018. In this bill there is no funding for essential 
icebreakers. There is no acquisition funding for them in the Homeland 
Security bill.
  The $1.6 billion could also be used for investments in additional 
scanning technology in the hiring of thousands of Customs officers at 
every U.S. port of entry. This would reduce wait times for travelers, 
better facilitate the flow of commerce, and contribute to economic 
growth in many of our districts. It would also enhance our ability to 
intercept contraband and illegal narcotics mostly smuggled directly 
into the U.S. through our ports of entry, not where the wall would be 
built.
  The bill before us does not adequately address these and other areas 
of security vulnerabilities.
  As Members of Congress, protecting our Nation and the American public 
is our greatest responsibility. It is our obligation to act in their 
best interest and to invest their tax dollars wisely. If the only 
Homeland Security item in this bill remains the funding for 74 miles of 
border wall, we will fail to meet our obligations.
  Unfortunately, the President's border wall is now a proxy for the 
broader immigration debate. There is a false and misleading assumption 
that building a border wall will solve the immigration challenges we 
face. The reality is we will never be able to fix our broken 
immigration system with an enforcement-only approach that turns a blind 
eye to the desperate circumstances that compels so many to make the 
often deadly journey to the U.S.
  We will never be able to address our immigration challenges by 
treating as criminals the millions of undocumented people in this 
country, many of whom are our neighbors and friends.
  For years or even decades, the vast majority have called the U.S. 
their home. They have paid their taxes, acted responsibly, contributed 
to their communities, and worked hard to provide opportunity for their 
family.
  Immigration enforcement is as much a moral issue as it is a legal 
one. Our Statue of Liberty has always been a welcoming symbol of hope 
for those who, like now, are fleeing poverty, oppression, famine, war, 
and violence in their home country. Many of our ancestors come from 
somewhere else, often within certain legal status, and made significant 
contributions to help

[[Page 12006]]

our country become the greatest in the world. Today's immigrants 
continue to contribute to that noble legacy.
  What we truly need is comprehensive immigration reform that protects 
our homeland and reflects our American values. Democrats stand ready to 
work with Republicans to achieve that goal, but Democrats will not 
support the use of taxpayer dollars for an ill-conceived border wall 
that has more to do with a campaign promise than the security of our 
homeland.
  In spite of the President's assurances, Mexico is not paying for this 
wall. The American taxpayer is. My motion to recommit would prevent 
that from happening. I urge my colleagues to support the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States Senate is now considering what is 
called a ``skinny bill'' on the Affordable Care Act.
  The Senators are being told that they are voting for that bill to 
send it over here so it can go to conference and be perfected.
  The Rules Committee has just met and a provision was offered to the 
martial law, which means that we can take something up right away, that 
what we can take up is to go to conference. That was rejected by the 
Rules Committee.
  There is a suspicion that I have--and I see the majority leader on 
the floor--that there may be an intent to send the bill immediately 
back to the Senate and have it go to the President without 72 hours of 
consideration, without hearings, without scoring. I would hope the 
majority leader could give us assurances.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, as we gather here, nearly 250,000 men 
and women in uniform are deployed in nearly 177 countries in all 
corners of the globe. Another 2 million Active Guard and Reserve are 
standing watch back here at home in the United States.
  They are doing their jobs. We should do our jobs by providing them 
with everything they need to complete their mission. They are trusting 
us to do our jobs.
  Defeat the motion to recommit, support national security, and vote 
``yes'' on final passage.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by a 5-minute 
vote on passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 234, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 434]

                               AYES--193

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

                               NOES--234

     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 (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
     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 (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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Roskam
     Scalise


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1713

  So the motion to recommit was rejected.

[[Page 12007]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  Under clause 10 of rule XX, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 192, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 435]

                               YEAS--235

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     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
     Crist
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     Dent
     DeSantis
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Farenthold
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     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
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Meehan
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (PA)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--192

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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Cummings
     Fortenberry
     Hollingsworth
     Napolitano
     Roskam
     Scalise


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1719

  Miss RICE of New York changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during rollcall votes No. 
430 through No. 435 due to my spouse's health situation in California. 
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Souzzi Amendment. 
I would have also voted ``yea'' on the Boyle Amendment. I would have 
also voted ``yea'' on the Nadler Amendment. I would have also voted 
``yea'' on the Cartwright Amendment. I would have also voted ``yea'' on 
the Democratic Motion to Recommitt H.R. 3219. I would have also voted 
``nay'' on the Final Passage of H.R. 3219--``Make America Secure 
Appropriations Act, 2018.''

                          ____________________