[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4593-H4603]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1230
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5515, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019, AND PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS
DURING THE PERIOD FROM MAY 25, 2018, THROUGH JUNE 4, 2018
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 908 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 908
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize
appropriations for fiscal year 2019 for military activities
of the Department of Defense and for military construction,
to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal
year, and for other purposes.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order
printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. (c) All points of order against
the further amendments printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this
resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed
[[Page H4594]]
of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Armed Services or their
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment pursuant to this resolution the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 5. On any legislative day during the period from May
25, 2018, through June 4, 2018 -- (a) the Journal of the
proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as
approved; and (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House
adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of
clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be
announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 6. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a)
of rule I.
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day of
continuous session for purposes of section 1017(b) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (2
U.S.C. 688(b)).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 908 provides for complete
consideration of H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2019.
The rule makes in order 168 amendments to go along with the previous
103 amendments made in order by yesterday's rule.
That means the full House will consider 271 amendments to this year's
NDAA. When you add in the 317 amendments considered in the Armed
Services Committee, that means a total of 588 amendments to the NDAA
will be considered this year.
Mr. Speaker, for this year's NDAA, a record number of amendments were
submitted to the Rules Committee.
I want to thank both the majority and the minority Rules Committee
staff, our Rules associates, and the staff of the Armed Services
Committee for the many hours they put into this open and deliberative
process.
As a member of both the Rules Committee and the Armed Services
Committee, I have spent my fair share of time working on this piece of
legislation.
Like years past, I want to again highlight the bipartisan nature of
our work. This year's NDAA passed out of the Armed Services Committee
on a bipartisan 60-1 vote.
That bipartisanship will continue here on the floor, where 176 of the
amendments made in order are minority or bipartisan amendments.
The theme of this year's NDAA is to reform and rebuild our Nation's
military. The bill supports an increase in top-line funding for the
military, as we continue working to reverse the readiness crisis we
faced for at least the last decade.
Any organization, including the military, is only as good as its
people, and this NDAA authorizes a 2.6 percent pay raise for our
troops, the largest increase in 9 years. This will help us retain and
recruit the best and the brightest.
The bill also calls for increases in the size of the Army, the Navy,
the Air Force, the Marine Corps, the Naval and Air Reserves, as well as
the Air Guard.
As vice chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee,
I am pleased the bill authorizes construction of 13 new Navy ships.
This is a much-needed step, as we continue building towards a 355-ship
Navy.
I am especially proud that this year's NDAA includes many provisions
important to my home State of Alabama. From Redstone Arsenal in
Huntsville to the Anniston Army Depot to Fort Rucker in the Wiregrass
to Maxwell-Gunter in Montgomery to the Austal Shipyard in Mobile, this
bill ensures that Alabama will continue playing a leading role in
supplying, training, and supporting our Nation's military.
Sadly, we have lost far too many servicemembers to training accidents
over the last year. The bill ensures improvements to military training
and safety programs to help protect our servicemen and -women.
These efforts include repairing outdated equipment and ensuring the
procurement of new first-class capabilities. This includes additional
Stryker A1 combat vehicles, Army armored brigade combat team vehicles,
F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, C-130 Super Hercules aircraft, E-2D Advanced
Hawkeye aircraft, F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, UH-60M Black Hawk
helicopters, and advanced missiles.
The bill continues to build on Chairman Thornberry's priority of
reforming the Pentagon bureaucracy to make it more efficient and
effective. This includes streamlining buying practices.
From Russia to Iran to China to North Korea, the bill makes
investments to ensure we are keeping up with our adversaries. The
United States must stand ready to confront aggression around the globe,
whether it is from major state actors or rogue terrorist organizations.
Importantly, this year's NDAA includes much-needed investment in our
nuclear deterrent and authorizations for the Missile Defense Agency.
It authorizes funding for codevelopment and coproduction of missile
defense and weapons systems with our key ally, Israel.
All told, I am confident that this bill includes the reforms and
funding levels necessary to rebuild and empower the greatest fighting
force in the world.
With this NDAA, we can hopefully continue to embody the strategy of
peace through strength and support our servicemembers.
Mr. Speaker, if you ever need a pick-me-up or a shot in the arm, I
encourage you to spend some time visiting with our servicemen and -
women. These individuals come from all different walks of life and
backgrounds. They all play different roles and have different jobs, but
they are united by the common goal of defending and protecting the
United States of America.
I distinctly remember a conversation I had with a group of sailors
from my home State of Alabama aboard the USS John C. Stennis a few
years ago.
After hearing about their various paths that led them to the Navy, I
asked what I could do for them. One response was straightforward, but
very poignant. She asked me to make sure the American people knew what
they did and that we supported them.
That is exactly what we do with this bill. We bring together Members
of Congress from both sides of the aisle, from different parts of the
country, and we unite behind the common goal of supporting the men and
women in uniform who protect the United States of America.
With this bill, we can send a clear message to our sailors, soldiers,
airmen and marines that the United States Congress has their back, that
we are committed to the mission, and we will ensure that they have the
right policies and the right resources to get the job done.
This bill also sends a message to our friends and our adversaries
that America is back, and that while we prefer peace, we will not
hesitate to do what is necessary to defend our country and protect our
interests.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting House
Resolution 908, and for the 58th year in a row, let's pass a bipartisan
NDAA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
=========================== NOTE ===========================
May 23, 2018, on page H4594, the following appeared: Mr.
MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
The online version has been corrected to read: Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MCGOVERN
asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MCGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act is one of the
most
[[Page H4595]]
important items Congress considers. It is among the few authorizing
bills we take up, and the only authorizing bill considered by the House
every year.
It is legislation designed to meet some of our most important
obligations: increasing our military's readiness, supporting our
troops, and safeguarding our national security.
But as critical as this measure is, the base bill is rarely perfect.
That is why hundreds of amendments are submitted to the Rules Committee
every year by Members on both sides of the aisle. Our meetings on this
bill are usually the longest the committee holds all year because so
many Members bring forward so many ideas.
That is how the committee is supposed to function. And debating those
ideas on this floor, even amendments we disagree with, is how the House
of Representatives is supposed to work. That kind of process should not
be the exception. It should be the norm.
I know this may seem like a radical idea to the majority, but the
world's greatest deliberative body should regularly debate.
Instead, this majority has developed a pattern: Every now and then
they make a bunch of amendments in order on larger bills like this. But
most of the time, they don't allow any amendments on most bills.
Roughly 55 percent of all the rules that the majority has implemented
this Congress have been closed. So Members cannot do their job offering
amendments here on the House floor to address the biggest issues we
face.
Under a closed rule, I will remind my colleagues, you can't even fix
a typo in a bill.
Now, I know my Republican friends want to be congratulated for not
considering this bill under yet another closed rule. After all, they
broke their own record for closed rules this week, a sad milestone that
makes this Congress the most closed Congress in history.
This is the most closed Congress ever in the history of the United
States of America.
In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only Speaker in the history of our
country to never have a truly open rule.
But I think the American people hold the majority of this House to a
higher standard. Just consider what Republicans have blocked from even
getting a debate under this rule.
The majority on the Rules Committee decided to block the bipartisan
McGovern-Jones-Lee-Garamendi-Kildee-Welch amendment. Now, this is a
straightforward measure. It says that if the President and the Pentagon
want to escalate the number of U.S. troops deployed in Afghanistan in
the next fiscal year, they need to send a report to Congress. We would
then have 30 days to either disapprove of this escalation or allow it
to move forward.
It is simple, because all it asks is for this Congress to do its job,
to stop abdicating its responsibility. It has been 17 years since
Congress last passed an AUMF. We have been told year after year,
Congress after Congress, that this is not the time to debate our role
abroad.
Well, Mr. Speaker, when is the time?
We submitted this amendment to the Rules Committee last year during
the FY 2018 defense authorization. But rather than making it in order,
the majority moved forward with an alternative amendment that called
for a report from the administration on our Afghanistan policy.
The President signed that NDAA into law with that amendment. And
guess what? Congress never got the report. It is more than 70 days past
due.
Clearly, asking for a study isn't working. In fact, the President is
ignoring it altogether. And over the last year, the administration
decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by more
than 4,000 additional servicemembers. That is on top of the more than
8,400 troops that are already there. The response from this majority
has either been silence or to ask for a study.
Mr. Speaker, I don't need some study to tell me that this Congress
needs to do its job. Issues of war and peace are among the toughest we
consider, but we must take them up all the same. It is why we were sent
here and it is what our men and women in uniform expect.
Why is the majority afraid of a fair fight? Let's debate whether
President Trump should increase our engagement in Afghanistan even
further.
{time} 1245
I am tired of being told that this is not the time for that vote
because I believe it is past time. I have stood here year after year,
Congress after Congress, as Speaker after Speaker told us to hurry up
and wait.
I remember when Speaker Boehner said it wasn't right for the 113th
Congress to be voting on an AUMF. We are now in the 115th Congress and
another Speaker has told us the same thing. But again this year, a vote
on an AUMF has been blocked.
The majority also blocked debating amendments under this rule on
other important issues, like striking the provision in this bill
allowing for the transfer of machine guns between contractors and a
separate measure to strike the provision here giving the President
leeway to avoid implementing Russian sanctions.
That is disappointing, and it is a disservice to this institution and
to the people we represent. For all of the talk from the majority about
how many amendments are included here, let's not forget what is being
blocked.
This bill is incredibly important. It authorizes money for more than
half of the Nation's discretionary budget. That is about 54 cents of
every tax dollar that pays for government programs other than
entitlements. We should be having a robust debate on these issues here
and now.
Yes, we appreciate quantity; that is important. We want a lot of
amendments made in order, but we would like quantity and quality. So
substantive amendments like the issues that I just mentioned ought to
be made in order.
When it comes to our national defense, when it comes to debating the
issues that are important to the American people, I want to let my
colleagues know we Democrats aren't cheap dates. We want to have our
ideas presented and debated. And the American people aren't cheap dates
either. They can't understand for the life of themselves why on issues
of war and peace, on issues like our involvement in Afghanistan, which
is now the longest war in history, why we don't think it is important
enough to debate that issue. We have men and women deployed in harm's
way, but we can't be bothered on the House floor.
We have roadblocks thrown in front of us so we can't bring these
amendments to the floor. We have a thousand excuses about why we can't
deal with some of these issues, why this is not the time. Enough. I
mean, this is what we are here for. If you don't want to talk about
these issues, if you don't want to debate these issues, leave, go into
another business, but don't take up space here in Congress spending all
of your time trying to block these amendments from being brought to the
floor.
Mr. Speaker, I know a more open process is a foreign concept to the
majority, but they should try it once in a while. This is the most
closed Congress ever. Let's let the sunlight in. Let's have a process
that is more accommodating.
And on this defense bill, yes, there are a lot of amendments that
have been made in order, but there were a lot of important, vital
amendments that have been blocked, and I find that very disappointing.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let's compare the records of the Republicans and the Democrats and
who has the most open Congress.
As of May 23 of this year, Republicans in this Congress have provided
for consideration of over 1,130 amendments on the House floor. Over 520
of those, or 46 percent, were Democratic amendments; 430, or 38
percent, were Republican; and 170, or 16 percent, were bipartisan. In
the 114th Congress, the GOP majority allowed over 1,700 amendments. In
the 113th Congress, the GOP majority allowed over 1,500 amendments.
In the entire 111th Congress, when the Democrats were in control,
Speaker Pelosi, the Democrats, allowed less than 1,000 amendments to be
considered on the floor.
Who is more open? Democrats have highlighted the number of amendments
not made in order in this Congress. However, in the 111th Congress when
[[Page H4596]]
they controlled, their majority blocked nearly 3,000 amendments, with
roughly 2,400 of those occurring in the very first sessions.
Unlike our Democratic colleagues who shut the doors and refused to
accept the late amendments from Members, Chairman Sessions of the Rules
Committee has made it a point to ensure that every single Member has
the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to
share their thoughts and concerns, oftentimes late at night.
Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has
spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In
fact, we have welcomed over 225 Members to testify at this Congress
roughly 493 times and made in order over 1,130 amendments, including
521 from the Democrats, as I said. So I am glad to compare our record
of openness with theirs.
Let's talk about the escalation in Afghanistan. There is a clear AUMF
that authorizes what we are doing in Afghanistan. Under that AUMF, the
military doesn't have to come back to the Congress to say: Pretty
please, can we put more soldiers into that country?
I trust General Mattis. He knows what he is doing. He has a clear,
legal authorization to do it, and I don't think it makes any sense for
him to have to come back to us.
On the issue of the AUMF, which I know we will have more debate on
during this rule debate, let me say one thing and say it clearly: I
have cosponsored at least two AUMF bills, and those are in the Foreign
Affairs Committee, not in the Armed Services Committee. We don't have
jurisdiction over that. I wish we did. In fact, I have cosponsored a
bill with a Democratic colleague to put jurisdiction in the Armed
Services Committee so we can get something done. So I would dearly love
for the Foreign Affairs Committee to come forward with a bill, and I am
happy to work with the gentleman to see that that takes place.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Mitchell), the newest member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to join the House Armed Services
Committee in time to participate in the review and markup of the fiscal
year 2019 national defense authorization bill. I am pleased to
participate in the investments this bill makes in our national defense.
I would agree with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: They
are not a cheap date. In fact, some of the amendments that my colleague
mentioned were debated in committee and were defeated in committee.
Apparently, we want to go through them multiple times; and unless they
get everything they want, somehow they are going to protest. At some
point in time, the process is what it is. The amendment is lost.
I am pleased to participate in investments in defense, and in
particular, the Stryker combat vehicle, a program that has a tremendous
impact on combat readiness and capability of our Army.
The Stryker brigade combat teams are some of the most frequently
deployed units in the Army, and it exponentially increases the
protection and lethality of our Nation's soldiers.
The most modern version of the vehicle, the Stryker A1, includes a
double-v hull that has already proven to protect soldiers from the most
violent IED and mine blasts, as well as other upgrades to improve their
mobility and communication capabilities.
I am pleased with the House Armed Services Committee for seeing the
wisdom of authorizing a total $360 million for the Stryker upgrades
this fiscal year. That effort supports Army Chief of Staff General
Milley's plan to provide Stryker A1s to all brigade combat teams by
2025.
I look forward to working with the chairman and over 250 Members of
my House colleagues--across the aisle, by the way--who join me in a
letter supporting the Stryker program and its continued efforts of
development.
Our soldiers who so often are deployed in harm's way deserve every
protection they can get, and we should provide that for them.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to the Secretary of the
Army, Mark Esper.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, April 12, 2018.
Dear Secretary Esper: Thank you for your service to our
nation and your robust efforts to increase the readiness and
modernization budget of the U.S. Army. While you may have
just begun, you are making remarkable progress on behalf of
the American soldier and our national security.
However, we would like to bring to your attention the
continued budgetary challenges of the Stryker combat vehicle
program. The Stryker vehicle is the Army's most deployed and
versatile combat vehicle and represents what may be the most
successful Army acquisition program in recent memory from
initial acquisition to the most recent upgrades. Yet there
appears to be a disconnect between these facts and the Army's
FY19 budget request which once again neglects much needed
Stryker procurement and modernization.
In recent years, Congress has stepped in and ensured that
the Army's lack of budgetary commitment to Stryker did not
prevent our soldiers in the field from receiving the safety
and lethality upgrades necessary against the threats of
today's global environment. Congress has strongly supported
both the conversion of flat bottomed Strykers to the more
survivable Double-V Hull (DVH) Stryker A1 version and the
Stryker lethality (ICV) upgrade which adds a powerful 30mm
cannon to the Stryker infantry variant.
While we are pleased that the Army's FY 19 modernization
budget was increased by more than 14% from FY 18, we are
perplexed why the Stryker program did not seem to benefit
from this growth in investment funding, especially since it
is our understanding that the Army has an operational
requirement for additional brigades of improved Stryker (DVH)
A1s. How can the Stryker fleet represent 30% of Army combat
vehicles yet receive just 6% of the Army's combat vehicle
budget in FY 19?
Congress has continually demonstrated our long-standing
support for Stryker production and we request that you do the
same by working with us in the FY19 defense budget process to
develop a plan to sustain the Stryker program.
Sincerely,
Mike Rogers, David P. Joyce, Marcy Kaptur, Sander M. Levin,
Richard Hudson, Paul Mitchell, Debbie Dingell, Lou Barletta,
Tom Graves, Vern Buchanan, Andre Carson, Collin C. Peterson,
Pete Sessions, Harry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr., Peter Roskam,
Patrick Meehan, Walter Jones, Stephen Palazzo, Bill Shuster,
Tom Marino, Joyce Beatty, Alan Lowenthal, Bradley Byrne, Mimi
Walters, Robert Pittenger, Robert B. Aderholt, Eric Swalwell,
Will Hurd, James B. Renacci, Gary Palmer.
Michael T. McCaul, Jim Jordan, Charles W. Dent, David E.
Price, Brian Mast, Henry Cuellar, Vicki Hartzler, Adam
Kinzinger, Scott DesJarlais, Don Young, Emanuel Cleaver, II,
Rob Wittman, Gerald E. Connolly, Patrick McHenry, Bruce
Westerman, Glenn ``GT'' Thompson, Ted Budd, Josh Gottheimer,
Barbara Comstock, Ted W. Lieu, Elise M. Stefanik, A. Donald
McEachin, Peter T. King, Martha Roby.
Robert A. Brady, Paul Gosar, Mike Simpson, John Carter,
Terri Sewell, Bill Huizenga, David B. McKinley, PE, Betty
McCollum, Peter Welch, Sean P. Duffy, Marcia Fudge, Leonard
Lance, Thomas J. Rooney, Ann McLane Kuster, Tom O'Halloran,
Francis Rooney, John R. Moolenaar, Alma S. Adams, John H.
Rutherford, Michael Doyle, Jody Hice, Ryan A. Costello,
Charlie Crist, Denny Heck.
Mark E. Amodei, Ann Wagner, Rick W. Allen, Ralph Abraham,
MD, Ted S. Yoho, DVM, Tom MacArthur, (duplicate signature),
Mike Gallagher, Steve Stivers, Sean Patrick Maloney, Kevin
Brady, George Holding, Scott Peters, Sam Graves, Keith J.
Rothfus, Paul Cook, Nanette Diaz Barragan, Darin LaHood, Doug
Collins, Don Bacon, Carol Shea-Porter, Bonnie Watson Coleman,
Juan Vargas, Norma J. Torres, Kyrsten Sinema, David G.
Valadao, Rodney Davis, Dwight Evans, Jim Langevin, Ken
Calvert, Chellie Pingree.
Earl L. ``Buddy'' Carter, Michael D. Bishop, Colleen
Hanabusa, Tom Garrett, Brian Fitzpatrick, Martha McSally,
Warren Davidson, Devin Nunes, Steve Knight, Matthew
Cartwright, Cheri Bustos, Chris Collins, Tim Ryan, Scott
Perry, Karen C. Handel, French Hill, Carlos Curbelo, Joe
Wilson, Anthony G. Brown, Derek Kilmer, Grace F. Napolitano,
John Faso, Andy Biggs, Trent Kelly, Mark Walker, Marc Veasey,
Jim Himes, James P. McGovern, G.K. Butterfield, Ileana Ros-
Lehtinen, Virginia Foxx.
David Rouzer, Cedric L. Richmond, Jackie Walorski, Jim
Banks, Lloyd Smucker, Matt Gaetz, Larry Bucshon, MD, Julia
Brownley, Mark Meadows, A. Drew Ferguson, IV, DMD, Jamie
Herrera Beutler, Donald Beyer, Brendan F. Boyle, Brenda L.
Lawrence, Ruben Gallego, Grace Meng, Seth Moulton, Mike Bost,
Kathleen M. Rice, Dave Loebsack, Evan H. Jenkins, John M.
Katko, Bill Johnson, Dave Trott, Donald Norcross, Michael
Capuano, Pete Aguilar, Barry Loudermilk, John Culbertson,
Fred Upton, H. Morgan Griffith.
Mario Diaz-Balart, Jack Bergman, Pramila Jayapal, Richard
E. Neal, David Scott, Chris Stewart, John K. Delaney, Darren
Soto, Al Lawson, Bruce Poliquin, Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Gregory W. Meeks, Alcee L. Hastings, Steve Chabot, Kenny
Marchant, Sanford Bishop, Austin Scott, Frank LoBiondo,
[[Page H4597]]
Duncan Hunter, John Garamendi, Suzan K. DelBene, Bob Gibbs,
Bill Long, Tom Cole, Chuck Fleischmann, Rick Crawford, Pete
Olson, Susan W. Brooks.
Dennis Ross, Scott Taylor, Mike Johnson, Salud Carbajal,
Dan Kildee, Rob Woodall, Mark Pocon, Tulsi Gabbard, Roger
Williams, Stephanie Murphy, Dave Reichert, Jeff Duncan,
Christopher H. Smith, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Sam Johnson, Steve
Womack, C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, Kurt Schrader, Tim Walberg,
Todd Rokita, Robert E. Latta, Mike Coffman, Mike Quigley, Mo
Brooks, Kevin Yoder, Tom Rice, Rick Larsen.
Neal Dunn, MD, Tom Emmer, Stacey Plaskett, Tom Suozzi, Erik
Paulsen, Mike Kelly, Andy Barr, Zoe Lofgren, Dan Newhouse,
Bobby Scott, Jeff Fortenberry, Daniel Lipinski, Adam B.
Schiff, Bob Goodlatte, Ed Royce, Hal Rogers, Brad Wenstrup,
K. Michael Conaway, Tom Reed, Bill Flores, Ted Deutch, Ron
Estes, Paul Tonko, Doug Lamborn, Randy Hultgren, Albio Sires,
David Schweikert.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from Alabama, I appreciate
the fact that he wants to defend what I think is indefensible, this
process that the Republicans have implemented to run this House. I
would be embarrassed to, but I know he has a job to do, and that is
what he is doing.
He talks about all of these amendments that were made in order. What
he doesn't tell you about is the over 2,000 amendments that they have
blocked this session already, including a lot of Republican amendments
that have been blocked, as well.
It is always puzzling to me that the Republicans just kind of go
along to get along, and they get shut out of the amendment process and
they still vote for a rule. Maybe the day that they stop voting for
these rules is a day that maybe we will see some changes.
I also want to point out, and I don't think he really appreciates
this point and this is why this has become the most closed Congress in
the history of the United States of America, that the majority of bills
that have been brought to the floor are unamendable. They are totally
closed. I can't even offer an amendment to put a punctuation mark in a
bill. I can't change a comma. I can't change the spelling of a word.
The majority of bills have been totally closed, shut out to
everybody. If that is the process that this majority wants to embrace,
fine. I think that is the kind of process that we want to move away
from because that is the kind of process that we see in authoritarian
regimes, not in deliberative bodies like the United States Congress,
not in the United States of America.
The gentleman talks about that he trusts the administration on
Afghanistan. Well, I don't trust this President on anything, to be
honest with you. I don't know if he has ever been to Afghanistan, but I
have, and the troops that I talked to in Afghanistan and those who are
returning ask me the same thing over and over, and that is: What the
hell are we doing? What is our mission?
Now, if you think the mission is on target and everything is great,
fine. Then vote to increase the number of troops there. But we ought to
have a debate here on the floor on whether that is the right thing to
do.
On AUMFs, I am happy that the gentleman is cosponsoring a number of
AUMFs. He says it is not appropriate to talk about it here in a defense
authorization bill or a Defense Appropriations bill; that is a Foreign
Affairs Committee bill, and we ought to deal with it there.
When is the last time we have had a Foreign Affairs Committee bill
that has been brought before us that we could amend to do an AUMF on? I
don't know.
Maybe the gentleman may know when this AUMF is coming out of the
Foreign Affairs Committee. I haven't seen it. I have been waiting for
years. They are in charge. They run this place. They control
everything.
So that is just another excuse, and it really is insulting to the men
and women who put their lives on the line for this country. I mean,
there is always an excuse why we can't debate something.
This has to stop, and I hope it stops soon. If not, maybe the
elections will result in a change of leadership here. I hope that, if
we have the privilege to take over, you see a much more accommodating
process and, certainly, a process where important issues like this get
to be debated.
Mr. Speaker, the protests by thousands of teachers across the Nation
have exposed not just low wages, but also severely dilapidated
facilities. The 2016 State of Our Schools report determined that there
is an annual State and local spending gap of $46 billion on school
facilities. These facilities pose significant health and safety threats
to more than 50 million students.
In the richest country in the world, it is absolutely shameful that
we allow our children to attend schools without heat and with dangerous
mold, not to mention the thousands of schools lacking access to the
connectivity necessary for digital learning.
For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up Education and the Workforce Committee
member Bobby Scott's bill, H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools
Act. This legislation would provide the necessary funding to address
critical physical and digital infrastructure needs in our schools,
creating over 1.9 million jobs in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe of Texas). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes
to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).
Mr. SCOTT of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
As the Representative of Hampton Roads, Virginia, I support the
significant increase in Navy shipbuilding in the NDAA. But while we
consider national defense, we must also consider school construction.
Yesterday, U.S. banks reported $56 billion in first quarter profits.
At the same time, our teachers are being forced to go on strike for a
living wage and adequate funding for our public schools. But when the
majority pushed its tax bill through Congress, it was the banks, not
teachers and not the schools, that received the biggest benefit.
H.R. 2475, the Rebuild America's Schools Act, would be a step forward
in correcting our priorities by investing desperately needed funding
into our public school infrastructure. This $100 billion proposal,
which is barely 5 percent of what was spent on the tax cut for
corporations and the wealthiest Americans, would go towards repairing
crumbling public school buildings to ensure that every student has
access to safe, healthy, and high-quality learning facilities.
Not only would this proposal improve school conditions and student
academic outcomes, it would create jobs. Research from the Economic
Policy Institute shows that for every $1 billion invested in school
construction, 18,000 jobs are created. Therefore, a $100 billion
Federal investment translates into about 1.8 million new jobs over the
next decade. That is many times more than are projected from the $1.5
trillion tax cut.
Last week, we honored the 64th anniversary of the Supreme Court
landmark ruling in Brown v. Board of Education that found separate is
inherently unequal and ordered public education to integrate to provide
equitable learning opportunities for all.
Now, how can we now say that we followed the order in Brown when,
just this winter, public schools in Baltimore were forced to close
because they didn't have heat? And how could we justify handing a
massive tax cut to the wealthy and corporations while abandoning
students and educators in public schools across the country? The answer
is we can't.
The Rebuild America's Schools Act would put us on a path to give
students the safe and high-quality education they deserve, and I
strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
{time} 1300
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Virginia's comments. He
is the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee in
the House. I have the privilege of serving with him on that committee.
I spent 8 years on the Alabama State Board of Education, 5 years in
the Alabama State senate serving on both of
[[Page H4598]]
our education committees, and 2 years as chancellor of postsecondary
education for the State of Alabama. I care deeply about education. I
know what it can do to better the lives of everybody in America.
I find many of the comments the gentleman made with regard to this
bill very interesting, and I hope there will be a time when we can take
those up and consider them, but this is not that time. We are here
today to talk about the defense of the United States of America.
So, with all respect to the gentleman's comments, I hope that he and
I can sit down with others later and talk about that, particularly what
is the role of the Federal Government versus what is the role of State
and local governments. But today let's talk about the defense of the
United States.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Alabama for yielding me this time. He is one of the great leaders in
this Congress, and it is an honor to serve with him.
Mr. Speaker, I have always heard that many government agencies spend
roughly 60 percent of their budgets within the first 11 months and then
scramble around during the last month trying to spend the rest of their
budget so they won't be cut for the next year.
I think we should do what we can to incentivize more government
employees to come up with cost-saving ideas. That is why I introduced,
along with Mr. Polis from Colorado and Mr. Jones from North Carolina,
an amendment to the NDAA which will do just that. It will give all
military personnel even more reasons to be creative in how to save
costs.
I am pleased that my amendment, which has been made in order en bloc,
directs the Secretary of Defense to report to Congress on the
military's existing incentive programs for cost-saving ideas. This
amendment will also include a report on how the Secretary plans to
expand and streamline those existing programs to better reward military
personnel who help the Department of Defense to be more efficient.
We need to be good stewards of the taxpayers' money and should do
everything we can to ensure that our military's funding is used wisely
and used where it is needed most.
I introduced a bill several times many years ago to give Federal
employees bonuses for half of any money that their agency or their
department can save. This amendment hopefully will move us in that
direction.
On a side note, I do want to say that I believe the American people
are really sick and tired of our spending hundreds of billions on a
very unnecessary, no-win war in Afghanistan now 17 years old. I am
disappointed that this bill continues that funding instead of bringing
our troops back home.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lee).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend.
Communication from the Clerk of the House
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following
communication from the Clerk of the House of Representatives:
Office of the Clerk,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC, May 23, 2018.
Hon. Paul D. Ryan,
The Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the permission granted in
Clause 2(h) of Rule II of the Rules of the U.S. House of
Representatives, the Clerk received the following message
from the Secretary of the Senate on May 23, 2018, at 9:54
a.m.:
That the Senate agrees to return the papers to the House of
Representatives at their request. H.R. 4743.
With best wishes, I am,
Sincerely,
Karen L. Haas.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from
California.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our ranking member for yielding
and for his tremendous leadership on defense issues and so many other
issues that are critical to our national and domestic security.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and to H.R.
5515, which is the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill
authorizes $717 billion in defense spending. Yet we know that there is
at least $150 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse currently over at the
Pentagon. Now we are giving them more money. Shame on us. This is an
already out-of-control, bloated Pentagon budget.
It would also increase funding to $69 billion for wars that Congress
has never debated or voted on. Once again, my Republican colleagues
have used off-the-books spending gimmicks to further expand the bloated
Pentagon budget.
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. Instead of writing blank checks to the
Pentagon, Congress needs to live up to its constitutional obligation to
debate matters of war and peace. Yesterday I offered an amendment to
sunset the 2001 and 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force after
8 months of enactment. Congress would have 8 months to debate and vote
on a new AUMF before the repeal. Eight months is plenty of time. Mr.
Speaker, we passed the 2001 AUMF within 3 days, mind you.
Last week, of course, Speaker Ryan--and I say at the orders of Donald
Trump--undemocratically stripped our bipartisan 2001 sunset amendment
when the Defense Appropriations bill came before us.
When in the world will this body have the backbone to debate the
costs and consequences of these wars? Our brave troops deserve better.
We need to do our job.
I am pleased, though, that some of my amendments and others passed
last night--which are very important amendments. They include
clarifying that nothing in this bill can be construed as authorizing
force against North Korea--that is the use of military force.
Also we included reporting requirements for auditing the Pentagon. We
need the Pentagon audited so that taxpayers will really begin to know
where their hard-earned tax dollars are going and what weapons systems
they are contributing to in terms of the building of weapons systems
which probably will never be used, a report and update on the United
States-Kabul compact, and also overseas contingency operations
reporting requirements.
Can you believe we are spending all this money on a slush fund
through OCO, and we don't know what is going on with that account?
The underlying bill is still a disgrace.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from California an
additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
In conclusion, I just want to reiterate that authorizing wars with no
end, no debate, and no vote is unconstitutional, and it is wrong.
I call on Speaker Ryan to bring forth an authorization because every
step of the way, we are trying in a bipartisan fashion to do this, and
it is the Speaker's call. He should do that so that we can debate and
vote up or down on these wars.
So this rule and this bill should not be passed just based on the
amount of money that we are giving to the Pentagon to do more than
ensure our national security and fight terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the rule and the underlying bill and
reject this shameful bill.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the gentlewoman's
comments, and she probably is unaware of the fact that we are presently
undergoing for the first time in the history of the Department of
Defense a full Department-wide audit. We are already getting some of
the things that they have determined from that audit back. That audit
is going to give us information we need to make some further changes in
the management performance of the Pentagon. She probably didn't know we
are already underway with that, but that is going to be completed in
early fall of this year.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Cheney), who is my colleague from both the Rules Committee
and the Armed Services Committee.
Ms. CHENEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Mr.
Byrne, for his tremendous work on this issue on the Rules Committee as
well as on the Armed Services Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the
bipartisan
[[Page H4599]]
work of the House Armed Services Committee that has gone into crafting
the underlying bill. This year's NDAA authorizes programs that are
absolutely crucial, Mr. Speaker, to the defense of this Nation.
The bill authorizes funding at levels that will begin to restore our
readiness, replacing aging equipment and weapons, and developing the
next generation of military technology.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would
clearly like to divert attention from these issues. They would like to
try to discuss everything under the sun, it seems, except funding for
our men and women in uniform who are on the front lines defending the
freedom that allows us to have the debate that we are having today in
this very Chamber.
The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that, without the funding authorized
in this bill, our adversaries will continue to close capability gaps
and further erode our military superiority.
Mr. Speaker, while passage of this rule and the underlying NDAA are
vital, our work will not be done. We must appropriate the funds
authorized here, and we must finally, Mr. Speaker, repeal the Budget
Control Act.
For the last decade, this body has routinely forced the Department of
Defense to operate under continuing resolutions. In plain English, this
means we are asking our men and women in uniform to stay on their posts
and put their lives on the line to defend all of us while at the same
time depriving them of the resources they need to do that job.
The situation, Mr. Speaker, was exacerbated in 2011 with the
arbitrary budget caps and sequestration of the Budget Control Act. This
has devastated military readiness and enabled our adversaries to make
significant gains that threaten our security and our military
superiority.
In testimony earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Mattis described
the severity of the situation and congressional responsibility for the
situation this way: ``As hard as the last 16 years of war have been, no
enemy in the field has done as much to harm the readiness of the U.S.
military than the combined impact of the Budget Control Act's defense
spending caps, worsened by operating for 10 of the last 11 years under
continuing resolutions of varied and unpredictable duration.''
In a world in which we face the most complex and severe threat
environment we have faced since the end of World War II, this situation
is simply shameful. The men and women who put their lives on the line
for all of us are sick and tired--as my colleague said, that is
absolutely true--but they are sick and tired, Mr. Speaker, of being
held hostage to a range of Democratic pet programs and politics that
are often played by those on the other side of the aisle in this
Chamber.
Year after year, Mr. Speaker, we have completed our work in this body
on the Defense Appropriations bill, and we have done it on time.
Unfortunately, the same is not true of our colleagues in the Senate.
Rules over in the Senate have allowed Democrats in that body to hold
critical funding for our military hostage in an effort to advance
unrelated issues.
Mr. Speaker, I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle join
me in the belief that no member of our military--no mother or father or
wife or husband or child of any servicemember--should have to continue
to pay the price for the dysfunction of the United States Congress'
budget process.
I fully expect that this House will complete our work, once again,
Mr. Speaker, to fund our military in a timely manner this year. I call
on my colleagues, the Democrats in this body and in the Senate, to join
us in fulfilling our most important constitutional obligation. We must
avoid another continuing resolution for the Department of Defense, and
we must pass the funding authorized under this bill required to provide
for the common defense.
The first step in that overall process is the work we are doing here
this week. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule so we
can complete our work on the underlying bill. I urge passage of the
NDAA, and I urge my colleagues to join us in putting the resources in
place our troops need, to stop holding our troops hostage, and to work
with us to break the cycle of continuing resolutions that have only
served to undermine military readiness.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to my Rules Committee
colleague that I agree with her that this place is pretty
dysfunctional. But I just want to point out, in case she has forgotten,
that the White House is controlled by Republicans, the House is
controlled by Republicans, and the Senate is controlled by Republicans.
So the gentlewoman can blame everybody she wants, but the Republicans
are in charge of everything.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) to respond to Mr. Byrne.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to respond to the gentleman
from Alabama (Mr. Byrne) and say that I know exactly what is going on
over at the Pentagon in terms of their auditing requirements and what
they are doing. But I have to say the Pentagon--and the gentleman
should know this--has never been audited, I know, for the last 50
years.
The public understands it needs to be audited because they see each
and every day the wasteful spending of the Pentagon when you just look
at, for example, CEO compensation of millions and millions and millions
of dollars that are being paid to defense contractor executives on the
taxpayers' dime.
So, yes, I know what is going on; and, yes, it has not been audited
in 50 years.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a May 22 letter signed by 32
former Republican and Democratic defense and foreign policy officials
rejecting the building and use of low-yield nuclear warheads and
opposing their authorization and their funding.
May 22, 2018.
Hon. Jim McGovern,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative McGovern: We write to respectfully
request that Congress reject the Trump administration's
request for new, more usable, ``low-yield'' nuclear warheads
for Trident missiles. There is no need for such weapons and
building them would make the United States less safe. These
so-called ``low-yield'' weapons are a gateway to nuclear
catastrophe and should not be pursued.
To justify this dangerous proposal, the Trump
administration is promoting a false narrative that the United
States has a ``gap'' in its ability to deter the use of
nuclear weapons by Russia. Officials allege that Moscow
believes that an American president would not respond to
Russian use of ``tactical,'' or lower yield, nuclear weapons
if his only options include ``strategic,'' or high-yield,
ones. The president, they argue, would be ``self-deterred.''
To plug this supposed ``deterrence gap,'' the Trump
administration wants to develop and deploy new low-yield
nuclear warheads on Trident II D5 missiles on Ohio-class
submarines. The administration is asking Congress for $88
million in FY2019 for this new warhead, in a program that
would be completed in that fiscal year under the aegis of the
W76 Life Extension Program. Yet this justification for new
Trident warheads fails on many levels:
1. There is no ``deterrence gap.'' The United States has a
massive nuclear arsenal of some 4,000 warheads, half of which
are deployed on land-based missiles, submarines, and bombers.
The administration is in the process of rebuilding this
arsenal at an estimated cost of $1.7 trillion, with
inflation, over the next 30 years. While this immense program
is excessive, adds to a new arms race with Russia, and should
be scaled back, Russia cannot doubt that the United States is
serious about maintaining an unambiguously strong nuclear
deterrent.
2. The United States already has many low-yield nuclear
weapons. As part of that massive arsenal, the United States
already has about 1,000 nuclear weapons with low-yield
options, which are being modernized at great expense. If the
president ever needed to use a low-yield nuclear weapon, he
has many options.
3. Nuclear war cannot be controlled. Perhaps the biggest
fallacy in the whole argument is the mistaken and dangerous
belief that a ``small'' nuclear war would remain small. There
is no basis for the dubious theory that, if Russia used a
``low-yield'' nuclear weapon and the United States responded
in kind, the conflict could stay at that level.
Indeed, it is unlikely that there is such a thing as a
limited nuclear war; preparing for one is folly. As George
Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan,
recently noted, ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You
use a small one, then you go to a bigger one. I think nuclear
weapons are nuclear weapons and we need to draw the line
there.'' Secretary of Defense James Mattis similarly
declared, ``I don't think there's any such thing as a
tactical nuclear weapon. Any
[[Page H4600]]
nuclear weapon used at any time is a strategic game
changer.''
Ultimately, the greatest concern about the proposed low-
yield Trident warhead is that the president might feel less
restrained about using it in a crisis. When it comes to using
a nuclear weapon, restraint is a good thing. The proposed
``low-yield'' Trident warhead is dangerous, unjustified, and
redundant. Congress has the power to stop the administration
from starting down this slippery slope to nuclear war. We
call on Congress to exercise that authority without delay.
Sincerely,
The Hon. George P. Shultz, Former U.S. Secretary of State;
The Hon. William J. Perry, Former U.S. Secretary of Defense;
The Hon. Richard G. Lugar, United States Senator (Ret.),
Former Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee; The Hon.
Byron Dorgan, United States Senator (Ret.), Former Chairman,
Energy & Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee,
Senate Appropriations Committee; The Hon. Gary Hart, United
States Senator (Ret.), Former member, Senate Armed Services
Committee; The Hon. Mark Udall, United States Senator (Ret.),
Former member, Senate Armed Services Committee.
The Hon. Jerry Brown, Former Governor of California; The
Hon. Barney Frank, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.); The
Hon. John Tierney, U.S. House of Representatives (Ret.),
Former Chairman, House Subcommittee on National Security and
Foreign Affairs, Government Oversight and Reform Committee;
General James Cartwright (USMC, Ret.), Former Vice Chair,
Joint Chiefs of Staff; Lt. General Robert G. Gard (USA,
Ret.), Former President, National Defense University; The
Hon. John Holdren, Former Chief Science Advisor to the
President; The Hon. Thomas Countryman, Former Assistant
Secretary of State for International Security and
Nonproliferation.
The Hon. Andrew Weber, Former Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense
Programs; The Hon. Thomas Graham Jr., Former Special
Representative of the President for Arms Control, Non-
proliferation and Disarmament; The Hon. Susan F. Burk, Former
Special Representative of the President, Nuclear
Nonproliferation; The Hon. Laura Kennedy, Former US Permanent
Representative to the Conference on Disarmament; The Hon.
Steven Pifer, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State and
Ambassador to Ukraine; The Hon. Anne M. Harrington, Former
Deputy Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation,
U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security
Administration.
Ben Chang, Former Director for Press & Communications and
Deputy Spokesman at the National Security Council; Philip E.
Coyle, Former Associate Director for National Security and
International Affairs, White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy; Steve Fetter, Former Principal Assistant
Director for National Security and International Affairs,
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Colin
Kahl, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and National
Security Advisor to the Vice President; Richard Nephew,
Former Director for Iran for the National Security Council;
Ned Price, Former Special Assistant to President Obama and
Spokesperson for the National Security Council.
Ben Rhodes, Former Deputy National Security Advisor for
Strategic Communications, The White House; Frank von Hippel,
Former Assistant Director for National Security, White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy; Jon Wolfsthal,
Former Special Assistant to the President for National
Security and Senior Director for Nonproliferation and Arms
Control at the National Security Council; Alexandra Bell,
Former Director of Strategic Outreach in the Office of the
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International
Security; Bishop Garrison, Former adviser and Executive
Director, Homeland Security Science & Technology Advisory
Committee; Morton Halperin, Former Director of the Policy
Planning Staff, Department of State; Newell Highsmith, Former
Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State.
{time} 1315
Mr. McGOVERN. This letter is co-led by former Reagan Secretary of
State George Shultz and former Clinton Secretary of Defense William
Perry.
Mr. Speaker, as the letter states, ``there is no such thing as a
limited nuclear war and preparing for one is folly.''
George Shultz, Secretary of State for President Ronald Reagan,
recently noted: ``A nuclear weapon is a nuclear weapon. You use a small
one, then you go to a bigger one.''
Secretary of Defense James Mattis also recently declared: ``I don't
think there's any such thing as a tactical nuclear weapon. Any nuclear
weapon used at any time is a strategic game changer.''
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill, for all of its many positive
developments, is seriously deficient in this particular area. It
authorizes funding for new low-yield nuclear weapons.
The U.S. already possesses low-yield nuclear weapons. If these
weapons are not effective deterrents, we should examine why before
building and deploying a new generation of weapons.
We should listen to our seasoned elder statesmen and -women and stop
walking down a road that begins a nuclear war that can rapidly
escalate. Any use of a nuclear weapon is a catastrophe. We should be
destroying nuclear weapons, not building new ones.
I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to work together
and make sure this funding is not included in the final version of the
FY19 NDAA.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill authorizes what it authorizes with
regard to these smaller nuclear weapons because we find our adversaries
developing such nuclear weapons.
We are not developing them because we want to use them. We want to
develop them because the mere fact that we have got them, we believe,
is a deterrent to our adversaries using the very same weapons they have
in their arsenal themselves.
So we are simply making sure that we don't have one hand tied behind
our back if we get into one of these types of conflicts.
I understand what the gentleman is saying. No one ever wants to use a
nuclear weapon. But to see your adversary have such a weapon and do
nothing is not what we should do to defend the people of the United
States.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I would say to the gentleman that we already have low-yield nuclear
weapons. I don't know why we need more.
We heard the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), talk about the
amendment he would like to see made in order to help reinforce our
schools. I think most people watching also appreciate the fact that our
national defense includes things like the quality of life for people
here in this country, including the quality of our schools, whether
people have jobs, whether people have good healthcare.
We are shortchanging all these domestic investments, and I think the
concern we have is when you start investing in more nuclear weapons,
not only is it not a good use of our taxpayer dollars, but it also
increases insecurity for the people of this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in the history of the
United States of America. Let me repeat that. This is the most closed
Congress in the history of the United States of America.
The majority is very proud of this rule. They have made a bunch of
amendments in order on a handful of bills to run up their numbers, but
let's remember one thing: On most bills, the majority of the
legislation that comes to this floor, they do not allow a single
amendment. Not one. On most bills that come to the floor, no Member of
this House, Democratic or Republican, can offer an amendment.
This rule before us today is not closed, but let me highlight a few
germane amendments from the 281 amendments that this rule blocks.
Several bipartisan amendments were blocked, such as an amendment by
Representatives Denham, Foster, Curbelo, and Panetta which allows
Dreamers who grew up in the United States to gain legal status,
provided that they serve out the terms of their enlistment honorably.
So we are talking about rewarding people who served in our military.
That was the amendment. That was brought before the Rules Committee.
That was blocked.
There was another bipartisan amendment from 25 Members, including
myself, that expresses the sense of Congress that the lessons of past
genocides should be applied to help prevent future war crimes, crimes
against humanity, and genocide.
I say to my colleagues: When did a sense of Congress on the
atrocities of genocide become such a controversial topic? But that was
blocked.
This rule blocks an amendment by Representative Keating to test ticks
for an increased number of tick-borne diseases. When did fighting tick-
borne diseases become too sensitive for the House to debate?
This rule, once again, blocks us from having one of the most
important debates we could have. It prevents us
[[Page H4601]]
from debating whether or not to send our sons and daughters into harm's
way.
The bipartisan amendment by Representatives Lee, Jones, and Ellison
would repeal the 2001 AUMF after 240 days of enactment of the act,
giving Congress ample time to debate a new AUMF.
The Constitution of the United States says the Congress has the power
to declare war. This is our job, Mr. Speaker. And I appreciate the
gentleman from Alabama saying: Well, the Foreign Affairs Committee
deals with that, not us. We hear that every year. Every year that goes
by, we don't see any bill from the Foreign Affairs Committee dealing
with these topics.
The bottom line, let's be honest, is we don't deal with it because
Members in the majority don't want to deal with this difficult issue. I
have always said that our failure to act on an AUMF, our failure to
debate these issues, represents moral cowardice.
What about our workers? Representatives Ellison, Pocan, and Grijalva
had an amendment blocked that would have prohibited Federal contracts
with companies that have repeated and willful wage theft violations.
Why would we knowingly reward companies that hurt our workers?
The list goes on:
An amendment by Representative Lieu to require a public report on all
DOD expenditures to support Presidential visits to entities owned or
significantly controlled by the President or a member of his immediate
family.
The American people deserve to know if the President and his family
are directly profiting off of this Presidency. Blocked. Blocked.
An amendment by Representative Veasey that would prohibit the
deportation of family members of servicemembers on Active Duty. How can
we, with a good conscience, deport the family members of brave young
men and women putting their lives on the line for all of us and
fighting for our safety everyday? Blocked.
An amendment by Representative Torres, a distinguished member of the
Rules Committee, that would have prevented DOD in helping the
Department of Homeland Security from deporting spouses, parents, and
sons and daughters of certain military personnel, veterans, and
enlistees.
Mr. Speaker, I could spend the rest of the week describing the
thousands of amendments that this Republican leadership has blocked,
but I would much prefer to be debating the ideas that Members from both
parties have put forward in good faith.
This is the most closed Congress in history. Dana Milbank recently
described it as the most authoritarian Congress in history.
You know, 180 Democratic Members have had an amendment blocked in
this Congress alone. That is 180 elected Members.
I would like my Republican friends to listen closely to my next
point. This Congress, 180 Republican Members have also had their
amendments blocked this Congress. You are all voting to block your own
ideas. Stop it. Read the rules that you are voting on.
The vast majority of Republican Members have had their proposals
blocked from even getting a vote. I don't understand why you keep
voting to block proposals that you supposedly believe in. Hundreds of
Republican amendments have been blocked by the Rules Committee. Most
Republicans voted to block them. They are your amendments. I don't
understand why it is such a radical idea to debate any of the
amendments I just spoke about. We can do so much better.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of amendments that have been made in
order. There is a lot of quantity. But a lot of the amendments that
really shine in quality and that are important in terms of substance
have been blocked. This is nothing new.
Again, the majority of bills that come to this floor are under closed
rules. You can't amend them. Nobody can. Take it or leave it. The
majority of bills that come to this floor are closed.
I know it is uncomfortable for my Republican friends to hear that
they have presided over this closed process, but my hope is they will
be so embarrassed and so ashamed that they will want to change things.
They can still redeem themselves. We are only in May. They have a long
way to go. Whether it is on the defense bill, on an education bill, or
whatever bill it is, there are good ideas that are being brought
forward.
I will close with this. I met with a group of young students who were
engaged in the nationwide protest asking Congress to do something on
gun violence. And the most frustrating thing they said to them is the
fact that when they were lobbying Members of Congress, it's not even
about telling them how to vote on an issue; they are frustrated because
you can't get a vote on any of the issues that are related to gun
violence. We won't let anything come to the floor. It is wrong.
I just say to my friends, in closing, if this place becomes more
accommodating, if the Speaker decides to live up to the words that he
enunciated when he became Speaker of the House, to have a more open
process, to respect all ideas, let me tell you something; you are going
to see a decrease in polarization. You are going to see more bills
passed a bipartisan way. You are going to see more good bills going
forward. Legislation will be better. If you have a lousy process, you
end up with a lousy bill.
Again, I respect all the time and energy that went into crafting this
NDAA. I respect the chairman and the ranking member, Democrats and
Republicans alike, but there are a lot of important amendments here
that are being blocked that are really important and that most of our
constituents would believe deserve a debate and a vote on this floor.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Vote
``no'' on the rule. And I plead with them, let's bring some
accomodation and some respect to differing ideas and just regular order
to this House, because this is certainly not what I think any of us
could possibly believe is the way our government should be run.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I know that some of our Democratic colleagues--not all
of them--would like for us today to be talking about a Federal takeover
of local education. Some of my Democratic colleagues--not all of them--
would like to talk about doing away with the Second Amendment. But that
is not what we are about today. We are talking about the defense of the
United States of America.
Remember where we were 2 years ago, at the end of the Obama
administration. ISIS still controlled vast swaths of western Iraq and
eastern Syria. Iran had just gotten its hands on tens of billions of
dollars that had been frozen--money that they were able to get because
of the deal that President Obama cut with them. We now know that they
have taken that money and increased defense spending, military
spending, in Iran by 40 percent.
Two years ago, we had cut troop levels down to levels we haven't seen
in decades. In fact, we cut the Air Force to the point it had never
been since the founding of the Air Force. Our fleet had been cut down
to less than 280 ships after it had been to at least 400 under the
Clinton administration. Fifty percent of the Navy's jets couldn't fly.
Our adversaries didn't fear us and our friends and allies didn't know
if they could count on us.
We have begun to turn that around. ISIS is largely gone from Iraq. It
is largely gone from Syria. It is obliterated as a conventional force
after becoming a conventional terrorist army that controlled a big
chunk of the Middle East. Gone. Slipped over into North Africa. We
understand that. So we have to continue what we are doing to fight
against them in those places. And, yes, we need an AUMF to do that.
We have also done something that is very important in rebuilding our
military. We have told our men and women that we value them by giving
them pay increases. This bill calls for another pay increase on top of
the one we gave them last year. They have gone too long without real
pay increases.
We are beginning to give them the equipment they need to do the
missions that we have them to do. More ships, more jets, more
ammunition, more missiles, more missile defense. We are going to make
sure that our jets can fly.
Most importantly, we want to make sure that our men and women in
uniform have the training, preparation,
[[Page H4602]]
and support they need so we don't have another year that goes by where
we have more of our men and women in uniform who lose their lives in
training exercises than they do in combat.
{time} 1330
We are turning that around. We are leaving the sorry legacy of the
Obama administration so that we can put in place a defense strategy for
this country that will defend our country and, at the same time,
protect the safety of our men and women in uniform. So that is what we
are here today to talk about.
I believe that we will vote on this bill, the underlying bill, in a
bipartisan fashion because, going back to the Kennedy administration,
that is what we have done year after year after year. That is the
message that we send to our foes, to our friends abroad, and, yes, to
those men and women in uniform: that we come together, this Congress
comes together, to make sure that we do what we are supposed to do in
our job to defend this country.
Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
908 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 908 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
2475) to provide for the long-term improvement of public
school facilities, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Education and the
Workforce. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order
against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion
of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee
shall rise and report the bill to the House with such
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except
one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the
Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to
no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day
the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of
business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the
Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 2475.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who
controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222,
nays 189, not voting 16, as follows:
[Roll No. 217]
YEAS--222
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
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)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
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)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
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)
NAYS--189
Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
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
[[Page H4603]]
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
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.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
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
Napolitano
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
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--16
Bass
Black
Donovan
Gosar
Higgins (LA)
King (NY)
Labrador
Lewis (GA)
Pearce
Rogers (KY)
Rooney, Francis
Speier
Stivers
Trott
Walz
Zeldin
{time} 1355
Mr. CICILLINE, Mses. SANCHEZ and JACKSON LEE changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. RUTHERFORD, COFFMAN, and CULBERSON changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 183, not voting 15, as follows:
[Roll No. 218]
AYES--229
Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
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)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
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.
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
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)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
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)
NOES--183
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
Cooper
Correa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty (CT)
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
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
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
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
Nadler
Napolitano
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
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Smith (WA)
Soto
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--15
Black
Costa
Donovan
Gutierrez
Higgins (LA)
King (NY)
Lewis (GA)
Pearce
Rogers (KY)
Rooney, Francis
Speier
Stivers
Trott
Walz
Zeldin
{time} 1403
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________