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
(House of Representatives - May 23, 2018)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[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.

                          ____________________