Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House Debates Minibus Spending Bill  CSPAN  July 27, 2017 11:59am-5:28pm EDT

11:59 am
responsibility very seriously and will approach these hearings in the pursuit of truth and accuracy so we can make laws that better serve our community. we all realize that c.b.o. has room for improvement, but this amendment being offered tonight is not the best way to achieve that. instead, we need to have a deliberative discussion in the budget committee and amongst everyone in the house and i look forward to doing exactly that in the coming weeks and months and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from ohio. mr. ryan: i thank the gentlelady. can i inquire how much time we have left? the chair: the gentleman has two minutes remaining. mr. ryan: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, a distinguguishe member on the house ways and means committee. >> thank you, mr. ryan. >> we will leave this debate here. the house about to gavel in for the legislative part of its day. members will focus on those four appropriations bills they have been working on this week.
12:00 pm
defense department, energy, water, va-military, 54 amendments to consider and debate expected to last into the evening. final passage tonight. house begins its summer resource tomorrow. -- recess tomorrow. haplindrge churc peache cy,georgi dr.illad: comeyo th leaders inn at seem to have lost its way. we seek your help this day and help us return to a place where liberty and justice is for all. remind that liberty and justice go hand in hand that liberty cannot exist if there is not justice for the innocent. teach us to protect life, to be a refuge for immigrants, the unborn, the aged, the orphan,
12:01 pm
the widows, the homeless, the family, the oppressed, those in danger, every race and our veterans, help us to see the unity is stronger than division. remind us that consensus without truth is confusion and that power without control is destructive. remind us again that out of the many should come the one. give us compassion, strength under control, humility and grace, lead us, father, through this valley, that we might stand on the mountain proclaiming with one voice that we are the united people of america. in jesus christ's name, amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval. pursuant to clause 1, rule 1,
12:02 pm
the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from from new york, mr. faso. mr. faso: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. the speaker: without objection, the gentleman from georgia, mr. ferguson, is recognized for up to one minute. thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to honor dr. george dillard, whose leadership and guidance have made him a valuable member of the community in peachtree in georgia's third district. he was born in 1958 in jacksonville, florida, while his dad served in the navy. he grew up in -- he was ordained into ministry in 1982 and graduated with a bachelors of science degree in 1983 and answered the call of the first christian church in 1985 where
12:03 pm
he began his first full-time ministry. in 1993, george and his family moved to peachtree city to serve the peachtree christian church where he continues today. george has been married since 1988 and they have three children and one grandchild. george and his family live in peachtree city, georgia. i want to commend dr. dillard for his commitment to our community. george is a welcoming part of the fayette county, community. the grace he's shown in peachtree city is unparalleled. i'm truly honored to have dr. george dillard with us today. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain up to 15 further questions for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute.
12:04 pm
>> mr. speaker, my colleagues, i rise today to honor and congratulate mr. ralph p. avery of new york who will soon be awarded the french legion of honor medal. mr. faso: mr. avery served in the u.s. navy during world war ii as a crewmember of an lct-571 landing craft built in upstate new york, he bravely stormed the beach on d-day. on that historic day, he courageously manned a .20 millimeter gun, firing upon enemy positions. for his heroic actions in combat and their importance to our french allies, next month mr. avery will be formally awarded the french lienon of merit, france -- legion of merit, france's highest honor. he was been awarded the middle east campaign medal with a campaign star for the invasion of normandy, the navy combat action ribbon and the world war ii victory medal. mr. speaker, we thank ralph p. avery and his fellow veterans
12:05 pm
for their outstanding service to america and the cause of liberty. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one inute. mr. brown: mr. speaker, president trump's immigration policies are unpopular. they don't protect our national security and don't promote our ideals as a nation. nowhere is that more apparent than his repeated calls for a border wall. this wall is so unpopular and nonsensical that the house has now resorted to funding it without even a straight up or down vote. why are they doing this? not only to give the president a much-needed win but to fool the american taxpayer who was repeatedly promised that mexico would pay for this wall. the border wall is expensive and unnecessary.
12:06 pm
it's opposed not only by a huge majority of americans but also by those living on the border. now members of congress are being forced to choose between voting for the wall and voting to fund our military. i support our service members. i spent 30 years in active and reserve duty. i'm a member of the house armed services committee. i want to improve the readiness of our armed forces, but i cannot and will not support a multibillion-dollar wall that members of both sides of this aisle now know is unnecessary and ineffective. i will not throw away $1.6 billion to feed the president's ego. on this issue the american people deserve to know exactly where their representatives stand. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. poe: mr. speaker, jennifer represented the very best of america. she volunteered for the peace
12:07 pm
corps at 26 and served in uganda. while there tragically she was hit from behind by a drunk driver, breaking both of her legs. her life changed forever. when she returned home to america, she faced an uphill battle to get treatment and endless bureaucracy. after three months, the peace corps stopped covering her and sent her to face the bureaucracy of the department of labor. instead of serving as a resource, the peace corps postservice unit was no help at all. when she reached out asking for mental health services, they ignored her. she's undergone four surgeries and endless hours of agony. america's angels abroad deserve better. my legislation will ensure that peace corps volunteers have medical care in foreign countries and in america when they return home. and i want to welcome jennifer to the house chamber today. congress appreciates her service as a peace corps volunteer, and we must provide
12:08 pm
help for wonderful people like her. and that's just the way it is. i'll yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? without objection, the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, the house is currently considering the minibus which would fund certain federal agencies in the second fiscal year. mrs. murphy: as a former introduced a i bill to bar political operatives from serving on the national security council and was proud when steve bannon was removed. the minibus provides robust funding for the defense department, something i was proud to vote in the armed services committee. the house contaminated it by adding a provision assigning $1.6 billion to construct a
12:09 pm
border wall. this provision is opposed by public officials from both parties who actually live along the southwest border and will do nothing to keep my constituents in central florida safe. the money could be better spent to expand an underfunded counterterrorism program that orlando has been excluded from or to enhance security at our air and sea ports. the funding should be used to give the american people real security, not politically motivated gimmicks. thank you and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the morrisville softball team. these incredible young athletes won the pennsylvania state title and advanced to the regional tournament in bristol, connecticut, to represent the entire state of pennsylvania. not only did these young ladies play an incredible season which they should be extremely proud,
12:10 pm
they did so while honoring a member of our community. the team dedicated their postseason play to the memory of donna, a committed league volunteer and supporter who passed away following a battle with cancer shortly before the first district game. mr. speaker, i'm so proud of the accomplishments of these young ladies. lan, katie, molly, ella, ainie, caitlyn, alanna, quinn, mma, riley, anna, real and managers and coaches, andy, tim. mr. fitzpatrick: each one of these individuals should be proud of the examples they set both on and off the field. they do credit to themselves, to their families and to our community and we are so proud of them. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise?
12:11 pm
>> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. costa: mr. speaker, i rise to speak about the american dream and those who need protection who are striving to fulfill it. these are individuals who've come to this country as children and infants. through no fault of their own. and america is the only country they have ever known. in essence they are americans. recognizing these realities, deferred action for childhood arrivals program was created in 2012. otherwise known as daca. since that time, daca has granted hundreds of thousands of young immigrants the stability and the protection needed to pursue a college degree and seek employment, to be part of america's future. if we eliminate daca these students could see their pursuit of the american dream swept away, beneath them.
12:12 pm
in california, san joaquin valley alone, this could happen to 500 students at the university of california-merced, that i represent as well as over 1,000 students at fresno state university. some here in washington plan on trying to eliminate daca in coming months, and i stand here to say we cannot let that happen. so i urge the administration and those to stand with those of us who want to protect the deferred action childhood arrival program and allow these folks to pursue the same american dream that our parents, grandparents and previous generations were able to do. let's keep daca. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks, as necessary. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to highlight a prime example of how needless government regulation is wasting both taxpayers' time and money. in my district in florida on the beautiful gulf coast, we
12:13 pm
are susceptible to hurricanes with damaging winds and floodings. sometimes the roads get washed out. back in november of 2014, manama city beach applied for a federal grant from fema to improve drainage and alleviate flooding of front beach road. the project involves the installation of just two culverts under the road for storm runoff. this is not building pyramids. three years later, local officials have submitted more than 900 pages of paperwork and spent countless hours working on this application. all this is for a project that will take just one week to construct and involves a grant of only $170,000. mr. speaker, this is exactly the kind of crushing red tape that our constituents face on a regular basis, and this is what we're working to fix. thank you, mr. speaker. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania
12:14 pm
rise? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 3364, the russia-iran and north korea sanctions act. these sanctions are critical to countering aggressive and destabilizing actions by russia, iran and north korea, sending a strong message at a critical moment. iran has continued its illegal ballistic missile program, its support for terrorism and its atrocious human rights record. north korea has continued to pursue its dangerous development of nuclear weapons. russia has maintained its aggression in ukraine, its illegal occupation of crimea and its destabilizing actions in syria. these sanctions also send a long overdue response to the kremlin's attacks on our elections here at home.
12:15 pm
mr. boyle: i commend this body for coming to the on this important american national security issue. i call upon the senate to pass this legislation and for the president to sign it. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i this week the boyd company released annual report confirming that south carolina is the best state to locate or expand a business for jobs. as reported in the journal on monday, it is the lowest the nation for advanced manufacturing companies. this success is also improved by low property taxes and being a right-to-work state which recruited high-quality jobs for south carolina, including volvo,
12:16 pm
m.t.u. and more. south carolina is a competitive state to create jobs because of our educated work force, working with apprenticeship carolina, businesses have technical colleges to close the skills gaps earn hansed with positive federal lemmings. i appreciate the leadership of local chambers of commerce in create iing jobs working with the governor and secretary of commerce. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget our troops and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to speak out against the wasteful spending of $1.6 billion of taxpayers' money. these funds will be used to
12:17 pm
construct unnecessary barriers along our southern border, destroying wildlife habitat and violating property rights of americans. if we want to be more secure, we should appropriately fund to address staffing issues to maintain and upgrade technology and provide the resources to maintain a safe and secure border. building a wall along our southern border will put us on the wrong side of history and will be a shameful act in front of the world commurent. i support department of homeland security's mission to safeguard the american people, our homeland and our values. these are not our values. but the congressional misallocation of $1.6 billion does not help to accomplish this goal. i urge my colleagues to oppose the funding of this expensive, unnecessary wall and i call on them to find more productive and
12:18 pm
effective uses of this fund to help the american people and be on the right side of history. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? mr. thompson: request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and stepped. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: i rise to congratulate the maryville fire company as it celebrates 125 years of service. the fire company began in 1892 at the home of dave moriarity with a wagon and a pump and determination. a great fire ripped through the ea destroying a section of marionville and they raised money for better equipment and they have official uniforms, first fire truck and fire house. as the team grew, the building
12:19 pm
still houses the company today. today, there are about 40 active members under the direction of president randall perritt and fire chief granger. i know these firefighters are always ready to answer the call. mr. speaker, i proudly congratulate the marionville fire company on this outstanding milestone and thank each member of the company for their service. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. ramos today to recognize a television producer and mmunicator born in the dominican republic. he has had a long and successful
12:20 pm
career. he object taped his passport positive news, positive stories about people, particularly immigrants that have exceled in america and particularly in new york. throughout all this time, particularly during the negative anti-immigrant rhetoric that is going on right now, including this week's push to build a wall, he is the embodiment of being a pioneer and successful contributor to our community. thank you for being a role model and leader. [speaking spanish] >> i yield back the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
12:21 pm
the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> i rise today in honor of the retirement of judge fred stein, the chief circuit court judge of the 17th judicial district in campbell county, kentucky. he graduated from the university of cincinnati in 1973 and received his j.d. from northern kentucky university in 1978. he worked in private practice for two years until his appointment as the assistant united states attorney for the eastern district of kentucky. he has served the commonwealth as circuit court judge since 2005. he has many awards, which include, a distinguished service recognition from the federal bureau of investigation and a special recognition for victims' rights from the u.s. department of justice. throughout his career and despite his heavy case docket, judge stein gave his time to serve his community. judge stein is a public servant
12:22 pm
who served his state and nation well. on behalf of the citizens of the 4th district, i'm honored to wish judge stein the very best in his retirement. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> we call president trump's promise on the campaign trail, we will build a wall and have mexico pay for it. not only is it costly and unnecessary but will do more to divide america than it will do to keep us safe. you know, first taken the fact that mexico is not paying for it, nor would anybody in their right mind that mexico is going to pay for it, now he is asking for zhrrs 1.6 billion to pay for it. we have 650 miles of border
12:23 pm
fencing. but representing the sunshine state with thousands -- over 1,000 miles of coastline, this isn't going to make us safer and not going to help us at all and you look to how there's racial undertones to this. notice there is a focus on the southern border, but not the northern border? while i would not support that, we can't help but notice that this is focused on dividing america on racial lines, on making us less safe and wasting taxpayer dollars. it's time to unite america. it's time to look forward for a safer america and spend our money on the coast guard on custom border patrol and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and resize and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. biggs: during my freedom friday series, each week i
12:24 pm
highlight burdensome regulations that limit american freedom. this week, my focus is on the obama administration's net neutrality policy. the internet is one of the greatest innovations ever. this is largely been possible because of the federal government's regulatory absence from the industry. yet, the obama administration in one of many cases of overregulation, took a radical step to inappropriately insert government interference. in 2015, the f.c.c. adopted a rule to reclassify internet service providers as common carriers under title 2 of the communications act of 1934. this reclassification caused undo burdens for america's i.s.p.'s and consumers. the trump administration has been supportive of rolling back obama-era regulation, congress needs to regulate federal bureaucrats and preserve a free
12:25 pm
and open internet. we should prevent the f.c.c. of adopting a similar rule. we need to restore internet freedom. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from wisconsin rise? >> request permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. moore: americans don't want to pay a single dime of federal money to pay for the president's wall. now during the presidential campaign, this was a very provocative claim and he said mexico would pay for it. so why does this defense authorization bill -- appropriations bill have a blank check for this wall? i and my colleagues know that this wall is unnecessary environmentally, catastrophic and will require to seize
12:26 pm
property through eminent domain and it's ineffective like homeland security secretary kelly has said. i urge to oppose funding. vote against the rule before us today and talk about the types of immigration reform that our country needs. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> request unanimous consent to address the house the -- for one minute. >> i was disappointed to read about some criticizing the general aviation community as quote some special interest group that was trying to stand in the way of progress and modernization. we are more modernization as modernization has already taken off and we have been partners from the very beginning. g.a. is not a special interest group, we are family, friends and neighbors. there are doctors, teachers,
12:27 pm
community leaders and small business people that rely on general aviation to create jobs. my son ryan is with us today who loves aviation and wants to be a pilot when he grows up and that's because he has been exposed to general aviation. germ aviation employs 1.2 million people and adds $219 billion of economic output. i ask ask my colleagues to side with with general aviation on any bill that comes to the floor like the one that came out of the transportation committee. moving to a system where everyone is treated equally to a system where one uzbekistanner benefits over another is a bad idea and one we should reject as against to america exceptionalism. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized for
12:28 pm
one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday, in the judiciary ommittee, the house, motion of inquiry was introduced to seek answers concerning the firing of james comey and attorney general sessions rolled therein. respect our citizens may or may not for its government, the republicans put a substitute amendment in raising questions about hillary clinton and did everything but yell lock her up. it was a disgusting display taking advantage of the inority, taking our voice away and potential obstruction of justice that could come and there is an attempt to fire mueller. it was not a good day for
12:29 pm
democracy. we need to be aware of the fact that democracy is in jeopardy and need to be alert at every moment and find every answer. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to pay tribute crittenden late hospital. over the past 50 years, the hospital has dedicated it serving the rochester community and all of its citizens, since opening its doors in 19 7, it has expanded to meet the needs of the community while keeping pace with advances in technology and medicine. the longevity enjoyed is a testament to its unique and
12:30 pm
enduring impact. its dedication to our residents will continue to care for patients. i'm honored to recognize the 50th affers of the hospital. thank you for your commitment to the people you serve and to our entire rochester-area community. i yield back. . . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, more than 700,000 high-skilled immigrant workers from india are in the united states today on temporary work visas. mr. yoder: these people are working hard every day helping grow our economy, raising their children as americans right here in our communities. but under our immigration system they are stuck on a cycle of temporary work visas,
12:31 pm
unable to change jobs or even start their own small business to create more american jobs. they're stuck because of the arbitrary 7% per nation cap on employment-based green cards. right now there's a mother whose unborn child will be able to obtain permanent residence in america before someone from india who is already here and have been working here for years. that's absurd and it's wrong. my bill called the fairness for high-skilled immigrants act, would fix this problem. it would transition us to a first come first serve merit-based legal immigration system. it would help these people in need and it would help create new jobs. mr. speaker, with more than 230 co-sponsors, it's time to pass this bill and get this done. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: mr. speaker, one of my pres sessors set the
12:32 pm
standard for -- predecessor set the standard for service in this nation. among certain. micky leyland, but barbara washington served on the judiciary committee and it was her standard during the watergate impeachment hearings that set the nation afire about the relevancy of the people's right to justice and that is why i hold this constitution in hand and rise to the floor of y to express my concern the issues surrounding the attorney general and the potential firing of the special counsel, mr. mueller. this book, which has the constitution in it, guarantees three equal branches of government, and there's an orderlyness to the sponsibilities of the -- orderliness to the responsibilities of the constitution. we want the russia collusion
12:33 pm
and the corruption of the election steered in one direction. we have the opportunity or responsibility to clean our kitchen up. i am very concerned of any executive, any commander in chief that will suggest in violation of the constitution that they would fire the attorney general, then have the opportunity to ensure that the special counsel was fired in controvention of the american people's desires. i introduced house resolution 474 to disapprove any firing of the special counsel and reckless pardons of those who are under investigation. mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. mcclintock: this administration was elected to drain the swamp and one of the
12:34 pm
yuckiest part is the export import banks which guarantees loans to foreign companies that buy american products often to use in competition with american companies that get no such advantage. when politicians are picking winners and losers in the shadows, it shouldn't surprise us that we find a particularly nasty breeding ground for corruption. now, we can debate the merits of the ex-im bank, but one thing is undeniable. it's an agency that needs a taxpayer watchdog on its board and not just another lap dog for crony capitalists seeking to fleece taxpayers. scott garrett is a watchdog. he sounded the alarm on the ex-im's more questionable loans and his leadership on its board would restore credibility to its decisions. the bank's supporters should welcome an independent voice that could restore its reputation. and the president should insist on it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.
12:35 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington seek recognition? mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, by the direction of the committee on rules, i call up house resolution 478 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 69. resolved, lution 478, that at any time after adoption of this resolution the speaker may, pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18, declare the house resolved into the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 3219, making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018, and for other purposes. the further amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted in the house and in the committee of the whole. section 2-a, no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this
12:36 pm
resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, and available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of house resolution 473. b, each further amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described in section 4 of house resolution 473, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. c, all points of order against further amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules or against amendments en bloc described in
12:37 pm
section 3 of this resolution are waived. section 3, it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the committee on appropriations or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment except amendments described in section 4 of house resolution 473, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. section 4, at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the house with such further amendments as may have been adopted. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one
12:38 pm
motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 5, it shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of july 27, 2017, or july 28, 2017, for the speaker to entertain motions that the house suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule 15. the speaker or his designee shall consult with the minority leader or her designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington is recognized for one hour. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the lady from new york, ms. slaughter, pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may
12:39 pm
have five legislative days to evise and extend their remarks . the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, the house rules committee met yesterday and reported a rule, house resolution 478, providing for further consideration of h.r. 3219, the make america secure appropriations act of 2018. this legislation includes four individual appropriations bills -- defense, energy and water, legislative branch and military construction-veterans affairs. the rule provides for further consideration of h.r. 3219 under a structured rule. mr. speaker, this rule provides for consideration of a critical measure that will prioritize funding for important components of our national security. this legislation directs funding for our troops and their families, our nation's
12:40 pm
veterans, the legislative branch and the united states capitol police. border and nuclear security, energy and water infrastructure investments and vital appropriations to ensure our military has the equipment and readiness necessary to keep the nation safe. mr. speaker, this legislation is composed of the serious and essential work conducted by the house appropriations committee over the past many months. as an appropriator, a member of that committee, i fully appreciate and understand the hard work my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have put in to report these key measures we have before us today. the most important job we have as members of congress is ensuring the safety of our nation and by supporting this rule, we can move the national
12:41 pm
security package forward. pay 3219 includes a 2.4% increase for our troops. that's the largest military pay increase in eight years. it keeps our military on the cutting edge of defense, technology by investing in research and development and in equipment and weapons procurement. under the legislation, we will restore readiness shortfalls and make much-needed critical investments for our troops to address ongoing threats around the globe. we must provide support for our troops to combat terrorism and defeat isis. with the legislation we make a major step forward in restoring the devastating cuts our armed forces faced under the obama administration. the bill also increases funding for construction of critical military infrastructure to keep our troops safe and prepared.
12:42 pm
the bill also provides for critical safety and enhanced security functions for the united states capitol. in light of the recent horrific attack on our colleagues, on staff and on the capitol police, the legislation provides increased funding for the capitol police for increased training, equipment and technology-related support. the men and women who guard these hallowed halls deserve to have access to every resource needed to do their job as safely and as effectively as possible. under this bill, h.r. 3219, we can ensure that the capitol police and the house sergeant at arms are equipped with these critical enhancements. regarding the important energy and water provisions included in the bill, the underlying legislation will improve public
12:43 pm
safety, will create jobs and will grow our economy by funding the army corps of engineers' prioritizing navigation projects and studies. h.r. 3219 reduces regulatory red tape, including authorizing the administrator of the environmental protection agency as well as the secretary of the army to withdrawal from the devastating waters of the united states rule. the bill also funds important department of energy programs, including nuclear cleanup efforts such as at the hanford site which is located in my district in central washington state, as well as nuclear weapons programs to strengthen our national security. mr. speaker, this legislation also provides the highest level of funding for the department of veterans affairs in our
12:44 pm
nation's history, ensuring that we keep the commitment to those who have defended our nation. it supports vital medical care for our veterans, including mental health care services, suicide prevention activities, traumatic brain treatments, opioid abuse prevention and homeless veterans' services. there are some issues here in congress that are nonpartisan. every single one of our colleagues here in the u.s. house of representatives believes we must provide the best care possible for our nation's veterans, and i am proud of the significant strides this legislation takes to support veterans across the country. the rule we consider here today provides for the consideration of a bill that is critically important to keeping our nation safe. by passing this legislation, we
12:45 pm
will continue to rebuild our military, ensure we maintain our military's superiority and boost defense efforts in the face of rising global threats. the bill will aid in supporting our troops and their families and improve access to care for our veterans. it will increase the safety of the united states capitol complex for members and staff who serve here. . and constituents who visit this campus and for the valid capitol police. and will have construction investments to move the united states towards energy independence, improve our economic competitiveness and tod nonproliferation efforts prevent, counter and respond to
12:46 pm
nuclear threats. most importantly, this legislation will make major and s to protect our men women serving across the globe who are protecting our freedoms. i urge my colleagues to support this rule as well as the underlying legislation. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york seek recognition? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i rise in opposition to the rule and yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to thank my friend, the gentleman from washington, for his many kindnesses and one of the best members we have, but i'm going to have to disagree with him today. i'm sorry, mr. new house. when speaker ryan told the american people that he wanted to have, quote, a process that is more open, more inclusive, more deliberative, end quote.
12:47 pm
and when the majority took control of both the congress and the white house and they promised to congressional procedure. t we are here three months near the the end of the fiscal minibus is this also a mistake. this may sound terrible, but we have some rules and everyone wants to improve security. this bill is a little more than smoking mirrors, because the increase in defense spending will never see the light of day. that's because we operate under the budget control act, and that mandates that my breach of the defense cap, which this bill across the igger an
12:48 pm
board sequestration cut against all accounts. the majority has inserted an amendment to provide $1.6 billion that president trump requested to begin construction of the wall on the u.s.-mexico border. now this is surely just the beginning of making the taxpayers pay for the entire wall, which experts have stimated could cost as much as $21 billion with nary a peso from mexico. i see no reason why they don't want to go on with the expenditure. et me put that in perspective. $21 billion could double the federal investments in public schools. think of that, just that money on that wall. it could provide six million
12:49 pm
people with health care under medicaid. it could buy school lunches for tens of millions of low-income children. but these investments are not a priority for this majority. president trump's own budget director famously said that it isn't worth feeding hungry children if the nutrition does not improve school performance and that meals on wheels sound great, but they don't work. i would never thought i would hear either of those things come from the mouth of a federal official. rankly -- i'm baffled by that. let me say it that way. the opposition to the wall is partisan and the republicans from texas, former c.i.a. officer sits on the homeland
12:50 pm
security committee and represents the largest border district in the state of texas. he testified before the rules committee late monday night against it saying having one size fits all solution, the border security makes no sense. this amendment was included without debating the merits on the floor without giving members an up or down vote. let me explain that a little bit. this amendment is in the bill, but there will be no vote on it. it has been what we call self-executed, to keep people from being recorded in any way of whether they are for or gns the wall. the last statistic i saw from the american people is 68% of them are opposed and will never know whether their representatives voted for it or not. this is a bait and switch. immigration has allowed to shape the world rather than to fear
12:51 pm
it. the wall will lock the united states away from the rest of the world and the president's new communications director wrote online, quote, walls don't work, never have, never will, end quote. we don't whether he is going to change his mind about that or not, but that is what he said. e of our famous republican president, ronald reagan when he stood in west berlin and demanded that another wall be torn down. i sat in the rules committee yesterday and i will say it, if the majority builds this wall, it will be torn down not by someone crossing the border or an outside force. it will crumble because public understanding of the majority and our nation does not
12:52 pm
barricade itself away from the rest of the world. we will not build walls to keep us in. what kind of superpower would we be if we built a wall and crumbled from the inside because the money we put on the wall kept us from updating our infrastructure, which is in such terrible shape. none of us want to find that out but the majority is putting us on such a path. just yesterday, president trump announced a ban on transgender service members serving in the military. it appears today that he made that on his own and chief of staff -- joint chief of staff didn't have any idea he was going to do that. it came 69 years to the day that president truman desegregated our military. 67 years to the day when he said
12:53 pm
transgender couldn't people is the same day that president truman integrated the military services. this is an insult who sacrifice for our country. transgender service members are being attacked from both ends of pennsylvania avenue. days ago, republicans joined democrats to defeat an amendment that would have barred transgender service members from receiving the necessary health care that they deserve. and the treatments that would have been available to other service members under this amendment. apparently the majority is not about the treatment but the person who receives it. the amendment is ems cruel when you consider a pentagon report has found that transition-related treatment 8.4 between $2.4 and million a year. that's the cost of just four, four of the president's trips to
12:54 pm
mar-a-lago. please think about that people. several million dollars to go mar-a-lago is more expensive than it would have been for operations for transgender persons. i would like to insert in the record an article from "usa today" that details this. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i believe our soldiers and all of our soldiers deserve our thanks and supports, they are americans. but lastly, mr. speaker, it is also outrageous and i saved this for the end, the majority strips from the bill representative lee's amendment to repeal the authorization for use of military force. until this a.u.m.f. came into law is rescinded and replaced, the president of the united states can usurp and effectively
12:55 pm
declare war without congress. in fact, that has happened. matters of war are the most serious issue that congress considers and we should not and don't want to shirk those responsibilities. we want to on fulfill our constitutional duties. yet speaker ryan removed it from the bill. and did it without any debate or single vote because he was afraid of it. he replaced it with weaker language requiring a 30-day study. after the 30 days, we aren't assured of anything at all, just a study. that's not the type of open and transparent process that the speaker promised. it sounds like a debate we need to have. all americans, especially our men in uniform deserve better from us as they volunteer to save us with their very lives. i reserve the balance of my
12:56 pm
time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i would like to yield up to four minutes to the good chairman of the homeland security subcommittee of the appropriations committee, mr. john carter. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. carter: i thank my friend for yielding. mr. chairman, i'm in favor of the rule which makes an amendment that i offered, part of the security package by the adoption of this rule. i want to acknowledge frustration of my colleagues that adding funds to construct three barriers on the u.s.-mexico border. like many of you, i would have preferred a package which included appropriations bills,
12:57 pm
however -- this is the process going forward and i'm supportive of it. despite my reservations about the process i believe each of these three projects included in this amendment are absolutely necessary for national security. the funds that are in the what we call the wall part of this bill are 28 miles of levee wall in texas. people ask me what that is. levee is a big mound of dirt that keeps the water from flooding. it's a big pile of dirt with 20-foot wall on one side of concrete to keep it from washing out and six-foot fence on top of that. it is water retention as well as defending our borders. 32 miles of fence in star county, texas.
12:58 pm
it is a bunch of steel poles about the size of small post, corner post on a cedar-post fence and rise you up 20 feet in the air and have a cement base. in san diego, replacing an existing 14 miles of wall or fence with better product because it's been deteriorating since the 1990's when it went in. that's what is in this bill. people claim it isn't to put up barriers between the border of united states and mexico. they say the border is more secure than it has ever been and apprehensions are way down and prevent r walls do not people crossing. apprehensions are down relative
12:59 pm
to the mid 2000's. in the late 1990's, in san diego before their barrier fences were built, 500,000 people stormed across that border. this year, only 25,000. that's a substantial reduction. more than one million people cross our southern border every year in the early 20 thousand's. but we ap present hepped people. that is a substantial number. what concerns me more than the number of apprehensions is if immigrants are crossing, this border illegally so are drug traffickers, smugglers and human traffickers. mr. speaker, many members of this body will probably illegal immigrants rushing the border in
1:00 pm
san diego back in the 1990's. illegal immigrants' entries significantly increased. the number of illegal crossings fell, commerce increased and neighborhoods became safe all because of barriers, fences and arriers on the border. this is the path of least resistance and these results do not mean that the flow has steadied. it is simply moved to another unprotected place like the rio grande valley in my home state of texas. we want to change that dynamic. this amendment is important because it's committed to dedicated men and women who stand in harm's way on our behalf. . i ask for support for this bill
1:01 pm
and am. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. gallego. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gallego: mr. speaker, there's a really disturbing story in "politico" today. speaker rye yap was apparently afraid he wouldn't be able to pass the defense spending bill, including $1st6 billion for trump's dumb wall because conservatives want to block medical care for transgender service members. he called the president asking for help. what did donald trump do to get peaker ryan out of this jam? he banned brave americans from serving. he's kicking men and women out of our armed services to make sure he can get money to build his stupid, irresponsible, unnecessary wall. bigoted ementing one policy in order to achieve another one. this is hatred in the service of
1:02 pm
injustice. this is transphobia in the service of racism. this is stupidity in the service of foolishness. r. speaker, stop doing trump's dirty work. not only is his border wall expensive and unnecessary, members of this body who care teeply about our national defense shouldn't be forced to decide to vote for this ridiculous proposal and voting to fund our military. more importantly, on such a momentous issue, the american people deserve to know where their relected representatives stand. mr. speaker, let's defeat this rule. let's stop this wall. let's enable every american patriot regardless of their gender identity to do what i did, to fight for this country with pride, courage, and selflessness. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, redo have a couple speakers coming. they are not here yet. i reserve the balance of my time. look forward to having them
1:03 pm
participate as soon as they get here. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. miss slaughter: i yield two minutes -- ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. jackson lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. jackson lee: first of all let me thank the gentlelady from new york for her consistent leadership being a frequent visitor to the rules committee. the member. i want to thank the manager for the courtesies extended to all of us. let me say that i am a member of the budget committee and i want the sociate my stance with gentlelady from new york. we do not have a budget. but in fact the budget is not a road map that we were even attempting to do. the budget was a slash and burn of medicare, medicaid, only to give tax cuts. it had no vision. but to plus up the defense appropriations. so now we come with a minibus
1:04 pm
that wants to do more damage. i have no karl with my friend from texas -- quarrel with my friend from texas, but it is very clear that this budget is based upon this wall and this rule is based upon this wall. but it is important for the american people to know that while we're fighting for medicaid and meals on wheels, better policing, better education for our children the wall that was supposed to be paid by mexico, let me say it again, the wall that was supposed to be made by mexico, has evidenced by the commander in chief, is now in this rule. not for $100 million, not for $200 million. not for $50 million. 239 billion.71 what this rule is all
1:05 pm
about. and frankly i believe that this is a shame. and frankly i oppose it because the commander in chief swore that what this rule is all about. and mexico would pay for the wall. now we're paying for the wall. as indicated, a member of congress from texas who represents the area is adamantly against it. i would only argue to say that there are other needs in this minibus that the american people desire. i also rise to express strong opposition that the lee amendments were not put in. congress wop lee had an amendment for us to debate the aumf, two, and they were rejected. lets us go back to regular order and pass appropriations for the american people and debate whether we go to war. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, the american people spoke loud and clear last november, they voted to support a stronger military. unyielding national defense. that includes the need for a
1:06 pm
much improved border security. as the gentleman from texas said, we have threats of human traffickers, drug smugglers, terrorists coming across our borders. this is something that the they n people said that wanted and we're responding to that with recommendations from customs and border security protection agentcy. with that, mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i am pleased to yield three minutes to the gentleman from maryland, democrat whip, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for three minutes. thank you, mr. speaker. there is a lot of
1:07 pm
disorder in washington, d.c. there is chaos and conflict and confrontation in the white house. there is conflict within the majority party in the house of representatives. there was a representation that we were going to follow regular order. we have not. there was no budget which was supposed to be adopted some three months ago. a budget which would have told all the members of the congress
1:08 pm
and the country how much discretionary spending we were going to have. the majority party has been thise to bring a budget to floor and to pass it. because of the disarray and disorder that we find in this house. this rule represents a litany of broken promises and exposes, frankly, the hypocrisy of this republican majority. this rule would add an amendment to the underlying bill that directs $1.6 billion of american taxpayer dollars toward the construction of president trump's proposed border wall. this was not in the original bill. and the irony is in the rules committee an amendment that was in the original bill has been
1:09 pm
struck. not by a vote of the defense committee or the appropriations committee, but by the rules committee. they just struck out an amendment. let me remind my colleagues, mr. speaker, of the words of our speaker, paul ryan. he said this, quote, we will advance major legislation one issue at a time. mr. speaker, as you probably know i have been here for some years, 36 to be exact. i have never seen in 36 years an omnibus or minibus brought to he floor before september. why? because the regular order is to consider the bills one at a time. or as the speaker said, we will
1:10 pm
advance major legislation one issue at a time. what the republicans have done, mr. speaker, is to bring a bill and put so much in it they dare people to vote against it. because of the national security. may i have two additional minutes. ms. slaughter: two additional minutes. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady. this rule ought to be rejected. it is not the regular order. it is not good policy. and it's not good for the institution of the house of representatives or for the country. the border wall is controversial. many people in the trump administration do not believe the border wall will be effective and they believe it's a waste of money. of course the president told us all the mexicans were going to ay for the wall.
1:11 pm
this is $1.6 billion of about $20 billion that would have to the ot to be paid for by mexicans but paid for by the u.s. taxpayer for an ineffective effort to make this country more secure. everybody on this floor believes we ought to know who comes into this country and that people ought not come into this country unless they are authorized to do so. we all agree on that. i ask the majority leader bring this border wall to the floor. let us gate debate it. put it open for amendment. that is the regular order. mr. speaker, went on to say we will not duck the tough issues. we will take them head on. that's speaker paul ryan, october 29, 2015. they had an amendment offered on the authorization bill by mrs.
1:12 pm
hartzler of movement. it was controversial. and the majority party lost. so what did they do? they didn't add it to the bill as mrs. hartzler wanted it to do, have an amendment on this floor so we could debate it gain on its demerits or merits depending upon your perspective. but they went around not by regular order, not by taking depending upon your issues head on, but by having the president answer some tweet that the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff says he never talked to about. one additional minute. no. ms. slaughter: talked to about.. mr. hoyer: my colleagues, let us stand up for this institution. let us stand up for regular order. let us stand up for not ducking the tough issues.
1:13 pm
let's reject this rule. and then let's go back to regular order and hopefully do so in a bipartisan way and do what the american public expects us to do. make tough decisions for them, for our country, for our security, and for our children. and i yield back the balance of my time. urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: thank you, mr. speaker. i certainly appreciate the debate on both sides on this very important issue. let me just say that this has been a very open process. not all may want to acknowledge that, but let me just point out that this rule makes 54 amendment in order. 21 of those amendments are from the democrats. 16 from republicans. and fully 17 are led by bipartisan co-sponsors.
1:14 pm
that tells me that the openness of this process, the ability for people to bring their perspectives, their opinions in his important debate, is real. as far as the rules committee unilaterally striking language and reinserting other language, that's true. we struck section 9021 of the defense appropriations act of 2018. and replaced it, though, with language from an amendment ndaa,d by mr. cole to the the national defense authorization act of 2018, which was adopted by the full house on july 13 of this year. so it was replaced with language that was approved by this body. again, mr. speaker, i think that points to the openness of this process. with that i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is
1:15 pm
recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from north carolina, the distinguished ranking member of the appropriations ubcommittee on transportation, housing, and urban development. mr. price. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from north carolina is recognized for three minutes. mr. price: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to this so-called security minibus. the republicans have rushed through this process passing 12 bills without benefit of a budget resolution. then they failed to secure the votes on the floor for that republican-only omnibus package. so they decided to move forward with what is before us today, these four appropriations bills stitched together. they would butt the defense control act and would result in a $72 billion sequester against all defense accounts.
1:16 pm
the entire fiscal 18 appropriations process has been a republican exercise in sham accounting, ignoring current law, jack up defense spending, impose unnecessary and detrimental cuts on domestic appropriations. when future students learn about congressional appropriations, this episode should be exhibit a of what not to do. the four bills before us today are full of objectionable and unreasonable policy riders including the ridiculous inclusion in the rule of $1.6 billion to be spent on 74 miles of border wall. nobody would know it from the president's hysterical rhetoric, but there are already 700 miles of fence down there on the border, pedestrian fencing. i know about it because most of that fencing was built when i was chairman of the homeland
1:17 pm
security appropriations subcommittee and we required segment by segment analysis and required environmental impact studies. this bill doesn't include that or any language regarding congressional oversight. there are no requirements for homeland security to submit cost benefit analysis or to work with congress through any modifications. my colleagues, funding an unnecessary wall especially without congressional oversight is not a defensible use of taxpayer dollars. we would simply become about complicit in what we all know was campaign demagogry. speaking of which, wasn't the mexican government going to pay for this wall? weren't they going to pick up the tab? this money should be spent on more important priorities within and beyond homeland security that would actually improve the lives of our citizens. it's time for republicans to
1:18 pm
stop playing games with taxpayer money, to start negotiating with democrats. we know this is going to have to happen eventually. we need a bipartisan budget and appropriations package that actually has a chance of becoming law and actually would address the need of a great country for serious investment. oppose the border wall. oppose this sham appropriations minibus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: reserve, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman -- ms. slaughter: may i inquire how much time i have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady has 8 1/2 minutes left. ms. slaughter: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. doggett: our nation of immigrants, a wall rejects our
1:19 pm
very history. a wall is not about america leading the world, a wall is about trying to shut off the rest of the world. ignored today of course, is the history of how poorly walls have worked to stop desperate people. most all of those who are coming to america risking their lives, suffocating in the back of a truck, going over a perilous desert, they are not here to cause us harm, they're not here to do wrong and mooch off our social services, but trying to escape violence or a little hope to their family and do it by taking the dirtiest, toughest jobs in our society as immigrants have done since the very founding of our nation. a wall only makes their path more perilous without offering us more security.
1:20 pm
last year, trump's most famous and often repeated claim was building a wall that mexico would pay for. but this year we have one broken trump cam -- campaign promise after another. he is putting taxpayers on the hook to pay for a wall. broken campaign promise. instead of a wall, we ought to e building opportunities, as steve adler said, bridges make money and walls cost money. building a trump boondoggle in the desert at the same time, he says we can't afford medical research, educational opportunity shows how backward these priorities are. let's oppose a wall of ignorance, a wall of prejudice and create a bridge of opportunity.
1:21 pm
to achieve both true security and economic growth, we need to reject this narrow-minded approach in favor of comprehensive immigration reform. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: i do know that even though some people would like to ignore the situation we have on our southern border, we do need to respond to those border protection agents that are asking us for help. we do need to respond to the crisis we see along our southern border to keep our country as safe as possible. and we do need to confirm to people across the country that help is on the way. certainly, the border is one aspect of this important piece of legislation, but there are many, many things in this bill that will help our country and help our military forces keep our nation safe. so i urge my colleagues to support this bill and would reserve the balance of my time.
1:22 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the the gentlewoman from from california. >> i rise in opposition. i sit on homeland security and i know what it's like to make sure that national security is our number one priority. i also happen to know that i have heard testimony from experts and i have heard bipartisan opposition to this wall in my committee because when we hear from experts, they tell us the wall is not going to stop a terrorists and the drug cartels aren't going to be stopped either. they will build a tunnel under a wall. when you talk about homeland security, i know what you are talking about. this $1.6 billion is just a waste of taxpayer dollars. it's a dubious political promise that was made and now the
1:23 pm
american people are being asked to foot the bill. let me repeat. i sit on homeland security. the border on the south is not our number one terrorist target. we know that what is there now is already existing wall. we already have fencing there. me of the areas are in areas of the rio grande. we could spend money on technology and put more money into port security, where there is a greater threat of terrorism. this is just another way to bully congress into funding a border wall that the majority of people don't want. i hope my colleagues on the either side of the aisle will not be bullied by this because it is being packaged in with other bills that will be passed without the partisanship. i yield back.
1:24 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, if we defeat the previous question i will offer an amendment to the rule to allow the house to consider representative lee's aumf amendment, authority to use military force. this will provide members a chance for an up-and-down vote. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record along with extraneous material immediately prior to the vote on the previous question. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and to discuss our proposal, i yield three minutes to the the gentlewoman from california, ms. lee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. lee: first, let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and for your tremendous leadership.
1:25 pm
it is a true testament for the love of our country and troops. i rise in opposition first to this terrible rule but in strong support of this amendment to aumft funding for the 2001 after 240 days after enactment of this act. this would give us time to do our job and debate on matters of war and peace. last week, republicans decided to kill my bipartisan amendment to sunset the 2001 aumf which would allow eight months to debate and vote on a new one before enacted. this amendment was adopted on a bipartisan basis in the full appropriations committee and it was stripped out of the bill in the dead of the night with no debate or vote from the rules committee. this undemocratic and underhanded behavior really makes me wonder what is speaker ryan so afraid of? i came to the rules committee and asked them to recktive eye a
1:26 pm
wrong and they refused. i offered a second amendment, which we have before us today, which would sunset the funding for the 2001 aumf 240 days after enactment, that's eight months, which would allow ample time to debate and vote. this would be repeal but remain in place allowing eight months to debate this even though this amendment was germane to the bill, republicans refused to allow debate on this. i understand that speaker ryan said it was a mistake to include my original amendment. initially on june 29, according to press accounts, my colleague and friend who supported this amendment, said it is time for leadership to wake up and the administration to wake up and send over a recommended aumf, mark it up and take it to the floor. i don't know any other way to get their attention because we have been talking about it for
1:27 pm
years. instead of listening to their own party. what do they do? they stripped our bipartisan amendment. some members said the funding would be cut immediately with this amendment, but that's furtherer from the truth. this would be irresponsible and i wouldn't offer an amendment like ta. it would allow eight months for congress to vote and debate on aumf. some say it is political. our brave troops deserve to come together so they know our country has their back. i voted against the 2001 authorization because i believe it opened the door for any president to wage war without a debate or vote. history has borne that out. according to the congressional research service, they said 2001 aumf has been used more than 37 times in 14 countries to justify military action. this report only examines the
1:28 pm
unclassified incidents. how many other operations have been conducted without the knowledge of the american people. these authorizations have been used to justify perpetual wars -- ms. slaughter: i can yield you 90 seconds. that's all i have. i'll give you 30 seconds. ms. lee: let me conclude by saying, any president can wage war under the outdated authorizations forever, forever, unless it's repealed. the american people, our constituents know that congress is missing in action and deserve better. surely congress can muster the courage to do our constitutional duty and debate and vote on a new aumf. we passed the 2001 aumf within three days, three days and never came to the floor. so let's stand up for our constitution, for our servicemen and women and national security
1:29 pm
by bringing forward this amendment. i urge my colleagues to vote no on the previous question so we can finally have this debate. vote no on the rule and underlying bill. thank you for yielding. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized. ms. slaughter: does my colleague have more speakers? if not, i'm prepared to close. mr. newhouse: we do have one more speaker. ms. slaughter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: let me say to my good friend from california, i agree that a new authorization on the use of military force is something that's necessary, something that we owe our military and that something that we should do. the language with the cole amendment i think starts us down that path. in fact, the foreign affairs committee just this week is holding hearings on this very important topic, so i look forward to working with ms. lee
1:30 pm
on this as well as all of us here in this house to get us to the end result that i think is absolutely necessary. and i appreciate the gentlewoman's comments. at this point, i would like to yield four minutes to the gentleman from arizona, mr. biggs. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for four minutes. mr. biggs: thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important issue. i am an arizona native. i grew up in southern arizona and trips to the southern arizona border were not infrequent and not unusual. have gone from an luis to nogales, i have been along the border many times. most recreptly just a couple months ago. a couple months
1:31 pm
ago. during that time i used it as a fact-finding expedition. i wanted to know what people who live a couple months ago. right along the border talk about and think about as we in congress consider things like a presidential promise to build a wall. even in this bill a partial wall , a good start. i'll tell you what i know is that the number one drug and human smuggling corridor in the united states of america is through the tucson sector. that's right through the heart of the arizona-mexico border. to 80 cts literally 75 miles into the border. what we have is -- wilderness preserves, our agents can't go in. they don't go in and yet roadways are cut in this pristine desert by those who enter from the cartels.
1:32 pm
cutting roads with their vehicles that they know that our agents cannot traverse. so i'm familiar with the area. i'm familiar with the issue. i had the privilege of talking to border patrol agents over the last few years, but in particular the last time i was at the border. i talked to a number of them. i wondered what the men and women who think, what they think who actually service the border for us. i asked them whether they supported a wall. it was 100%, it was unanimous, they want a wall. they want additional infrastructure. they want a road that parallels that wall. so they can get to the -- so they can have access to that wall and make the apprehensions that they need to. i talked to ranchers and farmers . it was unanimous then as well.
1:33 pm
everyone wanted that wall. all recognizing the need for additional infrastructure of a roadway. when you go to various portions of the border now, it is a single strand of wire. you can walk -- you can step over it. we had one of the ranchers, an 81-year-old gentleman, demonstrate how he crawls underneath the wire at 81 years of age. where there is small areas of fencing, outside nogales, either side, that is cut down -- has cut down the number of folks that come that way. since that fence only goes about three or four miles on each side of the city, what happens is there is a flood of people who come around that fence. a border wall is important, it's
1:34 pm
imperative, and those of us who the direct brunt of the influx of people who come across the border, whether for hostile or benign intentions, we feel very strongly that a border wall would benefit our state. so i am pleased to support this initiative and i can tell you that my constituency also supports this initiative. with that i urge everyone to support this and i yield back the balance of my time. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from washington. mr. newhouse: i reserve. i do have one more speaker. ms. slaughter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: let me just say one of the beauties of congress is being able to hear from people firsthand their experiences that speak not just in theoretical senses but because of the life they live and their constituents. i appreciate very much the
1:35 pm
gentleman from arizona and his testimony. now i'd like to offer two minutes to the good gentleman from south carolina, mr. sanford. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. sanford: i thank the gentleman. i thank my colleague from washington for the way that he has worked with other colleagues in terms of trying to move this bill and this process forward. it would take sanford: i thank gentleman. i thank my colleague from washington for solomon in all hs wisdom to get it completely right. in that regard i give you due deference in the way you put this bill together. i do want to rise in support of what my colleague from california spoke on just a moment ago which was the fact that neither one of ms. lee's amendments were ultimately made in order. i have a problem with that from the standpoint of the construction of this rule because one of those amendments was tied to, in essence, the base bill, that passed at the committee level and the other one was an adaptation of that same notion, but what she's getting at is incredibly important. i think it's incredibly important because the saying is that the road to hell is paved
1:36 pm
with good intentions. and we have been meaning and meaning and meaning and meaning to do something about the authorization of force in the middle east since 2001 in terms of bringing it up to date, but we haven't for whatever reason done so. what she's getting at with her amendment is saying, simply, it's time. it's well past time. i think there is real legitimacy point. i would say secondly, what doesn't work in life are blank checks. in essence if you sign on to this notion that an authorization of point. i would say secondly, what doesn't work in life force back 2001 will apply now, why doesn't it apply 30 years from now or 50 years from now if you follow that logic out? i think our founding fathers were so concrete in their constitutional premise that only should declare war because what they knew was that body bags don't return to washington, d.c. they return to congressional districts and states across this country and knowing that, they because what they knew was said, you got to go to the people's house to have the authorization for the use of
1:37 pm
force so that you do not put people in harm's way without congress debating that subject and actually coming up with the decision to the affirmative. finally, i'd say simply this. this is important in terms of sending a clear signal to soldiers and to the public at large that we're behind them. we're behind the soldiers. we say this is what you ought to do. we're going to give you the tools necessary to do the job. to the public, this is why we think it ought to be done. authorization of force is about those two things. with that i see my time is out and i yield back. i appreciate it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington reserves. mr. newhouse: i'll reserve unless the gentlelady has something else. i do have one other speaker that would like to participate. ms. slaughter: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. mr. newhouse: make that two. first i now have two gentlemen that would like to participate.
1:38 pm
first of all the good t texas, mr. gohmert, i'd like to offer one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. gohmert: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate my friend, mr. newhouse's efforts here. your concern about the $1.6 billion for the wall. let me just say, living in texas, spent a lot of time on the border, spending time in mexico, it's where my wife and i went on the honeymoon. there is only one reason mexico is not one of the top 10 economies in the world and it's because the drug cartels make tens of billions of dollars they use for corruption to keep it from being that. the best thing we could do as a good neighbor to mexico is to build a wall where it's needed, just like president trump's talked about, stop that flow of tens of billions of dollars to mexico used for corruption to keep down the mexican people. hardworking, god fearing people,
1:39 pm
and bring that country up by being a good neighbor because in this case a good fence or wall will make a good neighbor and mexico will have its rightful place in the economic hierarchy of the world. i thank my friend. yield back. mr. newhouse: spree, also would like to yield two minutes to another gentleman from texas, my good friend, mr. poe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for two minutes. mr. poe: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, having lived in texas all my life i like many other texans have been to the texas border numerous times. border fromfrom the san diego of those things that working is a wall in the big cities. one border from san diego to brownsville while i have been in congress. the entire length of the border. and some things are working on the border. and one of my friends from el p
1:40 pm
likes to talk about that el paso is the safest city in america. the reason, one reason is el paso has multiple fencing, a canal, and a river between the u.s., texas, and mexico. the sheriff of el paso told me after that fencing was created, cross border crime is almost nonexistent. that's one reason. ot the only reason why el paso is the safest city in america. it's because they have a wall, a fence. the rio grande river, a barrier. let's use that term. sure, not everybody from mexico is coming to commit crimes. of course not. but a wall works. it also works where they have fencing in san diego. it also works where they have fencing in brownsville, texas, etween brownsville and mexico. it stops and reduces the cross border individuals coming in without permission. so a partial fence will work. ll, make it clear, is not
1:41 pm
a complete border wall of the whole border. it's only 74 miles. and we need to do everything. we need to have that 74 miles. we need toll, make it clear, hae air. more border patrol on the ground. we need to have all types of technology to have a virtual wall, if you will, to protect the united states' security. people need to come to the united states. we want people to come to the united states. but come the right way. nd lastly, as my friend said drug yler, texas, the cartels are the -- major problem anti-criminal gangs like the ms-13 gang are the ones who come into the united states because there is no barrier to stop them. and drug cartels are the -- major proble. i yield back, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been
1:42 pm
directed by the senate to inform that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 3298, cited as the wounded officers recovery act of 2017, in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york that t passed with an amendment is recognized. ms. slaughter: i'll ask again in-f my colleague is ready for me to close. thank you. mr. speaker, if we hadn't had this last election and campaign that went with it, we wouldn't be talking about any wall. one of the candidates threw out the fact he would like to have a wall and he was sure he gave us the absurd notion that somehow mexico would pay for it. not many of us believe that. i will tell you now that we have put in this $1.6 billion in this wall, i will bet you that we're going to finish it and we don't know how much it costs. somewhere between $20 billion
1:43 pm
and $40 billion for a wall. if i heard correctly what my colleagues have said over there, the walls are working already, the ones they got. there are walls. i heard san diego had three. the idea works, we'll build another one. my goodness, this funding, though, that we're talking about spending on a wall is needed to repair roads and bridges and bring down the cost of education. but the majority refuses to give he debate on the aumf, something that is critically important. life and death to many people who live in this country who are presently in the armed services. this amendment should have been included here and i appreciate what my colleague, mr. sanford, said. he's absolutely right. if we would get a new aumf, it would put congress back into its duty to declare war. that is something that the constitution gave us that we no longer have. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized. mr. newhouse: mr. speaker, i appreciate the discussion we
1:44 pm
have had this past hour from all members that have participated. and although we may have our differences, some difference of opinion, i believe that this rule and the underlying bill are strong measures that are important to ensuring the security and the prosperity of our country. the rule provides for further consideration of h.r. 3219, the make america security appropriations act of 2018. let me say again, while my friends on the other may not want to acknowledge it, this rule makes 54 amendments in order. 21 of those 54 are from my democratic friends. 16 are republican, and 17 are bipartisan -- led by bipartisan co-sponsors. in fact, the majority of the amendments that were made in order under yesterday's rule provide for the initial consideration of this bill were also led by democrats.
1:45 pm
so this reflects the balance -- balanced approach, process under this rule. mr. speaker, it is our job, it is congress' job to appropriate the necessary funds to keep our nation safe and our defense strong. this rule allows us to complete our efforts to complete the appropriations process for our top priorities. . i look forward to bringing the other eight appropriation bills to the floor to fulfill the rest of our duty, certainly as an appropriator. no one wants to see this effort completed more than our committee as i do. i have appreciated the important advocacy of my colleagues on both sides and have brought forward through this process from within the subcommittees of the appropriation committee, to the full committee, to the rules
1:46 pm
committee and now here on the house floor. the measures included in this rule will provide vital resources for our national defense and for our military infrastructure. as i said, it will boost the pay of our troops, support our military families who sacrifice so much for our country and it will strengthen the care we provide for our veterans and enforce our border security to protect all of the american people. this rule will also allow for further security improvements for the capitol campus to protect all who visit here. it will also provide robust funding to improve our nation's waterways, our infrastructure, our important nuclear clean up as well as nonproliferation efforts. it reinstates our top priority, providing funding for our
1:47 pm
national defense. we must begin to rebuild our nation's military. and i am proud of this as a major step forward, restoring military readiness in order to keep our country safe. mr. speaker, the underlying appropriations within this rule are of the utmost importance to the nation and we must move forward with this rule in order to get our job done. the men and women in uniform serving our nation around the globe are depending on us. i hope our colleagues, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support this rule so that we can do that, get our job done. 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 on the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.
1:48 pm
in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic vote on question of adoption of the resolution. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
1:49 pm
1:50 pm
1:51 pm
1:52 pm
1:53 pm
1:54 pm
1:55 pm
1:56 pm
1:57 pm
1:58 pm
1:59 pm
2:00 pm
2:01 pm
2:02 pm
2:03 pm
2:04 pm
2:05 pm
2:06 pm
2:07 pm
2:08 pm
2:09 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 233. the nays are 185. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. he ayes have it. -- a recorded vote has been requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or
2:10 pm
commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:11 pm
2:12 pm
2:13 pm
2:14 pm
2:15 pm
2:16 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 230. the nays are 196. the resolution is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 473 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3219. will the gentleman from arkansas, mr. hill, kindly take the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h.r. 3219 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september
2:17 pm
30, 2018, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose on legislative day of wednesday, july 26, 2017, a request for a recorded vote on amendment number 63 printed in house report 115-259 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, had been postponed. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 115-259 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 62 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. amendment 63 by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair will reduce to two minutes of the time for any electronic vote in this series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on number 62 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, on which further proceedings were
2:18 pm
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 62 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes y electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:19 pm
2:20 pm
2:21 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 140. the nays are 285 with one voting present. he amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the on the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 63 printed in house report 115-259 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes
2:22 pm
prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 63 printed in house report 115-259 offered by mr. perry of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
2:23 pm
2:24 pm
2:25 pm
2:26 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 177, the nays are 248. the amendment is not adopted. there being no further amendments, pursuant to house resolution 473 the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under consideration h.r. 3219 directs me to report it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 3219 and as -- has come to no resolution thereon. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. granger: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and
2:27 pm
extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the further consideration of h.r. 3219 and that i may include tab lure material on the same. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. pursuant to house resolution 478 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 3219. will the gentleman from california, mr. issa, kindly ake the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of the bill h.r. 3219 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september
2:28 pm
30, 2018, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment number 63 rinted in house report 115-259 offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. perry, had been disposed of. pursuant to house resolution 478, the further amendment house in part a of the report 115-261 shall be considered as adopted. no further amendments to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those printed in part b of the house report 115-261. amendments en bloc described in section 3 of the house resolution 478 and available pro forma amendments described in section 4 of house resolution 473. each further amendment printed in part b of the report shall be considered only in the report printed in the report
2:29 pm
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 opponent, any be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before action thereof, shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in section 4 of house resolution 473 and shall not be subject to demand for division of the question. it shall be in order at any time for the chair of the chair on of committee on appropriations to consider amendments en bloc printed in part b of the report not earlier disposed of. amendments en bloc shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their respective designees,
2:30 pm
shall not be subject to amendment except as provided in section 4 of house resolution 473, shall not be subject to a demand for the division of the question. the committee will be in order. there will be order. pursuant to house resolution -- for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. granger: section 3 of house resolution 478 as the designee of the gentleman from new jersey, mr. frelinghuysen, offer amendments en bloc. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate amendments en bloc. en bloc number one, consisting of amendments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 20, 4, en bloc number one, 15,, 26, 28, 29, 4, 25,
2:31 pm
46, 3, 34, 36, 37, 40, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, and 54 printed in part b of house report number 115-261 offered by ms. granger of texas. the chair: the committee will be in order. members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. pursuant to house resolution 473, the gentlewoman from texas, miss granger, and the gentleman from -- ms. granger, and the gentleman from indiana, mr. visclosky, each will control 10 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from texas. ms. granger: mr. chairman, the amendments included in the en bloc were made in order by the rule for consideration of division a of h.r. 3219, and have been agreed to by both sides. the chair: does the gentlelady reserve?
2:32 pm
miss grange: i support the amendment and urge adoption -- ms. granger: i support the amendment and urge adoption. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: i rise in support of the amendment as well and reserve my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time? the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would yield at this time one minute to the gentlewoman from nevada, ms. rosen. the chair: members are advised to take their conversations off the floor. the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. rosen: thank you. mr. chairman, i rise today to urge passage of my amendment which supports the army's unfunded requirements request for improved munitions precision. the continued development of missile cooling technology which releases a refrigerant at
2:33 pm
predetermined temperatures maintains the integrity of missile electronics when fired, this improves flight control, extends range, and improves greater targeting precision. my amendment improves current and future missile systems furthering our ability to reach every corner of the world in defense of our nation. as we grapple with threats from adversaries such as north korea, russia, and iran and execute our counter isil gain compane, our military deserves the greatest technological edge so our troops never find themselves in a fair fight. i urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to maintain america's military technology superiority as our service members wravely -- bravely safeguard our nation. i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from indiana. isclosky: i yield one minute to the gentleman from vermont, mr. walsh. the chair: the gentleman from ermont is recognized for oneise
2:34 pm
minute. mr. walsh: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i have an amendment that would -- it's shocking it would have to even do this. prohibit spending money minute. mr. walsh: afghanistan uniforms that met the sartorial taste of a general that on these correspondented t tropical forests. number one, what the general wants for sartorial splendor of his troops is not our problem. number two, his sartorial taste had to do with tropical forests which is not what we have in afghanistan. i'm very happy that general mattis himself was outraged by this and i applaud him. it's an opportunity for us to express our outrage as well. we all want to support our men and women in uniform and have them good i'm very happy that g mattis himself uniforms, but itt up to an afghanistan general to take taxpayer money and a vanity project that ultimately undercuts the security of our
2:35 pm
troops. mr. speaker, i believe i speak for everyone. let's not do it. thank you. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: first of all i want to commend the gentleman from vermont for his amendment. for his thoughtful approach to this problem. and would also now want to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. lowenthal. the chair: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. rowen tall: thank you, mr. chair -- mr. lowenthal: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of my amendment i'm leading on with representative comstock and many star colleagues on the base caucus. i appreciate it being included in the en bloc passage -- package of amendments. this amendment would simply increase funding for the department of defense's star base program from 25 to $30 million for the fiscal year 2018. bringing funding back to the fiscal year 2017 enacted level.
2:36 pm
oviding science, technology, education, and math, stem education to america's youth is critical to the global competitiveness of our nation. the star base program engages local fifth grade elementary students by exposing them to stem subjects through an inquiry based curriculum. serving communities from loss al immediateas california to winchester, virginia, and across the nation there are now 59 programs in congressional districts throughout 30 states, including the district of columbia and puerto rico. close to a million fifth graders across the nation have now had the opportunity to participate in hands on stem classes on military bases thanks to star base. moreover, the department of defense's star base program is one of the most cost-effective programs across all federal government spending.
2:37 pm
thank you. and i urge the adoption of this amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i yield one minute to the gentlewoman from michigan, mrs. dingell. the chair: the gentlewoman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mrs. dingell: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in strong support of mr. delaney's bipartisan amendment included in this en bloc that it would increase funding for the fisher house foundation. fisher house has now served our veterans and their families for 26 years. providing valuable housing opportunities as veterans receive medical treatment at military and v.a. medical centers across the country. when i first learned of them, longer than i want to admit, there were just a few of them. now there are 72 and many more in the pipeline. they have served 305,000 military families. for many veterans and their families, the distance to their septre can medical
2:38 pm
far to travel on a routine basis, and the costs over time means many veterans are alone, nobody by their side during their treatment or hospital stay. a situation no one should be in. no veteran who has served their routine basis, and the costs over time means many veterans are ountry should have to face medical care or hospital stay without the support of loved ones at their side. fisher house has provided the lodging and transportation, resources to help families stay together through the treatment process and i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. the chair: the gentleman from indiana is recognized. mr. visclosky: mr. chairman, i now yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from maine, ms. pingree, a member of the full committee. the chair: the gentlelady from maine is recognized for three minutes. ms. pingree: i thank the ranking member very much for yielding to me today. i want to rise during this en bloc amendment to discuss an issue that's raised in the amendment about the importance of the ddg-51 to our navy. in particular, i'm grateful to our committee for the clear guidance and language that was provided in the fiscal year 2017 omnibus appropriations act that
2:39 pm
was passed in this body just two short months ago. that language called attention to the need not only to support the ddg-51 program, but to ensure we do so with the design and upgrade that is technically mature and fiscally responsible. it was clear in that language and report language that is included in the bill before us today that the congress continues to expect the navy to comply with the direction that the additional fiscal year 2016 ddg-51 ship be contracted and completed as a flight to a ship. because there are concerns raised by the g.a.o. about the ew flight three design radar upgrade, there needs to be a thoughtful process in place. again i want to thank the chair and ranking member who have been incredibly supportive of the ddg program in the past anti-work it brings to states like maine and across the country. i yield back the balance of my time.
2:40 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from indiana. mr. visclosky: i would simply again reiterate my support for the amendment and yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentlelady from texas. ms. granger: i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the question is on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentlewoman from texas. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have t the ayes have it. the -- have it. the ayes have it. the en bloc amendments are agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in art b of house report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from rhode island seek recognition? mr. langevin: i have meafpblgt the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in part b of house report number 115-261, offered by mr. langevin of rhode island.
2:41 pm
the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from rhode island, mr. langevin, and the member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from rhode island. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: mr. chairman, i offered this amendment today to support the d.o.d. scholarship program with strong bipartisan upport from my good friends, mr. radcliffe, ms. stefanik, mr. correa, mr. lieu, and ms. shea-porter. since 2001 the d.o.d. has run the program in order to boost the nation's cyberwork force through scholarship and capacity building grants. scholarship recipients are required to fulfill a service obligation upon completion of the program by working in a position at d.o.d.
2:42 pm
again upon graduation. mr. chairman, this program has been extremely successful bringing nearly 600 students into the d.o.d. work force. however, due to budget constraints the department has reduced funding and stopped recruiting new students. this year we seek to reinvigorate the program, calling the d.o.d. sishe scholarship program. as the ranking member on the house armed services committee on emerging threats and capabilities, i fully understand the budget pressures the department has been facing. however, cutting the pipeline of cybertalent into the department is incredibly shortsighted. so we face a critical work force shortage right now as we speak when it comes to cybersecurity across all sectors of the economy and in government. the challenges of building up our cybertalent is something that keeps me up at night. we no that cybersecurity is the national security issue of the 21st century and that no conflict, both today or in the future, will be fought without a cybercomponent as a part of it. d.o.d. has made significant strides preparing to defend the
2:43 pm
nation in its new domain, standing up u.s. cybercome and including its cybersecurity posture through programs like the wildly successful pentagon program or cybergrand challenge. but these initiatives need talented network engineers, cybersecurity researchers, and, yes, hackers. the cyberscholarship program encourages students to look at cybersecurity as an area of academic study then exposes them to the ams.ing missions -- amazing missions set at the department. while we may not be able to compete on a dollar to dollar basis on the private sector in terms of salary, public service reward.inly its own d.o.d. has the most challenging and rewarding problems facing us today. and the honor that comes with protecting your fellow americans. we need as many digital natives to enter this exciting field and experience the reward of public service, which is why we must reinvigorate the
2:44 pm
cyberscholarship program with this amendment. mr. chairman, i worked with the same colleagues who joined me on this amendment to include similar funding in the national defense authorization act. i would like to thank my friends, senator kaine, purdue, similards for leading a effort across the capitol in the senate. i also like to again thank chairwoman granger and ranking member visclosky for their steadfast commitment to our armed services. this commonsense amendment will help ensure d.o.d. is similar effort across the capitol in the senate. i prepared for future fights. i urge its domings. -- adoption. thank you. accept the i amendment. mr. langevin: i thank the gentlelady. i did have one speaker who would like to speak in favor if that's agreeable to the majority. ms. granger: it is. mr. langevin: with that i would like to yield to my good friend
2:45 pm
-- the chair: the chair would advise there is 1 1/2 minutes left. mr. langevin: i yield a minute 15 seconds to my friend, mr. correa. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: if fairness, i would rise in opposition to the amendment and yield to the gentleman. the chair: you seek recognition in opposition? mr. visclosky: i do. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. nd may yield. mr. visclosky: i'd yield the gentleman two minutes. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. correa: i rise in support of this amendment to provide funding for cyberscholarship program. ur nation is facing a shortage of 10,000 cyber experts in government alone and it's
2:46 pm
estimated about a million shortages throughout our economy by 2019. we need to give young people the incentive to follow careers in cybersecurity, to learn computer coding and ethical hacking. the amendment provides $10 million of scholarships for associate degrees at community colleges and assist with programs in execution from the d.o.d. and n.s.a. i co-sponsored this amendment and want to thank congressman langevin for offering this important piece of legislation and i urge all my colleagues to support this amendment and i yield back the remainder of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from indiana reserves. mr. visclosky: i'd yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from rhode island is recognized to close. mr. langevin: thank you, mr. chairman. just briefly i want to thank my colleagues speaking in favor. i want to thank the majority for accepting the amendment and supporting the effort to build up our nation's cyberwork
2:47 pm
force. cybersecurity is a national security challenge of the 21st century. we're doing great things to meet those challenges. we just need to make sure our work force can meet the needs. i know that this amendment will be a major step in helping us to achieve that goal. i thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and thank, again, the chair and the ranking member for their support of this effort and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from rhode island. those in favor say aye. any oy posed say no -- any opposed say no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. it's now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek
2:48 pm
recognition? mr. suozzi: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. suozzi of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. suozzi, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. suozzi: thank you, mr. chair. i rise today to speak in support of a bipartisan amendment that i'm offering with congressman peter king and congressman paul cook. the amendment number 10 under the rule is to division a of the defense appropriations bill. the purpose of the amendment is to match the $34 million in funding for the navy's environmental restoration account authorized unanimously in the 2018 national defense authorization act but was not included in the appropriations process. in my district for almost four decades, the people of beth page and the surrounding areas have been dealing with an environmental crisis, groundwater pollution stemming from the navy and defense contractor activity has resulted in the underground
2:49 pm
plume of contaminated water that's moving south through long island's sole source of drinking water toward congressman king's districts. it doesn't change the fact that residents deserve to have this site cleaned up before it spreads any further. the contamination known as the navy plume is one of thousands of sites in hundreds of cations that experienced environmental degradation. we have supported this bipartisan amendment that will increase funding for the navy's environmental restoration account which will help clean up and remediation effort for these sites. this is not a partisan issue. the funding levels sought by this amendment received bipartisan support in the ndaa. chairman thornberry's mark and my amendment together which was joined by congressman cook and congresswoman hanabusa increased the authorized amount by $42 million.
2:50 pm
the amount sought here, $34 million, will match the appropriated amount to the authorized amount. our colleagues on both sides of the aisle supported that effort because this funding will help clean up sites from maine to hawaii, from florida to washington state, and were provided for with the appropriate pay-for. i ask for my colleagues' support for this bipartisan amendment so we can help fund efforts across the country, to help clean up environmental contamination in our districts. people in my district and regions across the country deserve to have these sites fully cleaned. it's common sense, bipartisan and the right thing to do. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. granger: mr. chairman, i rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. ms. granger: i appreciate the gentleman raising this issue. i'm supportive of efforts to ensure that the department of defense takes responsibility for any potential contamination issues. that's why this bill provides more than $1 billion for
2:51 pm
environmental restoration account, nearly $48 million more than fiscal year 2017. the bill includes an increase of $10 million, specifically to support water contamination efforts. in addition, the committee provided an additional $57 million for those efforts in the fiscal year 2017 supplemental appropriations. the committee has already provided a generous amount of funding to address water contamination, and the department of defense has assured me they are addressing each site on a priority basis. the amendment offered by the gentleman provides additional funding that the department may not be able to execute, and the funding comes at the expense of the war fighter readiness account. therefore, i must oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. suozzi: i would like to point out to the gentlelady
2:52 pm
respectfully, in the united states of america to clean up these thousands of sites will cost billions of dollars. and this increase that we're seeking here in a bipartisan fashion is $34 million to simply match the amount of money that was authorized in the ndaa. in addition, this percentage increase that we are seeking is commensurate with the overall percentage increase in the overall ndaa budget this year from last year. so we're just simply seeking the same commensurate amount increase in this portion of the budget that there is in another portion. we're looking to have these funds, the pay-for, to come from the operations and maintenance defensewide account of which there's over $33 billion, and we're looking for $34 just to try to advance -- $34 million just to advance some of these cleanups. mr. visclosky: if the gentleman will yield?
2:53 pm
the chair: the gentleman yields how much time? mr. suozzi: i yield whatever necessary. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i would point out that the gentlewoman is absolutely correct. the committee looked to increase these accounts. representing the first congressional district of indiana, i am intimately familiar with the problems these environmental sites have. there is much to do and many resources we need to look for. i look to support the gentleman's amendment. thank you for yielding. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. suozzi: i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? no. the gentlelady reserves. do you wish to close? mr. suozzi: i do appreciate the hard work that's been done by so many people on both sides of the aisle in this particular area, and we all appreciate how important the cleanup of these environmental sites are. the people in my district have been suffering from this for 40 years, and we're trying to bring attention to this issue
2:54 pm
and try and get the resources focused on this. we met with people from the navy, from the army corps of engineers, from the e.p.a., from the d.e.c., from local state officials in the state of new york that are interested. congressman peter king and congressman paul cook both understand how important it is that we try to send a signal that we are trying to have a commensurate increase in this account with the overall increase in the budget. thank you very much. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from texas. ms. granger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. suozzi: mr. chair, i request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to the rule -- clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. mr. suozzi: thank you.
2:55 pm
the chair: it's now in order to consider amendment number 12 house in part b of report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. boyle: thank you, mr. speaker. i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. brendan s. boyle of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. boyle: thank you, mr. speaker and chairman granger and ranking member visclosky. this is a bit of a complex issue so i will do my best to explain. it's unfortunately an issue that my constituents and a number in the suburban philadelphia area have been dealing with now for the last 2 1/2 years. e chemicals with the acronym
2:56 pm
pfoa and pfos are highly persistent in our environment. in the 1970's, the department of defense began using a firefighting foam with the acronym afff. unfortunately, that firefighting foam contained these chemical compounds to extinguish petroleum fires. they have been linked to problems in liver, thyroid and pancreatic function as well as changes in hormone levels. some studies have shown developmental issues in children, decreased fer facility, increased cholesterol, immune disease deficiencies and increased in cancer risks. today, the department of defense is evaluating and testing the drinking water systems of hundreds of communities nationwide due to pfoa and pfos contamination on or surrounding these defense
2:57 pm
installations across the country that used afff. so far water contamination has been found near nearly 27 military bases in 16 states. this includes the community that i represent and a number of my republicans share in representing. in my district alone, families surrounding naval air station joint reserve base willow grove as well as the air guard station suffer from the uncertainty of wondering whether their child or their spouse's illness is caused by the military's contamination from the base in their local community. they paid for endless stockpiles of bottled water and higher utility fees as their communities have taken steps to reduce the water system's exposure. i commend the steps the military has taken to date, but more can and must be done, and i know that our communities in
2:58 pm
the philadelphia area are sadly just the tip of the iceberg. this past year alone, since the e.p.a. tightened its lifetime health advisory under the safe drinking water act, the department has completed testing of 480 drinking water systems at locations where the department supplies drinking water. and it continues to conduct preliminary assessments and ite inspections under cercla to identify sites where pfoa and pfos may have been. they responsed to pfoa and pfos contamination nationwide. this funding has been used to conduct preliminary assessments and site inspections, test drinking water systems and provide mitigation such as bottled water or drinking water filtration systems where water system tests indicated pfoa and
2:59 pm
pfos are above the e.p.a. advisory levels. unfortunately, though, the department has been funding this response using existing funds that were originally programmed for other response actions. so in order to support near-term outreach and engagement with local communities that have this impacted drinking water system and adequately prepare for long-term remediation of what is likely to be billions of dollars and many years worth of response, i worked with the house armed services committee to increase its authorization for the navy and air force environmental remediation accounts by an additional $30 million each in the ndaa the house just passed earlier this month. my amendment would bring the appropriation in line with that authorization. this funding is a necessary response to an ongoing environmental issue that is only going to get worse and more expensive for the department. not to mention the countless
3:00 pm
innocent communities impacted across the country, both in republican and democratic districts. i want to thank my republican neighbors, pat meehan and brian fitzpatrick, for working with me on this issue in a truly bipartisan manner. i hope the house comes together in a similar manner today to strengthen our department of defense's response to drinking water contamination it is causing in the communities we represent. and with that i would be happy to yield -- could i inquire how much time remains? the chair: the gentleman has 15 seconds. does the gentleman reserve? mr. boyle: i yield 15 seconds with apologies to my friend from bucks county, mr. fitzpatrick. the chair: the gentleman is recognized 15 seconds. mr. fitzpatrick: brendan said
3:01 pm
it well. he worked with us all of whom have districts that's been impacted by this real tragedy and stand in full support. i ask colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. . for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes. >> i share many of the gentleman's concerns and i appreciate him raising this issue. i support environmental remediation efforts that ensure the drinking water is safe in communities across the nation. ms. granger: that's why this bill includes $1 billion for environmental restoration. the amount represents $48 million more than the fiscal year 2017 level and includes $10 million above the request to specifically address p.f.c. contamination. in addition, we included an additional $57 million for drinking water cleanup in the f.y. 2017 supplemental appropriations.
3:02 pm
this committee has included significant funding to address drinking water contamination issues, and i'm concerned that the department will not be able to execute the additional $60 million offered by this amendment. therefore i oppose the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has all the remaining time. the gentlelady is recognized. ms. granger: i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time -- the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. mr. boyle: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on this amendment by the gentleman from pennsylvania hall be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 printed in art b of house report 115-261.
3:03 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment the clerk will designate the amendment -- the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 offered by mr. grothman of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. grothman, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from wisconsin. mr. grothman: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield myself as much time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. grothman: i'd like to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their collaborative effort to bring this bill forward. mr. chairman, i rise in support of my amendment to h.r. 3219. nothing is more important than the safety of our men in uniform and i believe that we in congress are committed to ensuring that our armed services receive the best equipment possible. this equipment includes platforms like the joint light
3:04 pm
tactical vehicle or jltv. this vehicle is the centerpiece of the army and marine corps technical wheel vehicle modernization strategy and closes an existing critical capability gap for both services. the gltv demonstrates many significant improvements over the -- jltv demonstrates many significant improvement it's over the current fleet -- improvements over the current fleet. this is basically what replaces years ago what you'd call your jeep. anybody who talks to veterans or hears about people being injured know so many of them died or were seriously injured driving in a vehicle that had an hit an explosive -- that hit an explosive. these vehicles are going to be a dramatic improvement over what we have now as far as saving lives and our troop. as long as we have troops in afghanistan, the important that as quickly as possible we deliver the best equipment as possible. to achieve that goal, congress should maintain its support for
3:05 pm
the existing jltv acquisition plan. recently we in the house passed the national defense authorization act of 2018. my amendment to this appropriations bill would simply transfer funds from the operations and maintenance account in the bill and then appropriate those funds to the jltv program to bring them in line with what we in the house authorized in the ndaa. the jltv program supports american jobs with more than 300 suppliers from 30 states. this platform will save lives and improve our troops' effectiveness in the field. i encourage my colleagues to support this amendment and with that i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. granger: will the gentleman yield? mr. grothman: yes. ms. granger: i thank the gentleman for his amendment. the amendment proposes to add funding back to the jltv program , cutting the -- cut in the house defense bill due to a lack of information provided by the army budget justification. the cut to the jltv program
3:06 pm
reflects the committee's concern with the army's failure to provide the full budget justification information for an $804 million program. failure to provide this information makes it impossible for the committee to exercise its fiscal oversight responsibilities. however, the jltv program is important to the war fighter and is executing well. i do not oppose this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized. mr. grothman: i'd like to thank the appropriations committee for the hard work they've done. i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. the chair understands that amendment number 27 will not be offered. >> mr. chair, i have an
3:07 pm
amendment at the desk. the chair: the chair understands the amendment number 30 will also not be offered. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? -- for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> mr. chair, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: it is now in order to consider amendment number 31 offered by the gentleman from florida. the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. dunn of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from florida, mr. dunn, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. dunn: mr. chair, i yield myself such time as i shall use. mr. chair, throughout the country, there are remote areas where the men and women of our armed services prepare for war in order to protect the peace.
3:08 pm
although these places are often overlooked, our investments in military test and training ranges are returned to the nation many times over in the projection of american military supremacy around the globe, protecting the homeland and preserving international order. in the southeast, the joint gulf range complex facilities testing and training of supersonic and hypersonic weapons systems, including combat training and live fire exercises for front line fighters, like the f-22 and f-35. the 325th fighter wing and the 53th weapons evaluation group d the e 96 test wing, an special operations command make extensive use of the joint range complex. there is no comparable area in the united states near an established base with instrumentation infrastructure that can support advanced testing and joint training exercises like this.
3:09 pm
however, deployment of the instrumentation necessary to collect the data during the training on these fifth and sixth generation weapons systems is not in keeping with the u.s. air force needs. instrumentation limitations have restricted the f-35 and f-22 training missions to the northern most portion of the range. according to a study by the 96 test wing, this limitation causes congestion and has obstructed at least 80 ambiguous per year. this amendment, which i am offering, with my florida colleagues, mr. tom rooney, mr. matt gaetz, and mr. francis rooney, will accelerate investments approved by congress to deploy new infrastructure along the joint range complex. the amendment will maximize the utility of this vast range, which is a true national treasure for combat training and advanced testing and evaluation. mr. chair, i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition?
3:10 pm
ms. granger: will the gentleman yield? the committee has no objection of the amendment. funding for major test facilities is critical for ensuring our military retains its competitive lead over our competitors. we're prepared to accept the amendment and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida, will you take yes for an answer? mr. dunn: i yield to a member of the minority. >> we accept the gentleman's amendment. mr. dunn: i yield two minutes to my colleague and friend, matt gaetz. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. gaetz: i thank the gentleman for yielding. and i thank our colleagues in the house for their agreement. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the brave men and women of the greatest military on earth. and to ensure that they are properly equipped for any and all challenges on the horizon. i support increased investments in our military test and training ranges, with help from our armed forces to deal with the world's challenges. in my district, the gulf test
3:11 pm
range provides approximately 120,000 square miles of over-water air space. it is used for high altitude, supersonic air combat training, air to aramisle testing, drone targeting, space launches and much more. it is critical training space for our armed forces, including the air force special operations command, the 96th test wing, the 33rd fighter wing, and others. this is why i ask my colleagues to support the amendment, to increase funding for the test range program. i thank the congressman from florida, dr. dunn, for his leadership, for the men and women in the mailtary. i thank chair granger for her agreement to this amendment. i thank the minority party and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from florida. comments? ny the chair: the gentleman is advised he has 1 1/2 minutes. mr. dunn: mr. chair, i have no further comments or remarks.
3:12 pm
however, i would like to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment, to enhance military readiness and national security. thank you, mr. chair. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in 261. b of house report 115- for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by ms. speier of california. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentlewoman from california, ms. speier, and a member opposed will have five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california. ms. speier: mr. chairman, thank you. the american people are becoming more and more aware of the disease known as chronic
3:13 pm
traumatic ensolve lop think known as c.t.e. due to the crisis in the nfl. the nfl of course has been trying to sweep this under the rug. very recently the journal of american medical association, a premier journal that is peer reviewed, provided a study that found severe neurological damage in the vast majority of former football players' brains that were donate for research after they developed mental symptoms during life. 87% of all football players' brains showed c.t.e. a truly horrible figure, 99% of the brains of nfl players showed c.t.e. however, the dangers of c.t.e. are not confined to football. our service men and women are subject to similar or oftentimes even worse dangers in the line
3:14 pm
of duty for the service they provide to our nation. last year i was honored to host a doctor for the state of the union. he's a doctor portrayed in the film "concussion," exposing the impact of c.t.e. on professional football players. he began his research, covering his own expenses, and exposing a coverup of the suicides of former athletes. however, his research and the research of others is limited by the funding, which is why i'm offering this amendment. today we have an opportunity to prevent a similar kind of coverup among our service agencies. this amendment would dedicate funding as part of the congressional directed medical research programs to award grants to medical researchers and universities to support early detection of c.t.e. this amendment would not increase spending, but take the funding already allocated and put some of it, a very small part of it, towards c.t.e. every hour we lose another
3:15 pm
veteran to suicide. we've made great strides towards supporting ptsd research, but the exposure to i.e.d.'s, other blasts and blows to the head may be doing similar damage, which goes unseen until it's too late. by diagnosing c.t.e. early among service members, perhaps we can begin to change the troubling trend of suicides among our veterans. you may hear arguments today that this amendment is not necessary, since d.o.d. already is spending $125 million on t.b.i. research. but this research is on short-term trauma, not on long-term effects of repeated head injuries and what are called subconcussive blows. service members at risk of c.t.e. may not even have acute trauma. .t.e. can result from it may rm minor events over a long period congress' role
3:16 pm
into d.o.d. spending and a huge need not being filled. and we are requiring that they do t.b.i. research as it is. some have suggested well there have been some projects funded. of the $125 million of funding, the amount of money going to c.t.e. projects has been since 2012, only five projects to a and total cost of $2.9 million. and not one dime has been spent since 2013. , it's time for us to accept that triumph is real here. j.a.m.a. has put out a stunning report suggesting it is a serious problem and time for us to combat this issue. creating grants for early detection of c.t.e. has the
3:17 pm
potential to prevent suicides among our service members and will have a very important impact of how we look at c.t.e. in the future and make sure our service members are properly protected. with that, i reserve. the chair: the gentlewoman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady seek recognition? ms. granger: i rise in opposition to the amendment. i appreciate the gentlelady's concern to provide adequate funding for this very important research and we have spoken about it. i'm a strong supporter of funding for research in this area and that is why the bill already provides $125 million to award grants for ptsd and traumatic brain injury research including c.t.e. which previously received millions of dollars in research grants. this would create a new research program focused only on c.t.e.
3:18 pm
research and since that research is eligible under the ptsd t.i.b.i. research program it is more appropriate to add funding to that program rather than create a new research program. therefore, i oppose the amendment and i yield one minute to ranking member visclosky. mr. visclosky: i reluctantly join with the chair in opposition to the gentlewoman's amendment and share the chair's concern over the issue raised, however i don't think the approach is an appropriate one in that we would carve out another budget line. given my anticipation that we will not have a 12 full month fiscal year for this money to be spent. i'm concerned that we will find enough projects for this money to be spent on. in the meantime they would be eliminated from the existing line for other possible
3:19 pm
research. i would like to work with the gentlewoman to address this issue, but not in this manner. i appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding. ms. granger: i yield. the speaker pro tempore: e chair: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. speier: making sure that c.t.e. is studied and i'm hopeful we can guarantee of that $125 million, some portion is set aside for c.t.e. research. nly $2.9 million has gone to c.t.e. research since 2012 makes me worried that it is not a high priority within the department. the speaker pro tempore: i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the
3:20 pm
gentlelady from california. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it and the amendment is not depreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in rt b of house resolution 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. mr. nadler: i yield myself two minutes. this amendment would strike sections 8094 and 5 of the bill that prohibit the transfer of
3:21 pm
guantanamo bay detainees to the united states and use funds to construct modified facilities in the united states for guantanamo detainees. these provisions are to delay the transfer of detainees. it is costing us a fortune and cost $10 million to keep a single detainee in guantanamo and only $78,000 in a federal maximum security. that is a waste of $440 million a year. perhaps most importantly, it is a question of values. what is most offensive is not that the prisoners are at guantanamo as opposed to some prison in the united states, but we are holding people without any hearing, without any due process essentially forever. that is against all american values. we have debated guantanamo amendments multiple times. the last time was two weeks ago. it is an issue i care deeply about and i offer this amendment
3:22 pm
again. yesterday, the president took an action that is so egregious and offensive, i will use a portion of my time to address it directly. yesterday's attack on our transgender personnel. transgender personnel are part of the military whether we have historically acknowledged them or not. the arguments against allowing transgender personnel to serve in our military is has been used against black and latino men, gays and each time the doors open to further look at our the arguments are brought back. any individual in the new group regardless of his or her ability is unfit to serve. and that their service will disrupt unit cohesion. not once has these fierce been
3:23 pm
proven. not only should all willing and able americans be allowed to serve, they do. the report prepared from the department of defense thousands of them serve today without issue. they must not pre-judge service members. president trump is attacking people who have shown an eagerness to risk their lives. it is apparent that the decision ban trand gender people without consulting general mattis. and the military is at a lost how to implement this order. even if it is bigotted, it disgraces our country and must be rescinded. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. granger: i rise in opposition to the amendment. these important provisions have been included in several
3:24 pm
appropriations bills for several years running. they represent a consensus in congress that guantanamo should remain open and darnees should not be transferred to the united states for any reason. striking these provisions would have unknown consequences. it's impossible to know how the detainees might be brought here, where they might be held and the impacts on communities and facilities holding them. it's impossible to know what the potential costs could be. putting detainees in u.s. prisons as the administration originally proposed, would be disruptive and potentially disastrous. former f.b.i. director mueller has stated to transfer detainees to infect other prisoners or have the exhibit of affecting events outside the prison system. the idea of bringing detainees for trial in the u.s. quickly collapsed as local jurisdictions
3:25 pm
voiced their strong opposition. as everyone here is aware, several detainees who have been released from guantanamo have gone back to the fight and killed and wounded americans. the threat is real and guantanamo is already equipped to handle the detention and military trial of these individuals as appropriate. any proposal that results in these detainees being sent to the united states for any reason is simply the wrong policy. i therefore oppose the amendment and urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new york. the gentleman from new york has two minutes. mr. nadler: i yield to the gentleman from rhode island. the chair: the gentleman from rhode island is recognized. mr. cicilline: i thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue. i rise in strong support of this amendment which would remove a provision that prevents the department of defense from
3:26 pm
closing the detention facility at guantanamo bay, cuba. the continued use of this facility does not make our country safer and undermines our national security. well respected security leaders have said that guantanamo remains a propaganda tool for terrorist groups that is used to incite violence. the organization for security and cooperation in europe which is composed of 50 member states and nato allies concluded that guantanamo serves as an obstacle to cooperation and the facility should be closed. the cost of housing detainees and maintaining the facility continues to be a financial drain on the department. according to human rights, guantanamo costs $445 million per year, and the average cost per detainee is more than $10 million. at the same time, the cost of a federal prisoner in colorado is houses terrorists
3:27 pm
$78,000. mr. speaker, this should not be a partisan issue. nuferte experts on both sides of the aisle have concluded that keeping guantanamo open is harmful to american interests. secretaries of state from republican administrations including henry kissinger, james baker and colin powell have said closing guantanamo would improve america's image around the world. martin dempsey and mike mullin said it needs to be closed. president bush said it has become a propaganda tool and distraction for allies. senator mccain has repeatedly said that he favors closing the detention facility because of the image of the united states that it projects to the rest of the world. closing the guantanamo bay detention facility will strengthen our national security and show the rest of the world the principle of equal justice
3:28 pm
under law isn't violated. i urge my colleagues to send an important message and support the nadler amendment. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? mr. visclosky: i rise as the designee of the ranking member to strike the last word. i appreciate the recognition and feel compel to rise in support of the gentleman's amendment as it relates to the detention facility at guantanamo a bay and would make a few breff remarks. this is i believe a very substantive and serious issue facing a constitutional government, a government of laws. i would point out that it is a sad state of affairs if somewhere in the united states of america we cannot find a 41 e facility to detain individuals at this late date
3:29 pm
given the fact that president bush released over 500 people from guantanamo and president obama released 197. i would simply close by observing that within the last week, the attorney general of the united states of america could not find a justification to have an alleged terrorist who recruits for al qaeda, having been extradited from spain, and algerian placed in guantanamo. that person as i understand it is being detained in the united states of america. as what should happen with the other 41 people. i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment ffered by the gentleman from new york. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to.
3:30 pm
mr. nadler: roll call, please. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment by the gentleman rom new york will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 39 printed in art b of house report 115-261.
3:31 pm
it is now in order to consider amendment number 41 printed in art b of house report 115-261. it is now in order to consider amendment number 42 printed in part b of house report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. foster: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 42 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. foster of illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 47, the gentleman from illinois, mr. foster, and a member opposed will each control
3:32 pm
five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, the national fense authorization -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i have a question on the procedure. mr. visclosky: i understand that mr. foster's recognized. did i lose track of an amendment for mr. polis? the chair: that amendment was called and he was -- and he was not present. mr. visclosky: and mr. poe? the chair: that amendment was called and he was not present. mr. visclosky: thank you. the chair: the gentleman from illinois is recognized. mr. foster: thank you, mr. chairman. as you know, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2018 tasks a missile defense agency with developing a space-based ballistic missile intercept layer. there is no doubt that a space-based missile defense, if it is technologically feasible and economically justifiable,
3:33 pm
would make an important contribution to our national security. so would a star trek transporter or the warp drive. but as a scientist and in fact the only ph.d. scientist in the u.s. congress, i think that we need to do our homework before investing hundreds of billions of dollars into attempting to develop this system. as such, my amendment would prohibit the use of funds to attempt to develop a space-based missile intercept layer. it has been more than 30 years since president reagan called for defending the united states against a first strike by developing a strategic defense system commonly known as star wars. the idea of a space-based version of this has gone in and out of fashion for the last 30 years. but every time this space-based concept has been looked at by technologically competent outside experts, it was deemed to be unworkable. impossibleably expensive. vulnerable to countermeasures. easy for an opponent to destroy. easy to overwhelm with a small
3:34 pm
number of enemy missiles or all of the above. this approach was judged technologically unworkable in 1983 and the status quo has not changed. in order to reach a ballistic missile during the first few minutes of flight, a large number of interceptors must be stationed in low altitude orbit. a report conducted by the american physical society in 2003 concluded that in order to ensure full coverage, a fleet of 1,000 or more orbiting satellites would be required to intercept just a single missile. to put that in perspective, the united states currently has slightly more than 600 satellites in earth orbit. which includes commercial, scientific and military satellites. moreover, the launching -- the amount of launch that's required for this, to put this material into orbit, in a reasonable amount of time would greatly exceed the current u.s. launch capability. the national academies of sciences estimated that it would cost at least $300 billion in
3:35 pm
2003 dollars for just such a limited capability. and just last year, in the testimony to the house armed services committee, the former director of the missile defense authority concluded the same thing. but setting aside the high cost, a space-based missile defense system has inherent vulnerabilities that greatly limit its effectiveness. even with thousands of interceptors deployed, only a few would be within range to target an incoming missile. and those could be easily overwhelmed by the launch of several missiles from one location. and because interceptors must be stationed in low altitude orbit, they are easily detected, tracked and destroyed. finally, there is a more fundamental question that we must ask ourselves. that is, is it wise to deploy weapons in space, especially when the required technology is becoming widely available around the world? deploying such a system would
3:36 pm
strain strategic relations around the globe and almost certainly trigger a space arms race. there is no doubt that ensuring our nation's defense and national security are a paramount priority. but spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a system which will not work, without having serious debate, and at least some concept for how this might be remotely practical or affordable, is indefensible. so, mr. chairman, i urge my colleagues to join me, to vote yes on my amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his ime. the question is on the amendment -- does anyone seek time in opposition? for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: mr. chairman, the space-based missile defense layer that we debate today will
3:37 pm
be one of the most significant technological advancements in our missile defense capabilities since ronald reagan first brought this possibility to the nation. mr. foster's amendment would prevent the next revolution in missile defense, as we seek to expand our umbrella protection into space. the ultimate high ground. mr. speaker, the most critical priority of this congress is the defense of the nation. if we fail that task, little else we might do will be of any consequence. to prohibit the development of the next generation of missile defense capabilities, because other countries will object, is to grant our potential adversaries a veto over our national security. mr. foster's amendment would do just that. it should be noted that every significant missile defense milestone ever achieved by this nation has been over the objections of gentlemen like mr. foster and his supporters. they've been wrong about missile defense for decades. and they have a consistent
3:38 pm
record of bad judgment on this issue. they have imposed their philosophy on the science and physics involved. theirs is a broken record which egan playing back in the 1970's. if we had listened to them, we would have no missile defense today and we would all be completely vulnerable to the likes of north korea. the reason it was called star wars is because they renamed mr. reagan's strategic defense star wars and said it was impossible because it would be hitting a bullet with a bullet. but, mr. chairman, today we not only hate bullet with a bullet, we hit a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet -- hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit a dot on the side of a bullet with a bullet. it's important to defeat this amendment for the sake of the constitution, for the sake of the united states of america. i yield back. ms. granger: i urge rejection of this amendment. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? the gentleman reserves the balance of his time.
3:39 pm
the gentleman from illinois has one minute remaining. mr. foster: all right. i'd like to point out that ronald reagan never illuminated the possibility of this to the american public, because the possibility never existed. what we have today is not a missile defense system. it is -- it has failed in the great majority of tests. it has been tested against a very small fraction of the countermeasures that are elementary to the play against it. and i hope that no one involved in the missile defense system is telling president trump that we have an effective missile system -- anti-missile system today. because if he gambles, counting on any defense from that system, he is putting our country at risk. i'd like to yield the remaining amount of my time to the ranking member. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i simply would want to rise in support of his amendment and would point out that in 2010, the ballistic missile defense review made no request for space-based interceptors, and currently this is a matter under review by the department. i think we should allow that
3:40 pm
review to be concluded before we expend moneys. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from arizona is recognized to close. mr. franks: mr. chairman, can i inquire as to how much time is left? the chair: the gentleman has three minutes remaining. mr. franks: three minutes. mr. chairman, i think i would just say that, you know, the opponents to missile defense, especially to space-based missile defense, have overstated the cost of this system. a regionally deployed system would cost in the range of $20 billion over 30 years. and the cost would go down as launch costs offer often do -- often do. it's important to keep in mind that when two airplanes hit two buildings, it cost us $2 trillion. what would that cost have been like had it been a nuclear warhead that hit new york? i would just suggest, mr. chairman, that it's important that we do all that we possibly can to make sure that that does
3:41 pm
not indeed occur. i don't know what price we put on national security. but the systems that we're talking about, our g.m.d. system was just tested against an icbm target recently. and it was successful. we've had 14 out of 14 successful tests with our thad system, our terminal high altitude area defense system. the technology has been proven time and again. and we should not undersell the united states of america. we can build this system, we will build it. it will help us get to the left of launch. it will help us to be able to have a boost defense against missiles, when they are in their most vulnerable position. and over enemy territory. this is vital for the american national security. this is vital for our future, for our children and our children's children. and i would hope that we would defeat this amendment. with that, i would yield back and -- i would yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the
3:42 pm
gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in part b of house eport 115-261 offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, and a member opposed will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. cartwright: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. cartwright: i rise today to offer an amendment that would prohibit the department of defense from conducting what is
3:43 pm
called new a-76 studies. i offer this amendment on behalf of myself, as well as mr. cole from oklahoma, mr. jones from north carolina, mr. bishop of utah, mr. donovan of new york, mr. cook of california, mr. rass cliff of texas -- mr. ratcliffe of texas, mr. loebsack of iowa, mr. kilmer of washington, ms. shea-porter from new hampshire, and mr. beyer of virginia. these flawed a-76 studies are reliant on a process that both the g.a.o. and the inspector general of the department of defense determined could not demonstrate any savings to the american taxpayer. that is why a-76 studies have been subject to a congressional moratorium since 2010. the amendment i'm offering today would continue that moratorium. fundamental flaw inherent in the a-76 process is the erroneous underlying methodology used to determine whether or not
3:44 pm
federal-civilian jobs would be outsourced. 2003 walz the last time this process was -- was the last time this process was updated. mr. chairman, the inspector general's report notes that it simply fails to keep track of costs and savings. it has no anchor in reality. and incorporates an arbitrary 12% overhead factor cost for federal employees as opposed to contractors. the inspector general concluded that, quote, multimillion dollar decisions are based in part on a factor not supported by data, unless d.o.d. develops a supportable rate or an alternative method to calculate a fair and reasonable one, results of future competitions will be questionable. decisions involving taxpayer money should never be based on such a faulty process. especially when american jobs are at risk as well. we are debating the appropriation of hundreds of billions of dollars. the lion share of our country's discretionary spending.
3:45 pm
this is, as it should be, we should spare no expense to provide the best care for our veterans. we should not a haggle over the national defense. but when we spend this much money, we have a responsibility to do it carefully and based on actual data. as legislators, we should exercise care we represent the interests of our constituents as well as possible. a flawed process based on pseudo calculations has no place in that representation. faulty process uses methodology to determine whether civilian jobs should be outsourced, a matter we cannot approach haphazardly. the inspector germ concluded that the process could not demon state any savings for the
3:46 pm
taxpayer. this a-76 process is outdated and simply not anchored in reality. mr. chairman, i reserve. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i claim time in opposition. i support competition and these competitions as a whole have been beneficial to the department of defense. the o.m.b. has reported. regardless the federal government or the contractor win the competition, the act of competition alone has saved or generated the cost savings from 10% to 40%. that's just from having the competition. this amendment would block opportunities, protect the status quo within the d.o.d. work force and prevent cost savings and negate the natural innovation that comes from competition. i urge a no vote.
3:47 pm
ms. granger: if the gentleman would yield. thank you for your contributions. i join him in opposition to this amendment that would limit the defense department's flexibility to a-- achieve efficiency. and i yield back. >> i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. cartwright: this body owes a duty to our war fighters, duty to the taxpayers and duty to the civilian work force allowing to flawed a-76 process move forward. i urge my colleagues to vote yes to maintain the morea torium currently -- moratorium in place and protect our military in a process in desperate need of
3:48 pm
radical revision. and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. >> we need to perform the best we can and give the best prouth to our war fighters at the best price. i urge a no on this amendment. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania. and those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chairs the noes have it -- mr. cartwright: ask for a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6, rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from pennsylvania will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 45 printed in 115-261, house report for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition?
3:49 pm
the clerk: amendment number 45 printed in house report 115-261, offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. davidson: i rise to encourage my colleagues to support this amendment which says none of these funds may be used in contravention of the war powers act in yemen. we are involved in a critical effort to defeat enemies of our country that took action on 9/11. al qaeda and their affiliates have been declared enemies and authorized force for nearly 16 years now. the n yemen, al qaeda in arabian peninsula have found sanctuary and we find ourselves in conflict with other enemies. and they are engaged in a civil
3:50 pm
war there. over the years we have sold arms nd munitions and built a great alliance with a great ally in saudi arabia and they are involved there. and in the united states, iran is also involved as supporters of the hutthis and it's important to recognize the strategic operational and tactical threats posed by iran and their proxies, but also important we restore the emphasis of article 1 of our constitution and our clear duty in congress to authorize our nation's wars. this amendment simply says nothing outside of the war powers act may be engaged in without further future authorization. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. ms. granger: i rise in opposition to the amendment. the gentleman proposes an amendment that cuts all funding
3:51 pm
for the introduction of u.s. armed forces and the hostilities in yemen. u.s. forces need the flexibility to enter any theater where terrorists target. two months ago special operations forces conducted a ground raid killing seven suspected militants. we consulted leadership at the department of defense regarding this amendment. the department recommends a more thorough legal review of the implications of this amendment. further, the joint staff averts that a u.s. provision of limited support to the saudi-led coalition might be construed in this context as participation in civil war. in which case, removal of such support could have damaging effect on the u.s. relationship with saudi arabia and create further implications for regional security. with special operations fighting terrorism around the globe to
3:52 pm
protect our safety, this congress want to show its lack of support? this amendment is fully timed d overly restrictive and has unforeseen complications. the committee opposes this amendment. i yield two minutes to ranking member visclosky. mr. visclosky: i appreciate the gentlewoman for yielding and join her in opposition but must tell you i'm very reserved about opposing an amendment put forth by a notre dame gaut. in all seriousness, i do appreciate the gentleman's concern with the evolving situation in yemen and we do not want to get involved in a proxy war between saudi arabia and iran. i'm also in agreement with much of the intent behind the amendment and certainly agree that congress has relinquished
3:53 pm
much of its oversight role about sending armed forces into hostilities provided under the war powers act. i'm a strong supporter of efforts to develop a new authorization for the use of military force for the globe war on terror. congress needs to finally after 16 years carry out its constitutional duty and stop hiding from this very important debate that the gentleman has raised in his amendment. however, i do have concerns with e gentleman's amendment is overly broad and place undue restrictions on u.s. forces within the middle east to respond to legitimate threats within yemen. and reluctantly, i join with the chairwoman in opposition and i appreciate her yielding. ms. granger: i thank --
3:54 pm
the chair: the gentlelady from texas reserves? ms. granger: i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. davidson: i respect the arguments of my colleagues in support of our national command authority. i wholeheartedly support that and i wore our nation's uniforms for 12 years as a ranger but not involved as a combat veteran. i would not want to do anything to limit our ability to fight and win the war on terror. indeed the sole intent is to keep us laser focused. resources are scares and defeating our enemies that have be engaged are critical. it does alarm me to see there is some concern this is overly broad and limiting as it is the law of the land. the war powers act is recognized
3:55 pm
that does give our commanders flexibility and gives them 90 days to engage in combat anywhere where there is a clear and present danger to the security of the united states. that could very well happen in that region of the country. the waters are tight, the threats are real. there are strategic operational and tactical concerns in play, but this is nothing different an what president eisenhower foresaw. he said we face a hostile ideology in scope, ruthless in purpose and insidious in method. the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. to meet it successfully, there is called for not so much the emotional sacrifices of crisis but those which enable us to carry steadily and surely the burdens of a prolonged and
3:56 pm
complex struggle with liberty at stake. only thus shall we remain despite every provocation on our chartered course towards permanent peace and betterment. i couldn't have said it better. i hope we can respect our constitution as our duty under it, the oath we have sworn to support and defend it to limit the scope of our war to things that our congress authorized and not passive aggressively through funding and cutting the checks but through full authorization and we don't have full authorization whether they are in yemen or iranian proxies outside the scope of the war powers act. i reserve. ms. granger: i urge opposition of the amendment and i yield back. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. davidson: i yield. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the
3:57 pm
gentleman from ohio. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it, the amendment is not agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 47 printed in house report 115-261. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? the clerk: amendment number 47 offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 478, the gentleman from florida, mr. desantis and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida.
3:58 pm
mr. desantis: no funds made available by this act may be used to purchase heavy water from the islamic republic of iran. why are we doing this? you remember the jcpoa provided iran with $150 billions in sanctions relief and added the spectacle of hauling in $1.7 billion in cold hard cash dropped off in tehran, so this regime has been flush with money with the nuclear deal done with the obama station. one of the frustrating things about that was even after that deal was enacted and after all this money is flowing as a result of the deal, the obama administration -- this wasn't required by the deal, spent millions of dollars, sent millions of dollars to iran in order to get heavy water. that was a gratuitious
3:59 pm
transaction and provided more economic lifeline to iran. this is still to this day the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. there is discord in the middle east. they fund hamas in the gaza strip. they have major control over the show eat leaders are run ingram pant. and they were probably the leading source of u.s. service member deaths in iraq during the iraq campaign. they funded show eat militias and had the source on the ground in iraq and certainly hundreds f our service members, 1,500 were killed from some of these iranian proxies and never been held accountable.
4:00 pm
this administration came in saying the iran deal is a bad deal. they haven't left the deal or done anything to fight back. i hope that will happen. but i want to make sure that this administration is not repeating the mistakes of the obama administration. o more taxpayer dollars to the world's leader state upon sore of terrorism. i reserve. . the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to rise in opposition to the amendment. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. visclosky: i do rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. i certainly would acknowledge that iran is up to very nefarious purposes as far as sponsoring terrorism internationally. also acknowledge the gentleman referenced the previous administration more than once during his remarks. as far as the issue before the
4:01 pm
house today, in 2016, last year, heavy water was purchased by the department of energy and the state department but i would point out this is 2017, with a different administration, and essentially the amendment is a solution to a problem that does not exist. the current administration has recertified iran's compliance with the agreement, twice. iran does not have a nuclear weapon and is subject to intense scrutiny by the international atomic energy agency. but importantly to the point raised today, i would suggest that the department of energy consistently has indicated that the -- at the time of the 2016 heavy water purchase from iran, that the united states would not be a regular buyer of iranian heavy water. since that purchase, the united states has not purchased any adegreesal heavy water from that country and in fact, the u.s.
4:02 pm
has, through refraining from purchases of excess supply, forced iran to shift excess heavy water abroad to continue to adhere to the agreement entered into. it seems highly unlikely that the curn administration would now seek out an opportunity to purchase this heavy water. again, i believe the gentleman has a solution to a problem that does not exist, and i am opposed to his amendment and i would yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desantis: i would just say, if you want money to go to purchase heavy water from iran, oppose the amendment. but if you think that's not a good idea, it doesn't hurt us to have this in here. i wish i had 100% confidence that we would not be repeating mistakes but i have not yet seen the real, robust action to turn the tide away from, i think, a deal that has put iran on the
4:03 pm
path to a nuclear bomb and the danger with the deal was always less that iran would cheat on the deal. i think they probably are. but the danger is they get a bomb by keeping the deal. so this is a major problem. this is one small area of this to protect the taxpayer. i urge my colleagues to vote yes and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman has the only remaining time. mr. desantis: i am prepared to close. i would ask for members to support this amendment and i yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18 further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida will be postponed.
4:04 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> as we begin to conclude debate on h.r. 3219, the make america secure appropriations act, i'm sure i join with ranking member nita lowey in thanking all the members of the house for the man for the which this debate has been conducted over the last couple of days. we thank the subcommittee chair well, thank the ranking members and we thank the members who presented well over 120 amendments that were made in order. mr. frelinghuysen: let me reiterate why this package of bills is so important. from 2010 to 2014, defense spending was cut 21% in real terms. we heard that from chairman thornberry in the armed services committee. yet the world did not get 21% safer.
4:05 pm
we asked more of our military than ever before and we need to support them here at home and abroad. today, i said this earlier in the debate, we have the oldest air force in history. the navy's fleet is smaller than it's been in decades, and the army has three, just three, combat brigade teams fully prepared to fight. moreover, we have too many aircraft that can't fly, too many ships that cannot sail, too many troops who cannot deploy. we need bet every equipment and training for our war fighters and we need more of the war fighters. we need a cyber component that's really effective. in april, seems like years ago, we began to rebuild our armed forces for the fiscal year 2007 consolidated appropriations bill. today, this legislation we're considering continues that critical work. mr. chairman, this four-bill package is carefully crafted to
4:06 pm
fund our critical military priorities. reenforce our nuclear deterrence, support veterans and make our borders more secure and strengthen protection for our constituents and for members. once again, i want to thank chairwoman kay granger, chairman mike simpson, charlie dent, kevin yoder, all chairmen and their ranking counterparts and our remarkable staff for bringing us to the finish line this afternoon. earlier than we thought. i also want to thank the rest of the members of the appropriations committee and staff for their extraordinary efforts over the past several months. it was full speed ahead and they performed in a remarkable way. i'd like to note the work of our clerk, nancy fox, and her team, stephen, , shannon, marie, jennifer, martha, tammy, rachel, david, and my personal
4:07 pm
office katy. and those who worked with mrs. lowey this may be the short adam, andanda, chris, also becky, who has been here, i didn't mean to leave out chairman carter, chairman of the homeland security committee for the work he's done. my colleagues, each and every one of these bills deserved to be sent to the president's desk. i look forward to completing our work on all 12 appropriations bills when we return from the recess, or perhaps even before then. i urge support of the bill, mr. chairman, and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields. it is now in order to consider amendment number 48 printed in art b of house report 115-261. >> mr. chairman, i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentlelady is recognized for five minutes.
4:08 pm
mrs. lowey: i wish we were considering bills under regular order but i hope in the weeks ahead we can work together to raise budget caps and enact bipartisan bills we can all support. i want to thank chairman frelinghuysen, my friend and kay granger, the chair. and of course pete visclosky for your hard work on this bill. however, this is not the regular way to proceed. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this bill which would waste $1.6 billion on trump's border wall, use fraudulent defense numbers, guts critical investments in clean energy, includes poison pill riders, and leaves the remaining spending bills with no path forward. so as we conclude, i want to
4:09 pm
thank, again, all the members, all my hardworking staff on both sides of the aisle, but on this ill, i urge a no vote. the chair: the gentleman from -- for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek reck snigs? mr. visclosky: i ask unanimous -- to to visituate the vitiate the recorded vote request on the amendment to the end that the chair put the vote de novo. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 47 printed in house report 115-259.
4:10 pm
offered by mr. desantis of florida. the chair: is there objection to the request. without objection, the request for a recorded vote is withdrawn. the chair will put the question de novo. the question is on the amendment by the gentleman from florida. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is adopted. it is now in order to consider amendment number 51 printed in art b of house report 115-261.
4:11 pm
pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in part b of house report 115-261 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. endment number 10 by mr. suozzi of new york, amendment number 38 by mr. nadler of new york, amendment number 43 by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania, the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electron votes after the first vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 10 printed in part b of house report 115-261 by the gentleman from new york, mr. suozzi on which further proceed wrgs postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment.
4:12 pm
the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 115-261, offered by mr. suozzi of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having rizz a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:13 pm
4:14 pm
4:15 pm
4:16 pm
4:17 pm
4:18 pm
4:19 pm
4:20 pm
4:21 pm
4:22 pm
4:23 pm
4:24 pm
4:25 pm
4:26 pm
4:27 pm
4:28 pm
4:29 pm
4:30 pm
4:31 pm
4:32 pm
4:33 pm
4:34 pm
4:35 pm
4:36 pm
4:37 pm
4:38 pm
4:39 pm
4:40 pm
4:41 pm
4:42 pm
the chair: on this vote, the yeas are 214, the nays are 211. he amendment is adopted. the house will come to order. he house will come to order. he house will come to order. the house will proceed when it's n order.
4:43 pm
the next amendment votes will be two-minute votes. members are advised to stay on the floor. next order of proceeding is the unfinished business -- the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 12 printed in house report 115-261, by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. boyle, on which further proceedings were postponed, on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in part b of house report 115-261, offer by mr. brendan f. boyle of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the
4:44 pm
national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:45 pm
4:46 pm
4:47 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 256. the nays are 169. he amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 115-261 by the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
4:48 pm
the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. nadler of new york. the chair: a recorded's been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:49 pm
4:50 pm
4:51 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 171. he nays are 253 --
4:52 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 172. the nays are 252. the motion is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 115-261 by the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright, on which the further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 43 printed in part b of house report 115-261 offered by mr. cartwright of pennsylvania. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote.
4:53 pm
[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
4:54 pm
4:55 pm
4:56 pm
4:57 pm
the chair: on this vote the yeas are 253. the nays are 172. the amendment is adopted. there being no further amendment, under the rule the committee rises.
4:58 pm
mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration the h.r. 3219 and pursuant to house resolution 478 i report the bill, as amended, back by the house resolution 473 back to the house with sundry further i amendments adopted in the ommittee of the whole. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration the bill h.r. 3219 and pursuant to house resolution 478 reports the bill, as amended, by that resolution and by house
4:59 pm
resolution 473 back to the house with a sundry further amendments adopted in the committee of the whole. under the rule the previous question is ordered. is a separate vote demanded on any further amendment reported from the committee of the whole? if not the chair will put them engrossed. the question is on the adoption of the amendments. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendments are adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for the department of defense for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2018, and for other urposes.
5:00 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will proceed when the for what n order. purpose does the gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the chair: is -- the speaker pro tempore: is the gentlewoman opposed to the bill? >> yes, i am opposed to the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman qualifies. the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: ms. roybal-allard of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on appropriations with instructions to report the same back to the house for thewith with the following amendment. strike division e. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. roybal-allard: mr. speaker, this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to committee. if adopted, the bill would immediately proceed to final passage as amended. in last year's election, no campaign rhetoric was more inif a mouse than the president's promise to, and i quote, build a
5:01 pm
great, great wall on our southern border and make mexico pay for it. the reality is the funding would come from u.s. taxpayers, not from mexico. as the president promised. this motion to recommit strikes the $1.6 million appropriation for construction of merely 74 miles of border wall. the chair: the gentlelady will suspend -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady will suspend. the house will be in order. members, take your conversations off the floor. that includes staff. the gentlelady may proceed. ms. roybal-allard: beyond the initial 74 miles we had no idea of how many miles of border wall the president plans to build, or how much it will cost. because we have not received the required report on the long-term plan and justification for border security investmentses. even with the plan we will need time to evaluate whether investments in the border wall are more cost effective than alternatives and more urgent than clearly established unmet needs. with $1.6 billion, we could buy
5:02 pm
two of the four heavy coast guard breakers we need to protect u.s. interests in the arctic. but in this bill, there is no funding for essential icebreakers. there is no acquisition funding for them in the homeland security bill. the $1.6 billion a could also be used for investments -- could also be used in investments for initial scanning technology and the hiring of thousands of customs officers at every u.s. port of entry. this would reduce wait times for travelers, better facilitate the flow of commerce, and contribute to economic growth in many of our districts. it would also enhance our ability to intercept contraband and illegal narcotics, mostly smuggled directly into the u.s. through our ports of entry, not where the wall would be built. the bill before us does not adequately address these and other areas of security vulnerabilities. as members of congress, protecting our nation and the american public is our greatest responsibility. it is our obligation to act in their best interest and to invest their tax dollars wisely.
5:03 pm
if the only homeland security item in this bill remains the funding for 74 miles of border wall, we will fail to meet our obligation. url the president's border wall is now -- unfortunately the president's border wall is now a proxy for the broad immigration debate. there's -- broader immigration debate. the reality is, we will never be able to fix our broken immigration system with an enforcement-only approach that turns a blind eye to the desperate circumstances that compel so many to make the often deadly journey to the u.s. we will never be able to address our immigration challenges by treating as criminals the millions of undocumented people in this country, many of whom are our neighbors and friends. for years or even decades, the vast majority of the -- majority have called the u.s. their home. they have paid taxes, acted responsibly, contributed to communities and worked hard to provide opportunity for their family. immigration enforcement is as
5:04 pm
much a moral issue as it is a legal one. our statue of liberty has always been a welcoming symbol of hope for those who, like now, are fleeing poverty, oppression, famine, war and violence in their home country. many of our ancestors came from somewhere else, often with uncertain legal status, and made significant contributions to help our country become the greatest in the world. today's immigrants continue to contribute to that noble legacy. what we truly need is comprehensive immigration reform that protects our homeland and reflects our american values. democrats stand ready to work with republicans to achieve that goal. but democrats will not support the use of taxpayer dollars for an ill-conceived border wall that has more to do with a campaign promise than the security of our homeland. in spite of the president's assurances, mexico is not paying for this wall. the american taxpayers is -- the american taxpayer is. my motion to recommit would prepresent that have happening
5:05 pm
-- prevent that from happening. i urge my colleagues to support the motion to recommit and now yield time to the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentlelady for yielding. ladies and gentlemen, the united states senate -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. both sides of the aisle will be n order. the gentleman from maryland is recognized. mr. hoyer: thank you, mr. speaker. ladies and gentlemen, the united states senate is now considering what is called a skinny bill. on the affordable care act. the senators are being told that they are voting for that bill to send it over here so it can go o conference and be perfected. the rules committee has just met to provision was offered
5:06 pm
the martial law, which means we can take something up right away , what we can take up is to go to conference. that was rejected by the rules committee. and there is a specific -- a suspicion that i have, and i see the majority leader on the floor , that there may be an intent to send the bill immediately back to the senate and have it go to the president. without 72 hours of consideration. without hearings. without scoring. and i would hope the majority leader could give us assurances. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order and the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from california's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. frelinghuysen: i claim time in opposition to the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. frelinghuysen: mr. speaker, as we gather here, nearly 250,000 men and women in uniform are deployed in nearly 177
5:07 pm
countries, in all corners of the globe. another two million active guard and reserve are standing watch back here at home in the united states. they are doing their jobs. we should do our jobs by providing them with everything they need to complete their mission. they are trusting us to do our jobs. defeat the motion to recommit and support national security and vote yes on final passage. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield me some time? mr. frelinghuysen: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the gentlelady from california. ms. roybal-allard: i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise
5:08 pm
and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, this five-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by five a five-minute vote on pass -- by a five-minute vote on passage of the bill. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:09 pm
5:10 pm
5:11 pm
5:12 pm
5:13 pm
5:14 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 193, the nays are 234. the motion is not adopted. the question is on passage of the bill. under clause 10 of rule 20, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
5:15 pm
5:16 pm
5:17 pm
5:18 pm
5:19 pm
5:20 pm
the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 235. the naze are 192. the bill is passed. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. he house will come to order.
5:21 pm
for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take from the speaker's table the bill h.r. 3298 with senate amendment thereto and ask for its immediate consideration in the house. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill and the senate amendment. the clerk: h.r. 3298, an act to authorize the capitol police force be -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading is dispensed with. >> mr. speaker, the house is ot in order. the speaker pro tempore: the ouse will come to order.
5:22 pm
he house will come to order. without objection, the senate amendment is agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.
5:23 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> mr. speaker, i rise today to call attention to the growing threat to our overseas military facilities proposed by the russian federation. one of the most serious risks to our bases in europe is russia's corner on oil and natural gas. one such facility is the army's new medical complex in germany. it would be financially irresponsible and strategically reckless to spend $1 billion for a state-of-the-art hospital only to have the design of the new facility compromised the
5:24 pm
very reason exists by relying on russia as its primary source of fuel. mr. bacon: there are local fuel options available and will be inexcusable not to make them art of the design of the project. this is plain common sense. we can't put ourself in the situation where russia will cut off gas to our oil bases where we could have dealt with this ahead of time. i ask my colleagues in the house and senate to have aggressive sight over our national security. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? the gentlelady from texas cannot be recognized. the gentleman from california is recognized. the gentleman from california is recognized.
5:25 pm
mr. ruiz: our constituents sent us here to come together to pass bipartisan legislation addressing our nation's most pressing issues. every year i've been in congress i have voted in favor of bipartisan, clean funding bills to give our troops a pay raise and fund our military and the v.a. took those votes proudly working with republicans and democrats. today i am outraged republican leadership played politics with this critical funding to include a poison pill rider that wastes $1.6 billion in taxpayer dollars on an ineffective border wall. just shameful. we all know this wall will not make us any safer. even law enforcement officials oppose this funding. i'm very disappointed g.o.p. leaders would link president trump's divisive campaign rhetoric with what should unite all americans, supporting our troops and veterans. because of procedural trickery, debate was not allowed. that would have allowed a bipartisan agreement on a clean bill supporting our troops and our veterans.
5:26 pm
shameful. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. does anyone else seek recognition to seek? sir, what do you seek recognition for? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: you are recognized for one minute. >> mr. speaker, a few minutes ago the house delivered on one of the president's promise, to increase security in the united states, to stop foreign infiltration into the states, to protect us from terrorists possibly crossing our border. the bottom line is, mr. speaker, build the wall. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any further one-minute requests? pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess subject to the call of the chair.
5:27 pm

41 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on