Congressional Record, Volume 164 Issue 117 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)

[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 117 (Thursday, July 12, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H6122-H6129]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6237, MATTHEW YOUNG POLLARD
INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018 AND 2019

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on
Rules, I call up House Resolution 989 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 989

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6237) to authorize appropriations for fiscal
years 2018 and 2019 for intelligence and intelligence-related
activities of the United States Government, the Community
Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency
Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points
of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not
exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in
the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original
bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 115-80. That amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All
points of order against that amendment in the nature of a
substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the
nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed
in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member
designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall
be debatable for the time specified in the report equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent,
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject
to a demand for division of the question in the House or in
the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the
bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made
in order as original text. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions.

[[Page H6123]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only,
I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on House Resolution 989, currently
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring forward
this rule on behalf of the Rules Committee.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 6237, the Matthew Young
Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscals Years 2018 and 2019.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence.
The rule also provides for a motion to recommit. Additionally, the
rule makes in order 12 amendments from Members on both sides of the
aisle.
Yesterday, the Rules Committee heard testimony from numerous Members,
including Intelligence Committee Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member
Schiff, as well as Mr. LoBiondo from New Jersey and Ms. Jackson Lee
from Texas.
In addition to the vigorous debate on this legislation before the
Rules Committee, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence held a
markup of this legislation on June 27, 2018, where the committee voted
unanimously to report the bill to the House floor for consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff for
their important work on this legislation, and I commend them for the
strong demonstration of bipartisanship in moving it forward.
The Intelligence Reauthorization Act is among the most important
pieces of legislation we consider in this Chamber. It provides the
intelligence community, a community that spans 17 different agencies,
with the resources it needs to protect our great country.
Chairman Nunes and Ranking Member Schiff approached the task of
writing this bill constructively and with a clear understanding of its
importance, and their work is evident in the support for this bill we
have already seen displayed at the Intelligence Committee markup.
As a result of Mr. Nunes' and Mr. Schiff's work, and of the
Intelligence Committee, the legislation provided for by this rule will
not only reauthorize programs crucial to the intelligence community,
but it will also make a number of critical improvements to the law in
support of that community and our national security.
The underlying bill represents an opportunity to pass an important
piece of legislation that will enhance our national security in an age
of increasingly sophisticated adversaries.
Its provisions include critical functions like deterring nation-state
adversaries like Russia and China, countering and defeating ISIS and
other terrorist groups, and defending America against cyberattacks, to
name a few.
In addition to the critical missions I have listed above, the bill
will improve our ability to recruit and retain top cybersecurity
professionals, and will provide better benefits to CIA employees
injured by acts of terrorism overseas.
Further, the underlying bill will strengthen both internal and
congressional oversight over the various components of the intelligence
community.
Our government's most fundamental responsibilities are to defend the
American people from harm and to protect their liberty. To grasp the
weight of these duties, one need only review the preamble of the
Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, the reality is that Americans continue to face
increasingly sophisticated cyber threats from foreign states and
nonstate actors alike. This legislation recognizes the need to ensure
that the United States maintains a tactical advantage in the cyber
dimension by giving the intelligence community the ability to recruit
the very best talent in the field.
This legislation gives the intelligence community the ability to
provide increased pay for certain employees who have unique skills to
lend to critical cyber missions.
Cyber criminals and other foreign intelligence agencies have
increasingly focused on two critical areas of U.S. national security:
our energy infrastructure and our election systems. Thanks to the work
of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, this legislation
will bolster our defense of both areas.
Specifically, this legislation will require the Director of National
Intelligence to electronically publish an unclassified advisory report
on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to election
campaigns for Federal office. It will also create an Infrastructure
Security Center within the Department of Energy to coordinate
intelligence on significant threats.
We must have the tools to combat these threats, and that includes
skilled personnel who know how to navigate these challenges. Whether
bad actors hone in on our energy resources, election systems, or other
strengths, this legislation takes steps to ensure we have the people we
need fighting the forces menacing our Nation.
With these improvements in place, those responsible for our Nation's
critical infrastructure will have better intelligence with which to
protect it.
To provide for our common defense, the dedicated men and women of the
intelligence community work tirelessly to thwart the efforts of our
foreign adversaries, which range from terrorists to foreign states to
nuclear proliferators.
Many in the intelligence community have seen their work in
furtherance of the global war on terror and other missions around the
world land them in harm's way. This bill recognizes the commitment of
these brave men and women, many whose names we will never know.

Finally, the importance of the intelligence community's work and the
inherently secretive nature of its mission necessitate vigilant
oversight of these activities. This bill will increase the intelligence
community's accountability to Congress by requiring reports on numerous
issues, including investigations of leaks of classified information and
security clearance processing timelines.
Importantly, it will further bolster intelligence oversight by
requiring the intelligence community and the Department of Defense to
develop a framework for assessing the numerous roles, missions, and
functions of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It will also require the
FBI to provide quarterly counterintelligence briefings to the
congressional intelligence committees.
This legislation will ensure that America remains safe, and it will
ensure that American liberties are protected in the process.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I thank the gentleman, my friend from Georgia, for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes for debate.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for this measure, the
Matthew Young Pollard Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
2018 and 2019.
Today's bill comes to us through a process that is marginally better
than that which we saw last year. As many of you may remember, last
year, it took my friends on the other side a couple of tries to get the
Intelligence Authorization Act to the floor.
Though that one was, unlike today's bill, cosponsored by the ranking
member, Republicans raised the ire of many of us on this side of the
aisle by trying to move this bill under suspension of the rules. After
that move fell flat, the Republican-led Rules Committee reported the
bill under a closed rule, blocking no fewer than 13 amendments. That
bill, though passed, never saw sunlight in the Senate.
Today's bill avoids some of those avoidable self-inflicted wounds and
is indeed better for it. But unfortunately, drama of some kind or
another seems to follow Intelligence Authorization Acts, no matter
what.

[[Page H6124]]

Last night at the Rules Committee, we witnessed, in my view, the
unprecedented silencing of one of our colleagues. Congresswoman Norma
Torres had just begun her first question of the chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Mr. Nunes, when she was gaveled down by the
chairman of the House Rules Committee. Subsequently, he abruptly
recessed the meeting.
It is, in my view, Congresswoman Torres' unquestionable right, based
on longstanding committee practice, to question a witness. And it is
absolutely unbelievable and, in my view, a great shame that she was not
able to continue her line of questioning.
When the hearing reconvened after a near 20-minute recess, rather
than answering questions, Chairman Nunes was permitted to leave. He had
made the request, indicating that he had matters before the Ways and
Means Committee.
This was not just unfortunate for Mrs. Torres, but also for the rest
of us on the committee, because during that short recess, the Trump
administration issued its Statement of Administration Policy on today's
underlying bill. Frankly, the administration's statement raised more
questions than it answered.

{time} 1230

It would have been helpful to have Mr. Nunes at the hearing so that
we could ask him important and relevant questions about the
administration's statement and what that statement meant for his bill.
Now, I look forward to our meetings returning to normal next week,
and I look forward to them being run as they have been in the past,
with witnesses staying before the committee until all of our members
have been able to ask all of their questions.
Mr. Speaker, the bill is also not without its laudatory provisions.
As my friend from Georgia has mentioned several of them, let me proceed
to add to that particular observation of his.
It increases pay for professionals in the intelligence community who
have expertise in the cyber arena or have extensive knowledge in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics--all areas that are
crucial to the success of the intelligence community's core mission.
Footnote there: I served for 8 years on the Intelligence Committee,
and I know full well, firsthand, the importance of this particular
aspect of the committee's duties and the agency's duties.
The bill, at the insistence of Democrats on the committee, addresses
Russian meddling in our elections by requiring the intelligence
community to brief key congressional leaders and committees on threat
assessments related to foreign meddling in our Federal elections. The
bill also requires the Director of Intelligence to publicly post a
report on foreign counterintelligence and cybersecurity threats to
Federal election campaigns.
Although these provisions are welcomed, it is beyond any doubt that
more must be done to strengthen our defenses against any foreign
interference in our Federal and State elections and to rebuild
Americans' confidence in the democratic process and in its
institutions.
Mr. Speaker, there has also been good bipartisan work on a matter
that has been, for years, as it is today, near and dear to my heart,
and that is increasing diversity hires and promotions within the
intelligence community. Indeed, I have not stopped championing these
twin causes since leaving the House Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence as its vice chair.
Diversity is a mission imperative for the intelligence community.
Three of my predecessors, two of whom are deceased--Lou Stokes from
Ohio and Julian Dixon from California--as well as my classmate and
colleague Sanford Bishop, who served on the committee as well, worked
assiduously in an effort to increase minorities and give them
opportunities to climb the ranks.
We also, in my view, now need to recruit who will be able to blend
in, speak foreign languages, and understand the cultures in countries
that are now central to our foreign policy interests. At the end of the
day, such diversity is achieved through the hiring process; and,
therefore, we need to ensure that we are hiring more Arab Americans,
Iranian Americans, Pakistani Americans, Chinese Americans, Korean
Americans, and many other Americans from diverse backgrounds as we
confront a myriad of threats and work hard to better understand our
adversaries wherever they may lurk. We do not seek this diversity in
the name of political correctness but, rather, in the name of national
security.
Mr. Speaker, even with these sensible additions, I can understand why
some of my colleagues are reluctant to support today's bill.
When we live in the shadow of a President who is bent on denigrating
the brave men and women of the intelligence community in a brazen
attempt to undermine the crucial work they do on a daily basis; when we
live under the shadow of a President who has, as a candidate for the
highest office in the land, compared those in the intelligence
community to Nazis; when we live under the shadow of a President who is
quicker to take the word of an authoritarian dictator like Vladimir
Putin over the studied and sober word of his own intelligence
community--all positions, by the way, that not only undermine our own
intelligence community, but also the relationships that we have with
allies and the world over--one would be right to pause and consider
whether he or she should vote in favor of handing over immense and
powerful authorities to such a person.
I certainly understand the great cause for concern in handing such
authorities over to this administration. In fact, last night at the
Rules Committee, I offered a sensible amendment, in my view, that would
have reinstated the cybersecurity coordinator on the National Security
Council.
As many may remember, in the not too distant past we had such a
coordinator. Why? Because this country faces, on an hourly and, indeed,
minute-by-minute, second-by-second basis, attempted and sometimes
successful attacks on our Nation's cyber infrastructure, both private
and public. It made sense to President Bush's and President Obama's
administrations to have a person who could coordinate the complicated
responses to these myriad attacks.
The now-President and his national security adviser, on the other
hand, had the inspired idea to jettison the position of cybersecurity
coordinator from the ranks of the National Security Council. Now, the
optics alone of the current administration canning a cybersecurity
coordinator are enough to make one shake one's head, but the real-world
effects of such a misguided and reckless action should be cause for
great concern.
My friends on the other side of the aisle will tell us that sacking
the cybersecurity coordinator was done in the name of bureaucratic
efficiency, when what the Trump administration has really done, in yet
another misguided decision, is make protecting our country more
difficult and more cumbersome.
It is time that Republicans take these threats seriously and stop
aiding and abetting an administration that puts its own personal
interests ahead of those of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Torres), who is my and Mr. Collins' distinguished
colleague on the Rules Committee.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, although I may be the newest member of the
Rules Committee, I know that it is our job to discuss how our
committees come up with their legislation and, by extension, how the
House should consider these bills in a manner that is orderly and
respectful. Unfortunately, we were not given that opportunity
yesterday.
I had questions for the Intelligence Committee chairman--tough
questions, maybe, but fair questions. Questions like: How do we prevent
witnesses from lying in our committees? Questions like: How did the
committee come up with their findings on the Russian meddling that
differ so much from every other intelligence agency?
I had offered an amendment to this bill to give the House the
opportunity to vote on the Senate Intelligence Committee's Russia
findings, and I wanted to ask the chairman if he felt

[[Page H6125]]

that the House was prepared to vote on such an amendment; and, if not,
why not. A tough question, maybe, but a fair question.
However, I never got the opportunity to ask that--any of that.
Instead, I was shouted down by a male colleague from across the dais
and cut off abruptly before I could even finish the first question. It
was incredibly disrespectful and a far cry from the decorum that we
should uphold as members of the powerful Rules Committee and Congress.
Never before had a member of the committee majority or minority been
cut off from active questioning. That is unprecedented. As a fact, I
have observed male colleagues talk to each other and ask each other to
yield time to each other; but you see, as the only female Latina in
that committee, that respect was not extended to me.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, what this means for our committee and
this Congress. What is more troubling to me is that this is the second
time a male colleague has yelled at me from the other side of the dais.
This is not to be tolerated--not by me, and not by any Member of
Congress.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, if our committee is going to function like
this moving forward, it will be the Rules Committee in name only.
Regular order will be a thing of the past.
Bills are already developed by the majority behind closed doors. The
majority already blocks every single amendment. Now we will not be
allowed to even speak. The majority has already turned this Congress
into the most closed Congress in history. Now they are going to close
off important debates in committee, and that is outrageous.
I take my work on the Rules Committee very seriously. As a matter of
fact, the last time this happened, I sat there, patiently, quietly,
listening to the debate, although I completely disagreed with what my
colleagues were saying. I was respectful to them, and I waited for my
turn to speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again
expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Mrs. TORRES. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can all continue to uphold
that standard of mutual respect for not just the male members of our
committee, but to extend that respect to the females of that committee.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there are several issues here. And to clarify, in being
one of the members there yesterday and one spoken of, I think there is
an issue of when there is a concern by a member. This has been beyond
Mrs. Torres coming to the committee, and has been before and when Mr.
Hastings and I have been there, many times, when we have issues with
the question, the procedure is to stop and to ask the chairman to
suspend the question.
This is what was happening yesterday, because there was a concern
that the question was impugning the integrity of the chairman. There
needed to be clarification. That was a simple--no matter what member
may have asked it. That was the discussion that then continued from
there.
Also, though, in the past 4 months, there have been 16 times that the
chairman has sent a designee from their committee to testify before the
Rules Committee and 14 times that the ranking member has sent a
designee. Sending a designee from the committee of jurisdiction is
common practice, and the chairman stated at the top of the meeting that
that was what was going to be taking place.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1245

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I invite, Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Georgia to show me an
example of where we shut down a Member that was asking a question.
And I might add, Chairman Nunes did not send a designee. He came to
the committee himself, and then Mr. LoBiondo, which is not
unprecedented, as you have outlined the numbers, took his position at
that time.
But I know of no time that we have failed to allow a Member of the
committee to ask questions. Can the gentleman give me such an example?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the understanding was not--and
my intention at that point in discussing this was not to stop the
questioning, but it is in the concern for the integrity of the
question.
You and I have talked before in our committee, and when we have
said--and you have asked the chairman for clarification, that was my
intention in that and that was my entire intention in that, and from
there, the chairman took action from there.
I think the interesting thing in here is the chairman did, at the
start of the meeting, say that Mr. Nunes would be leaving. That was
stated up front and there was no objection at that point for him doing
so.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will take that as my
colleague doesn't have an answer. I will take that as my colleague's
nonresponse to my question with reference to show me a precedent in
that regard. There was none.
I have been on that committee for 16 years, and we talk all over each
other all the time and back and forth, but in an orderly manner, and
yesterday's example was not orderly.
If we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment
to the rule to bring up Representative Nadler's bill, H.R. 6135, the
Keep Families Together Act. This important proposal would prohibit the
Department of Homeland Security from separating children from their
parents, except in extraordinary circumstances, and limit the criminal
prosecution of asylum seekers.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Washington (Ms. Jayapal), a member of the Judiciary Committee, to
discuss our proposal.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Keep
Families Together Act.
Mr. Speaker, over the last month, our country has reeled from the
cruelty at the border. And this week we waited apprehensively to see if
the Trump administration would meet the court-ordered deadline to
reunite at least the children under 5 who have been taken away from
their parents, separated for months at a time.
The Trump administration did not meet that deadline. To date, only 57
children have been reunited with their families. Over 3,000 children
were separated from their families, and all of this was a self-imposed
tragic, tragic set of circumstances that came from Donald Trump's
decision to institute a zero tolerance, zero humanity policy at the
border for parents who were seeking asylum for their children.
Mr. Speaker, headlines every day are blaring about what is happening
in the short term and the long term in terms of trauma caused to
children--to children, Mr. Speaker. One headline said that some of the
children who were 2 and 3 years old did not even recognize their
parents after 4 months of being separated--children who were
breastfeeding at their mother's breast, separated.
Mr. Speaker, the American Association of Pediatrics has said that the
long-term trauma and consequences to these children is absolutely
devastating. And let me be clear about what we are doing. The United
States Government--and I say not in my name--the United States
Government is separating children from their families, putting kids in
cages, parents in prisons.
Why? To deter people who are coming to the United States to do what
I, as a mother, and I believe any parent would do, to seek safety from
violence, from persecution, from being killed, gang raped, all kinds of
stories that I heard directly from the women and the men who fled and
are being held in a Federal prison.

[[Page H6126]]

Mr. Speaker, the Keep Families Together Act is the only bill that
would help prevent these horrors from occurring again and from
happening now. It prohibits the separation of children from their
parents; it limits criminal prosecutions for asylum seekers; and it
requires the Department of Homeland Security to reunite children and
their parents.
I have got to say, Mr. Speaker, I hear these things from people who I
believe are deeply good people on both sides of the aisle.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Washington.
Ms. JAYAPAL. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there is any
Republican or Democrat that would want this kind of trauma to occur.
But I ask my Republican colleagues to stand up for who we are as a
country. Do not allow America to become this in the eyes of the world.
Do not go back to your children tonight and tell them that you allowed
for this to continue.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nevada (Mr. Kihuen), who is a member of the Financial Services
Committee, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question,
and I apologize for botching his last name.
Mr. KIHUEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for this opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, I am here to urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6135,
the Keep Families Together Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is immoral, it is inhumane, and it is un-American to
separate children from their parents. You know, I was at the border
just a few weeks ago, and I got an opportunity to see firsthand and
talk to these children. And these are children who are in jail cells.
These are children who should be out in a playground, not in a prison.
These are parents who left their home country because they were being
persecuted because gangs and cartels were looking to assassinate them,
and they were coming to America to say: I need help. Me and my children
need help.
They were coming to America, the most powerful country in the world,
asking for help, a country that has traditionally been made up of
immigrants. Because let's face it, unless you are Native American, we
all come from somewhere else. This country is made up of immigrants.
These folks, all they wanted was an opportunity to succeed and to
achieve the American Dream, and, today, they are in prisons.
These parents are away from their children. That is immoral. It is
inhumane. And now we have an administration who made a promise to
reunite these families, and the deadline passed, and yet these children
are still not reunited with their parents. And those few children who
are having that opportunity to see their parents again, the parents are
complaining that their children don't even recognize them anymore. That
is inhumane, it is immoral, and it goes against all American values.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6135, the Keep Families Together
Act.
Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is left on both
sides of the aisle?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 5\1/4\
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 24 minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Espaillat), who is a member of the Foreign Affairs
Committee, Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Small
Business, to further discuss our proposal for the previous question.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Congressman Hastings for yielding
me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I continue to urge my colleagues to find some humanity
deep in your hearts. I know America has a huge heart, but I continue to
ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look deep inside of
your soul and your heart and find humanity and help us pass the Keep
Families Together Act to help reunite mothers like Yeni Gonzalez, who I
have been pushing to help reunite with her three children. Yeni brought
her three children seeking asylum as they escaped gang violence in
Guatemala.
President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have made it
harder for victims of violence to come to the United States by
stating--get this--that domestic violence should not be grounds for
asylum. And in the fiscal year 2019 budget, the President proposed a
$180 million cut to funding that would address the root causes of this
migration, including domestic violence.
The Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Honduras have among the 18 highest homicide rates in the world. We need
to be doing more to address these root causes, and we need to be doing
more to make sure families are kept together--freely, not in detention
centers and facilities. Some of these children are being kept in cages
that look like kennels.
This week, the President and this administration once again failed to
reunite all these children with their family. This administration is
using its agency to demonize immigrants--mothers and their children. We
need to save the soul of our Nation. I ask, I implore the other side of
the aisle to look deep inside of their soul as they go to church on
Sunday.
This time our Nation's history will forever be tainted, the
reputation of our Nation, as free and a beacon of hope for the entire
world.
I ask my colleagues to vote against the previous question so that we
can immediately bring the Keep Families Together Act to the floor and
stand with our Nation's children.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I yield
myself the balance of my time to close.
Mr. Speaker, we consider today's important bill as we approach the
hour of our President, Donald John Trump's, private sit down with
President Vladimir Putin in Russia. We don't know what will come of
this meeting, but if past is indeed prologue and we look to the
President's handling of his negotiations with North Korean dictator Kim
Jong-un, or his steadfast denial of the obvious, namely Russia's
meddling in our elections, or his policy of tearing toddlers away from
their mothers and fathers, then we can assume that nothing good will
come from this upcoming get together.
And I would urge those traveling with him to sweep the room with
Vladimir Putin because he will certainly be being listened to.
We can assume that there will be further concessions that benefit
Russian interests. We can assume that the President will further insult
our friends and allies, as he did yesterday morning in Brussels. We can
assume that he will further erode the institutions created by the
greatest generation, institutions that have made and kept the United
States the dominant power in an uncertain world, institutions that have
kept war off of western European soil for more than a generation,
institutions that have kept at bay those nation-states that champion
oppression and fear rather than freedom and the rule of law.
Finally, I will say this. In the current environment, it is more
important than ever to stand united against those forces that wish to
see us divided. It is more important than ever that we support the
difficult and brave work of those individuals who make up our
intelligence community. And the latter can be achieved, quite simply,
by Republicans in this Chamber taking a note from our Republican
friends on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and learn how to
call a spade a spade.
The assessment that the Russians meddled in our election; that the
Russians concertedly attempted to undermine Secretary Clinton's chances
to be elected the first female President of the United States; that the
Russians did this work to favor the election of the current President
are all trustworthy and well-founded assessments.

{time} 1300

And remember, that it is not Alcee Lamar Hastings saying that, though
I do. That is the assessment of the entire Republican-led Senate Select
Committee on Intelligence. That is the assessment of the intelligence
agencies of this community.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the
balance of my time.

[[Page H6127]]

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Mr. Speaker, this is a time when we come to the floor and debate
great things. Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, you actually find out things that
you did not know, and I now found out that my friend from Florida's
middle name is Lamar as we go forward.
Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for legislation that does what we
came here to do, and that is to protect our Nation and preserve our
civil liberties. The underlying legislation goes a step further than
simply reauthorizing critical programs. It takes a hard look, and a
smart look, at how we can strengthen programs, better respond to new
and existing threats, and conduct vigorous, effective oversight of the
intelligence community, while ensuring it has the resources it needs to
serve American citizens well.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to supporting this rule and the
underlying bill to strengthen public safety, protect our Nation and the
American people, and to guard our civil liberties.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee report (H. Rept. 115-
815) to accompany House Resolution 989 should have included the
following summary of amendments:

Summary of the Amendments Made in Order

1. Keating (MA): Adds Russian to the list of the languages
in Sec. 1501. (10 minutes)
2. Schneider (IL): Amends Sec. 1503 to include a list of
foreign state or foreign nonstate actors involved in the
threats to election campaigns for Federal offices. (10
minutes)
3. Jackson Lee (TX): Amends the Sense of Congress already
in the bill on the importance of re-review of security
clearances held by individuals by adding consideration of
whether the security clearance holder's association or
sympathy with persons or organizations that advocate,
threaten, or use force or violence, or any other illegal or
unconstitutional means, in an effort to prevent others from
exercising their rights under the Constitution or laws of the
United States or of any state, including but not limited to
race, religion, national origin, or disability. (10 minutes)
4. Vargas (CA): Adds ``the use of virtual currencies'' to
``section 1505'' to ensure it is included in the assessment
of threat finance. (10 minutes)
5. Torres (CA), Wagner (MO): Directs Director of National
Intelligence, in coordination with the Assistant Secretary of
State for Intelligence and Research and the Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury for Intelligence and Analysis, to
produce a national intelligence estimate of the revenue
sources of the North Korean regime. (10 minutes)
6. Hastings, Alcee (FL): Directs the Director of National
Intelligence to create and implement a plan that expands the
recruitment efforts of all intelligence agencies geographic
parameters used in recruitment efforts so that rural and
other underserved regions across the nation are more fully
represented in such efforts. (10 minutes)
7. Schneider (IL), Meadows (NC), Torres (CA), Sinema (AZ):
Directs the DNI to report on Iran's support for proxy forces
in Syria and Lebanon, including Hizballah, and an assessment
of the threat posed to Israel and other U.S. regional allies.
(10 minutes)
8. Bera (CA), Connolly (VA), Garamendi (CA), Larsen, Rick
(WA): Requires a briefing to relevant Congressional
committees on the anticipated geopolitical effects of
emerging infectious disease and pandemics, and their
implications on the national security of the United States.
(10 minutes)
9. Kennedy (MA): Requires the Director of National
Intelligence to submit a report on the potential
establishment of the ``Foreign Malign Influence Response
Center,'' comprised of analysts from all elements of the
intelligence community, to provide comprehensive assessment
of foreign efforts to influence United States political
processes and elections. (10 minutes)
10. Rice, Kathleen (NY), King, Peter (NY): Requires the
Director of National Intelligence to report on the possible
exploitation of virtual currencies by terrorist actors. (10
minutes)
11. Lipinski (IL): Requires an annual report from the
Director of National Intelligence describing Iranian
expenditures on military and terrorist activities outside the
country, such as on Hezbollah, Houthi rebels in Yemen, Hamas,
and proxy forces in Iraq and Syria. (10 minutes)
12. Davidson (OH): Enhances oversight by augmenting
existing semiannual reporting requirements regarding
disciplinary actions. (10 minutes)
The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 989 Offered by Mr. Hastings

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2 That immediately upon adoption of this resolution
the Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 6135) to limit the separation of families at or near
ports of entry. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6135.
____

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

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

Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my
time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair

[[Page H6128]]

will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 182, not voting 17, as follows:

[Roll No. 322]

YEAS--229

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--182

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

NOT VOTING--17

Bishop (GA)
Black
Cheney
Ellison
Frankel (FL)
Gomez
Hanabusa
Harper
Kustoff (TN)
LoBiondo
Moulton
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Richmond
Sanford
Speier
Vease

{time} 1326

Messrs. GONZALEZ of Texas, PETERSON, O'HALLERAN, and CUELLAR changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. JONES, MARCHANT, and MARSHALL changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 235,
noes 178, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 323]

AYES--235

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cloud
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Estes (KS)
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Handel
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lesko
Lewis (MN)
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Newhouse
Noem
Norman
Nunes
O'Halleran
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Russell
Rutherford
Scalise
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Sinema
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--178

[[Page H6129]]

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

NOT VOTING--15

Bishop (GA)
Black
Cheney
Ellison
Frankel (FL)
Hanabusa
Harper
Kustoff (TN)
LoBiondo
McNerney
Moulton
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Sanford
Speier

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1335

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________