[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

     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
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney

[[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.

                          ____________________