Congressional Record, Volume 165 Issue 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)

[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7913-H7920]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2203, HOMELAND SECURITY IMPROVEMENT
ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3525, U.S. BORDER PATROL
MEDICAL SCREENING STANDARDS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES.
576, EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE WITH RESPECT TO WHISTLEBLOWER
COMPLAINT MADE TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY; AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 577 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 577

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2203) to
increase transparency, accountability, and community
engagement within the Department of Homeland Security,
provide independent oversight of border security activities,
improve training for agents and officers of U.S. Customs and
Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 116-27, modified by the
amendment printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3525) to amend
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to direct the Commissioner
of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to establish uniform
processes for medical screening of individuals interdicted
between ports of entry, and for other purposes. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu
of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Homeland Security now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 116-33 shall be considered as
adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read.
All points of order against provisions in the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 576) expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the
whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The
resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question
shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble
to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division
of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of September 26, 2019, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
Sec. 5. On any legislative day during the period from
September 30, 2019, through October 14, 2019--
(a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day
shall be considered as approved; and
(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned
to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4,
section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by
the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
Sec. 6. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the
duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed
by section 5 of this resolution as though under clause 8 (a)
of rule I.
Sec. 7. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for
purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C.
1546).
Sec. 8. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
Sec. 9. Each day during the period addressed by section 5
of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or
legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
Sec. 10. Each day during the period addressed by section 5 of
this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for
purposes of clause 7 of rule XV.

[[Page H7914]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko),
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.

{time} 1215

General Leave

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 577, providing for consideration of
H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act; H.R. 3525, the U.S.
Border Patrol Medical Screening Standards Act; and H. Res. 576,
expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to
the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community, under closed rules.
For H.R. 2203 and H.R. 3525, the rule provides 1 hour of general
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Homeland Security for each bill. The rule
provides H. Res. 576 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence.
The rule also provides blanket suspension authority for the
legislative day of Thursday, September 26, 2019, and standard recess
instructions for the district work period from September 30 to October
14.
At the end of this debate, I will be offering an amendment to the
rule to replace the text of H. Res. 576 with the text of S. Res. 325, a
bipartisan resolution that passed the Senate unanimously yesterday.
Both of these resolutions urge that the complaint be transmitted
immediately to the Intelligence Committees, as required by law.
In our Rules Committee meeting last night, several of my Republican
colleagues suggested that they would prefer that we take up the Senate-
passed language. To ensure that this Congress speaks with one voice
clearly and unequivocally on this urgent matter, we will be amending
the rule to do just that.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for three important
pieces of legislative business, which I will address serially: H. Res.
576, with the text of S. Res. 325; H.R. 3525; and H.R. 2203.
By now, every Member of this body is well aware of the whistleblower
complaint that was filed to the intelligence community inspector
general following a call President Trump had with the President of
Ukraine. These types of complaints are far from unheard of, and the law
states that the complaint must be turned over to the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees. However, the inspector general has testified
that the Acting Director of National Intelligence blocked the
complaint, after consulting with the Department of Justice, from being
turned over to Congress, despite the complaint fitting the requirements
for being turned over under the law.
The way this complaint was handled by the Trump administration was a
stark violation of that whistleblower law, which states that the
Director of National Intelligence shall provide Congress with the full
whistleblower complaint. In addition to breaking the law, this
corruption sends a strong and chilling message to would-be
whistleblowers that their courage and sacrifice in speaking out against
impropriety and corruption will not be valued if it is not politically
expedient.
Yesterday, the Senate voted by unanimous consent to pass a nonbinding
resolution directing the Trump administration to hand over the
whistleblower report filed against President Trump, reportedly, to
House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The fact that Senator
McConnell allowed this resolution to go to the floor should show House
Republicans that there is a point where you must stop turning a blind
eye to this administration's betrayal of our Constitution, our country,
and our national security.
It is a sad day when Congress needs to pass a resolution to obtain
documents that we have an absolute right to see, but this type of
conduct is part of a pattern of obstruction by this administration that
we have seen time and time again.
Allowing the Intelligence Committees to see the complaints and
interview the whistleblower is essential to our national security.
Furthermore, this resolution serves as a show of support and solidarity
with whistleblowers. If we allow partisanship to deter whistleblowers
from acting, we risk undermining a necessary check on an unrestrained
administration. It is imperative that these brave Americans are
protected and that their concerns are heard.
It is also worth noting that these whistleblower protections were
negotiated and implemented with bipartisan support over multiple
administrations.
Protecting the integrity of our national security is vitally
important. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow the lead of their
Senate counterparts and join us in passing this resolution so that
Congress can properly meet its constitutional oversight duties.
Also subject to this rule are two homeland security measures.
First, H.R. 2203, the Homeland Security Improvement Act, is a timely
and necessary bill to address our Nation's immigration and security
challenges at the southern border in a responsible and humane way. This
legislation will ensure accountability, transparency, and oversight in
the agency responsible for monitoring and securing our Nation's
borders.
Further, the bill establishes an ombudsman for border- and
immigration-related concerns within the Department of Homeland
Security. This additional oversight in the Department of Homeland
Security will bring a much-needed level of independent accountability
to DHS and ensure that the agents and employees working at our border
are performing their duties to the highest possible standard.

There is no doubt that these border security jobs are demanding and
intense, and the creation of an independent, neutral, and confidential
process to address complaints will help both the agents and employees
working at the border, as well as the individuals they process.
This bill also creates a border communities liaison, appointed by the
ombudsman in conjunction with the Office for Civil Rights and Civil
Liberties at DHS, to operate in each Border Patrol sector along the
northern and southern borders. The liaison will be charged with
fostering cooperation between ICE, CBP, and surrounding border
communities, relationships that have become increasingly strained and
distrustful in recent months.
In addition, the ombudsman will be required to conduct annual
evaluations of all training given to ICE and CBP agents and officers.
One of the many concerns that I heard from ICE and CBP agents during
my trips to the border is that they are not given adequate training and
resources to properly do their jobs under current conditions. It is
clear that this administration is creating chaos at the southern border
by instituting policies that prioritize political fearmongering over
addressing the humanitarian crisis in Central America. This is
unacceptable given the complex challenges border agents face every day,
and an annual assessment of their training will serve to better equip
these men and women for their very difficult jobs.
Another area where DHS is lacking is utilizing advancements in
technology that could improve outcomes for both border agents and
migrants. This bill mandates that the ombudsman, in coordination with
the CBP Commissioner, ICE Director, and ORR, develop recommendations
for an electronic tracking number system to keep track of children in
U.S. custody. The wholly inhumane practice of separating children from
their parents is preventable, and tracking the location of a child who
has been separated from his or her parents or guardians will help
ensure that no child is ever again in custody alone and unaccounted for
at our southern border.

[[Page H7915]]

Finally, this bill requires the ombudsman to submit to Congress a
plan for requiring the use of body-worn cameras by U.S. Border Patrol
agents and ICE officers when they are engaged in border security and
immigration enforcement activities. This is a long-overdue step. Body
cameras are already used by State and local police departments around
the country and have served to improve justice outcomes for the
individuals who come into contact with the police and provide a level
of oversight that is greatly needed at the border.
Mr. Speaker, House Democrats are committed to passing legislation
that will improve conditions at the border and better ensure the safety
of agents and employees who work there, as well as the safety of
migrants they come into contact with. Increased accountability is
necessary to improving the situation at the border, a situation, I
might add, that my Republican counterparts continuously say needs
addressing. This bill is the chance for that added accountability.
I commend my colleague Representative Escobar from El Paso for her
hard work and dedication on this issue and Chairman Thompson and the
Homeland Security Committee for their thoughtful consideration of H.R.
2203.
The second Homeland Security bill in today's rule is H.R. 3525, the
U.S. Border Patrol Medical Screening Standards Act.
In December 2018, Jakelin, aged 7, and Felipe, aged 8, both passed
away in the custody of the U.S. Border Patrol. Following their deaths,
CBP announced new medical screening procedures for children. Despite
this, four more children have since passed away in Federal custody.
Let us be clear that we are addressing an issue that has emerged with
the implementation of the Trump administration's inhumane border
policies. No child died in CBP custody for the entire decade preceding
2018, but we have seen six in the last 10 months.
CBP facilities must be better equipped to provide medical attention
for individuals in U.S. custody, particularly children.
One critical component of addressing the new reality is an initial
health screening to identify acute or pressing medical issues that need
immediate or follow-up attention. H.R. 3525 builds upon legislation
passed by the House in July of this year by directing DHS to research
innovative approaches to address capability gaps for providing medical
screening at the border and mandates the implementation of an
electronic health record system.
DHS medical professionals and other medical caregivers at the border
have spoken of how much they need an electronic health system for CBP.
In fact, this was the genesis of the bill following Representative
Underwood's visits to the border.
This bill requires DHS to make concerted process improvements,
including research done in consultation with national medical
professional associations that have expertise in emergency medicine,
nursing, pediatric care, and other relevant medical skills.
Upon completion of this research, DHS must submit a report to
Congress on its recommendations for improving medical screening, access
to emergency care, and steps the Department plans to take in response.
Within 90 days of this enactment, DHS must establish an electronic
health record system that can be accessed by all DHS components
operating on our borders. ICE already has its own electronic health
record system in place, and it is time CBP upgraded its capabilities,
as well.
The deaths that have occurred on our borders are a stain on our
Nation, and current medical screening processes are clearly not enough.
An inspector general report, released a few weeks ago, highlighted
the challenges that ORR is having in addressing the mental health needs
of those children released by CBP to ORR. Though this bill deals with
CBP, many of the issues transfer from agency to agency with the
children. The trauma for these children begins when they are forced to
flee their birth countries and is exacerbated by the journey to the
U.S., which, for many, is marked by violence, sexual abuse, hunger, and
sleep deprivation.

Once they finally arrive in the U.S., they then may be separated from
their parents, if that didn't happen along the original journey,
causing further trauma. Medical professionals are clear that these
children are going to have lifelong trauma. They need a detailed
medical record of the care they receive or do not receive while in U.S.
custody so that they can receive adequate follow-up care.
The IG report noted, as well, that the facilities where we house
these children have not employed sufficient numbers of essential mental
health clinicians. This results in higher caseloads for staff and worse
outcomes for these afflicted children.
The electronic health record system required by this bill will ensure
that medical information does not get lost, help track when follow-up
appointments are necessary, and prevent duplication of medical services
due to lost or incomplete records once children are transferred to ORR
custody.
This bill is the result of Representative Underwood's leadership and
engagement with the treatment of migrants at our border, and I commend
her for her efforts.

{time} 1230

These two Homeland Security bills provided for in this rule will
modernize the Department of Homeland Security and support better
outcomes for border agents, employees, and migrants who come into U.S.
custody.
House Democrats understand the need to provide the Department of
Homeland Security with the resources it needs to effectively do its
job, and I urge my Republican colleagues to vote for this legislation
to support all those who work and live by the border.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Representative Scanlon for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, the bills we consider today highlight how far the
priorities of my colleagues across the aisle have diverged from the
priorities of the American people.
We consider two bills purportedly related to border security but
which do nothing to solve the humanitarian crisis at our border and,
like the rest of their previous so-called solutions, make the problem
even worse.
Instead of addressing the issues that impact American citizens and
legal residents, the Democrats continue to cave to radical, leftwing
activists, cater to illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens and legal
residents, and malign the President for his attempts to secure or
border.
Then, late yesterday afternoon, a mere 1 hour and 45 minutes before
the Rules Committee met, my Democratic colleagues added another item to
the schedule for this rule to further their witch hunt against
President Trump.
The Democrats ran on kitchen table issues like healthcare, but it is
becoming increasingly clear that their obsession with attacking this
President and prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens has
impeded their ability to address the needs of our country.
The first bill, H.R. 2203, expands the government by creating another
Federal bureaucrat, an ombudsman, to investigate complaints against
Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
our law enforcement on the border.
This is a special ombudsman just for illegal immigrants to file
complaints against law enforcement, even though there are current
avenues to file complaints. It requires that bureaucrat to establish
even more bureaucrats in each U.S. Border Patrol sector. On top of
those bureaucrats, it creates even more to sit on a border oversight
panel. The icing on the cake: The legislation gives the ombudsman no
real authority to resolve any issues.
This bill does nothing to address the root causes of the current
humanitarian crisis on the southern border. In fact, I have introduced
six bills to get to the root of the problem. None of them have been
heard in the Judiciary Committee, but, instead, their bill is made up
of policy provisions that cater to illegal immigrants and undermine our
law enforcement at the border, thus, weakening our national security.
Put simply, my Democratic colleagues' answer to our border crisis is
to create a taxpayer-funded complaint

[[Page H7916]]

box for illegal immigrants, and it gives no power to the ombudsman.
The second bill, H.R. 3525, throws even more taxpayer money at
programs that will do nothing for the border security Americans demand.
It even jeopardizes our national security by requiring the Department
of Homeland Security to reprogram funding used for combating terrorist
and criminal organizations and for responding to manmade and national
disasters to an IT system to track illegal immigrant health records.
The bill states that this new electronic health records program has
to be completed in a record 90 days. Once again, my Democratic
colleagues are prioritizing illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens. Our
own veterans don't even have a system like this.
In fact, we in Congress have been trying to get an electronic health
record system in the VA for years, and we found that it would cost
multimillions of dollars. Yet there is no funding in this bill for this
electronic program, so we would have to divert money from our national
security priorities.
This bill does divert money from protecting American citizens to
enhancing the experience for illegal immigrants.
I have been to a border facility in Eloy, Arizona, a detention
center, and I have also been to an HHS facility in Virginia that houses
unaccompanied minors. I saw that both facilities were clean and the
occupants were treated well. I even ate with detainees, sat at the
table with them at the Eloy Detention Center, and the food was good.
Prioritizing where DHS should allocate its limited resources, my
firsthand experience leads me to believe that hurricane response and
thwarting terrorists are of greater concern than prioritizing illegal
immigrants.
Finally, the resolution, H. Res. 576, is an inappropriate rush to
judgment without gathering all of the facts.
First of all, the President released the call transcript text with
the President of Ukraine today. I read it. To me, it is a big nothing
burger, and, in fact, it demonstrates--I am glad the President released
it because it demonstrates how the media and some of my Democratic
colleagues were totally false in their allegations.
One of the accusations was that eight times the President talked
about this Biden issue with the Ukrainian President. That is totally
untrue.
Second, the Director of National Intelligence is testifying before
the House Intelligence Committee tomorrow, on Thursday, and Chairman
Schiff has already announced efforts to have a closed-door meeting with
the whistleblower this week.
Third, these things should occur before the House rushes into this
type of resolution. I understand, and we are told on the floor today by
my colleagues, that Democrats intend to amend the rule to match the
Senate-passed resolution on this matter, and I am glad. They are
removing the disparaging language against the President and other
people in his administration that was in the House version that we saw
last night in the Rules Committee.

In fact, as the Speaker knows, I brought this up last night in
committee, and we could have done this last night. However, I am still
concerned that this resolution, as amended, is still premature.
Even if the two border bills pass the Senate--and they won't--they
would not help our constituents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance
of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the floor leader for her leadership
on this.
Our colleague from Arizona chides us because we campaigned on
healthcare. We campaigned on healthcare, proudly, and we are defending
preexisting conditions coverage against every effort by the Republicans
to destroy it by repealing the Affordable Care Act in this body. And we
have defended it and we continue to defend it in court as they are
trying to destroy preexisting conditions coverage in Texas right now.
We hope that they will work with us on lowering prescription drug
prices. So I believe that my colleague should take up her own
invitation to get to work for the American people.
We have no problem advancing the public policy interests of the
American people while we defend the Constitution and the rule of law
against the conduct of this President.
Now, we had a resolution last night saying, obey the law, telling the
administration there is a very simple whistleblower statute which gives
people the opportunity to come forward to say that there is a violation
of the National Security Act in a way that flags a serious or flagrant
problem, abuse, or violation of law, and then that goes to the
inspector general of the Department.
It went to the inspector general, and that is an inspector general
appointed by President Trump himself. And the inspector general found
that the whistleblower's complaint was credible and it was urgent. It
went to a serious problem.
At that point, it goes to the Director of National Intelligence, and
that Director has 7 days to turn it over to the House Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence.
The 7 days came and went. This is the first time in American history
when the Director of National Intelligence did not turn over such a
complaint to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
So the U.S. Senate, in a bipartisan fashion, all the Democrats and
all of the Republicans, got together and said to the administration, to
the Director of National Intelligence: Turn that complaint over
immediately to Congress.
We had the exact same resolution last night, and our colleagues said:
Well, we don't like your resolution. It is too profuse. There is too
much language, as the gentlewoman said. We think that it may disparage
the conduct of the President.
So what we did is we took them at their word. We purged all of that
language and we made it an exact replica of the Senate resolution that
they were praising last night. They loved it last night. They said:
That is exactly what this should be. So we have conformed it precisely
to what they are asking for, and they still oppose it.
What we need is an emphatic, unanimous, bipartisan statement that the
Federal laws of the United States must be respected by this
administration. The lawlessness must stop.
A whistleblower is someone acting in the highest, most noble
traditions of the country. He is not a traitor, as some have implied. A
whistleblower is not someone who has gone over to the other side of the
country. A whistleblower is someone working for the American people.
Both parties used to understand that, not just Democrats, but
Republicans used to understand that. Apparently, the Senate Republicans
do understand it, and yet, now, we have a situation where we are
saying: We have got a resolution, an exact replica of the Senate
resolution where we are asking the administration just to comply with
the law. Come forward and give us the complaint as you are required to
do by law.
The statute uses the phrase, ``shall turn over to Congress.''
``Shall,'' that means must--not may, not maybe do it. You must do it.
Every other President, every other administration, every other Director
of National Intelligence has understood that.
We asked our colleagues to stand by what they told us in committee
last night, which was they liked the Senate version, and they urged us
to use the Senate version. We are using the Senate version, and we hope
that we will have an emphatic, bipartisan statement to the executive
branch of government they must turn over this material according to
law.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to allow for immediate consideration of S. 820,
the Debbie Smith Act of 2019, which reauthorizes funding to process the
rape kit backlogs.
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
gentlewoman from Arizona?
There was no objection.

[[Page H7917]]

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, this program was reauthorized with broad
bipartisan support in both 2008 and 2014. The Senate passed the Debbie
Smith Act by unanimous consent in May, over 4 months ago; yet the House
has yet to take up this important bill meant to end the rape kit
backlog, even though it expires in just 5 days.
As a survivor of domestic violence and co-chair of the bipartisan
Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, I am deeply disturbed by
reports that some are using this program as leverage to get the Senate
to pass other things that have nothing to do with DNA testing of rape
kits.

{time} 1245

My amendment makes the vote on the previous question simple. Vote
``no'' if you believe survivors of rape and sexual assault deserve to
be one step closer to justice. Vote ``no'' so we can immediately
consider the Debbie Smith Act. Vote ``no'' on the previous question if
you stand with survivors of rape and sexual assault.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota
(Mr. Armstrong), who is my good friend.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. Mr. Speaker, I, like many people growing up thought
murder was the worst crime you could have in this country. However, my
career as a criminal defense attorney and as a legal guardian ad litem
for victims of sexual assault has taught me that is not true. Violent
sexual assault is the most terrible crime that can be committed, and,
as opposed to other things, victims of that crime have to relive it
when they are interviewed by law enforcement, they have to relive it
when they are interviewed by doctors and nurses, they have to relive it
when they are interviewed by prosecutors, and they oftentimes have to
relive it as they navigate through the criminal justice system.
We have all heard stories about light sentences in different areas,
especially when it comes under these cases. One of the main reasons for
that is because of the nature of the crime and the unwillingness of
victims to continue to go through this process as they move through the
courtroom. I have done this in a court of law. I have helped victims
navigate this.
The single biggest predicator for getting a conviction without a jury
trial is DNA evidence. This puts really bad people in jail, it protects
victims, it protects future victims, and, more importantly, it protects
the very victims who are there from having to deal with this and
navigate it.
In 5 days this expires. The FBI has said that 475,000 matches have
happened through this DNA testing; of that 42 percent of those are
directly related to the Debbie Smith law. This should be the only thing
we are talking about in this town, because I cannot imagine that we do
not have broad, bipartisan agreement, and it should be the previous
question on every single bill until we get it passed.
I understand how we work, and I understand how things move around,
but there is absolutely no reason this should be used as a bargaining
chip for anything else. This is simple, this is commonsense, this is
good law enforcement, and this protects victims of the most dangerous
and despicable crime that can be committed on them.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Dean.)
Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, and I thank our
floor manager, my colleague and friend from Pennsylvania,
Representative Scanlon, for so ably guiding this argument.
Mr. Speaker, as the Speaker so eloquently stated yesterday, this is a
dangerous time for our democracy. Our Founding Fathers understood the
importance of whistleblowers as an integral part of the fabric of our
democracy and ensuring the rule of law is upheld.
The first United States whistleblower law which unanimously passed on
July 30, 1778, by the Continental Congress states: ``That it is the
duty of all persons in the service of the United States, as well as all
other the inhabitants thereof, to give the earliest information to
Congress or other proper authority of any misconduct, frauds or
misdemeanors committed by any officers or persons in the service of
these states, which may come to their knowledge.''
The Founding Fathers understood this simple principle--that it is the
duty of all patriotic Americans to not only come forward with
allegations of wrongdoing but to ensure that there is a path that these
allegations be brought to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, what have we learned?
That these principles that our Founding Fathers fought so hard to
enshrine in our democracy are in jeopardy. It is our responsibility,
and it is our duty to restore the faith of the public in our elections
and oversight of all elected officials including and especially our
President.
We know that the memorandum that was released today is only a
memorandum of the conversation between the President and the President
of Ukraine, and it undermines the integrity of his office. The
President has betrayed his oath of office and his fidelity to that oath
by putting himself and his personal and political gain over national
security and the rule of law.
He must provide full details of the whistleblower information to
Congress. He must provide a full transcript or tape of that
conversation with the Ukrainian President. The public deserves it, our
election security relies upon it, and the integrity of the office
demands it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), who is my friend.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, before I came to Congress, I served
as a magisterial district judge. I was on the front line of the
criminal justice system, and I handled preliminary hearings for sexual
assault and rape cases. Let me tell you, these crimes are incredibly
heinous, and stories from the victims are absolutely heartbreaking.
Many of these victims went through a grueling evidence collection
process in the hopes they would help catch their rapist. Unfortunately,
this evidence often sits untested on shelves for months to years while
sexual assault victims wait for justice and their rapists roam the
streets. This is especially dangerous because those who commit sexual
assault are likely to do it again. They are typically habitual
offenders. So when we delay the testing of these kits, we do so at the
expense and the risk of others being sexually assaulted.
So that is where the Debbie Smith Act comes in. The Debbie Smith Act
provides funding for DNA testing and training to eliminate the backlog
of untested DNA and rape kit evidence. Since 2004 nearly 200,000 DNA
matches have been made thanks to the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
Program. Again, that is over 200,000 DNA matches since 2004. But
without congressional action, this legislation is set to expire on
Monday.

The Senate recognized the critical need to reauthorize this bill.
They passed this bill back in May and sent it to the House for
consideration, but, unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues refuse to
bring this bill to the floor. They would rather play politics than put
criminals in jail.
This is absolutely despicable. Sexual assault victims have been
through enough. We should not hold this up for funding so that
Democrats can score cheap political points with their radical, far-left
base.
So I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to reexamine
their priorities and help us get justice for these crime victims. This
issue is too important for partisan games.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the Representative from
Arizona has more speakers.
Mrs. LESKO. I have three speakers at least, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cline), who is my good friend.
Mr. CLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, it is imperative that the House immediately bring the
Debbie Smith Act up for consideration before the program expires later
this month. As a former prosecutor in Virginia, I know all too well how
critical DNA evidence is for achieving justice for victims of sexual
violence.
Debbie Smith's courage to share her story with the world has changed
the

[[Page H7918]]

lives of millions, and no person should ever have to experience her
trauma firsthand. Thanks to this program, incredible progress has been
made to reduce DNA backlogs, and we cannot take a step backward by
allowing it to lapse. The importance of DNA evidence in criminal
investigations and prosecutions is unquestionable. In my home State of
Virginia, the FBI's National DNA Index contains more than 447,000
offender profiles and has aided in over 11,000 criminal investigations.
This program has been reauthorized previously with bipartisan
support, and there is no excuse for it to be politicized now. S. 820
has been languishing in the Judiciary Committee for months. This
failure to act enables violent criminals to remain at large and in our
society.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the Speaker to bring this bill to the floor and
put it up for a vote so we can protect people from violent sexual
predators and allow justice to be served through our legal system.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who is my good friend.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no''
on this previous question because in doing so we can finally take care
of a matter that should have been taken care of long before now that I
understood was a bipartisan matter. Both sides of the aisle wanted to
help address the tremendous backlog of DNA rape kits that needed to be
analyzed. The Debbie Smith Act, as my friend from Arizona indicated,
was previously passed and reauthorized, and now we need to reauthorize
it again because even though there are 641,000 DNA cases that were
processed, there is still so much that needs to be done.
In addition to crime scene evidence and rape kits, the Debbie Smith
funds also are utilized to process offender DNA samples to ensure
evidence from unsolved crimes can be matched against our database. So
the funds provided by the act are incredibly critical since they will
help solve crimes and get criminals off the streets.
I know from my friends across the aisle and in our hearing that was
just going on that I just left in Judiciary that there is an effort to,
as one Democratic witness said: Gee, we are here just to ask you to do
something.
Rather than taking guns from law-abiding citizens as is being
proposed, I would submit a better answer is let's get the criminals off
the street. I know there is a big effort to get criminals out of
prison, but how about if we get criminals back in prison for crimes
they have committed that have not been adjudicated?
This needs to be addressed. It shouldn't be a political issue. If we
could get a majority to vote ``no'' on the previous question, then we
will get this amendment in as part of the rule. I don't know if we
would have more than a couple of people who would even vote against the
Debbie Smith Act. So it is all a matter of getting it to the floor.
Here we are about to enter October, and we still have not taken this
commonsense step to get criminals off the street. So I hope we will do
the right thing by all those victims, all those women who have been
raped and are waiting for their criminal--their horrible and torturous
individual--to be taken off the street. Let's vote ``no'' on the
previous question, and then we can do that.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, but I believe my
colleagues have one more speaker, so I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1300

Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman), my good friend.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I will address the underlying bills on
this rule.
I have been at the border three times this year, and while I have
been to a lot of workplaces, a lot of work environments, there is
nobody I have more respect for than the professional job that the U.S.
Border Patrol does of protecting this country, and they do it under the
most difficult of circumstances.
Last time I was down there, they had 2,000 vacant positions. They
were, in May, staffed at a level that was maybe a third of what it
should have been, given the huge number of people coming across.
In addition to just apprehending people, they had to do mounds of
paperwork. They had to, in essence, act as a daycare for all the young
people who are sneaking in this country, but they did it without
complaining, with the utmost professionalism.
I find it hard to believe, after watching these professional Border
Patrol agents, that other people went down to the border and felt the
problem is we have to tie their hands still more with another
ombudsman, more paperwork, inviting people to file false complaints,
particularly since we already have an inspector general and an Office
of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties in the Department of Homeland
Security. So in addition to the watchmen on the Border Patrol, we had
all sorts of new people down here.
I guess I am still surprised, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised.
There are some people who look at an interaction between police and a
criminal and think there is something wrong with the policeman and
instinctually don't like him. There are people in a corrections
facility who look at the corrections officers and the prisoners and
automatically think the problem in the corrections facility is the
corrections officers.
That is what we have down at the border right now, which is being
submitted in this bill. Rather than giving a thank-you to our Border
Patrol by adding additional people, we give them a kick in the teeth by
saying: There must be something wrong with you. We need more people to
watch over you, make it easier to file paperwork against you, have you
have to look out more than you have in the past--and such a dangerous
job.
I mean, you figure some of these folks, they are out there in the
middle of the night, maybe they catch a caravan of 30 or 50 people
sneaking into this country, and one Border Patrol agent is supposed to
bring all these people in. What sacrifice for our country.
And what do they get from this body? Do they get filling out the
empty positions? They don't get that. What they get is a kick in the
teeth, saying: We have something wrong with you.
Mr. Speaker, I hope we vote against the rule, and I hope we vote
against the acts.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, before my closing statements, I want to put on the
Record that the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) had said earlier
that, in Rules Committee last night, Republicans gushed over the Senate
resolution, and that is actually not accurate.
What we did is, after Mr. Schiff made some disparaging remarks about
House Republicans, if they didn't vote for the House resolution like
the Senate Republicans did, that we didn't care about the issue, then I
merely pointed out the differences between the Senate version and the
House version, and so that is how that came about.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I will just summarize the bills before us
today:
One, creates government bureaucrats with no real authority;
Two, diverts money meant to protect Americans from terrorism, gangs,
and natural disasters;
Three, continues the obsession by my Democratic colleagues to bash
the President and others and is a political tool.
The Democrats ran on kitchen table issues. Instead, week after week,
they prioritized the demands of the radical leftwing activists over the
needs of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the
underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the whistleblower resolution we will vote on later this
week is critical to the constitutional oversight responsibilities given
to us by the Constitution. Congress has a right to view this
whistleblower complaint, and it is important that we join our Senate
colleagues in a bipartisan statement to

[[Page H7919]]

this administration that Congress will not abdicate its
responsibilities.
Again, I urge my Republican colleagues in the House to join House
Democrats and a unanimous Senate to support the final resolution
affirming to this administration that we will perform our duty and to
reassure whistleblowers that their courageous acts will be valued and
welcomed by Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the two strong bills to protect children and families
from appalling conditions and treatment at our southwest border have
been sent to us by the Committee on Homeland Security and are
representative of the types of constructive and measured legislation
that comes from going through regular order.
These bills seek to address emergent conditions at our southern
border in a way that is thoughtful and practical and, if enacted, will
have a tangible impact on the day-to-day working lives of the men and
women who work at the border and the migrants and children who come
into U.S. custody.
Conditions at the border are unacceptable. I think both sides of the
aisle should agree on that. But what we would also likely agree upon is
that simply throwing money at this situation will not help. We talk
about the need for meaningful solutions a lot around here, and today we
present two of them.
The situation at the border is complicated and requires ongoing
attention, but we cannot let conditions at the border continue to
deteriorate. These two bills will provide meaningful and much-needed
reforms to our border detention system and help pave the way for larger
scale immigration legislation.

Amendment Offered by Ms. Scanlon

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:

Strike section 3 of the resolution and insert the
following:
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 576) expressing the
sense of the House of Representatives with respect to the
whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community. The
amendments to the resolution and the preamble specified in
section 11 of this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The resolution, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution, as amended, to adoption without intervening
motion or demand for division of the question except one hour
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. The amendments referred to in section 3 are as
follows:
(a) Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the
following:
``That--
(1) the whistleblower complaint received on August 12,
2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
shall be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives should be allowed to evaluate the
complaint in a deliberate and bipartisan manner consistent
with applicable statutes and processes in order to safeguard
classified and sensitive information.''.
(b) Strike the preamble.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I urge support for the resolution, as
amended.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Lesko is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 577

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed on the consideration in the House of the
bill (S. 820) to strengthen programs authorized under the
Debbie Smith Act of 2004. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment
thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 820.

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the amendment and on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. 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, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the amendment to the resolution, if ordered, and
adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 227,
nays 191, not voting 15, as follows:

[Roll No. 542]

YEAS--227

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--191

[[Page H7920]]

Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--15

Abraham
Clyburn
Crawford
Cummings
Dean
Graves (LA)
Higgins (LA)
Jackson Lee
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kuster (NH)
Marshall
McEachin
Van Drew
Wright

{time} 1337

So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, because I was chairing a Committee on
the assault weapons ban, I missed the following vote. Had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 542.
Mr. VAN DREW. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 542.
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would
have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 542.
Ms. KUSTER of New Hampshire. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, September 25,
2019, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote No. 542. Had
I been present for this recorded vote, I would have voted ``aye.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution, as
amended.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 543]

YEAS--228

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brindisi
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Davids (KS)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--191

Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Cook
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Massie
Mast
McAdams
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meadows
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Shimkus
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoho
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--14

Abraham
Clyburn
Crawford
Cummings
Graves (LA)
Higgins (LA)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Krishnamoorthi
Marshall
McEachin
Meeks
Schweikert
Wright

{time} 1348

So the resolution, as amended, was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted nay on rollcall No. 543.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, I was absent during the first
series of votes on September 25 due to illness. Had I been present, I
would have voted nay on rollcall No. 542, and nay on rollcall No. 543.

____________________