[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

     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

[[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.

                          ____________________