[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 63 (Friday, April 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2321-H2328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7888, REFORMING INTELLIGENCE AND 
    SECURING AMERICA ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 529, 
      EXTENDING LIMITS OF U.S. CUSTOMS WATERS ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1112, DENOUNCING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S 
IMMIGRATION POLICIES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1117, 
OPPOSING EFFORTS TO PLACE ONE-SIDED PRESSURE ON ISRAEL WITH RESPECT TO 
                                  GAZA

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call

[[Page H2322]]

up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1137

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 7888) to reform the Foreign Intelligence 
     Surveillance Act of 1978. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration 
     of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to 
     the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among 
     and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees 
     and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent 
     Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective 
     designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered 
     for amendment under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 118-27 shall be considered as adopted. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No 
     further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order 
     except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may 
     be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be 
     offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
     in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question in 
     the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of 
     order against such further amendments are waived. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the 
     House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 529) to extend 
     the customs waters of the United States from 12 nautical 
     miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines of the United 
     States, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 7219. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill 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 Ways and Means or their respective 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       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. 1112) denouncing the 
     Biden administration's immigration policies. 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 
     Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
       Sec. 4.  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. 1117) opposing efforts 
     to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza. 
     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 Committee on Foreign Affairs or their 
     respective designees.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of 
8-4 a rule providing for consideration of the following measures: H.R. 
7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act; H.R. 529, 
the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act; H. Res. 1112, 
Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies; and H. Res. 
1117, Opposing Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel With 
Respect to Gaza.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7888, the Reforming 
Intelligence and Securing America Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided among 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair 
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
Intelligence or their respective designees.
  Let's talk about the rule for H.R. 7888, the highly anticipated and 
heavily debated Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.
  There will be six amendments allowed for this bill, and they break 
down into three different categories.
  There are three amendments from the Judiciary Committee that 
basically limit or constrain the government in its use of the FISA 702 
program.
  The first one is Mr. Biggs' amendment. It is probably the most 
discussed amendment, and it would prohibit warrantless searches of U.S. 
person communications in the FISA 702 database.
  The second is Mr. Roy's amendment, which requires the FBI to report 
to Congress on a quarterly basis the number of U.S. person queries 
conducted.
  Mr. Cline's amendment prohibits the resumption of ``abouts'' 
collection under section 702.
  The intel amendments basically expand the FISA program.
  Mr. Crenshaw's amendment expands the definition of foreign 
intelligence to allow targeting and collection of information about 
illicit drugs. Instead of just being about terrorism, it will expand 
the program to include illicit drugs.
  Mr. Waltz' amendment expands the use of section 702 by allowing it to 
be used to vet foreigners traveling into the United States.
  Mr. Turner's amendment expands the definition of ``electronic 
communication service provider'' under section 702.
  We will have a full and robust debate on those amendments after this 
rule passes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), for the 
customary 30 minutes.
  (Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as Mr. Massie articulated, 
again provides for the consideration of four bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will be familiar with these four 
bills because these four bills were under a rule 2 days ago.
  What happened to that rule? It failed, and that is part and parcel of 
the chaos and dysfunction that House Republicans have engulfed this 
august Chamber in for the better part of the last 15 months.
  As of 2 days ago, seven rules--seven--have failed on the House floor, 
Mr. Speaker. You might be wondering and those watching from home might 
be wondering how many rules failed when Democrats had the majority 
under Speaker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi.

                              {time}  0815

  In fact, from 1999 to 2023, only two rules failed on the House floor, 
neither of which happened when House Democrats were in control of this 
Chamber.
  The last bill, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Rules Committee and make its 
way to the President's desk without suspension of our rules was almost 
1 year ago. That is unprecedented.
  It is not hyperbole to say that Republicans have literally presided 
over the most ineffective session of Congress in history.

[[Page H2323]]

  Despite, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the pressing challenges that our 
Nation faces, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly 
show that Republicans have no capacity or desire to govern, instead 
prioritizing unwarranted censures, sham impeachments, and nonbinding 
resolution after nonbinding resolution.
  Instead of debating core issues, like lowering costs, growing the 
middle class, building safer communities, addressing our critical 
national security needs, we have spent yet another week here in 
Washington wasting time.
  This is the third time that we are considering a variation of one of 
these nonbinding resolutions today. Stunts over solutions, Mr. Speaker, 
has become unfortunately, the majority's motto. This is not how 
governing is supposed to work.
  I have served in this body for some time now. I know there are 
serious Members on the other side of the aisle. I wish Republicans 
would pull back their caucus and this institution from the brink and 
work with us in a bipartisan way to address core needs of the American 
people. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have yet to show any desire to do so, but hope springs eternal.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), in his appointment as the new chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess), chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Massie), my friend, for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of the rule and the 
underlying legislation. It is a new day in the House of 
Representatives, and I intend to make certain that this process works 
and it works for all of us; that all Members get to be heard and at the 
end of the day, as Mr. Massie points out; and that after a fulsome 
debate, we are able to move forward for the American people.
  I will specifically talk today on H.R. 7888, the Reforming 
Intelligence and Securing America Act, and H. Res. 1117, Opposing 
Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel with Respect to Gaza.
  Republicans remain concerned about the abuses that occurred under 702 
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in previous 
administrations. The rule before us provides consideration for reforms 
to FISA, including greater transparency and greater oversight for the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, in total, 56 reforms were made in response to concerns 
raised by our constituents. These reforms include prohibiting searches 
by the FBI unrelated to national security and prohibits political 
appointees from being involved in the FBI's query process.
  The Rules Committee met last night to report this rule out of 
committee. It was a bit of a process. There are two significant changes 
to highlight from earlier in the week. The Rules Committee print 
changes the reauthorization from 5 years to 2 years, which is 
important.
  The reforms that are now incorporated in the new FISA reauthorization 
will be reevaluated by the next Congress as to whether or not they are 
actually working. Therefore, rather than a 5-year reauthorization, we 
can look again in 2 years to make certain, for our constituents, for 
the American people, that these reforms are actually working.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend, for bringing 
that forward.
  There are also changes in the reauthorization that strike section 
19(c) from the text altogether. The latter action was taken amid some 
confusion about whether 19(c) would have unintentionally permanently 
reauthorized section 702. To help clear up any ambiguity, that section 
has now been removed. Ultimately, this legislation will ensure that the 
appropriate guardrails are in place to safeguard Americans' 
constitutional rights and help keep Americans safe.
  Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I express my support for H. Res. 1117, 
offered by Ms. Salazar from Florida.
  Israel has a right to defend itself, especially after the notorious 
attack by Hamas on October 7.
  On April 4, after a call between President Biden and Prime Minister 
Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House released a press release stating 
that an immediate cease-fire is necessary.
  I would remind the White House that a cease-fire was in existence 
prior to the attack by Hamas. It is not right for the United States to 
pressure an ally to end a conflict that that ally did not begin. Mr. 
Speaker, Israel has a right to exist and a right to self-defense. The 
United States does not get to decide that for Israel.
  I would underscore the pathways for ensuring humanitarian aid, being 
able to enter Gaza and actually reach the Palestinian people and not be 
hijacked by their Hamas overlords. On April 5, Israel opened up three 
new corridors for humanitarian aid. I appreciate the efforts to take 
responsibility for something Hamas has proven unwilling to do and hope 
that the conflict can soon come to an end.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
additional time.
  However, one-sided pressure by the White House is not the way to 
ensure that end.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule from our committee, and I 
urge passage of the underlying legislation.

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the distinguished Rules Committee, 
I must say I am confounded by the audacity of any House Republican to 
come to the floor and lecture any of us about national security when my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have held hostage a bill that 
passed the United States Senate on a bipartisan basis to address the 
national security needs of this country. For months, the majority has 
held that bill hostage and refuse to put the bill on the floor.
  Republicans also have the audacity to come to the floor and lecture 
us or the White House. The White House needs no reminder about the 
necessity of supporting our allies. My colleagues have implored this 
institution to do its job in supporting our allies abroad. It is the 
Speaker and the House Republican caucus that refuse to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lofgren).
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, for starters, we need to examine why we are 
being hustled to do this today.
  When we extended FISA earlier, there was a provision in the bill that 
allowed the FISA court to extend, and they have taken advantage of 
that. They have extended FISA until June of 2025, and so I think we are 
being hustled here today for a reason, which is to prevent the 
Constitution from being applied to FISA.
  Mr. Speaker, under the amendment being offered, a warrant would be 
required for a search of the data of U.S. persons. This is important. 
It would exclude imminent threats; exigent circumstances, as any 
warrant does; or exclude cases where a person consents to a search or 
where there is cybersecurity. It excludes metadata.
  It is important to note that the FBI executed more than 200,000 
warrantless searches of U.S. persons in 2022, including 141 Black Lives 
Matter protesters, 2 Members of Congress, journalists, commentators, 
political parties, donors to political campaigns. It is really 
outrageous. The base bill is insufficient to protect us. There are two 
major points that it makes. Neither makes any sense or any difference.
  The big deal is a prohibition on U.S. person queries that are 
conducted solely for the evidence of a crime. That sounds good until it 
is realized that the FBI almost never does that. In fact, in 2022, 
there were only two cases in which that provision would have been a 
prohibition.
  The second issue is codifying the regulations about searches by the 
FBI today. Obviously, that doesn't do any good because the FBI, under 
the current regulations, continues to violate our rights and to do 
warrantless searches.
  The only way to end the abuse is to approve the warrant requirement 
that is being offered in the amendment. The

[[Page H2324]]

American public agrees with us, with 76 percent of Americans supporting 
a requirement that the government get a warrant before searching in 
these cases.
  Mr. Speaker, to hear the administration talk about it, getting a 
warrant here would be like the end of the world. In literally any other 
context, law enforcement or intelligence agencies who want to read 
Americans' communications have to get a warrant.
  Actually, for the last 46 years, the government has had to get a FISA 
title I order to read Americans' communications in foreign intelligence 
investigations. These are investigations in which Americans are 
suspected of terrorism, espionage, cybercrimes, et cetera.
  Hence, somehow a warrant for title I is consistent with national 
security, but it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply 
this basic constitutional requirement where Americans aren't even 
suspected of wrongdoing.
  This is not a wild idea. We have had, under the Obama administration, 
intelligence experts convene to examine this issue. The experts 
included former CIA directors, national security people from both 
parties. The experts unanimously agreed that we should have a warrant 
requirement in these circumstances.
  Mr. Speaker, someone said that no court has ever required a warrant 
in these circumstances. That is incorrect. The Second Circuit Court of 
Appeals did point out that lawful collection alone isn't enough to 
justify a search.
  In fact, when it comes to examining the need for this, the Privacy 
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress created to take a 
look at the data that is classified, concluded that there was little 
justification on the relative value of the close to 5 million searches 
conducted by the FBI from 2019 to 2022.
  The chair of the Board said this: ``In the strongest examples offered 
by the FBI, such as the `victim' or `defensive' query examples . . . 
the government would likely be able to meet the probable cause standard 
or one of the exceptions contemplated,'' namely, consent or exigent 
circumstances.
  With a 15-year track record to draw on, the government has failed 
time and again to show it had derived unique and significant national 
security value from a U.S. person query that could not have been 
conducted--
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board did recommend by a majority vote that a 
warrant requirement be imposed.
  Mr. Speaker, to ignore this advice is to ignore our Constitution. We 
take an oath every Congress to support and defend the Constitution of 
the United States. This is a significant opportunity for us to uphold 
that oath.
  The Fourth Amendment matters. If we do not take this opportunity to 
protect the privacy of Americans when it comes to this matter, we will, 
in my belief and my view, have failed in our obligation and our duty to 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

                              {time}  0830

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the warrant 
amendment. I will speak on the warrant amendment here for a couple 
minutes that were about to vote on today.
  I hold in my hands here a document that states all the reasons why 
the warrant amendment should not be adopted by this Congress, and I 
will cite one item, specifically. Number 5 cites the current FBI 
director. He goes on to say that Russia has launched the most violent 
ground war in Europe since the 1940s as a justification for not passing 
this amendment.
  Will Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that?
  China has rapidly proliferated its nuclear weapons capabilities. Will 
Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that proliferation? Will 
it prevent China in--clearly, they are a threat to the free world with 
their seeking global hegemony, but do Americans have to give up their 
civil rights?
  It goes on to talk about Afghanistan falling to the Taliban, ISIS 
revived, Houthi terrorists putting our troops under attack, Israeli 
men, women, and children slaughtered by Hamas. Will Americans giving up 
their civil rights prevent those things from happening?
  It won't.
  These words ring very hollow by the current FBI director when he is 
targeting Americans, when we have seen the leadership of our FBI target 
Americans. We have a powerful word in the English language, and I think 
it is one of the most beautiful words out there. It is liberty.
  And encapsulated in that liberty is freedom, and the Founders used 
liberty as often as they used the term ``freedom.'' Liberty 
encapsulates freedom, but it also says you have to be accountable for 
that freedom. There are those in our government who have chosen not to 
be accountable. This great system we have allows us to provide that 
accountability, and that is what we are here to do today is to provide 
that accountability for those intelligence agencies.
  The choice is simple before us today. We can protect the powerful 
with their Praetorian guard here in Washington, D.C., or do we protect 
the American people with the most powerful document created in the 
history of humankind, the Constitution?
  Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be choosing the people and the 
Constitution.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from 
Wisconsin. We served together on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and 
I certainly agree with him about the preservation of liberty and the 
importance of liberty in our founding documents as the core fabric, 
core threat in our country, but I must also just say that I don't think 
the American people share House Republicans' priorities. Let me explain 
why.
  On Monday, the Rules Committee will be meeting to consider a number 
of bills. House Republicans put out a notice yesterday what those bills 
would include. Let me just give you a sampling, Mr. Speaker: the 
Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, the 
Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, and--this may be my favorite--the 
Liberty in Laundry Act.
  While I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's very passionate 
defense of liberty, I am not so sure the American people had that in 
mind. I don't think they are thinking of the Liberty in Laundry Act. I 
think they expect this House Republican majority to actually address 
the consequential challenges that face our country, not waste time on 
petty games and nonsense bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), my friend and colleague on the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, the security state's abuse of their foreign 
intelligence authorities to unlawfully surveil American citizens and 
search their records has been exposed for all to see.
  In 2021, the FBI conducted over 3 million FISA searches of Americans. 
In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of such warrantless 
queries per day.
  In the 2020 and early 2021 time period, the FBI conducted over 
278,000 searches of the 702 FISA database that violated the Justice 
Department's own rules and often lacked national security connections.
  The FBI is querying Americans of all political and religious 
affiliations. The FBI is even using section 702 to target elected and 
appointed government officials.
  The FBI's abuses are well-known--using the 702 database to search for 
information on those individuals that it perceives to be political 
enemies of liberal orthodoxy, seeking to infiltrate the Catholic 
church, spying on parents at school board meetings, and working with 
Big Tech to censor Americans it disagrees with.
  This is Stasi level abuse, and it must be stopped.
  So my question for this body is, if catching the government violating 
the Constitution and our civil liberties is not the time for 
significant reform, then when is?
  The proposed changes to FISA are a good first step, but they don't go 
far

[[Page H2325]]

enough. There are three additional amendments to assure accountability. 
One includes a warrant requirement to query the 702 database for 
Americans. There is no national security exception to the Fourth 
Amendment and we must ensure that these agencies adhere to the bill of 
rights.
  This warrant amendment would not prevent the government from using 
all of the available national security tools. It simply requires the 
government to get a warrant.
  Now there are some who would argue that requiring the intelligence 
agencies to obtain a warrant before spying on American citizens would 
be too burdensome and unreasonably delay their efforts to keep the 
homeland safe. My first response is to note that if these agencies 
sincerely cared about national security, they would be doing everything 
in their power to convince President Biden and Mayorkas to close the 
border, but that has not been their priority and their silence is 
deafening.

  My second response is to note that this reauthorization is only for 2 
years. We can pass the warrant amendment and reassess the situation in 
2 short years, making the necessary tweaks at that time.
  The second amendment offered by Mr. Cline would end, once and for 
all, ``abouts'' collection, and the third amendment by Mr. Roy would 
enhance reporting requirements and bring more transparency to the FISA 
court process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments. 
If these three amendments do not pass, section 702 should not be 
reauthorized. I also urge my colleagues to reject the three additional 
amendments that we will be taking up, amendments that are actually 
designed to expand FISA. It is simply unacceptable to reward an 
agency's abuse of power.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the three 
amendments.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the passion of the 
speakers on the other side of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming, but facts matter, Mr. Speaker. And this body must dispense 
with the notion that any of this, the ills that they have spent all 
this time describing, are attributable to the Biden administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I will read you a quote. This is from January 2018: ``I 
would have preferred a permanent reauthorization''--let me repeat 
that--``permanent reauthorization of title VII to protect the safety 
and security of the Nation. By signing this act today, however, I am 
ensuring that this lawful and essential intelligence program will 
continue to protect Americans for at least the next 6 years. We cannot 
let our guard down in the face of foreign threats to our safety, our 
freedom, and our way of life,'' President Donald J. Trump.
  I understand we are going to have robust debates about the mechanics 
and the nuances with respect to this particular bill but spare us 
lectures about the need for a shorter runway and a shorter 
reauthorization, when the former President, whom apparently the House 
Republican caucus continues to take orders from, made clear and 
abundant his desire for a permanent reauthorization of this program 
with none of these reforms, by the way. None of them.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Greene), my good friend.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the question today is: Do you 
trust the government?
  We often hear the claim that it is for your safety, and any time the 
government tells us it is for your safety, the American people really 
question what that means.
  The same intelligence community that spied on President Trump's 
campaign has been deeply invested in reauthorizing FISA. The same 
intelligence community that wrote the letter lying, saying that the 
Hunter Biden's laptop is not real, deeply wants FISA reauthorized.
  These are also the same people in the intelligence community that 
abused FISA and spied on hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I 
would argue they will continue to do it.
  These are also the same people who oppose the FBI having to get a 
warrant before they can search Americans' data. Yet, we have a clause 
in this bill today that protects Members of Congress and requires 
Congress to be notified before they can search Members of Congress' 
data.
  It is always the rules for thee, but not for me. The problem is that 
this process to reauthorize FISA has received more effort than Congress 
has actually given securing the border. If the government really cared 
about protecting Americans, then they would shut the border down and 
mass deport terrorists out of our country and criminal illegal aliens, 
but they are not doing that. No. They are telling us we have got to 
reauthorize FISA so the government can continue to spy on Americans.
  There has been a lot of games played here in the swamp this past week 
when it comes to authorizing this bill. We were even told on Wednesday 
that FISA was completely stopped; yet, here we are voting on virtually 
the same rule and virtually the same text. The only change has been 
from a 5-year sunset to a 2-year sunset.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that changing that 
timeframe does nothing.
  If Congress wants to change FISA to protect Americans or get rid of 
it altogether, we can do that. We make the laws. The question today is: 
Do you trust the Department of Justice to hold the FBI accountable?
  I don't.
  The warrants aren't added to the bill text unless we pass the 
amendment after this vote and change the bill text. A vote to change 
the bill text and add warrants will not get me to pass the final bill, 
to pass FISA, because I don't trust the government and neither should 
you.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from an article from a 
few days ago. This is from FOX 5 in Atlanta. The headline: ``Marjorie 
Taylor Greene standing by eclipse, NE Earthquake comments.''
  ``Georgia Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene is standing by comments 
she made about last week's earthquake in the Northeast and Monday's 
eclipse.''
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will suspend.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Yes, sir.
  Mr. MASSIE. Did the gentleman address his remarks to somebody on this 
side of the aisle?
  Mr. NEGUSE. No, I am addressing the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am 
reading an article, a newspaper article. Has that become objectionable 
now in this body?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. NEGUSE. I thank the Speaker. I will dispense with it quickly. I 
will just simply say, again, this is quoting from the article here 
that: ``The Republican Representative then posted on X, the social 
media site formerly known as Twitter, that `God is sending America 
strong signs to tell us to repent.' Greene also pointed to Monday's 
eclipse, saying there are `many more things to come.'''
  To the extent that my friend from Kentucky was looking for me to make 
a connection here to the debate that we are having, I suspect it is 
self-evident, but I am not so sure that the American people should 
necessarily be taking much stock into the arguments that are being made 
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including from the 
speaker that we just heard from.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0845

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Moore), my friend.
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, 3,394,053. That is the estimated 
number of U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI during my first year 
here in Congress. The number of improper searches by the FBI is in the 
hundreds of thousands, according to a DOJ audit.
  We may be voting to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 
Act, but the people of Alabama clearly see

[[Page H2326]]

it is being used to spy on Americans like themselves and President 
Trump.
  That is why I voted in the Judiciary markup and will continue to 
support the Biggs amendment that requires a warrant or a court order 
before the query of a U.S. person under section 702.
  We, as Members of Congress, owe it to our constituents to protect 
their civil liberties. We cannot allow the intelligence community, 
which recently spent its resources weaponizing against pro-life 
grandmothers, concerned parents at school boards, Catholics, and 
Biden's political opponents, to freely spy on American citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule, and I urge the 
adoption of the warrant amendment.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Davidson), my friend and colleague.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed. 
Today, we have an opportunity to make progress. After 9/11, the PATRIOT 
Act passed. One Senator voted ``no.'' Sixty-three Members of the House 
of Representatives voted ``no.'' Both parties failed with that vote.
  FISA has been reauthorized, and it never gets a full, clean vote. It 
is little tranches. In 2020, we ended the business records surveillance 
program, section 215. The government didn't stop collecting business 
records; they just stopped doing it in conformance with section 215 of 
FISA.
  Section 702 is an important program. The Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Act is supposed to stop foreign threats to our country, 
but there is a reason there is not a domestic surveillance act. It is 
because there is a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and that 
amendment does not say that if you have nothing to hide, you have 
nothing to fear. It says, as an American citizen, you have a right to 
privacy, that your records cannot be searched without probable cause 
and a warrant or subpoena. Due process should not be infringed.
  The Fourth Amendment is probably the most disregarded protection 
given to us by the Bill of Rights. Our right to privacy is supposed to 
be defended, and we have this chance today but not a complete chance.
  We have a bill that people will claim has 56 reforms, and it does. Of 
those, 45 are from the Intelligence Committee. Now, some of these were 
comparable to the Judiciary bill, but they are weaker and more watered 
down than the Judiciary bill. Three of them actually protect Members of 
Congress, so only two are clean from the Judiciary Committee's bill.
  One of the amendments we cannot cover today, one of the reasons that 
the rule failed, was to say that even if the warrant passes, the 
government can't buy your data to circumvent the need to get a warrant 
in the first place. That is what they are doing. They are buying data. 
They are structuring markets to collect the data, and they are 
circumventing the Fourth Amendment. We need to turn that off.
  There is a lot of ground to make up on the right to privacy, but I 
hope we take this chance today. I remind my colleagues that we don't 
work at a think tank; we work in a legislature. The opportunity before 
us today is to make progress on reclaiming this freedom that we have 
surrendered.
  I will support this bill in the final passage if we have a warrant 
requirement and if the Intel threats to the Fourth Amendment fail. If 
those expansions of warrantless spying pass, even if the warrant is 
there, I will vote ``no'' on final passage. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I am going to go through this list of bills that they have 
noticed for Monday: the Liberty in Laundry Act, the Clothes Dryer 
Reliability Act, and the Refrigerator Freedom Act. I can assure the 
gentleman from Ohio, I don't think any of the American people believe 
that he works in a think tank, given these bills that they have 
apparently noticed for this House to consider next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
  Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I guess under the current version of the 
bill, Americans should feel better that Congress will be authorizing to 
spy on them only for 2 years, not for 5, but I really want to bring up 
some other issues that are the essence of this bill that the bill is 
not addressing.
  We have been talking about warrants, which is extremely important. 
This is a search, so government is able to search without a warrant. 
That is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional.
  On top of it, when we are talking about lawfully collected 
information, in reality, it could be very unlawful information there. 
We do not know. It is never addressed. We know for a fact that 
government unlawfully collected information in 2016. We know the 
government acknowledged that they have a lot of data there. They don't 
know how much it could be. They call it all incidental.
  There is nothing in this bill addressing actually if this is for 
lawfully collected information. There is no auditing, no checking, and 
they want us to trust. If we pass with a warrant, at least we will have 
a warrant to potentially search unlawfully collected information, but 
if this bill passes as it is, Congress will be authorizing the 
government to conduct unconstitutional searches of unlawfully collected 
information for 2 years. It almost sounds ironic for us, an institution 
that should be protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are 
paying attention to what we will be voting for, and I hope Congress 
will wake up to start protecting the American people, not playing 
circuses here.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Today's rule, put simply, is a testament to the Republican playbook 
since assuming the majority 15 months ago: chaos, gridlock, and 
infighting. Over the past year, honestly, it has been difficult to 
understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.
  At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted 
for a House rules package that they promised would entail an open rules 
process for amendments, yet this Congress is on pace to have more 
closed rules than any Congress in the last 100 years, over a century.
  A minority of House Republicans now dictate what proposals will even 
have a chance to be considered in this Chamber, to stand in the 
marketplace of ideas that our colleagues claim to love so dearly.
  Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle reject compromises at 
every turn. My Republican colleagues rejected a bipartisan immigration 
deal that came out of the Senate before even reading the bill text. The 
bill passed with 70 votes, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Senate.
  Our allies around the world have literally been left stranded, and 
House Republicans won't even bring the bill up for an up-or-down vote. 
Instead, their top priority is the Refrigerator Freedom Act, Mr. 
Speaker.
  The American people deserve better. They expect better. Enough of the 
political stunts. Enough of the infighting. Let's get back to work, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and 
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close. We are here today to pass a rule that will bring up a program 
for a vote that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times, abused 
by the FBI's own standards hundreds of thousands of times. Every time 
they have used it, they have actually abused it because they have not 
followed the constitutional requirement in the Fourth Amendment.
  Today, if we pass this rule, we will have votes on six different 
amendments. Three of these amendments will expand the program, and 
three of these amendments will constrain the program.
  There are people who say this bill is fine as is, that it doesn't 
need any amendments. Here is the problem with that: If we believed 
that, why would we put exemptions for Congress in this bill?
  There are exemptions for Congress in the base bill of 702. What do 
they do?

[[Page H2327]]

They say that if a Congressman is going to have their privacy violated 
with the 702 program by the FBI, the FBI has to notify Congress. It 
goes on to say in this bill that if the FBI is going to tell us that 
they are doing it for our own good, they have to get permission from 
the Congressman whose privacy is going to be violated. Why does that 
only apply to Members of this body?
  The Constitution provides that we should give these protections to 
everybody. The Constitution requires a warrant. That is one of the 
amendments that will be offered here today.
  In fact, the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary 
Committee--the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation, the 
committee that many years ago created the 702 program--have said that 
if the warrant provision is not adopted, they will not vote to renew 
this program. I applaud them for taking that stand because the Fourth 
Amendment to our Constitution says: ``The right of the people to be 
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against 
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no 
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and 
the persons or things to be seized.''
  The FISA 702 program is clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment. 
We can fix it, for the most part, with one amendment. There will still 
be other defects in the FISA program.
  I will just close by saying this: America is watching us today. They 
are going to watch the results of this vote. What will we do here 
today? Are we going to carve out exemptions for Congress? Are we going 
to protect ourselves but not the American people, or are we going to 
provide them with the protections that our Founding Fathers enshrined 
in our Constitution?
  We swore an oath to do that when we took these offices as 
legislators, and we need to follow that oath. That is why I urge 
adoption of this rule. I urge people to vote for the warrant amendment, 
and I urge people not to vote for the final bill if the protections of 
the warrant amendment are not there.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208, 
nays 202, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 112]

                               YEAS--208

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NAYS--202

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Babin
     Bergman
     Boebert
     Case
     Doggett
     Gallego
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Robert
     Grijalva
     Johnson (GA)
     Lesko
     Luetkemeyer
     Mooney
     Payne
     Smith (MO)
     Strickland
     Swalwell
     Titus
     Van Orden
     Westerman
     Wilson (FL)

                              {time}  0920

  Ms. SCHOLTEN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 112.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``yea'' on rollcall No. 112.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213, 
noes 208, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 113]

                               AYES--213

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)

[[Page H2328]]


     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     D'Esposito
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Foxx
     Franklin, Scott
     Fry
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia, Mike
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     Issa
     Jackson (TX)
     James
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Kean (NJ)
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kiggans (VA)
     Kiley
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaLota
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Langworthy
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lawler
     Lee (FL)
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luna
     Luttrell
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Maloy
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McCormick
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (OH)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Mills
     Molinaro
     Moolenaar
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Moran
     Murphy
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunn (IA)
     Obernolte
     Ogles
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Self
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Van Orden
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (NY)
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zinke

                               NOES--208

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Amo
     Auchincloss
     Balint
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle (PA)
     Brown
     Brownley
     Budzinski
     Bush
     Caraveo
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Casar
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crockett
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (NC)
     Dean (PA)
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Deluzio
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Foushee
     Frankel, Lois
     Frost
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Garcia, Robert
     Golden (ME)
     Goldman (NY)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Pelosi
     Peltola
     Perez
     Peters
     Pettersen
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Quigley
     Ramirez
     Raskin
     Ross
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan
     Salinas
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Scholten
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Sorensen
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Sykes
     Takano
     Thanedar
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tokuda
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Vasquez
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Babin
     Gallego
     Grijalva
     Grothman
     Johnson (GA)
     Lesko
     Luetkemeyer
     Mooney
     Payne
     Strickland


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  0931

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``aye'' on rollcall No. 113.


                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote for rollcall 
Nos. 112 and 113. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on 
rollcall Vote No. 112, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on H. 
Res. 1137, and nay on rollcall Vote No. 113, H. Res. 1137.

                          ____________________