[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 67 (Thursday, April 16, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H2948-H2955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8035, EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF
TITLE VII OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1175 and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1175
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8035) to
amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the
authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intel-ligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20, 2027, and for
other purposes. 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 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; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. 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 Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 1175, providing for consideration of H.R. 8035, to
amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of
title VII of
[[Page H2949]]
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 through October 20 of
2027 and for other purposes.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their
respective designees and the chair and ranking member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective designees, and
provides one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a rule on H.R. 8035, which
would extend FISA 702. Currently, it faces expiration on April 20,
2026.
Let me be clear at the outset. We cannot allow section 702 to lapse,
not at a moment when our adversaries are expanding their capabilities,
accelerating their operations, and exploiting every gap in our
intelligence posture. Allowing this authority to expire would leave the
United States blind to threats that move at the speed of modern
conflict.
As many here know, FISA 702 was first authorized in 2008 and has
since been reauthorized three times, with broad bipartisan support each
of those times. Each time, Congress recognized the same truth we face
today. This authority is indispensable to protect the homeland from the
threats that we face. This extension should be no different.
Section 702 allows the United States Government to collect
intelligence on foreign nationals located overseas--I repeat, foreign
nationals located overseas who are reasonably believed to possess
foreign intelligence information.
The FBI can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702
target is relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national
security investigation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about
terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Section 702 cannot be used to target any U.S. person at home or
abroad. That prohibition is explicit and reinforced by multiple layers
of oversight.
I am not saying the 2008 legislation was perfect. It required
modifications and reforms. To account for the needed reforms, Congress
passed RISAA, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act in
2024, the largest FBI and FISA reform in decades. This law mandated 56
different reforms, including strict limitations on FBI queries
involving U.S. persons and a severe reduction in the number of FBI
personnel with access to 702 data, from 10,000 to only 3 percent in the
Bureau.
Additionally, to address concerns of FBI's compliance on U.S. person
queries, RISAA required the Bureau to provide an annual report
detailing any noncompliant query and what accountability measures were
imposed on each FBI personnel that were determined to have conducted a
noncompliant query. This has led to 100 percent of queries on U.S.
persons being reviewed by National Security Division and the FBI's
Office of Internal Auditing.
These reforms were not symbolic. They were structural, enforceable,
and designed to ensure that section 702 remains both effective and
accountable. A quick example of effectiveness can be seen when
comparing 2021 FBI inquiries, which numbered 2.9 million, to 2025
inquiries, which numbered 7,413.
As effective as RISAA was, over the last few days, it has been clear
that this body feels like more reforms are needed before section 702
can be extended again.
Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of debate, I will offer an amendment
to the rule. The amendment will self-execute an amendment in the nature
of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 119-25.
The changes being made include: changing the reauthorization period
from 18 months to 5 years; enhancing criminal penalties on individuals
who unlawfully use or disclose 702 information on a U.S. person or
conduct unauthorized queries; ensuring Members of Congress and certain
staff may have access to proceedings of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court; ensuring only FBI attorneys can authorize U.S.
person queries conducted by the FBI; implementing probable cause
requirements for U.S. person targeting; requiring a GAO audit of
targeting procedures; and requiring ODNI review of FBI queries of U.S.
persons.
The legislative process has worked here, Mr. Speaker. It is time for
the House to move this legislation.
Today, our adversaries, state and nonstate actors alike, are
investing heavily in cyber operations, covert influence, terrorism
networks, and advanced weapons systems. They are moving faster, hiding
deeper, and coordinating across borders with unprecedented
sophistication. FISA section 702 is one of the few tools that allows us
to detect and disrupt these threats before they reach our shores.
Our purpose here today is to give law enforcement the ability to
operate in a timely manner to stop terrorist attacks on United States
soil. That is it.
Failing to reauthorize this authority would be a massive setback and
one that our adversaries would exploit immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these pieces of
legislation and urge passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 2330
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, are you kidding me? Who the hell is running this place?
A 5-year reauthorization--5 years--and Republicans threw it together on
the back of a napkin in the back room in the middle of the night.
There have been real bipartisan discussions about adding civil
liberties and safeguards. Some Members support them, and some oppose
them. Just about everyone agrees that this is serious stuff, the kind
of debate that Congress ought to have in the open. Instead, Republican
leadership just jammed us.
Does anybody actually know what the hell is in this thing? It is
11:30 at night. The bill was changed just minutes ago--just minutes
ago--and they had to post a corrected version already. That is how
sloppy all of this is.
Let me be crystal clear to my colleagues across the aisle. This is
too damn important to do it this way, way too important--no hearings,
no markups, no real process, no transparency, no time to read it, no
time to vet it. Yet, we are told that there are major reforms in this
bill. There is no real explanation, no real accountability, and
basically no time for anybody to figure out what the hell is going on.
Now, we are all supposed to act like this is normal. Give me a break.
We will have to live with this for 5 years. The American people have to
live with this for 5 years. Democrats and, quite frankly, a whole lot
of Republicans, too, have barely had enough time to read the text, let
alone understand any of its implications.
I bumped into a handful of Republicans on the way up here. They asked
me: What is going on? What changes have been made? What is in this
bill? Your own Members don't know what the hell you are doing.
This mess did not come out of nowhere. Republicans knew for months
that the April 20 FISA deadline was coming. They knew they had a vote
problem before the Easter recess. Instead of staying here and doing
their jobs, or spending the district work period trying to work it out,
they kicked the can down the road and made this mess even worse.
Now, everybody can see the chaos. It is out in the open. They barely
got a rule out of the Rules Committee. Three Republican Members in the
Rules Committee had to skip the vote just so the rule could be reported
out. That is how divided this Republican Conference is.
Donald Trump had to jump in and tell Republicans to ``unify'' just to
drag this thing forward. That is how pathetic this has all gotten.
We are standing here more than 36 hours after we were supposed to
debate this rule--36 hours--with a bill dumped on the House and the
American public in the middle of the night as the deadline looms.
I have to tell you that this is not leadership. This is not
legislating. This is not governing. This is not a functioning majority.
This is a disaster. This is incompetence. This is incompetence.
After all the chaos and all the delays and all the backroom dealing,
we are still left with the same question: What the hell is going on
here?
Mr. Speaker, this process is embarrassing. This majority is
incompetent.
[[Page H2950]]
If this is how Republicans handle something as serious as national
security surveillance, then they have no business being in charge.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want the American citizens to know we have had an
honest debate over the balance between security and the Fourth
Amendment of the Constitution. Sometimes that debate takes a little
longer than we wish it would. I wish my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle would read this document, the United States Constitution,
just as we as Republicans read it and take it seriously.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina
(Ms. Foxx), the chair of the Rules Committee.
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Georgia for yielding
time, and I thank him for the yeoman's work that he does as a member of
the Rules Committee, a member of the Agriculture Committee, and a
member of the Intelligence Committee. He knows what he is talking about
here tonight because of the work that he has done over the years,
particularly on the Intelligence Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I don't think anybody in this country can deny that we
are living in a very dangerous world. We are dealing with terrorism and
narcoterrorism constantly.
I want to compliment all the segments of our Conference. Many people
don't realize the range of ideas and talents that we have in the
Republican Conference. It does sometimes take us a while to consider
all the ideas that Members have, but we have some very strong people in
our Conference whose reason for being here is to protect the American
people. It takes a while sometimes for the Conference parts to come
together to do what we are elected to do: use the agencies of the
Federal Government to protect the American people.
The people's House is doing its job tonight by reauthorizing FISA 702
with the excellent reforms that my colleague has outlined.
This is not incompetence. It is responsible legislating, Mr. Speaker.
FISA 702 expires on Monday night, April 20, at 12:01. We must pass a
reauthorization of that so it can go to the Senate, be passed by the
Senate, and signed by the President before it expires.
We are doing our job, Mr. Speaker, as the people's House. I commend
my colleague from Georgia for the work that he and all of my colleagues
who came together have done to come up with a very good bill that we
are going to pass later tonight.
Mr. Speaker, I urge everyone to vote for the rule and to vote for the
underlying bill.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the chairwoman of the Rules
Committee, this process stinks. She thanks all of her colleagues for
coming together to try to work out this deal. As far as I can tell, it
is a handful of people in a back room somewhere who put this together.
Some of this is handwritten. This was not the result of everybody
participating in an open and transparent process. This is a backroom
deal.
It is 11:40, and people are going to see this for the very first
time. Some of us, myself included, were hoping that we would have a
serious warrant requirement in section 702. I talked to a lot of my
very conservative Republican colleagues, and they agree with me that
that was something that they thought was important.
This so-called warrant requirement in this draft that you just gave
us has nothing to do with section 702. It is already the law that if
the FBI has probable cause, they can go to court and seek a warrant.
What we are trying to solve is a different problem. Section 702 takes
in a massive amount of U.S. person information, and nothing in this
bill stops the government from searching it or requires them to go to a
judge.
{time} 2340
The gentleman from Georgia, who the chairwoman says knows everything
about everything, let me ask: Is there anything new in this bill that
requires a warrant to query U.S. persons in section 702?
That is a question.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield for an answer.
Let me answer it since I am not getting an answer from the people in
charge. The answer is no. The answer is no.
If anybody here is voting for this because they think that this issue
has been resolved, please know it hasn't. If you vote for it, you are a
cheap date because it doesn't solve the problem that we have had many
discussions about.
We found this out in the 50 minutes that we had to read the text.
Again, we just got this bill. Who knows what else we will find in a day
or a week when experts have a chance to analyze it? Again, this is an
important matter.
The privacy of American citizens is an important matter. The national
security of our country is an important matter, and you are just
piecing this together in a couple of minutes and saying: Take it. Trust
us. We just pieced this together in a back room, just take it.
Well, we are not. This is a lousy process. This reflects the
incompetence of the leadership of this House. It is a disgrace.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thought the gentleman was going to
answer my question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Raskin), the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, please forgive me because I didn't even have
15 minutes to read it. I had to drive down from Maryland's beautiful
Eighth District, so I have had about 90 seconds to review this product
that we were supposed to have been working on for the last several
months.
Let me do my best to try to analyze for people what is happening
because already the machinery of propaganda and disinformation has set
in, and people are talking about a magic warrant requirement which has
appeared in here, which is complete and utter nonsense.
Let me start by echoing the distinguished ranking member of the Rules
Committee that this is an appalling Kafkaesque process leading to an
absurd Orwellian result. This is much worse than what was being offered
before of the clean 2-year reauthorization. The substance of this
proposal is utterly appalling.
They say you shouldn't look to see how the sausage gets made. This
isn't even sausage. This is scrapple. It is scrapple with dogfood mixed
inside of it.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to try to read through it to
understand what they are doing.
Let's start with this: Originally, they proposed an 18-month clean
reauthorization, and the Democrats and some members of the Freedom
Caucus were very skeptical of the enterprise. They said: 18 months?
That is not like any short-term extension we know around here. Usually,
we talk about 72 hours or 1 week or 2 weeks. Eighteen months? That is a
huge, massive expansion.
Then they went into some kind of compromise session with the White
House. None of us were invited, so we don't know who was there or what
was spoken, but they went from 18 months to 5 years. They went from a
clean 2-year reauthorization to a 5-year dirty deal. The saving grace
of it is supposed to be a so-called warrant requirement--which I will
investigate in a second--which doesn't kick in for another 2 years.
We have 2 years without their illusory Band-Aid that they are putting
on this process, this fake warrant requirement, so the Trump
administration can do whatever they want even without this mythical,
inscrutable warrant requirement, and then we get 5 more years of this.
This is the compromise that they worked out behind our backs, and all
we could rely on was the goodwill of the handful of members of the
Freedom Caucus who were standing up for the Constitution and the civil
liberties and civil rights of the people.
[[Page H2951]]
I don't think that our friends in the Freedom Caucus have done the
American people any favors if they are signing off on this.
The first thing that they do is they change the terms of the length
of the legislation, a 5-year authorization with the fraudulent warrant
requirement not kicking in for 2 years.
Let's look at the much-vaunted warrant requirement, which appears on
page 3. Let's start with this in trying to understand the gobbledygook
here. ``The Federal Bureau of Investigation may not ingest unminimized
information acquired under this section into its analytic repositories
unless the targeted person is relevant to an existing, open, predicated
full national security investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. If the subject of such predicated, full national
security investigation is a United States person, for purposes of this
paragraph, the investigation must be supported by probable cause.''
This is supposed to be the big concession to the people who were
saying that the Constitution governs and the Fourth Amendment is still
alive, right?
Well, what is the first thing that I notice as someone who spent 25
years as a constitutional law professor? Well, the operative part of it
is the last eight words there: ``the investigation must be supported by
probable cause.''
It doesn't say it has to be supported by a search warrant, much less
does it say it has to be supported by a search warrant or probable
cause determined by a judge, by a court. That is not in there.
Who is going to figure out whether it is supported by probable cause?
We are not talking about evidence of a crime. We are talking about a
predicated, national security investigation. If you flip the page, you
find out that the Attorney General and the Director of National
Intelligence shall jointly establish procedures and standards for
officers and employees of the United States Government to determine the
existence of probable cause. Well, there goes the requirement, the
constitutional requirement of an independent magistrate issuing a
warrant. The FBI will be the judge of its own warrant. In other words,
we are right back to the problem that got us here in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, look above there. We are told, ``Pursuant to subsection
(b), no officer or employee of the United States Government may
intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United
States person pursuant to an authorization issued under subsection (a).
Pursuant to other provisions of this Act and the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure, the Government may seek a warrant or other
appropriate order supported by a probable cause showing to target for
collection the communications of a United States person if there exists
probable cause that the United States person . . . is a foreign
power,'' et cetera, et cetera. May.
Suddenly, we go from the Constitution's imposition of a mandatory
requirement for a warrant, right, that no warrants shall issue but upon
probable cause and there must be a warrant for a search unless there is
a specific exception to it. But this simply says they may seek a
warrant. They don't have to. They may seek a warrant.
In other words, this provision, too, is meaningless. It just returns
us to exactly where we were.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. RASKIN. It takes us right back to the status quo.
It says that the Attorney General, that would be Todd Blanche, or the
Acting Attorney General, and the Director of DNI, shall establish the
procedures for determining if there is probable cause. I thought that
James Madison and George Mason had taken care of that. I thought the
Constitution established the meaning of probable cause.
Now, it is being delegated to the Acting Attorney General. It doesn't
even say the acting but whoever the Attorney General might be. Perhaps
acting is imported through this language. Who knows?
Do we really want Pam Bondi or Kash Patel or Todd Blanche figuring
out what our Fourth Amendment rights are and then they get to decide
for themselves without going to a court? At the very least, even if we
are not going to have an actual warrant, there must be an independent
judge, a magistrate, involved in defining whether or not there is
probable cause to search American citizens. That is the bottom line
here.
Everybody knows and understands our Constitution and, yes, our
Constitution applies in peacetime. It applies in wartime. It applies to
American citizens in America. It applies to American citizens abroad.
Mr. Speaker, we are very willing to sit down to try to figure out
some way we can deal with this thorny area of the law, but sneaky
meetings at the White House behind everybody's back and then votes at
2:30 in the morning are not going to do it for the Constitution and the
Bill of Rights of the American people.
{time} 2350
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I know Mr. Raskin is a very good courtroom lawyer, and I
mean that. If I needed a defense lawyer, the gentleman would be one of
the first I would hire. I don't need a defense lawyer, thankfully.
I do want to point out a couple of things that did not get mentioned.
It is on page 5: ``Any information concerning a United States person
acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against that
United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal
proceeding if such information was acquired in violation of subsection
(o) of such section.''
Now, when you go to subsection (o), warrant requirement for certain
targeting--
Mr. McGOVERN. Will the gentleman yield? Because that is already in
the law.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. No, it is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. It is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. It is not.
Mr. McGOVERN. It is.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. You can debate that on your time.
Mr. Speaker, there are significant changes here.
One of the other changes that they have not mentioned is that any
query against a United States person by the FBI--and this is a new
accountability measure--must be reported to the Civil Liberties
Protection Officer within the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence. Any query that the FBI does on a United States person
must be reported with a justification for the query, not to the Justice
Department but to the Civil Liberties Protection Officer within the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Mr. Speaker, let me say this about 702. First of all, 702 is not a
law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool. It is designed to
protect Americans in this country from terrorists. That is what it is
designed for.
The FBI is actually prohibited from querying 702 data for evidence of
a crime. It is an intelligence tool and not a criminal tool. The FBI
can only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is
relevant to an existing, open, predicated, full national security
investigation. We are talking about terrorism and narcoterrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the continued discussion on the rule.
I thank my colleague, the chair of the Intelligence Committee, Rick
Crawford, for the work that he has done on it. Many people on our side
have worked diligently to accommodate people and to make sure that we
are doing the things that we need to do to protect Americans and to
protect their civil liberties.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is all so damned frustrating because,
basically, what the gentleman has done is kind of restated current law.
The big reform that he is bragging about is that the administration has
to report something to the administration. I mean, give me a break.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Raskin).
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
[[Page H2952]]
Georgia for his points, but I hope that their entire case doesn't rest
on the argument that he just advanced from page 5. He quoted the
section saying that any information concerning a United States person
acquired under 702 may not be used in evidence against that person in
any criminal proceeding if such information was acquired in violation
of subsection (o).
If you go to subsection (o), it says: ``Pursuant to subsection (b),
no officer or employee of the United States Government may
intentionally target for acquisition the communications of a United
States person. . . . ''
That is precisely the law today. This is a restatement of what is
already the law.
FISA is called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It is all
about the surveillance of people abroad. It is not about surveilling
the people here.
If somebody were deliberately targeted, every judge in the land, even
those most faithfully reporting to Donald Trump, would say: I am sorry.
You can't target U.S. citizens on that under FISA.
This is all about the collection of incidental data. I thought that
everybody understood that that was the premise of our whole legislative
discussion here, that this is about the collection of incidental data
affecting hundreds of thousands of American citizens. That is what we
are talking about.
The passage that the gentleman just read is a restatement of what the
law is today, which is that if they set out to go after American
citizens here, of course, the exclusionary rule operates at that point.
It would be prohibited. The question is, what happens if they
incidentally collected. Under this new language, nothing happens unless
somebody permissively decides that they want to adopt a rule over at
the Department of Justice making it a problem.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is the intelligence tool that has been reauthorized
in a bipartisan manner under both Democratic and Republican
administrations. It is an intelligence tool that my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle know must be reauthorized to protect the citizens of
the United States of America.
This bill coming before us today has additional protections over and
above the 56 protections that we adopted, again, in a bipartisan
manner, in the RISAA legislation just a few years ago.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the passage of this rule. I look
forward to the passage of the legislation. People on our side have
worked in good faith to make sure that we do anything and everything
that we can to protect the United States citizens without violating
their constitutional rights. That is why the additional provisions have
been added in here.
Mr. Speaker, again, I will go back to this provision that I read to
you, where if any information is obtained against a United States
person, none of that information can be used to prosecute a United
States person unless a warrant has been obtained first.
Mr. Speaker, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence
tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been properly designed to
protect the United States and its citizens from people who want to
destroy us.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many
other people on his side want to restate current law.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that at midnight we are debating this.
This is intentional. Again, this bill was kind of pieced together in a
back room somewhere here in the Capitol Building with a handful of
people. Here we are, and no one knows what the hell is in it.
I mean, the gentleman from Georgia is basically reading talking
points that, quite frankly, are a restatement of current law that don't
address any of the issues that many of us had with this legislation
that we were trying to work out in a bipartisan way. We have been
debating some of these issues for years.
When the gentleman says that his side has been working in good faith
with us, this is good faith? We just got the text of this minutes ago.
We were told to be on the floor at 11:30, and let's begin this debate
with major changes in the text.
That is good faith? Boy, you and I have a different idea of what good
faith is. I think good faith was some of the conversations that were
ongoing leading up to this moment. You tossed that out the window like
it doesn't matter.
Again, this process stinks. This is not the way you should be
bringing important legislation to the floor.
Let me just say to my friends on the Freedom Caucus: I don't know.
You know, I disagree with you on most things, but every once in a
while, we find areas of agreement, oftentimes on issues of privacy
protection and protecting and upholding civil liberties.
{time} 0000
I appreciate when we can come together on that. I thought that that
is what we were doing. That is what we were trying to get to. I am
looking for some of my Freedom Caucus friends to defend this, so maybe
there is something here that I don't see, but they are not here
defending this.
The bottom line is there is nothing new in here to protect people in
section 702. There is no warrant requirement that you need to go get a
warrant from a judge in section 702. That is what we were asking for.
That is what we were fighting for. That is not in this. Don't try to
sell a bill of goods that somehow this legislation does something it
does not. It fails in that regard. It fails in that regard.
You control everything, so you can bring bills up at midnight and
have these debates and say whatever you want to say, but you should be
ashamed of this process.
Again, this is not a sense of Congress resolution. This is an
important matter. It is important not just for our national security,
it is important for the privacy of American citizens to make sure that
information gathered on them is not misused.
Unfortunately, most of the American public at this point is asleep,
so they are not even paying attention to any of the things that we are
saying here today because, again, it is midnight when you are bringing
this up.
I would just close by saying this is a lousy way to run a Congress.
My friends on the other side of the aisle who are trying to defend the
indefensible, quite frankly, should be ashamed of themselves. People
should vote against this rule, certainly. This is not the way we should
bring legislation to the floor, and they should vote against the
underlying bill.
Every time I think I can't get more disappointed with the way
Republicans are running this place, you come out with something like
this. Again, the gall and the incompetence is stunning. Again, shame on
my Republican friends.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
Again, 702 is not a law enforcement tool. It is an intelligence tool
that is designed to protect the citizens of the United States of
America.
There are additional constitutional protections in here. The FBI can
only access FISA 702 data if the foreign section 702 target is relevant
to an existing, open, and predicated full national security
investigation. That is currently the law. That is currently the law.
We are talking about terrorism, and we are talking about
narcoterrorism. The FBI is currently prohibited from querying for
evidence of a crime. It is not a law enforcement tool. It is an
intelligence tool. It is an intelligence tool that has been very
effective for our intelligence community, our Department of Defense,
and the others that are here to protect the United States of America.
Additional protections that we have added--and, again, they didn't
read this. I want to read it to you again, though. Page 5, ``United
States Persons,'' line 10: ``Any information concerning a United States
person acquired under section 702 may not be used in evidence against
that United States person pursuant to paragraph (1) in any criminal
proceeding if such
[[Page H2953]]
information was acquired in violation of subsection (o) of such
section.'' Subsection (o) is the warrant provisions of the language.
Mr. Speaker, this week the House can advance H.R. 8035 and extend
FISA 702 under this rule.
This extension, supported by the President, reflects the urgency and
importance of FISA.
Since 2008, Congress has always reauthorized section 702 with
bipartisan support. When reforms were previously needed, Congress
delivered them with RISAA, 56 reforms in a bipartisan manner.
Thanks to the work of many, additional reforms will be voted on
tonight in the amendment.
Letting section 702 expire would be a setback. It would be
irresponsible. It would put Americans at risk. It would provide an
immediate advantage to our adversaries who seek to harm the United
States. This authority is vital, and it is time the House finishes this
work.
Amendment Offered By Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment to the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Strike the first section after the resolving clause and
insert the following:
``That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8035) to amend
the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the authorities of
title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 through October 20, 2027, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 119-25 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 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; and (2) one motion to
recommit.''.
Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia. 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. 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:
Adoption of the amendment, if ordered; and
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 211,
nays 210, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 122]
YEAS--211
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NAYS--210
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Bishop
Carter (GA)
Ivey
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Rogers (AL)
Salazar
Schneider
Zinke
{time} 0113
Mrs. FOUSHEE changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COMER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on adoption of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 200,
nays 220, not voting 11, as follows:
[[Page H2954]]
[Roll No. 123]
YEAS--200
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hern (OK)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perez
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NAYS--220
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fitzpatrick
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Harris (MD)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
LaHood
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller-Meeks
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Nunn (IA)
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Rose
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Self
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Turner (OH)
Underwood
Van Drew
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--11
Bishop
Crenshaw
Higgins (LA)
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Meuser
Salazar
Schneider
Valadao
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 0122
Mr. VAN DREW changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would
have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 123.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197,
noes 228, not voting 6, as follows:
[Roll No. 124]
AYES--197
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Bilirakis
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Fuller
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gooden
Gottheimer
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Hern (OK)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mackenzie
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perez
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Scalise
Schmidt
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
NOES--228
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Biggs (SC)
Bishop
Boebert
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crane
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davidson
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gosar
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
[[Page H2955]]
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Norman
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perry
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Rose
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Self
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spartz
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--6
Kean
Mace
Malliotakis
Salazar
Schneider
Zinke
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 0207
So the resolution was not agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________