[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 76 (Thursday, April 30, 2026)]
[House]
[Pages H3322-H3326]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF TITLE VII OF THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE
SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (S. 4465) to amend the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 to extend the
authorities of title VII of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
of 1978, and for other purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
S. 4465
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES OF TITLE VII OF THE
FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 1978.
(a) Extension of Repeal Date of Title VII.--Section 403(b)
of the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-261) is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1) (50 U.S.C. 1881 note), by striking
``April 30, 2026'' and inserting ``June 12, 2026''; and
(2) in paragraph (2) (18 U.S.C. 2511 note), in the matter
preceding subparagraph (A), by striking ``April 30, 2026''
and inserting ``June 12, 2026''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the earlier of the date of the enactment
of this Act or April 29, 2026.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Jordan) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in actual opposition to the
motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman from Maryland opposed to
the motion?
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I do not oppose the motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie)
will control the time for the opposition.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
[[Page H3323]]
General Leave
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert
extraneous material on S. 4465.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) and ask unanimous consent that he be permitted to
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is not the outcome that any of us wanted for the FISA 702
program, but here we are. The 702 program is incredibly important for
protecting our national security and advancing our interests abroad.
This temporary extension will ensure that there is no disruption to
the program while we work out our differences on a longer
reauthorization.
I urge all Members to support the legislation, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The Senate just unanimously passed this 43-day extension. Yesterday I
was struck by a point my colleagues from the House Intelligence
Committee made here on the House floor that the FISA 702 authorities
were too important to turn off. We agree. But I also know that we
cannot turn off our constitutional values and principles.
Nothing about protecting our safety should prevent us from protecting
our rights. We can have both. When we talk about protecting civil
liberties, we are not speaking of theoretical threats. We are talking
of real violations perpetrated by the FBI, not just in 2022, but over
the past year and still going on today.
The March 2026 FISC opinion describing the FISC judge's concerns
about the FBI's violations of FISA is still classified by an
administration that seems intent on keeping the public in the dark as
we debate this fundamental problem.
We can say with some confidence that the FBI has no idea how many
U.S. person queries they ran last year, how many times they spied on
American citizens. We should not have to take this vote without being
able to explain these serious deficiencies. We have a right to know how
many times the communications of American citizens were accessed.
Every day that goes by where the Trump administration and Kash
Patel's FBI can circumvent our constitutional values to spy on American
citizens is one day too many. I won't oppose this short extension but
only because it is my fervent hope and determination that it will give
us the time to work together across the aisle to implement meaningful
reform.
{time} 1550
It is long past time for Speaker Johnson to stop blocking Members of
this body from coming together across party lines to work in good faith
to strike a bipartisan deal on section 702 that is the support of a
robust, bipartisan majority which believes that the program is
important for foreign intelligence but must be made consistent with the
essential constitutional values of our privacy rights under the
Constitution.
A significant majority of Members in this Chamber, Democrats and
Republicans alike, want real reforms to protect Americans' privacy and
civil liberties, not the paltry restatements of current law that have
been offered to us so far.
The vast majority of Members of this body and the American people
want a Federal judge, not an FBI agent or an FBI lawyer, to stand
between them and their private communications. That is the
constitutional design. You go to a judge. You don't leave it to the
executive branch itself to check its own behavior.
The Speaker must allow the House to work its will. The Speaker must
allow the House to serve the American people, to bring to the floor
legislation that lives up to the spirit of the Fourth Amendment and
ensures Americans are protected from their government as the Founders
intended.
So as a gesture of good faith, we will give a few-week extension
here, but we would love the Speaker of the House to get serious and
allow us to have meaningful, bipartisan negotiation and compromise.
I have heard from so many distinguished Republican Members over
there, including a number of former Federal prosecutors, who say: We
can work this thing out. Let us do the people's business, and let's
work it out.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this clean reauthorization of FISA and, in
particular, to this short-term authorization of FISA.
A short-term infringement of the Constitution is still an
infringement of the Constitution. How long has the Senate had to act on
this? Is this an emergency? Is this something we haven't known about?
No.
I appreciate the work of my dear colleague and chairman of our
committee, Mr. Jordan, on this issue for so many years of trying to get
warrants before Americans are spied upon. In fact, my colleague on the
other side of the aisle Zoe Lofgren and I, over a decade ago, were
successful in passing an amendment to FISA, during the appropriations
process, that would have prohibited funds to be used in the FISA
program without a warrant.
What happened to that amendment? It died in the Senate. They have had
over a decade to work on this.
What does FISA stand for? Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
This, when it was originated, was never meant to be used to surveil
Americans or to search through databases for their information. It was
intended for foreign intelligence. But now it is used on Americans
without a warrant.
FISA databases have been used to query political activists,
journalists, Members of Congress and their staff, and random romantic
interests of FBI agents. We are told: Oh, don't worry. It is not being
abused anymore. Maybe that is because they changed the definition of a
query. So when they use the program anymore and abuse it, it is not a
query by their definition so they don't have to tell you when they have
violated the law. They are interpreting it differently.
As a matter of fact, there is a secret interpretation of how this law
is used by the FBI, so secret that you have got to go three floors
underground to read about it. We can't tell the American public exactly
how they are being spied on, but it is a particularly nefarious way. I
think it is also unconstitutional. I know it is also unconstitutional.
For this and many other reasons, I oppose this FISA reauthorization,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend from Kentucky for his always unswerving leadership
on behalf of constitutional values, privacy, and the civil rights and
civil liberties of the people.
The question here is how are we actually going to move the Speaker,
who seems to be immersed in some combination of inertia, bureaucracy,
and chaos, and the Senate, which doesn't seem to be living up to its
traditional role in trying to reconcile our foreign policy and national
security agenda with the constitutional values of the people?
We are saying, let's give it a few weeks now. I hope that Chairman
Jordan will echo my endorsement of us really getting together to have
bipartisan negotiations and compromise on this. This is not a partisan
problem. We have people on all sides of this on both sides of the
aisle. The vast majority of the Democrats want to make sure that we
have a program that protects the privacy rights and the civil liberties
of the people.
No, we do not trust Kash Patel to have conversations with Tulsi
Gabbard as a successful substitute for the Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution. I am sure you don't trust whoever you would liken to Kash
Patel and Tulsi Gabbard on our side.
That is fine. That is partisan politics. That is why we want this to
rest on
[[Page H3324]]
some level of constitutional principles that will cut across party
lines.
Let's take a few weeks to have serious, meaningful discussion. As a
gesture of good faith, we say we will work with the Speaker if the
Speaker will work with us.
We see him conducting negotiations in the middle of votes on the
House floor. How about we all get together the way that Congress is
supposed to and have meaningful discussion and dialogue? Let's do the
same thing with people in the Senate.
I challenge the Members of the Senate to stand up for a system that
the American people can believe in. We simply cannot leave it up to
Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard and Donald Trump to enforce our civil
rights and civil liberties for us. That is not going to work. They are
partisan actors. They have proven themselves to be partisan actors, and
they don't make any bones about that. They are unashamed of it. That is
fine. Then we need to put principles in place that are going to protect
the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague on the Judiciary
Committee and also on the Rules Committee, Chip Roy, has labored
tirelessly to defend the constitutional rights of his constituents in
Texas and all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, it is nice to have the gentleman from Maryland
on the pro-warrant side of this conversation this go-round.
I will note that there was a significant amount of abuses by the
previous President with respect to the amount of focus on the American
people using FISA and the abuses therein.
I hope we can achieve a bipartisan consensus here on how we reform
this regardless of who is in the White House and regardless of who
controls Congress. We need to do that in defense of the Constitution.
The reason I rise in opposition is because this body, this House,
spoke and sent a bill to the Senate that has reforms that our
Intelligence Committee chair worked on and a number of people worked
on. We had reforms on there to stop the central bank digital currency.
We sent it to the Senate, and they didn't even give it a vote. They
didn't even put it on the floor for consent. They just said: Stuff it.
We are going to send you a 45-day extension.
By the way, 45 days, which takes it to June 12, which some of us
several weeks ago said: Let's do a 60-day extension and let's sit down
and work, like the gentleman from Maryland said. That is what we ought
to do.
We should go to committee. We should have a full-throated debate in
committee. We should amend it. We should have a debate about warrants.
We should have a debate about protecting the American people from the
abuse of power by government.
My colleague from Texas, my friend over here, Mr. Cloud, he came into
a meeting and he said the intel community never walks in, ever, saying:
We have all of this power to collect information. Oh, we are going to
give it back.
That never happens. The only way that happens is if we act, if this
body acts, the people's Representatives.
{time} 1600
Mr. Speaker, the question I would ask is: How much warrantless
surveillance, how much spying on American citizens should we allow? How
much? How much is acceptable? Because right now we know for sure there
is warrantless collection of information on the American people.
We have other issues we have got to deal with: the kill switch,
surveillance in automobiles, central bank digital currency, tracking
what we spend, how we spend it, and what we can buy.
This body ought to be defending the people of the United States
against the power of government being used against us. Under no
circumstances should we allow technology to breach the wall that the
Fourth Amendment created that the government is not supposed to go
through to get into your personal business, to get into your homes, to
look at your information, and to breach the privacy that you are
guaranteed to not have the Fourth Amendment break.
I rise in opposition to this. We should move forward and actually try
to get actual debate on this. But I do not accept what the Senate is
doing to step over what the House did earlier. The Senate should take
up that bill and pass it.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The critical point is that we need to have a judge standing between
the FBI and the private communications of the American people. This has
got to be the essential constitutional value that is vindicated here.
We need to interpose the authority and the independence of a judge
between the FBI and the communications of the people.
The reform that my friend from Texas just mentioned is to have Kash
Patel report his abuses to Tulsi Gabbard. If you think that is a good
substitute for the Fourth Amendment, well, then you can go with what
the gentleman was talking about, which was this 3-year extension. We
are not willing go with the 3-year extension. 191 of us voted against
it, including a dozen Republicans.
We are willing to give you 40 more days or 45 more days for us to
negotiate this thing, if the Speaker will actually sit down with us. We
want the Speaker to sit down with us, and we want the Senate to take
its constitutional responsibilities seriously here.
The privacy rights of the people are too essential, and the privacy
rights of the people should not be pitted against the national security
interests of the country.
We can make this happen if we are willing to get rid of all of the
chaos and the pandemonium that we have seen over the last several days
and simply sit down and have a meaningful conversation and write the
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
After observing the FBI and other intelligence agencies spy on
Members of Congress, including Members who are in this debate right
now, I am at a loss to understand why both Democrats and Republicans
are arguing for a clean reauthorization of this program that has
clearly been used to overstep the boundaries of the other branch of
government.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Davidson), who serves on the Finance Committee and has warned us about
the Orwellian dangers and powers of the central bank digital currency.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
is a fine tool for foreign intelligence. Unfortunately, it has been
abused and corrupted.
I am encouraged to hear Mr. Raskin reclaim his opposition to
warrantless surveillance, and I am encouraged that there is a
bipartisan effort to reform it. In fact, I think the will of this body
is that we defend the Constitution and we defend this Nation. We can do
both. We are presented this false dilemma that somehow if you just
abandon your freedom, you can be more secure. That is a false tradeoff.
Freedom surrendered is barely reclaimed, but, by God, we are here to
reclaim it today. We want both. We want a warrant to protect the civil
liberties of American citizens, and we want the foreign intelligence to
be focused on foreign intelligence.
We trust the leaders in the Central Intelligence Agency, the NSA, and
others to do what they are supposed to do to target foreigners, but
clearly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has abused their access to
this data. They have targeted Americans under all sorts of authorities
and not just under 702.
We have come together in a bipartisan way. Frankly, the bill that we
sent to the Senate just this week was bipartisan. Not only did it deal
with 702, but it dealt with the money. People need to pay attention.
The future of the money is going to determine the future.
Central bank digital currency is communist money for the digital age.
Unfortunately, some of my Democrat colleagues, who are united in
opposition to warrantless surveillance of all forms, somehow don't see
the central bank digital currency for what it is. It is the most
dystopian surveillance tool ever developed. It corrupts money into
[[Page H3325]]
a tool for coercion, surveillance, and control.
We rejected that, and the Senate didn't even give us a debate. John
Thune asked to be the leader of the Senate, but he is not leading. He
didn't even bring this to the floor for a debate. He keeps throwing up
excuse after excuse. Well, I will tell you: Anyone can find an excuse.
Leaders find a way. It is time for John Thune to do that or step aside
and let somebody lead the Senate who will give us at least a debate but
deliver the results the American people have demanded in this election.
Mr. Speaker, I encourage all of our colleagues to come together and
defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Self), my good friend and colleague and staunch defender of
the Constitution.
Mr. SELF. Mr. Speaker, everyone here wants 702 reauthorized. The case
has been made that it is a national security issue, that our troops on
the ground need it. They need the intelligence that it provides. We
want the CIA and the NSA to run as fast and as far as they can to
identify the bad guys.
I have deployed on three continents, and believe you me, we want our
military to know who to deal with when they get on foreign soil.
The FBI has abused 702, and that is why we are here today.
I want to reiterate my colleague's comments that we are really
dealing with two surveillance bills here today. 702 is getting all of
the attention, but the central bank digital currency is another
surveillance tool that we sent to the Senate. We passed it in a
bipartisan method.
Let me explain the difference in the two to the people that are
listening. The electronic surveillance is 702, foreign agents on
foreign soil. It says nothing about U.S. citizens, U.S. persons on U.S.
soil.
The central bank digital currency is financial transparency for the
Federal Government. Do you want the Federal Government telling you that
you cannot buy a Ford 350 or anything else that the government thinks
that you may not want to buy, that they will not want you to buy.
We have two bills that we are discussing today. All of the attention
is on 702, but do not take your attention off CBDC. It is actually
maybe more dangerous than 702.
Mr. Speaker, let's get 702 reauthorized with constitutional
protections, and let's also address the central bank digital currency.
We need both electronic privacy and financial privacy.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1610
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what are we opposed to?
We are opposed to violating the Constitution. That is what is
happening with FISA. It is happening with other provisions of law and
court rulings.
Mr. Speaker, the third-party doctrine allows the government to go
after your phone records without a warrant with a simple subpoena, go
after your health records, and go after your bank records. That needs
to be reformed.
We need to end the mandate on electronic kill switches in cars, the
Orwellian technology that would be the judge, the jury, and the
executioner, shut your car off midstream and mid-drive if some AI in
your dashboard determines that you shouldn't be driving at that moment,
Mr. Speaker, or maybe the government determines that.
There is a whole slew of ways that Americans' privacy, Fourth
Amendment rights and other rights are being violated. Chief among them
is the FISA 702 program. We should not do a clean reauthorization of
this program.
Mr. Speaker, what would happen if you vote ``no'' today?
Maybe there are some people wondering: How will I vote?
Maybe they don't need my vote. Maybe it is going to pass. This has to
pass with two-thirds vote.
What would happen if it did fail today?
The Senate would go back to work. They are trying to punt. They want
to go home, leave town, and leave us with the work of this.
We have done our work. We have done it for years. We have sent them
versions of this, and yet, they insist on another clean
reauthorization.
Mr. Speaker, I object to that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy).
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, the reason I asked for the gentleman to yield
to me is precisely the response we just heard.
Do you know what really the problem is, Mr. Speaker?
People want to get home to fundraisers. People want to get home to
dinners. People want to go back to their districts and go on trips.
They have codels.
Meanwhile, the American people are wondering: What on Earth is
happening in this town?
Mr. Speaker, the American people are wondering: What on Earth is
happening when they look at this body and see what we failed to do.
We are continuing every single day to drive this entire country into
bankruptcy: $40-trillion debt, government spying on the people, failure
to stop government spying on the people, kill switches in cars, and
failure to stop sugar drinks going to children on the SNAP program
voted by both sides of the aisle.
We go home, and the American people say: What are you doing?
Well, here we sit, and the response here is: Please let us get on our
flights so we can go home and be away for 10 days while the country
suffers because this body doesn't do its job.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we can reconcile the essential constitutional values of
the country with the national security of the country. This 45-day
continuation is a mandate. It is a mandate to the Speaker to allow the
House to finally come together to develop compromise legislation that
guarantees that judges--not Kash Patel, not Tulsi Gabbard, and not
Donald Trump--will be the ones to ensure our privacy and our civil
liberties.
Let's use this period to engage in real legislative compromise and
negotiation in the interests of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan) that the House suspend the rules and
pass the bill, S. 4465.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 261,
nays 111, not voting 58, as follows:
[Roll No. 155]
YEAS--261
Aderholt
Aguilar
Alford
Allen
Amo
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Auchincloss
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Bean (FL)
Beatty
Bentz
Bergman
Beyer
Bice
Bilirakis
Bishop
Bost
Boyle (PA)
Bresnahan
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Calvert
Carbajal
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Ciscomani
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Cline
Clyburn
Cole
Comer
Courtney
Crank
Crawford
Crenshaw
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
Dean (PA)
DeLauro
DelBene
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Figures
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flood
Foster
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fuller
Garbarino
Garcia (TX)
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Graves
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hamadeh (AZ)
Harder (CA)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (NC)
Hern (OK)
Hill (AR)
Himes
Hinson
Houchin
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
[[Page H3326]]
Jack
Jackson (TX)
Jacobs
James
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (NY)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Krishnamoorthi
Kustoff
LaHood
Landsman
Langworthy
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Liccardo
Lucas
Mackenzie
Magaziner
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McBath
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCollum
McCormick
McDonald Rivet
McDowell
McGuire
Meeks
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Morelle
Morrison
Mrvan
Murphy
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Patronis
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pfluger
Pou
Raskin
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Rogers (KY)
Ross
Rouzer
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Sewell
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Sorensen
Soto
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Steil
Strong
Suozzi
Sykes
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Timmons
Trahan
Tran
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Wagner
Walberg
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Whitesides
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--111
Adams
Ansari
Balint
Begich
Bell
Biggs (SC)
Boebert
Bonamici
Brecheen
Burchett
Cammack
Carson
Casar
Chu
Clarke (NY)
Cloud
Cohen
Collins
Correa
Craig
Crane
Crockett
Davidson
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Downing
Elfreth
Evans (PA)
Foushee
Friedman
Frost
Fry
Fulcher
Gomez
Gosar
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Hageman
Harshbarger
Hayes
Higgins (LA)
Horsford
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jayapal
Kennedy (UT)
Khanna
Lee (PA)
Levin
Lieu
Luttrell
Mannion
Massie
Matsui
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Mejia
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Miller (IL)
Min
Moore (WI)
Mullin
Ocasio-Cortez
Ogles
Omar
Pallone
Perry
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pressley
Randall
Roy
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Scott (VA)
Self
Simon
Stansbury
Stevens
Subramanyam
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Tiffany
Titus
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Vindman
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--58
Barragan
Baumgartner
Bera
Biggs (AZ)
Buchanan
Burlison
Castro (TX)
Cleaver
Clyde
Conaway
Costa
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Doggett
Donalds
Escobar
Espaillat
Fields
Fong
Frankel, Lois
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Gimenez
Goldman (NY)
Harris (MD)
Kamlager-Dove
Kean
Kelly (IL)
LaLota
Larsen (WA)
Letlow
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Luna
Lynch
Mace
Miller (OH)
Mills
Moskowitz
Moulton
Nehls
Norman
Olszewski
Onder
Quigley
Ramirez
Rogers (AL)
Rose
Schakowsky
Sherman
Smith (WA)
Stefanik
Steube
Strickland
Stutzman
Tlaib
Wilson (FL)
{time} 1643
Ms. TOKUDA, Mrs. DINGELL, Mr. POCAN, Mses. HAGEMAN and McCLELLAN
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. FIGURES changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________