[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 16, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H5835-H5845]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3494, DAMON PAUL NELSON AND MATTHEW 
  YOUNG POLLARD INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEARS 2018, 
 2019, AND 2020; RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 116-125 
   AND AN ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION; RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF 
 MEASURES DISAPPROVING OF SALES, EXPORTS, OR APPROVALS PURSUANT TO THE 
ARMS EXPORT CONTROL ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.RES. 489, 
  CONDEMNING PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RACIST COMMENTS DIRECTED AT MEMBERS OF 
                                CONGRESS

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 491 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 491

       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. 3494) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2020 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
     activities of the United States Government, the Community 
     Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency 
     Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes. 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 amendments 
     specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on 
     Intelligence. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence now printed in 
     the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-22, 
     modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of 
     the Whole. 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 part B of the report of 
     the Committee on Rules. 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 with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  If House Report 116-125 is called up by direction 
     of the Committee on Oversight and Reform: (a) all points of 
     order against the report are waived and the report shall be 
     considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution 
     offered by direction of the Committee on Oversight and Reform 
     shall be considered as read and shall not be subject to a 
     point of order; and (2) the previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on such resolution 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 
     Oversight and Reform.
       Sec. 3.  (a) A joint resolution described in section 4 
     shall be privileged if called up by the chair of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs or a designee on the day after 
     the calendar day on which the Majority Leader or a designee 
     announces an intention that the House consider the joint 
     resolution. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against the joint resolution and against 
     its consideration are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution to its passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) 20 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit (or 
     commit, as the case may be). A motion to reconsider the vote 
     on passage of the joint resolution shall not be in order.
        (b) On demand of the chair of the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs or a designee, debate pursuant to subsection (a)(1) 
     shall be one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair 
     and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign 
     Affairs or their respective designees.
       Sec. 4.  A joint resolution referred to in section 3 is a 
     Senate joint resolution, or a House joint resolution reported 
     by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, prohibiting any of the 
     following under section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
     U.S.C. 2776):
       (1) a proposed sale pursuant to subsection (b);
       (2) a proposed export pursuant to subsection (c); or
       (3) an approval pursuant to subsection (d).
       Sec. 5.  Sections 36(b)(3), 36(c)(3)(B), and 36(d)(5)(B) of 
     the Arms Export Control Act shall not apply in the House 
     during the remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.
       Sec. 6.  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. 489) condemning 
     President Trump's racist comments directed at Members of 
     Congress. 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.

                              {time}  1230

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
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. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 491, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 3494, authorizing intelligence community programs for fiscal years 
2019 and 2020 and retroactively authorizing fiscal year 2018 
appropriations under a structured rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select 
Committee on

[[Page H5836]]

Intelligence. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from 
Chairman Schiff that makes technical and conforming changes and adds 
additional language that authorizes the CIA to expand death benefits to 
cover officers killed abroad. The rule makes in order 31 amendments and 
provides one motion to recommit.
  Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of House Report 
116-125 and its accompanying resolution recommending that the House 
find Attorney General Barr and Secretary Wilbur Ross in contempt of 
Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas under a 
closed rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Oversight and 
Reform.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 489 under a closed 
rule.
  The rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Finally, included in this rule is a process for consideration of 
committee-reported or Senate-passed joint resolutions disapproving of 
certain transactions under section 36 of the Arms Export Control Act. 
This process allows for the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee to 
call up such a joint resolution 1 day after it is noticed by the 
majority leader and provides 20 minutes or an hour of debate and a 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, the Intelligence Authorization Act, H.R. 3494, 
authorizes programs at 16 intelligence community agencies and offices, 
including the Director of National Intelligence, the CIA, the 
Department of Defense, the DIA, the National Security Agency, and the 
FBI.
  This authorization prioritizes the intelligence community's 
collection and analytic capabilities against hard-target countries such 
as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.
  This bill will help us better understand and counter Russian 
interference in our elections. It requires reports to Congress on the 
intentions and the designs of Russian political leadership with respect 
to potential military action against NATO members and on the most 
significant Russian influence campaigns taking place around the world.
  This bill also creates a Climate Security Advisory Council to ensure 
that the intelligence community prioritizes the threat of climate 
change. Specifically, the bill requires analysts to incorporate climate 
change into intelligence analysis and encourages collaboration with 
executive branch departments focused on climate policy.
  Finally, this legislation takes care of our intelligence community 
workers by providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave for all employees, 
in addition to the 12 weeks of unpaid leave Federal employees are 
allowed to take under the Family and Medical Leave Act.
  Mr. Speaker, on contempt, the Constitution of the United States 
requires us to conduct a Census every 10 years, an actual enumeration 
of the American people, everyone who is present in the country.
  Secretary Wilbur Ross engaged in a process in order to add a 
citizenship question to the Census for the first time in 70 years.
  This was struck down by multiple Federal courts because of the 
blatant violation of essentially every principle of the Administrative 
Procedure Act. They did not conduct notice and comment; they did not 
assemble substantial evidence; and they did not provide a reasoned 
justification for why they wanted to do this completely outside of the 
process that had been set up under the Census Act that had been running 
for several years.
  On June 27, the Supreme Court found that the Commerce Department's 
argument for including the citizenship question in the 2020 Census was 
``contrived,'' according to Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote: 
``Several points, taken together, reveal a significant mismatch between 
the Secretary's decision and the rationale he provided.''
  Democrats on the Oversight and Reform Committee have been raising 
questions about Secretary Ross' proffered justification for several 
years now. We started asking questions back in 2017. Secretary Ross had 
testified that the Department of Justice letter that he received was 
the basis for changing the policy and imposing a citizenship question 
on the Census. He said that this change was solely motivated by the 
Department of Justice's request.
  In fact, overwhelming evidence has surfaced completely contradicting 
this account. We know from multiple different sources now that this was 
a political effort designed to promote the electoral plans of the GOP.
  The gerrymandering mastermind of the Republican Party, Thomas 
Hofeller, was the one who first raised this question several years ago. 
It was talked about during the Trump campaign. It was talked about 
within days of the inauguration. We have substantial evidence 
suggesting that Wilbur Ross, as Secretary of Commerce, was shopping 
around for a justification for doing this when the motivations were 
nakedly political.

  The Oversight and Reform Committee began its investigation into the 
administration's decision to add the citizenship question on March 27, 
2018. Yet, the majority of the committee has been stonewalled at every 
turn by the Departments of Justice and Commerce, which have refused to 
turn over key documents requested by the Oversight and Reform 
Committee, even after the committee, its members and staff, have worked 
diligently to resolve the impasse by narrowing the scope of the request 
to a very small subset of documents.
  We know exactly the documents we need. Yet, still, we get nothing but 
defiance, obstruction, and stonewalling from this administration.
  Democrats requested documents from the Department of Commerce on 
April 4, 2018. None of the requested documents were submitted.
  On January 8, 2019, Chairman Cummings renewed the request, and the 
Commerce Department responded by providing thousands of pages of 
documents, most of which were already publicly available or completely 
irrelevant, nonresponsive, or heavily redacted.
  On February 12, 2019, Chairman Cummings renewed the request for 
documents again, this time identifying a specific memo and note from 
the Department of Commerce to the DOJ. The DOJ did not provide the 
requested documents but, rather, produced several other documents that 
were heavily redacted and off point, and so on and so forth.
  Mr. Speaker, this is intolerable. The Congress of the United States 
has a constitutional duty to conduct a fair Census.
  Six former Census Bureau Directors wrote a letter denouncing the 
imposition of this citizenship question and telling Wilbur Ross that 
this would lead to a far less accurate account. The chief scientist of 
the Census Bureau testified that this was going to overlook and 
undercount as many as 6 million Hispanic Americans. We know that 
potentially millions of other Americans too would not be counted.
  The purpose of adding the citizenship question was not to get a more 
accurate count. It was to get a far more inaccurate account. All the 
Census experts agree with that.
  We have an act, the Census Act, which was violated and ignored. We 
have the Administrative Procedure Act, which was violated and ignored. 
Now we have issued a series of subpoena requests to the Departments of 
Commerce and Justice in order to get the information about what really 
took place, and again, we are being defied, ignored, and essentially 
belittled by the executive branch of government.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close my remarks on this with this point. The 
Constitution begins with the beautiful phrase: ``We, the people . . . 
in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquility,'' and so on, do create this Constitution in this 
country.
  The very next sentence says that all the legislative powers are 
vested in us. In other words, the powers of the people flow right 
through the preamble of the Constitution into Article I.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly said, along with other Federal 
courts, that integral and essential to the lawmaking function is the 
factfinding function of Congress.
  James Madison said, ``Those who mean to be their own governors must 
arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives.''

[[Page H5837]]

  The people armed us with that power by creating the legislative 
function in Congress. But we can't legislate and we can't govern if we 
can't get the information that we need, which is why the Supreme Court 
has repeatedly emphasized our power is broad and it is expansive.
  Our friends across the aisle, they know that. They know that from 
their Benghazi hearings that went on for years and cost tens of 
millions of dollars. They know that from the inquiry into Hillary 
Clinton's emails, and so on.
  Congress has the power to get the information that it wants.
  Mr. Speaker, the Census is serious business. It goes right to the 
heart of who we are as ``we, the people.''
  Every 10 years, the Founders told us we have to go back and count 
everybody up in order to conduct the reapportionment process and decide 
how many Members of Congress are granted to each State, and, then, 
hundreds of billions of dollars follow in the wake of the Census. So, 
we have to make sure that every person is counted.
  What we had was this rearguard, sneak ambush attack on the Census. 
They got caught doing it. The courts blew the whistle. The Supreme 
Court blew the whistle. But we want to know precisely what happened to 
make sure it doesn't happen again, to make sure that there has been no 
damage, and to make sure we can go forward with a real Census.
  If you act with contempt of the Congress, if you act with contempt 
for the Congress, if you act with contempt for the American people, we 
will find you in contempt of Congress and the American people. We are 
given no choice.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the resolution condemning the President's 
recent remarks, the President of the United States told four Americans 
who are Members of Congress to ``go back'' to the countries they came 
from. Three of them, Representatives Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib, 
and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, are native-born Americans, and one of 
them, Representative Ilhan Omar, was born abroad.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an affront, not just of four American citizens 
who are Members of Congress. It is an affront to 22 million naturalized 
American citizens who were born in another country and made the journey 
to America and made the journey to becoming full-blown, equal, and free 
American citizens, 22 million American citizens.

                              {time}  1245

  Indeed, if you think about it, it is an affront to the hundreds of 
millions of Americans who understand and love how American democracy 
and citizenship work. We are not a nation defined by race and blood as 
the neo-Nazis and Klansman chanted in Charlottesville as they marched 
down the street terrorizing the people of Charlottesville. We are 
defined by our Constitution, which belongs to all of us, and we are 
defined by the patriotism and by the service of our people.
  Is there something wrong with being a naturalized citizen under our 
Constitution, Mr. Speaker? No, there is not. This is something to be 
honored and celebrated.
  All Americans are equal in the eyes of the law. This is the meaning 
of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. We have no kings 
here. We have no queens here. We have no titles of nobility. We have no 
monarchy. We have no taints of blood. We have no hereditary offenses. 
We have no racial caste system. We have no slaves, and we have no slave 
masters.
  It is true that there are those in our history who have wanted 
America to be defined as a White man's compact, and that is, indeed, 
precisely what the Supreme Court found it was in the infamous Dred 
Scott decision in 1857.
  President Lincoln, a great and glorious Republican President, 
rejected the Dred Scott decision from the beginning as the product of a 
racist ideology and a racist political conspiracy, and it took a Civil 
War, the blood and the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Americans, 
to defend the Union and to guarantee the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 
15th Amendments to overthrow and destroy the Dred Scott decision and 
the poisonous idea that America is a White man's compact. It is not.
  All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United 
States, we said, in the 14th Amendment, which guaranteed equal 
protection of the law to all persons who are here. All of us are equal, 
whether you are a naturalized citizen who was born in Ireland, as our 
colleague Congressman Sean Casten was; or in Ecuador, as our colleague 
Debbie Mucarsel-Powell was; or in Mexico, as our colleague Chuy Garcia 
was; or in France, as our good friend and colleague Mark Meadows was; 
or Thailand, as our colleague Tammy Duckworth was; or in Guatemala, as 
our colleague Norma Torres was; or in Taiwan, as our colleague Ted Lieu 
was; or in Canada, as our colleague Ted Cruz was; or in Poland, as our 
colleague and author of this resolution,   Tom Malinowski, was.
  If these Americans and many more like them--we have 29 foreign-born 
Members of Congress. If these Americans and many more like them don't 
belong in Congress, tell it to the millions of people who elected them, 
and tell it to the Founders of our country who specifically said that 
you can run for the House of Representatives if you are a naturalized 
citizen if you have been naturalized for 7 years, or you can run for 
the Senate of the United States if you are a naturalized citizen if you 
have been naturalized for 9 years.
  Mr. Speaker, to tell naturalized American citizens to go back to the 
countries they came from is nativist and antithetical to everything 
that America stands for. It is the opposite of what we believe about 
the values of the country.
  To tell native-born American citizens who are people of color to go 
back to the country they came from is antithetical to everything we 
stand for, and it will be up to the House of Representatives today to 
determine whether or not that is a racist statement.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I don't want to put any pressure on you, Mr. Speaker, but it comforts 
me to see you as the Chair up there today. There are those days where 
you need particular leaders to be there at a particular time, and I 
will tell you that I am not telling anybody in this Chamber anything 
they don't already know: You have made an entire career in this 
institution reaching out, building unlikely alliances, making it work 
where other folks said it could not work. And when my friend from 
Maryland, whom I thank for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, talks 
about what it is our constituents expect, what it is our citizenry 
expects, I think they expect that, Mr. Speaker, and we have one of 
those bills before us today in the intelligence reauthorization act.
  There is more in this rule, Mr. Speaker, than I believe I have seen 
in any rule in my 9 years in Congress and years serving on staff here. 
We packed it all in there last night, and I don't want to miss the lead 
on this rule, which is an intelligence bill that is named after two 
congressional staffers who passed away last year. They spent their 
lives in service to this institution and to the intelligence community, 
and we are grateful for that service.
  If you have not looked at the intelligence community recently, Mr. 
Speaker, you will see Devin Nunes on the Republican side of the aisle 
and Adam Schiff leading it on the Democratic side of the aisle. I can 
picture those two faces because I usually see them on split screens on 
FOX or MSNBC, and I can't think of many things they have had to say 
where they agreed with one another over the past 4, 5 years, and yet we 
have a bill today in sharp contrast to the partisan nonsense that was 
the NDAA operation last week.
  We have a bill that has come out of the Intelligence Committee with 
two strident, passionate Republican and Democratic leaders there on the 
Intelligence Committee, that came out unanimously, that they presented 
unanimously in front of the Rules Committee last night and we have a 
chance to pass here on the floor of the House.
  You also find in this rule, Mr. Speaker, 31 amendments that have been 
made in order to that intelligence reauthorization bill. Even though we 
found bipartisanship in the committee, even though we found unanimity 
in the committee, the Rules Committee, in its wisdom, last night, 
decided to make 31 more ideas available to be considered here on the 
floor of the House.

[[Page H5838]]

  You see in this rule, Mr. Speaker, the ability for the House to take 
up Arms Export Control Act measures. These are also measures you are 
going to find bipartisan support for, also measures that you will find, 
again, as my friend from Maryland referenced, the House doing what you 
would expect the House to do, what our bosses back home sent us here to 
do.
  I know, Mr. Speaker, that there are times when folks feel their 
deeply held beliefs cannot be compromised for the sake of 
bipartisanship. I find that trying to find a way to get to yes is 
better than trying to find a way to get to no. There is always a reason 
to get to no.
  Instead of looking for ways to oppose our political rivals, we have 
to act as the Intelligence Committee did, in a manner where we can find 
issues on which we agree. It is the only way to move this process 
forward.
  Mr. Speaker, America's national security and that of our allies, 
which is what the intelligence community helps to protect and support 
every day, is about more than scoring political points.
  I mentioned those split screens on the TV where you do see folks 
lobbing accusations back and forth. Sometimes it seems to be political 
sport instead of serious legislating.
  The measure we have before us today is not political sport; it is 
serious legislating. And we are going to have a chance to come together 
as a House not just to discuss it, not just to improve it, but to 
implement it.
  Mr. Speaker, among the things that you will find in this bill, the 
foreign influences around the globe, and we have talked about them in 
all of their various incarnations here on the floor of the House over 
the last 2 weeks. This bill requires a report on China's influence over 
Taiwanese elections.
  Chinese influence around the globe is at an unparalleled high. We are 
now rivaled by the Chinese in every single aspect of international 
influence and policy, but they have outsized influence in Taiwan, and 
we require that report.
  We require a report not just on Russian interference in our 
elections, Mr. Speaker, but in elections across the globe. It would be 
naive to suggest that the Russians would limit their influence in 
elections to trying to manipulate the greatest and freest country in 
the world. They are working across the globe to influence elections 
wherever free people live.
  Combating Chinese and Russian aggression in elections, Mr. Speaker, 
is not something, as is so often told in the media, that divides us; it 
is something that unites us. We saw that in the Intelligence Committee, 
and we are going to see that here on the floor of the House, and I am 
very proud of that. I wish we could have continued that effort, Mr. 
Speaker.
  I agree with every word my friend from Maryland said about standing 
up for Article I. Of all of my frustrations of 9 years in this 
institution, the deference of the United States Congress to the 
executive branch has been my greatest frustration. It exists for one 
reason and one reason only, and that is that men and women, colleagues 
like my friend from Maryland and I, have been unable to find a way to 
speak with one voice on issues that are Article I versus Article II 
issues.
  Go down the list in your time in Congress, Mr. Speaker, whether it is 
the contempt resolution this institution passed for former Attorney 
General Eric Holder, that contempt resolution that passed on party-line 
votes in committee and party-line votes here on the floor of the House 
and went down to the executive branch where absolutely no action was 
taken on it whatsoever; take production of papers, whether on Fast and 
Furious or whether on the Census, production of papers, whether from 
the President's counsel or from the President's press secretary, we 
have these discussions and we cannot--no, we have not found a way to 
come together to speak with one voice.
  We have an opportunity, a model. You will remember some number of 
weeks ago--now, months ago, Mr. Speaker--where we were very concerned 
in this Chamber about anti-Semitic remarks that were broadcast in the 
public domain. We came together as an institution to speak out against 
anti-Semitism.
  It didn't happen overnight. In fact, my friend from Maryland authored 
that resolution, to his credit. But he didn't sit down with a pen and 
put some words on a page and bring it here to the floor for 
consideration. He had to work it. And I don't mean work it a little 
bit; I mean work it hard: it was coming; it was not coming; it was 
coming again; it was not coming. To find a pathway forward so that this 
House speaks with one voice instead of divided voices was an effort 
that was put in.
  Now, granted, at the end of the day, it was a little more milquetoast 
than the resolution that I would have drafted, but sometimes that is 
the trade you make to be able to expand the acceptance of a resolution, 
Mr. Speaker.
  Every single time in this Chamber, as it comes to reining in Article 
II or reining in the judicial branch, every single time we speak with a 
divided voice, we weaken this institution.
  I have never seen a resolution that tried to hold two Cabinet 
Secretaries in contempt at the same time. Maybe that has happened 
historically; I don't know that answer. I have not seen it in my time.
  I heard last night from the chairman of the House Oversight Committee 
and the ranking member of the House Oversight Committee, and the 
ranking member was unwavering in his commitment to Article I and our 
preeminence in the constitutional model. But he was also unwavering in 
his commitment to there is more that we could do to work with the 
administration as opposed to begin to poke that sharp stick, and so 
this resolution does not have his support.
  Well, if we begin our effort to do oversight over the administration 
and we are already divided before that bill even leaves committee, I 
tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to have the outcome that we 
want here on the floor of the House.
  And then, of course, this rule in those contempt efforts is targeting 
a United States citizenship question that would have gone on the 
Census. We talk about that as if that is an outrageous thing.
  I appreciate the kind words my friend from Maryland had to say about 
President Lincoln. I am going to have to get the Clerk to read them 
back to me because I am going to use that over and over again about a 
wonderful Republican President, but I want to use the words that Mr. 
Raskin used.
  But when President Lincoln was presiding over this land, it was 
common practice to have a citizenship question on the United States 
Census.

                              {time}  1300

  In fact, every single Census from 1820 to 1950 had a citizenship 
question on it. It was noncontroversial. In 1950, we took it off of the 
short form; it moved to the long form. And so from 1970 to 2000, that 
question was on the long form every single Census. And then in 2000, we 
took it off the long form and we put it onto the American Community 
Survey, that half-decade measure that goes out to create the data that 
Mr. Raskin rightly noted is so important to all of our communities back 
home.
  If, for the first time in American history, in the history of the 
Census, we decide that citizenship is somehow now a forbidden topic, 
that we can't find a way to discuss it, that it is not important to who 
we are as a Nation and how it is that we look at ourselves, fair 
enough.
  That is not what the Supreme Court case was about, Mr. Speaker. As we 
well know, the Supreme Court case simply said: You can put a question 
about citizenship on the Census if you want to. You just didn't do it 
the right way, and so we are going to ask you not to do it that way. 
There are those ways and means of getting that done. You just didn't do 
it the right way.
  I raise that, Mr. Speaker, not because I am a Census guru. I am not. 
I don't serve on any of those relevant committees. But in this era of 
outrage, where folks have begun to confuse civility with weakness--and 
that is a confusion that I think is to all of our detriments--the 
desire to have a question about citizenship on the Census has nothing 
to do with this President, this administration, Republicans, Democrats. 
It has been that way since 1820.
  Thoughtful men and women, concerned men and women, serious 
legislators have been interested in this information for over 100 
years.
  If we want to have the conversation that somehow citizenship can't be 
discussed anymore and we should ban it

[[Page H5839]]

from all Census documentation forever, I don't think that would 
succeed, but it is certainly a legitimate topic of debate. But what is 
not legitimate is to suggest that the only reason that anyone would ask 
about citizenship is to pursue some sort of nefarious, xenophobic 
purpose. It is simply not true.
  I represent a majority minority constituency, Mr. Speaker. Twenty-six 
percent of my bosses are first-generation Americans. You want to find 
folks who love America, come down to where I live, find folks who have 
waited in line, folks who have paid their money, folks who pinned all 
their hopes and dreams to, ``If and only if I can get there, my 
children and my grandchildren will have a better life.''
  That is what brought us all here at one generation or another. 
Whether you came in 1650 or whether you came in 1950 or whether you 
came yesterday, those are the dreams that bring us here.
  There is a lot to be outraged about in today's culture, but I haven't 
seen any of it get fixed by being more outraged.
  I have seen it get fixed by men and women like yourself, Mr. Speaker, 
who value trust, who value candor, who value honesty, and who value 
real relationships.
  Anything that is hard, I can't solve with someone I don't trust. If 
one side is good and one side is evil, where do you go from there? What 
does that negotiation look like? That is not a conversation; that is 
you have got to now destroy one another. That seems to be the path that 
folks too often opt for in politics today.
  There is more that unites us than divides us in this constitution and 
in this country, Mr. Speaker. You might not know that by the parts of 
this rule that are going to get the most attention today.
  Adam Schiff, Devin Nunes, there are not two Members in this 
institution who feel more strongly and differently about the direction 
of public policy than those two men, and they came together, not to 
advance themselves, but to advance the Nation. They came together, not 
because it was easy, but precisely because it was hard and necessary, 
and brought us this bipartisan package we have today.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts, the chairman of 
the Rules Committee, for bringing that resolution to the floor, and I 
hope we will have ample time to celebrate those successes.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for his 
very thoughtful and moving remarks, which are very appealing to me, 
especially since I am a law professor first and only a politician 
thereafter.
  And, you know, we all have to deal with the political party system as 
it exists in the America of today, but I like to think of the 
Presidents who kept a kind of dual mind about it. They knew that they 
had to be part of it in order to operate, as all of us do, but also to 
try to think about the broader whole.
  You know, Jefferson in his first inaugural address in 1800 said that 
we are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. And he also said:

       If I could only go to heaven with a political party, I 
     would prefer not to go.

  George Washington said to us:

       We have to keep in mind that the word party comes from the 
     French word partie, a part, and when we govern, we should try 
     to keep in mind the whole.

  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for at least the one cheer of a 
potential three hip hip hoorays you might have given us on the 
Intelligence Authorization Act.
  We do think that the contempt citation is necessary precisely for the 
reason you suggest: to uphold the institutional integrity of Congress.
  We have gotten together in the past across party lines to demand that 
the executive branch gives us the information we need, and we believe 
that we are completely on that course.
  Finally, as to the resolution about the remarks telling U.S. citizens 
to go back to the country they came from; it is hard for me not to see 
something that could be more unifying than that; that it is an 
essential value that I know every Member of this body holds, that we 
do not make a distinction in the legal or political rights or 
entitlements or responsibilities of natural-born citizens and 
naturalized citizens, and that it is utterly offensive to our system of 
government to tell people to go back to where they came from just 
because you have a political disagreement with them. It is wrong.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern), the chair of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for yielding me the time and I want to thank him 
for his service on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly support the rule, but I want to speak on one 
underlying bill in particular, H. Res. 489.
  Mr. Speaker, what we saw this week used to be reserved for the 
darkest corners of the internet, some chat room somewhere where people 
would be too ashamed to even use their real name when spewing vile 
rhetoric.
  But this isn't some online troll. We are not talking about using dog 
whistles or speaking in some kind of secret alt-right code, Mr. 
Speaker.
  This is proudly using Twitter as a megaphone to attack fellow 
Americans.
  These are American citizens being turned into some kind of scary 
``other,'' not because of their party, but because of their background, 
their race, and their opinions. This is the same type of attack the 
President has used against immigrants and refugees for years.
  I have seen this administration carry out some deeply troubling 
policies. I have heard some deeply offensive things. And I know I am 
not alone in this, because when the cameras are off and the press isn't 
around, some of my colleagues on the other side have told me the same 
thing, that they are sickened by what is going on.
  Well, these recent comments are in a completely different category. 
This type of language isn't just offensive. It could lead to violence. 
It is corroding our discourse. It undermines our values, and it doesn't 
reflect who we are as a country.
  Mr. Speaker, let me tell my Republican colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, more sternly worded press releases and disappointed 
tweets aren't going to cut it. The only thing that matters here is 
votes. Press statements are not enough.
  This House needs to speak with unity and vote to condemn the 
President's comments for what they are.
  Now, I believe in the adage from Maya Angelou: ``When someone shows 
you who they are, believe them.''
  The President told us who he was long before he rode that escalator 
down to announce his campaign.
  It is time Republicans told the American people with their votes what 
they whisper to one another in the Cloakroom, what many of them have 
told me behind closed doors, because this dark world view is what will 
be on the ballot.
  Mr. Speaker, I implore my colleagues to think twice before they 
follow the President off a cliff. Our credibility matters and their 
credibility matters.
  A Presidency lasts, at most, just 4 to 8 years. Some of us will get 
the chance to serve here long after this administration ends, and we 
will have to live with our conscience for a lifetime, but silence is an 
endorsement, equivocation is an endorsement, blaming both sides is an 
endorsement.
  There is no gray area here. There is a very clear right and wrong. So 
supporting this resolution isn't about standing with Democrats; it is 
about standing up for decency.
  The President showed us who he is. Now we have the chance to show the 
American people who we are.
  Now, it is no secret that I have profound policy disagreements with 
this President. His economic policies favor the rich and his foreign 
policy completely ignores human rights, but in all the time I have been 
alive, I have always respected the office of the President and the 
occupant.
  I feel differently now. I feel embarrassed. I feel ashamed.
  Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues, our children are watching 
us. So do the right thing. Do the moral thing. Condemn President 
Trump's hateful and blatantly racist rhetoric.
  And I don't care if it is out of order, but we need to be clear, we 
need to call

[[Page H5840]]

it what it is, and we need to condemn it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I think I misunderstood my friend from Massachusetts. I 
think what my friend said is he does not care whether his words coarsen 
this institution, he does not care whether or not his positions 
diminish us as an institution, he does not care about the rules of this 
institution, which prohibit exactly the kind of words that he knows 
they prohibit and yet he uses anyway.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my friend if he believes that his 
cause of admonishing this President is going to be advantaged by 
diminishing this institution?
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that what I am saying on the House floor 
supports the truth. I believe every word I said, and I feel strongly 
about it. I would only wish my colleagues on the other side would feel 
equally strong about condemning these horrific remarks.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. If the President 
believes every word that he said, does that excuse his behavior, in the 
gentleman's mind? Does it excuse his behavior to believe it?
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the President can say whatever he wants. I 
think we have a moral obligation to call out racism wherever it exists.

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. It is a perfectly 
legitimate assertion and attestation my friend from Massachusetts 
makes, and of course we all share that belief.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was down here for the rule last week with my 
friend from Massachusetts, the other side was admonished, not once, but 
twice for violating the House rules for coarsening our debate, for 
diminishing our civility, for violating our rules; not a social 
contract about how we ought to treat each other, but rules where we 
have committed about how we will treat each other.
  Today during 1 minute speeches, Mr. Speaker, not once, but twice the 
Chair admonished the other side to say: You are breaking our rules of 
civility. You are violating our standards of decorum. Our children are 
watching, and your behavior doesn't pass muster.
  And now my friend--and he is my friend and I admire his work--he is 
passionate in the causes for which he advocates, and I believe that it 
is his passion, not his contempt for this institution, that leads him 
to say those things that he says. I believe he loves this institution, 
but he is misguided, when the Chair admonishes him again today now, and 
he has no apologies for his colleagues, no apologies for this 
institution.
  We do have serious issues. I am not meaning serious like Russia and 
China, which those are serious, I don't mean serious like the hate that 
is fomenting in this country, which is serious. I mean all of it that 
is serious that nobody in this institution can solve unless we solve it 
together, and I want to find that pathway forward. This isn't it.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern).

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments, but 
I would ask him: Where was he when President Trump was spreading lies 
about President Obama's birth? Where was he when Representative   Joe 
Wilson shouted, on the House floor, ``You lie,'' to President Obama in 
2009?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman remember when   Joe Wilson 
apologized, which is more than what my friend from Massachusetts has 
done when the House has condemned him from the Chair today?
  I remember when my friend Mr. Wilson lost his temper. I do remember 
it. And I remember him apologizing for it because he didn't want to 
bring shame on this institution.
  I would welcome any time the Chair admonishes either side of the 
aisle for violating our rules, coarsening our debate, doing those 
things that we all agree we don't want our children to see on TV, I 
welcome folks to correct that behavior.
  Mr. Speaker, I fear my comments are falling on deaf ears, but I hope 
I am mistaken.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, before I go into my time, may I make a 
parliamentary inquiry?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, do we take it to be against the rules of the 
House to describe statements made by the President as racist as a 
violation of House rules?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not issue an advisory 
opinion.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, launching into my time, I yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON LEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend 
her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland for 
his scholarship and his passion, the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
my good friend from Georgia, and all those who have come to the floor 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say that this is a somber moment. It is not a 
moment that I cherish. My privilege in serving the greatest country in 
the world has allowed me to serve with three previous Presidents. Not 
one time from the three previous Presidents have I ever heard the words 
that were uttered this weekend.
  I believe in harmony. I just came out of a Helsinki Commission 
meeting, an organization that deals with peace around the world. We 
were talking about how we can impress upon the world to not use 
religion for hatred. Religion is love.
  One of the answers I gave was to show the examples here in the United 
States, where religions from all different perspectives come together 
in a time of disaster and need. It is something that touches our heart.
  When we vote for a President, we want that President to touch our 
hearts, to lift us up, and to make us better people.
  I cannot argue with the fact that 49 percent of the American people 
believe that this President is a racist. It hurts my heart because I 
come in a skin color where I have been at the sad end of racist tactics 
and words. I am a product of busing. But it does not diminish my love 
for this Nation.
  So it disturbs me for this wonderfully diverse group of new Members 
who have come to the United States Congress from all over the Nation, 
including the LGBTQ community, and among the 40 Representatives who 
came was the Representative from the Seventh Congressional District of 
Massachusetts, the State's first African American woman; the 
Representative of the 13th Congressional District of Michigan, the 
first Palestinian woman; the Representative from the 14th Congressional 
District of New York, the youngest woman; and the Representative from 
the Fifth Congressional District of Minnesota, the first Somali 
American elected to Congress.
  In the discharge of their duties, they went to the border--their 
passion, their youth, just as I had done--and saw the appalling 
conditions that children were held in. They came back and expressed 
themselves, protected by the First Amendment.
  They used no violence. They only wanted to wake up the Congress, as 
all of us who went and could not accept the pain did. In fact, wherever 
I go at home, people are asking: What are you doing for the children at 
the border?
  So, they didn't do anything extraordinary, in terms of what Members 
should do, having the responsibility of oversight.
  Then came, in the last 72 hours, these words: ``So interesting to see 
`progressive' Democrat Congresswomen, who originally came from 
countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the 
worst, most corrupt, and inept anywhere in the world, if they even have 
a functioning government at all, now loudly and viciously

[[Page H5841]]

telling the people of the United States, the greatest and most powerful 
nation on Earth, how our government is to be run.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. ``Why don't they go back and help fix the totally 
broken and crime-infested places from which they came?''
  I will be introducing a condemnation resolution that recounts the 
life and legacy of this President while 49 percent of the people 
believe that he is racist.
  I only ask that we come together today to do the right thing, to do 
what the 16th President said right after the Civil War: ``We are not 
enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have 
strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords 
of memory'' will swell when again touched, ``as surely they will be, by 
the better angels of our nature.''
  Today, if we condemn this language, it will say to America that we 
cannot accept this kind of behavior. That is what is bringing the 
country together, that we accept each other's diversity.
  Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary 
and Homeland Security, I rise in support of the rule governing debate 
on H. Res. 489, a resolution condemning President Trump's racist 
comments directed at Members of Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 2018, in an election widely regarded as a 
referendum on the performance and disapproval of the Administration of 
President Donald J. Trump, the American people voted to vest control of 
the U.S. House of Representatives in the Democratic Party to restore 
the system of checks and balances designed by the Framers in 1787 in 
Philadelphia.
  The Representatives elected to the 116th Congress comprise the most 
diverse class in American history with respect to its racial, ethnic, 
and religious composition, and also includes the largest contingent of 
female Representatives and the most members ever of the LGBTQ 
community.
  Among the cohort of the 40 Representatives first elected to the 
Congress in the November 2018 election are several whose membership is 
historic, including the Representative for the Seventh District of 
Massachusetts, the first African American woman elected from the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts; the Representative from the Thirteenth 
District of Michigan, the first Palestinian-American woman elected to 
Congress; the Representative from the Fourteenth District of New York, 
the youngest woman ever elected to Congress; and the Representative 
from the Fifth District of Minnesota, the first Somali-American elected 
to Congress.
  In the discharge of their official duties as Members of Congress, 
these talented and dedicated Members of Congress traveled to the 
southern border of the United States to observe the living conditions 
and treatment received by migrants and refugees seeking asylum in the 
United States who are currently being held in detention facilities 
operated under control or supervision of the U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP), some consisting of nothing more than tent villages 
cordoned off under highways.
  Upon their return to the Capitol, these Members of Congress reported 
their shock and horror regarding the appalling and inhumane conditions 
to which detainees were being subjected by CPB at a public hearing of a 
House Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  On July 14, 2019, the President of the United States reacted to the 
criticism of his Administration's treatment of detainees by these 
Members of Congress in a series of unhinged tweets that questioned 
their loyalty to the United States and implied that due to the 
circumstances of their birth they had no right to exercise the 
responsibilities and privileges of duly elected Members of Congress.
  Specifically, the President tweeted that it was:

       So interesting to see ``Progressive'' Democrat 
     Congresswomen, who originally came from countries whose 
     governments are a complete and total catastrophe, the worst, 
     most corrupt and inept anywhere in the world (if they even 
     have a functioning government at all), now loudly . . . and 
     viciously telling the people of the United States, the 
     greatest and most powerful Nation on earth, how our 
     government is to be run. Why don't they go back and help fix 
     the totally broken and crime infested places from which they 
     came.

  The President's statements are false in that three of Members of 
Congress he impugned are in fact natural born citizens and the fourth 
is a naturalized citizen.
  Although the recent statements of the President are inaccurate and 
offensive, they are consistent with prior statements he has made to 
stoke to division, discord, and disharmony among the American people.
  Let us not forget that the current President of the United States 
burnished his political reputation by claiming falsely for more than 5 
years that his predecessor was born in Kenya and not in the United 
States and thus was an illegitimate President.
  The current President of the United States launched his 2016 campaign 
for the Presidency by saying of persons from Mexico seeking to 
immigrate to the United States: ``They're bringing drugs. They're 
bringing crime. They're rapists.''
  The current President of the United States claimed that a Hispanic 
federal jurist could not preside over a court proceeding to which then 
presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and the Trump Organization were 
defendants accused of civil fraud because ``He's a Mexican!''
  In January 2018 the current President of the United States is 
reported to have inquired of his advisors: ``Why are we having all 
these people from (expletive deleted) countries come here?'', referring 
to persons from countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central and 
South America.
  And most contemptible of all, on August 15, 2017 the current 
President of the United States said he regarded as some ``very fine 
people,'' the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and Ku Klux Klansmen who 
descended on the peaceful community of Charlottesville, Virginia to 
advocate racism and who were met by peaceful counterprotestors in a 
clash that the white supremacists turned violent and resulted in the 
death of Heather Heyer and left injured many other innocent persons who 
were gathered to affirm the principles of the Declaration of 
Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and to honor the sacrifice of 
unsung American heroes who devoted their lives to the ongoing quest to 
continue perfecting our union.
  Mr. Speaker, the recent and past statements and actions of the 
current President of the United States demean the office he holds and 
falls short of the standard set by the 16th President, whose 
administration was devoted to unity, healing, and ending racial 
division.
  In his famous March 4, 1861, Inaugural Address, President Abraham 
Lincoln foretold the reasons why the efforts of the current President 
of the United States to rend our union are destined to fail:

       We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. 
     Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds 
     of affection. The mystic chords of memory will swell when 
     again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels 
     of our nature.

  Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I think it appropriate to share my 
perspective on immigration and significant and positive impact it has 
in the development of this, the greatest nation in human history.
  Like the Framers did in the summer of 1776, it is fitting that we 
gather in the nation's capital on a sweltering July day to reflect upon 
America's long and continuing struggle for justice, equality, and 
opportunity.
  After all, all that any of us wants is an honored place in the 
American family.
  I am often reminded that as I speak there is a family somewhere about 
to begin a dangerous but hopeful quest.
  Somewhere south of the border, maybe across the Rio Grande from El 
Paso, Laredo, Corpus Christi, or Brownsville or maybe just south of 
Tucson or San Diego or Douglass, Arizona.
  Somewhere there is a family in the Old Country anxiously about to 
embark on their own journey to the New World of America.
  They come for the same reason so many millions came before them, in 
this century and last, from this continent and from every other.
  They come for the same reason families have always come to America: 
to be free of fear and hunger, to better their condition, to begin 
their world anew, to give their children a chance for a better life.
  Like previous waves of immigrants, they too will wage all and risk 
all to reach the sidewalks of Houston or Los Angeles or Phoenix or 
Chicago or Atlanta or Denver or Detroit.
  They will risk death in the desert; they will brave the elements, 
they will risk capture and crime, they will endure separation from 
loved ones.
  And if they make it to the Promised Land of America, no job will be 
beneath them.
  They will cook our food, clean our houses, cut our grass, and care 
for our kids.
  They will be cheated by some and exploited by others.
  They work in sunlight but live in twilight, between the shadows; not 
fully welcome as new Americans but wanted as low-wage workers.
  Somewhere near the borders tonight, a family will cross over into the 
New World, willed by the enduring power of the American Dream.
  I urge all Members to join me in supporting H. Res. 489.
  All American should take pride in and celebrate the ethnic, racial, 
and religious diversity

[[Page H5842]]

that has made the United States the leader of the community of nations 
and the beacon of hope and inspiration to oppressed persons everywhere.
  And in addition to the love and pride Americans justifiably have for 
their country, all persons in the United States should cherish and 
exercise the rights, privileges, and responsibilities guaranteed by the 
Constitution of the United States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  While my friend from Texas is sometimes known for running over the 
gavel at the end of her comments, it is only because it comes from the 
heart. When I think about Members in this institution who are 
unhampered by a lack of passion, I think of my friend from Texas. But 
when I look for an honest broker, who will be true to her word and 
partner when partnership is required, my friend from Texas embodies 
that, as well. I appreciate both her words and her restraint here this 
morning.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that my faith, my 
commitment to many people of different colors who respect the 
distinction or difference but also the greatness of this country, my 
love of those who serve, causes me to say, as many of my colleagues 
here are ready to say: Let us sit down at the table of peace and 
reconciliation.
  I hope we will have some who will acknowledge that these actions--I 
will try to be generic--and words were certainly not becoming of the 
United States of America. The American people must see us work together 
on that.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank my friend from 
Texas. I think that is a welcome invitation.
  Mr. Speaker, thinking about the policies before us today, if we 
defeat the previous question, I will amend the rule to bring H.R. 3965 
to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately preceding the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, you have heard a lot about the 
controversial citizenship question in the Census. Whether or not it 
should be controversial is a different issue altogether.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Comer).
  Mr. COMER. Today, I introduce the Citizens Count Census Act of 2019, 
a bill that would require a citizenship question on the United States 
Census.
  If we defeat the previous question, as the gentleman from Georgia 
said, then we will be able to consider my bill.
  It has always been common sense to include a citizenship question on 
our Nation's Census. The purpose of the Census Bureau and all Census 
surveys is to include data used for apportionment and to better inform 
the public about the population, business, and economics of the United 
States of America.
  The collection of citizenship information during a population census 
is a common practice among countries. This is not new, and it should 
not be controversial. A citizenship question is asked on the census in 
Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, and the United 
Kingdom, to name a few. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the United Nations 
recommends that countries gather citizenship information about their 
populations.
  Knowing how many legal and nonlegal individuals are within our 
borders is a perfectly appropriate question to ask on our Census, and I 
hope we can pass this measure to see that happen.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my congressional colleagues to 
vote for this commonsense legislation to ensure we know exactly how 
many citizens reside in this country.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time is remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Jordan), my good friend and the ranking member on the House 
Oversight and Reform Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Justice 
have given 31,000 pages of documents to the Congress. They provided 
witnesses. In fact, we have another one coming in for a transcribed 
interview later this month.
  Secretary Ross came and testified for over 6 hours. He came in front 
of the committee, raised his hand, swore to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help him God. He testified for 6 
hours.
  Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr are doing their jobs. What 
is their reward? The Democrats are going to hold them in contempt, hold 
them in contempt because they are so focused on this citizenship 
question.

  As Mr. Comer, who has introduced legislation, said just a few minutes 
ago, the citizenship question is nothing but common sense.
  Listen to what Justice Alito said 2 weeks ago, ``No one disputes that 
it is important to know how many inhabitants of this country are 
citizens.'' And the easiest way to figure it out is to ask a question 
on the Census.
  That is about as common sense as it gets. It is so common sense, we 
have only been doing it for 200 years, in one form or another. The long 
form, the short form, the 10-year form, the annual form, we have been 
doing it for 200 years.
  But somehow, this year: No, you can't do it this year. You can't do 
it this year.
  As Mr. Comer said, the United Nations says it is a best practice. 
Lots of countries do it. But somehow, the Democrats don't want us to do 
it this year.
  I support the legislation that the Representative from Kentucky has 
introduced. I support the good work of our Rules Committee member from 
Georgia. Certainly, I don't support the rule and the resolution that is 
going to hold Secretary Ross and Attorney General Barr in contempt. 
Again, doing their job and what do they get? A contempt resolution from 
the Democrats.
  Ask yourself a question or, better yet, go ask your constituents a 
question. I would encourage Democrats to go to their districts and ask 
anyone in their districts: Do you think we should ask a question on the 
Census about whether you are a citizen of this country? My guess is 
just about every single person you talk to in your district will say: 
Heck, yeah, aren't we doing that already? Of course, my colleagues 
would have to respond: Yes, we are, and we have been doing it for 200 
years.
  This is common sense. This resolution is not appropriate.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule, defeat of the previous 
question, and if it gets to the floor, defeat of the resolution.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on the question of holding the Attorney General and 
Secretary of Commerce in contempt for refusing to turn over repeatedly 
requested documents and witnesses, our good friends now confuse two 
legal questions with a policy question.
  The legal question is: Did they violate the law in imposing the 
citizenship question on the Census? Yes, they did violate the law. They 
violated the Census Act. They violated the Administrative Procedure 
Act. They violated pretty much every administrative principle we have 
in this country. Chief Justice John Roberts said it, someone who is 
beloved to my colleagues over there.

                              {time}  1330

  But the other legal question is: Can the executive branch decide 
willy-nilly that they are going to stop cooperating with congressional 
subpoenas and requests for documents? No, they can't, and I hope that 
that would be a unifying dictum for everybody in this body that we 
stand up for the right of the people's Representatives to obtain the 
information that we need.

[[Page H5843]]

  Now, my dear friend from Georgia made the point that he wished that 
we could proceed in a more bipartisan fashion. I have actually been 
very cheered by the number of our GOP colleagues who have denounced the 
President's remarks over the weekend and this week.
  For example, we get a statement from--I am not making it up. I know 
that they are out there. Here we go. Mr. Fred Upton: ``Frankly, I'm 
appalled by the President's tweets. There's no excuse. The President's 
tweets were flat-out wrong and uncalled for.''
  Pete Olson: ``The tweet President Trump posted over the weekend about 
fellow Members of Congress are not reflective of the values'' of my 
district. ``I urge our President immediately disavow his comments.''
  Senator Murkowski: ``There's no excuse for the President's spiteful 
comments--they were absolutely unacceptable and this needs to stop.''
  John Kasich: ``What @realDonaldTrump said about Democrat women in 
Congress is deplorable and beneath the dignity of the office. We all, 
including Republicans, need to speak out against these kind of comments 
that do nothing more than divide us and create deep animosity. . . .''
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 4\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Maryland has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, again, I regret that there is so much that is packed 
into this rule. It is one of the reasons I urged defeat of the rule 
today.
  Everyone in this Chamber wants to vote to have this debate on the 
national intelligence reauthorization bill. Everybody wants to be a 
part of that. Again, 31 amendments made in order will improve that 
bill, a bipartisan product coming out of a very contentious committee.
  The rest of these issues are more complex. And I don't mean complex 
because we shouldn't discuss them. We should. I mean complex because we 
haven't discussed them.
  I think I am prepared to yield time if the gentleman needs it. I know 
my friend from Maryland is not the author of the resolution condemning 
the President, but the gentleman mentioned my friend from Texas (Mr. 
Olson) and Mr. Olson's comments on the Republican side of the aisle.
  I ask the gentleman, was Mr. Olson consulted to try to create the 
language that we see before us today?
  I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. Does the gentleman mind 
repeating?
  Mr. WOODALL. Was the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Olson) consulted as we 
tried to draft this language that is before us today?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am sure the gentleman was not, 
unfortunately, just because of the press of time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, was Mr. Upton, who the gentleman 
referenced as having sympathetic words to say, was the gentleman 
consulted about the drafting of this resolution?
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RASKIN. The vast majority of Members on both sides were not 
consulted in the manner----
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, so Mr. Kasich was also not consulted 
and Ms. Murkowski also not consulted.
  Mr. Speaker, if we are talking about a serious issue and we are going 
to craft a serious response and we want to speak with one voice from 
this institution, might it be a good idea for there to be at least one 
conversation between Democrats and Republicans about how to proceed?
  Might it be a good idea to have more than one conversation?
  Might it be a good idea to put partisanship aside and actually do 
those things that I know my friend from Maryland wants to do and I want 
to do arm in arm with him?
  We keep missing opportunities in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
opportunities to make this institution stronger, opportunities to make 
this Nation stronger. We are missing them, and we are creating scars 
along the way.
  What could be an operation in building trust has become an operation 
in building distrust.
  What could be an operation designed to heal, I suspect, is going to 
be an operation that brings more needless pain.
  We have a good bill in the intelligence reauthorization, Mr. Speaker. 
We have a good series of bills in arms export control. We could be down 
here talking about those because of the bipartisan work that has gone 
into it already.
  Not one conversation has been had between tweets over a weekend and a 
resolution condemning those on the floor of the House, not one effort 
made to speak with one voice in the United States House. That tells you 
just about everything someone needs to know about why this resolution 
is on the floor with these two contempt resolutions in this place at 
this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the rule. I urge defeat of the previous 
question.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question.
  I will just take a second to say to my friend that there have been 
hundreds of conversations that have been taking place here, but, of 
course, the gentleman knows that the committee system works in such a 
way that legislation is put in and not everybody is consulted. The 
legislation he has praised so effusively today in the Intelligence 
Committee, none of us outside of the Intelligence Committee were 
consulted about it.
  So I think we have got a consensus here rejecting and repudiating the 
tenor and the meaning of the President's remarks, and I hope that this 
process of dialogue which has been so wonderful today with the 
gentleman from Georgia leads to an outcome where all of us will vote 
for the previous question
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 491

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, 
     the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House 
     on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     3765) to amend title 13, United States Code, to require that 
     any questionnaire used for a decennial census of population 
     contains a question regarding citizenship, and for other 
     purposes. 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 and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Oversight and Reform. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 
     House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3765.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
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. WOODALL. 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 the adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 189, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 478]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer

[[Page H5844]]


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

                               NAYS--189

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

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Abraham
     Biggs
     Burgess
     Cardenas
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Higgins (LA)
     Higgins (NY)
     Latta
     Lipinski
     Marchant
     Williams

                              {time}  1402

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
   Stated against:
  Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, due to being the ranking Republican on the 
Energy and Commerce Committee's Communication and Technology 
subcommittee, we were detained in a hearing during the vote. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 478.
  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.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, 
nays 190, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 479]

                               YEAS--233

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

                               NAYS--190

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duffy
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunter
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)

[[Page H5845]]


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

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Abraham
     Biggs
     Burgess
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Higgins (LA)
     Lipinski
     Marchant
     Williams

                              {time}  1411

  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.

                          ____________________