[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 63 (Friday, April 12, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H2321-H2328]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 7888, REFORMING INTELLIGENCE AND
SECURING AMERICA ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 529,
EXTENDING LIMITS OF U.S. CUSTOMS WATERS ACT; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1112, DENOUNCING THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S
IMMIGRATION POLICIES; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 1117,
OPPOSING EFFORTS TO PLACE ONE-SIDED PRESSURE ON ISRAEL WITH RESPECT TO
GAZA
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call
[[Page H2322]]
up House Resolution 1137 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1137
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 7888) to reform the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978. The first reading of the bill shall
be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration
of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to
the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees
and the chair and ranking minority member of the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence or their respective
designees. After general debate the bill shall be considered
for amendment under the five-minute rule. An amendment in the
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules
Committee Print 118-27 shall be considered as adopted. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. No
further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution. Each such further amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall
not be subject to a demand for division of the question in
the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of
order against such further amendments are waived. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill, as amended, to the
House with such further amendments as may have been adopted.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 529) to extend
the customs waters of the United States from 12 nautical
miles to 24 nautical miles from the baselines of the United
States, consistent with Presidential Proclamation 7219. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Ways and Means now printed in the bill shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1112) denouncing the
Biden administration's immigration policies. The resolution
shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to
adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of
the question except one hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 1117) opposing efforts
to place one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza.
The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and
preamble to adoption without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question except one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their
respective designees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse),
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose
of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Kentucky?
There was no objection.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, the committee granted by a recorded vote of
8-4 a rule providing for consideration of the following measures: H.R.
7888, the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act; H.R. 529,
the Extending Limits of U.S. Customs Waters Act; H. Res. 1112,
Denouncing the Biden Administration's Immigration Policies; and H. Res.
1117, Opposing Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel With
Respect to Gaza.
The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 7888, the Reforming
Intelligence and Securing America Act, under a structured rule.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the
bill. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided among
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees and the chair
and ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence or their respective designees.
Let's talk about the rule for H.R. 7888, the highly anticipated and
heavily debated Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act.
There will be six amendments allowed for this bill, and they break
down into three different categories.
There are three amendments from the Judiciary Committee that
basically limit or constrain the government in its use of the FISA 702
program.
The first one is Mr. Biggs' amendment. It is probably the most
discussed amendment, and it would prohibit warrantless searches of U.S.
person communications in the FISA 702 database.
The second is Mr. Roy's amendment, which requires the FBI to report
to Congress on a quarterly basis the number of U.S. person queries
conducted.
Mr. Cline's amendment prohibits the resumption of ``abouts''
collection under section 702.
The intel amendments basically expand the FISA program.
Mr. Crenshaw's amendment expands the definition of foreign
intelligence to allow targeting and collection of information about
illicit drugs. Instead of just being about terrorism, it will expand
the program to include illicit drugs.
Mr. Waltz' amendment expands the use of section 702 by allowing it to
be used to vet foreigners traveling into the United States.
Mr. Turner's amendment expands the definition of ``electronic
communication service provider'' under section 702.
We will have a full and robust debate on those amendments after this
rule passes.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank my friend, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie), for the
customary 30 minutes.
(Mr. NEGUSE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, today's rule, as Mr. Massie articulated,
again provides for the consideration of four bills.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect that you will be familiar with these four
bills because these four bills were under a rule 2 days ago.
What happened to that rule? It failed, and that is part and parcel of
the chaos and dysfunction that House Republicans have engulfed this
august Chamber in for the better part of the last 15 months.
As of 2 days ago, seven rules--seven--have failed on the House floor,
Mr. Speaker. You might be wondering and those watching from home might
be wondering how many rules failed when Democrats had the majority
under Speaker Nancy D'Alesandro Pelosi.
{time} 0815
In fact, from 1999 to 2023, only two rules failed on the House floor,
neither of which happened when House Democrats were in control of this
Chamber.
The last bill, Mr. Speaker, to pass the Rules Committee and make its
way to the President's desk without suspension of our rules was almost
1 year ago. That is unprecedented.
It is not hyperbole to say that Republicans have literally presided
over the most ineffective session of Congress in history.
[[Page H2323]]
Despite, by the way, Mr. Speaker, the pressing challenges that our
Nation faces, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle repeatedly
show that Republicans have no capacity or desire to govern, instead
prioritizing unwarranted censures, sham impeachments, and nonbinding
resolution after nonbinding resolution.
Instead of debating core issues, like lowering costs, growing the
middle class, building safer communities, addressing our critical
national security needs, we have spent yet another week here in
Washington wasting time.
This is the third time that we are considering a variation of one of
these nonbinding resolutions today. Stunts over solutions, Mr. Speaker,
has become unfortunately, the majority's motto. This is not how
governing is supposed to work.
I have served in this body for some time now. I know there are
serious Members on the other side of the aisle. I wish Republicans
would pull back their caucus and this institution from the brink and
work with us in a bipartisan way to address core needs of the American
people. Unfortunately, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
have yet to show any desire to do so, but hope springs eternal.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), in his appointment as the new chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Burgess), chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie), my friend, for yielding time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in support of the rule and the
underlying legislation. It is a new day in the House of
Representatives, and I intend to make certain that this process works
and it works for all of us; that all Members get to be heard and at the
end of the day, as Mr. Massie points out; and that after a fulsome
debate, we are able to move forward for the American people.
I will specifically talk today on H.R. 7888, the Reforming
Intelligence and Securing America Act, and H. Res. 1117, Opposing
Efforts to Place One-Sided Pressure on Israel with Respect to Gaza.
Republicans remain concerned about the abuses that occurred under 702
of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in previous
administrations. The rule before us provides consideration for reforms
to FISA, including greater transparency and greater oversight for the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, in total, 56 reforms were made in response to concerns
raised by our constituents. These reforms include prohibiting searches
by the FBI unrelated to national security and prohibits political
appointees from being involved in the FBI's query process.
The Rules Committee met last night to report this rule out of
committee. It was a bit of a process. There are two significant changes
to highlight from earlier in the week. The Rules Committee print
changes the reauthorization from 5 years to 2 years, which is
important.
The reforms that are now incorporated in the new FISA reauthorization
will be reevaluated by the next Congress as to whether or not they are
actually working. Therefore, rather than a 5-year reauthorization, we
can look again in 2 years to make certain, for our constituents, for
the American people, that these reforms are actually working.
I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my friend, for bringing
that forward.
There are also changes in the reauthorization that strike section
19(c) from the text altogether. The latter action was taken amid some
confusion about whether 19(c) would have unintentionally permanently
reauthorized section 702. To help clear up any ambiguity, that section
has now been removed. Ultimately, this legislation will ensure that the
appropriate guardrails are in place to safeguard Americans'
constitutional rights and help keep Americans safe.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I express my support for H. Res. 1117,
offered by Ms. Salazar from Florida.
Israel has a right to defend itself, especially after the notorious
attack by Hamas on October 7.
On April 4, after a call between President Biden and Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu, the White House released a press release stating
that an immediate cease-fire is necessary.
I would remind the White House that a cease-fire was in existence
prior to the attack by Hamas. It is not right for the United States to
pressure an ally to end a conflict that that ally did not begin. Mr.
Speaker, Israel has a right to exist and a right to self-defense. The
United States does not get to decide that for Israel.
I would underscore the pathways for ensuring humanitarian aid, being
able to enter Gaza and actually reach the Palestinian people and not be
hijacked by their Hamas overlords. On April 5, Israel opened up three
new corridors for humanitarian aid. I appreciate the efforts to take
responsibility for something Hamas has proven unwilling to do and hope
that the conflict can soon come to an end.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
additional time.
However, one-sided pressure by the White House is not the way to
ensure that end.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule from our committee, and I
urge passage of the underlying legislation.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, while I congratulate the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Burgess), the chairman of the distinguished Rules Committee,
I must say I am confounded by the audacity of any House Republican to
come to the floor and lecture any of us about national security when my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have held hostage a bill that
passed the United States Senate on a bipartisan basis to address the
national security needs of this country. For months, the majority has
held that bill hostage and refuse to put the bill on the floor.
Republicans also have the audacity to come to the floor and lecture
us or the White House. The White House needs no reminder about the
necessity of supporting our allies. My colleagues have implored this
institution to do its job in supporting our allies abroad. It is the
Speaker and the House Republican caucus that refuse to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Lofgren).
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, for starters, we need to examine why we are
being hustled to do this today.
When we extended FISA earlier, there was a provision in the bill that
allowed the FISA court to extend, and they have taken advantage of
that. They have extended FISA until June of 2025, and so I think we are
being hustled here today for a reason, which is to prevent the
Constitution from being applied to FISA.
Mr. Speaker, under the amendment being offered, a warrant would be
required for a search of the data of U.S. persons. This is important.
It would exclude imminent threats; exigent circumstances, as any
warrant does; or exclude cases where a person consents to a search or
where there is cybersecurity. It excludes metadata.
It is important to note that the FBI executed more than 200,000
warrantless searches of U.S. persons in 2022, including 141 Black Lives
Matter protesters, 2 Members of Congress, journalists, commentators,
political parties, donors to political campaigns. It is really
outrageous. The base bill is insufficient to protect us. There are two
major points that it makes. Neither makes any sense or any difference.
The big deal is a prohibition on U.S. person queries that are
conducted solely for the evidence of a crime. That sounds good until it
is realized that the FBI almost never does that. In fact, in 2022,
there were only two cases in which that provision would have been a
prohibition.
The second issue is codifying the regulations about searches by the
FBI today. Obviously, that doesn't do any good because the FBI, under
the current regulations, continues to violate our rights and to do
warrantless searches.
The only way to end the abuse is to approve the warrant requirement
that is being offered in the amendment. The
[[Page H2324]]
American public agrees with us, with 76 percent of Americans supporting
a requirement that the government get a warrant before searching in
these cases.
Mr. Speaker, to hear the administration talk about it, getting a
warrant here would be like the end of the world. In literally any other
context, law enforcement or intelligence agencies who want to read
Americans' communications have to get a warrant.
Actually, for the last 46 years, the government has had to get a FISA
title I order to read Americans' communications in foreign intelligence
investigations. These are investigations in which Americans are
suspected of terrorism, espionage, cybercrimes, et cetera.
Hence, somehow a warrant for title I is consistent with national
security, but it will plunge us into a dystopian nightmare if we apply
this basic constitutional requirement where Americans aren't even
suspected of wrongdoing.
This is not a wild idea. We have had, under the Obama administration,
intelligence experts convene to examine this issue. The experts
included former CIA directors, national security people from both
parties. The experts unanimously agreed that we should have a warrant
requirement in these circumstances.
Mr. Speaker, someone said that no court has ever required a warrant
in these circumstances. That is incorrect. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals did point out that lawful collection alone isn't enough to
justify a search.
In fact, when it comes to examining the need for this, the Privacy
and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, which Congress created to take a
look at the data that is classified, concluded that there was little
justification on the relative value of the close to 5 million searches
conducted by the FBI from 2019 to 2022.
The chair of the Board said this: ``In the strongest examples offered
by the FBI, such as the `victim' or `defensive' query examples . . .
the government would likely be able to meet the probable cause standard
or one of the exceptions contemplated,'' namely, consent or exigent
circumstances.
With a 15-year track record to draw on, the government has failed
time and again to show it had derived unique and significant national
security value from a U.S. person query that could not have been
conducted--
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I would note that the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board did recommend by a majority vote that a
warrant requirement be imposed.
Mr. Speaker, to ignore this advice is to ignore our Constitution. We
take an oath every Congress to support and defend the Constitution of
the United States. This is a significant opportunity for us to uphold
that oath.
The Fourth Amendment matters. If we do not take this opportunity to
protect the privacy of Americans when it comes to this matter, we will,
in my belief and my view, have failed in our obligation and our duty to
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
{time} 0830
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany), my colleague on the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. TIFFANY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of the warrant
amendment. I will speak on the warrant amendment here for a couple
minutes that were about to vote on today.
I hold in my hands here a document that states all the reasons why
the warrant amendment should not be adopted by this Congress, and I
will cite one item, specifically. Number 5 cites the current FBI
director. He goes on to say that Russia has launched the most violent
ground war in Europe since the 1940s as a justification for not passing
this amendment.
Will Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that?
China has rapidly proliferated its nuclear weapons capabilities. Will
Americans giving up their civil rights prevent that proliferation? Will
it prevent China in--clearly, they are a threat to the free world with
their seeking global hegemony, but do Americans have to give up their
civil rights?
It goes on to talk about Afghanistan falling to the Taliban, ISIS
revived, Houthi terrorists putting our troops under attack, Israeli
men, women, and children slaughtered by Hamas. Will Americans giving up
their civil rights prevent those things from happening?
It won't.
These words ring very hollow by the current FBI director when he is
targeting Americans, when we have seen the leadership of our FBI target
Americans. We have a powerful word in the English language, and I think
it is one of the most beautiful words out there. It is liberty.
And encapsulated in that liberty is freedom, and the Founders used
liberty as often as they used the term ``freedom.'' Liberty
encapsulates freedom, but it also says you have to be accountable for
that freedom. There are those in our government who have chosen not to
be accountable. This great system we have allows us to provide that
accountability, and that is what we are here to do today is to provide
that accountability for those intelligence agencies.
The choice is simple before us today. We can protect the powerful
with their Praetorian guard here in Washington, D.C., or do we protect
the American people with the most powerful document created in the
history of humankind, the Constitution?
Today, Mr. Speaker, I will be choosing the people and the
Constitution.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague from
Wisconsin. We served together on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands, and
I certainly agree with him about the preservation of liberty and the
importance of liberty in our founding documents as the core fabric,
core threat in our country, but I must also just say that I don't think
the American people share House Republicans' priorities. Let me explain
why.
On Monday, the Rules Committee will be meeting to consider a number
of bills. House Republicans put out a notice yesterday what those bills
would include. Let me just give you a sampling, Mr. Speaker: the
Refrigerator Freedom Act, the Hands Off Our Home Appliances Act, the
Clothes Dryers Reliability Act, and--this may be my favorite--the
Liberty in Laundry Act.
While I appreciate the gentleman from Wisconsin's very passionate
defense of liberty, I am not so sure the American people had that in
mind. I don't think they are thinking of the Liberty in Laundry Act. I
think they expect this House Republican majority to actually address
the consequential challenges that face our country, not waste time on
petty games and nonsense bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Ms. Hageman), my friend and colleague on the Judiciary
Committee.
Ms. HAGEMAN. Mr. Speaker, the security state's abuse of their foreign
intelligence authorities to unlawfully surveil American citizens and
search their records has been exposed for all to see.
In 2021, the FBI conducted over 3 million FISA searches of Americans.
In 2022, the FBI was still conducting hundreds of such warrantless
queries per day.
In the 2020 and early 2021 time period, the FBI conducted over
278,000 searches of the 702 FISA database that violated the Justice
Department's own rules and often lacked national security connections.
The FBI is querying Americans of all political and religious
affiliations. The FBI is even using section 702 to target elected and
appointed government officials.
The FBI's abuses are well-known--using the 702 database to search for
information on those individuals that it perceives to be political
enemies of liberal orthodoxy, seeking to infiltrate the Catholic
church, spying on parents at school board meetings, and working with
Big Tech to censor Americans it disagrees with.
This is Stasi level abuse, and it must be stopped.
So my question for this body is, if catching the government violating
the Constitution and our civil liberties is not the time for
significant reform, then when is?
The proposed changes to FISA are a good first step, but they don't go
far
[[Page H2325]]
enough. There are three additional amendments to assure accountability.
One includes a warrant requirement to query the 702 database for
Americans. There is no national security exception to the Fourth
Amendment and we must ensure that these agencies adhere to the bill of
rights.
This warrant amendment would not prevent the government from using
all of the available national security tools. It simply requires the
government to get a warrant.
Now there are some who would argue that requiring the intelligence
agencies to obtain a warrant before spying on American citizens would
be too burdensome and unreasonably delay their efforts to keep the
homeland safe. My first response is to note that if these agencies
sincerely cared about national security, they would be doing everything
in their power to convince President Biden and Mayorkas to close the
border, but that has not been their priority and their silence is
deafening.
My second response is to note that this reauthorization is only for 2
years. We can pass the warrant amendment and reassess the situation in
2 short years, making the necessary tweaks at that time.
The second amendment offered by Mr. Cline would end, once and for
all, ``abouts'' collection, and the third amendment by Mr. Roy would
enhance reporting requirements and bring more transparency to the FISA
court process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these three amendments.
If these three amendments do not pass, section 702 should not be
reauthorized. I also urge my colleagues to reject the three additional
amendments that we will be taking up, amendments that are actually
designed to expand FISA. It is simply unacceptable to reward an
agency's abuse of power.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and the three
amendments.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate the passion of the
speakers on the other side of the aisle, including the gentlewoman from
Wyoming, but facts matter, Mr. Speaker. And this body must dispense
with the notion that any of this, the ills that they have spent all
this time describing, are attributable to the Biden administration.
Mr. Speaker, I will read you a quote. This is from January 2018: ``I
would have preferred a permanent reauthorization''--let me repeat
that--``permanent reauthorization of title VII to protect the safety
and security of the Nation. By signing this act today, however, I am
ensuring that this lawful and essential intelligence program will
continue to protect Americans for at least the next 6 years. We cannot
let our guard down in the face of foreign threats to our safety, our
freedom, and our way of life,'' President Donald J. Trump.
I understand we are going to have robust debates about the mechanics
and the nuances with respect to this particular bill but spare us
lectures about the need for a shorter runway and a shorter
reauthorization, when the former President, whom apparently the House
Republican caucus continues to take orders from, made clear and
abundant his desire for a permanent reauthorization of this program
with none of these reforms, by the way. None of them.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Ms. Greene), my good friend.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, the question today is: Do you
trust the government?
We often hear the claim that it is for your safety, and any time the
government tells us it is for your safety, the American people really
question what that means.
The same intelligence community that spied on President Trump's
campaign has been deeply invested in reauthorizing FISA. The same
intelligence community that wrote the letter lying, saying that the
Hunter Biden's laptop is not real, deeply wants FISA reauthorized.
These are also the same people in the intelligence community that
abused FISA and spied on hundreds of thousands of Americans, and I
would argue they will continue to do it.
These are also the same people who oppose the FBI having to get a
warrant before they can search Americans' data. Yet, we have a clause
in this bill today that protects Members of Congress and requires
Congress to be notified before they can search Members of Congress'
data.
It is always the rules for thee, but not for me. The problem is that
this process to reauthorize FISA has received more effort than Congress
has actually given securing the border. If the government really cared
about protecting Americans, then they would shut the border down and
mass deport terrorists out of our country and criminal illegal aliens,
but they are not doing that. No. They are telling us we have got to
reauthorize FISA so the government can continue to spy on Americans.
There has been a lot of games played here in the swamp this past week
when it comes to authorizing this bill. We were even told on Wednesday
that FISA was completely stopped; yet, here we are voting on virtually
the same rule and virtually the same text. The only change has been
from a 5-year sunset to a 2-year sunset.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentlewoman from Georgia.
Ms. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would argue that changing that
timeframe does nothing.
If Congress wants to change FISA to protect Americans or get rid of
it altogether, we can do that. We make the laws. The question today is:
Do you trust the Department of Justice to hold the FBI accountable?
I don't.
The warrants aren't added to the bill text unless we pass the
amendment after this vote and change the bill text. A vote to change
the bill text and add warrants will not get me to pass the final bill,
to pass FISA, because I don't trust the government and neither should
you.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I just want to read from an article from a
few days ago. This is from FOX 5 in Atlanta. The headline: ``Marjorie
Taylor Greene standing by eclipse, NE Earthquake comments.''
``Georgia Congressman Marjorie Taylor Greene is standing by comments
she made about last week's earthquake in the Northeast and Monday's
eclipse.''
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado will suspend.
Mr. NEGUSE. Yes, sir.
Mr. MASSIE. Did the gentleman address his remarks to somebody on this
side of the aisle?
Mr. NEGUSE. No, I am addressing the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I am
reading an article, a newspaper article. Has that become objectionable
now in this body?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. NEGUSE. I thank the Speaker. I will dispense with it quickly. I
will just simply say, again, this is quoting from the article here
that: ``The Republican Representative then posted on X, the social
media site formerly known as Twitter, that `God is sending America
strong signs to tell us to repent.' Greene also pointed to Monday's
eclipse, saying there are `many more things to come.'''
To the extent that my friend from Kentucky was looking for me to make
a connection here to the debate that we are having, I suspect it is
self-evident, but I am not so sure that the American people should
necessarily be taking much stock into the arguments that are being made
by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including from the
speaker that we just heard from.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0845
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Moore), my friend.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, 3,394,053. That is the estimated
number of U.S. person queries conducted by the FBI during my first year
here in Congress. The number of improper searches by the FBI is in the
hundreds of thousands, according to a DOJ audit.
We may be voting to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act, but the people of Alabama clearly see
[[Page H2326]]
it is being used to spy on Americans like themselves and President
Trump.
That is why I voted in the Judiciary markup and will continue to
support the Biggs amendment that requires a warrant or a court order
before the query of a U.S. person under section 702.
We, as Members of Congress, owe it to our constituents to protect
their civil liberties. We cannot allow the intelligence community,
which recently spent its resources weaponizing against pro-life
grandmothers, concerned parents at school boards, Catholics, and
Biden's political opponents, to freely spy on American citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to adopt the rule, and I urge the
adoption of the warrant amendment.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Davidson), my friend and colleague.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, freedom surrendered is rarely reclaimed.
Today, we have an opportunity to make progress. After 9/11, the PATRIOT
Act passed. One Senator voted ``no.'' Sixty-three Members of the House
of Representatives voted ``no.'' Both parties failed with that vote.
FISA has been reauthorized, and it never gets a full, clean vote. It
is little tranches. In 2020, we ended the business records surveillance
program, section 215. The government didn't stop collecting business
records; they just stopped doing it in conformance with section 215 of
FISA.
Section 702 is an important program. The Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act is supposed to stop foreign threats to our country,
but there is a reason there is not a domestic surveillance act. It is
because there is a Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and that
amendment does not say that if you have nothing to hide, you have
nothing to fear. It says, as an American citizen, you have a right to
privacy, that your records cannot be searched without probable cause
and a warrant or subpoena. Due process should not be infringed.
The Fourth Amendment is probably the most disregarded protection
given to us by the Bill of Rights. Our right to privacy is supposed to
be defended, and we have this chance today but not a complete chance.
We have a bill that people will claim has 56 reforms, and it does. Of
those, 45 are from the Intelligence Committee. Now, some of these were
comparable to the Judiciary bill, but they are weaker and more watered
down than the Judiciary bill. Three of them actually protect Members of
Congress, so only two are clean from the Judiciary Committee's bill.
One of the amendments we cannot cover today, one of the reasons that
the rule failed, was to say that even if the warrant passes, the
government can't buy your data to circumvent the need to get a warrant
in the first place. That is what they are doing. They are buying data.
They are structuring markets to collect the data, and they are
circumventing the Fourth Amendment. We need to turn that off.
There is a lot of ground to make up on the right to privacy, but I
hope we take this chance today. I remind my colleagues that we don't
work at a think tank; we work in a legislature. The opportunity before
us today is to make progress on reclaiming this freedom that we have
surrendered.
I will support this bill in the final passage if we have a warrant
requirement and if the Intel threats to the Fourth Amendment fail. If
those expansions of warrantless spying pass, even if the warrant is
there, I will vote ``no'' on final passage. I encourage all of my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Again, I am going to go through this list of bills that they have
noticed for Monday: the Liberty in Laundry Act, the Clothes Dryer
Reliability Act, and the Refrigerator Freedom Act. I can assure the
gentleman from Ohio, I don't think any of the American people believe
that he works in a think tank, given these bills that they have
apparently noticed for this House to consider next week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I guess under the current version of the
bill, Americans should feel better that Congress will be authorizing to
spy on them only for 2 years, not for 5, but I really want to bring up
some other issues that are the essence of this bill that the bill is
not addressing.
We have been talking about warrants, which is extremely important.
This is a search, so government is able to search without a warrant.
That is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. It is unconstitutional.
On top of it, when we are talking about lawfully collected
information, in reality, it could be very unlawful information there.
We do not know. It is never addressed. We know for a fact that
government unlawfully collected information in 2016. We know the
government acknowledged that they have a lot of data there. They don't
know how much it could be. They call it all incidental.
There is nothing in this bill addressing actually if this is for
lawfully collected information. There is no auditing, no checking, and
they want us to trust. If we pass with a warrant, at least we will have
a warrant to potentially search unlawfully collected information, but
if this bill passes as it is, Congress will be authorizing the
government to conduct unconstitutional searches of unlawfully collected
information for 2 years. It almost sounds ironic for us, an institution
that should be protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle are
paying attention to what we will be voting for, and I hope Congress
will wake up to start protecting the American people, not playing
circuses here.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Today's rule, put simply, is a testament to the Republican playbook
since assuming the majority 15 months ago: chaos, gridlock, and
infighting. Over the past year, honestly, it has been difficult to
understand what my colleagues across the aisle truly want.
At the beginning of this Congress, the other side of the aisle voted
for a House rules package that they promised would entail an open rules
process for amendments, yet this Congress is on pace to have more
closed rules than any Congress in the last 100 years, over a century.
A minority of House Republicans now dictate what proposals will even
have a chance to be considered in this Chamber, to stand in the
marketplace of ideas that our colleagues claim to love so dearly.
Mr. Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle reject compromises at
every turn. My Republican colleagues rejected a bipartisan immigration
deal that came out of the Senate before even reading the bill text. The
bill passed with 70 votes, Mr. Speaker, in the United States Senate.
Our allies around the world have literally been left stranded, and
House Republicans won't even bring the bill up for an up-or-down vote.
Instead, their top priority is the Refrigerator Freedom Act, Mr.
Speaker.
The American people deserve better. They expect better. Enough of the
political stunts. Enough of the infighting. Let's get back to work, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close. We are here today to pass a rule that will bring up a program
for a vote that has been abused hundreds of thousands of times, abused
by the FBI's own standards hundreds of thousands of times. Every time
they have used it, they have actually abused it because they have not
followed the constitutional requirement in the Fourth Amendment.
Today, if we pass this rule, we will have votes on six different
amendments. Three of these amendments will expand the program, and
three of these amendments will constrain the program.
There are people who say this bill is fine as is, that it doesn't
need any amendments. Here is the problem with that: If we believed
that, why would we put exemptions for Congress in this bill?
There are exemptions for Congress in the base bill of 702. What do
they do?
[[Page H2327]]
They say that if a Congressman is going to have their privacy violated
with the 702 program by the FBI, the FBI has to notify Congress. It
goes on to say in this bill that if the FBI is going to tell us that
they are doing it for our own good, they have to get permission from
the Congressman whose privacy is going to be violated. Why does that
only apply to Members of this body?
The Constitution provides that we should give these protections to
everybody. The Constitution requires a warrant. That is one of the
amendments that will be offered here today.
In fact, the chairman and the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee--the committee of jurisdiction for this legislation, the
committee that many years ago created the 702 program--have said that
if the warrant provision is not adopted, they will not vote to renew
this program. I applaud them for taking that stand because the Fourth
Amendment to our Constitution says: ``The right of the people to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no
warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.''
The FISA 702 program is clearly in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
We can fix it, for the most part, with one amendment. There will still
be other defects in the FISA program.
I will just close by saying this: America is watching us today. They
are going to watch the results of this vote. What will we do here
today? Are we going to carve out exemptions for Congress? Are we going
to protect ourselves but not the American people, or are we going to
provide them with the protections that our Founding Fathers enshrined
in our Constitution?
We swore an oath to do that when we took these offices as
legislators, and we need to follow that oath. That is why I urge
adoption of this rule. I urge people to vote for the warrant amendment,
and I urge people not to vote for the final bill if the protections of
the warrant amendment are not there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208,
nays 202, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 112]
YEAS--208
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--202
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
NOT VOTING--21
Babin
Bergman
Boebert
Case
Doggett
Gallego
Garbarino
Garcia, Robert
Grijalva
Johnson (GA)
Lesko
Luetkemeyer
Mooney
Payne
Smith (MO)
Strickland
Swalwell
Titus
Van Orden
Westerman
Wilson (FL)
{time} 0920
Ms. SCHOLTEN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. BERGMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 112.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 112.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Meuser). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 213,
noes 208, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 113]
AYES--213
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
[[Page H2328]]
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--208
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Babin
Gallego
Grijalva
Grothman
Johnson (GA)
Lesko
Luetkemeyer
Mooney
Payne
Strickland
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 0931
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``aye'' on rollcall No. 113.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to cast my vote for rollcall
Nos. 112 and 113. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on
rollcall Vote No. 112, Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on H.
Res. 1137, and nay on rollcall Vote No. 113, H. Res. 1137.
____________________