[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7921-H7928]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE WITH RESPECT TO WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT
MADE TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 577, I call up
the resolution (H. Res. 576) expressing the sense of the House of
Representatives with respect to the whistleblower complaint of August
12, 2019, made to the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community,
and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the
amendments to the text and preamble specified in section 11 of that
resolution are adopted and the resolution, as amended, is considered
read.
The text of the resolution, as amended, is as follows:
H. Res. 576
Resolved, That--
(1) the whistleblower complaint received on August 12,
2019, by the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
shall be transmitted immediately to the Select Committee on
Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee
on Intelligence of the House of Representatives; and
(2) the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and
the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House
of Representatives should be allowed to evaluate the
complaint in a deliberate and bipartisan manner consistent
with applicable statutes and processes in order to safeguard
classified and sensitive information.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The resolution, as amended, shall be
debatable for 1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Permanent Select Committee on
Intelligence.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Nunes) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the amended resolution, which
demands provision to the congressional intelligence committees of a
whistleblower complaint, which the Acting Director of National
Intelligence has withheld. The law, however, required the Acting DNI to
submit it to the committees.
This is a serious matter, Madam Speaker, for IC whistleblowing,
congressional oversight, and the rule of law.
Before turning to it, let me express my deep gratitude for the
actions of a courageous and anonymous individual in the intelligence
community. That person wanted to report urgent, credible allegations of
serious wrongdoing and did the right thing by acting in strict
accordance with proper whistleblower procedures. These permit
classified disclosures to be made to the intelligence committees while
protecting national security.
Using that mechanism, in August, the whistleblower made a complaint
to the inspector general of the intelligence community. According to
the Justice Department's legal opinion regarding the complaint, which
it today released to the public, the whistleblower's allegations
concerned the content of a telephone call between President Trump and a
foreign leader.
The inspector general determined the complaint to be urgent, meaning
that the matter met important statutory criteria, and that its
allegations appeared to be credible.
The inspector general, months later, would write that the complaint's
allegations not only fell ``within the DNI's jurisdiction,'' but that
they ``relate to one of the most important and significant
responsibilities to the American people.'' That is protecting the
United States from foreign interference in our elections.
In strict accordance with the statutory rules, the inspector general
passed the complaint and his determination to the Acting Director of
National Intelligence. The Acting Director was obligated to forward
this material to the congressional intelligence committees within 7
days of receipt, but, in contravention of the law, he refused to do
that.
There can be no misreading of the provision imposing that obligation.
It says that the DNI ``shall'' forward the materials to the House
intelligence committee and also to our colleagues at the Senate
intelligence committee.
{time} 1445
``Shall,'' of course, means ``shall.'' It does not mean ``can if you
want to.''
Despite this unambiguous, categorical directive, the Trump
administration interfered with the time-tested process for IC
whistleblowing. It would need to resist that process forcefully
because, as public reports have suggested, the complaint potentially
concerned the same craven abuse of power by President Trump which the
public learned about this morning.
I won't recite all the details of this sordid episode. But suffice it
to say that documents released today plainly show the President of the
United States shaking down his Ukrainian counterpart for a ``favor''--
an investigation by Ukraine's authorities, with close coordination by
Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr, into the son of former
Vice President Joe Biden, the former Vice President himself being a
candidate for the U.S. presidency.
So the administration got the Justice Department's Office of Legal
Counsel involved, it got the White House Counsel involved, and, without
invoking national security or making a claim of executive privilege, it
managed to get a staggeringly flawed legal opinion from the Department
of Justice.
The opinion's reasoning is specious on its face. According to the
Department of Justice, the whistleblower statute did not apply to the
complaint, and the complaint therefore did not have to be forwarded to
the committees because the complaint's allegations do not relate to an
urgent concern, meaning the funding, administration, or operation of an
intelligence activity under the DNI's authority and responsibility.
In this regard, the DOJ observed that the alleged conduct was
committed by the President, who is outside of and above the IC. I will
point out that that is irrelevant under the statute. All that is
required is that the allegation ``relate to'' an intelligence activity
within the DNI's purview.
The DOJ also faulted the IC IG, the inspector general, for not citing
a statute or policy that gave the DNI operational responsibility to
prevent foreign interference in our elections.
Think about that for a second. Have in mind what our country went
through in 2016 when Russia undertook covert as well as overt measures
to warp the U.S. Presidential election and to sow discord which the
Trump campaign welcomed with open arms.
With that recent history in mind, to say nothing of the rules on the
books, we can easily dispose of the claim that the intelligence
community, as captained by the acting DNI, has no operational role in
keeping adversary governments from meddling in our democratic
processes. That assertion is ignorant. It is wrong. And it bespeaks a
serious misunderstanding about the DNI's authorities and the activities
of the United States intelligence community.
The DOJ's cramped view would come as news to President Trump, I
suspect, given the executive order he issued in September of 2018
regarding foreign interference in our elections, which requires the
DNI, after every Federal election in this country, to assess whether
such interference has taken place and to report his assessment to the
rest of the executive branch. That sounds a lot like a serious role for
the DNI to me.
I imagine the Department of Justice's view would also come as a shock
to the acting DNI himself. After all, by statute the DNI is the head of
the U.S. intelligence community and the principal intelligence adviser
to the President and the National Security Council, among other things.
As the inspector general correctly noted, one mission of the
intelligence community, among its core missions, is to protect the
United States against hostile intelligence activities directed against
it. That would include any hostile foreign intelligence activities
associated with efforts by foreign adversaries to interfere in our
elections.
So I am stunned that the acting DNI would accept legal advice like
this,
[[Page H7922]]
which strains to minimize or ignore the functions and responsibilities
that the DNI carries out--or at least I hope--routinely.
I am also stunned that the ODNI would acquiesce in advice that, if
permitted to stand, would do such extraordinary damage. By conferring
on the DNI the discretion to opt out of what is plainly mandatory, the
Department of Justice neutered a statute governing intelligence
community whistleblowing; overturned years of consistent practice; and,
most damaging of all, called into doubt important protections from
reprisal on which this whistleblower relied and other lawful
whistleblowers in the IC have relied.
I can only imagine the chilling effect that the Department of
Justice's approach will have on lawful IC whistleblowing and thus on
the intelligence committees' ability to conduct oversight of
intelligence activities.
Madam Speaker, let me end with a note about the state of play, which
is fluid, to say the least. I understand that the executive branch may
make some of the whistleblower's materials available to the committee
this afternoon, but the details remain sketchy, and the committee may
not yet receive, in complete and unredacted form, all the information
that the acting DNI is obligated to furnish by law, and that we have
sought by subpoena. The committee will settle for nothing less.
However, the situation is resolved, Madam Speaker, the House has no
choice but to denounce the extraordinary lengths to which the White
House and Justice Department have gone to cover up and obstruct.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the resolution, as amended. I urge
my colleagues to join me, and I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 576, as amended.
This resolution, which mirrors a resolution passed by the Senate
yesterday, expresses the sense of the House that the whistleblower
complaint received by the intelligence community inspector general
should be immediately transmitted to the congressional intelligence
committees.
Madam Speaker, this complaint has given rise to fevered speculation
and frenzied media reporting, much of which is based on a transcript of
the President's phone call released today. It appears to be
exaggerated, misleading, or outright false. It is also serving as a
linchpin of a longstanding attempt by the Democrats to impeach
President Trump and finally achieve their goal of overturning the
results of the 2016 election. The media coverage and the Democrats'
hysterical and politicized response to it is reminiscent of countless
episodes during the course of the Russia collusion hoax. Thus,
Republicans look forward to actually reading the material on which the
Democrats, from a position of ignorance, are basing their unrestrained
accusations.
I should make the House aware that it is roughly 3 o'clock in the
afternoon here in Washington, D.C., and at 4 o'clock this afternoon, in
fact, the DNI is going to transmit the complaint to the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence spaces where all the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence members will have an opportunity to read it.
So, therefore, we have to ask ourselves: Why are we voting on a
resolution that is asking for the very documents that are being sent
over?
They are probably on their way right now, if they are not already
here.
So, with that, I guess it gives an opportunity for the Democrats to
come down and bash the President, which I know they enjoy doing, but in
the meantime, we have no problem with this H. Res. 576, as amended. We
appreciate the majority's accepting our amendment so that it mirrors
exactly what the Senate passed last night.
Madam Speaker, in the meantime, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), and I ask unanimous consent
that he control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Connecticut?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL of Alabama. Madam Speaker, this is a sobering moment in
our Nation's history, when the rule of law and constitutional duty
requires Congress to move swiftly to protect our national security and
the integrity of our democracy.
In my time on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I
have been amazed and grateful for the work our intelligence community
performs every day. We hold these men and women accountable to the rule
of law and expect them to adhere to the principles of our Constitution.
In return, those great Americans expect their elected leaders to be
held accountable to the same standard--above all, their Commander in
Chief. President Trump's refusal to adhere to the whistleblower statute
and his unwarranted attacks against one of these professionals flies in
the face of that compact.
The statute is clear, Madam Speaker. The Director of National
Intelligence shall provide the intelligence committee with all
whistleblower complaints, especially those that the inspector general
finds credible and of urgent concern.
It should not take this resolution or the threat of impeachment to
convince the President to uphold the law he swore to obey.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 576, honor our
oaths, and do the right thing.
Mr. NUNES. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), and I ask unanimous consent that he
control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I appreciate this, and I am glad we are having the
opportunity to bring this resolution to the floor.
At this time I am pleased that we are going to be able to get to the
documents that are being requested in this resolution. I am pleased
that if there is going to be a resolution that it is the one that the
Senate put forward in a bipartisan fashion. This is what we asked for
in the Rules Committee last night, and I am glad that it has come
forward today.
The question in hand--and we have heard lots of comments, some of it
rehashing old history, some of it rehashing history that was disproven
by the Mueller Report--but at the same time we are questioning what the
DNI's authority is in this situation, according to statute. I think it
should be discussed.
In this situation where the DNI determined that this should not be
sent to Congress, but also did not, in review of the complaint--because
the complaint was given to DOJ for appropriate review, DOJ officials
reviewed the complaint in light of legal issues identified by the IC IG
in his cover letter and determined that no further action was
warranted.
Tomorrow we are going to hear from the DNI in the Permanent Select
Committee on Intelligence, which I think is appropriate.
As I pointed out last night in the Rules Committee, I don't think
that the other side would be happy if we only heard from the DNI and
not the IG. So it is appropriate that we do that.
He talked about the timely fashion of it. I think it is appropriate
that you go through the Department of Justice and make sure you are
doing everything right, and we need to hear from the DNI tomorrow.
We also have received the transcripts of the conversation between the
President of Ukraine and the President of the United States. The
President made supposedly, and is being accused of making, a mysterious
promise to Zelensky in return for Ukraine reviving an investigation
against Joe Biden and his son. In fact, there was no such promise. The
President wanted allegations of corruption potentially involving an
American official to be investigated.
[[Page H7923]]
What I see in this transcript is the President of one country
speaking to a President of another country about trying to eliminate
corruption within their government.
The other comment that had been made is the President offered a quid
pro quo related to military aid for Ukraine. There is no quid pro quo
in that conversation. There is no mention of an aid package to Ukraine
at all. It is not in there at all. So while one might want to keep
saying that, it is not in there.
Another myth, the President urged President Zelensky to work with
Rudy Giuliani to investigate Biden's involvement in securing the firing
of a Ukrainian prosecutor eight times.
Fact: The President mentioned Rudy Giuliani in that conversation only
after Zelensky mentioned him first and referred to Biden in only one
exchange.
I, myself, have some confusion on what the rules are within the
intelligence community and involving the executive branch. A couple of
years ago in an open hearing, when we were discussing with John
Brennan--this was in an open hearing--the former CIA director,
obviously an expert in intelligence, when I asked him about the
conversation between President Obama and President Medvedev where it
was caught on tape where he said:
I'll have more flexibility after my election.
Medvedev said:
I stand with you, and I will let President Putin know.
I asked him if that was a red flag. His answer was:
I am not going to comment on a private conversation between
two heads of state.
{time} 1500
Since that time, I have wondered what the rules are within the
intelligence community. Are conversations between two heads of state
completely off-limits within the IC? I don't know. I have asked that
question time and time again. I have asked some high-ranking officials
who should know the answer to that, and I have gotten no answer.
What I have heard in the testimony here today, I heard someone say,
``favor,'' ``favor,'' in response to the potential of this President
asking for a favor. I did not see that, and I don't know who made the
quote. I would like some clarification on that.
Where we stand right now is kind of a recurring playbook. It is
always moving the goalpost, right?
We want to see these documents.
Okay. The President has given you the documents.
Okay. We are going to see what the whistleblower had to say.
And now, what do we hear? Well, I am concerned that there may be more
out there that we are not getting.
It is always moving the goalpost.
Listen, I speak in favor of this resolution. We should get to it,
move on with the business of the country.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
General Leave
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H. Res. 576.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here today because, over a month ago, a
courageous employee or detailee or contractor within the intelligence
community brought to the inspector general a complaint that the
inspector general reviewed. He had 14 days to review that complaint.
The inspector general found that complaint credible, found that
complaint urgent, and found that that complaint should be provided to
Congress, as the whistleblower intended.
That complaint then went to the Director of National Intelligence,
who had 1 week to review it. Then the statute says that complaint shall
be provided to the committee--not ``may,'' not ``might,'' not ``if the
DOJ doesn't write an opinion,'' not ``if the White House doesn't like
it.'' It says ``shall'' transmit to the committee.
The reason Congress wrote the statute that way is that, particularly
in the intelligence community, we are reliant on whistleblowers.
Through the vast majority of our hearings, there are no witnesses. They
are not conducted in open session. There are not outside stakeholders
who can tell us that what this agency represented or that agency said
is not correct.
We are reliant on the intelligence community to self-report, and most
of the time they do. When they don't, we are completely reliant on
whistleblowers. If the whistleblower process doesn't work, if the
subject of a complaint by a whistleblower can be held up by the subject
of that complaint--that is, if the whistleblower says that the
impropriety that they have evidence of was committed by X person, and X
person is given the discretion to decide whether Congress ever sees
that report--that system is broken. That is certainly not how Congress
intended it.
Presuming that this complaint involves the conversation that we are
now witness to because some readout of that conversation was made
public, that whistleblower may have been trying to communicate to
Congress that the President of the United States was pressuring a
foreign President to manufacture dirt on his political opponent for
help in his Presidential campaign and doing so at a time when the
President of the United States was withholding military support that we
approved on a bipartisan basis.
Now we see that readout says that, after the Ukraine President
expressed the need for further arms to the United States, our President
said: We are doing a lot for Ukraine. We are doing more for Ukraine
than other countries. But you know something? There is not much
reciprocity here. I have a favor I would like to ask. I want you to
investigate my opponent, and I am going to have my Attorney General and
my personal lawyer follow up with you.
This was the constant theme of the President's request to the
President of Ukraine. It wasn't, what are the national security needs
of Ukraine? It wasn't, what are the economic needs of Ukraine? It
wasn't, what are the separatists doing in Ukraine?
It was: This is what I want from you. I have done so much for
Ukraine. We have done so much for Ukraine. This is what we want of you.
The idea that a complaint with these allegations, if indeed this
complaint is about this call, would be withheld from Congress and would
be withheld on the basis of an opinion written by the Attorney General,
someone who was mentioned in that very conversation, screams of
conflict of interest, if not far worse.
When we brought this resolution up a month after this complaint was
filed, and we brought it up in the Rules Committee last night, the
argument was that this is premature. The argument here today is that
this is postmature. I guess this is never mature. It is never mature
for the Congress to insist that the Director follow the law.
Apparently, we need second opinions on whether ``shall'' really means
``shall.'' That is why we are here.
If we don't validate the whistleblower process, if we leave the
whistleblower unprotected, even as the President suggests that the
whistleblower has somehow betrayed his or her country, that system is
broken, meaning corruption will not be exposed. The corruption here
involves the suborning of our national security to our President's
political needs. That is what is at stake here.
Madam Speaker, that is why I urge my colleagues to support this
resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the renowned minority whip.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Wenstrup) for yielding.
As we are talking about this resolution, and as my colleagues from
Ohio and from California earlier talked about, as we speak, the White
House is actually transmitting the documents that are mentioned in the
resolution.
The White House has been going overboard, doing more than has been
done before, to make sure that Congress has all the information it
needs about this issue.
I think what really is at question is where this all leads to, and I
think we know where it all leads to. This all started with an intention
by many in the majority. When they took the majority, it was that they
were going to
[[Page H7924]]
try to work to impeach the President. Many of them talked about it.
They didn't even have the gavels in their hands yet, and they were
talking about impeaching the President.
The chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary said he wants to bring
Articles of Impeachment to the House floor by the end of this year.
Keep in mind, there is not a single Article of Impeachment that they
have listed because there have been no crimes.
They thought the Mueller report was going to give them the crimes. It
turned out it showed there was no collusion. Instead of wrapping it up,
they move on to look for something else.
It is not the job of a prosecutor, by the way, to hope to go indict
somebody and then look around to see if they find evidence. They are
supposed to follow facts. If the facts lead them there, that is where
they go. That is not happening here.
When you saw the Speaker of the House yesterday saying that the
President committed crimes, please name one crime that has been listed.
We have seen the report now, the transcript of a conversation between
President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine. There are a lot of
niceties here, the President congratulating him on winning an election.
There is not a single quid pro quo, which we were told there would be.
There is not an exertion of pressure, which we were told there would
be.
Now, they bring up Joe Biden. Joe Biden, himself, has said that he
exerted pressure on the Ukrainians, bragged about the fact that he
withheld $1 billion in aid from the Ukrainians.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Louisiana an
additional 1 minute.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
Again, when we talk about something as serious as impeachment, and
obviously, that is where they have said they would go, the Speaker said
she wants to get the committee working toward an impeachment inquiry.
Why? Why, Madam Speaker, haven't they brought a vote here on this
House floor to start an impeachment inquiry? They are scared to death
of having a vote on this House floor on impeachment. Yet, they keep
moving down that train track.
It is a reckless track, when they say that they are going to bring
impeachment. Even the people who have read this, not one of them has
pointed out a high crime or misdemeanor that is in here.
The quid pro quo that they promised doesn't exist. These are the same
people who promised that there was collusion, with the Mueller report,
and there was no collusion.
Instead of moving on, they keep going down the impeachment path.
People are sick and tired of the constant harassment of the President.
Go read the transcript, and you will see, again, a President
congratulating another President who was elected on a platform to root
out corruption, and he is working to root out corruption. We ought to
cheer that.
Instead of doing this, we ought to be focused on things like USMCA,
lowering drug prices, solving real problems. Let's move on.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, with respect to my colleague, the only
corruption the President seems to be concerned about is corruption that
he is not involved with, and that seems to be an increasingly narrow
category.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Carson).
Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this
resolution demanding that the administration release the whistleblower
complaint to Congress.
Every American ought to be extremely concerned by circumstances
surrounding this urgent complaint and outraged that this President and
members of his administration are hiding it.
Congress has a constitutional duty, Madam Speaker, to obtain this
information by the deadline required by law. The administration is
blocking our ability to gather the information necessary to respond to
the public's needs. In this case, these needs are inseparable from our
security, our safety, and the well-being of our Nation.
Congress is entitled to the full complaint, not only for the sake of
national security, Madam Speaker, but to ensure that our ability to
hold public servants accountable remains.
This isn't about partisan politics. This is about protecting our
democracy and its people.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this
resolution.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Spano).
Mr. SPANO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment
at what the House is devoting its time to this afternoon. It is
certainly not the issues that my constituents elected me to come to
Washington to advocate for on their behalf.
We are not on the floor today talking about how we can improve care
and services for veterans. We are not talking about how to fix the
crumbling infrastructure, how to fix the broken immigration system. We
are not talking about how to modernize and personally tailor
healthcare. We are not on the floor talking about how we can continue
to implement policies to further strengthen our booming economy.
Instead, we again find ourselves on the House floor talking about
President Trump and his administration.
Sound familiar? This morning, in the interest of full transparency,
the Trump administration released the complete memorandum outlining the
telephone conversation between the President and the Ukrainian
President, just as the President promised he would do yesterday. But
before reading the transcript, my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle prejudged the memo and called for impeachment.
Did the Speaker wait to see and review this information? No. Instead,
she went before the American people to announce that the House would
begin the formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Well, I read the transcript, and I don't see the bombshell that the
Democrats promised. There is no quid pro quo, no this for that. Nowhere
does the President say that he will withhold military aid unless the
Ukrainian investigation continues. It is simply not there.
Rushing to judgment and overpromising, if it sounds familiar, that is
because it is. We waited nearly 2 years for Special Counsel Mueller to
finish his report on the 2016 election. Over and over, we heard
Democrats promise the report would lead to President Trump's
impeachment. After a disappointing report and an even more
disappointing appearance by the special counsel before Congress, they
went fishing for new reasons to attack the President.
What happened to the standard of innocent until proven guilty in this
country? I learned that in law school. How have we strayed so far from
this fundamental principle?
The Democrats are operating under the presumptive belief that the
President is guilty. They believe if they look long enough and hard
enough, maybe, just maybe, they will uncover something, anything, that
they can impeach him for.
This is wrong, and I will not support their efforts. I will not stand
by silently while it happens. If my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle truly believe that this warrants impeachment, and if they are not
willing to wait 1 day to read the transcript, then why are they sending
us back to our districts for the next 2 weeks?
The majority leader said this morning there are no plans to cancel
the recess because it is important Members go home to their
constituents and explain what we are doing. In other words, they still
need to convince the American people that today's revelations, which
didn't live up to their promises, should lead to President Trump's
removal from office.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Florida an
additional 1 minute.
{time} 1515
Mr. SPANO. Madam Speaker, I call on the Democrat leadership to keep
us in session the first 2 weeks of October, if this is as urgent and as
serious as they are telling the American people.
I will not support the political impeachment that Democrats are
incessantly pursuing. I implore this House
[[Page H7925]]
and its leadership to put this behind us once and for all and get to
work, get to work and do the important work that the American people
sent us here to do.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Quigley).
Mr. QUIGLEY. Madam Speaker, a point of clarification: Quid pro quo
exists on its face in what we reviewed just today. But, for the record,
criminal conduct does not have to be quid pro quo.
The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political
rival and interfere in our election.
The response by my friends across the aisle has also confirmed
something else I have had a suspicion about: They have an extraordinary
sense of humor. They imagine that this administration would have
released this whatever it is this morning relating to a transcript, the
complaint, and allowed the DNI to formally testify and the complaining
witness to testify just because the President thought we should know,
not because there was a complaining witness.
Without the complaining witness, no one knows about this--without
their courage. That emphasizes the point of how important complaining
witnesses are, because, without their courage, we don't know about
wrongdoing or there are further leaks, both of which put our country at
risk.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me make a few comments, if I can.
This was reviewed by the criminal division of DOJ today that found no
violation whatsoever.
Let me make another point, because I have heard accusations along the
way that certain entities here in Congress don't care about
whistleblower protections.
We do care. We care about the whistleblower process. We care about
their protections. Let's be perfectly clear on that. As Republicans,
and sitting on the intelligence committee, we recognize the value of
this process. We are for it.
We have heard a lot of comments, yesterday especially, that were made
that would imply guilty until proven innocent when we haven't even seen
the whistleblower claim. We just got the transcripts of the President
with the President of Ukraine today, and we don't even know the
circumstances of the claim.
I don't know if anyone on the other side has had contact with the
whistleblower, but I know nothing about this whistleblower except that
there is a whistleblower. And I have not seen the complaint, and I look
forward to seeing it.
We have been through a lot as a country. Time and time again, our
country gets challenged--challenged from outside, challenged from
within. We have been through a lot.
As Mr. Spano alluded, we are about ready to go home. Yet we have got
an urgent matter on our hands, we have been told; yet leadership is
saying: But just go home.
Well, if this is such an urgent matter, why are we going home?
And I also will bring up the point again that tomorrow we are
scheduled to hear from the DNI. Let's give that process its due, and
let's know facts before we speak and before we pass judgment. That is
all we are asking to do.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Madam Speaker, I thank the chair of the committee for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, this is a powder keg. This is not as my colleagues on
the other side are trying to suggest it is, but they are dealing with
alternative facts.
As co-chair of the Whistleblower Caucus, I can point to the fact that
$54 billion has been returned to the taxpayers of this country because
men and women had the courage to stand up and point out tax evasion,
fraud, abuse, and waste.
Now, we have a whistleblower here who was defined as not being a
whistleblower by the Attorney General, and now we are all saying he is
a whistleblower. He doesn't even have the protections of a
whistleblower based on the analysis by the Attorney General.
One thing is very clear here, Members: But for the fact that this
whistleblower came forward, but for the fact that the inspector general
found that it was both credible and urgent, and but for the fact, after
the DNI did not deem it to be sent to the committee, it was the
inspector general who had the courage to contact the chair of this
committee to inform him that there was a whistleblower pending that
brought this all to the fore.
So let's be very clear: There was a concerted effort by the
administration to shut down this whistleblower, to restrict the money
that was supposed to go to Ukraine on June 18--or July 18.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding, and I
commend him for his great patriotism, for the equanimity that he brings
to all that he does with great wisdom and judgment.
Madam Speaker, just over a week ago, when our Nation observed the
anniversary of the adoption of our Constitution, on that very day, news
broke of great allegations which were a threat to our Constitution.
On that day, the intelligence community inspector general formally
notified Congress that the administration was forbidding him from
turning over a whistleblower complaint that he found to be of ``urgent
concern'' and ``credible.''
The administration's refusal to turn over the full complaint is a
violation of the law, which is unequivocal, stating that the DNI, the
Director of National Intelligence, shall provide Congress with the full
complaint.
I repeat, that obligation is mandatory.
Shortly thereafter, the American people learned of a phone call from
the White House calling upon a foreign power to intervene in the
upcoming election. Today's release of the notes of the call by the
White House confirms this behavior, which undermines the integrity of
our elections, the dignity of any Presidency, and our national
security.
Let us repeat the facts:
The intelligence community inspector general, who was appointed by
President Trump, determined that the complaint was both of ``urgent
concern and credible,'' and its disclosure ``relates to one of the most
significant and important of the Director of National Intelligence's
responsibilities to the American people.''
I want to talk a moment, Madam Speaker, if I may, about
whistleblowers.
First, let me say what an asset the intelligence community is to the
security of our country. We talk about our men and women in uniform,
and we praise them. We could never thank them enough. Our intelligence
community personnel are a significant part of the national security of
our country.
Whistleblowers, in any part of the government, are important, but
whistleblowers can be defined as an act of reporting waste, fraud,
abuse, and corruption in a lawful manner to those who can correct the
wrongdoing.
The intelligence community has publicly recognized the importance of
whistle blowing and supports protections for whistleblowers who conform
to guidelines to protect classified information.
This is a very important balance, and when laws were written--and I
was there for it as a member of the committee and as ranking member and
part of the Gang of Four, before I even became part of the leadership.
I saw the evolution of these laws and then the improvements on them,
with further protection for whistleblowers.
I was also there for the creation of the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence and the relationship between the two, and it is a
careful balance of protecting whistleblowers but also protecting our
national security and our intelligence--our intelligence.
So, in any event, one of the bills we wrote was the Intelligence
Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law plays a vital role in
our democracy. It enables our system of separation of powers to
maintain the rule of law by making sure that the abuses of unlawful
actions are known, first through
[[Page H7926]]
the inspector general of the intelligence community, and then the
congressional intelligence committees, House and Senate, which can act
upon it.
The statute does not permit the DNI to second-guess the inspector
general's determination of any complaint he finds to be ``credible.''
At no point in the history of this law has a DNI ever refused to turn
over a whistleblower's complaint that has been found by the IG as
``credible.'' Refusing to do this is a violation of the law.
Our national security depends on this framework. This vote today is
about more than just any one President. This resolution is about the
preservation of our American system of government.
Once we pass this resolution--and I acknowledge that we are joining
the Senate, which passed it without objection yesterday, unanimously--
the DNI will be faced with a choice: to honor his responsibility to
help preserve our Republic or to break the law.
This resolution passed by unanimous consent--I repeat--in the Senate.
Every Member, Democratic and Republican, should join us in passing this
in the House.
While we await the release of the full complaint, we reiterate our
call for the release of the full transcript of the call between
President Trump and the Ukrainian President and reiterate our call to
protect whistleblowers from retaliation.
Madam Speaker, I urge a bipartisan vote to defend our national
security and to protect our democracy.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Swalwell).
Mr. SWALWELL of California. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio
had asked earlier: Where does it say in the President's notes--and
these are notes; this is not a transcript--the word, ``favor''?
Page 3, I would direct the gentleman: ``I would like you to do us a
favor,'' the President of the United States says.
And the problem with this mob-like tactic is that, when you ask
someone to do a favor, you owe that person something in return. And,
when that person is a foreign leader, that means, as President of the
United States, one day you will have to put a foreign leader's
interests ahead of America's interests.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, this note that the President has
released, and that is why it is important that we hear from the
whistleblower.
It is also important to note that Ukraine depends on the U.S.
economically, militarily, and the credibility we afford to them when we
support them. So, you don't need to be explicit with them when you tell
them that you need a favor and you are withholding military funds.
In this case, the whistleblower did everything right; so now it is
time for the Acting Director of National Intelligence to do the same.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Castro).
Mr. CASTRO of Texas. Madam Speaker, I, too, look forward to reviewing
the whistleblower's complaint, shortly.
I want to start by saying thank you to the whistleblower. We don't
know if it is a man or a woman, the person's identity, yet, but I want
to say thank you for having the courage and the bravery to come forward
and reveal--at least in terms of what we have seen from the
transcript--abuse of power by the President of the United States.
We must protect a whistleblower who comes forward and puts himself or
herself and their career on the line. I hope that this Congress will be
committed to doing that.
These are very serious charges, an abuse of power that includes
coercing a foreign leader into digging up dirt against a political
rival for the President's political gain, to win reelection; asking a
personal lawyer, his personal lawyer, to go along with this.
It appears as though the State Department and, perhaps, the Secretary
of State may also be implicated in this scandal.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to passing this resolution. I hope all
will support it.
{time} 1530
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Madam Speaker, this resolution really raises a question to
each one of us who is a Member of Congress; and that question is: Do we
believe in the separate, independent authority of the legislative
branch to conduct oversight?
The contents of this resolution and the whistleblower report, to be
sure, are extremely explosive and important. But the question that we
have to ask, as a Congress, Republicans and Democrats, is: Are we
willing to stand up for the constitutional authority of the House as a
representative branch of government?
That is the constitutional question. This resolution goes to the
heart of our responsibility. We must pass it in order for us to be a
coequal branch of government.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Himes), and I ask unanimous consent
that he may control that time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney).
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, if I understand,
the Republican argument is that the document doesn't contain an
explicit quid pro quo.
Well, let me remind my friends, you don't need to state an explicit
quid pro quo to break your oath. You don't need to state an explicit
quid pro quo to break the law. You don't need to state an explicit quid
pro quo when you have conducted the quid pro quo, when you have
withheld the military aid.
You don't need to state an explicit quid pro quo when you have
launched a cover-up by violating the law by refusing to produce the
whistleblower complaint as you are required to do.
All of these actions are contained in the recent statements of the
President and in the plain language of the White House document. And
the idea, the idea that we can't wait a day to get the transcript
ignores the fact that, for three weeks, they have ignored the law in
producing the whistleblower complaint; and we would not have it ever if
it weren't for the actions of the Democrats in this House.
And the talking point that this issue should hinge on the
explicitness of the quid pro quo is nothing more than a smokescreen to
hide the fact that the President's conduct is a violation of the law,
and a violation of his oath, and more than justifies the production of
the whistleblower complaint and the launching of an impeachment
inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Woodall).
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Wenstrup) for yielding the time.
I listened to what my friend just came to the well to say, and it
sounds as if we are not working on a nonbinding House Resolution today.
It sounds as if we are working on Articles of Impeachment today. If
folks want to get on to Articles of Impeachment, get on with it.
I want to associate myself with my friend from Vermont who said this
is an Article I, Article II question. And I want to ask my colleagues,
again, if you are ready to get going with impeachment articles, bring
them, and let's have that debate on the floor.
This is a nonbinding resolution that says to our coequal branch of
government, we have an oversight responsibility, and we want to see
some paperwork. Now, the Senate already passed the same nonbinding
resolution yesterday. We are not breaking any new ground here.
But, yes, if the Intelligence Committee wants to review documents in
a closed session, they ought to have access to those documents. That is
not a complicated question.
I want to ask my colleagues how we are advantaged as an institution
by turning this into an us against them.
[[Page H7927]]
Again, when you get ready to go down the Articles of Impeachment, it
is going to be an us against them. I have seen no crimes and lots of
hearings. I have heard lots of promises and absolutely no there, there.
But we have an opportunity, I dare say, an obligation, to conduct
ourselves in a way that, forbid the thought, should one day our Nation
have to go down that path, we have the credibility to lead that
discussion.
You have an hour of debate here that we can absolutely use, and the
Speaker can continue to admonish Members not to engage in personalities
with the President. We can absolutely conduct ourselves in that way if
that is what we would like.
Or we could follow the pathway of the United States; do this in a
bipartisan way to say we have got a coequal branch of government that
has a right to see these documents and be done with it.
I will remind my colleagues who are raising their constitutional ire
today that this institution held President Obama's Attorney General in
both civil and criminal contempt, and we got no support, save 17
Members, to make that happen.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining for
the majority.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Connecticut has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Demings).
Mrs. DEMINGS. Madam Speaker, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt
said that ``patriotism means to stand by the country.'' It does not
mean to stand by the President at any cost.
The whistleblower is a patriot who stood up for their country. It is
time for Americans of good conscience, starting with every member of
this committee, to follow in that patriot's footsteps and unite behind
the belief that no one is above the law.
The President has abused the powers of his office. Perhaps he is
afraid of losing the next election. Perhaps it is just who he is.
When the President of Ukraine brought up a request to buy military
equipment from the United States, the President said--and yes, it is
quite clear--``I would like you to do us a favor.''
But even worse, press reports indicate that the whistleblower's
complaint was far more extensive than any one call.
The ongoing cover-up by this White House has prevented us from
immediately reviewing the report that is required by law.
Further, the administration must immediately move to ensure that the
whistleblower is fully protected as required under law.
To my colleagues, history is about to be written at this moment. I
ask you to think about your place in that history. Decide whether you
want to defend and stand up for corruption or abuse of power or stand
up for the country we all swore to protect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
It may turn out that this resolution is unnecessary. I understand
procedures are being made to provide the complaint, I hope, the full
whistleblower complaint, to the Congress and, specifically, to the
Intelligence Committee. If that is true, that is a good first step. It
is a step, of course, that is remedying the blatant violation of law
that this administration engaged in when they chose to stop the
transmittal of that complaint to the Congress.
But I do want to take this opportunity to just clear up some things
that were said, because these are serious matters, and it is important
that the American people understand the truth.
Mr. Scalise came before this body and ridiculed the majority, saying
that we had promised a quid pro quo, a statement that is, of course,
absurd on the face of it. We made no such promise. In fact, we have
spent the day explaining that a quid pro quo is not necessary for the
kind of extortion that is evident in the so-called transcript that we
received today.
Bribery requires a quid pro quo; if you do this, I will pay you that.
Extortion is simply saying you better do me a favor, or else.
So there was no promise of a quid pro quo. Neither is it necessary
for this behavior to be well beyond the pale.
And I would remind my friends in the minority that we did not bring
this moment upon the Congress. The inspector general came to this
Congress of his own volition and, I would add, at significant personal
risk, because of his concern over the actions of the administration.
It emerges today that the Acting DNI perhaps threatened to resign his
position unless the Department of Justice gave a legal justification
for his stance.
So we are not here because we want to be here. The Speaker of the
House, as every Member of this Chamber knows, has resisted, until
yesterday, even using the word impeachment because she is that focused
on the sentiment of the American people and the consequences of that
dramatic step.
So I do not want to hear from my friends in the minority that this
has been a train that we have been barreling down.
We are not here because we are happy. We are here because there is a
genuine threat to this republic and to this democracy. We were brought
here by members of the administration who raised their hand and said
something is not right.
So this resolution and its contents may be remedied later this
afternoon; I certainly hope so. But let's be clear about what really
happened and how we got here, because I suspect this is not the final
word in this discussion, and the American people deserve to know the
truth.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I heard something before, that no one asks for a favor
that doesn't want something in return. You know, when my wife asks me
for a favor, I don't ask for something in return, I have got to tell
you.
And I have to say, I agree with what Mr. Welch had to say today. I
thank the gentleman for his words. We do have an oversight, but we also
have a process in our country.
So I am very curious to hear tomorrow, fortunately, in an open
hearing, what the DNI has to say, and how he may have interpreted the
law differently, or DOJ did. And I think that the American people
deserve that, and I am glad it is going to be in an open hearing.
There is a lot we can talk about. We can go back and forth on this.
But I will tell you, amongst my constituents, what I hear at home is
that there is a lot of hypocrisy out here.
When you talk about having oversight, or quid pro quo, and you are
only willing to look at one side of it, or one event of it, or one
possible event of it, I should say, only willing to look in one
direction, you lose the trust of the American people. You lose the
trust of the American people.
When I was a child, I watched the Watergate hearings. Do you know
what I was impressed with?
You had both sides of the aisle seeking the truth, regardless of who
was in power or who was in question.
We haven't seen that for 3 years. So, let's get this resolution on
the floor. It is a foregone conclusion. We are all in agreement. This
is something we want brought forward. Half of it already has been, and
the other half is being delivered at 4:00.
That is what we were here to debate today, this resolution. You
wouldn't know it was a resolution we were all in favor of. So let's
have our vote and move on.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise to support H. Res. 576--
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect to
the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community.
Allegations that the President of the United States sought to enlist
a foreign government to interfere in our democratic process by
investigating one of his political rivals, and may have used the
withholding of Congressionally appropriated military aid, days earlier
as intimidation, is a clear problem. We must have all
[[Page H7928]]
of the facts so that we can do what is required under law and get to
the bottom of what actually took place. This is not a partisan matter.
It is an American matter that must be investigated so that we can
continue to protect our democracy against outside attacks.
This resolution expresses the sense of the House that the
whistleblower complaint received on August 12, 2019, by the Inspector
General of the Intelligence Community should be transmitted immediately
to the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives.
Our Constitution demands respect for the rule of law. As a Member of
Congress, I will continue to uphold our American principles and values.
I urge passage of this resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 577, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution, as amended.
The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HIMES. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________
[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 155 (Wednesday, September 25, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H7977-H7978]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXPRESSING SENSE OF THE HOUSE WITH RESPECT TO WHISTLEBLOWER COMPLAINT
MADE TO INSPECTOR GENERAL OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, the
unfinished business is the vote on agreeing to the resolution (H. Res.
576) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives with respect
to the whistleblower complaint of August 12, 2019, made to the
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, on which the yeas and
nays were ordered.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
[[Page H7978]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the
resolution.
This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 421,
nays 0, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 548]
YEAS--421
Adams
Aderholt
Aguilar
Allen
Allred
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Axne
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Bergman
Beyer
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bost
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady
Brindisi
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Bustos
Butterfield
Byrne
Calvert
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cartwright
Case
Casten (IL)
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Cline
Cloud
Cohen
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Conaway
Connolly
Cook
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Cox (CA)
Craig
Crenshaw
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Cunningham
Curtis
Davids (KS)
Davidson (OH)
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny K.
Davis, Rodney
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
DesJarlais
Deutch
Diaz-Balart
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Engel
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Estes
Evans
Ferguson
Finkenauer
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fletcher
Flores
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx (NC)
Frankel
Fudge
Fulcher
Gabbard
Gaetz
Gallagher
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez (OH)
Gonzalez (TX)
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Griffith
Grijalva
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Haaland
Hagedorn
Harder (CA)
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings
Hayes
Heck
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (NY)
Hill (AR)
Hill (CA)
Himes
Holding
Hollingsworth
Horn, Kendra S.
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hudson
Huffman
Huizenga
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Johnson (TX)
Jordan
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Katko
Keating
Keller
Kelly (IL)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Kustoff (TN)
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamb
Lamborn
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latta
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Long
Loudermilk
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Marchant
Mast
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McCollum
McGovern
McHenry
McKinley
McNerney
Meadows
Meeks
Meng
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
Mullin
Murphy (FL)
Murphy (NC)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newhouse
Norcross
Norman
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Olson
Omar
Palazzo
Pallone
Palmer
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Perry
Peters
Peterson
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Posey
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (NY)
Rice (SC)
Richmond
Riggleman
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose (NY)
Rose, John W.
Rouda
Rouzer
Roy
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Rutherford
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scalise
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Schweikert
Scott (VA)
Scott, Austin
Scott, David
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Shimkus
Simpson
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Smucker
Soto
Spanberger
Spano
Speier
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stevens
Stewart
Stivers
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Timmons
Tipton
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Trone
Turner
Underwood
Upton
Van Drew
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watkins
Watson Coleman
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Welch
Wenstrup
Westerman
Wexton
Wild
Williams
Wilson (FL)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yarmuth
Yoho
Young
Zeldin
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2
Gohmert
Massie
NOT VOTING--10
Abraham
Clyburn
Crawford
Cummings
Higgins (LA)
Joyce (OH)
Marshall
McEachin
Nunes
Wright
{time} 1824
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.
____________________
