Thomas Massie

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor one of my constituents, Ernie Edison West, who passed from this life on May 1. His fellow soldiers knew him as Private First Class West. His friends knew him as Ernie. Mr. West bravely served his country during the Korean War, and his heroic actions earned him our Nation's highest military honors, including both a Medal of Honor from President Eisenhower, and later a Purple Heart. Although Mr. West lost one of his eyes while defending and saving the lives of several of his fellow soldiers in Korea, he never considered himself disabled. As a town mayor, coach, friend, and mentor to many, Mr. West was an unconditional friend to all he met, and lived a life of selfless service to his community. He worked all his life to help veterans and was buried in the very cemetery, the Veterans Cemetery North East in Greenup County, for which he, himself, worked to secure the land and the funding. Mr. West's efforts were also crucial to the establishment of the Greenup County War Memorial. This memorial honors hometown heroes on the main street of Mr. West's hometown in Wurtland, Kentucky. Mr. West leaves behind his daughter, Amy West Hogsett and her husband, Randy; five granddaughters; and seven great-grandchildren. In the words of his niece, Marny Gilluly, Mr. West was ``larger than life, truly a hero to many, and personified the good in people.'' May this brave hero rest in peace.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, wow, the rhetoric is hot today. Bigotry, xenophobia, Muslim ban, racism, discrimination. This is what is coming from the left side of the aisle. They say that Biden rescinded Trump's Muslim ban--that he has rescinded the Muslim ban. I want to ask them: Which Muslim ban are they talking about? Which one are they talking about? Are they talking about the one they voted for? By the way, I think it is inappropriate to call it a ``Muslim ban.'' But let's use their language. Are they talking about the bill that 165 of them voted for, including the chairman of this committee, the author of this bill, and the chairwoman of the subcommittee? Are they talking about the bill that they all voted for in 2015 that Obama signed into law called the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015? I don't think Trump was President in 2015. Obama signed this bill. What did it do? It named four countries, not seven. We will get to the seven later. It named four countries to ban. What were those four countries? By the way, the ACLU was not happy about this when Obama and the Democrats on the other side of the aisle did it. Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Sudan. And now the Democrats are complaining that the President has too much power to protect this country, and they want to take some of this back, but they gave Obama the power to add three more countries. What were the three he added? Libya, Somalia, and Yemen in 2016. Interesting. So where does that bring us to? It gets us to seven countries. Did they overlap or are they maybe five of the same countries? It is the seven exact same countries that the Democrats voted for that everybody over on the other side of the aisle who is hurling these claims of xenophobia voted for. Those same seven countries are now in and on the website at the State Department that Joe Biden runs. Now, what does this do? Again, I want to be clear. It is not a total ban. But, by the way, Trump's wasn't either. It was a temporary suspension. But what they have done, and what Joe Biden perpetuates on these same seven countries--this is not a Muslim ban, but he is doing it to the same seven countries, perpetuating the Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, he is saying you can't get a visa waiver if you are from one of those seven countries. Now which is worse? I mean, you can say, okay, it is not racist to just make it harder to travel, if we do it for 5 years or do it forever, that is not racist or xenophobic. But if you do it for six months, like Trump proposed, 180 days, well, now that is racist right there. This is so ridiculous. I can't even believe they have the audacity to pretend they didn't vote in 2015 to add these seven countries. Let's just get back to protecting this country. Let's not use these bills and these provisions to say that one side is racist, or one side is xenophobic, or you are a bunch of bigots. President Obama was not xenophobic when he put these seven countries on his list, because they were the seven countries that the Democrats on the other side of the aisle chose. They are the seven countries that Obama chose. I say, let's protect this country and get back to working together. [From the State Department website] Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015 Under the Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015, travelers in the following categories must obtain a visa prior to traveling to the United States as they are no longer eligible to travel under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP): Nationals of VWP countries who have traveled to or been present in Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, or Yemen on or after March 1, 2011 (with limited exceptions for travel for diplomatic or military purposes in the service of a VWP country). Nationals of VWP countries who are also nationals of Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, or Syria. These individuals can apply for visas using regular appointment processes at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. For those who require a visa for urgent travel to the United States, U.S. Embassies and Consulates stand ready to handle applications on an expedited basis. If an individual who is exempt from the Act because of his or her diplomatic or military presence in one of the seven countries has his or her ESTA denied, he or she may go to the CSP website, or contact the CSP information Center. The traveler may also apply for a nonimmigrant visa at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate. U.S. Customs and Border Protection strongly recommends that any traveler to the United States check his or her ESTA status prior to making any travel reservations or travelling to the United States. More information is available on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) website.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, Democrats today want to introduce gun control legislation that they say is going to make you safer. They want to expand background checks. But what do background checks accomplish? Well, the DOJ said there were 112,000 denials in a year. Who were those 112,000 people? Well, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have you think those were felons, they saved you from those felons. But how many of those 112,000 were prosecuted for that crime of trying to acquire that gun? According to the DOJ, 12--1-2--12 in a year. Who were the other 100,000? Imagine, just imagine now that you are the victim of an abusive relationship and after 5 years you have summoned the courage and the resources to separate from that relationship, but things have escalated and now you have decided that it is time to acquire the means to protect you and your children. So you go to the gun store and you try to buy a gun. The clerk presses the computer button, and it says ``denied.'' You ask the clerk, ``Why was it denied?'' The clerk says, ``I don't know. This happens sometimes. Maybe you had a similar name to somebody else in the database.'' You can't buy a gun today, tomorrow, next week. Not ever. You have been denied. So you go to a friend you have known for a long time. Your friend says, ``I would like to help you.'' You say, ``Well, I don't know if I am going to make it through the night.'' Your friend says, ``I would like to help you, but don't you know H.R. 8 passed and it was signed by the President. I can't spend a year in a cage. Good luck tonight.'' Mr. Speaker, now, I am not going to ask you to imagine what happens next because the Democrats saw fit to put into this bill a requirement that you have an imminent threat of death. The threat has to be right there upon you or great bodily harm. What do they say? Well, if you are just expecting a few bruises and maybe a punch, put some ice on it. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues here today and I am going to challenge the sponsors of this bill and those of them who might think they would vote for this bill to consider whether it is fair. Is it fair to surround yourself with armed guards, with Capitol Hill Police who have guns, with personal details, bodyguards, and ask the people to pay for it when you make it harder for those same people to protect themselves? I don't think that is fair. And for the fact checkers who are already hard at work on this speech, I include in the Record this GAO report on the DOJ statistics on background checks. [From the United States Government Accountability Office, Sept. 2018] Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives Law Enforcement--Few Individuals Denied Firearms Purchases Are Prosecuted and ATF Should Assess Use of Warning Notices in Lieu of Prosecutions why gao did this study In 2017, approximately 25.6 million firearm-related background checks were processed through NICS, and about 181,000 of the attempted purchases at the federal and state levels combined were denied because the individual was prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law. Individuals who certify that they are not prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm and are subsequently determined to be prohibited could be subject to investigation, and if prosecuted, a fine, imprisonment, or both. GAO was asked to examine firearms denials. This report (1) describes the extent to which federal and selected state law enforcement agencies investigate and prosecute firearms denial cases; (2) examines related challenges faced by these agencies; and (3) describes the circumstances that lead to investigations and prosecutions. GAO reviewed laws and regulations; analyzed federal and state data from 2011 through 2017; and interviewed officials from ATF headquarters, 6 of 25 ATF field divisions (the 6 that investigated the most cases), and the 13 states that process all NICS checks within their state. Results from state interviews are not generalizable but provide insights on state practices. what gao recommends GAO recommends that ATF assess the extent to which ATF field divisions use warning notifications as an enforcement tool, which would inform whether changes to policy are needed. DOJ concurred with GAO's recommendation. what gao found Investigations and prosecutions. Federal and selected state law enforcement agencies that process firearm-related background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) collectively investigate and prosecute a small percentage of individuals who falsify information on a firearms form (e.g., do not disclose a felony conviction) and are denied a purchase. Federal NICS checks resulted in about 112,000 denied transactions in fiscal year) 2017, of which the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) referred about 12,700 to its field divisions for further investigation. U.S. Attorney's Offices (USAO) had prosecuted 12 of these cases as of June 2018.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have a brief point to make. I wonder how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle hold two thoughts in contradiction simultaneously in their minds. They say that photo IDs and excessive registration paperwork and whatnot disenfranchises disproportionately minorities and the poor when they go to exercise their right to vote. But today with H.R. 8 and the next bill that is coming up, they are doing exactly that. They are causing there to be increased fees, increased paperwork, and more photo IDs. How does that not disenfranchise not just all Americans but disproportionately minorities and the poor? Mr. Speaker, I leave that to my colleagues to answer today.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, in March, Speaker Pelosi called me a dangerous nuisance for insisting that at least half of Congress come back to vote on a $2 trillion bailout bill. This week, she has called Congress into session to vote on a post office bill that is nothing but political posturing. Now, Speaker Pelosi told us we would probably be back in August to vote on a PPP bill. What she didn't tell us is that the PPP would stand for Pelosi's political posturing. Let me read a quote from the chief operating officer of the U.S. Postal Service that might explain what is going on. ``The decision to consolidate mail processing facilities recognizes the urgent need to reduce the size of the national mail processing network to eliminate costly underutilized infrastructure.'' That was the chief operating officer under Obama and Biden. In fact, that is from a press release in 2012 when they announced they were closing nine processing facilities in the State of Kentucky. In fact, they didn't remove the equipment, they locked the doors and turned out the lights and shut it down forever, even in Lexington, Kentucky, our second biggest city in Kentucky. A year earlier they closed down a processing facility in my district, the Obama administration did--Obama/Biden. I include those press releases in the Record. [Feb. 23, 2012] Kentucky Mail Processing Closings Announced Kentuckiana District--As a result of studies begun five months ago, the Postal Service has made the decision to move all mail processing processing operations from: Bowling Green, KY Processing and Distribution Facility (P&DF) to the Nashville, TN, Processing and Distribution Center (P&DC). Campton, KY, Customer Service Mail Processing Center (CSMPC) to the Louisville, KY, P&DC. Elizabethtown, KY, CSMPC to the Louisville P&DC. Hazard, KY, CSMPC to the Knoxville, TN, P&DC. Lexington, KY, P&DC to the Louisville P&DC and the Knoxville P&DC. London, KY P&DF to the Knoxville P&DC. Paducah, KY, P&DF to the Evansville, IN, P&DF. Somerset, KY, CSMPC to the Knoxville P&DC. Once the transfers are completed, the mail processing operation at the closing sites will cease. There will be no change to any of the retail units, business mail entry units or vehicle maintenance facilities at these locations at this time. It also has been determined as a result of the study of the Louisville, KY, Annex, that there was no significant opportunity to improve efficiency or service through consolidation of mail processing operations, and no changes will be made at this time. The Postal Service has experienced a 25 percent decline in First-Class Mail volume since 2006, and receives no tax dollars for its operations, relying instead on the sale of postage, and postal products and services. ``The decision to consolidate mail processing facilities recognizes the urgent need to reduce the size of the national mail processing network to eliminate costly underutilized infrastructure,'' said Chief Operating Officer. ``Consolidating operations is necessary if the Postal Service is to remain viable to provide mail service to the nation.'' Specific dates have not been set for the transition. Until a specific date has been announced, residential and business mailers will continue to be served through the current facilities. In December 2011, the Postal Service agreed to impose a moratorium on closing or consolidating post offices and mail processing facilities prior to May 15, 2012, to give Congress and the Administration the opportunity to enact an alternative plan. This delay was designed to allow Congress sufficient time to enact comprehensive postal legislation. In the meantime, the Postal Service continued all necessary steps required for the review of these facilities, including public notifications, public input meetings and consideration of public comments. Implementation of this consolidation is contingent upon the outcome of pending rulemaking for a proposal to revise existing service standards. This announcement is provided in advance so that appropriate planning and notification can be made in accordance with existing employee agreements. A list of mail processing studies and their status is available at usps.com/ourfuturenetwork. Specific information about individual studies, including public meeting summaries and summary briefs, is posted on the website, usps.com/ areamailprocessing, as it becomes available.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, my mail, if I send it to my neighbor, goes to Charleston, West Virginia, before it comes back to Kentucky. Is this part of some vast conspiracy? No. It's part of a decade's long realignment process where the post office is trying to match the needs of the consumers to the post office infrastructure. These voter suppression conspiracies, who knows what the Democrats will blame next. Last month they were blaming the Census, this month they are blaming the post office, probably next month they will blame Amtrak.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the Langevin national cyber director amendment, which would expand an already bloated administrative state by creating a new position within the White House, basically, a resident lobbyist for big tech vendors and a legion of 75 unaccountable career government bureaucrats. This new department is like a self-licking ice cream cone, paid for by taxpayers and accountable to virtually no one. The President opposes this new position, as should anyone who believes that laws should be written by elected Congressmen and carried out by an elected President. Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, if there is a constitutional way to turn D.C. into a State, this bill is not it. This bill is a farcical exercise in legislative virtue signaling because it contains a fatal constitutional flaw. Let's talk about what this bill doesn't do. This bill doesn't magically convert all of D.C. into a State. This bill doesn't create a new State containing a city called D.C. Because both of these clearly violate the Constitution. Some overly clever legislative artists think they have found a new loophole, a way to create a State in D.C. without violating the Constitution. What this bill does is it seeks to shrink the city of D.C. into a tiny city, and then creates a State from the territory that is left over. The problem with that is there is the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution that gives the city of D.C. presently three electoral votes. Paradoxically, the bill itself acknowledges the constitutional flaw within because it contains an expedited procedure to vote on the repeal of the 23rd Amendment in this Chamber and the Senate Chamber. The problem is, the bill keeps plowing forward and would create a new State, even if the 23rd Amendment is not repealed. This creates the farcical situation where the few residents, which are the residents at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the First Family, would control three electoral votes. This is crazy. So, I urge my colleagues to vote for the Constitution today and vote against H.R. 51.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was refused.

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues today will offer a bill to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act. It will have the thin varnish of reform on it, designed to whitewash the egregious constitutional violations that have been going on, but it is the Americans who are going to be shellacked by this legislation and the process used to pass it. I want to read the Fourth Amendment and part of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution here today on the floor. ``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 Fifth Amendment says: Nor shall any person be ``deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'' So, let's think about some of these words because they are being treated as if they are curse words or dirty words today. Warrant, due process, probable cause, these are all things that are guaranteed as rights for all Americans in the Constitution, and none of those can be guaranteed without transparency. We can't have star chambers and kangaroo courts. This has to happen in daylight, and it has to be reviewable by the people in order to know that these things are true. These things, they are inconvenient, a warrant, due process, probable cause. They are inconvenient for investigators. They are inconvenient for prosecutors. They sometimes get in the way. They make the job of finding the criminals, of finding the terrorists, a little bit harder. But they are guaranteed rights of all Americans, so we have to keep them in the process. But let me talk about the legislative process here today, and I want to challenge the authors of this bill to come down here and defend what they have done. This bill started out in a committee. This is how it is supposed to happen, as a base bill. Then, as the debate started getting underway, oh, it got inconvenient. Things were said that people didn't want to be said. Amendments were offered to make it more constitutional. They didn't like that. What did they do? The chairman of the committee pulled the bill, canceled the hearing, and canceled the markup of this bill, and they took it behind closed doors. They took it into the back room to write it. They took it into the back room to draft it. Why did they go into the back room? Because the lobbyists aren't in the committee, and the deep state doesn't get a vote on the committee, so they got them in the back room with them. The lobbyists and the deep state helped draft this bill that we are going to vote on today. How much time do we have to review it? Less than 24 hours. Last night is when they made the text available. There is a rule in this House that guarantees 72 hours to review a bill. They are going to suspend that rule here in a few minutes, and people will willingly vote to suspend that rule so they can ram this bill through, so that they can reauthorize the unconstitutional provisions of the PATRIOT Act. Now, I understand terrorists, foreign terrorists, don't have constitutional rights, so that is why the PATRIOT Act and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act were passed, so that those impediments wouldn't be in the way when you are going after terrorists, foreign terrorists. But everybody is presumed innocent until proven guilty, so we need to maintain that. One of the worst things that has happened as a result of the FISA and the PATRIOT Act is that a Presidential candidate was spied on. He is now the President. He overcame that. But this bill should fix that. A candidate, Presidential, congressional, city councilman, never again should they be spied on using these tools that are supposed to go after terrorists, after foreigners. I urge my colleagues in the House--well, the ones who have offered this bill, I urge them to get down here and defend what they have done. I urge them to come down here and explain why they don't want us to have--they don't want you to have 72 hours to look at this bill. Come down and defend that. Then, for all of my other colleagues here in the House, I urge you to vote ``no.'' And for my friends in the Senate, vote ``no'' as well. If this should make it to the President's desk, which I fear it is going to--I fear it is going to be on his desk, and he has some unwise or insincere counselors right now. I urge the President, if this should make it to his desk, to remember what they did to him with this legislation. Remember. And I urge him to veto this bill if this should get there this week.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 77 and NAY on Roll Call No. 78.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the marathon impeachment sham trial currently underway and occupying the Senate's valuable time. Frankly, the American people tuned out a long time ago. They find the proceeding simply boring, and rightly so. In fact, a recent focus group of Democrats said they don't even care about this impeachment trial. They are not interested, and they are ready to move on. The truth is that, despite all of the repetitive accusations of coverup, quid pro quo, he said, she said, et cetera, et cetera, this is nothing more than an attempt at a soft coup against President Trump by the people who still can't get over the fact that he beat Hillary Clinton fair and square at the ballot box. Just listen to some of the recent rants made by the impeachment managers. As one manager says: ``The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.'' What an insult to American voters. If we can't trust the American voters, who can we trust? Does he think they are gullible? Does he think he is better than them? Or take the comments of another impeachment manager, a Democrat. He said, referring to President Trump: ``He is a dictator. This must not stand, and that is another reason he must be removed from office.'' These are insulting to the American public who chose this President over Hillary Clinton. But these are the types of comments you would expect in a Third World country in which military coups are a common occurrence, not in the United States of America where we honor the votes and choices of the American people. President Zelensky and President Trump both said there was no pressure or coercion, and the call transcripts have been released to the public to prove this. But even if there had been pressure, if withholding foreign aid is an impeachable offense, why did Joe Biden threaten to do it? As I have stated repeatedly, if the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors has been brought down so low to include President Donald Trump's so-called abuse of power, then Joe Biden should be charged for his actions in Ukraine. Instead, he gets a pass. This impeachment trial is simply a farce. But it is an expensive and time wasting one foisted on the American people by those who do not have our country's best interests at heart. Even the Speaker of the House, who is a Democrat, said, if there is going to be an impeachment trial, if there is going to be impeachment proceedings, it should be bipartisan, it would have to be bipartisan. Mr. Speaker, the only thing bipartisan about this sham is the opposition to it. Democrats joined every Republican to vote against it in the House. I expect we are going to see similar results in the Senate, a bipartisan opposition to this partisan sham. I look forward to the Senate bringing this farce to a speedy conclusion.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, there are two times we are going to be called to account for our votes here in Congress. One is at our next election; the other is when we draw our last breath of air. I am more concerned about the latter. This vote isn't about supporting or opposing President Trump. I voted for President Trump. I plan to vote for President Trump again. This vote is about exercising our constitutional authority. More importantly, it is about our moral obligation to decide when and where our troops are going to be asked to give their lives. Congress needs to do more of what we are doing here today. We need to debate our involvement in Afghanistan, and then we need to bring our troops home. We need to debate our involvement in Iraq, and then we need to bring our troops home. We certainly don't need another war. If we do go to war, it needs to be with the blessing and the support of the people and a mission that our soldiers can accomplish. We do that by following the vision of our Founding Fathers: We debate it here on the floor of the House. That is what this resolution is about, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, just a few hours ago, this body voted for impeachment, so I rise today to speak about an abuse of power. Congress has the sole power to declare war and the awesome responsibility to decide when, where, and for what purposes our soldiers will be asked to give their lives. Eighteen years ago, this body misappropriated that power by issuing an open-ended authorization to commit our soldiers to fight anywhere on the globe. The so-called war on terror has claimed the lives of more American soldiers than lives of civilians who were lost on 9/11, not to mention over 100,000 lives of foreigners not associated with terror. In the last week, this Chamber has passed over 6,000 pages of legislation, and it spent over a trillion dollars. Tragically, we just funded the 19th year of the war in Afghanistan, without changing or even defining a strategy for winning or ending that war. So I close by indicting this very body for an abuse of power: abuse of our war powers and abuse of our power of the purse.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk to change the title of the bill to: ``A bill to kick the can down the road, and for other purposes.''

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in honor of Carmel Manor in Fort Thomas, KY. Carmel Manor has been providing care for seniors in the northern Kentucky community for 70 years. Carmel Manor served its first residents in 1949 after the Diocese of Covington asked the Carmelite Sisters to administer the home. The Carmelite Sisters are united in and motivated by the belief that life is valuable from conception to its natural end. They understand it is hard to leave a loved one in the care of another, but the staff of Carmel Manor have proven they know how to care for the whole person-- not just physical needs but spiritual, emotional, and social needs as well. Throughout its history, Carmel Manor has worked to honor its residents ' lives with compassion, dignity, and joy. They have achieved this by growing with the needs of their community. Congratulations to Carmel Manor on their 70th anniversary. May they continue their mission to care in the years to come.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MASSIE. Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.