Jamie Raskin

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a distinguished reporter and commentator, Bruce DePuyt, on the occasion of his retirement from News Channel 8. For over 25 years, Mr. DePuyt has been a steadfast and trusted source of news for millions of people in Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia. As most recently the producer and host of NewsTalk on WJLA News Channel 8, he has covered with true zeal, old-fashioned erudition and relentless energy not only local news but national and international news, weaving them together to create the special news ethos of the Washington area. His journalistic excellence has been recognized by local institutions such as the Washington Blade, which listed him as Best TV Personality of 2013, and the Washington City Paper, which named him Best Newsmaker of 2010. Mr. DePuyt is widely respected among his fellow print and broadcast journalists, who compete to have him as a commentator. I have had the privilege to witness firsthand, both as a guest on his show and as a loyal member of the audience, Mr. DePuyt's exemplary skill as an interviewer and piercing insight as an analyst. Although a bulldog for a straight answer, he can always be trusted to facilitate fair, enlightening and compelling conversations on the essential topics of the day. Please join me and many residents of Maryland, as well as our friends in Virginia and D.C., as we thank Mr. DePuyt for his many years of service in educating and informing the community. He has made great journalistic contributions already, and we congratulate him on his rich and impressive career and wish him well in all of his future endeavors as a journalist and a citizen.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi) for the exemplary act of civility in allowing me and another late-arriving colleague to be part of the freshman class presentation about our collective commitment to promoting and practicing civility both within our class and within the Congress of the United States as long as we are here. It is a great honor to be part of the freshman class of the 115th Congress. I am thrilled to make this commitment to civility--and even friendship--across the aisle with whatever Republican colleagues are willing to hang out with a liberal constitutional law professor. Despite my great passions as a liberal and a progressive, I dedicate myself to civility for three reasons, and I think they are all consistent with my political values and beliefs: First, I am a middle child, and so it is in my nature to try to bring people together. If you study the theory of birth order advanced by Frank Sulloway in his great book ``Born to Rebel,'' you will find an exemplary middle child in Reverend Martin Luther King who believed in the power of love for reconciling different views in society, and you will find a theory of the effectiveness of nonviolent struggle for progress and change, a theory that doesn't try to wish away or blink away real conflict that people have but embraces conflict as the possibility for uplifting everyone in the process. Second, I am from the great State of Maryland, one of the original middle States tucked between New England and the South. In Maryland, we have a habit of working across party lines for the common good. Many of the big bills that I introduced in the Maryland Senate I introduced with Republican friends, like my friend Senator David Brinkley. We did the medical marijuana program together. He is a fellow cancer survivor and felt very strongly about that. I did a number of criminal justice reform measures, including abolishing mandatory minimum drug sentences, with a Republican colleague named Michael Hough in Frederick County, who lives within my congressional district. I even introduced a bill which succeeded for fiscal transparency in government, putting up all government expenditures over $10,000 online within 48 hours, with Congressman Alex Mooney from West Virginia, although then he was a State senator in Maryland who served with me in Annapolis. Third, as a law professor, I believe that all of our ideas, passions, and feelings about politics are refined, perfected, and improved through the process of political dialogue, testing, and questioning. So I know that our Republican colleagues make us stronger on the Democratic side of the aisle, and I hope that we make them stronger, too, that we all grow together and that we are able to improve each other's ideas, change each other's minds sometimes, and work on issues of common concern like infrastructure, which I think is a pressing problem that we can gather consensus around in this body, like the environment and the perils of climate change. Our greatest Presidents have always called us to civility. George Washington invited Americans to place our patriotic love of liberty first above partisan and sectional feeling. Thomas Jefferson said that we are all Republicans, we are all federalists at a time of great division in the country. In his first inaugural address, President Lincoln said: ``We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.'' So the bonds of affection might seem like a romantic dream given the divisions and polarization in the country today, but I do think that, if at least we start with civility and respect, maybe we will be able to attain the level of recovering the bonds of affection that should unify all of us as Americans. The word ``party'' comes from the French word ``partie,'' a part, and we have got to remember--each of us, all of us--that our party is just one small part of the whole, and we are all here to try to advance the common good. With that, again, I want to thank the Congressman for his very gracious offer of the time.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Thank you so much, Mr. Garamendi. Thank you for convening us to talk about the first month of the Trump administration. The attacks on our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, and the rule of law are coming fast and furious, so it is hard to collect all of them, and I appreciate the effort to try to inventory them today. I represent the wonderful people of Montgomery County, Frederick County, and Carroll County, Maryland, the Eighth Congressional District, and I am, by training, a professor of constitutional law which I have done for the last quarter century at American University. So in reviewing the highlights--or the low lights--of the last several weeks, Mr. Garamendi, I thought I would start, actually, with my very first day on the job. I went to sign up for health insurance in the basement of the Longworth House Office Building, which I was delighted to do because my job entitles me to sign up for health insurance, and I recognized how fortunate I was. As I was down there, a number of other new Members began to form, and I looked at them. Then, as I was going through, at the same time, some memoranda that my office had received, I noticed that some of the first bills we were going to be looking at were to set the stage for dismantling the Affordable Care Act, for voucherizing Medicare, for pulverizing Medicaid and downsizing it, for demonizing Planned Parenthood, and for making it impossible for hundreds of thousands of citizens across the country to get basic health care. I said to myself: Tell me that it is not the case that I am entering Congress with other Members who are going to be signing up for health insurance that they get as part of their job, and then they are going to go upstairs to the floor of the House and vote to strip 22 million Americans of their health care in the Affordable Care Act. But, believe it or not, this is precisely what has transpired, and there is a very clear move on to try to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. The majority has voted more than 60 times to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but America has woken up to the fact that it is for real this time, and we have hundreds of thousands--millions--of citizens mobilizing across the country to defend the Affordable Care Act and to demand accountability from their Member of Congress. I am thrilled to see that. Also, during the last few weeks, we all read a report from 16 intelligence agencies of the United States, including the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and a dozen more, all of them expressing their confidence and their very strong belief that Vladimir Putin, the KGB, and the Russian Government worked a campaign to undermine and sabotage American democracy in the 2016 Presidential election. It included acts of cyber sabotage, espionage, fake news, and propaganda that all entered into American political discourse and our institutions in order to change the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election. What we have gotten from the President of the United States is a series of blithe dismissals of the whole thing saying repeatedly: Other people do the same. I think it was yesterday that commentator Bill O'Reilly said that he needed to criticize Vladimir Putin, who was a killer, to which the President responded: Lots of people are killers. And, essentially: Have you looked at what America has done recently? That kind of talk is absolutely outrageous and scandalous that the President would say that. The point is not to join the killers of the world. The point is not to participate in the league of bandits, bullies, dictators, despots, and rightwing movements that are forming all over the world. The point is to take them on and to stand up for democracy, human rights, and the real ideals of the country. So back in the home office, in Moscow, they must be chortling that the President of the United States would establish a moral equivalency between the first democracy--the first constitutional democracy ever created on Earth--and a thug who is presiding over essentially a kleptocratic, authoritarian regime in Russia, a man who has said that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the single greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. So we have that to deal with. Meantime, instead of taking on the real authoritarians on Earth, the President summons up all of his courage with Steve Bannon, and they impose a ban on people coming to America from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen; and they invoke 9/11 several times in the course of establishing this unprecedented refugee ban. The only problem is that the terrorist hijackers who came to attack the country on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. The vast majority of them came from Saudi Arabia, which is the stronghold and the organizing center of Wahhabism, fundamentalism, radical Islamic terrorism on Earth which has been promoting and disseminating militant Islamist ideology all over the world. Yet, the Trump administration did nothing about that, either because they were too powerful for them to take on or because Mr. Trump has had extensive business dealings with Saudi Arabia, as well as in other countries that were passed over in this ban. Now, of course, because this is a religiously oriented Muslim ban that is meant to whip up propaganda, hysteria, and chaos in the country and has nothing to do with national security, it has been struck down in different parts or in whole by five or six Federal district courts, most recently by the United States District Court in Seattle. The case is now in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. There are so many problems with the executive order in terms of due process, equal protection, free exercise of religion, and so on, that there are multiple judicial decisions that are striking down different aspects of the executive order. Well, what else do we have going on? Today, in one of the committees that I serve on, the House Administration Committee, there was a 6-3 vote to dismantle the only Federal election entity, the EAC, which is charged with trying to promote the cybersecurity of our elections. That vote was along party lines--6-3--to dismantle the Election Assistance Commission which had been created and established on a bipartisan vote many years ago. That was just taken down. So I would say that there appears to be an effort to plunge America into a certain kind of chaos at this point. That, of course, has been the explicit wish of Steve Bannon, who has described himself as a Leninist who wants to tear down our system of government and demolish the politics of the country to replace with something else which has gone un-named. So, my fellow Americans, Mr. Garamendi, these are very serious times. I am thrilled that the people of America are organizing in every State of the Union and in every community to build up the capacity to resist these attacks on our Constitution, on our Bill of Rights, and on the rule of law. The majority of the people who did not vote for this President are mobilized, they are galvanized, and they understand that eternal vigilance is, indeed, the price of liberty, and people are going to remain eternally vigilant--and passionately so--during the course of this administration when the attacks continue to come fast and furious on our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.

Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentleman from California for his leadership.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Again, that is very gracious of you, and I appreciate the spirit with which you engage in this dialogue. I think it is something we really do need to get to the bottom of. To my knowledge, Trump Industries is not doing business in the poor Muslim countries that were targeted like Somalia, Libya, and so on, but perhaps I can be corrected. In any event, the fact that he has done business in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, and United Arab Emirates--in the wealthier Muslim countries--it may be logical as a matter of business practice, but I don't think that can become the basis for American foreign policy. I think that is the reason why this policy has created such outrage in America and around the world because it doesn't seem to have any national security logic to it. It is not about terrorism unless you can convince me that those seven countries actually generated terrorism.

Mr. RASKIN. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RASKIN. I thank you for your thoughtful comments tonight, and I think you made some good points. I think you effectively made the point that this is not, strictly speaking, a Muslim ban. It is not a ban on all Muslims entering the country. In the popular vernacular, the public has taken up basically what was the current President's language that he used during the campaign. So people are using it for kind of a shorthand. But I want to ask you about the ban. It is not the case that there is no religious reference in the executive order because it does say that the religious minorities from those countries are given preference, and that would be the Christians in those countries. One thing I think that does need to be corrected is thousands of Christians were admitted from the Muslim world under the Obama administration, and there was no discrimination. In fact, I think there were almost as many Christians admitted as Muslims. But here is my real question for you. The 9/11 hijackers--which was the worst terrorist atrocity ever committed on our shores, thousands of Americans were killed, the country plunged into chaos--came from three countries: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates. All three of those countries where Trump Industries does business were exempted from the ban on the seven countries. Why? What is the policy justification for not including that? None of the countries that are included in the ban produced any of the terrorist attacks that we saw in Orlando, in San Bernardino County, or any of the other ones. So how were those chosen and the source countries for the 9/11 attack exempted?

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. I ask unanimous consent for just 1 minute to complete----

Mr. RASKIN. Could we allow the gentleman to complete his statement just with 1 minute?

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from Washington State (Ms. Jayapal) and I thank all of the Members who have come pouring out in response for this Progressive Caucus Special Order. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, we have four more speakers. We have had an overwhelming response to the Progressive Caucus' Special Order on the executive orders here. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief here because a number of our colleagues from around the country are waiting to weigh in. Let me just say that this executive order is like a bad issue spotter on a constitutional law final exam. It is riddled with so many constitutional errors and violations, starting with the ban on religious free exercise, equal protection of the laws. The way it has been implemented has been draconian and Kafkaesque around the country, violating due process and the right to counsel, which has been the source of a lot of the successful constitutional litigation that has already taken place. It hasn't even been out on the street for a week, and I think five or six Federal district courts have struck down different aspects of it. So it is a Pandora's box, and it is going to be the gift that keeps giving to constitutional lawyers across the country. Again, we are urging the President just to withdraw it at this point.

Mr. RASKIN. I thank the Congresswoman for her comments. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Congressman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentleman. That is very gracious of the Congressman.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here with my colleague Pramila Jayapal from Seattle, Washington. We wanted to talk about what has been happening over the last week with the executive orders on immigration and asylum that have taken place, and we want to try to take a broad perspective on this; to put it in some historical, legal and constitutional context; and then also to talk very specifically about the executive orders and what has been taking place with them in different parts of the country; and about the multiple Federal judicial rulings imposing injunctions on enforcement of those orders. But I wanted to begin, actually, by stepping back from the heat of the current crisis and looking, instead, at the idea of America. Well, what is the idea of America? America was created, as the great Tom Paine said, as a haven of refuge for people fleeing political and religious repression from all around the world. Remember the radicalism of the American Revolution and our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. We were the first Nation on Earth conceived in revolutionary insurgency against monarchy, dictatorship, autocracy, theocracy, and the merger of church and State. The American colonists were rebelling against, not just the king and all of the whimsical depredations and abuses of the crown, but also against centuries of religious warfare in Europe between the Protestants and the Catholics, holy inquisition, holy crusades, witchcraft trials, endless wars between the Catholics and the Protestants. Our forefathers and foremothers wanted to break from that history and put into our Constitution the separation of church and State--as Jefferson called it, the wall of separation between church and State, the establishment clause, the idea of free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, the right to petition for redress of grievances, the right of people to assemble, freedom of thought, freedom of conscience in the United States. But it would be a land that would be open to people who were fleeing authoritarianism, who were trying to get away from repressive regimes, and kings, and monarchs, and princes, and tyrants, and dictators, and despots everywhere. That was the idea behind America. Well, then in this Presidential campaign, then candidate Donald Trump said that he wanted to impose a Muslim ban, a ban on Muslims coming to America, which would cause our forefathers and foremothers to turn over in their graves to hear that somebody running for President of the United States wanted to impose a ban on the immigration of people based on their religious faith, in a country that was designed on the principle of free exercise of religion, designed on the principle of no establishment of religion, designed on the principle of no religious tests for public office or political participation that suddenly we would say we are not going to accept people--in the 21st century--based on their religious heritage. And of course, anybody can make up their religion anyway. Anybody can say what they are. So it is as futile and as silly as it is anathema and apathetical to our basic constitutional ideals. Well, that Muslim ban has, in its bizarre way, become law now in the United States of America. The President issued an executive order as one of his first actions on people coming to our country from Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, those seven countries. And we have got to interrogate what exactly the logic of this is. The President and his chief strategists of the alt-right, named Steve Bannon, have defended this order on the grounds of national security. The idea is that somehow we are defending the national security and the defense by banning people from those countries. All right, we all support national security. If that would advance our national security, it is something we should look at. Well, what is the evidence that that is going to benefit our national security? Our country now is no stranger to terror and to terrorism. All of us remember that shocking, fateful day, 9/11, back in 2001, when America changed forever. Those 19 hijackers came from three countries. And which three countries on this list of seven did they come from? None of them. Those hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. The overwhelming majority of them came from Saudi Arabia, then Egypt then United Arab Emirates. None of those three countries is on this list of seven. Why not? Well, a couple of different theories are out there. One is that President Trump has business interests in those countries. He is doing business with corporations in Saudi Arabia, in Egypt, and in the United Arab Emirates. So that is one leading theory that is out there. The other is that these are rich and powerful countries. So despite the fact that they were the lead exporters from this prism of terrorist hijackers to the United States, they get a pass. And instead, we pick on Yemen, and Somalia, and Iraq--our presumed ally--that another Republican President sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into waging a war based on the mythology that there were weapons of mass destruction in that country, but now they are on our side. Yet, we have imposed a ban of people coming in as refugees from Iraq. But Saudi Arabia gets a pass; Egypt gets a pass; United Arab Emirates gets a pass because they are on the rich side. So what exactly do these seven countries have in common if it doesn't have anything to do with our national security? Because if you look at the other terrorist events that have taken place in our country, for example, the Boston Marathon bombers, those young men who were implicated in that crime against the people of the city of Boston and the people of the United States came from Russia originally. Is there a ban on Russia being imposed here? Quite the contrary. Earlier today, President Trump relaxed sanctions on Russia, made it easier for American businesses to export information technology to Russian companies, according to news reports. I haven't seen the exact order yet, but there is an executive order that is lessening sanctions on Russia, despite the fact that two of the most infamous terrorists against the United States originally came from there. So what do those seven countries have in common? Well, they are all Muslim countries. They are poor Muslim countries. They are poor Muslim countries that Donald Trump doesn't do business with. And so maybe that is it. Maybe the idea is, we are going to wage a worldwide war on the poorest, most vulnerable Muslim countries, even if they don't pose any special threat to us, because that will conform to Steve Bannon's ideological world view of a major contest between the Christian west and radical Islamic terror. I think that would be it. But President Trump, of course, puts his business interests even above the racism and White nationalism of Steve Bannon, because the business interests have to come first in all cases. So that is the best that we can make of what has been imposed on the country, an Orwellian policy imposed with Kafkaesque incompetence all over the United States of America. So the airports are in an uproar, families have been dislocated, children agonized over the situation, panic spreading across America. And part of me wants to think, well, this is just the misfortunes of a beginning President. Maybe this is part of a design by Steve Bannon who has proclaimed himself a Leninist who wants to tear the system down, tear the government down; to start over again. Maybe that is what is going on. Who knows? But all of this brings us back to the emoluments clause. Now the emoluments clause, Article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution was inserted by our great Founders because they feared foreign monetary dominance of the United States Government. They knew that kings and princes, dictators and despots, traitors and saboteurs all over the place would try to use their money to compromise the integrity of Republican government, Republican democracy. Remember, we were trying something new here, what our great Republican President Abraham Lincoln would later come to call the ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' That was the experiment that we launched then, and they knew that there was a basic problem, which is, the room will not hold all. We can't have a New England town meeting every time we need to make a decision, so we have got to elect people to go be our Governors. But when you elect them, now you have got an agent. And the problem all of you lawyers know out there--in principal agent law--is how do you make sure the agent actually serves the client rather than the interests of the agent himself or herself? And the Founders understood that, and they were afraid that the people who we elected might go to Washington and be corrupted by foreign money, by all of the diplomats and spies running around offering gifts, and gold, and snuffboxes, and diamonds, and so on. And so what they said was that no official in our government, no official could accept any gifts, or emolument, any payment of any kind at all from a foreign government, a king, a prince, or a foreign government. No foreign payments. And that is something that has been observed scrupulously for more than two centuries by our Presidents. Nobody has even come close to the line of violating that. When Benjamin Franklin was Ambassador to France, he received a snuffbox from the people of France. He came back, and he brought it to Congress and asked Congress to approve, because it is up to this body to decide whether or not a foreign payment is acceptable or not. And Congress said: Mr. Franklin, because of your extraordinary reputation for integrity, for decency, and for honesty, we understand you have not been compromised by that snuffbox, and it is just a snuffbox, and you can keep it. But today, what we have got now is a President who has hundreds of millions of dollars of interest all over the world--in Russia, in the Philippines--millions of dollars of loans from the Government of China, the Trump Hotel, which is renting out banquet rooms, dining halls, floors, hotel rooms, to foreign governments and embassies from all over the world who come here to try to influence our government. And what do we hear about the emoluments clause? Has the President come to ask us whether or not we approve of these arrangements? Nothing. Nothing has happened. Is it affecting policy? Every single day. And I come back--before I turn it over to my colleague--to what we are talking about, which is these executive orders which have this very bizarre quality, my fellow Americans. They apply to poor Muslim countries where Donald Trump has no business interests. These executive orders don't apply to Saudi Arabia, they don't apply to Egypt, they don't apply to the United Arab Emirates, they don't apply to any of the countries where Trump Industries has business. That is precisely why the Founders put in the emoluments clause. I know it is a bit of a mouthful, but every American has got to learn to say it. All it means is payments. This is the foreign bribery clause in our Constitution. These terrible immigration orders, which have created chaos and pandemonium across the land, are a perfect demonstration of why we need to enforce the emoluments clause and why this President needs to divest himself immediately of all these foreign concerns, or this Congress must hear the appeals that are coming from our side of the aisle and must listen to the fact that these payments that are being received on a daily basis by the President are a threat to the American constitutional order. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. Jayapal), my good friend and colleague from Seattle, Washington.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Barragan).

Mr. RASKIN. I thank the gentlewoman. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished Congresswoman from New York, Yvette Clarke.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. If the gentleman has a few seconds left, I would just say I know the distinguished Congressman King is going to go, and then we have a couple more people who were left over from the Progressive Caucus Special Order who will stay for 1-minutes after.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 7. A few days ago, millions of Americans made history by marching for freedom and equality against an administration that keeps threatening to grab women by their privacy rights. H.R. 7 now tries to make it impossible for millions of women, like my constituents in Maryland, to have an abortion, even when their health is at stake and even to the point of manipulating the tax laws to force private insurers in the ACA not to offer complete coverage. Here in Washington, D.C., the only capital of a democracy on Earth where residents are denied voting representation in their national legislature, this extreme legislation constitutes a special assault on liberty. The hundreds of thousands of taxpaying citizens living in D.C. have decided, like the people of Maryland, to offer Medicaid funding for poor women to have complete coverage. This legislation strips this modicum of democracy away in the District of Columbia, combining a cavalier attack on democracy with a vicious attack on health care. If a foreign repressive power like Russia tried to deny women in our Capital City complete medical coverage, we would consider it an act of aggression against the United States. As a Representative from Maryland, the Free State, I reject this outrageous attempt to deprive women of their constitutionally protected choices, and as the next-door neighbor of the good people of Washington, D.C., I reject this brutal attack on democracy and health care.

Mr. RASKIN

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I think we have arrived at what the difference is between me and the gentleman from Michigan. The regulation, as he reads it, applies only to the Chair. This amendment would extend the ethics training, which he seems to support, to all of the members of the Securities and Exchange Commission. It is true that they all have to do a filing, as we all do, about our various finances, but that is not the comprehensive ethical training that all of us need to get in order to avoid conflicts of interest. So, if that is something that is good enough for the Chair, it is, presumably, good enough for all of the members of the SEC. I would urge my colleague to rethink his opposition to this commonsense amendment, which, I think, would install precisely what the American people are asking of us, which is that all of us pay attention to public ethics in the conduct of our duties. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.