[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 195 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H9859-H9863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8393, PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1519 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1519
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8393) to
enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent,
nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for
Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the
implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-
governing political status, and for other purposes. All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.
In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed
in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-74 shall
be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any
further amendment thereto, to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Velazquez). The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 1519, providing for consideration of H.R. 8393,
the Puerto Rico Status Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1
hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides one
motion to recommit.
Madam Speaker, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since the Jones-
Shafroth Act of 1917. That is over 100 years the Puerto Rican people
have been Americans. Yet, for those 100 years and more--in fact, going
all the way back to the United States' annexation of the island in
1898--the U.S. Government has not guaranteed our fellow citizens on
Puerto Rico the full and equal rights of citizens on the mainland.
Puerto Rico has faced multilayered crises rooted in this century-long
policy, crises that have been compounded in recent years by natural
disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and migration.
Puerto Rico's current status prevents the island from enjoying full
democracy at the national level. Puerto Rico's Delegate to Congress has
limited voting rights, and the Puerto Rican people cannot vote in U.S.
Presidential elections, even though the U.S. Government enacts and
enforces their national laws and residents pay Federal taxes.
Puerto Rico also cannot set its own monetary trade or immigration
policy. They are unable to join international organizations or enter
into international agreements, highlighting the complicated
implications of the island's current status as a territory.
Puerto Rico's status also limits the island economically. For
example, in
[[Page H9860]]
granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in 2016,
Congress established an oversight and management board that had the
power to override decisions of the Governor and legislature of Puerto
Rico.
Look, it is time Congress recognizes that Puerto Rico has no interest
in being a colony, just as we in the United States should have no
interest in being a colonizing power in the year 2022.
We are here today to consider a rule that would bring H.R. 8393, the
Puerto Rico Status Act, to the floor.
This bill details the transition to and the implementation of a
nonterritory status for Puerto Rico, finally giving the people of
Puerto Rico a choice to determine their own status. It tasks the Puerto
Rico State Elections Commission to carry out a nonpartisan campaign to
educate and inform voters before holding a referendum for Puerto Ricans
to decide between statehood, independence, or independence followed by
free association with the United States.
I am proud to represent a vibrant Puerto Rican community in central
Massachusetts, and many of my Puerto Rican constituents have family
members still living on the island. Their family members, just like
Americans on the mainland, deserve the right to self-determination.
They ought to have an opportunity to carve their own path and build the
future that they want.
The Puerto Rico Status Act is the result of serious negotiation and
careful compromise to clarify available status options and ensure a
productive process.
I am grateful to Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Velazquez, and
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto
Rico, for all the work that they have done to get us to this point.
Ultimately, the people of Puerto Rico must decide on the island
status, and it is up to us in Congress to help facilitate that process.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman
and my good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of
H.R. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act. This is a bill that received an
emergency Rules hearing yesterday with just 3 hours' notice, 3 hours
for an issue that deserves to be heard through regular order.
H.R. 8393 would authorize a federally sponsored, taxpayer-funded
election to be held in Puerto Rico on 5 November 2023. This election
would require the voters of Puerto Rico to choose between three status
options: independence, sovereignty and free association, or U.S.
statehood.
You might notice something missing here. This bill doesn't even give
Puerto Ricans the option to preserve their current status as a
territory of the United States. So not only do House Democrats want to
control how the States run their elections, they now want to control
how Puerto Rico runs their elections.
H.R. 8393 even takes things a step further than that. If Puerto
Ricans vote to become a sovereign or independent nation, this
legislation tells them what they have to include in their new
constitution, how they have to ratify their constitution, and how
elections for government officers should take place.
My friends across the aisle want to talk about colonial power. What
does that sound like?
Further, this bill would completely circumvent congressional
authority by not allowing Congress to ratify the option that Puerto
Rico ultimately chooses.
The question of Puerto Rico's statehood is a serious topic, one that
I am not necessarily opposed to, but it is a topic that deserves a
deliberative process with careful consideration and expert input.
There have been numerous hearings on this issue, but there were no
hearings on this specific bill. There has been no vetting of legal
implications of using this unprecedented, self-executing process to
statehood.
This is not a question that should be run through a lameduck Congress
on the last day of a scheduled session with less than 24 hours' notice.
That is unacceptable.
Again, I am not debating the merits of Puerto Rican statehood, but I
am pointing out the glaring problems in this ill-conceived, half-baked
legislation that leaves too many questions unanswered.
House Democrats are doing nothing more today than using Puerto Ricans
as pawns to score cheap political points with a bill that has zero
chance of becoming law.
Let's just be frank and honest about that. This bill has zero chance
of becoming law this session of Congress. It is a joke that we are even
considering it today.
We owe it to the voters of Puerto Rico to do better than this. They
deserve more.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
This shouldn't be controversial. We are not deciding the fate of
Puerto Rico. We are setting a process in place so that the people who
live on the island can make that decision.
Listening to my colleague's speech, as he mentions Democrat,
Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, you would never know that this compromise
was actually written in conjunction with the Republican--let me repeat
that--with the Republican Delegate from Puerto Rico.
{time} 0930
So I don't understand what the big fuss is about.
But if my friend believes that the people of Puerto Rico should
decide their future, then he should support this bill which will set in
place a process so they can determine their future. If the gentleman
doesn't, if he continues to believe that we should act like a
colonizer, then vote ``no'' on the bill. But this is the commonsense
thing to do.
One other thing we heard him say, they are taxpayer-funded elections.
All of our elections proceed with the support of taxpayer funds. I
don't understand what that is all about. But the bottom line is that
people of Puerto Rico do pay taxes.
In any event, this really is about self-determination, and it is that
simple. I hope that my colleagues will not only support the rule but
also the underlying bill.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to
whether my friend has any additional speakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, I have no
further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I have already talked about the fact that this bill
did not go through regular order. It is even questionable whether the
committee that heard this hearing has jurisdiction to consider this
bill.
I haven't even touched on the fact that the status options that are
called for don't give Puerto Rico the chance to keep its current
status. The status quo is totally off limits.
We have also talked about dictating to a sovereign nation what is in
their constitution. It also, as I said before, abrogates constitutional
authority. This has never been done before.
Also, there is no CBO score on this. We have zero idea how much this
is going to cost. This also doesn't take into consideration PROMESA
which is the financial oversight and management board that helps Puerto
Rico.
A big glaring issue here is citizenship. We haven't had a single
hearing on how this would affect citizenship.
So you are in Puerto Rico and born to two U.S. citizens, what happens
to your status?
Are you a U.S. citizen or not?
That is not considered in this bill.
So, again, this bill is half-baked. It didn't go through regular
order, and it didn't go through proper committees of jurisdiction, yet
here we are considering it in a lameduck session.
I am incredibly disappointed by this. I am here just 1 day after this
bill was
[[Page H9861]]
considered in a hearing that was held in the Rules Committee debating
legislation scheduled on, again, the last day of the 117th Congress.
Again, this bill has zero chance of becoming law. We are wasting the
time of the American people.
I have said it repeatedly, but it requires saying again: we have real
crises that this Nation is facing. Our southern border is one great
example.
At no time has our southern border been more dangerous and more
unstable than right now. This past fiscal year set the record for
encounters of illegal immigrants, also a record for migrant deaths, a
record for apprehension of suspected terrorists, and a record for
seizure of fentanyl at the southern border.
The seizure of fentanyl might sound as if we are doing something
good, but we only interdict less than 10 percent of the fentanyl. So if
our fentanyl seizures are up, then the amount of fentanyl coming into
the United States is, of course, up. Yet with all that, congressional
Democrats won't even acknowledge that there is a problem at our
southern border. Even the Biden administration won't admit the gravity
of the situation.
Vice President Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, has said:
``Our border is secure.''
That is gaslighting. That is gaslighting the American people.
President Biden himself has said: ``There are more important things
going on.''
He refuses to even visit the southern border. That is gaslighting,
and that is also dereliction of duty.
Further, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of
funding the government, despite spending most of last year passing
trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has done nothing but
driven up inflation, driven up our national debt, and has seen real
wages decrease for working Americans.
So now we are letting two Senators who won't even be in office next
year ram through a massive omnibus spending bill that was written
behind closed doors and without the input of House Republicans.
So with today's rule, House Democrats are, once again, refusing to
put forward solid legislation that has an actual chance of moving
forward and bringing relief to the American people.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President or the Vice President.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to start in
response to all of that.
Let me, first of all, inform Members about what the legislative
history of the bill that we want to bring to the floor is because if
you listen to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, you would think that it
just came out of nowhere.
On July 15, 2022, Chairman Grijalva introduced H.R. 8393, the Puerto
Rico Status Act, with original cosponsors Chairwoman Velazquez,
Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon--I will remind my
friend, again, that she is a Republican Resident Commissioner from
Puerto Rico--and Representative Darren Soto of Florida.
The Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on April 14, 2021,
titled: ``Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing on Puerto Rico Political
Status,'' and a hearing on June 16, 2021, titled: ``Office of Insular
Affairs Legislative Hearing.''
On July 20, 2022, the full committee met and held a markup of the
bill and favorably reported it with an amendment in the nature of a
substitute by a vote of 25-20 with Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon
joining the majority. So the idea that somehow nobody has been talking
about this doesn't reflect what the legislative history is.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an AP article from June 4,
2022, titled: ``Puerto Ricans speak out on U.S. territory's political
status.''
Puerto Ricans Speak Out on US Territory's Political Status
(By Danica Coto)
San Juan, PR (AP).--Hundreds of Puerto Ricans crowded into
a convention center Saturday where federal legislators held a
public hearing to decide the future of the island's political
status as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from
hurricanes, earthquakes and a deep economic crisis.
One by one, dozens of people ranging from politicians to
retirees to young people leaned into a microphone and spoke
against the island's current territorial status, which
recognizes its people as U.S. citizens but does not allow
them to vote in presidential elections, denies them certain
federal benefits and allows them one representative in
Congress with limited voting powers.
The hearing comes two weeks after a group of Democratic
congress members including the House majority leader and one
Republican proposed what would be the first-ever binding
plebiscite that would offer voters in Puerto Rico three
options: statehood, independence or independence with free
association, whose terms would be defined following
negotiations.
Congress would have to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state
if voters so choose it, but the proposal is not expected to
survive in the Senate, where Republicans have long opposed
statehood.
``Everyone, even congress people themselves, know that the
possibilities of this becoming law are minimal and maybe non-
existent, but it doesn't stop being important,'' former
Puerto Rico governor Anibal Acevedo Vila told The Associated
Press.
About an hour into the hearing, a small group of people
including a former gubernatorial candidate who supports
independence burst into the ballroom, pointed fingers at the
panel of U.S. legislators and yelled, ``120 years of
colonialism!''
The majority of the audience booed the group and yelled at
them to leave as U.S. lawmakers called for calm. ``Democracy
is not always pretty, but it's necessary,'' said Rep. Raul
Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the U.S. House of Natural
Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S.
territories.
The proposal of a binding plebiscite--a measure that has
not yet been introduced in committee--has frustrated some on
an island that already has held seven unilateral, nonbinding
referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming
majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November
2020, with 53 percent of votes for statehood and 47 percent
against, with only a little more than half of registered
voters participating.
Luis Herrero, a political consultant, said during the
hearing that even if enough people support statehood, there
are not enough votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a
state: ``Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898,
Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service to
score cheap political points or to raise a few dollars for a
campaign.''
Saturday's hearing comes amid ongoing discontent with
Puerto Rico's current political status, with the U.S. Supreme
Court further angering many in April after upholding the
differential treatment of residents of Puerto Rico. In an 8-1
vote, the court ruled that making Puerto Ricans ineligible
for the Supplemental Security Income program, which offers
benefits to blind, disabled and older Americans, did not
unconstitutionally discriminate against them.
As a result, many of those who spoke at Saturday's public
hearing welcomed the proposed binding plebiscite.
``We finally see the light at the end of the tunnel,'' said
Victor Perez, a U.S. military veteran who lamented the
current political status. ``Even after all our service and
sacrifice, we come back home and we are denied full voting
rights and equality. . . . We cannot vote for our president,
our commander in chief,
(but) they send us to war.''
Grijalva said the testimonies given Saturday will help him
and other legislators revise the proposed measure, which he
said is a way to make amends. He said he hopes it will go to
the House floor by August. If eventually approved, it would
be held on Nov. 5, 2023.
Acevedo, the former governor, said he hasn't lost hope
despite numerous attempts throughout the decades to change
the political status of Puerto Rico, which became a U.S.
territory in 1898 following the SpanishAmerican War.
``A solution to this problem of more than 120 years has to
happen at some point,'' he said. ``When will conditions allow
for it? That's unpredictable.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is clear something needs to change.
Puerto Ricans don't want to continue under the island's territorial
status for many reasons--namely because while the status recognizes its
people as U.S. citizens, it doesn't allow them to vote in Presidential
elections, denies them certain crucial Federal benefits, and limits
their congressional Representative's voting power.
The Puerto Rico Status Act is a good solution that will allow Puerto
Ricans to decide themselves what the next steps should be. We should
give them that opportunity.
The gentleman talked about process in terms of how this House is
being operated. Let me remind the gentleman--and let me remind all my
colleagues--that the last time the Republicans were in charge of the
House, the Senate, and the White House--they controlled everything, and
I mean everything--the last time they did that, do you know what they
did?
They shut the government down and walked away. That is not
responsible governing. That was unconscionable.
[[Page H9862]]
And leading up to that government shutdown in the Rules Committee we
had an emergency meeting, on what?
Cheese.
Don't even ask me to explain that, but that is what they did. They
had an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee, and it was a meeting
on cheese.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a HuffPost article titled:
``House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting On Cheese As Shutdown
Approached.''
[From HuffPost, Dec. 22, 2018]
House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting on Cheese as Shutdown
Approached
(By Amy Russo)
As the federal government was heading for a shutdown Friday
night, House Republicans called an emergency meeting.
Plot twist: it was about cheese.
During her broadcast that evening, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow
appeared astonished while reporting on the gathering, which
was arranged so that lawmakers could discuss the Curd Act, a
proposal to allow some cheeses to be advertised as
``natural'' despite having artificial ingredients.
Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was clearly irked, feeling the
timing was pretty inconvenient.
``This is an emergency meeting that we're having here and
I've seen some surreal things around this place, but this is
really something,'' McGovern said. ``Vital parts of our
government are about to shut down in just a few hours, and
the Republicans have called an emergency meeting on cheese.''
Venting his frustration with Republicans in the room,
McGovern wondered whether his colleagues had thought about
how the meeting would look to the public, which would soon be
faced with the third shutdown of the year.
``I mean, has anybody considered how ridiculous this is or
how bad the optics are as the American people are watching
what's going on here?'' he asked. ``By all means, if you
think the most important thing we have to discuss right now
is cheese, I'll let you have at it.''
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) eventually jumped in to defend
the meeting, calling the cheese bill ``important to small
business,'' then eventually segueing into the issue of
funding for the southern border wall, the key matter that
prompted the shutdown.
``We are being overrun on our southern border,'' Sessions
declared.
That's when McGovern piped up, appearing confused, asking,
``There's no wall in this bill, right?''
``It is important,'' Sessions argued back, clarifying that
he was ``not talking about the wall of cheese.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seem to be
confused about why we are moving quickly here.
Let me explain that simply in the last few hours that they were in
charge, as I said, they called an emergency meeting on cheese. Don't
get me wrong. I love cheese just as much as everybody else in this
Chamber does. But I think the systematic disenfranchisement of millions
of American citizens is a little bit more important than cheese. Maybe
my Republican colleagues disagree.
I also point out that this is not the last day of this Congress. We
will be here to complete our business on an omnibus appropriations
bill. But I want the American people to understand how my Republican
friends have acted in these last few days. We are still trying to work
out the details of this government spending bill. We are working with
Republicans and trying to come up with some sort of an accommodation.
We need a little bit more time.
What we voted on yesterday was a continuing resolution to keep the
government running a few more days so we don't have a shutdown and to
work out the details. It is not the final package. Lots of stuff still
remains to be figured out.
But what we said is that we need to pass a short-term continuing
resolution for a few days so that we can work out those details and so
we don't shut the government down and cause all kinds of chaos because
we know what government shutdowns do.
I think it is really interesting for people to understand that 201
Republicans voted to shut the government down. If they succeeded, then
the government would shut down tomorrow. They voted to shut the
government down--
Who does that?
What are they thinking?
All because there is a small group of people here in the
House whose allegiance to Trump and the hard-line rightwing
fringe of the Republican Party say they don't want to have
any kind of deal. They don't want to govern. They would
rather shut the government down costing the economy billions
and billions of dollars, causing all kinds of uncertainty,
and hurting the American people.
They did that before. If they had their way, then the government
would be shut down tomorrow. Talk about irresponsible.
So I also should point out that every Democrat--215 Democrats--who
voted yesterday voted to keep the government running. So apparently,
Members of the Republican Party do not think they are responsible for
governing. They vote ``no'' on everything--on everything--and they
criticize us for the way we do the job that they won't do.
We heard the gentleman criticize President Biden for dealing with the
drug crisis at the border, for actually seizing fentanyl. He is getting
criticized because we are seizing it at the border.
Really?
Madam Speaker, this is simple. The legislation that this rule will
bring to the floor gives the people of Puerto Rico a choice--one that
they deserve--to determine their status. It is past time we provide
them this opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of
relationship they want with the United States moving forward.
So that is what this rule will do. It will bring that bill to the
floor.
Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would just, again, urge my
Republican friends: stand up to the Freedom Caucus, stand up to the
hard-line rightwing in your conference who says ``no'' to everything.
Put the American people first. Put people over politics.
That is something that I think is not an unreasonable request.
The idea that over 200 of my friends voted to shut the government
down yesterday?
Give me a break.
So we are going to do our work, and we are going to pass this bill
today. We are going to get to an agreement on an omnibus bill that will
help the American people. That will be next week. And we are going to
do our job because we believe our job is to govern. That is the
responsible thing to do, not shut the government down. Madam Speaker, I
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:
[Roll No. 527]
YEAS--217
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown (MD)
Brown (OH)
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Leger Fernandez
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
[[Page H9863]]
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--201
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--12
Buck
Cheney
Conway
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Gonzalez (OH)
Hartzler
Hinson
Kelly (MS)
Kinzinger
Long
McKinley
{time} 1023
Mr. HUIZENGA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Auchincloss (Beyer)
Axne (Pappas)
Beatty (Neguse)
Boebert (Gaetz)
Brooks (Moore (AL))
Brown (MD) (Evans)
Bustos (Schneider)
Carter (LA) (Horsford)
Cawthorn (Gaetz)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Brown (OH))
Cicilline (Jayapal)
Cleaver (Davids (KS))
Cuellar (Correa)
DeFazio (Pallone)
DelBene (Schneider)
Dingell (Pappas)
Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
Duncan (Williams (TX))
Dunn (Salazar)
Escobar (Garcia (TX))
Espaillat (Correa)
Ferguson (Gonzales, Tony (TX))
Gibbs (Smucker)
Gosar (Weber (TX))
Herrera Beutler (Valadao)
Issa (Calvert)
Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
Kelly (IL) (Horsford)
Khanna (Pappas)
Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Krishnamoorthi (Pappas)
LaHood (Kustoff)
Larson (CT) (Pappas)
Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Letlow (Moore (UT))
Levin (CA) (Huffman)
Malliotakis (Armstrong)
Maloney, Sean P. (Beyer)
Mfume (Evans)
Moulton (Trone)
Newman (Correa)
Norcross (Pallone)
O'Halleran (Pappas)
Omar (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Beyer)
Pressley (Neguse)
Rice (SC) (Weber (TX))
Rush (Beyer)
Sewell (Schneider)
Sherrill (Beyer)
Simpson (Fulcher)
Sires (Pallone)
Speier (Garcia (TX))
Stevens (Craig)
Stewart (Owens)
Strickland (Correa)
Suozzi (Correa)
Tiffany (Fitzgerald)
Titus (Pallone)
Trahan (Lynch)
Welch (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Evans)
____________________