[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                        MARK	UP OF H.J. RES. 42
                     DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE
                    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
                      APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
                      POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM
                         AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022

=======================================================================

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 29, 2023

                               __________

                          Serial No. CP:118-4

                               __________

  Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
  
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                       Available on: govinfo.gov,
                         oversight.house.gov or
                             docs.house.gov
                             
                               __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
51-835 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
                           
               COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND ACCOUNTABILITY

                    JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman

Jim Jordan, Ohio                     Jamie Raskin, Maryland, Ranking 
Mike Turner, Ohio                        Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona                  Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of 
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina            Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin            Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Gary Palmer, Alabama                 Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia
Clay Higgins, Louisiana              Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas                 Ro Khanna, California
Andy Biggs, Arizona                  Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Nancy Mace, South Carolina           Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York
Jake LaTurner, Kansas                Katie Porter, California
Pat Fallon, Texas                    Cori Bush, Missouri
Byron Donalds, Florida               Shontel Brown, Ohio
Kelly Armstrong, North Dakota        Jimmy Gomez, California
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania            Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
William Timmons, South Carolina      Robert Garcia, California
Tim Burchett, Tennessee              Maxwell Frost, Florida
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia      Becca Balint, Vermont
Lisa McClain, Michigan               Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Lauren Boebert, Colorado             Greg Casar, Texas
Russell Fry, South Carolina          Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida           Dan Goldman, New York
Chuck Edwards, North Carolina        Jared Moskowitz, Florida
Nick Langworthy, New York
Eric Burlison, Missouri

                       Mark Marin, Staff Director
       Jessica Donlon, Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel
                   Christian Hoehner, Policy Director
                 Lauren Lombardo, Senior Policy Analyst
      Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk

                      Contact Number: 202-225-5074

                  Julie Tagen, Minority Staff Director
                      Contact Number: 202-225-5051
                                 ------                                
                         
                         
                         C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 29, 2023...................................     1

                           INDEX OF DOCUMENTS

                              ----------                              

  * Letter to President Biden, March 27, 2023, from various Civil 
  Rights Organizations; submitted by Rep. Norton.

The documents listed above are available at: docs.house.gov.

 
                    FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:
                        MARK-UP OF H.J. RES. 42
                     DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE
                    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
                      APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE
                      POLICING AND JUSTICE REFORM
                         AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022

                              ----------                              


                       Wednesday, March 29, 2023

                       House of Representatives,

               Committee on Oversight and Accountability,

                                                   Washington, D.C.

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:12 p.m., in 
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. James Comer 
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Comer, Jordan, Gosar, Foxx, 
Grothman, Higgins, Sessions, Biggs, Mace, LaTurner, Fallon, 
Donalds, Armstrong, Timmons, Burchett, Greene, McClain, 
Boebert, Fry, Luna, Edwards, Langworthy, Burlison, Raskin, 
Norton, Lynch, Connolly, Krishnamoorthi, Khanna, Mfume, Ocasio-
Cortez, Porter, Bush, Brown, Gomez, Stansbury, Garcia, Frost, 
Balint, Lee, Casar, Crockett, and Goldman.
    Chairman Comer. The hearing now comes back to order. I am 
adjourning our hearing titled, ``Overdue Oversight of the 
Capital City: Part 1,'' and now we are starting our business 
meeting.
    The Committee will please come to order. A quorum is 
present.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Pursuant to Committee Rule 5(b) and House Rule XI, Clause 
2, the Chair may postpone further proceedings today on the 
question of approving any measure or matter or adopting an 
amendment on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are 
ordered.
    We begin with House Joint Resolution 42, a Resolution 
Disapproving of the District of Columbia Council's 
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 
2022. The Committee meets today, pursuant to notice, to 
consider House Joint Resolution 42.
    The clerk will designate the resolution.
    The Clerk. House Joint Resolution 42, a resolution 
disapproving of the District of Columbia Council's 
Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 
2022.
    Chairman Comer. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution 
be considered as read and open for amendment at any point.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    Chairman Comer. I now recognize myself for five minutes of 
an opening statement on the bill.
    Today, we are considering Representative Clyde's House 
Joint Resolution 42, a Resolution Disapproving of the District 
of Columbia Council's Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform 
Amendment Act of 2022. The men and women of the Metropolitan 
Police Department serve their community every day to help keep 
it safe and secure. In doing so, they place themselves in 
potentially dangerous situations regularly to protect others, 
and yet progressive policies from the D.C. Council continue to 
hamstring District officers and needlessly place them in an 
unsafe situation.
    The D.C. Council's Comprehensive Police and Justice Reform 
Amendment Act of 2022 does just that. It requires untenable 
barriers officers must overcome to don riot gear for their own 
protection. It creates a public data base with an officer's 
personally identifiable information, allowing for activists to 
harass officers and their families. It also creates additional 
liability for officers that are not found in other police 
departments. These are just a few of the many impractical and 
outrageous proposals of the legislation.
    The D.C. police have seen over 1,190 officers leave the 
force since the beginning of 2020. One thousand one hundred and 
ninety officers have left the force in three years. That is 
about one-third of the police department. Nearly 40 percent of 
those officers resigned, choosing to leave the department 
instead of dealing with the increasingly impossible burdens 
placed on them by the Council. Over that same period, crime has 
soared in the District. The Council has continued to overlook 
its law enforcement officers in favor of progressive soft-on-
crime policies that only benefit criminals.
    The citizens of D.C. and visitors to our Nation's capital 
deserve to feel safe, and our police deserve to have the 
resources to ensure safety for all. The Comprehensive Policing 
and Justice Reform Amendment Act does neither of those things. 
If the D.C. Council wants to continue down this path, they will 
have to answer to this Congress, and we are not alone. The D.C. 
Police Union, representing 3,500 members, the U.S. Capitol 
Police Labor Committee, the California Coalition of Law 
Enforcement Associations, the Fullerton Police Officers 
Association, and the Las Vegas Police Protective Association 
are strongly in favor of H.J. Resolution 42.
    We see such broad support for this disapproval resolution 
from organizations across the Nation because other 
jurisdictions know just how awful the D.C. Council's anti-
policing reforms would be as a precedent for America's cities. 
Additionally, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser declined to sign this 
legislation into law. That should be a signal of how extreme it 
is, but the D.C. Council did not listen, and proceeded to 
override her signature and pass it anyway.
    I call on all of my colleagues to join me in supporting Mr. 
Clyde's Resolution Disapproving of the Comprehensive Policing 
and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2022. Thirty-one House 
Democrats and 31 Senate Democrats have already joined President 
Biden and House Republicans this year to block another ill-
informed D.C. Council legislative action by disapproving of the 
Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022. The dangerous policing 
reforms addressed by H.J. Resolution 42 are equally bad, if not 
worse, for the current crime epidemic in D.C.
    We must ensure that these pro-crime policies are not 
allowed in our Nation's Capital. I encourage all of my 
colleagues on this committee to join me in supporting H.J. 
Resolution 42 to continue these efforts to restore law and 
order to D.C.
    Who else seeks recognition on this resolution? The Chair 
now recognizes the Ranking Member for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. And thank you very kindly, Mr. Chairman. I want 
to start just by pointing out to my colleagues that most of the 
debate and discussion we just heard was really about the last 
bill, about H.J. Res. 26, which already passed out of the House 
and passed the Senate, and people were rehashing all of the 
discussion about the definition of ``murder,'' and 
``carjacking,'' and all the various substantive offenses. That 
has nothing to do with what we are doing here today.
    H.J. Resolution 42 is about the police department, and as 
the Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia just 
explained, we are here because the union was very unhappy with 
the fact that the District Council unanimously decided to 
remove from collective bargaining questions of discipline of 
particular members. Now, why did they do that? This is an issue 
that has come up, certainly came up in Maryland. We debated the 
exact same thing in the Maryland legislature. It is being 
debated all over the country. Why did they decide to do that, 
and certain jurisdictions go one way, certain jurisdictions go 
the other? Well, here are some of the examples that they talked 
about and that are part of the legislative record.
    There was one officer who beat up a suspect, striking him 
multiple times in the head. He was criminally convicted in 
court of assault and sentenced to 30 days in jail with three 
years of probation and 500 hours of community service, only to 
be reinstated under the arbitration system that is provided for 
in their collective bargaining contract. Another police officer 
sexually assaulted a young woman and was convicted of 
misdemeanor sexual abuse, but then was reinstated, again, under 
the arbitration process. Another confessed to abusing a child, 
was convicted of child abuse, sentenced to five years of 
probation and yet was reinstated. So, the D.C. Council decided 
to end, as a matter of collective bargaining, discipline of 
officers, and the union was very upset about it.
    Now, what else is in there? Well, exactly the kinds of 
things that are taking place with police reforms across the 
country: expanding the current ban on chokeholds to include 
other kinds of restraints that pose a severe risk of death; 
enhancing transparency by improving public access to body-worn 
camera footage after an officer-involved death or serious use 
of force takes place; strengthening the Civilian Police 
Complaint Review Office; prohibiting the police department from 
hiring officers from other law enforcement agencies who have 
committed serious misconduct, were terminated or forced to 
resign for disciplinary reasons, or resigned to avoid adverse 
action; empowers the chief of police to establish internal 
policies and procedures for discipline; requires schools to 
report data on school-based arrests; enhances transparency 
around the use of overtime, and so on.
    All of these classically local, personnel matters go right 
to the heart of democratic self-government, and the police 
union is upset because they want to be able to bargain to get 
people reinstated who have been convicted of crimes, including 
child sexual abuse or sexual assault. And this is what our 
colleagues are being carried away with, but they are using 
rhetoric about the last piece of legislation about carjacking 
and murder, and so on. And whatever the merits of that debate, 
that is over, and now what we are talking about is simply the 
question of whether the District of Columbia gets to have 
control over its own police department.
    The D.C. Council unanimously came forward in legislation 
that was not vetoed by the Mayor of the District of Columbia to 
say that they stand by the Comprehensive Policing and Justice 
Amendment Act of 2022, and either we are going to believe in 
home rule, or we are not. It was adopted in 1973. Some of our 
colleagues say, well, there is Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 
of the Constitution which says Congress exercises exclusive 
legislation. But we have delegated local matters to the 
District Council and the Mayor to have their system of 
government to govern, and we should not sit as a 535-person 
city council in order to be deciding all of these things.
    We have got much more important things to do, like 
addressing the gun violence epidemic in America, or even 
considering the admission of new states, like Washington, DC. 
or Puerto Rico, that are asking for their democratic rights. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back to you.
    Chairman Comer. Who else seeks recognition on the 
resolution? The Chair recognizes Ms. Norton.
    Ms. Norton. Let me begin by saying to this Committee, keep 
your hands off D.C., please. It is true that Congress has the 
constitutional authority to legislate on local D.C. matters, 
but it is false that Congress has an obligation or a 
responsibility to do so. Instead of legislation on local D.C. 
matters, remember that is a choice. This disapproval resolution 
is a choice.
    I remind my Republican colleagues who claim to revere the 
founders what James Madison said in Federalist 43 about the 
residents of the Federal District: ``A municipal legislature 
for local purposes derived from their own suffrages will, of 
course, be allowed them.'' The Supreme Court has held that 
Congress may delegate ``full legislative power,'' and I am 
quoting that, ``full legislative power'' to D.C. on local D.C. 
matters.
    Today, this Committee is marking up profoundly 
undemocratic, paternalistic legislation. This one-sentence 
legislation would nullify legislation enacted by D.C.'s duly 
elected representatives. D.C.'s local legislature, the D.C. 
Council, has 13 members elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. 
residents do not like how the members vote, they can vote them 
out of office. This is called democracy.
    After the murder of George Floyd, many states and D.C. 
passed police accountability and transparency legislation. The 
Council has repeatedly passed emergency, temporary, and 
permanent versions of police accountability and transparency 
legislation. Congress requires the Council to pass the 
permanent version legislation twice, separated by at least 13 
days. The Council passed the legislation that is the subject of 
this disapproval resolution by votes of 11 to zero and 13 to 
zero.
    The Congress has 535 voting members. The members are 
elected by the residents of the several states. None are 
elected by or accountable to D.C. residents. If D.C. residents 
do not like how the members vote, even on legislation that 
applies only to D.C., such as this disapproval resolution, they 
cannot vote the members out of office. Members who vote in 
favor of this disapproval resolution are choosing to substitute 
their policy judgment for the judgment of D.C.'s duly elected 
representatives. They will choose to govern D.C. without its 
consent.
    I can only conclude that this committee believes that D.C. 
residents, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, are either 
unworthy or incapable of governing themselves. D.C. residents 
are not children. They do not need protection from the 
decisions of their duly elected representatives by Members of 
Congress, from Kentucky, Georgia, or anywhere else.
    The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the 
governed and to end taxation without representation, yet the 
nearly 700,000 residents cannot vote on any action taken by 
Congress, whether on national or local D.C. matters, while 
paying full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. pays more Federal taxes 
per capita than any state and more total taxes than 23 states. 
If this Committee cared about democratic principles or D.C. 
residents, it would be marking up my D.C. Statehood bill, the 
Washington, DC. Admission Act, instead. Congress has the 
constitutional authority to admit the state of Washington, DC. 
This Committee is choosing not to. It is a choice.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit into the 
record a letter from the leaders of civil rights organizations, 
led by the Legal Defense Fund, opposing this disapproval 
resolution.
    Chairman Comer. Without objection, so ordered.
    Mr. Raskin. Will the gentlelady yield?
    Ms. Norton. I yield.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you kindly. I just want to point out that 
the local legislation they propose to overthrow today creates a 
publicly accessible data base for sustained allegations of 
police misconduct in cases involving an officer's commission of 
a crime. It was said before that this was for unsustained. No, 
it is only for sustained allegations. Why wouldn't every 
citizen want to know if there is an officer coming from another 
jurisdiction who has been convicted of an assault, a rape, 
robbery, whatever it might be? Thank you, and I yield back to 
you.
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Timmons.
    Mr. Timmons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congresswoman, would 
you yield for a question? I am just curious about what you said 
regarding D.C. Statehood. Would you yield for a question, 
ma'am?
    Ms. Norton. Of course.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. Can I yield to you for a question? I have 
a question for you. I am sorry. In 2009, the Senate passed the 
D.C. Statehood bill with 63 votes, and the House didn't take it 
up. The House had 235 Democrats in it. Could you articulate 
what happened in 2009 and why it didn't get across the finish 
line then? I was not here.
    Ms. Norton. There was a gun amendment attached to it to 
wipe out D.C.'s gun laws.
    Mr. Timmons. Sorry. So, the Speaker controlled the House, 
and it came out of the Senate, and Democrats----
    Ms. Norton. The gun amendment attached to it was the 
problem.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. But the Speaker controls the Rules 
Committee, and the Speaker controls the Floor, so what you are 
saying is that in 2009, when the Democrats had the House----
    Ms. Norton. It really wasn't statehood. It was just this 
vote, that vote.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. So, my understanding in 2009, there was a 
statehood bill out of the Senate, so there was not a statehood 
bill. That was a different issue?
    Ms. Norton. Yes.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. So, this has not been ongoing, but the 
bill that came out of the Senate, S. 160, what did it do if not 
address this concern that you have?
    Ms. Norton. There was a House vote only.
    Mr. Timmons. The CRS report I have says that it got out of 
the Senate 63 to----
    Mr. Raskin. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Timmons. Yes, please.
    Mr. Raskin. The legislation itself contemplated granting 
the District of Columbia a voting representative, but only in 
the House, not in the Senate. So, it was not a statehood bill, 
strictly speaking, and it raised constitutional questions, but 
it was just to provide for one seat for the District of 
Columbia with a voting representative.
    Mr. Timmons. So, it was not statehood. It was just to 
create a new----
    Mr. Raskin. Exactly.
    Ms. Norton. Right.
    Mr. Timmons [continuing]. Congressional seat where you 
would have full voting rights on the Floor as opposed to just 
in Committee.
    Ms. Norton. Exactly.
    Mr. Timmons. OK. No, I appreciate that. Thank you. It is 
helpful to understand the legislative history behind this. 
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Comer. Does any other Member seek recognition?
    Mr. Casar. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. The Chair recognizes Mr. Casar.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you, Chairman. As the Ranking Member 
mentioned, I believe that we would be, by moving this forward, 
repealing important protections for people that should, 
frankly, have bipartisan support. Subtitle A of the D.C. 
Justice Reform Act that would be overridden by the Congress, 
prohibits the use of chokeholds and neck restraints in a 
stronger way. In fact, they had been banned in 1985 by D.C., 
and this would just make sure that that ban is properly 
enforced. And I would yield some of my time to hear from 
anybody in the Majority just for a few seconds to know whether 
or not the Majority, which supports actually banning 
chokeholds, or whether or not they would like for chokeholds to 
be allowed in D.C.
    Mr. Higgins. Would the gentleman yield? Would the gentleman 
yield?
    Mr. Casar. Yes, sir, and I have a few questions, so, you 
know, 10 or 20 seconds would be great, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. I will ask to be recognized, Mr. Speaker. I am 
probably the only one here that has actually affected arrest 
through the use of vascular compression chokeholds. We haven't 
trained chokeholds in many decades. They don't work. Vascular 
compression is what we train, and they have saved countless, 
thousands of lives, but I will ask to be recognized. Thank you, 
sir.
    Mr. Casar. Thank you. Furthermore, Subtitle B would allow 
for body-worn camera footage to quickly be released to the 
public in cases of critical incidents. I believe, having done 
oversight and accountability in prior jobs and now here on this 
committee, that publicly available body camera footage is a 
good thing, so that we can ensure that folks are held 
accountable or exonerated based on the facts. And I think body-
worn camera has taken things a long way where we have a lot of 
police departments really supportive of having body-worn camera 
for those reasons. So, I would, again, ask and want to 
understand, whether the Majority believes that we should be 
keeping this body-worn camera footage from----
    Mr. Higgins. Would the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Casar. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Higgins. The original users of body cameras, good sir, 
were police officers. Far before it was mandated by the 
department, some of us that were tactical police officers began 
to practice of wearing body cameras to protect ourselves 
against false allegations, and I yield.
    Mr. Casar. Yes, sir, and I have seen and heard that 
ourselves. When we bought body-worn cameras oftentimes in 
police department, it was to say, well, we know some folks have 
their own. Let's have them for everyone. What would we 
ultimately be doing by overriding this D.C. reform, would be 
getting rid of the transparency reforms here that D.C. move 
forward with. And so, again, I would urge that we vote ``no'' 
on the resolution before us today because why would we take 
away transparency on body-worn cameras?
    One more question, I think, right, to the Ranking Member's 
point. One of the most critical reforms that folks are talking 
about overwriting today are reforms to make it so that somebody 
that was criminally convicted for assault while on the job 
can't get back onto the force. So, I, again, would yield to 
better understand why we would overturn that reform. Why would 
we be supporting a measure that allows it so that people 
criminally convicted for assault on the job could get back onto 
the force?
    Mr. Higgins. At the risk of repeating myself, would the 
gentleman yield or has the time expired?
    Mr. Casar. No, you have got time.
    Mr. Higgins. Yes. So, the hiring practices from department 
to department has been a matter of, you know, recognized 
procedure across the country for a long time. Chiefs talk to 
former chiefs, talk to former supervisors, so this 
communication is ongoing. I mean, there is never an instance 
where you hire someone for your department that you don't talk 
to the previous department, and his supervisors, and guys he 
worked with, so you know these histories----
    Mr. Casar. One hundred percent. In this case, the police 
chief wants some of these reforms enacted so that they aren't 
forced to have people come back to the force that they wanted 
to get rid of in the first place.
    Mr. Higgins. Right, but what I am saying is there is 
nothing stopping those communications right now.
    Mr. Casar. No, that is being stopped.
    Mr. Higgins. It is common. I yield.
    Mr. Casar. Yes, what we got today in testimony is that 
because of the Police Association's tactics, people that were 
convicted of crime had to come back and be allowed to work back 
on the force. And what we are doing by passing this bill is not 
supporting public safety by having some of those officers that 
are dangerous come back on to the police force. What heard in 
this committee hearing was people calling D.C. and public 
schools inmate factories, people calling Black Lives Matter a 
criminal cartel. It is not rational, and I urge that we vote 
``no'' against this bill.
    Chairman Comer. Any other Member seek recognition on the 
resolution?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Seeing none, the question is on favorably 
reporting H.J. Resolution 42.
    All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
    All those opposed, signify by saying no.
    In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, and the bill 
is ordered favorably reported.
    Mr. Raskin. Seeking a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Comer. A recorded vote is ordered. Because we have 
subcommittee meetings scheduled right now, we are going to 
postpone and recess until after the subcommittee hearings 
adjourn or 4 p.m., whichever is first.
    The Committee is now in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chairman Comer. The question is on favorably reporting H.J. 
Resolution 42.
    The clerk will call the roll.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Aye.
    Chairman Comer. He said yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Jordan votes aye.
    Mr. Turner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar?
    Mr. Gosar. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gosar votes yes.
    Ms. Foxx?
    Ms. Foxx. Foxx votes yes.
    The Clerk. Ms. Foxx votes yes.
    Mr. Grothman?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Palmer?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions?
    Mr. Sessions. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Sessions votes aye.
    Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Biggs. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Biggs votes aye.
    Ms. Mace?
    Ms. Mace. Aye.
    The Clerk. Ms. Mace votes aye.
    Mr. LaTurner?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds?
    Mr. Donalds. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Donalds votes aye.
    Mr. Armstrong?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Perry?
    [No response.]
    Mr. Timmons?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett?
    Mr. Burchett. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burchett votes aye.
    Ms. Greene?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain?
    Mrs. McClain. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. McClain votes aye.
    Mrs. Boebert?
    Mrs. Boebert. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Boebert votes aye.
    Mr. Fry?
    Mr. Fry. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fry votes aye.
    Mrs. Luna?
    Mrs. Luna. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mrs. Luna votes aye.
    Mr. Edwards?
    Mr. Edwards. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Edwards votes aye.
    Mr. Langworthy?
    Mr. Langworthy. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Langworthy votes aye.
    Mr. Burlison?
    Mr. Burlison. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Burlison votes aye.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Raskin votes no.
    Ms. Norton?
    Ms. Norton. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Norton votes no.
    Mr. Lynch?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi?
    Mr. Krishnamoorthi. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Krishnamoorthi votes no.
    Mr. Khanna?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume?
    Mr. Mfume. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Mfume votes no.
    Ms. Ocasio-Cortez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Bush?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown?
    Ms. Brown. Brown votes no.
    The Clerk. Ms. Brown votes no.
    Mr. Gomez?
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury?
    Ms. Stansbury. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Stansbury votes no.
    Mr. Garcia?
    Mr. Garcia. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Garcia votes no.
    Mr. Frost?
    Mr. Frost. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Frost votes no.
    Ms. Balint?
    Ms. Balint. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Balint votes no.
    Ms. Lee?
    Ms. Lee. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Lee votes no.
    Mr. Casar?
    Mr. Casar. No.
    The Clerk. Mr. Casar votes no.
    [No response.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman?
    Mr. Goldman. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Goldman votes nay.
    Mr. Moskowitz?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman?
    Chairman Comer. I vote yes. I vote yes, and how is Mr. 
Fallon recorded.
    The Clerk. The Chairman votes yes. Mr. Fallon is not yet 
recorded.
    Voice. You want to vote aye.
    Mr. Fallon. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Fallon votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. LaTurner recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner is not recorded.
    Mr. LaTurner. Yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. LaTurner votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Higgins recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins is not recorded.
    Mr. Higgins. Higgins votes yes.
    The Clerk. Mr. Higgins votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Timmons recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons is not recorded.
    Mr. Timmons. Aye.
    The Clerk. Mr. Timmons votes aye.
    Chairman Comer. And how is Mr. Grothman recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman is not recorded.
    Mr. Grothman. I vote----
    Chairman Comer. Yes.
    Mr. Grothman. Yes.
    [Laughter.]
    The Clerk. Mr. Grothman votes yes.
    Chairman Comer. How is Mr. Connolly recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly is not recorded.
    Mr. Connolly. Nay.
    The Clerk. Mr. Connolly votes nay.
    Chairman Comer. And Ms. Porter?
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter is not recorded.
    Ms. Porter. No.
    The Clerk. Ms. Porter votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Mr. Garcia? Oh, Mr. Gomez. I'm sorry.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez is not recorded.
    Mr. Gomez. Gomez, no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Gomez votes no.
    Chairman Comer. My bad. Mr. Lynch?
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch is not recorded.
    Mr. Lynch. No.
    Chairman Comer. Anybody else? My bad.
    The Clerk. Mr. Lynch votes no.
    Chairman Comer. And Mr. Khanna. How is Mr. Khanna recorded?
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna is not recorded.
    Mr. Khanna. I vote no.
    The Clerk. Mr. Khanna votes no.
    Chairman Comer. Has anyone else not voted yet?
    [No response.]
    Chairman Comer. Do you want to wait another minute? I mean, 
it is 21 to 17. Is there anyone else you want to wait on?
    Mr. Raskin.
    [Inaudible.]
    Chairman Comer. Will the clerk report the tally?
    The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, on this vote, the ayes are 21. The 
nays are 17.
    Chairman Comer. The ayes have it, and the bill is ordered 
favorably reported.
    Without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the 
table.
    Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause 2, I ask that Committee 
Members have the right to file with the clerk of the Committee 
supplemental additional Minority and dissenting views.
    Without objection.
    If there is no further business before the Committee, 
without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]