Congressional Record, Volume 167 Issue 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)

[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 38 (Monday, March 1, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H864-H872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1280, GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN
POLICING ACT OF 2021; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 179

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1) to expand
Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of
big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public
servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for
the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
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 House Administration or their
respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in
section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as
part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this
resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn
by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the
chair of the Committee on House Administration or her
designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further
amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee
on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed

[[Page H865]]

of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall
be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration or
their respective designees, shall not be subject to
amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question.
Sec. 4. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 5. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold
law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve
transparency through data collection, and reform police
training and policies. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and on any 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 the
Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 6. The following resolutions are hereby adopted:
(a) House Resolution 176.
(b) House Resolution 177.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr.
Cole), 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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported
a rule, House Resolution 179, providing for consideration of H.R. 1,
the For the People Act of 2021, under a structured rule. It self-
executes a manager's amendment by Chairperson Lofgren and makes in
order 56 amendments.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration
and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1280, the George
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule
provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides
for one motion to recommit.
The rule also deems as passed H. Res. 176, which directs the Clerk of
the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of
H.R. 1319, and H. Res. 177, which authorizes candidates for election to
the House and Members of the House to file statements with the Clerk
regarding the intention to participate or not participate in the small
donor financing system for such elections created by H.R. 1.
Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering two pieces of critically
important legislation this week that are a long time coming.
H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will expand voting rights, limit
partisan gerrymandering, improve election integrity, and revise rules
for political spending and government ethics. The 2020 election brought
out unprecedented turnout, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Thanks in large part to voting by mail, more than 159 million Americans
voted, the largest total vote turnout in United States history.
What followed was the most heavily scrutinized election in modern
history, with our airwaves filled with horrific and dangerous lies that
fundamentally damaged many people's faith in our democracy. Yet,
through that entire ordeal, not a single shred of evidence of any
systemic fraud was ever discovered--none at all.
Voting in this country, however, is far from perfect. Many people,
particularly Americans of color and those from low-income families,
face tremendous barriers to making their voices heard, from long lines
at the polls to discriminatory ID laws.
I believe, and the Democratic majority believes, our national effort
should be aimed at eliminating barriers to the ballot. We believe true
participatory democracy can only be achieved when everyone--everyone--
is afforded the opportunity to vote. We believe it is better for
America that every voice be heard here in Washington, in State
capitols, and in city, town, and village halls across our Nation.
It is better for all of our citizens when each and every citizen has
a stake in what their government says and what their government does.
And we believe it is better for us on the world stage when our
democracy shines as a beacon of hope and success for others to emulate.
It is becoming increasingly clear that not everyone believes our
national interest is served by greater voter participation. It is held
in some quarters that, rather than seeing greater participation as a
sign of our democracy's enduring strength, it is instead seen as
evidence of a dark, sinister plot. Or perhaps, more cynically, they
express that view because suppressing votes, particularly of those with
whom they disagree, will improve their chances for electoral success,
even though it weakens our democracy.
Rather than trying to build on the successes of record voter turnout,
many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather turn
their backs on those successes and begin an organized effort to change
the rules because they didn't like the outcome.
The minority has put forward a narrative that suggests we must choose
between two separate paths, accessibility and security. But that is a
deliberately false narrative. We can, and we must, achieve both. H.R. 1
is the vehicle to advance both.
The For the People Act places a significant emphasis on election
security, in everything from voter registration to ensuring all voting
systems are secure with paper ballots and robust election result
audits.
The outrage we have heard from Republican leaders in Congress
demonstrates how out of touch they are with their own voters. More than
two-thirds of likely voters, including 57 percent of Republicans, said
they would back the proposals in H.R. 1. Americans want more
accountability from their leaders, not less.

{time} 1930

They want the influence of money out of politics. They want an end to
gerrymandered districts. They want voting to be a celebration of our
civil duty, not a constant battle to overcome administrative hurdles.
We owe it to those Americans to create the ethical and accessible
democracy that they so richly deserve.
The House will also take up H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act. This legislation represents the work of hundreds of
legislators and millions of American advocates who have fought for
decades for a more equitable future.
This fight is especially personal for me, as my own community of
Rochester, New York, has grappled with two recent tragedies that
underscore just how necessary police reform truly is.
Just one block from here, on the west pediment of the United States
Supreme Court, is a promise to every American: ``Equal justice under
law.''
Sadly, we know that for too many Americans, that promise is an empty
one. It was an empty promise for Daniel Prude, who, while naked and
unarmed, faced a mental health crisis in the streets of Rochester when
police arrived on the scene last March. He needed a warm blanket and
treatment by a mental health professional. He got neither and died in
police custody just days later.
It wasn't true just a month ago for a young girl in my community, who
was forcibly restrained and pepper sprayed as she called out for her
father. She is 9 years old. A police officer on the scene, impatient
with her pleas to see her dad, urged her to stop acting like a child.
Her response: ``I am a child.''
It would be laughable if it were not heartbreaking.
Equal justice under law was an empty promise for George Floyd,
Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and for countless others in every corner
of America and for countless more still to come unless we take bold,
decisive action.

[[Page H866]]

Indeed, it is up to each of us to make the changes necessary to
finally fulfill the promise of equal justice.
The time for incremental change has passed. It is clear that we need
a cultural paradigm shift and massive reimagining of our public safety
protocols, and that starts with the George Floyd Justice in Policing
Act.
The bill prohibits religious, racial, and discriminatory profiling by
every police department in America, supported by improved training for
officers and comprehensive data collection and tracking to ensure
departments are following the law.
It will save lives by banning dangerous police practices, like choke
holds and no-knock drug warrants. It will ensure that law enforcement
uses deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only after
exhausting deescalation tactics.
This legislation would limit the transfer of military-grade equipment
to State and local law enforcement because peace, safety, and community
trust cannot--cannot--be realized with weapons of war.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will create desperately
needed accountability by expanding the use of body-worn cameras and
dashboard cameras and eliminating the qualified immunity protections
that allow bad actors in law enforcement to stay on the force.
As a whole, this legislation addresses police misconduct, creates
greater transparency, and affords victims meaningful avenues for
redress. With these policies, we can build trust and we can begin to
build cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they are
supposed to serve and protect.
We passed both the For the People Act and the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act in the previous Congress, and it is my hope that this year
represents a real opportunity to move both bills forward to the
President's desk so that we can build stronger democracy and justice
for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support both
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New
York (Mr. Morelle), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers two items, both of which will be
familiar to Members who were here during the 116th Congress. We are
once again considering H.R. 1, a bill that nationalizes our election
system and substitutes Washington's judgment for a key responsibility
of our States in the administration of free and fair elections. We are
also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
Unfortunately, despite its title, H.R. 1 has nothing at all to do
with the people. It is, instead, a bill about preserving the present
Democrat majority. It is a bill by Democrats for Democrats. Though the
majority claims this bill is about reforming our political system, the
reality is that most of the changes in this bill, if enacted into law,
would be to benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority.
The most egregious of these provisions are those dedicated to
changing our national system of campaign finance. Now, in general, I
think this is a worthy goal, but the majority's proposed solution does
not make much sense. The majority is proposing to create a new
federally funded campaign ATM using corporate fines, ensuring that
certain candidates will receive millions of dollars just for running a
campaign.
My colleagues in the majority have bemoaned the massive amount of
money that has been entering into our campaign system over the past few
decades, yet their proposed solution is to dump corporate dollars into
the system.
In what world does this make sense?
Even Democrats know what a flawed program this is, which is why
today's rule also includes a provision to allow Members of Congress to
opt out of this program. Before this bill was even passed by the House,
Democrats were already running from it. They should just keep running
and pull this bill from the floor.
Other proposed changes in this bill are just egregious. Wherever
possible, the majority is attempting to impose one-size-fits-all
systems from Washington onto the States. It does this with a one-size-
fits-all voter registration system, including forcing States to provide
same-day voter registration whether they want to or not.
It takes away the power of the States to choose how to redistrict,
forcing them to adopt Washington-imposed ``independent redirecting
commissions,'' something that less than 20 percent of the States who
undertake redistricting actually do.
These provisions impede the traditional power of the States to
control their own elections. As a former secretary of state and
election official in my home State of Oklahoma, I find these changes to
be particularly concerning.
But what is worse, H.R. 1 also includes severe restrictions on free
speech and repeals the Lois Lerner rule, a rule put into place after
the IRS began targeting the speech of conservative organizations in
determining whether or not they would qualify for tax exempt status. If
enacted into law, these provisions would reweaponize the IRS and limit
the abilities of organizations, corporations, and individuals to freely
exercise this most-important right guaranteed under the Constitution.
How the majority can claim that this bill is for the people when they
are blatantly restricting the people's right to free speech is beyond
my understanding.
Mr. Speaker, what the majority is attempting today is egregious.
Changing the national campaign finance system to benefit themselves,
taking traditional powers away from the States, and restricting the
right of free speech are all part of an unprecedented power grab.
I strongly urge the majority to change course, and I urge my
colleagues to reject this terrible bill.
Today, we are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in
Policing Act. As with H.R. 1, this bill will be familiar to our
returning Members, as the House passed an identical bill last summer.
Unfortunately, while I think this bill is well-intentioned, it, too,
is misguided. Reforms contained in H.R. 1280 will do more harm than
good. I do not doubt the majority's good intentions with this
legislation.
The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act came about following the
tragic events of last summer. George Floyd's death demonstrated what so
many Americans know only too well, that abuses of power clearly exist
and must be grappled with.
And while the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers
faithfully and bravely carry out their duties and responsibilities each
day, all too often many Americans receive different treatment due to
the color of their skin. Americans across the country rightly condemn
this horrific and unacceptable act.
Unfortunately, rather than choosing to come together to legislate in
a bipartisan manner, the majority chose to take the exact opposite
course last summer, and we are once again considering the same flawed
and deeply partisan bill we considered then and that the Senate failed
to take up. I believe this bill will face the same result, should the
House pass it again this week.
During the last Congress, when the Judiciary Committee met to mark up
this bill, the majority completely shut out Republicans from the
process. Republicans made good-faith attempts to work with the
Democrats to find common ground on needed reforms, yet every single one
of these attempts were rejected.
This year, the majority has not even deigned to bring this bill to a
markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, once again, the majority has
shut Republicans out of the process.
This is no way to legislate on an issue that is this important, Mr.
Speaker. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that reforms are
necessary. We all watched the tragedy of George Floyd unfold last
summer and we all watched the resulting protests. We all agree that
action is necessary. But rather than working together in the best
interest of the American people, the majority is once again telling
Republicans that they can only have a

[[Page H867]]

Hobson's choice. They can take the Democrats' bill or they can take the
Democrats' bill with no other options.
But I, along with my fellow Republicans, reject that idea. We fully
recognize the critical need for reform. My colleagues, both in the
House and in the Senate, have put together our own package, the JUSTICE
Act, filled with bipartisan reforms that could pass both the House and
the Senate and be signed into law quickly. These reforms include
critical measures, like providing funding for body cameras for police
officers, requiring deescalation procedures, and banning choke holds.
My colleague, Representative Stauber, offered this as an amendment at
the Rules Committee earlier today, but, once again, the majority chose
to shut out Republicans and refused to make this amendment in order.
That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, but the real losers here
are the American people. This is an issue we can and should cooperate
on. I urge my colleagues in the majority to rethink the path they are
on. On an issue that is this important and this critical to the
American people, the very best thing we can do is work together. And
with a reduced majority, I think that would actually be good political
advice for my friends.
We can work on bipartisan reforms together and we can produce
consensus legislation that has the buy-in of Members on both sides.
Unfortunately, the majority has once again chosen the opposite path:
Partisan bills filled with provisions that do not reflect the best
interest or consensus of the country.
We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve
better.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. As much as it pains me, because I
have nothing but incredible admiration and respect for my distinguished
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, but when it comes to
the question of voting in the United States, the fact is that States
right now are working--many of them overtime--to restrict ballot
access. That is why it is necessary for the Congress to step forward,
as is given us, the power in the Constitution, to make sure that we
pass laws that fulfill the dream of voter access for all Americans.

I do also note that I think it would be much easier for us to believe
that there is good faith on the other side of the aisle to negotiate
some of these items and to perhaps reach compromise, but I find it hard
to believe--and I stated this in the Rules Committee--given what
happened over the last several months, that we would be in this
position, that there is any ability to have a belief in good faith.
It is hard to imagine 60 lawsuits were brought against decisions made
by States--not the Federal Government, but States--on the electoral
college. Two-thirds of the members of the House Republican Conference--
two-thirds--objected to the results of the electoral college, and, in
many cases, States that had Republican leadership and Republicans
serving as secretaries of state or as elections commissioners.
So I would suggest that since--for the first time since 1800, when
John Adams turned over the keys to the White House to President
Jefferson and we observed the first peaceful transfer of power from one
party to another, that since that foundational moment in American
history over two centuries ago, this is the first time that people in
this House have objected so strenuously and systematically to the
results of the free and fair election of the American people.
So we are for the people. We want to continue to expand ballot
access, and we want nothing more than those wishes of the American
public to be respected by their elected officials.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the Committee on House Administration.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our
democracy is in urgent need of repair. The American people deserve a
transparent, inclusive, and healthy democracy, and H.R. 1 will get us
there.
It is transformational, a once-in-a-generation, pro-democracy,
anticorruption reform package. It is composed of comprehensive policies
for eliminating structural and legal barriers to voting, ending the
dominance of big money in our campaign finance reforms, and
implementing real government ethics and accountability reforms.
With this landmark bill, we take a giant leap toward ensuring our
Republic is an authentic and inclusive representative democracy, and
ensuring the voices of everyday Americans are no longer drowned out by
those of wealthy special interests.

{time} 1945

Article I, Section 4 says this:
``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such
regulations.''
Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing here. As the gentleman has
said, we had a huge turnout in the 2020 election, despite efforts by
some to suppress turnout. Now, we see legislatures all over the country
trying to put barriers in place so the American people will not be able
to exercise their franchise. That is simply wrong. We should look to
our constitutional obligation to make sure that every American has the
capacity to vote.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, also a
member of the Committee on Rules.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole for
yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, which should more appropriately be titled, the
for the politicians act, is nothing more than a top-down Federal power
grab that nationalizes our elections and empowers the Democratic party
to permanently hold on to their majority.
Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives States the
primary role in establishing election law and in administering
elections.
H.R. 1 upends this constitutional balance by forcing States to
permanently expand mail-in voting, legalize ballot harvesting, and
disregard voter ID laws. Even more alarming, this bill allows for the
first-ever Federal funding of campaigns, creating a 6 to 1 government
match to small-dollar donors. This means that for every $200 donated,
the Federal Government would contribute $1,200. Additionally, certain
voters will be given publicly funded vouchers to donate to candidates
of their choice.
H.R. 1 also stifles free speech and empowers President Biden's IRS to
target conservative organizations and deny them their tax-exempt
status.
Last, but certainly not least, H.R. 1 increases vulnerability for
foreign election interference at a time when we should be increasingly
more vigilant about hostile regimes seeking to undermine our democracy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and
``no'' on H.R. 1.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is the most significant democracy reform package
in a generation. It will make it easier to vote--regardless of income,
ability, geography, or race; ends the domination of big money in
politics; and enacts tougher ethics standards to ensure that public
officials actually work for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of three provisions that I
helped incorporate into this bill:
Bringing the Oregon vote-by-mail model nationwide;
Paving the way for all States to offer vote-by-mail and early voting;
And automatic voter registration for individuals interacting with
State agencies.
Mr. Speaker, this is personal for me. I started my political career
as a college student, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee
on the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. I spent 2
years of my life working in Oregon on that and on the national
campaign. Subsequently, I was on a national commission from the Ford
Foundation, the National League of Women Voters, and the Civic League
to deal with how we were to reform the election process to make it more
uniform and easier for the American people.

[[Page H868]]

Mr. Speaker, I was proud of that work, but I am a little embarrassed
that that was four decades ago and we are still talking about the need
for those reforms. And as my colleagues have mentioned, there are
people right now in various State legislatures that are actively
continuing a process of making it hard for Americans to vote. This is
embarrassing. This isn't just a matter of what happened with civil
rights, this has been refined as a high art to be able to gerrymander
people into unrepresentative patterns that undercuts the ability of
politicians selecting their voters, rather than people selecting their
politicians.
Mr. Speaker, I have been pained by the lies that have been made about
mail-in voting. I am the first Member of the House of Representatives
to be elected as a result of a mail-in ballot. We pioneered that in
1996, and we have continued to pioneer that effort. And it is secure,
it is convenient, it saves money for local government. It allows people
to process this in their own home, in their own time, in their own way.
In an era of the pandemic, it provides health--keeping older poll
workers from being exposed.
The notion that somehow this is a problem that justified some of the
outrageous statements and behavior, defies description.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an
additional 30 seconds.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pained with this misrepresentation
that the President of the United States would denigrate mail-in
balloting while he, in fact, does it. This has been done by Republicans
and Democrats alike. It is secure. It is safe. And it helps the
American people.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge approval of H.R. 1 and rejection of the
bogus claims about the problems alleged with mail-in ballots. It is the
most secure. It is the most effective. And it is one that I think the
public deserves.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend, and the distinguished
ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.
Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member
Cole and the Committee on Rules. It was a fun day up there for a few
hours.
This nearly 800-page bill that, if signed into law, would impact
millions of Americans' right to vote and to participate in the
political process, was introduced on January 4 of this year. And the
first and only hearing on H.R. 1 was held just 4 days ago, in the
smallest committee in Congress.
Democrats on the Committee on House Administration also decided a
markup of this bill wasn't needed, despite the fact that both the bill
itself and the membership of our committee have changed since last
Congress. This is especially concerning since Democrats changed House
floor rules this Congress to weaken the MTR, making committees the only
real opportunity for the minority to provide an alternative. But now,
they are not even doing that. They are not even holding a markup on
this major elections bill.
This bill was rushed. And I guarantee most of my colleagues
supporting this bill have no idea how this bill would really impact
elections or political speech. But I bet they do know that if this bill
were to become law, they would get a lot more funds for their own
campaigns through the public financing provision.
H.R. 1, the for the politicians act, includes hundreds of pages of
mandates on States and local election administrators. At the only
hearing Congress has held on this massive bill, the minority's witness
was the only person on the panel with experience in actually running
elections. And he told this committee that it would be unworkable in
States like his.
Mr. Speaker, we should be reviewing the issues that we saw during the
2020 election cycle and helping States develop a better process. Simply
mandating how States run their elections is not only unconstitutional,
but it will lead to chaos and confusion for voters.
The for the politicians act creates a first-ever fund to publicly
finance our own congressional campaigns by providing corporate money,
the first corporate dollars allowed into individual Members of
Congress' campaigns since 1907, laundered through the Federal
Government and into Members of Congress' own campaigns.
Provisions in this bill also attack free speech protections under the
First Amendment. We did not have any hearings on the impact of changing
the current bipartisan balance of the Federal Election Commission to a
partisan makeup or the effect that a ``speech czar'' will have on
people's ability to participate in the political process.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is terrible. This bill doesn't address the
important issues that deserve hearings. Any bill to fundamentally
change our elections or restrict our freedom of speech needs--at the
very least--to go through regular order. The American people deserve to
know what is in this bill and the real-life impact it will have on
them.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying
bill, and I figure my time has expired since you have the gavel.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois,
and I may not agree with him very much on this subject. But I really
disagree if he thinks the Committee on Rules today was fun. He must be
a heck of a cheap date.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, and distinguished colleague from the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, I began volunteering to provide election
protection services to voters after I saw political operatives try to
block Swarthmore College students from voting by posting signs around
their campus saying that they could not legally vote where they
attended college. That was a lie. But we had to get a court order to
take the signs down.
Fast forward almost 20 years, and Haverford College students and
their neighbors had to wage a multiyear campaign to get local officials
to put a polling place on campus. The existing polling place was 1\1/2\
miles away, in another district entirely, and was inconvenient for
students--most of whom had no cars--and the majority of residents
alike.
The college offered to provide free space and parking for the polling
place, but students and neighbors were met with excuse after excuse.
These excuses were textbook voter suppression tactics used to box out
young voters from making their voices heard.
If we have learned anything from this past election, it is that when
we make it more convenient for eligible voters to vote, they do.
That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 1 that requires States
which offer early voting to make it available to polling places serving
college campuses. It is high time we make our democracy, our elections,
accessible to the generations who will inherit the world that we are
legislating about.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support my
amendment, and to support final passage of H.R. 1.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, my friend and I disagree on the two pieces of
legislation today, but we absolutely agree that the Committee on Rules'
meeting was not fun.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
Greene), my friend.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today
against H.R. 1280. This bill is nothing more than a get-cops-killed
campaign. It sends one clear message: Democrats hate law enforcement.
This bill does not bring justice to victims. It just takes revenge on
all of the men and women in uniform. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is
surrounded by an army of taxpayer-funded law enforcement 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week.
This bill disarms cops and opens them to frivolous lawsuits by
lawyers representing criminals who got their feelings hurt simply
because they broke the law and got arrested.
Speaker Pelosi is putting police on a hit list to be ambushed while
on the job keeping our streets safe. So I have one message for
Democrats: Shame on you.
Shame on you for using these men and women to protect your fortress

[[Page H869]]

while destroying their rights and livelihoods. Don't call a cop for
help if this is how you are going to treat them. You should tell them
to go home. At least then, they won't have to stand guard while you
dismantle everything they stand for.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their
remarks to the Chair.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 2000

Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the
ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it seems like we were just here, debating
a COVID relief bill that was not about COVID relief but Democrats'
special interests. Now, we are debating the rule for the so-called For
the People Act, but it is not for the people but against the people,
against our freedom, and against our fundamental right to vote.
H.R. 1, the Democrats' plan to nationalize elections, stack the deck
in their favor, and pad their campaign accounts with corporate money
laundered through the IRS, is exactly what this country does not need.
What we do need are States carrying out Federal elections with
integrity and transparency, as the Constitution dictates. We need
American voters to have confidence in the voting process.
That is what my amendment was designed to do. Mr. Speaker, while
leaving the details and specifics of elections to the States, my
amendment would create two simple standards to promote integrity and
transparency. My amendment would provide standards and best practices
for postelection audits and would be published online by each State
within 30 days after the election. My amendment would require States to
attest to the security and accuracy of their voter ID requirements and
maintenance of voter registration lists.
While H.R. 1 actually forbids voter ID laws, Mr. Speaker, you have to
have an ID to buy tobacco and alcohol in this country. What is the
problem with having to identify who you are to vote?
Two simple provisions to promote integrity and transparency, but my
colleagues across the aisle must not be here for integrity,
transparency, and improving voter confidence in our elections because
they wouldn't even make my amendment in order.
Mr. Speaker, since we can't have a debate in committee or here on the
floor, I will file the Voter ID Act, and then maybe my friends can
explain to the American people why they are opposed to election
integrity and transparency and what is wrong with having to verify the
identification of voters.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying
bill.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to again just note, although it has been said
ad nauseam for the last several months, that while we clearly respect
States' roles in these elections and that it is the States who run
elections and organize them, we do have the power in the Congress given
to us in the Constitution. But more importantly, this year, while the
voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona cast ballots in free and
fair and open elections, and those were certified repeatedly despite an
onslaught of lawsuits brought by the former President and his
advocates, all of which were denied going all the way up to the Supreme
Court, our colleagues didn't respect those States' elections even
though they were certified and even though, as we all met on what will
be one of the darkest days in American history on January 6 to accept
and certify those results given to us by the States, my colleagues and
friends objected to them.
I am not sure what that says about their respect for State elections
since they didn't respect the results of those elections, in many cases
run by Republicans in their respective States.
Mr. Speaker, I must say I find this a most curious discussion. If we
are not going to abide by the results of elections, and if we are not
going to trust those various States to submit elections unless they
agree with the outcome that we want, why we would be arguing so
strenuously for the continuation of State control and no involvement by
the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly
vests that power here in the Congress?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just quickly to my friend from New York, I wasn't here,
and he wasn't here, but our friends thought to challenge in this
Chamber the election in 2001, after 2000. I was here in 2004 when they
challenged a State and demanded a recount. Then, I was here in 2017
when my friends on the other side sought to challenge 10 different
States. So, let's not act like this is somehow unusual.
Mr. Speaker, another part of today's rule includes a provision to
deem passed a correction to last week's budget reconciliation measure.
Given that the majority now wishes to reopen last week's
reconciliation, it is certainly appropriate to further amend that
resolution to correct one of the more egregious provisions in it.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to immediately adopt H. Res. 178, an engrossment correction to
strike funding in the budget reconciliation bill for the Pelosi subway
tunnel in California and instead direct the $140 million to support
mental health and suicide prevention in States where children do not
have the option of in-person instruction in school.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Oklahoma?
There was no objection.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs.
Bice), my good friend, for further explanation of the amendment.
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous
question today, we will call up a resolution that I introduced, H. Res.
178, which would instruct the House Clerk to modify the text of H.R.
1319, the American Rescue Plan Act, to direct $140 million from Speaker
Pelosi's pork subway project and to instead put those funds toward
critical mental health services for the Nation's children who have
continued to suffer in isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

My resolution would ensure that mental health and suicide prevention
services are provided in States where children do not have the option
of in-person instruction in school, as isolation has been a major
driver of mental health impacts on our Nation's kids.
Mr. Speaker, children across this Nation have been disproportionately
affected by the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study
by the National Institutes of Health found that social isolation has
had a significant impact on America's children. Social isolation during
quarantine has caused many to develop feelings of sadness, anxiety, and
loneliness.
Unfortunately, a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found
that there has been an increase in suicides among children following
the imposition of stay-at-home orders last year.
Another study by the Virginia Pediatrics Association found a 90
percent rise in cases among children involving depression, anxiety, and
academic struggles.
Mr. Speaker, there is hope. The CDC recently released new guidelines
that recommend students return to in-person instruction where it can be
done safely. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has backed these new guidelines
and has spoken in support of getting our Nation's kids back in school.
The feelings of social isolation felt by so many children today can
be quickly alleviated by reopening our schools. In areas of the country
where reopenings are not happening, my resolution would provide $140
million to bolster mental healthcare for these affected children. I
think we can all agree that the mental health impacts on our children
should be swiftly addressed on a bipartisan basis.
Mr. Speaker, let me state again that America's children deserve the
very best. Let's defeat the previous question today so that we can
provide needed relief and critical mental health services

[[Page H870]]

to children who are suffering across the Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous
question.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I began my comments this evening, I
have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
I don't want to be argumentative, but I would note that I think there
is a significant and substantial difference between a symbolic
objection made by one or two Members to the electoral college results
of a single State versus the objection of 140 Members of this House,
particularly as it follows a violent, unprecedented attack on what I
consider the sacred cathedral of democracy, the United States Capitol.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing
two significant pieces of legislation today that are, unfortunately,
both deeply partisan. In neither case has the majority allowed
Republicans to be involved in the process of legislating.
Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1, the majority is proposing a deeply troubling
takeover of election practices that will benefit only Democrats. The
bill will take away the traditional powers of the States to run their
own elections as they see fit, imposing a one-size-fits-all regime from
Washington.
It dumps huge amounts of corporate money into the campaign finance
system, particularly benefiting certain candidates. It imposes severe
restrictions on free speech that are anathema to a free and fair
election.
On H.R. 1280, the majority is once again seeking to pass the same
flawed police reform bill it passed last Congress.
Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity here for both Democrats and
Republicans to work together to pass real reforms for the American
people. Instead of taking ``yes'' for an answer, the majority is
instead seeking to impose a deeply partisan bill that will not fix the
problems or help heal the American people.
Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that. The American people are
best served when their Representatives in Congress can come together
and work in a bipartisan manner. One side attempting to impose partisan
legislation on the country does us all a disservice.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rethink this path, reject both
of these bills, and return to the negotiating table and work with
Republicans for a brighter future for all Americans.
Mr. Speaker, I mean this with all sincerity. There is a great gap
between us on H.R. 1. We just simply look at this matter differently. I
think it is egregious partisan overreach. On H.R. 1280, there really is
an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The JUSTICE Act that Mr.
Stauber filed last year and presented today as an amendment has a great
deal in common with some of the objectives I know my friends want to
achieve on their side of the aisle.
Mr. Speaker, in an almost evenly divided House and an evenly divided
Senate that still has the filibuster, you can't do things by
reconciliation every day. Most days, to get much done, it is going to
require bipartisan cooperation.
We often say that never happens. The reality is it happens a lot more
than people acknowledge. Five times last year we came together as
Republicans and Democrats and passed COVID relief packages that made a
big difference in this country. We also passed the spending bill on a
bipartisan basis that funded the government for this entire fiscal
year. We did that in the middle of a Presidential election year that
was extraordinarily divisive.
Mr. Speaker, we can work together. I would ask my friends to rethink
the course of the reconciliation bill and now these two pieces of
legislation and start thinking about where we can actually get things
done. I think the George Floyd bill, H.R. 1280, is one of those places.
I also think the appropriations process can be one of those places. We
can probably even find some common ground on some of the electoral
issues, although personally, in my view, H.R. 1 is a very flawed piece
of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the debate
and tell him that, despite our disagreements on these two pieces of
legislation, I look forward to working with him. I don't think either
of these are likely to get through the United States Senate. I do think
we can get a product back from the United States Senate that both of us
might be able to vote for, in terms of police justice and overhaul. We
will wait and see what happens with H.R. 1. I am less optimistic we
will ever see it again, but I am happy to say good-bye to it out of
this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and I urge rejection of
both underlying pieces of legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much, as always, the thoughtful
comments by my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the question of matters before us here,
we do have significant differences in how we view access to the ballot.
I would note that, historically, parties change. They evolve.
Typically, because this is in keeping with American democracy, we
evolve to reflect the needs and concerns and wishes and results of
American elections and their expression of the will of the people of
this country.
Mr. Speaker, what I find troubling right now is that friends across
the aisle seem to be focused not so much on learning the lessons given
to us by those voters, by the American public, as expressed in the
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
But instead, conscientious, by-design work to limit those who would
want access to the ballot so that they can choose the voters, as
opposed to the other way around--disenfranchising those, and setting up
barriers, as we see happening in State capitals across the country, is
troubling indeed. And, I think, it demonstrates the clear division
between the two parties on this particular issue.

{time} 2015

We seek, and we will always seek, to expand access to make sure that
every single American, every single citizen who wants to participate in
our democracy has the right, because that is how we end up with a
better America, and we fulfill the promise of moving toward a more
perfect Union.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their words in support
of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a
``yes'' vote on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 179

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 7. House Resolution 178 is hereby adopted.

Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220,
nays 201, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 50]

YEAS--220

[[Page H871]]

Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
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
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
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
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Young
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--10

Calvert
Carter (TX)
Crenshaw
Estes
Graves (MO)
Johnson (SD)
Loudermilk
Sessions
Van Duyne
Wittman

{time} 2105

Messrs. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, GONZALEZ of Ohio, and KINZINGER
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

Beatty (Johnson (GA))
Buchanan (LaHood)
Cardenas (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fudge (Kaptur)
Gaetz (McHenry)
Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)
Granger (Arrington)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Higgins (NY) (Kildee)
Horsford (Kildee)
Huffman (McNerney)
Katko (Stefanik)
Kind (Connolly)
Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu (Beyer)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Clark (MA))
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Trahan)
Mrvan (Kelly (IL))
Nadler (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Neguse (Perlmutter)
Norman (Rice (SC))
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Pingree (Kuster)
Reed (Arrington)
Rodgers (WA) (Herrera Beutler)
Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
Ruiz (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Speier (Scanlon)
Thompson (MS) (Butterfield)
Timmons (Green (TN))
Vargas (Correa)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
Young (Malliotakis)

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the
adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 207, not voting 6, as follows:

[Roll No. 51]

YEAS--218

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crist
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis, Danny K.
Dean
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel, Lois
Fudge
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Haaland
Harder (CA)
Hastings
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)
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
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moulton
Mrvan
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Newman
Norcross
O'Halleran
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Soto
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--207

[[Page H872]]

Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kind
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Womack
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--6

Crenshaw
Graves (MO)
Loudermilk
Sessions
Wittman
Young

{time} 2151

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.

personal explanation

Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Monday, March
1, 2021.
On the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule, H. Res.
179, if I had been present, I would have voted YES.
On H. Res. 179, the rule Providing for consideration of H.R. 1 and
H.R. 1280, if I had been present, I would have voted YES.

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

____________________