[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 185 (Thursday, October 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H5738-H5748]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 117-152 AND AN 
                        ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 727 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 727

       Resolved, That if House Report 117-152 is called up by 
     direction of the Select Committee to Investigate the January 
     6th Attack on the United States Capitol: (a) all points of 
     order against the report are waived and the report shall be 
     considered as read; and (b)(1) an accompanying resolution 
     offered by direction of the Select Committee to Investigate 
     the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol shall be 
     considered as read and shall not be subject to a point of 
     order; and (2) the previous question shall be considered as 
     ordered on such resolution to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided among and controlled by 
     Representative Thompson of Mississippi, Representative Cheney 
     of Wyoming, and an opponent, or their respective designees.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 727. The rule provides for 
consideration of the resolution accompanying House Report 117-152 under 
a closed rule if the report is called up by direction of the Select 
Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States 
Capitol. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided among and 
controlled by Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we face a fundamental choice: Whether we are 
going to get to the truth about the violent January 6 attack, the worst 
assault on the Capitol since the War of 1812 and the worst domestic 
assault on American democracy since the Civil War, or whether we are 
going to allow lawful subpoenas to be ignored and the investigation 
being conducted by the select committee to be obstructed to puff up the 
ego of the former President, who has launched another frivolous 
lawsuit, this time against the select committee.
  I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I still remember January 6 like it 
was yesterday. I was standing right where you are now, Mr. Speaker. Our 
democracy was in peril; the lives of Members of Congress, our staffs, 
and all the workers here were endangered. And Capitol Police officers 
were beaten or worse.
  Getting to the truth of what happened or placating the ego of a 
former President, that shouldn't be a tough call. In any ordinary time, 
it wouldn't be. This measure would probably have passed on suspension.
  Because as a Member of Congress, we have fewer more important and 
solemn duties than what is at the heart of the measure before us today, 
and that is protecting our democracy and preventing future attempts to 
overturn the results of an election.
  This is about country, not about party.
  Now, many witnesses are already doing their patriotic duty and 
cooperating voluntarily with the select committee.
  In fact, 10 of the 11 witnesses required to produce records to the 
select committee by the required deadline are engaging with the 
committee.
  Only one person, Mr. Speaker, is refusing. One. Stephen K. Bannon.
  Instead of doing the right thing, the legal thing, the patriotic 
thing, Mr. Bannon is hiding behind the former President's false claims 
of executive privilege to try to run out the clock on this 
investigation.
  Now, maybe he has something to hide. I don't know. But the law isn't 
on his side. It is not on Donald Trump's side either.
  Executive privilege is not absolute, and President Biden has declined 
to invoke that privilege.
  There is a long history of the White House making accommodations to 
investigative requests from Congress. That is especially true when the 
public interest outweighs other interests, as it does here.
  But apparently facts and the law don't matter to some. Apparently, 
Steve Bannon thinks he is above the law. Maybe it is because he was 
pardoned by the former occupant of the White House.
  But ultimately, in the United States of America, no one should be 
above the law.

[[Page H5739]]

  That shouldn't be a controversial idea. But we live in an age where 
apparently some put fidelity to Donald Trump over fidelity to the 
Constitution. And I find that disgusting.
  I get it. The former President is in Mar-a-Lago somewhere seething 
about our efforts to get to the truth about January 6.
  But is he so feared, Mr. Speaker, that my Republican colleagues are 
going to keep denying what happened that day? And keep trying to sweep 
it under the rug as if it never happened? Oh, it was no big deal.
  This is our democracy that we are talking about here. This is about 
the oath we took and the freedoms we cherish, freedoms that Americans 
have fought and died for, Mr. Speaker.
  And some on the other side, are they really willing to throw away all 
of that to placate the whims of one man? Really?
  This has to stop.
  The legal scholar James Landis once said: ``To deny Congress power to 
acquaint itself with facts is equivalent to requiring it to prescribe 
remedies in darkness.''
  We need to see the facts in the cold light of day and follow them 
wherever they lead.
  That means not only holding those who attack this building itself 
accountable, as the legal system is currently doing, it also means 
holding people accountable when they attack what this building stands 
for: Democracy and rule of law.

                              {time}  1230

  We will not tolerate being left in the dark, and certainly not when 
something so fundamental is at stake.
  Now, this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. And just yesterday in 
the Committee on Rules, we debated the underlying measure at length. 
And, yes, we heard from the usual Members who rushed to the former 
President's defense, who deflected and wanted to talk about anything 
other than the events of January 6. But we also saw something more 
remarkable.
  Chairman Thompson, a Democrat, sat side-by-side with Vice Chair 
Cheney, a Republican, two people who probably have never voted for the 
same Presidential candidates in their lives; two people who disagree on 
virtually every issue. But they agreed on this: On defending the 
Constitution and rule of law. Let's follow their example.
  Mr. Speaker, I sat across the dais from Congresswoman Cheney for 
years on the Committee on Rules when the Republicans were in charge. We 
were polar opposites. But yesterday, I couldn't have agreed with her 
more, not as a Democrat but as an American.
  Now I don't give a damn if you are a Democrat or a Republican, and I 
don't care if you like Donald Trump or not. Matters like this are about 
something more than petty partisanship.
  So I urge my colleagues, let's put our country before our party. 
Let's put defending our democracy before defending Donald Trump. Let's 
support this rule and the underlying measure, not as Democrats or 
Republicans, but as public servants, as Members of Congress dedicated 
to preserving American democracy and the rule of law. That is what is 
at stake here and nothing less.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it is hard to ignore the feeling that this is one more 
example of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle trying to 
distract from the real issues that concern Americans. We have an 
administration that can't stop the flood of illegal immigrants at our 
southern border, can't unlock the supply bottlenecks at our ports.
  What are the Democrats doing about inflation?
  What are the Democrats doing about the border issues?
  What are the Democrats doing about supply chain issues?
  And what are the Democrats doing about the worker shortage?
  And I could go on. Instead, we are here going back and forth arguing 
if we should continue down a path of yet another partisan investigation 
of questionable motives and purpose. No wonder the public thinks we 
can't do our job.
  That said, there are several questions that need to be resolved 
before we can continue with this vote. The Supreme Court has found that 
the power rests with Congress for subpoenas if they serve a legitimate 
legislative purpose, and be ``related to, and in furtherance of, a 
legitimate task of the Congress.''
  A legitimate legislative purpose would be issuing subpoenas to the 
leaders of the D.C. National Guard and Sergeant at Arms so that we can 
find out what gaps in communications and authorities that need to be 
filled and find solutions to ensure that this doesn't happen again. But 
have those been issued? No.
  Instead, House Democrats are continuing their witch hunt into 
President Trump and their political opponents that voted against the 
certification of the election in some States, something that they, 
themselves, did just 4 years ago.
  What information is intended to be gathered that would be useful for 
a legitimate legislative purpose? Much of the discussion in the Rules 
Committee centered around criminal action, not around legislation. 
These concerns would have been raised by Republicans if Speaker Pelosi 
had not rejected the minority leader's nominees. But instead, she hand-
picked Members that would fit her and the Democrats' narrative.
  It seems the story line has already been decided. We need to ensure 
that it is, as stated, intended to investigate and report upon the 
facts, circumstances, and causes relating to January 6. Unfortunately, 
Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats made it clear early on that this 
committee and its investigation outcome was predetermined when it 
tilted representation in favor of Democrats and, again, rejected the 
two Republican Members selected to serve on the Commission by the 
minority leader.
  Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about the precedent being set here 
today as the majority, yet again, embarks on another investigation in 
search of a crime.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and the 
underlying resolution, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Minnesota said we wouldn't be in 
this position if we had done what the Republicans had asked us to do. 
We did.
  And I include in the Record the letter that the minority leader, 
Kevin McCarthy, sent to Speaker Pelosi requesting a number of items.

                                     House of Representatives,

                                Washington, DC, February 22, 2021.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi: We are in agreement that the best path 
     forward for bipartisan legislation is to create an impartial 
     and bipartisan Commission.
       In keeping with the suggestions from the Co-Chairs of the 
     9/11 Commission, the legislation the House puts forward 
     should mirror the precedents that fairly and successfully 
     governed that Commission. Simply put, House Republicans are 
     asking for no more and no less than what Congress came 
     together and agreed upon in the past. Specifically, those 
     precedents include:
       An equal 5-5 ratio in appointments by Democrats and 
     Republicans
       Co-Equal Subpoena Power for the Chair and Vice Chair of the 
     Commission
       No inclusion of findings or other predetermined conclusions 
     which ultimately should be rendered by the Commission itself
       As the Co-Chairs of the Commission stated, a ``bipartisan 
     independent investigation will earn credibility with the 
     American public.'' I am confident that following their 
     procedures and precedents can do just that, in a way that an 
     overtly partisan commission will not be able to.
       Thank you and I look forward to hearing your response.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Kevin McCarthy,
                                          House Republican Leader.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, those items include: an equal 5:5 ratio on 
a committee; coequal subpoena power; no inclusion of findings of other 
predetermined conclusions which ultimately should be rendered by the 
Commission itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Homeland Security agreed to every one 
of them--every single one of them. And what did the Republicans do? 
They said, Well, we didn't think you would agree to everything, but we 
still don't want the Commission. So they voted

[[Page H5740]]

against it. And then they blocked it in the United States Senate.
  So don't talk to me about partisanship or bipartisanship when it was 
very clear early on that my friends on the other side had no intention 
of wanting to work with us to get to the truth, because they couldn't 
take yes for an answer.
  Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that today, President Trump issued 
a statement--he had to issue a statement because he can't tweet anymore 
because of mistruths and embrace of violence. Anyway, he issued a 
statement today. This is what he said:
  The statement says, ``The insurrection took place on November 3, 
election day. January 6 was the protest!''
  Let me just say that one more time.
  Trump said today in a statement, ``The insurrection took place on 
November 3, election day. January 6 was a protest!''
  And by the way, he didn't mention that it was a violent protest on 
January 6.
  Mr. Speaker, are any of my Republican colleagues, aside from 
Congresswoman Cheney and Representative Kinzinger, who have shown 
courage and patriotism, are any of them willing to come to the floor 
and say unequivocally that the election on November 3 was not an 
insurrection, as the former President has now said?
  It was a free and fair election held by one of the oldest democracies 
in the world. And that used to mean something to my Republican friends. 
Please, please. The former occupant of the White House is trying to 
tear this country apart. And unfortunately, too many on the other side 
are going along with him. Enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, with all respect to my colleague from 
Massachusetts, the fact still remains that when the minority leader did 
try to participate in this Commission, the Speaker rejected the two 
nominees that the minority leader had offered.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Reschenthaler).
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and fellow 
Rules Committee member, Representative Fischbach, for allowing me the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I really believe that the issue before us today comes 
down to a very simple question, and that is, what is the legislative 
purpose of the Select Committee subpoena on a private citizen. This is 
a very narrow legal issue.
  And what the courts have held is that Congress has the power to 
secure information ``in order to legislate.'' So in other words, 
Congress's subpoena authority is valid only if it relates to the 
furtherance of a legitimate task of Congress.
  Now, according to the Select Committee's own press release, the 
committee is attempting to tell a story and to find out what happened 
that day. But the courts have already determined that that is not a 
valid legislative purpose.
  In the 1957 decision, Watkins v. The United States, the Court held 
that Congress has ``no general authority to expose the private affairs 
of individuals without justification in terms of the functions of 
Congress.'' Additionally, the quote went on in that case to say 
Congress cannot investigate private citizens for ``the sake of 
exposure.''
  So then what is the legislative purpose before us today? What is the 
legislative purpose of a subpoena on a private citizen, including 11 
individuals who merely filed and were granted permits to exercise their 
First Amendment rights to assemble and to petition the government? This 
cannot be perceived as an investigation and still fit within the 
framework of case law.
  Again, let's be clear, the law is crystal clear here. If Congress 
does not have a legitimate legislative function, they simply cannot 
subpoena a private individual.
  Now, the Constitution gives those powers to the executive and the 
judiciary branch. They don't give that power to Congress. So I can, 
therefore, only conclude that the purpose of the resolution before us 
today is to fulfill a partisan agenda.
  If the Select Committee was actually serious about conducting a 
legitimate oversight, they would subpoena the former House Sergeant at 
Arms and the former head of the D.C. National Guard. That would be an 
investigation within the clear purpose of Congress and within the 
delegated power that we have in the Constitution.
  Instead, we are here voting on a resolution with absolutely no 
legislative purpose. We are also setting a dangerous precedent that 
will have a chilling effect on the rights of private citizens in the 
future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I was hoping that someone on the other side would 
respond to former President Trump's statement today, which I find 
stunning and shocking, but apparently they don't want to talk about 
that. They want to talk about legislative purpose. When we get to the 
bill, I will let the committee members respond to that.
  I do want to say one thing again; that Speaker Pelosi was committed 
to a truly bipartisan commission, and we did a bipartisan commission--a 
truly bipartisan commission. My friends on the other side of the aisle 
tried to undercut it and get their friends over in the Senate to tank 
it. That is what happened. They basically destroyed what could have 
been a bipartisan commission that, quite frankly, was the way we all 
wanted to go.
  But then they said, well, she wouldn't let us put who we wanted on 
this current commission. Well, the minority leader suggested Mr. Jordan 
to be the lead Republican, and he very well may be a material witness 
in this investigation. You would put him on to oversee an investigation 
of, what, himself and others?

  Give me a break. What is going on here? At least be honest enough 
with the American people to say what is going on here; and that is, you 
don't want to get to the truth about what happened on January 6. You 
never did; notwithstanding the violence that occurred right here in 
this Chamber, in this sacred building.
  So, please, let's not get into this, Oh, we wanted to cooperate but 
somehow you wouldn't let us. We gave you everything you wanted, and you 
could not take yes for an answer.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise for truth and accountability. That is why we are 
here. We are dealing with common criminals. You see a guy running down 
the street in this city with a television on his back strapped to it, 
you start to wonder. We have had enough of those incidents to indicate 
to us that is what we are dealing with.
  The gravest attack ever on the U.S. democracy came 288 days ago. It 
was born of lies. Steve Bannon spread those poisonous lies, and Bannon 
was guided by the dictator. We must pursue the truth. We go only where 
the facts take us. Refusing a subpoena is obstructing justice. We don't 
allow the plaintiff to prosecute or to decide. We decide it through the 
courts. If you can't take the Constitution, go to Russia. It shows you 
have something to hide. What are you hiding?
  This is a vote of conscience.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, refusing a subpoena is obstructing 
justice. This is a vote of conscience.
  Do you agree with the rioting terrorists or our democracy? Are we a 
country of laws or a country of men?
  We must hold all involved accountable; this includes those who 
attacked the police and those organizers who spread the lies, and the 
President who organized it.
  This is America, not Russia.

                              {time}  1245

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will 
offer an amendment to the rule to provide for the additional 
consideration of H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance 
Act, authored by Representative Ferguson.

[[Page H5741]]

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with the extraneous material, 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, requiring banks and Federal credit 
unions to disclose personal details about their customers' accounts is 
an extreme invasion of privacy, and it would have terrible implications 
for community banks and credit unions in my district and across the 
country.
  I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised about this egregious 
attempt on behalf of the Democrats. They clearly want as much 
government involvement as possible in every possible part of American 
citizens' lives. I may not be surprised anymore, but I continue to be 
disappointed that they refuse to listen to the American citizens who 
time and time again say they want Big Government out of their lives and 
their wallets.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Ferguson).
  Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question. There is absolutely no denying that the Democrats want to 
control every part of your life by allowing the IRS to snoop into your 
bank accounts.
  This is wrong. And for what? It is really truly all about control. 
This unlawful surveillance is their latest gambit.
  The Democrats' snooping scheme would include hiring 87,000 new IRS 
agents at a cost of almost $80 billion. That is almost enough IRS 
agents to fill up Sanford Stadium at the University of Georgia for a 
Saturday football game. Now, I will take a college football stadium 
full of SEC fans cheering on the Dawgs, but not one full of IRS agents.
  The proposal that the Democrats have put out claims to only go after 
wealthy tax cheats, but at its core, this is going to target every 
single farmer, every single family, every single gig worker, every 
single small business owner, and just about anyone who pays rent or 
pays a mortgage.
  Their bogus attempts to scale it back are meaningless. At any number, 
this is wrong. Think about how long it would take, paying $200 a month 
out of your bank account, or $200 a week out of your bank account, to 
get to the $10,000 number that they have proposed.
  Mr. Speaker, simply put, the Democrats' IRS surveillance plan is flat 
out wrong. It is an outright violation of the Fourth Amendment of every 
American. Government has no business sifting through our personal 
information. This is a foundational principle that this country was 
built on.
  I will say it again. Whether the amount is $1, $600, $10,000, or $1 
million, giving the IRS this kind of unfettered and unchecked power is 
wrong. The threshold is irrelevant. Americans know that this is wrong. 
We know it is wrong, and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
know that it is wrong.
  Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are so desperate to 
find revenue to fund their Big Government socialist programs that they 
are willing to violate the constitutional rights of our fellow 
Americans. This is wrong. It is egregious on every front. Once again, 
we know it; they know it; the American people know it; and that is why 
we are pushing back.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so 
that we can restore some reason and sanity and put an end to this 
absurd proposal for the IRS to snoop on Americans' bank accounts.
  Defeat the previous question so we can vote to prohibit IRS financial 
surveillance of Americans' bank accounts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not going to waste my time debating this 
information. What my friend is talking about is a false government 
takeover. What about the people who tried to take over our democracy on 
January 6? What about what happened here on January 6?
  Why is there no interest in getting to the truth? They come with this 
instead. Again, I am still waiting for somebody to respond to President 
Trump's statement that insurrection day took place on November 3. Do 
you really believe that? Is that what we have come to, that my friends 
on the other side would embrace such a shocking and such an offensive 
statement?
  We had a free and fair election, and this is what the former 
President--who my friends are all so afraid of--says.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and 
the underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, there are moments in our country's history when we are 
presented with stark choices, choices between right and wrong. And the 
violence of January 6 has made it clear that we are at such a moment. 
January 6 was a shocking assault on our government.
  On the orders of the former President, thousands of rioters destroyed 
public property, gravely injured police officers, terrorized lawmakers, 
and invaded the Capitol to halt the certification of the electoral 
college required by the Constitution. That day cannot be minimized or 
swept under the carpet because the forces that inspired that attack are 
still stoking the fires of chaos and conspiracy.
  Congress has tasked a bipartisan select committee with investigating 
the January 6 attack, and that committee has outlined why it needs 
Steve Bannon's testimony to fully understand the events leading up to 
that attack.
  However, when subpoenaed to testify, Mr. Bannon told the select 
committee to pound sand. Mr. Bannon is a private citizen; he is not 
above the law and cannot refuse to obey a subpoena any more than you or 
I or any American can. Neither Mr. Bannon nor the former President has 
made any credible legal arguments to shield his testimony.
  Patriotism demands that anyone with knowledge of that dark day come 
forward, and the rule of law and our Constitution demand that everyone 
in this Congress support this investigation.
  I am incredibly disappointed that Republican leadership and so many 
of their colleagues continue to oppose any attempt to investigate the 
January 6 attack. They opposed legislation to create a bipartisan 
commission. They opposed the creation of the select committee. And they 
are now trying to prevent the committee from carrying out its work.
  This is not a time for games or delays, all of which have allowed the 
former President and his allies, like Mr. Bannon, to escape 
accountability thus far. This is a time for courage, the courage to 
protect our Constitution and our national integrity.
  I am grateful to the members of the select committee for having the 
courage to put loyalty to country over partisan politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to support this 
rule.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).
  Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota for 
yielding to me today.
  Mr. Speaker, President Biden and Speaker Pelosi are moving full steam 
ahead with their Big Government, big spending vision for this country. 
One of the most egregious proposals in their multitrillion-dollar 
reconciliation package would give the IRS access to nearly every single 
American's bank account by requiring financial institutions, like your 
local bank or your credit union, to report every account with more than 
$10,000 of transactions annually to the IRS.
  This proposal would give the IRS unprecedented access to sensitive 
personal information and unprecedented power to target working families 
across Iowa and across America. This government snooping is a complete 
invasion of privacy and a massive overreach into our lives and our 
livelihoods.
  This spying scheme is a lose, lose, lose. It will increase the 
existing backlog at the IRS exponentially. It will jeopardize the 
privacy of millions of Americans. It will destroy our community 
financial institutions. And it will hurt rural communities and working 
families hardest of all.
  Democrats claim this is about tax evasion. Everyone should pay the 
taxes

[[Page H5742]]

that they owe. That is not the argument here. But this misguided 
proposal isn't about tracking down missing revenue; it is about 
expanded government control, plain and simple.
  This proposal, by design, will hit normal working families' bank 
accounts. A total of $10,000 in transactions in a year, that is a 
year's rent or a series of farm equipment bills, for example. The IRS 
should be focused on being more efficient at its current job, not 
emboldened and certainly not unleashed on hardworking Americans.
  We do not need to be throwing more money at the IRS to put Americans' 
daily transactions under a microscope. Iowans have been very clear with 
me. They do not want the IRS snooping around in their bank accounts at 
that granular level.
  I have also heard very serious concerns from our community financial 
institutions. These are the folks that are helping our farmers, our 
families, and our small businesses access credit. They told me this 
proposal could force them to shut down for good, leaving Iowans without 
access to credit and capital that they need to help keep our rural 
economy going to fuel and feed the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to put a stop to this madness and 
stand up for our constituents by voting ``no'' on the previous 
question, keeping the government out of Americans' bank accounts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just remind everybody that 
democracy doesn't defend itself; people have to defend democracy. It 
would be nice to see a little courage on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Jeffries), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman and 
chair of the Rules Committee for yielding and for his leadership.
  Mr. Speaker, the House is a separate and coequal branch of 
government. We are the institution that is closest to the people. The 
House has a sacred obligation under the Constitution to defend our 
democracy, and we should be doing that in a bipartisan way, but 
something has happened to the modern-day Republican Party.
  The party of Abraham Lincoln is gone. The party of Ronald Reagan is 
gone. The party of John McCain is gone. A cult of personality has risen 
up to take its place.
  Is that why my colleagues refuse to denounce the former President's 
lie uttered today, that the real insurrection was on November 3?
  Take back your party. You can start today. You can start right here. 
You can start by holding Steve Bannon accountable for his blanket 
defiance of a congressional subpoena.
  What is wrong with Steve Bannon? There is no cult exception to the 
United States Constitution. There is a legitimate, bipartisan 
congressional investigation that is underway into the violent 
insurrection and attack on the Capitol on January 6. It was an assault 
on the Congress, the Constitution, and the country.
  A lawful subpoena has been issued that Steve Bannon should comply 
with. We must hold Steve Bannon accountable for his blanket defiance of 
a congressional subpoena, for undermining the rule of law, and for 
obstructing a congressional investigation because, in America, no one, 
no one, no one is above the law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Emmer).
  Mr. EMMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for the 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question so that we 
can immediately consider H.R. 5586.
  This bill would kill a Biden administration proposal that would allow 
IRS agents to comb through the bank accounts of any American who spends 
more than $10,000 a year.
  To put that in perspective, $10,000 a year equates to just $28 a day, 
$850 a month, or half of the average Minnesota mortgage payment. In 
other words, the Biden administration wants the IRS to be able to spy 
on tens of millions of Americans.
  Don't be mistaken. This proposal does not just target the 1 percent, 
as the President sometimes likes to claim. Instead, it is pointed 
directly at working American families.
  Today, I led a letter, with more than 200 of my colleagues, urging 
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen to scrap this proposal to spy on 
American citizens.
  This is not China. We must protect Americans' right to privacy and 
stop this proposed intrusive, unnecessary Biden financial reporting 
requirement.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, not only will my 
Republican friends not condemn the President's outrageous and 
unacceptable and unconscionable statement today, but they won't even 
talk about what we are here for.
  That is what fear looks like, and it is really unbelievably sad.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Dean).
  Ms. DEAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying that this is not just about 
Mr. Bannon. This is about our rule of law, our democracy, and 
protecting it for future generations.
  On January 6, a mob, incited by the lies of a political leader, 
descended on the Capitol. Nooses, vandalism, death threats to elected 
officials, Americans remember the violence that took place here.

                              {time}  1300

  Beltway chatter often focuses on the winners and losers of that day. 
But on that day, we all lost. Americans lost their lives, and we nearly 
lost our democracy. That is why we created a bipartisan January 6 
commission. We know that unless we do our jobs, the ultimate losers 
will be future generations who will wonder what happened to our Nation.
  The commission's work is serious and has no time for the games of Mr. 
Bannon or anyone else who would disregard the rule of law. Our 
Constitution and our courts have made it clear that Congress has the 
power to investigate. This power is vital to the protection of our 
democracy, and it must be respected.
  I think a lot about our late, dear colleague, Elijah Cummings, and 
his words still sit with me. He said that when we are dancing with the 
angels, the question will be asked: What did we do to ensure we kept 
our democracy intact?
  I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, with that quote on my heart, 
thinking of my own four grandchildren and when they learn of January 6, 
they will see a time when America descended into violence, destruction, 
and desecration; when Americans attacked Americans and threatened our 
democracy.
  And what did I do?
  What did we all do to protect our democracy?
  So I lend my voice to hold Mr. Bannon in contempt and support the 
bipartisan select committee for their work in keeping our democracy and 
our future intact.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), who is the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as my good friend from Georgia explained, if we defeat 
the previous question, we will immediately move to bring up H.R. 5586. 
This bill is critically important to ensure there will be no expansion 
of Internal Revenue Service requirements for financial institutions to 
report the ins and outs of bank accounts.
  Members may remember this issue during the debate on ObamaCare when 
the Democrats tried to require anyone who received a payment of more 
than $600 to be given a 1099. People were rightly outraged by this 
provision, and it was repealed before it ever went into effect. Now, 
with their new reconciliation bill, the Democratic majority is again 
looking for payfors and are willing to sacrifice the privacy of all 
Americans in that quest. Every threshold being discussed for inclusion 
will give the IRS full access to what is in the bank account of every 
American.
  And what is the justification for that, Mr. Speaker?
  It is to help the IRS to identify tax cheats. Well, I can tell you, 
Mr. Speaker, the Democratic proposal will make

[[Page H5743]]

everyone who pays rent or a mortgage a target and won't do anything to 
help the IRS close the tax gap.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democratic plan is an astonishing breach of privacy. 
Giving the IRS the power to snoop around financial accounts, even with 
no accusation of wrongdoing, violates every protection against 
government overreach. Americans have a reasonable expectation of 
privacy in their homes and in their personal lives, including their 
financial lives. Yet, if the majority has their way, the IRS will be 
empowered to go digging around in the bank accounts of everyday 
Americans in search of wrongdoing. That is simply beyond the pale.
  We have seen what can happen when the IRS abuses its power. It was 
only a few short years ago that the IRS was targeting political and 
religious organizations for their beliefs, an astonishing violation of 
their First Amendment rights.
  What the IRS needs, Mr. Speaker, is oversight and accountability, and 
that is why we need to bring up and pass H.R. 5586 today. Only this 
will ensure that the IRS is not granted unprecedented power to 
intervene in the lives of and invade the privacy of ordinary Americans.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), who is the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee 
for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution ought to be supported, and the 
underlying action that the rule provides for ought to be supported by 
every Member of this House who believes that this House has a 
constitutional responsibility of oversight, of protecting the 
Constitution and the democracy in which we all are privileged to live, 
and the integrity of this House.
  Oversight is not possible for this House if, in fact, it cannot 
request and, indeed, demand the testimony of those who have information 
which this House, the people's House and the protector of our democracy 
and our Constitution, needs to protect our democracy. This rule and the 
underlying action for which it provides is essential.
  Mr. Speaker, if I were trying a case, I would offer as Exhibit A a 
statement by the man who would be dictator, Donald Trump, who absurdly 
and, of course, incorrectly says the insurrection took place on 
November 3, election day. January 6 was the protest.
  My view is that man, Donald J. Trump, protests too much, because I 
believe that he recruited, incited, and deployed an insurrectionist mob 
to threaten this institution, its Members, its constitutional 
responsibility in the electoral process of the Presidency of the United 
States, and democracy itself.
  Mr. Speaker, the events of January 6 exposed threats to our democracy 
that must be fully understood and addressed. It is a weighty 
responsibility that falls to the House Select Committee to Investigate 
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol, a bipartisan 
committee.
  I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and all of 
those serving on this committee for their commitment to seeking the 
truth, defending our democracy, and to giving sufficient information to 
our public and our constituents, our people, that they know this to be 
a stark and dangerous lie.
  The committee is doing a diligent job at finding the truth. This task 
should not have fallen to the members of a select committee, this 
subpoena for contempt. We should have been able to come together, 
Democrats and Republicans, to create a bipartisan commission in the 
style of the 9/11 Commission, recognizing that such consequential and 
transformative attacks require us to come together as one nation 
indivisible to seek answers and identify solutions to make our country 
safer.

  Sadly, however, we have come to a place where one party is so focused 
on defending the indefensible that this institution cannot act as 
Americans but, rather, are relegated to acting simply as partisans.
  Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I am heartened to see Democrats and some 
courageous Republicans working together to uncover the truth of what 
happened that day. These Republican Members are exhibiting what 
President Kennedy would call profiles in courage.
  In order for this committee to perform its work in full--indeed any 
committee of the Congress to perform its work in full--ultimately it 
has to be able to get the information that it needs from those who know 
the information it needs. It must hear testimony from all those who may 
have information regarding the events of January 6 in this particular 
case. That is why we provided the committee with subpoena authority.
  Steve Bannon's refusal to appear, even when subpoenaed is, A, a 
demonstration of his contempt, not only for Congress but his contempt 
of the Constitution and his contempt for the law. It is unacceptable 
and obstructive to this process of uncovering the full story of that 
day's attack on the Capitol. He must be found in contempt, not as a 
Democrat and not as a Republican, but on behalf of this institution and 
the people whom we represent.
  Withholding information on the events of that day from the committee 
is no less than an act of betrayal of the American people and of our 
constitutional democracy.
  The American people need to understand what led to the violent 
insurrection that sought to overturn our election and led to the deaths 
of multiple police officers and others; although, as I said, Exhibit A, 
the former President's comments, should be the proof in and of itself 
the American people need to understand what led to the deaths of those 
police officers and the placing at risk the democratic process of 
electing a President of the United States.
  We need to understand, Mr. Speaker, how this could have happened, why 
it happened, and what ought to be done to hold the perpetrators 
accountable and prevent the events of the day from being repeated.
  That appears to be the fear on the floor of this House today: 
accountability, responsibility, and consequences.
  In refusing to appear before the commission, Mr. Bannon has made it 
clear where his loyalties lie. He has chosen Trump first and America 
last, not America first. Trump first, America last. Trump first, our 
Constitution last. Trump first, our democracy last. Trump first, the 
House of the people, this House of Representatives last. And he will 
have to answer for that to us.
  This is a moment of reckoning for our country, reckoning with hard 
truths and painful memories, a reckoning that, above all, requires 
truth and understanding.
  Can't we, Mr. Speaker, in a bipartisan way summon the courage to look 
the truth in the eye and vote the truth?
  We cannot allow anyone to shirk their responsibility to share that 
truth and help the American people understand.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to vote ``yes'' on this 
resolution and to vote ``yes'' on the citation for contempt so that 
Chairman Thompson, Vice Chairwoman Cheney, and the members of the 
select committee can make it clear to Mr. Bannon and to all others 
summoned to testify they will seek the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth as they determine what we must do to protect our 
beloved country, our beloved Constitution, and our beloved democracy.

                              {time}  1315

  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, as explained prior, if we defeat 
the previous question, we will immediately move to bring up H.R. 5586. 
This bill prohibits the expansion of the Internal Revenue Service's 
requirements for financial institutions to report bank account 
transactions.
  The Biden administration is searching for ways to pay for their 
partisan $5.5 trillion social policy bill, and one of the Democrats' 
proposed solutions is to spy on taxpayers' bank accounts.
  Their proposal would require financial institutions and service 
providers to report data on accounts that deposit or withdraw more than 
$600 or maybe $10,000 to the Internal Revenue Service to help ensure 
that Americans are paying their fair share in taxes.
  Democrats claim that this regulatory expansion would only impact 
wealthy Americans and businesses. But in reality, it targets virtually 
all working-class people in our Nation.

[[Page H5744]]

  This government overreach would be an enormous violation of privacy, 
jeopardize the financial security of all Americans, and impose 
significant compliance costs on financial institutions.
  Through this proposal, the Democrats are looking to weaponize the IRS 
by creating a new surveillance program, which would allow them to 
monitor every single bank account without permission or limit. In order 
to conduct this surveillance on Americans, the provision includes $80 
billion to double the number of IRS agents, which would be six times 
the size of the IRS' annual budget.
  This plan was initially included in the massive budget reconciliation 
bill and has now since been removed after pushback from financial 
institutions and customers. But it is still being considered for 
passage.
  Regardless, my House Republican colleagues and I are doing what we 
can to protect the financial security and privacy of the American 
people.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oklahoma.
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. I have recently written a letter to Speaker 
Pelosi, Chairman Neal, Secretary Yellen, and Commissioner Rettig to 
express my concerns of overburdening the data collection system, 
exposing millions of Americans to potential cyberattacks, and how 
distrust in banks negatively impacts our economy.
  Additionally, I signed on to a letter and cosponsored two bills that 
directly address this pressing issue. The letter to Secretary Yellen 
expressed the concern of more Americans unbanking due to privacy 
concerns and distrust in banks and how applying extra reporting 
requirements for financial institutions would be incredibly burdensome.
  The U.S. Government should not have the authority to spy on bank 
accounts of American taxpayers. The Biden administration's proposal 
would significantly impact the working class, invade privacy, pose 
financial security threats for Americans and businesses, and further 
burden institutions. House Republicans are working tirelessly to put a 
stop to this government overreach and protect the American people's 
security, privacy, and trust in this great Nation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman updating us on the bills 
that she has cosponsored and her opinions about the IRS, which have 
nothing to do with the underlying bill that we are debating here today. 
But it is stunning to me that neither she nor any of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle will respond to what the former occupant of the 
White House said today in a statement, that the insurrection took place 
on November 3; that our election, our lawful election in one of the 
oldest democracies in the world, was somehow an insurrection; and that 
January 6 was merely a protest.
  I am stunned by this. I challenge the next speaker, please, can you 
say that you disassociate yourself with this statement? Can you make it 
clear to the American people that you want no part of this? I get it. 
You endorsed this man. He campaigned for you. You are afraid of his 
base. You are afraid every time he says anything. But the bottom line 
is, this statement needs to be condemned, and the unwillingness of 
anybody on the other side to condemn this statement is unconscionable.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, they won't question Trump's statement that 
the insurrection was November 3 because that is the day each and every 
one of them and each and every one of us was elected. It was a free and 
fair election when it came to electing Congresspeople, but for 
President, they think it was an insurrection. Horse manure.
  Bannon, who was thumbing his nose at the Constitution and this 
Congress by not responding to his subpoena, said that it would be 
different than on election day, on January 6. It wouldn't go as 
expected, because he was part of plotting what was an overthrow of our 
government.
  He was pardoned by President Trump for ripping off Trump supporters. 
He got them to give money to an effort to build the wall, and he took 
over $1 million for his own personal expenses. Fraud. But Trump didn't 
care that he ripped off Trump people for a Trump wall. He pardoned him. 
The whole thing is a con game, and we need to end it before democracy 
goes out the window.
  I urge you to support the rule and the underlying resolution. Protect 
America and protect democracy.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. LaHood).
  Mr. LaHOOD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Minnesota 
for yielding and Mr. Ferguson for leading this effort.
  If the previous question is defeated, we will amend the rule and 
immediately consider H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial 
Surveillance Act.
  This legislation would prohibit the Treasury Department and the IRS 
from implementing any new financial account surveillance regimes. This 
is a direct response to this administration's invasive proposal that 
would require financial institutions to report transaction data on 
every American's bank account that meets their proposed threshold.
  I am deeply skeptical of the need for this dangerous expansion of IRS 
oversight and believe it to be a significant risk to individual 
privacy. The Democrats are leading the American people to believe that 
this is needed to target wealthy tax cheats and to help close the tax 
gap. Unfortunately, this proposal, even with a $10,000 threshold, would 
subject Americans at every rung of the economic ladder to these onerous 
reporting requirements. This includes middle-class families, small 
business owners, and farmers.
  Even with proposed carve-outs, this proposal would turn local banks 
into IRS reporting units, which is not only incredibly burdensome but 
also costly. I have already been hearing from local bankers in Morton 
and Liberty, Illinois, and throughout my district who are deeply 
concerned about how this proposal will encourage their customers to 
empty out their bank accounts, further exacerbating the unbanked-banked 
divide.
  In a letter dated September 29, 2021, the Department of the Treasury 
cited that the IRS experiences 1.4 billion cyberattacks a year. I don't 
know a single American who would like to have their personal data 
reported to a system that is highly targeted by hackers and foreign 
adversaries. In addition, the IRS' track record for leaking personal 
information raises serious questions about their ability to implement a 
program of this scale.
  I am proud to join my friend, Congressman Ferguson, in his effort to 
protect Americans' privacy, and I urge my colleagues to defeat the 
previous question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
yielded the gentleman from Illinois an additional minute, I was kind of 
hopeful that maybe he would be the one to say that he disassociates 
himself from the statement of Donald Trump today in which he said that 
the insurrection took place on November 3, election day.
  I would be happy to yield 30 seconds to him if he wants to say that 
this was a statement that is not only unconscionable but that every 
American should condemn.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman McGovern for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I often quote George Santayana, who warned: ``Those who 
cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.''
  The insurrection on January 6 was the worst attack on our 
Constitution since the Civil War. While the secessionists were defeated 
in 1865, our Nation's experiment with multiracial democracy during 
Reconstruction did not last.
  It was extinguished by the Lost Cause mythology that minimized the 
evils of the secessionists and raised monuments to the leaders of the 
Confederacy that they established. These willful circumventions and 
misrepresentations were used as justification

[[Page H5745]]

for avoiding accountability and violently stripping African Americans 
of constitutional rights.
  We are at risk of repeating that history today. Just as the Lost 
Cause laid the ideological groundwork for Jim Crow and all its 
inhumanities, the big lie seeks to justify nullification laws that seek 
to suppress votes and establish autocratic rule.
  The former President and his enablers are using the big lie to deny 
the horror of January 6. They are attempting to obstruct and subvert 
the select committee's work and to prevent a full accounting of their 
efforts to undermine our democracy.
  We know from our history that when our government is attacked, 
failing to hold the perpetrators accountable emboldens them. Allowing 
their myths to gain currency incentivizes them. And underestimating 
their disregard for their fellow citizens enables them to deny those 
citizens their constitutional rights.
  I urge adoption of this resolution so that we avoid repeating the 
past, at least that part of our past that dehumanizes our fellow 
citizens. We must act to strengthen our democracy and build a better 
future for our country so that it can once again be the envy of the 
world.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Mr. Speaker, while my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle are singularly focused on the happenings only within the 
walls of Capitol Hill, the rest of us, working families, are struggling 
with the consequences of this failed administration, including rising 
inflation; pending unemployment; border threats; increased drugs and 
violence in our neighborhoods; and an out-of-control, power-hungry 
administration.

  I cannot explain the chairman's and majority leader's absolute and 
unhealthy obsession with a former President, but I sincerely urge them 
to seek treatment so that they can focus on the insurmountable harms 
that are being caused by the current administration and how they are 
currently forcing them on all of the American people.
  I rise in opposition to the previous question so that the House can 
immediately consider H.R. 5586, legislation critical to stopping the 
Democrats' unending attempts to control every aspect of American lives.
  Now the left is in an unrelenting pursuit of tracking every penny you 
and your family personally earn and spend. If the price tag for their 
socialist policies weren't alarming enough, what is hidden inside the 
bill should truly horrify all Americans.
  If you pay rent, if you buy groceries, or pay a mortgage, you are 
going to be subject to surveillance. From the lowest income earners on 
up, every American will be checked.
  Thousands more IRS bureaucrats will be hired for their new 
surveillance program, with authority to monitor every transaction you 
make. Every account transaction would be traced and reported to the 
Federal Government, edging us closer and closer to a communist-
controlled police state.
  Republicans are unified in our fight against this new surveillance 
program. My friend and ranking member, Kevin Brady, led the charge to 
stop this early on, but not a single Democrat stood up for Americans' 
financial privacy.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. First, things are reported and monitored, and then 
they are controlled. We cannot let Democrats push us down this 
dangerous and slippery slope.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, oh, my God, can somebody, please--I beg of you on the 
other side--can somebody, please, disassociate yourself or condemn the 
statement by the former President who said today that the insurrection 
took place on November 3?
  All my colleagues were elected on November 3 as well. If you believe 
that election day was an insurrection, then your election results are 
illegitimate.
  Can somebody, please, for the sake of our democracy, say that what 
was said by the former President is wrong? Please.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Hollingsworth).
  Mr. HOLLINGSWORTH. Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues today, I rise in 
opposition to the previous question so that we can immediately consider 
H.R. 5586, Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act.
  Mr. Speaker, Hoosiers are outraged. My friends across the aisle would 
have you believe that it is just the Hoosier financial institutions 
that are outraged at having to hand over the personal account 
information of their customers. It is, in fact, those account owners 
that are outraged at the notion that my friends across the aisle would 
build an apparatus to surveil and snoop in their personal bank 
accounts.
  Now, their horror only grows as I answer questions for them. First, 
they ask, surely this must apply only to the super rich and not to me. 
But I reply, no, it applies to you if you spend just over $200 a week.
  Then they will ask, surely this must only apply to those that are 
suspected of a crime. And I say, no, it is collection on every account, 
irrespective of whether there is a suspected crime or tax evasion 
afoot.
  Then, of course, they will ask me, surely the IRS has a very good 
track record of keeping this data safe. And I have to reply, no, the 
track record, in fact, indicates the opposite. The IRS has a terrible 
track record of keeping this data safe against the intrusion of actors 
from around the world and right here at home.
  And then they say, well, surely the IRS has a good track record of 
not mobilizing this data for political purposes. And yet, again, I have 
to say, no, in fact, the evidence indicates the IRS has mobilized this 
data for their own political purposes and for the political purposes 
across the aisle.
  My friends, this is horrifying, this surveillance state that is 
trying to be built. Hoosiers understand what is being asked of them. 
Trillions of dollars are being proposed to be spent, and now they are 
being asked to give up their personal information from their personal 
bank accounts to foot that bill for my colleagues across the aisle. I 
hope this stops here.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this microphone is working, because I am 
not sure my colleagues can hear me when I have asked them over and over 
again, can you please disassociate yourself from the former President's 
statement today? It is important. It is on topic.
  By the way, what the gentleman just talked about has nothing to do 
with what we are talking about today. It is amazing that nobody wants 
to talk about what is on the floor today.
  But my constituents, when they talk to me, you know what they are 
fearful about? They are fearful about losing our democracy in their 
lifetime. And the inability or the unwillingness of my friends on the 
other side to be able to disassociate themselves with a statement by 
the former President, which today he said the election on November 3 
was somehow the insurrection. It is stunning to me. He is tearing this 
country apart, and the silence and the indifference on the other side 
is aiding him in his quest to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski), my good friend.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question. 
If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to 
include H.R. 5586, the Prohibiting IRS Financial Surveillance Act, 
legislation to prevent the IRS from snooping into Americans' personal 
financial accounts.
  Under President Biden and Congressional Democrats' policies, American 
families continue to be squeezed by inflation at the gas pump, at the 
grocery store, and in their monthly energy bills. But this inflation 
squeeze isn't enough for them. Now, they want to monitor the average 
American's bank account. As part of Democrats' misguided tax-and-
spending spree, they

[[Page H5746]]

have proposed new reporting requirements, from financial institutions 
to the IRS, regarding private account information.
  This vast government overreach would turn financial institutions in 
my district into local outposts of the IRS, all with the sole purpose 
of reporting Hoosiers' personal financial account information back to 
the Government. Make no mistake, this will capture virtually every 
American, who will be subject to increased levels of IRS intrusion in 
their daily lives.
  The IRS already has been challenged by the leak of thousands of 
documents, including sensitive taxpayer information. The collection of 
additional data would only exacerbate this problem and subject many 
Americans to the potential exposure of their personal information. 
Let's not forget, under the Obama administration, the IRS 
systematically targeted certain groups applying for tax-exempt status 
simply because of their political affiliation.
  I hope that we can defeat the previous question to protect the 
privacy of all Americans and to ensure that the IRS won't be 
surveilling every financial transaction.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
for closing.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority has chosen to turn the committee into a 
vehicle to push their own narrative, and it is clearly more interested 
in pursuing a partisan agenda to politicize January 6 rather than 
conducting a legitimate, good-faith investigation into the security 
failures leading up to that day.
  As my colleague from Pennsylvania pointed out, where is the 
legitimate legislative purpose? The Members across the aisle have yet 
to address what kind of legitimate legislative purposes could, might, 
or even possibly come out of the commission investigation.
  A lawful subpoena, according to the Supreme Court, needs to serve a 
legitimate legislative purpose. The majority leader used words like 
``oversight,'' ``the American people need to understand,'' and ``hold 
perpetrators accountable.'' These statements do not qualify as a 
legitimate legislative purpose.
  This is nothing more than an attempt by the Democrats to distract 
from the very real issues facing Americans every day. I look forward to 
getting back to the real work of solving the supply chain issues, 
reclaiming American energy production, and empowering U.S. citizens to 
live their lives without government interference or surveillance.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose the previous question, the rule, and the 
underlying legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I can't adequately express the outrage I feel about what 
happened in this institution on January 6. It was not only an attack on 
this building; it was an attack on our democracy.
  I will tell you, if we don't have our democracy intact, you are not 
going to fix the supply chain issues or the energy issues or any other 
issues.
  Our democracy is in peril. It was attacked on January 6.
  Mr. Speaker, I am the chairman of the Rules Committee, so I 
understand what the rules of the House are, so I cannot say what I 
really feel about what went on in this Chamber today with this debate. 
I am disgusted, to be quite honest with you.
  We are trying to get to the bottom of what happened on January 6, and 
many on the other side have done everything they could to frustrate 
that effort. Now, we have somebody who doesn't want to comply with a 
subpoena, and we are saying we are going to put some force behind that. 
We need to be able to do our oversight. We need to get to the truth, 
and my friends are trying to frustrate that.
  Then today, former President Trump issues a statement saying 
insurrection day took place on November 3. That was election day, when 
we were all elected. That is what he thought? That is what he thinks 
was an insurrection? And January 6 was just a protest.
  We were all here that day. We saw the violence. People lost their 
lives that day. People were wounded that day. People were traumatized 
by that day. Again, it was not just an attack on this building and the 
people who work here; it was an attack on our democracy.
  And my friends on the other side of the aisle can't even muster the 
courage to say that the former President was wrong in his statement. 
That is what fear looks like. That is what fear of Donald Trump looks 
like. It is so sad that a once great party has come to this.
  I said it earlier. Members come and go. I know people are all worried 
about the latest polls and where our base is and what political 
implications will come from this or that. But at the end of the day, 
you ought to be worried about your legacy, about what your children and 
grandchildren think.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and 
``yes'' on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 727

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 5586) to prohibit the implementation of new 
     requirements to report bank account deposits and withdrawals. 
     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 Financial Services; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 3: Clause l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 5586.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. 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 221, 
nays 206, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 327]

                               YEAS--221

     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
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     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

[[Page H5747]]


     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
     Stansbury
     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--206

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     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)
     Graves (MO)
     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)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     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
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Buck
     Lamborn
     Pence
     Scalise

                              {time}  1411

  Ms. FOXX and Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Ms. SPANBERGER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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

     Adams (Brown)
     Burgess (Lucas)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     DeFazio (Brown)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
     Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
     Huffman (Stanton)
     Khanna (Bowman)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lynch (Trahan)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Salazar (Cammack)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Tlaib (Omar)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DeGette). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam 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 221, 
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 328]

                               YEAS--221

     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
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cheney
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     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
     Stansbury
     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--205

     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
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     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)
     Graves (MO)
     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)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     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
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

[[Page H5748]]


  


                             NOT VOTING--5

     Lamborn
     Pence
     Reed
     Scalise
     Westerman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining.

                              {time}  1430

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted 
``nay'' on rollcall No. 328.


    members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress

      Adams (Brown)
     Burgess (Lucas)
      Cooper (Clark (MA))
     DeFazio (Brown)
      Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Garcia (TX) (Escobar)
      Hice (GA) (Greene (GA))
     Huffman (Stanton)
      Khanna (Bowman)
      Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
      Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lynch (Trahan)
      Meng (Jeffries)
      Moore (WI) (Beyer)
      Napolitano (Correa)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Escobar)
      Payne (Pallone)
      Rodgers (WA) (Joyce (PA))
      Rush (Underwood)
      Salazar (Cammack)
      Sires (Pallone)
      Tlaib (Omar)
      Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
      Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________