[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 12, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H64-H74]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 5746, NASA 
               ENHANCED USE LEASING EXTENSION ACT OF 2021

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 868 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 868

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
     5746) to amend title 51, United States Code, to extend the 
     authority of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to enter into leases of non-excess property of 
     the Administration, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on 
     House Administration or her designee that the House concur in 
     the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text 
     of Rules Committee Print 117-28. The Senate amendment and the 
     motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be 
     debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration or their respective designees. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its 
     adoption without intervening motion.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.

[[Page H65]]

Fischbach), my good friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
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. Madam Speaker, today the Committee on Rules met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 868, providing for consideration of 
the Senate amendment to H.R. 5746.
  The rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on House Administration or her designee that the House concur 
in the Senate amendment with an amendment consisting of the text of the 
Freedom to Vote, John R. Lewis Act. The rule provides 1 hour of debate 
on the motion equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on House Administration or their 
designees.
  Madam Speaker, this is about more than a bill, and it is about more 
than a process. This is a rescue mission to save American democracy. 
Because right now, we are in the midst of the most significant period 
of voter suppression in recent history.
  All across the country, in service to a lie started by the former 
President and spread by some in this very body, State legislatures are 
moving to make it harder for people to cast their ballot. Polling 
places are being closed so the nearest location is now miles and miles 
away. Early voting times are being slashed during this global pandemic, 
so it is now too unsafe for some people to vote. Purges of voting 
rolls, including faulty voter purges, are becoming more likely and more 
common. And strict voter ID laws are being used to disenfranchise more 
and more people from casting their ballots.
  Madam Speaker, in one State, it has even become illegal to provide 
voters waiting in line with food and water. That is why we are here 
today, because some believe that the only way for them to win is to rig 
an election. This is voter nullification pure and simple.
  Now, many on the other side want us to turn a blind eye to all of 
this, just like they turned a blind eye to the insurrection and the 
creeping authoritarianism. Well, I am not willing to look away. People 
fought and died for the freedom to vote in this country. We served with 
someone who nearly gave his life for the right to vote--Congressman 
John Lewis.
  He was beaten by mobs using baseball bats and chains, attacked by 
racist members of the KKK, and even thrown in jail. But still, still he 
fought for the freedom to vote. If he was willing to withstand all that 
to do what is right, then certainly we can cast a vote to defend our 
democracy.
  John once said, ``Change often takes time. It rarely happens all at 
once. In the movement, we didn't know how history would play itself 
out. When we were getting arrested or waiting in jail or standing in 
unmovable lines on the courthouse steps, we didn't know what would 
happen, but we knew it had to happen.''
  Madam Speaker, I don't know what will happen in the Senate, but I 
know that this vote has to happen, because the freedom to vote is under 
assault. We have a system today that undermines the civil rights of the 
young, the poor, and those who don't look like me. It is a system that 
has allowed Presidents to win elections despite losing the popular 
vote. It is a system that has allowed politicians to gerrymander their 
way into office. And it is a system that gives the 26 least popular 
States, representing just 17 percent of the country, the chance to 
derail legislation that the vast majority of Americans support.
  Madam Speaker, that is the reality of the Senate filibuster. And make 
no mistake, despite the claims by some, the filibuster is not 
sacrosanct. It has been changed over 161 times in the last five 
decades. And nowhere--nowhere--does it appear in the Constitution of 
the United States.
  Just recently, a bipartisan group of Senators came together to 
advance a filibuster carveout to raise the debt ceiling. Now, I am glad 
that they did. That was the right thing to do. A default would have 
been catastrophic for our economy. Certainly, allowing a carveout for 
voting rights is also the right thing to do.
  We need to pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to ensure that 
every American has the ability to make their voice and vote heard in 
our democracy. And I wish we could get a majority of Republicans to 
support voting rights. You know, they used to. The Voting Rights Act 
was reauthorized four times with overwhelming bipartisan support, 
including in 2006 under the Presidency of Republican George W. Bush.
  But something has changed. This isn't your grandfather's Republican 
Party anymore. It is a party defined by the big lie, wild conspiracy 
theories, and winning elections by trying to suppress the vote. To set 
a standard that we must act on this bill or that the Senate should act 
on filibuster reform only if Republicans come along is a fool's errand.
  Madam Speaker, on what planet are the people causing the problem 
going to help solve it?
  Now, I would rather be on the side of John Lewis than cast my lot 
with the big lie. I would rather go it alone to defend our democracy 
than do nothing together. And yes, I would rather lose an election than 
win by rigging the outcome. This fight may not be new but it has never 
been more urgent.
  Madam Speaker, history is watching. And this moment is bigger than 
any of us. With the future of our democracy in the balance, I pray that 
my colleagues join me in saying the same and supporting this rule and 
the underlying measure.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for yielding 
me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today we were informed by the majority at the last 
minute that we would be brought in to discuss the NASA Enhanced Use 
Leasing Extension Act of 2021, which was amended by the Senate and will 
be amended yet again here in the House, if this rule passes.
  I don't think anyone here is surprised by yet another last-minute 
meeting, but I am starting to feel the effects from all of the whiplash 
over the last year. This time, House Democrats seek to insert the 
Freedom to Vote Act and the Voting Rights Advancement Act as a last-
ditch effort to cater to the Senate majority's sporadic attempts to get 
something passed for their radical base, even though we all know 
neither of these bills will pass through the Senate.
  House Democrats and Senator Schumer still need bipartisan support for 
this partisan bill. And certain other Senators in their party have yet 
to cede to the fringe of their party and go nuclear on a longstanding 
Senate principle, the filibuster. Whatever the thought process behind 
this effort tonight, it is disappointing that it is yet another deeply 
partisan attempt to Federalize all elections.
  Madam Speaker, the Constitution places the responsibility for 
elections at the State level and has a long history of letting each 
State run their own elections. But H.R. 4, a component of this bill, 
would grant the Federal Government unprecedented control over State and 
local elections. It would empower the Attorney General to bully States 
and force them to seek Federal approval before making changes to their 
own voting laws.
  Madam Speaker, this is an assault on the rights of States and local 
governments to manage their own elections. The right to vote is one of 
our most fundamental rights as citizens. It is upsetting to see the 
majority take advantage of this important issue because they are so 
desperate to maintain their power. This can be seen almost explicitly 
in the Freedom to Vote Act, which includes a new campaign finance 
provision that would ensure certain candidates receive millions of 
dollars in public funding for running a campaign.
  The majority does not discuss this provision very often, but do the 
American people really want public dollars to go to fund campaigns?
  State oversight in elections is important. Like so many things, the 
majority fails to recognize what works best for one State is not 
necessarily going to work in another State or across the

[[Page H66]]

country. States know what practices work best for their voters, as they 
have done throughout history. It was not hard to find many flaws in 
this bill, and I was able to do so with less than an hour's time. But I 
remained disappointed in the priorities and practices of this majority.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2140

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, today is my birthday, and I could not 
think of a better gift for the American people.
  In the last 24 hours, we found that five States--Republicans--decided 
to put in false certifications to determine that Trump actually won the 
November 2020 election. In a bill in Texas that was passed after the 
big lie, they allowed the legislature to overturn a duly held election.
  Do you not think there is a siege on the rightful vote of Americans 
no matter who they are, of people of color and young people?
  I am so happy that we decided to move forward on the Freedom to Vote: 
John R. Lewis Act that will stop the detrimental gerrymandering that 
wants to eliminate Members of color.
  It is time now that the relic of the filibuster no longer promotes 
discrimination and racism but frankly that we move on protecting 
democracy, on cradling democracy, on recognizing that we are patriots 
who stand to support the idea of the Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I support this rule because the Constitution rules and 
the American people deserve the right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Homeland Security, and Terrorism, and a senior member of the Homeland 
Security, and Budget Committees, I rise in strong support of the rule 
governing debate for the Senate Amendment to H.R. 5746, the ``Freedom 
to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.''
  We are here tonight because we must act, and this legislation 
provides the tools to address discriminatory practices and seeks to 
protect all Americans' right to vote.
  On August 6, 1965, in the Rotunda of the Capitol, President Johnson 
addressed the nation before signing the Voting Rights Act--considered 
the most effective civil rights statute ever enacted by Congress:
  ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for 
breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which 
imprison men because they are different from other men.''
  This bill is the result of tireless work and compromise by my 
colleagues in the House and my colleagues in the Senate.
  The signing of the Voting Rights Act came after, in that same year, 
in Selma, Alabama, hundreds of heroic souls risked their lives for 
freedom and to secure the right to vote for all Americans by their 
participation in marches for voting rights on ``Bloody Sunday,'' 
``Turnaround Tuesday,'' or the final, completed march from Selma to 
Montgomery.
  Those ``foot soldiers'' of Selma, brave and determined men and women, 
boys and girls, persons of all races and creeds, loved their country so 
much that they were willing to risk their lives to make it better, to 
bring it even closer to its founding ideals.
  The foot soldiers marched because they believed that all persons have 
dignity and the right to equal treatment under the law, and in the 
making of the laws, which is the fundamental essence of the right to 
vote.
  On that day, Sunday, March 7, 1965, more than 600 civil rights 
demonstrators, including our beloved former colleague, the late 
Congressman John Lewis of Georgia, were brutally attacked by state and 
local police at the Edmund Pettus Bridge as they marched from Selma to 
Montgomery in support of the right to vote.
  ``Bloody Sunday'' was a defining moment in American history because 
it crystallized for the nation the necessity of enacting a strong and 
effective federal law to protect the right to vote of every American.
  However, since the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the 
right to vote has been under constant assault.
  The Voting Rights Act was enacted at a time when many African 
Americans in southern states had been denied the right to vote, and 
when attempting to register, organize, or even assist others in their 
attempt to register to vote meant risking their jobs, homes, and racial 
violence.
  Prior to the enactment of the VRA, litigation initiated under the 
Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 failed to eliminate discrimination 
in voting because jurisdictions simply shifted to different tactics in 
order to disenfranchise African Americans.
  Nearly fifty-seven years later, we face another turning point in the 
life of the nation and for the dignity of men and women and the destiny 
of democracy.
  Although the Supreme Court has described the right to vote as the one 
right that is preservative of all others, this ``powerful instrument 
that can break down the walls of injustice'' faces grave threats.
  The threat stems from the decision issued in June 2013 by the Supreme 
Court in Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 193 (2013), which 
invalidated Section 4(b) of the VRA, and paralyzed the application of 
the VRA's Section 5 preclearance requirements.
  According to the Supreme Court majority, the reason for striking down 
Section 4(b) was that ``times change.''
  Now, the Court was right; times have changed.
  But what the Court did not fully appreciate is that the positive 
changes it cited are due almost entirely to the existence and vigorous 
enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, and that is why the Voting Rights 
Act is still needed.
  As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated in Shelby County v. Holder, 
``[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to 
work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella 
in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.''
  The current Supreme Court majority has simply never understood, or 
refuses to accept, the fundamental importance of the right to vote, 
free of discriminatory hurdles and obstacles.
  In fact, were it not for the 24th Amendment, I venture to say that 
this conservative majority on the Court would subject poll taxes and 
literacy tests to the review standard enunciated in Brnovich v. DNC.
  Protecting voting rights and combating voter suppression schemes are 
two of the critical challenges facing our great democracy.
  Without safeguards to ensure that all citizens have equal access to 
the polls, more injustices are likely to occur and the voices of 
millions silenced.
  And this is exactly what we have seen over this past year.
  The polarization of Americans is ever increasing, as seen during the 
2020 election through tactics meant to impede the right of certain 
Americans to vote, such as the removal of mailboxes and the closing of 
postal stations in order to impede mail-in voting.
  After the former president was soundly defeated at the ballot box in 
what experts unanimously proclaim was the most secure election in 
history, still the former president and his cronies propagated the Big 
Lie that the election was illegitimate because it was rife with fraud.
  The former president persisted in this specious claim even though, 
despite ample opportunities to do so, they produced not a scintilla of 
evidence to persuade any of the 61 state and federal courts that 
entertained the claims.
  But to this has been added reactionary state laws passed or 
introduced to suppress, abridge, restrict, or deny the right to vote of 
millions of eligible Americans, particularly persons of color, young 
persons and persons with disabilities, and working parents, precisely 
the constellation of persons whose votes determined the outcome of the 
2020 presidential election.
  In the aftermath of the 2020 election, according to the Brennan 
Center For Justice, between January 1 and July 14, 2021, at least 18 
states enacted 30 laws that restrict access to the vote, some making 
mail voting and early voting more difficult, others imposing harsher 
voter ID requirements, and making faulty voter purges more likely.
  In total, more than 400 bills with provisions that restrict voting 
access have been introduced in 49 states in the 2021 legislative 
sessions.
  My home state of Texas is ground zero for this desperate effort to 
hold back an American future led by the ascendant coalition of young, 
racially diverse and all other tolerant, imaginative, and innovative 
voters who became energized and inspired by Barack Obama in 2008 and 
the belief in a new and just America.
  To combat not their ideas but instead their increasing numbers, the 
Republican legislature and Governor of Texas passed and signed into law 
SB1, which:
  Bans drive-thru voting, 24-hour voting, and the distribution of 
mailin ballot applications;
  imposes new and extraneous ID requirements for voting by mail;
  authorizing ``free movement'' to partisan poll watchers, effectively 
turning them into vote suppression vigilantes;
  requires monthly checks of voting rolls to facilitate purging 
unwanted voters; and
  imposes onerous new rules for voter assistance.
  All of this is more than enough to sound the warning bell that we are 
now engaged, as President Lincoln observed at Gettysburg, in a

[[Page H67]]

great contest testing the proposition that this nation, or any nation 
conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men and 
women are created equal, can long endure.
  This is the present crisis in which we find ourselves and it indeed 
is soul trying.
  But as Thomas Paine wrote on Christmas Eve in 1776:
  ``The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, 
shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, 
deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is 
not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the 
harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too 
cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives everything 
its value.''
  The work for civil rights and voting rights involved tens of 
thousands of individuals who fought to correct the course of the nation 
by setting it on a path of equal rights and justice for all.
  The efforts of Dr. Martin Luther King, Ralph Abernathy, Andrew Young, 
Hosea Williams, Coretta Scott King, and John Robert Lewis, among 
others, as well as the thousands of foot soldiers in the civil rights 
movement succeeded in waking the nation to the idea that change was 
needed.
  The result of their work was the establishment of protections that 
allowed voters of every race, creed, color, and political belief to 
cast ballots free of interference or threat.
  The blood spilled during these difficult times is not forgotten by 
the communities that saw and experienced these battles, which is why 
laws like Texas SB1 cannot go unanswered by the United States House of 
Representatives and Senate.
  To meet the challenge we have been called upon to face and overcome, 
what is needed is for men and women of courage, conscience, and 
conviction to step forward and come to the aid of their country by 
passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act to strengthen the 
foundation of our democracy upon which all else depends, including the 
important necessary investments to Build Back Better and mitigate the 
effects of Climate Change.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule governing 
debate of Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Babin).
  Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I am prevented by House rules from using 
the profanity that I would like to because I stand here absolutely 
outraged. I am outraged because the Democrats have outdone themselves 
with this lie. I am outraged because the Democrats have made a mockery 
of bipartisan collaboration for cheap political gain. I am outraged 
because Democrats have not an ounce of respect for this institution or 
the rules or the consequences of their actions in this Chamber.
  A few hours ago, H.R. 5746 was the NASA Enhanced Use Leasing 
Extension Act, a simple three-page bill that was good for NASA, good 
for our space industry, and good for our taxpayers, a bill that I was 
very proud to cosponsor.
  Now, in the dark of night, this bill has been hijacked and mutilated 
to become the latest iteration of the Democrats' Federal takeover of 
our election system--a wolf in sheep's clothing. In fact, the only 
thing left from this original bill is its number.
  What is worse, I can't even remove my name as a cosponsor. Isn't it 
ironic that the same bill the Democrats are using as a vehicle to steal 
elections in perpetuity was itself stolen? I can't say that I am 
surprised. Just like with elections, if they can't do it legally, 
Democrats will find a way to hijack and steal it--all of this from the 
party who claims Republicans are the obstructionists. Give me a break.
  Madam Speaker, I demand that my name be removed from this Trojan 
horse, and I urge every single one of my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair cannot entertain the gentleman's 
request.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am not going to be lectured about 
respect for this institution by anybody who after a violent attack 
against this Capitol, the people who work here, this democracy--after a 
violent attack, them then coming to this House floor and voting to 
overturn, to nullify the will of the American people with no basis of 
fact at all to do that. I will not be lectured by anybody who would do 
such a thing. Quite frankly, I think it is unconscionable.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Pelosi), the distinguished Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts, 
the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee, for his leadership in 
bringing this important legislation to the floor tonight to enable us 
to fight for voting rights tomorrow when we vote for the legislation. 
Many of us will have more to say tomorrow on the substance of that 
bill, but I just want to place this action in time.
  Today is a historic day because we are taking a big step forward 
thanks to the leadership of the distinguished majority leader in the 
Senate, Chuck Schumer. We are in a position now to take a step forward 
with this rule to enable us to debate the bill tomorrow to fight for 
voting rights.
  Yesterday, President Biden made it crystal clear that the Senate must 
find a path forward to enshrine critical voting rights legislation into 
law. That was yesterday.
  Today, House Democrats will take another step to defend our democracy 
with legislation called the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act. We will 
send it to the Senate for urgent consideration after we debate it and 
vote on it tomorrow.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank   John Sarbanes from Maryland. This is 
a bill that we have voted on in the last Congress but also in this 
Congress, in this House of Representatives. We voted for the For the 
People Act, which is the essence of the legislation we are considering 
now. It was H.R. 1 in the House.
  In addition to that, it is attached to H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act, which will be part of this package 
tomorrow because of the leadership of Chuck Schumer;   John Sarbanes; 
Zoe Lofgren; Terri Sewell, who has carried this legislation again and 
again; Mr. Butterfield; the distinguished chair of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Nadler; and so many people.

                              {time}  2150

  We have had this debate over and over again in the House and in this 
Congress, so when I hear people say, ``Oh, here comes a bill that has 
never seen the light of day,'' no. We had a vote in the House on this 
already. We had a vote on this in the House already, and this is as it 
came back to us this time from the Senate.
  Yesterday, as I said, the President made it crystal clear that we had 
to get something done. Again, Mr. McGovern is giving us that 
opportunity now. So I just want to say that is why this is necessary. 
It has been said in the gentleman's committee this evening--but let me 
just be brief because the night is getting on--since we passed the bill 
before, and in the course of the year, the Republicans have continued 
their assault on voting rights in our country.
  Nearly 400 bills were introduced, 20 of them enacted into law, which 
not only suppressed the vote, making it harder for people of color and 
people with disabilities--people--to vote, but also legislation to 
nullify the vote.
  It doesn't matter how the people vote; it matters how the people we 
appoint decide how they vote. That is not a democracy. It strikes to 
the heart of a democracy.
  It strikes to the heart of a democracy, and that is why this 
legislation is even more necessary than when it was first introduced. 
It is a continuation in legislatures across the country of the assault 
that was made on this Capitol to undermine the Constitution, the 
Capitol, the Congress, and our democracy on January 6.
  As the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts mentioned earlier, 
there was not even a vote to accept on the part of many on the other 
side of the aisle the results of that election. I thank Mr. McGovern 
not only for his leadership tonight but for that dangerous day for him 
to take over the chair after the security spirited me out because of 
threats on my life.
  So, again, this is urgent. It is a repeat of what we have done and 
done again and again. We are glad that the Senate is ready to receive 
this next iteration with very little change from what we had passed 
before.
  In Georgia, when President Biden delivered a clarion call to defend 
our democracy, he said: ``I will not yield. I will not flinch. I will 
defend your right,'' he said to folks, ``to vote and our democracy 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And so the question

[[Page H68]]

is: Where will the institution of the United States Senate stand?''
  Well, we will see. We had the question of the filibuster. Now, until 
we had this debate on this voting rights and filibuster has become a 
discussion, what was your view, Madam Speaker, of what that word meant?
  When somebody said they were going to filibuster something or they 
were engaged in a filibuster, you thought they were going to talk for a 
long time, to filibuster, to talk for a long time, not to obstruct 
justice, not to obstruct debate, not to obstruct the majority to be 
able to take a vote, to discuss something.
  By passing the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, the Democratic 
House will make clear that we in this House stand with the President, 
yes, but with the American people to fight for voting rights.
  Nothing less is at stake than our democracy. The sanctity of the vote 
and the integrity of our elections is what is at stake.
  I thank all of our colleagues who participated in this for their 
committed leadership for the people in the fight for voting rights.
  Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Pfluger).
  Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am glad that it was brought up tonight, those who 
have served and been willing to give their lives for this country.
  If we are going to talk about numbers, let's talk about the numbers 
in 2020. More people voted in 2020 than ever in the history of this 
country before, yet we are talking about suppression.
  Well, under Democratic leadership, our country is breaking records: 
record-high inflation, record-high illegal border crossings, historic 
levels of drug and human trafficking across the border, skyrocketing 
energy prices, surging crime rates, and countless empty shelves in 
grocery stores across the country.
  Americans are watching the dollar of their paycheck literally shrink 
before their eyes in real time as inflation spikes to the highest 
levels that we have seen in 40 years.
  The border is an absolute disaster. I was there last week. Illegal 
border crossings are, again, the highest ever, with close to 2 million 
illegal apprehensions under President Biden's watch. Fentanyl has 
crossed our southern border at levels that we have never seen before, 
and it is the leading killer of young adults in this country--100,000-
plus lives in 2021.

  Instead of bolstering American energy security, the White House is 
spending their time lobbying for a Russian pipeline that will most 
certainly be used as a weapon against our allies in Eastern Europe.
  The policies of this administration and the Democratic Congress have 
led us into a record-breaking season of crises. But instead of working 
to fix these issues, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
attempting to distract the American people.
  Do we really think that Americans aren't paying attention?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Tonight, Democrats are twisting the rules to pass a bill 
to nationalize our election system, allowing for hard-earned taxpayer 
dollars to finance political campaigns and handing control of 
congressional district boundaries to the powers that be in Washington, 
requiring States to allow felons to vote, and overriding wildly popular 
voter ID laws.
  To reference the President's disappointing speech yesterday, 
supporting voter ID or opposing this Washington power grab does not 
make you George Wallace or Jefferson Davis. That is nonsense. Americans 
deserve a President and a government that will lead us out of crises, 
not create them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just remind my colleagues that voter suppression takes many 
forms. Sometimes it is Republican State legislatures making it more 
difficult for people to vote. Sometimes it is members of bodies like 
this that, on one hand, brag about the record turnout in the last 
election but have been working overtime to try to nullify and to try to 
disqualify the votes of the people of this country. It is stunning.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 2, 2021, U.S. News and 
World Report article titled ``Report: Republican-Led State Legislatures 
Pass Dozens of Restrictive Voting Laws in 2021.''

                     [From U.S. News, July 2, 2021]

 Report: Republican-Led State Legislatures Pass Dozens of Restrictive 
                          Voting Laws in 2021

                            (By Horus Alas)


   States with Republican legislatures have passed waves of new laws 
   making it harder for constituents to vote in response to the 2020 
                         election, experts say

       The Supreme Court issued a new ruling on Thursday that 
     upheld two Arizona laws restricting organizations' ability to 
     collect mail-in ballots as well as invalidating ballots cast 
     in the wrong precinct. Critics say the court's decision 
     further erodes landmark voting protections codified by the 
     Voting Rights Act of 1965.
       The court's ruling follows a report finding that as of mid-
     June, 17 states had passed 28 laws making it harder for 
     constituents to vote in 2021, according to the Brennan Center 
     for Justice at New York University's School of Law. The 
     report notes that the last year a similar number of laws 
     passed restricting access to the ballot was 2011--when 14 
     states had enacted 19 such measures by October.
       Eliza Sweren-Becker, a voting rights and elections counsel 
     at the Brennan Center, called the new wave of voting laws 
     ``an unprecedented assault on voting rights'' as well as ``a 
     voter suppression effort we haven't seen since the likes of 
     Jim Crow.''
       The nation's high court previously gutted a key provision 
     of the Voting Rights Act in 2013, when Chief Justice John 
     Roberts wrote a majority opinion arguing that jurisdictions 
     with a history of racial discrimination in voting should no 
     longer be subject to oversight from the Department of Justice 
     before effecting changes to their voting laws.
       The Brennan Center report attributes this year's batch of 
     restrictive voting laws to ``racist voter fraud allegations 
     behind the Big Lie (a reference to former President Donald 
     Trump's repeated false claims of a rigged election) and a 
     desire to prevent future elections from achieving the 
     historic turnout seen in 2020.''
       Commenting on the former president's claims of mass voter 
     fraud, Sweren-Becker says, ``We know that's false, but we 
     have officials at the state level passing these laws making 
     it harder for people to vote.''
       Some of the specific provisions in these laws that can have 
     a negative impact on voter turnout according to the Brennan 
     Center include restrictions on voting by mail--some 63.9 
     million ballots had been sent as of Election Day 2020, data 
     from the U.S. Elections Project indicated--challenges to in-
     person voting, and limitations on the number of mail ballot 
     drop boxes in precincts.
       According to Sweren-Becker, Republican lawmakers in state 
     legislatures across the country are capitalizing on Trump's 
     repeated claims of voter fraud to pass these measures.
       ``What is very clear is that we had a very successful 
     election last year with historic turnout that was certified 
     as one of the safest, most secure elections,'' she says. 
     ``And we are hearing (about claims of voter fraud) as 
     pretextual motives .... These laws are being enacted in 
     Republican-controlled legislatures, in many cases on purely 
     party-line votes.''
       States differ in their structuring of these laws as well.
       The report specifically calls out Florida, Georgia and Iowa 
     for passing comprehensive omnibus bills that ``undertake a 
     full-fledged assault on voting.'' In contrast, certain states 
     including Arkansas and Montana have passed piecemeal voting 
     restrictions through four separate bills each.
       Sweren-Becker says advocates are considering two primary 
     avenues to challenge some of these new voting laws: court 
     litigation and federal voting reform legislation.
       ``Litigation is happening already, in states like Georgia, 
     Iowa, Florida. But that is a piecemeal state-by-state 
     approach,'' she says. ``And that's why a federal policy like 
     the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Act 
     are so necessary because they will be applicable to people 
     across the country.''
       As of mid-June, Senate Democrats were still wrangling the 
     necessary votes to pass either of these voting rights 
     measures in the face of expected unified Republican 
     opposition.
       But even as some states face litigation for measures 
     they've passed, others still have active legislative sessions 
     where observers worry that more voting restriction measures 
     may follow.
       Sweren-Becker says voting rights advocates should focus on 
     pressuring state lawmakers in Pennsylvania--a state with a 
     Republican-controlled legislature that adjourns in December--
     and Texas, where a special session will begin July 8, after 
     Democrats walked out on a vote for a bill that would increase 
     vote by mail restrictions and limit early voting hours at the 
     end of the regular session.

[[Page H69]]

       Despite outcry from Democrats, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott has 
     struck a defiant tone on his state's omnibus voting measure, 
     SB7. In response to a tweet from the Texas Attorney General 
     detailing the booking of a suspect charged with voter fraud, 
     Abbott wrote: ``Voter fraud is real and Texas will prosecute 
     it whenever and wherever it happens. We will continue to make 
     it easy to vote but hard to cheat.''
       Sweren-Becker says the frenetic pace of this year's 
     restrictive voting bills--the Brennan Center's report noted 
     61 bills with restrictive provisions continuing to move 
     through 18 state legislatures as of June 21--makes it 
     ``essential to pass federal democracy reform that ensures 
     that people can freely and safely cast their ballots.''
       And while these bills' language tends to omit race, Sweren-
     Becker says that several of their provisions do end up 
     targeting access to the ballot for voters of color.
       She notes ``the policy in the Texas bill that banned early 
     voting hours during the Sunday before Election Day, which 
     very clearly targets souls to the polls efforts that are 
     clearly organized by Black churches,'' as well as increased 
     challenges to voting by mail, ``after a wave of increased 
     mail voting last year, and particularly by voters of color 
     and young voters.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, one voting rights expert said in this 
piece that we are in the midst of ``a voter suppression effort we 
haven't seen since the likes of Jim Crow.''
  To suggest that this isn't happening is to ignore reality.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, this bill we got in short order tonight does not 
reflect the actual text, and once again, the Rules Committee had very 
short notice to consider the text without really any chance of being 
able to read it. Certainly, we are now on the floor with no chance to 
amend it.
  It is supposed to be a NASA-focused bill, but it is actually a Trojan 
horse, a Trojan horse the Democrats are using to drastically change 
election law and do it without any input from Republicans, no input in 
the Rules Committee, no input here on the floor, and no chance to amend 
it in the House Administration Committee.
  It is a messaging bill from Democrats to get a bill quickly passed in 
the Senate while they have an agreement. We saw how difficult their 
chaotic attempts to pass Build Back Better became and how that bill 
eventually failed.
  It is ridiculous that such large changes to longstanding law would 
happen approaching the middle of the night when the American people 
likely won't realize until after the fact what we have done. And that 
could be no surprise.
  Does anybody really think the American people voted for 8 percent 
inflation, for gas lines, for gas at over $4 a gallon, and for a 
chaotic foreign policy that has caused the death of many of our allies 
and many of our servicemen as the exit from Afghanistan showed?
  No. No one voted for that. Yet we are told that there is no problem, 
that we will just push ahead and we are going to get this done.
  We have a lot of issues that we could face, that Americans are facing 
right now. There is no oversight of the COVID relief bills amid 
reporting of waste and abuse. Inflation is sky-high; grocery shelves 
are empty; and the crisis continues on our southern border.

                              {time}  2200

  Congress has provided over $5 trillion in coronavirus relief funds, 
but no oversight. Billions of dollars remain unspent, and inflation is 
at its highest level in decades.
  Right before Christmas the President said everybody ought to get a 
COVID test and, by golly, he would make them available. They are not 
available today. I went online and ordered some because I thought, this 
may be important. I received them 2\1/2\ weeks later. Of course, I paid 
for them. These weren't free from the government.
  But there aren't enough COVID tests, and the hospitals and healthcare 
facilities are on life support.
  What is our administration doing? What is our Democratic leadership 
in Congress doing? Nothing.
  Our response should not be so uncoordinated and ineffective going 
into the third year of this pandemic. And let me just point out, we 
have not had a single hearing in the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
where we have jurisdiction over this, on this very issue.
  Another national crisis are the hundreds of thousands of migrants 
pouring over our southern border since President Biden took office and 
declared an open border. Our frontline border officials are overwhelmed 
and under-resourced. The open now sign remains on.
  And even more concerning, we require our Federal agents to take a 
vaccine. It is a mandated vaccine. And yet, the people coming in, it is 
voluntary. We will give them a vaccine if they would like, but of 
course, they don't have to take it.
  And I will tell you, being down in El Paso last week, it is all about 
getting these kids in the ORR facility, getting them pushed through and 
getting them placed with families. The average length of stay now at 
Fort Bliss is down to 12 days. That means no background check.
  What are you going to do when the stories start emerging about how 
these children have been misplaced and abused in the locations that we 
now--the government--are sending them? We are providing the last mile 
to the cartels' business.
  These crises remain unresolved. Congress could work on these. We are 
supposed to do that. We are the people's Representatives, and yet we 
spend our time in the middle of the night doing something that will 
never become law.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a December 24, 
2021 Guardian Article entitled ``Report Shows the Extent of Republican 
Efforts to Sabotage Democracy.''

                   [From The Guardian, Dec, 24, 2021]

  Report Shows the Extent of Republican Efforts To Sabotage Democracy

       The Republican assault on free and fair elections 
     instigated by Donald Trump is gathering pace, with efforts to 
     sabotage the normal workings of American democracy sweeping 
     state legislatures across the US.
       A year that began with the violent insurrection at the US 
     Capitol is ending with an unprecedented push to politicize, 
     criminalize or in other ways subvert the nonpartisan 
     administration of elections. A year-end report from pro-
     democracy groups identifies no fewer than 262 bills 
     introduced in 41 states that hijack the election process.
       Of those, 32 bills have become law in 17 states.
       The largest number of bills is concentrated in precisely 
     those states that became the focus of Trump's Stop the Steal 
     campaign to block the peaceful transfer of power after he 
     lost the 2020 presidential election to Joe Biden. Arizona, 
     where Trump supporters insisted on an ``audit'' to challenge 
     Biden's victory in the state, has introduced 20 subversion 
     bills, and Georgia where Trump attempted to browbeat the top 
     election official to find extra votes for him has introduced 
     15 bills.
       Texas, whose ultra-right Republican group has made the 
     state the ground zero of voter suppression and election 
     interference, has introduced as many as 59 bills.
       ``We're seeing an effort to hijack elections in this 
     country, and ultimately, to take power away from the American 
     people. If we don't want politicians deciding our elections, 
     we all need to start paying attention,'' said Joanna Lydgate, 
     CEO of the States United Democracy Center which is one of the 
     three groups behind the report. Protect Democracy and Law 
     Forward also participated.
       One of the key ways that Trump-inspired state lawmakers 
     have tried to sabotage future elections is by changing the 
     rules to give legislatures control over vote counts. In 
     Pennsylvania, a bill passed in the wake of Trump's defeat 
     that sought to rewrite the state's election law was vetoed by 
     Democratic governor Tom Wolf.
       Now hard-right lawmakers are trying to bypass Wolf's veto 
     power by proposing a constitutional amendment that would give 
     the legislature the power to overrule the state's chief 
     elections officer and create a permanent audit of election 
     counts subject to its own will.
       In several states, nonpartisan election officials who for 
     years have administered ballots impartially are being 
     replaced by hyper-partisan conspiracy theorists and advocates 
     of Trump's false claims that the election was rigged. In 
     Michigan, county Republican groups in eight of the 11 largest 
     counties have systematically replaced professional 
     administration officials with ``stop the steal'' extremists.
       Several secretaries of state, the top election officials 
     responsible for presidential election counts, are being 
     challenged by extreme Republicans who participated in trying 
     to overturn the 2020 result. Trump has endorsed for the role 
     Mark Finchem in Arizona, Jody Hice in Georgia and Kristina 
     Karamo in Michigan who have all claimed falsely that Trump 
     won and should now be in his second term in the White House.
       Jess Marsden, Counsel at Protect Democracy, said that the 
     nationwide trend of state legislatures attempting to 
     interfere with the

[[Page H70]]

     work of nonpartisan election officials was gaining momentum. 
     `It's leading us down an antidemocratic path toward an 
     election crisis,'' she said.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, more than 260 bills were introduced in 
41 States last year to hijack the election process. If this isn't a 
national emergency, I don't know what the hell is.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, 
Republicans will offer an amendment to the rule allowing for the 
immediate consideration of H. Res. 866.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into 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 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, this resolution states clearly that 
the right to vote is fundamental to democracy, and that legitimate 
elections are those which are safe from foreign interference, including 
illegal votes from foreigners.
  The resolution denounces the practice by some cities in America of 
giving the right to vote to noncitizens, including foreigners who have 
violated our laws by being here illegally in the U.S.
  The resolution states firmly that the House of Representatives 
recognizes that allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote devalues 
the vote of every United States citizen.
  Madam Speaker, I present this amendment, and I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to 
defeat the previous question so that we can bring up my resolution, H. 
Res. 866, to highlight how imperative it is for election integrity and 
voter confidence that only American citizens vote in our elections.
  As Members of Congress, most of us have attended a naturalization 
ceremony or two during our time of service. We have watched these very 
moving ceremonies as these prospective Americans take the oath of 
allegiance to the United States of America. They pledge their 
allegiance to our country. They swear to support and defend the 
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  It is one of those moments that makes America the greatest country on 
Earth. They have earned the right to vote in our elections.
  What New York City and others are doing, by allowing nearly a million 
noncitizens to vote, is a slap in the face to those who worked hard for 
that sacred right. While I don't support what New York is doing by any 
means, it is our job that we protect Federal elections.
  Common sense will tell you that combining noncitizens and eligible 
American voters on the same voter rolls is ripe for abuse. It is really 
just not practical.
  Currently, in Illinois, noncitizens cannot vote, and if they do, they 
face major legal consequences and could be deported. But in 2016, 
Illinois' Automatic Voter Registration program mistakenly registered to 
vote more than 500 noncitizens who had done the right thing by checking 
the box stating they are not citizens on their driver's license 
applications.
  However, several of these noncitizens voted in the 2018 and 2019 
elections. This does nothing to bolster voter confidence in our 
elections. In fact, Madam Speaker, it does the opposite.
  Not only does this undermine the integrity of our elections, but the 
mistake by Illinois could also have had dire consequences for these 
individuals if they seek citizenship in the future.
  All of this could be prevented if States were actually maintaining 
accurate voter rolls, which has been required by Federal law for nearly 
30 years.
  Whether intentional or not, we know this is happening. It is 
undermining the integrity of our elections. This amendment would simply 
ensure those who are noncitizens, who do not have the right to vote in 
Federal elections, are removed from States' voter rolls. This is 
especially critical as my friends on the other side of the aisle push 
for a Federal takeover of elections.
  Let's defeat the previous question so that we can take a stand with 
my resolution to support only citizens voting in our elections and 
encourage States to adopt reforms that don't put noncitizens at risk of 
intentionally or unintentionally breaking the law by illegally voting 
in Federal elections.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say to my colleagues, this is kind of pathetic. It is a 
nonbinding resolution that does nothing, and I guess attacks immigrant 
parents who are involved in local school boards, I guess.
  But I mean, really? I mean, this is your response to what is 
happening all across this country in terms of the attacks on voting 
rights?
  The bill that we are talking about bringing to the floor, let me just 
tell you some of the things it does. Our bill, which will become law, 
would enhance protections for individuals with disabilities.
  It would make Election Day a national holiday. It would improve 
election security by requiring post-election audits and voter-
verifiable paper records of votes.
  It would protect elections from foreign interference. It would 
promote digital ad transparency.
  It would end partisan gerrymandering. I can go on and on and on and 
on.
  But the difference here is that I think we recognize, and I think, 
unfortunately, this has become a partisan issue because I think there 
are a lot of Independent voters and Republican voters across the 
country who are concerned, like Democrats in the House are, about the 
attacks on voting rights.
  I mean, the idea that we have one State that passed a law that said 
it is going to be illegal to give people water who wait in a line to be 
able to cast their vote? And we know in some States, people have to 
wait for hours and hours and hours to vote. But somehow, that would be 
criminalized; that that would be forbidden? I mean, give me a break.
  I mean, I don't know what the hell happened to the Republican Party. 
I mean, I don't know when they decided that the basis for who they are 
was a big lie.
  We had an election in 2020. As one of my colleagues pointed out, a 
lot of people showed up and voted. I mean, the people who voted 
returned me and returned my Republican colleagues and brought new 
Members to this body.
  And yet, they have been working overtime to embrace a big lie, after 
a violent insurrection, where people's lives were threatened. Our 
staff, the people who work here, their lives were threatened. Madam 
Speaker, 140 Capitol police officers were injured. After all of that, 
they still embraced the big lie and are working to try to nullify the 
legitimate votes of the people of this country.

                              {time}  2210

  It is stunning to me.
  So, yeah, to take this, whatever it is, meaningless, nonbinding 
resolution, and, I guess, maybe you can say you are for something. But 
it is nothing. It is pathetic. Or we can actually do something about 
protecting the right of every single person in this country to vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague 
from Massachusetts that I believe in 2016 he also objected to 
certification of the election. It doesn't always sound like that when 
he speaks about the objections.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Johnson).
  Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, just this morning, we 
learned that inflation rose 7 percent over the past year, the highest 
rate since 1982. We have empty shelves, and we have unfilled jobs due 
to the labor shortages across the country. Schools are shutting down 
again, crime is soaring in our cities, and faith in our institutions is 
in rapid decline.
  What are Washington Democrats focused on? They want to blow up the 
rules of Congress so they can pass their extremist agenda to federalize 
local elections, legalize ballot harvesting,

[[Page H71]]

ban voter ID requirements, and fund their own campaigns with precious 
taxpayer dollars. It is truly unbelievable to the people back home.
  Chuck Schumer says this is a response to the 2020 election and the 
State election laws passed in 2021. That is obviously not a true 
statement, because the bill they are peddling was first introduced in 
2019.
  Joe Biden says it is to stave off the reemergence of a second Jim 
Crow era in States like Texas and Georgia which passed election 
integrity measures this year. But that is a ridiculous charge. 
Literally, it is the opposite of the facts that any person can verify 
with a single internet search.
  The truth is, Georgia's law has more days of early, in-person voting 
than Joe Biden's own home State of Delaware.
  The 2020 election saw the highest turnout of voters in 120 years, and 
according to the Pew Research Center, 94 percent of Americans agree it 
is ``easy to vote.''
  There is no widespread voter suppression in this country, and 
everybody knows it. In fact, voter registration disparities between 
minority and nonminority voters in States like Texas, Florida, North 
Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana are below the national average and 
lower than Democrat-run States like New York, California, and Delaware. 
Those are the facts.
  For Democrats, the only problem they are seeking to solve is the 
problem of how to secure for themselves more votes.
  We have heard in New York, Democrats recently voted to allow foreign 
citizens to vote in American elections. You heard it right. It is a 
blatantly unconstitutional scheme that defies the most basic rule of 
our system. Seventh grade civics: American elections should be decided 
by American citizens. New York's ridiculous new law has been challenged 
in court. We don't know what the outcome of that is going to be, but we 
can all take a stand here tonight to reaffirm to the people of this 
great Nation that their legally cast votes will not be watered down and 
negated by the ballots of noncitizens.
  Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, Republicans will 
amend the rule to provide for consideration of a resolution that 
acknowledges this simple truth: Allowing illegal immigrants and 
noncitizens the right to vote devalues the franchise and diminishes the 
voting power of United States citizens.
  We all have an opportunity to go on record right here tonight to make 
our positions on that issue clear. I urge my colleagues to reaffirm the 
rights of U.S. citizens and vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me remind everybody: If you vote ``no'' on the previous question 
like my Republican colleagues would like you to do, you get to pass a 
meaningless, nonbinding resolution. Wow, what a courageous thing my 
friends are doing today.
  Let me just say to my colleague from Minnesota, Mrs. Fischbach, whom 
I have a lot of respect for, yes, some of us raised objections in 2016 
because we were concerned about Russian interference in our election. I 
think the Mueller report actually proved that we were right on that.
  But let me ask her: How many votes did we have? None. Of all the 
people that objected, how much time did it take? Less than 8 minutes. 
How many Capitol Police, Mrs. Fischbach, were wounded that day? None. 
How much violence occurred in this Capitol that day? There was none. 
How much property was destroyed that day? None.
  Compare that to what happened here, when many of my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle, after a violent insurrection, after an attack 
on this democracy, came here, with absolutely no basis of fact or 
evidence, and voted to nullify the results of a free and fair election 
in the United States of America.
  So when people in this country express concern--not just Democrats, 
but Independents and Republicans--when people express concern about the 
future of our democracy, that is what they are talking about.
  Voting rights are under attack in State after State after State. We 
see what State legislatures are doing. But the right to vote is also 
being attacked when we have Members of this Chamber who actively try to 
subvert the will of the American people.
  So you may think it is no big deal. Maybe you think that is what you 
have to do to try to maintain power. But the bottom line is, as John 
Lewis said, the right to vote is precious; it is almost sacred. We all 
have to come together, Democrats and Republicans, and we have to stand 
up and we have to protect it. That is what this is about.
  So talk about whatever you want to talk about, but the bottom line 
is, we need to do this. This is the right thing to do. And by 
proceeding in this way, we will at least ensure that there is a debate 
in the United States Senate, and hopefully there will be a vote to 
actually make this into the law of the land.

  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I just want to remind everyone that 
the issue here is the Federal takeover of elections. The statement that 
was made was about someone objecting to the certification and how that 
was somehow wrong. I just wanted to simply remind my colleague that he 
himself had voted that way and many of the Democrats have, over the 
years, voted to object to certification.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Tenney).
  Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, once again, we find ourselves on the floor 
of the House of Representatives debating legislation to enact the great 
takeover of elections by partisan Federal bureaucrats and their friends 
across the aisle and prohibit the most basic voting rights and security 
measures entrusted to the States and the American people.
  The so-called Freedom to Vote Act: John R. Lewis Act, which Democrats 
hope to attach as a rider to nongermane legislation, will undermine the 
very integrity of our elections, not improve and increase access to 
voting, a mission we all share.
  The right to vote is sacred and represents the most important 
expression of self-governance as American citizens. This legislation 
will further erode the confidence of the voters who have already lost 
faith in our ability to ensure free and fair elections.
  President Biden and his allies in Congress are yet again pushing 
unconstitutional legislation to ban popular voter ID laws and mandate 
ballot harvesting. This includes States that have already passed these 
commonsense laws to bolster election integrity and guarantee that each 
citizen is guaranteed one vote in each election, not more than one.
  This legislation also burdens the American taxpayer with the 
obligation to fund political campaigns, even for those whom they don't 
support. Worse, this pair of bills will open the door for noncitizens 
to vote, thus undermining and diluting the power of sworn citizens to 
control their government.
  In my home State, Democrats--one-party rule in New York City; one-
party rule in Albany--are already enacting these radical policies that 
drive a dagger into the heart of self-governance. This deliberate act 
to erode our democracy and to weaken the voting power of American 
citizens is not only wrong; it is unconstitutional.
  Article II of the New York State Constitution explicitly states that: 
``Every citizen shall be entitled to vote at every election . . .'' 
Section 5-102 of New York Election Law states: ``No person shall be 
qualified to register for and vote at any election unless he'' or she 
``is a citizen of the United States . . .'' Finally, the 15th Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution also protects the right of all eligible 
citizens to vote.
  Subversive legislation, such as the law allowing noncitizens to vote 
signed recently into law in New York City, and most of the provisions 
that we are debating today, will, if passed, undermine the core 
principles of freedom and individual rights that are enshrined and 
protected by our constitutional Republic.
  In fact, a recent ABC News/Ipsos poll found that a mere 20 percent of 
the public was very confident in the integrity of our election system.
  Our democratic principles and the belief in the idea of ``one person, 
one

[[Page H72]]

vote'' are under attack. When our citizens lose faith in the integrity 
of our elections, this is what happens.
  We are at a crossroads.

                              {time}  2220

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 
20 seconds.
  Ms. TENNEY. Too many precious American souls have sacrificed life and 
limb to protect our sacred right to vote. Now is the time to choose 
self-governance by, of, and for the people, not a takeover and 
surrender to partisan bureaucrats.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just a few quick things. One is, you know, I got a little whiplash 
here because, on the one hand, I am hearing my friends say they don't 
want Federal interference in local elections, yet that is what they are 
proposing here. Except I guess they are not because this is nonbinding 
and doesn't mean anything. I just point that out for the record.
  Secondly, I know my colleague from Minnesota. I may have misheard her 
when she said that I voted to nullify the election in 2016. There were 
no votes on any of the State electoral college results. I am a stickler 
for accuracy on things like that.
  Thirdly, let me remind people why we are here today. We are here to 
pass the Freedom to Vote: John R. Lewis Act, which would expand 
automatic voter registration and same-day registration. It would expand 
early voting. It would enhance protections for individuals with 
disabilities. It would make election day a national holiday. It would 
improve election security. It would protect elections from foreign 
interference.
  It will do things that, quite frankly, I think most reasonable 
people--I don't care what their politics may be--would think is the 
right thing to do.
  Unfortunately, what is reasonable amongst the American people is not 
always reasonable here in the Congress. I think the effort that my 
Republican colleagues are engaged in really is about nullifying results 
that they don't like.
  Well, do you know what? We all want to win elections, but sometimes 
we lose. It is not pleasant. But if that is what the people want, then 
the people should get what they want.
  Madam Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support what we are 
doing here today, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time 
to close.
  I have not heard any compelling arguments for pushing either of these 
bills forward because the flaws are clear. We cannot create a one-size-
fits-all election system imposed from Washington that requires States 
to provide automatic same-day voter registration, prevents States from 
removing dormant voters from rolls, and overrides State ID laws.
  The Freedom to Vote Act would also guarantee public dollars would go 
into certain candidates' coffers. This is all nothing more than a 
partisan play for the Democrats to federalize all of America's 
elections. They are pushing it because they think it will help them 
stay in power. Historically, States have had oversight of their own 
elections.
  While there is always room for improvement, let's keep the Federal 
Government out of it and leave the States to handle their own 
elections, as has been done in the past.
  I oppose the rule and the underlying bill, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Minnesota for her service in 
this Congress and her service on the Rules Committee.
  She said that she hasn't heard any compelling arguments why we should 
pass these bills. Maybe she wasn't listening to me because I think I 
made a lot of compelling arguments here today about why these bills are 
incredibly important.
  Something is badly, badly broken, and we must have the courage to fix 
it, even if that means fixing it alone. That is what it means to do the 
right thing, politics be damned.
  This is about more than petty partisanship. This is about whether we 
defend democracy or we sit back and watch its demise. I could never 
live with myself if I did nothing, and I think I speak for a lot of my 
colleagues on this side of the aisle. I wish there were more colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle who felt that way.
  Working with my colleagues, I am going to try to do everything 
possible to stem the insidious tide of voter suppression in this 
country and the attempts to nullify the will of the American people 
because there is no guarantee that America will forever be a democracy. 
It isn't planted in our soil. It isn't floating through our air. It is 
us. We are the only ones who can guarantee democracy prevails, and this 
vote is about nothing less.
  I strongly urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
measure.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 868

       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 
     resolution (H.Res. 866) recognizing that allowing illegal 
     immigrants the right to vote devalues the franchise and 
     diminishes the voting power of United States citizens. All 
     points of order against consideration of the resolution are 
     waived. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.Res. 866.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. 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 220, 
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     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
     Pelosi
     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

[[Page H73]]


     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--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
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     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
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     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)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Roy
     Salazar
     Scalise
     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)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Cartwright
     Cline
     Harris
     Higgins (LA)
     McClintock
     Palmer
     Rogers (AL)
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Webster (FL)
     Williams (TX)
     Wittman

                              {time}  2302

  Mr. SMITH of Nebraska changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mrs. TORRES of California 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 (Ross)
     Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Bera (Kilmer)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Kuster)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Gallego)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bush (Bowman)
     Butterfield (Kildee)
     Cardenas (Soto)
     Casten (Underwood)
     Castor (Soto)
     Chu (Clark (MA))
     Cleaver (Davids (KS))
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Crawford (Stewart)
     Crist (Soto)
     Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
     DeFazio (Brown (MD))
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DelBene (Kilmer)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
     Evans (Mfume)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (Boebert)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Granger (Carter (TX))
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Grothman (Fitzgerald)
     Hagedorn (Carl)
     Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
     Hudson (McHenry)
     Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Joyce (PA) (Keller)
     Kahele (Case)
     Katko (Meijer)
     Kim (CA) (Steel)
     Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kinzinger (Meijer)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lamborn (McHenry)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Soto)
     Lee (CA) (Khanna)
     Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
     Lesko (Miller (WV))
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Mace (Timmons)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz)
     Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
     Matsui (Thompson (CA))
     McCaul (Ellzey)
     McCollum (Craig)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Kuster)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Beyer)
     Nadler (Pallone)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
     Panetta (Kildee)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Garcia (IL))
     Price (NC) (Connolly)
     Reed (McHenry)
     Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Ruppersberger (Trone)
     Rush (Kaptur)
     Salazar (Gimenez)
     Schrier (Spanberger)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Keller)
     Speier (Escobar)
     Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Suozzi (Raskin)
     Swalwell (Gallego)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Tlaib (Khanna)
     Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Vela (Correa)
     Waltz (Mast)
     Waters (Takano)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
     Wilson (SC) (Rice (SC))

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Blunt Rochester). 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 220, 
nays 202, not voting 11, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 8]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     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
     Pelosi
     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--202

     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
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     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
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko

[[Page H74]]


     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Salazar
     Scalise
     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)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Cartwright
     Cline
     Harris
     Higgins (LA)
     McClintock
     Palmer
     Rogers (AL)
     Rutherford
     Webster (FL)
     Williams (TX)
     Wittman

                              {time}  2325

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Adams (Ross)
     Auchincloss (Clark (MA))
     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Bera (Kilmer)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Kuster)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Gallego)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bush (Bowman)
     Butterfield (Kildee)
     Cardenas (Soto)
     Casten (Underwood)
     Castor (Soto)
     Chu (Clark (MA))
     Cleaver (Davids (KS))
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Cooper (Clark (MA))
     Crawford (Stewart)
     Crist (Soto)
     Cuellar (Jackson Lee)
     DeFazio (Brown (MD))
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DelBene (Kilmer)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Connolly)
     Evans (Mfume)
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (Boebert)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gomez (Gallego)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Granger (Carter (TX))
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Grothman (Fitzgerald)
     Hagedorn (Carl)
     Herrera Beutler (Moore (UT))
     Hudson (McHenry)
     Jacobs (NY) (Garbarino)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Joyce (PA) (Keller)
     Kahele (Case)
     Katko (Meijer)
     Kim (CA) (Steel)
     Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kinzinger (Meijer)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lamborn (McHenry)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Soto)
     Lee (CA) (Khanna)
     Leger Fernandez (Clark (MA))
     Lesko (Miller (WV))
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Mace (Timmons)
     Maloney, Carolyn B. (Wasserman Schultz)
     Maloney, Sean Patrick (Jeffries)
     Matsui (Thompson (CA))
     McCaul (Ellzey)
     McCollum (Craig)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Kuster)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Beyer)
     Nadler (Pallone)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Ocasio-Cortez (Bowman)
     Panetta (Kildee)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Pressley (Garcia (IL))
     Price (NC) (Connolly)
     Reed (McHenry)
     Reschenthaler (Armstrong)
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Ruppersberger (Trone)
     Rush (Kaptur)
     Salazar (Gimenez)
     Schrier (Spanberger)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Keller)
     Speier (Escobar)
     Stansbury (Jacobs (CA))
     Stanton (Levin (CA))
     Suozzi (Raskin)
     Swalwell (Gallego)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Tlaib (Khanna)
     Torres (NY) (Cicilline)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Vela (Correa)
     Waltz (Mast)
     Waters (Takano)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
     Wilson (SC) (Rice (SC))

     

                          ____________________