[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 6, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H4216-H4229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1315
RELATING TO THE CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE REPORT 117-284 AND AN
ACCOMPANYING RESOLUTION
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1023 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1023
Resolved, That if House Report 117-284 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 (Mr. Welch). The gentleman from Maryland is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule,
House Resolution 1023. The rule provides for consideration of the
resolution accompanying House Report 117-284 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. The rule provides
1 hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by Chairman
Thompson, Vice Chair Cheney, and an opponent.
Mr. Speaker, if 90 percent of success in life is just showing up,
then 90 percent of acting in contempt of Congress is not showing up by
failing to respond to multiple subpoenas you have been lawfully served.
The rest of contempt is not turning over documents you have been
ordered to produce and acting with open disregard and scorn for the
rule of law, Congress, and representatives of the American people.
Neither Dan Scavino nor Peter Navarro has shown up in response to
repeated congressional subpoenas. They have blown us off completely.
Neither Mr. Scavino nor Mr. Navarro has produced a single document or
offered 1 minute of testimony in response to the subpoenas sent by the
House of Representatives.
While more than 800 Americans have come forward voluntarily or
properly responded to congressional subpoenas, which are orders under
penalty of law, saying you must show up to testify under oath and
invoke any asserted privileges in person, Scavino and Navarro have
followed Steve Bannon and are acting as if they are way too busy and
way too important to bother with the mere United States House of
Representatives. They think that having worked for a former President
of the United States excuses them from complying with lawful orders.
This is clearly false; this is clearly wrong; and we must make an
emphatic statement about it today.
Mr. Speaker, I ask America to consider this: If your son or daughter
were subpoenaed to come testify before the Congress of the United
States, would you advise them to sit home on the couch and blow it off?
I know I wouldn't.
Every year, thousands of Americans are held in criminal contempt for
ignoring their legal obligations to comply with a lawful subpoena
issued by courts or legislative bodies.
Here in the District of Columbia, you can be sent to jail for 6
months and fined $1,000 for acting in contempt of a subpoena and not
showing up. We have checked on multiple days and found, on any given
day, 7, 8, 10, or a dozen people are being found guilty of contempt in
the courts of the District of Columbia.
That is the exact same criminal offense that Mr. Scavino and Mr.
Navarro committed, and that is the exact same penalty they are facing
for their misconduct.
Each of these witnesses was given ample and repeated opportunities to
comply, opportunities that continue to this day. Yet, they openly and
brazenly flout the authority of the Congress and mock their own
personal duty to comply with the rule of law.
Legal contempt exists for those who act with open disregard or
disobedience of the law, especially when acting with scorn for the
authority of government. It exists precisely for cases like this.
Here is what has happened with Mr. Scavino. In September of last
year, the committee issued its first of three subpoenas. We asked him
to come testify before us on October 15, 2021, last year.
When he could not be found to actually accept service of the first
subpoena, we issued a second subpoena, asking him to appear before the
committee on October 28, 2021. He told the committee that wasn't enough
time for him; he needed 1 extra week.
We generously gave him a week, and we set a third deposition date of
November 4, 2021, but he didn't come on November 4 either. Instead, he
requested another extension.
Bending over backward to accommodate this witness, we set a fourth
deposition date of November 12, 2021. Still, that wasn't enough time
for him.
We acted in good faith again, and assuming he was acting in good
faith, we set a fifth deposition date of November 19. When that day
arrived, did he finally show up to do his civic duty? No, he did not.
Instead, he waited until the eve of the deposition and then, for the
first time, challenged the service of the subpoena.
Out of an abundance of deference and caution, and to make every
effort to demonstrate the respect for the rule of law that Scavino was
not showing, we issued yet a third subpoena inviting him to come
testify before us once again on December 1, 2021.
Finally, with Scavino completely out of excuses and the committee out
of patience, his final deposition date of December 1 arrived, and he
simply did not show up.
Six times this committee invited Scavino to testify, and six times he
stood us up. He stood the American people up. He refused to testify
before Congress about what he knows about the most dangerous and
sweeping assault on the United States Congress since the War of 1812,
which was by a foreign power.
But even after he failed to show up in December, the committee held
an open door for Mr. Scavino to come in and
[[Page H4217]]
testify. But in the more than 6 months since the committee's first
subpoena was sent to him, he has never once come in to speak with us.
He has not given us a single document, Mr. Speaker.
It is the same basic story with Mr. Navarro. On February 9, we issued
him a subpoena to produce documents on February 23 and to testify on
March 2. There have been repeated evasions and contortions by the
witness since then.
Generous accommodations have been offered by the committee, all of it
leading to nothing but his open contempt and mockery for this process
and for the rule of law. He never showed up, and he never produced a
single document.
When more than 800 Americans have voluntarily testified and complied
with the subpoenas rendered by our committee, the witnesses have
nothing but excuses for their noncompliance, excuses you would not
accept from a teenage child.
Navarro says he wants us to send him written interrogatories, and he
will answer his questions in writing. Wouldn't that be nice? Any
witness to a car accident, a murder, an assault, or an insurrection in
the land would love not to have to answer actual questions under sworn
oath, but that is not how our system works.
The word ``subpoena'' means ``under the penalty of law.'' ``Sub''
means under; ``poena'' means ``penalty of law.'' Under the penalty of
law, you show up and you answer questions in the United States of
America. If you think you have a legal privilege excusing you from
answering questions, you assert your privileges under oath, at the time
of questioning that you show up, to specific questions, whether it is
the attorney-client privilege; the Fifth Amendment privilege against
self-incrimination, which a number of witnesses have asserted before
our committee, as it is their legal right to do; the priest-penitent
privilege; or the executive privilege.
The Court has been clear. The Supreme Court has been clear. If you
think you have one of these privileges, you show up and you assert it
to the specific questions being asked to you. But the privilege against
self-incrimination, the executive privilege, the marital privilege,
none of these is a magic wand that you can wave from your sofa and not
show up under a subpoena to a lawful proceeding.
But Navarro continues to mutter the words ``executive privilege,'' as
if it is some kind of magic wand that would keep him from ever having
to testify about anything, like Harry Potter's invisibility cloak. He
even says, repeatedly, the executive privilege is not mine to waive,
which is high comedy, Mr. Speaker, because it is not his to waive,
which means, by definition, it is not his to invoke in the first place.
We know it is not his to invoke. The Supreme Court has been clear
about this, too. The executive privilege belongs to the President of
the United States of America, the actual President. President Biden has
specifically decided not to invoke executive privilege in Navarro's
case or in Scavino's case.
Yet, Navarro says the executive privilege here belongs to ex-
President Donald Trump, which is not only extremely dubious but totally
irrelevant.
It is dubious because the Supreme Court just rejected a claim by
Donald Trump himself, in Trump v. Thompson, that his materials were
protected from disclosure to the January 6th Select Committee in
Congress by executive privilege.
Even if Trump were still the President, the Court essentially said
there is an overwhelming public interest in these materials that dwarfs
whatever dubious interest in executive secrecy may linger. So the claim
would fail, even if President Joe Biden were himself here to assert it
on behalf of Navarro and Scavino.
But Navarro's attempt to stand above the law by mentioning Donald
Trump's name is also completely irrelevant. Why? Everyone, please take
note of this: Because Donald Trump has never even asserted the
executive privilege to cover Peter Navarro, not once. We have received
no communication from Donald Trump, either directly or indirectly from
Navarro, showing that Trump is trying to exercise an executive
privilege claim, which is doomed to failure anyway under the logic of
the decision just rendered by the Supreme Court.
Mr. Speaker, so what do we have? Two guys in the District of Columbia
blowing off a congressional investigation and subpoenas into a deadly
insurrection, which caused multiple deaths; inflicted brutal, savage
injuries on 150 of our officers, who ended up with broken jaws, necks,
vertebrae, noses, traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress
syndrome; and interrupted Congress from executing its constitutional
duties of counting electoral college votes for the very first time in
American history--oh, yes. And it nearly succeeded in overthrowing the
2020 Presidential election and toppling the peaceful transfer of power,
perhaps for all time, as United States District Court Judge Carter
wrote in a blistering opinion last week, rejecting this exact same and
equally ridiculous claim of John Eastman, who helped cook up the absurd
legal camouflage for this attempted coup in the first place against the
American constitutional system of government.
The gentlewoman, I think, said something about the Russian hoax or
Russian collusion. I accept the heckling, Mr. Speaker. That is all
right because if she wants to continue to stand with Vladimir Putin and
his brutal, bloody invasion against the people of Ukraine, she is free
to do so.
We understand there is a strong Trump-Putin axis in the gentlewoman's
party. If she wants to continue to stand with Vladimir Putin and Donald
Trump, that is her prerogative, but please do it on her own time
forthwith.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time
as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of a
resolution holding Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino in contempt of
Congress.
From the very beginning, the select committee has been nothing more
than a partisan tool used by House Democrats to attack their political
opponents. Time and time again, they have run roughshod over our
Constitution and they have run roughshod over the very rules of this
institution. And to what end? To advance their own political agenda.
We need look no further than the resolution establishing the
committee to see their complete disregard for this Chamber. House
Resolution 503 states the Speaker shall appoint 13 members, five of
whom shall be appointed after consultation with minority leaders.
Neither of those ``shall'' clauses have been met.
While this may seem insignificant to my colleagues across the aisle,
it is certainly of consequence to the courts. Let's talk about some
case law.
Yellin v. United States. There the Court reversed the conviction of
contempt of Congress because a congressional committee failed to adhere
to its own rules. The Court explained, ``The committee prepared the
groundwork for prosecution in Yellin's case meticulously.'' Yet, ``It
is not too exacting to require that the committee be equally meticulous
in obeying its own rules.'' I suggest to my Democratic colleagues, heed
those words.
As a former Navy JAG, I am deeply troubled by the committee's
treatment of Mr. Scavino, including clear due process violations. The
select committee repeatedly demanded almost immediate responses from
Mr. Scavino, while waiting for weeks--weeks--to provide responses to
his correspondence.
Further, the select committee has shown complete disregard for Mr.
Scavino's legal duty, his legal duty to invoke the executive privilege,
which he was instructed to do by President Trump. There is no legal
authority that the incumbent President is the final arbiter as to
whether executive privilege may be asserted for congressional testimony
of close aides to a former President.
The Presidential Records Act applies only to Presidential records
within control of the National Archives. That is it. It is a very
narrow statute. That act does not control whether testimony can be
given.
[[Page H4218]]
Let's talk about some more case law. United States v. Nixon. The
Supreme Court held in that case, ``Communications between a President
and his closest aides are entitled to a presumption of privilege of
confidentiality which can be overcome only by a particularized showing
of a need in a criminal case.'' I want to emphasize criminal case. This
is not a criminal case.
Finally, the select committee initially provided Mr. Scavino with 15
topics which they wanted to discuss. That list later grew to 33. The
select committee then went so far as to place the onus on Mr. Scavino,
saying that it is his responsibility to ``identify the specific topics
outside the scope of his asserted privilege.''
As I am sure my friend across the aisle knows, and any lawyer on the
other side of the aisle knows, the burden is not on the subject of the
deposition to identify the topics on which they can be questioned. The
Supreme Court found--and here is some more case law--in Watkins v.
United States, the Supreme Court found in that case, `` . . . a person
compelled to testify is entitled to have knowledge of the subject to
which the interrogation is deemed pertinent. . . . `'
If the select committee wanted to conduct a legitimate investigation,
they would not be rushing to hold Mr. Scavino in contempt after
imposing unreasonable and unattainable timelines, ignoring legitimate
assertions of a privilege, and then refusing legitimate accommodations.
It is clear the resolution before us today is not about a witness'
refusal to testify or refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena.
This is all about Democrats' need to further their partisan agenda.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and vote
``no'' on the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is not a partisan investigation. We were created under House
Resolution 503 after, I am afraid, the gentleman and his colleagues
voted to thwart a totally bipartisan, independent outside commission
made up of five Democrats and five Republicans with equal subpoena
power simply because Donald Trump exercised his veto within the
Republican Party; the same Donald Trump who calls the madman, mass
murderer, Vladimir Putin, a genius, but we know we have some people
echoing all of Trump's complicity with Vladimir Putin from the Georgia
delegation back there.
This is a bipartisan committee. It is the only committee I am aware
of that has a Democratic chair in a Democratic-controlled House of
Representatives and a Republican vice chair, Ms. Cheney, who was the
head of the GOP Conference. She was the head of the House Republican
Conference, now the vice chair of this committee, and they call it a
partisan exercise.
The second point I need to make is that executive privilege must be
asserted by the President. This one isn't even asserted by the former
President. It is just somebody going in and saying, ``I have got an
executive privilege.''
Is that really the precedent that my colleagues want to set, Madam
Speaker? I mean, that is pretty astonishing if that is the position
that they are taking.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), my very distinguished colleague.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, it has been said before, but ours is a
country of laws, not men, and in our democratic Republic, the voters
choose who leads, not a dictator, and not a monarch.
But in the wake of the 2020 election, a small group of people decided
to reject the rule of law and the will of the voters. They rejected the
unanimous conclusion of the courts, the Department of Justice, Homeland
Security, and law enforcement and election officials across the
country. They tried to pervert the law and throw away the free choice
of the people. On January 6, their plan almost worked.
As the select committee investigates what happened that day, and how
it can be prevented from ever happening again, over 800 witnesses have
come in to share what they know because that is what should happen in a
country ruled by law.
Only a handful of people, all of them in the former President's inner
circle, have refused to obey the subpoenas. Their baseless claims that
they are immune have been rejected by the actual President, by
Congress, and by the courts. These entitled few have refused to honor
Congress' subpoenas, just like they rejected the results of the
election, because they believe they are above the law. They are not.
That is why it is so important that we pass this rule and the
underlying bill and hold those in defiance of these subpoenas in
contempt, because their conduct is not just unlawful and unpatriotic,
it is contemptible.
Our Constitution, not any person, is what makes our country great.
Nobody is above the law, and certainly nobody is above the
Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I strongly support the rule and its underlying
legislation, and I urge all my colleagues who truly love the country
more than performative antics to do the same.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
My good friend from Maryland was talking about some case law. I will
talk case law all day. Here are three real fast:
Quinn v. United States. The Supreme Court said that Congress cannot
issue a subpoena for law enforcement purpose.
Watkins v. United States. Congress has no authority to issue a
subpoena to compel exposure for the sake of exposure.
McGrain v. Daugherty. Congress may not issue a subpoena in an attempt
to try someone before a committee for any crime of wrongdoing.
I have ample case law up here that will show, at the very best, for
my friends across the aisle that case law is unsettled, but it is very
likely on the side of Mr. Scavino and Mr. Navarro.
Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms.
Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, I rise to ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The Chair would advise
that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate.
Does the gentleman from Maryland yield for purposes of this unanimous
consent?
Mr. RASKIN. No, I don't yield for that purpose, which is an
extraneous and irrelevant distraction from the resolution. All time
yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland does not yield;
therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Bost) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BOST. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Rutherford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up
H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
[[Page H4219]]
the great State of Texas (Mr. Jackson) for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. JACKSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. LaTurner) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LaTURNER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the Rules Committee ranking member, for the
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho
(Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FULCHER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Baird) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BAIRD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Burgess), a Rules Committee member, for the purpose of a unanimous
consent request.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Biggs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BIGGS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1345
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. LaHood) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LaHOOD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Walberg) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Pfluger) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PFLUGER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Mann) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. MANN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KUSTOFF. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
[[Page H4220]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Georgia (Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Keller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. KELLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Curtis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CURTIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. Aderholt) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from the Biden border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Balderson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BALDERSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from the Biden border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Stauber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Ferguson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FERGUSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Carter) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Mrs. Cammack) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Ms. MACE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GIMENEZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
[[Page H4221]]
Alabama (Mr. Palmer) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PALMER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Garcia) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GARCIA of California. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Scalise), the Republican whip, for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. SCALISE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, so that we can protect all Americans from President
Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JACOBS of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to
call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Steel) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. STEEL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1400
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hill) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HILL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Weber) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up
H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Palazzo) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. PALAZZO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. LaMALFA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Babin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BABIN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471,
[[Page H4222]]
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Garbarino) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Williams) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call
up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's
border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New
York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up
H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Florida (Ms. Salazar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. SALAZAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Posey) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. POSEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Latta) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. LATTA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Bishop) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, I request unanimous
consent to call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans
from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Roy) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ROY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471,
the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
Kansas (Mr. Estes) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ESTES. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader, for the purpose of a
unanimous consent request.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R.
471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border
crisis.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman
from Maryland has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the
unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from California (Mr. McCarthy), the Republican leader.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, two wrongs don't make a right.
Let me be clear: the riot on January 6 was wrong. Any violence on
that day should be punished, as I have said before.
But make no mistake: the Democrats' response is also wrong.
For 15 months, Democrats have used January 6 as a blank check to
trample on civil rights and congressional norms.
They broke every rule, violated every norm, bullied every skeptic
simply to hold on to power.
Let's be honest: this is a political show trial.
The committee has sent hundreds of subpoenas to private citizens for
phone records, bank records, and private communications.
To those who invoked their right to due process, Chairman Thompson
replied, `` . . . you are part and parcel guilty to what occurred.''
What a disgusting betrayal of the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights.
But think for a second about what Chairman Thompson is saying. If you
question his authority, if you disobey his demands, then you are a
criminal and you should be punished.
Congresswoman Luria, who is also on the select committee agrees. Last
week, she criticized Attorney General Garland for not putting her
political opponents in jail fast enough. She told Garland, `` . . . do
your job so we can do ours.''
I am sure some Members got real excited by that.
Democrats are using the power of the Federal Government to jail their
political opponents and threatening the Attorney General for not doing
it fast enough.
In their twisted view, this agreement is immoral. Dissent is a crime.
And they are to be obeyed without question.
Today's resolution is also about criminalizing dissent.
I can pause, Mr. Speaker, if he needs to listen more.
Mr. RASKIN. I am sorry?
Mr. McCARTHY. I was going to tell Mr. Speaker if the House is not in
order, and you need to listen to staff, I can pause.
Mr. RASKIN. Are you yielding?
Mr. McCARTHY. No. I said to Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order.
[[Page H4223]]
There was no yielding. Your staff is continuing to communicate.
I think if I am speaking, the House should be in order. I don't know
if that is a criminal offense, too.
Mr. RASKIN. You have not been heckled by any of our Members, while I
was heckled by----
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I have the time. You have the gavel.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). The gentleman from California
is recognized.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order. He has not been
recognized.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman
from California is recognized.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the House to be in order, should
people be in their seats, or should people be talking?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, the House is not in order. People are
standing and talking.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order. The gentleman
from California is recognized.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, today's resolution is about criminalizing
dissent.
Democrats are threatening to throw in jail a good man who has done
nothing but attempt to follow the law simply because he is President
Trump's closest aid.
Mr. Scavino does not deserve that.
He tried to cooperate with the select committee's requests. He sent
timely letters to the committee to clarify the vague scope of the
requested testimony.
He even offered to answer the committee's questions in writing, which
the committee's rules allow for, so he could balance cooperation with
fair concerns about executive privilege.
But the committee rejected every compromise. It is their way or no
way.
It took them 2 months to reply to Mr. Scavino's letter, then another
6 weeks. Then they rushed to hold him in contempt.
They also demanded the right to ask any question they wanted,
including on topics that have nothing to do with protecting the
Capitol, like the 25th Amendment.
Even if you agree that the select committee has a legislative
purpose, the fact is that purpose is not unlimited.
The committee must identify a specific nexus between its legislative
purpose and the information it wants. But it never identified the nexus
for the information it was seeking from Mr. Scavino.
And I bet it won't identify that nexus today either. Why? Because the
nexus does not exist.
Without it, their subpoena is invalid.
Congressional oversight is supposed to inform the legislative process
and must have a valid legislative purpose. It is not there so the swamp
can bully its political enemies.
Let's be honest. Mr. Scavino never acted like he was above the law,
and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. If anyone has acted like they
are above the law, it is the Select Committee.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, two wrongs don't make a right.
The riot on January 6 was wrong, but Democrats' reaction to trample
American civil liberties is also wrong.
Do we really want to live in a country where politicians can seize
your phone records, compel your testimony, and ignore your rights
because they disagree with your politics?
Most Americans don't want to live in a country like that.
That happens in Russia, in Communist China, in North Korea. It should
never happen in America.
But, Mr. Speaker, under one-party rule, it is. But to all Americans,
when we take back the House, it will stop.
{time} 1415
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
More than 800 Americans have come to testify before our committee,
the minority leader should be notified before he leaves the Chamber.
Four of them have categorically refused and blown off the subpoenas of
the U.S. House of Representatives.
The minority leader attacks our committee as partisan and political,
as some of his colleagues do. Well, we are a bipartisan committee with
a Democratic chair and Republican vice chair.
But today, the minority leader gave the game away as he boiled over
with rage toward our committee. He gave the game away. He is very upset
that the former chair of the House Republican Conference has been
telling the truth about Donald Trump's big lie, his incitement of
violent insurrection, and the attack on American constitutional
democracy.
And that is why he is in the very embarrassing position of having
supported, offered, and pressed for an independent, 9/11-style
commission about the January 6 attack. And as the minority leader, he
asked for five Republicans and five Democrats. He asked for equal
subpoena power on both sides, equal staff on both sides.
And Chairman Thompson, who now chairs the January 6th Select
Committee and chairs the Homeland Security Committee, he agreed to it.
A lot of Democrats were upset about that. They said, we are in the
majority. Why should we agree to have everything 50/50, right down the
middle? But he agreed, and the Democrats agreed, because that is what
the Republicans offered.
Great. We were going to have a 9/11-style independent commission.
And then you know what happened? You know who vetoed it? The fourth
branch of government, Donald Trump, who some of their Members slavishly
report to like sycophants.
And Donald Trump said he didn't want any investigation into the
attack on this body, the Congress of the United States. He didn't want
any investigation at all.
And you know what the minority leader did? He walked it back. They
pulled the plug on the independent commission, and that is why we ended
up with the January 6th Select Committee in the House of
Representatives, which the Speaker has made sure is bipartisan and has
operated, in my experience, Mr. Speaker, as the most bipartisan
committee I have ever been on.
Why? Because we don't spend an hour at the beginning of each meeting
with a bunch of empty partisan gimmicks and stunts; the kind we just
saw, wasting the taxpayers' money and time; 20 minutes of that nonsense
going nowhere; at the same time that there is an actual hearing taking
place in Cannon 310, right now, by the Committee on Homeland Security,
on the question of the border.
But instead of attending the hearing, I counted at least five or six
different Members who were in that conga line. I will be interested to
know whether they are even going to go to the hearing afterwards.
Instead, they come and participate in that empty, absurd ritual,
wasting the time of this body.
But the minority leader comes here and, amazingly, attacks our
committee, when he sabotaged his own idea. But this committee is
closing in on the truth, and that is why we get all these circus antics
and all the attempts to distract the American people.
Mr. Speaker, if I had been dealt the hand that my friend from
Pennsylvania has been dealt today, as a lawyer, as a Member of
Congress, I suppose I would have done everything in my power to
distract the House of Representatives also from the business at hand.
We have two people who are flagrantly, brazenly defying the authority
of the House of Representatives of the United States in order to avoid
coming here to tell the truth. They are acting in contempt of Congress,
and we must hold them in contempt of Congress because of that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
To my colleague from Maryland, I will argue this case any day of the
week, and I think that, ultimately, this will be resolved by the
courts. I have got stacks, like I said, of case law to support my
argument.
But to call what you just saw absurd, or a waste of time, I don't
think the American people think it is absurd to care about the crisis
at our southern border; the amount of illegal immigrants coming across
the border; the amount of fentanyl that is coming across the border
that is literally killing people in the interior.
Let's look at some numbers on this. Just last week, the CBP confirmed
[[Page H4224]]
more than 300,000 illegal immigrants evaded Border Patrol, just in the
last 6 months alone.
Alarmingly, Border Patrol warned that the Biden border crisis is
already worsening in anticipation of the administration's rollback of
title 42.
You just heard 68 Republicans, plus the Republican leader, request to
consider legislation that will provide for stringent enforcement of
title 42, which allows illegal immigrants to be quickly expelled from
the United States.
But clearly, House Democrats aren't concerned about the biggest
migration crisis our Nation has ever faced. So let's try this another
way.
If we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an
amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act
of 2021.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote for the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the
bill's author. I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Herrell), my good friend.
Ms. HERRELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
that we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act,
which prevents the introduction of new COVID cases, as well as other
infectious diseases, from our land and sea borders with Canada and
Mexico.
This was the very first bill I introduced when I came to Congress,
and recent events have proved it to be the most important ever.
Just this week, The New York Times warned readers to prepare for a
new wave of COVID. We also can prepare for a new wave of migrants,
about 18,000 a day, when they take title 42 away.
The Biden administration has consistently advocated mandates,
masking, lockdowns, and other extreme measures on our American
citizens. Yet, they ignore the single biggest danger for the new wave
of COVID to ravage America: unvetted, untested illegal aliens who are
allowed to flood our southern border, unhindered.
The Biden border crisis has exploded after 1 year under this
President. His administration demonizes the men and women of Border
Patrol and ICE, refuses to enforce immigration law or enhance border
security, and allows hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants to
disappear into the mainland without vetting.
There were 165,000 encounters at our southern border in February, and
we are on track to hit 2 million in fiscal year 2022.
Despite this clear and present danger to the people of the United
States and the integrity of our borders, the Biden administration still
seeks to throw away the few tools available to fix the situation, like
remain in Mexico and title 42.
Title 42 has been an effective containment and mitigation strategy,
resulting in the reduced introduction of COVID-19 into the U.S. from
outside our borders, by making it easier to turn away illegal aliens
traveling from or through countries with continuing COVID cases.
My PAUSE Act would keep title 42 in place until: All State and
Federal mandates, requirements, and limitations related to COVID end;
all public health emergencies for COVID are over; and the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention reduces the traveler health risk level
for Canada and Mexico to level 1, which they are currently level 3.
Eliminating title 42 at this point is reckless and harmful to our
national security and our communities. It will lead to more illegal
immigration, more drugs, and more hardship on everyday Americans.
I urge my colleagues to support the PAUSE Act, preserve title 42, and
stand up to protect both the health and borders of the American people.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I wanted to go back to something else that the minority leader said
in echo of the minority floor leader's points.
They cling to the suggestion that there is no valid legislative
purpose being conducted by the January 6th Select Committee; and they
also say it is unlawfully composed.
Well, that has been rejected by several courts. In fact, all of the
arguments that they are making have been rejected by the courts. I
don't think they have won a single case in court yet.
But check out Budowich v. Pelosi with Judge Boasberg, or Eastman v.
Thompson, where these courts said, not only is there a valid
legislative purpose, but this is the quintessential legislative
purpose; that is, guaranteeing the preservation of democratic self-
government. If it is not a valid legislative purpose to investigate
violent attacks, insurrections, and attempted coups against the
government of the United States, then what is a valid purpose? The
courts have said, the courts have got that right. They have written
opinions.
I guess we are going to have to send a copy to the minority leader
because he is apparently oblivious to it.
But even without the courts slapping down everything they are saying
over there, just think about it. Would they really want to say that if
there are violent attacks taking place against the Capitol we can't
investigate it?
The Eastman decision also rejected the claim that we are somehow
unlawfully composed.
I have got to say something on behalf of Representative Liz Cheney,
who I probably disagree with on 90 percent of the issues we vote on
here. But she was just maligned and castigated by the minority leader
in an utterly unfair way.
She has operated with nothing but patriotism for this country and
constitutional patriotism for the rule of law and the processes that
define us. And they can overthrow her as the head of their caucus
because she doesn't bow down on the altar of Donald Trump and Vladimir
Putin the way that the gentlewoman from Georgia was heckling me does.
And they can attack her because she thinks for herself and doesn't act
like a cult member.
But we won't do that, even though we disagree with her on a lot of
issues, but she is a constitutional patriot, and I feel she is owed an
apology.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Ben Shapiro says the ``facts don't care about your feelings,'' and
they don't. And I will say this: The case law doesn't care about what
your political position is.
So if you want to talk about more case law, how about Trump v.
Thompson, 2022, Justice Kavanaugh ruled: ``A former President must be
able to successfully invoke the Presidential communications privilege
for communications that occurred during his Presidency, even if the
current President does not support the privilege claim.''
I have got more and more case law that I could produce. But let's
just go back to the fact that this select committee is a partisan
political hit job. If this really had a legitimate legislative
function, then let me ask you this: Where are the subpoenas for the
former House Sergeant at Arms and the former head of the D.C. National
Guard? We haven't seen those subpoenas.
What about questions and subpoenas that are designed to elicit
information about why this Capitol was left unprepared and how to
prevent it from happening again? That would be a legitimate legislative
function.
What we are seeing is this committee masquerading as if it is some
kind of grand jury, which is wholly inappropriate and a violation of
the separation of powers.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State
of Texas (Mr. Roy), to talk more about this.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. The
gentleman from Maryland, my friend, raised some issues about saying
that we are wasting time when we have stunts, he called them, I think,
or I am paraphrasing.
So here I am, and I am going to be talking about an important issue
which, I assume, might be labeled as a
[[Page H4225]]
stunt, to say that I oppose the previous question because there is
something for me that is so critical and so existential to the people I
represent in the State of Texas and to the people across this country,
which is the decision by the CDC, in conjunction with the Department of
Homeland Security Secretary, and the President of the United States, to
end title 42 enforcement on the border of the United States.
Now, our mutual colleague and friend who was in the chair, and the
Speaker from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, who is on the Judiciary Committee,
raised the issue about the imminent harm that may befall us because of
the continued and new strains of COVID in April.
Well, if that is true, why would the CDC say that we should stop
enforcement of title 42 at our border?
We have 8,000 people a day coming across the border of the United
States and being apprehended; 8,000. Half of those are being turned
away under title 42. The estimates by Border Patrol experts are that
those numbers will swell to over 10,000, maybe as high as 15 to 18,000,
when you get to the summer months.
And when that happens, and you stop enforcing title 42, then all of
those individuals will be released into the United States.
{time} 1430
That is a major problem because it is not just the numbers
themselves; it is the consequences. When Border Patrol is processing
individuals because of the failed policies of the administration, it
means that you have, as we saw last year, half a million people who
were known got-aways because Border Patrol is now at the locations to
process individuals.
Then you have known got-aways, which means you have massive numbers
of people coming here with criminal records from places all over the
world, 150 to 160 countries, including dangerous individuals from known
terrorist states.
The point here is that we have legislation for this body, the
people's House, to require title 42 to be enforced. Yvette Herrell, my
colleague from New Mexico, introduced that last February. I filed a
discharge petition for that bill last April because, for the people
watching at home, the Speaker of the House controls the floor, and my
Democratic colleagues control the floor. The only way we have power to
change that is through a discharge petition. We have 211 signatures. We
have all Republicans, I think save maybe one, who have signed the
discharge petition.
We are asking our Democratic colleagues to join us in defense of the
United States to call up this discharge petition so we can have a
debate on title 42 and securing the border of the United States, which
is what that conga line was all about: trying to protect our country.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman goes, I want to tell the gentleman
from Texas that I would never accuse him of performing a stunt. I was
referring to the people who should have been in the Homeland Security
Committee hearing actually dealing with the issue they profess to be
talking about here on the floor under completely different auspices.
Let me go back to the questions offered by my distinguished friend
from Pennsylvania who said, well, if they really did have a valid
legislative purpose, as all these courts are saying, then they would be
talking to the former Sergeant at Arms--well, we have--and we would be
talking to the National Guard--we have.
Somebody is going to have to dust off the talking points over on that
side because we have heard from more than 800 people who were involved.
This has nothing to do with any kind of ideological witch hunt; this
has to do with an assault on American democratic institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
Mrs. CAMMACK. Mr. Speaker, I am here today to rise in support of
ordering the previous question on Congresswoman Herrell's bill, the
SHIELD Act, that would stop the Biden administration from ending title
42, the very necessary public health order used by CBP officials at the
southwest border.
Since President Biden took office in January of last year, Customs
and Border Protection have encountered over 2 million illegal
immigrants at the southern border. This number is more than at any
other time during the Trump administration and still continues to
astonish those of us who have actually visited the border to see what
is happening there.
Unlike the trafficker in chief, who would rather retreat to his beach
house in Delaware than face the American people, or the so-called
border czar, who visited El Paso once and figured that that was good
enough, I myself have been to the border three times to see this crisis
for myself. In fact, over 70 percent of my Republican colleagues have
been to see the tragic crisis unfolding there.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I have followed this
issue from the very beginning and have feared the very day when title
42 would be rescinded for political purposes.
Speaking of political purposes, I find it exceptionally hypocritical
that this very Chamber is still utilizing proxy voting under the guise
of a public health concern. In fact, on March 29, the Speaker extended
proxy voting through May 14 of this year because of ``the ongoing
public health crisis.''
It is curious that the Speaker doesn't seem to think that our own
border being overrun by 2 million undocumented people has no bearing on
the safety of the general American public, but a Congress of 435
Members with an 80 percent vaccination rate seems to qualify for an
``ongoing public health crisis.'' That, to me, screams hypocrisy.
Furthermore, there are Members of this Chamber who have been voting
``present'' via proxy. The hypocrisy and the irony are not lost on me
nor the American people, Mr. Speaker.
Additionally, every single one of my colleagues who decided to show
up here today had to wear a mask to get on a plane. That mandate is
still in place due to the ongoing public health crisis.
Mr. Speaker, we have two very clear instances here in this Chamber
where the ``ongoing public health crisis'' is used as a justification
for policy decisions. Why not the safety, then, for all Americans and
our communities across this country by securing the border? Why not
uphold and keep title 42 in place?
If you have ever spoken to a CBP officer or a Border Patrol agent,
they will tell you that title 42 is necessary, that ending it will send
even more people to the southern border. It is a magnet.
Ending it will prolong the crisis. It will grow the crisis. It will
once and for all put an end to national security as we know it.
Take it from the wife of a first responder who deals with this crisis
every single day. I have had dozens of Border Patrol agents text and
call me the last few days, begging for help to hold the line on title
42. They have said: Please, Congress, hold the line on title 42. It
must be protected because it is the only policy in place currently
that, in the slightest, will slow this surge that we have watched grow
before our eyes.
If you stand with our Border Patrol agents, if you stand with the
American people, if you give a damn about our communities, then you
will support the SHIELD Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from
engaging in personalities toward the President.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Katko), the ranking member of the Homeland Security
Committee.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous
question and in support of H.R. 471, the Protecting Americans from
Unnecessary Spread upon Entry from COVID-19 Act, the PAUSE Act.
This week, I joined Leader McCarthy and several of my colleagues at a
meeting with the National Border Patrol Council, representatives of
18,000 members of the Border Patrol, to discuss the crisis at the
southern border.
Just as we predicted, the number of daily border encounters has been
trending dramatically upward since
[[Page H4226]]
President Biden took office in 2021. The administration has created an
untenable situation from which it may take several years, at a minimum,
to recover.
The irresponsible decision to roll back Title 42, the Public Health
and Welfare authority; the halting of border wall construction; the
lack of support for frontline law enforcement personnel; the
undermining of the Migrant Protection Protocols; and the total absence
of a long-term border security plan of any sort have only made matters
worse.
The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is now seeing over 7,000
encounters daily, and the Department of Homeland Security is said to be
bracing for a significant mass influx of nearly 18,000 migrants daily
when title 42 ends. That is absolutely an untenable situation.
As the U.S. finally gets a handle on managing the spread of new
variants and moves steadily toward a post-pandemic recovery, now is not
the time to end the use of title 42 and jeopardize all that progress,
especially as numerous countries continue to struggle with the rapid
spread of COVID-19 and strengthening variants.
The very purpose of title 42 is to prevent the introduction of
dangerous communicable diseases into American communities. We should be
doubling down on protecting our communities and economy from these
threats, not weakening them.
Our border security and immigration system cannot handle any more
pull factors, as the Biden administration has proven unwilling to
secure our southern border. As we are witnessing, the administration
continues to strip every tool for managing the border crisis away from
frontline law enforcement.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, transnational criminal organizations and drug
cartels are taking full advantage by highlighting the weak border
security posture of the administration while profiting from this
crisis. The administration continues to roll back commonsense border
security measures, thereby feeding into a false narrative for would-be
migrants and encouraging them to come to the United States to seek
asylum.
Many migrants who make this dangerous journey to the United States
will not be eligible under the Federal law for asylum, forcing them to
seek other ways to enter the United States.
We know for a fact that cartels control who crosses the U.S.-Mexico
border. They charge migrants exorbitant fees knowing that some will
never be able to repay, leading many of the migrants with only one
option: to work off their fees.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, this work often leads them into a trafficking
situation here in the United States.
Drugs, such as fentanyl, methamphetamine, and other fentanyl-laced
drugs, are pouring across the southern border and destroying our
communities and ending the lives of thousands of Americans every year.
This year alone, for the first time, more than 100,000 Americans died
of drug overdoses. That is directly related to the border. It has to
stop.
I appreciate the focus of my colleagues on this critical homeland
security issue, especially my colleague from New Mexico, who knows
firsthand the impact the border crisis is having on our communities.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, before the gentleman leaves, I want to say a word about
the distinguished gentleman from New York. We are all blessed to have
Mr. Katko as a colleague. He is a brilliant lawyer and a man of
exceptional character and honor.
He was the one who had been tasked by the minority leader to
negotiate with the majority about creating an independent commission to
investigate the assault on American democracy that took place on
January 6. He was given very specific instructions, and he came back a
winner. He had gotten an agreement for five Republicans and five
Democrats, equal subpoena power right down the middle.
Alas for his caucus, alas for this Congress, alas for the country,
the leadership pulled the rug out from beneath him.
We are going to be very sorry to see Mr. Katko leave Congress at the
end of this session. We will all be impoverished by his absence.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop).
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, behold the nonpartisan
nature of the January 6th Committee. It puzzles me why it would have
been so different had the allegedly bipartisan commission been
approved.
In fact, in the January 6th Committee's markup on the contempt
resolutions, the grand inquisitor said, in opening: ``I can say
confidently that the many involved in the run-up to January 6, an oath,
a statement of fidelity to our democracy, was nothing more to them than
meaningless words. I fear what happens if those people are again given
the reins of power.'' This sums up the purpose of the January 6
inquisition in a way that is both cogent and terrifying.
What the January 6th Committee lacks in bona fide legislative
purpose, not patina of legislative purpose but bona fide legislative
purpose, it makes up for in pure political vendetta. This investigation
isn't about truth or democracy; it is a pure political power play.
The immediate target is President Trump, but the ultimate target is
those people--namely, the millions of Americans--who voted for
President Trump.
Why is there no dissent from this objective on this committee? Well,
because the only Members nominally representative of the minority,
chosen by the majority Speaker over the objection of the minority,
share the political objectives of the grand inquisitor.
Accordingly, Liz Cheney said during the January 6th Committee markup
of these contempt resolutions: ``Our committee will continue to
litigate to obtain the testimony we need.'' What need? To inform what
legislative purpose does the committee need to obtain the RNC's
contributor data and information, to discover who opened its emails and
clicked through to donation pages?
On the other hand, it could serve her purpose to demonize her
political opponents, especially those who donate to President Trump.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, it is common for the
zealot to lose the capacity for irony. Hence, Chairman Thompson says
that laws prohibit doing politics on the clock: ``It is important that
taxpayer dollars don't support political activity.''
Ms. Cheney waves the Constitution even while she poses as the
designee of the minority, imposed on the minority in a historically
unprecedented trampling of the institutional norms. This is a kangaroo
court, a court of the star chamber.
They continue to trample the concepts and the institutional norms of
the Congress, and I am certain that the American people will have an
answer for it very soon.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, the people of the United States deserve
to know the truth. With all the ranting of my friends across the aisle,
the Constitution indicates that this Nation was formed to create a more
perfect Union.
{time} 1445
There were those who incited January 6. There were those who
surrounded President Trump who did nothing to stop the violence and
terrorism of January 6. If witnesses come before a duly authorized
bipartisan committee and refuse to provide the American people with the
truth, then we need to stand here and provide them with a contempt
order so that the truth can be found.
[[Page H4227]]
Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in voting for this
contempt order for the truth for the American people and the sanctity
of the Constitution.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I just want to check if there are any
further speakers that my friend from across the aisle has.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I have no further
speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I consider the gentleman across the aisle a
friend, and it is certainly an honor and a privilege to debate law with
him given the fact that he is a renowned constitutional law expert. I
mean that sincerely. It is fun being up here with the gentleman. So
knowing that he has the last word, I do just have to cite one more case
for my good friend.
I just keep going back to the Trump v. Thompson where Justice
Kavanaugh said that there are only two very narrow exceptions to this
privilege. Number one, which can be found in United States v. Nixon,
relates to a pending criminal trial. There is no pending criminal trial
here. That exception is not applicable.
The second narrow exception is one found in Senate Select Committee
v. Nixon. In there, it is whether the subpoenaed evidence is
demonstrably critical to the responsible fulfillment of a committee's
function. I am quoting the precedent here. That case law goes on to
state that there are clear differences between Congress' legislative
tasks and the responsibility of a grand jury.
He went on further to describe that Congress frequently legislates on
the basis of conflicting information provided in its hearings all the
time. So I would submit that that exception does not apply either.
Reasonable minds can differ, but I am very confident that the case law
here supports the case of Mr. Scavino.
With that said, the law notwithstanding, it seems that my friends
across the aisle have proven time and time again that they don't care
about the separation of powers, they don't care about the protection of
our constitutional rights, and they don't even care about the rules of
the House. They only do if those items fit a political narrative.
It is very clear to me that from the Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol's treatment of Mr.
Scavino and from the resolution before us today that they would prefer
to keep up their political theater rather than conduct a legitimate
congressional investigation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I do want to thank my friend from
Pennsylvania. Sometimes when I hear him in the committee, I think about
another great Republican who served in the House of Representatives
from Pennsylvania, Thaddeus Stevens. But today, my friend let me down a
little bit because Thaddeus Stevens was a great enemy of insurrection
and rebellion. He led the forces in this Congress who insisted upon
accountability for the people who would dare wage war against the
Congress of the United States and against the Union and the people who
were all elected to serve and to represent.
Justice Kavanaugh, of course, was not ruling in the case that my good
friend cited before. He was just opining. There was no ruling there. So
that was one Justice's opinion.
My friend cuts me to the quick when he says that we don't care about
the separation of powers. I think I am going to have to turn that
insult around and say that they don't care about the separation of
powers because the executive privilege of the Supreme Court has
repeatedly held, going all the way back to 1953, in a case called the
United States v. Reynolds that the executive privilege may be invoked
only by the President of the United States.
And this President of the United States, who represents the Article
II branch, has said he is not invoking it on behalf of Scavino or
Navarro. He has rejected it.
The funny part is that the former President they talked about hasn't
even shown up to try to invoke it. And what they are talking about
doing could never be the subject of executive privilege anyway because
it is political activity, which is a crime under the Hatch Act. It is
criminal activity. It is a crime to engage in insurrection and coup.
How could executive privilege--even if you had a President who wanted
nothing more than to try to drape the activities of Scavino and Navarro
in executive privilege, how could that President ever prove that it
applied? Navarro's job, for example, was the trade adviser. This has
nothing to do with trade. He was engaged in trying to overthrow a
Presidential election, as Judge Carter said last week.
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of the utmost solemnity and seriousness
to the American people. We are talking about the survival of American
democratic government. For most of human history, people have lived
under people like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, the kings, the
queens, the dictators, the tyrants, and the bullies whom some people
would want to flatter.
But we have something else going on here in America. We have got a
project in democratic self-government. Lincoln knew how tenuous it was.
He asked whether government of the people, by the people, and for the
people shall last or shall perish from the Earth.
That is the question facing us, too. So let's deal with all the
issues and controversies we want. But couldn't we get together and all
stand up for the institutions of the country?
We are doing that in our committee, which is bipartisan. I fear that
sometimes we are moving into a Democratic/Republican caucus in Congress
and a Trump caucus. There are those of us, like Ms. Cheney, like Mr.
Kinzinger, and like Mr. Thompson on the committee, who want to work
together to get to the bottom of this and then to deal with the
problems of the country. And then there are those, like the minority
leader, who will follow the will of Donald Trump if he says he doesn't
want any investigation at all.
I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is where we are today. These two
witnesses have acted with contempt towards Congress and the American
people. We must hold them in contempt of Congress and the American
people.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for consideration of yet
another Contempt of Congress resolution that has no purpose other than
to punish. If the January 6th Select Committee wanted to actually
compel production of the documents and records they subpoenaed, they
would instead be suing for civil enforcement. But that takes time, and
there are only eight months left before these subpoenas expire.
Congressional Committees may conduct investigations in pursuit of a
legislative purpose. I ask: What legislative purpose would be served by
referring Peter Navarro and Daniel Scavino for criminal Contempt of
Congress rather than suing for civil enforcement?
Additionally, the question of executive privilege is not legally
settled. President Biden has stated he would not grant executive
privilege regarding Mr. Scavino's testimony, but the Presidential
Records Act governs presidential records, not the testimony of aides to
former presidents. The committee also demanded ridiculous compliance
timelines in requests to Mr. Scavino, further indicating a lack of
willingness to undertake a legitimate and thorough investigation.
As we get closer to the end of the year, will the Select Committee go
straight to recommending Contempt of Congress for every subpoenaed
individual that requests accommodations or an extended timeline?
I urge a no vote on this misguided resolution.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as
follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 1023
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. 471) to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human
Services from lessening the stringency of, and to prohibit
the Secretary of Homeland Security from ceasing or lessening
implementation of, the COVID-19 border health provisions
through the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, and for other
purposes. 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
[[Page H4228]]
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 471.
Mr. RASKIN. 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.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the
previous question will be followed by a 5-minute vote on adoption of
the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 206, not voting 4, as follows:
[Roll No. 116]
YEAS--219
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)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
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
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
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--206
Aderholt
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
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
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
Guthrie
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)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
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
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
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)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--4
Allen
Castor (FL)
Guest
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1530
Messrs. JOHNSON of Ohio and FEENSTRA changed their vote from ``yea''
to ``nay.''
Messrs. SCOTT of Virginia and RUSH changed their 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
Bass (Beyer)
Bowman (Evans)
Cardenas (Soto)
Castro (TX) (Correa)
Cawthorn (Gaetz)
Clark (MA) (Blunt Rochester)
Comer (Arrington)
Connolly (Wexton)
Cooper (Correa)
Crawford (Long)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Correa)
Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
Gomez (Soto)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Harder (CA) (Correa)
Huffman (Stanton)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Joyce (OH) (Garbarino)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
LaTurner (Mann)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Mfume (Evans)
Newman (Garcia (IL))
Owens (Tenney)
Payne (Pallone)
Peters (Jeffries)
Porter (Wexton)
Price (NC) (Butterfield)
Roybal-Allard (Pallone)
Schiff (Beyer)
Scott, David (Jeffries)
Sires (Pallone)
Steube (Donalds)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Taylor (Jackson)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. 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.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221,
nays 200, not voting 8, as follows:
[Roll No. 117]
YEAS--221
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)
Cartwright
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
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
[[Page H4229]]
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
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--200
Aderholt
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
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
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
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
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
Lamborn
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
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
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)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--8
Allen
Cohen
Crenshaw
Guest
Hice (GA)
Hollingsworth
Pence
Wilson (SC)
{time} 1542
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 for:
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, I was in a Helsinki Commission hearing. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 117.
Stated against:
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained in a committee
hearing and missed the final vote in the series. Had I been present, I
would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 117.
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I was not recorded for roll call vote 117.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 117.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Bass (Beyer)
Bowman (Evans)
Cardenas (Soto)
Castro (TX) (Correa)
Cawthorn (Gaetz)
Clark (MA) (Blunt Rochester)
Comer (Arrington)
Connolly (Wexton)
Cooper (Correa)
Crawford (Long)
Crist (Soto)
Cuellar (Correa)
Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
Gomez (Soto)
Grijalva (Stanton)
Harder (CA) (Correa)
Huffman (Stanton)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Joyce (OH) (Garbarino)
Kahele (Mrvan)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Mfume (Evans)
Newman (Garcia (IL))
Owens (Tenney)
Payne (Pallone)
Peters (Jeffries)
Porter (Wexton)
Price (NC) (Butterfield)
Roybal-Allard (Pallone)
Schiff (Beyer)
Scott, David (Jeffries)
Sires (Pallone)
Steube (Donalds)
Suozzi (Beyer)
Taylor (Jackson)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
____________________