[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)

                          ____________________