Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 108 (Friday, June 24, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 108 (Friday, June 24, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H5883-H5891]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO
S. 2938, JOSEPH WOODROW HATCHETT UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE AND FEDERAL
BUILDING; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE
AMENDMENT TO S. 2089, KEEP KIDS FED ACT OF 2022; RELATING TO
CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 4346, LEGISLATIVE BRANCH
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 1204 and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1204

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2938)
to designate the United States Courthouse and Federal
Building located at 111 North Adams Street in Tallahassee,
Florida, as the ``Joseph Woodrow Hatchett United States
Courthouse and Federal Building'', and for other purposes,
with the Senate amendments to the House amendment thereto,
and to consider in the House, without intervention of any
point of order, a single motion offered by the chair of the
Committee on the Judiciary or his designee that the House
concur in the Senate amendments to the House amendment. The
Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read.
The motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of
the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand
for division of the question.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (S. 2089) to
amend the Families First Coronavirus Response Act to extend
child nutrition waiver authority, and for other purposes,
with the Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and
to consider in the House, without intervention of any point
of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Education and Labor or his designee that the House concur in
the Senate amendment to the House amendment. The Senate
amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The
motion shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Education and Labor or their respective
designees. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening
motion.
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall
be considered to have taken from the Speaker's table the bill
(H.R. 4346) making appropriations for Legislative Branch for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other
purposes, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to have
concurred in the Senate amendment with an amendment
consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-53.
Sec. 4. House Resolution 1132 is hereby adopted.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the

[[Page H5884]]

customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs.
Fischbach), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, earlier today, the Rules Committee met
and reported a rule, House Resolution 1204, for two measures.
First, it provides for consideration of the Senate amendments to the
House amendment to S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The
rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
the Judiciary that the House concur in the Senate amendments. It
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
Second, the rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment
to the House amendment to S. 2089, the Keep Kids Fed Act of 2022. The
rule makes in order a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on
Education and Labor that the House concur in the Senate amendment and
provides 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
Finally, the rule deems passage of H. Res. 1132 and deems that the
House concur in the Senate amendment to H.R. 4346 with an amendment.
Madam Speaker, let me first say that I am so disappointed with where
this school meals extension landed. We had a bipartisan, bicameral
agreement in place, a measure that, in my opinion, didn't go far
enough. But I was willing to support it because we have a hunger cliff
looming in 6 days.
It passed the House yesterday by a vote of 376-42. Then, one Senator
decided to hold up the bill, a bill to give kids free meals over the
summer and provide administrative flexibilities and extra funding to
schools in the fall. The objection? A provision that gave free meals at
school for kids at 185 percent of poverty or below. For a family of
four, that is a family with a maximum total household income of just
over $50,000 a year.
What a rotten thing to do. I can't say the words I would like to use
on the House floor to describe just how callous this is, so let me just
say this: It takes a real jerk to take food out of the mouths of kids.
I am going to support this bill. The stakes are too high for us not
to support it, and there are a lot of good provisions in here,
provisions that extend the flexibilities and provide a reimbursement
rate increase to schools to help them continue serving kids nutritious
meals and extend universal free meals over the summer.
But I am going to continue fighting like hell at every chance to make
sure that every child gets a free breakfast and lunch as part of their
school day.
Food is a right. I believe it is a fundamental human right. And for
kids living in poverty, school meals are sometimes the only nutritious
food that they have access to.
I thank my friends, Chairman Scott and Chairwoman Stabenow, for their
work in averting the hunger cliff and getting free meals to kids this
summer. I thank Speaker Pelosi for her incredible leadership. I thank
Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for her persistence on this.
They are all dedicated to ending hunger, especially among children. I
am going to continue to work with them until we finally end hunger in
this country once and for all.
In addition, Madam Speaker, let me just say that this is a historic
moment. We are on the threshold of passing the first major overhaul of
Federal gun safety legislation in decades. This bill that we will soon
vote on will save lives, and it couldn't come at a more important time.
As the American people are demanding that we do more to prevent gun
violence, the Supreme Court is recklessly striking down gun safety laws
that have been on the books for over a century.
As the American people look to Congress to take action to prevent the
next mass shooting, House Republican leaders are caving to the gun
lobby, whipping against a bipartisan, bicameral agreement of
commonsense gun safety measures that an overwhelming majority of the
American people support.
Despite what you will hear on the floor today, the American people
get it. They know the terrible toll gun violence has taken on
communities all across this country: over 100 per day killed by guns;
more children killed with a gun in the last two decades than on-duty
police officers and Active-Duty military combined; the list of mass
shootings and tragedies grows longer and longer by the month.
Yet, if you talk to Republicans here in the House, you would think we
are living in an alternative universe. Just this week, most Republicans
voted down a bill to alert people when a mass shooting was happening
near them. Let me repeat that: Just this week, Republicans voted down a
bill to alert people when a mass shooting was happening near them.
Are you kidding me? What kind of people don't even want you to know
which way to run if there is a shooting nearby?
I am so sick and tired of the stranglehold that the gun lobby and
their blood money have on the Republican Party. Enough is enough. The
time has come for action. The time has come for us to put aside
politics and actually do the right thing.
I commend the many Republicans who have done just that. I don't think
I could agree with Senator Mitch McConnell on where to go to have
lunch, but he said that the Safer Communities Act is ``a commonsense
package of popular steps that will help make these horrifying incidents
less likely while fully upholding the Second Amendment rights of law-
abiding citizens.'' That is Mitch McConnell.

Senator Lindsey Graham--and we are polar opposites--said: ``The
legislation is not perfect, but we must not let the perfect become the
enemy of the good.'' That is Lindsey Graham.
Even here in the House, some courageous Republicans have said that
they will support this bill, like Congressman Tony Gonzales, who said:
``It is my duty to pass laws that never infringe on the Constitution
while protecting the lives of the innocent.''
The U.S. Senate is notorious for not being able to build consensus
around solutions to fix the most straightforward of problems, yet here
they have come up with a reasonable, bipartisan deal on a contentious
issue.
I think it is shameful, quite frankly, that GOP Leader McCarthy and
his team are parroting the gun lobby's talking points. But what I find
even more disappointing, frankly, are the crocodile tears about
bipartisanship from the GOP when they vote time and time again against
substantial bipartisan deals like this one.
Please spare us the lectures. Nothing in this bill is new. Nothing in
this bill is controversial. These ideas have been around for decades,
and they are what the American people want.
If people are worried about backlash back home, this is an
opportunity for you to correct the record. Go home and tell the truth
that this bill does nothing to infringe on the Second Amendment, and it
doesn't punish law-abiding gun owners.

{time} 0930

This country is crying out for action. Americans are begging us to
work together to protect our kids and our communities.
I know I am asking you to vote against your party's leadership. I
know that is a tough spot to put some of my Republican friends in. But
I think at the end of the day, you owe it to yourself to consider this
one idea: What if this bill stops even one mass shooting from
happening? Is a ``no'' vote worth the lives of your constituents?
Don't listen to those who are spreading crazy conspiracy theories,
saying that this is going to lead to everyone's guns getting taken
away. We hear it over and over and over again. Listen to your GOP
colleagues who helped write this bill and who passed it over in the
Senate. Listen to the American people who overwhelmingly support this
bill, and then listen to your conscience.

[[Page H5885]]

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank the Representative from Massachusetts and the distinguished
chair of the Rules Committee for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Madam Speaker, S. 2938, as amended in the Senate, is at its core an
effort to chip away at the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding
citizens. It has received no hearings, no committee process, and has
only recently been released in bill form for the public to review. It
came to us very early this morning after the Senate passed it late last
night, and my colleagues expect us to vote on this bill later today,
despite the egregious procedural violations. Unfortunately for the
American people, that is not a unique development here in Congress. I
am disappointed that this is the way the majority has chosen to proceed
with legislation, with no hearing and no public input.
The bill provides $750 million over 5 years in Federal Byrne JAG
grant funding to States for crisis intervention proceedings, including
State-level red flag programs. However, this bill fails to provide
explicit due process requirements. We have seen in places where red
flag laws have been adopted that these types of laws always infringe on
the constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners. This ambiguous
language contains insufficient guardrails to ensure that the money is
actually going toward keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or
preventing mass violence.
Vague red flag laws are ripe for abuse and can become extremely
dangerous. For example, a person could have just gotten out of an
abusive relationship and has a firearm to defend themselves against
their ex-partner. Their abusive partner could report this individual
and have their firearm taken away, putting the victim at even greater
risk.
This bill also includes provisions that will lead to enhanced
scrutiny of certain adults based on their age before they can exercise
their constitutionally guaranteed rights. There are no other
constitutional rights in which we require enhanced screenings of
certain adults based solely on their age.
There is also surprisingly little in this bill that actually focuses
on making our schools safer. The bill does nothing to help provide for
additional school resource officers. I suspect this is due to the fact
that some of my Democrat colleagues are still incapable of supporting
funding for additional law enforcement officers, even in our children's
schools.
Lastly, we know that this is just the tip of the iceberg. President
Biden and my Democrat colleagues have made it abundantly clear that
this is just a ``small step'' toward their larger gun-grabbing agenda.
The actions of this administration's Department of Justice, FBI, and
ATF have completely whittled away the confidence of gun-owning
Americans that the provisions in these bills will not be abused beyond
their stated scope.
House Republicans are committed to identifying and solving the root
causes of violent crimes and bolstering school security, but doing so
must not infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding
citizens. For example, just earlier this week, we voted on the
bipartisan Restoring Hope for Mental Health and Well-Being Act. This
bill contains the bulk of the mental health care provisions included in
the Senate bill, without infringing on Second Amendment rights.
In this case, the bill we are considering under this rule is not only
a blatant infringement on lawful gun owners' Second Amendment rights,
but an unnecessary duplication of the bipartisan work we have already
done.
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, I oppose the rule, ask Members to
do the same, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just say that it is a little frustrating to
kind of hear my colleagues imply that somehow we are moving too fast,
after decades of inaction, of doing absolutely nothing, after massacre
after massacre after massacre, doing nothing. Now we are being accused
of moving too fast.
Want to talk about the process? We have had countless hearings on gun
violence and on measures to combat gun violence in a variety of
committees here. We had a committee hold a hearing with a young girl
from Uvalde who told Members of Congress that she had to cover herself
with the blood of her dead classmate and pretend that she was dead in
order to escape being killed herself.
We have heard from law enforcement officials. We have heard from
grieving parents. Nothing in this bill is controversial. People have
seen--the text of this bill has been available since Tuesday. It is not
that complicated.
So when people say: Process, oh, we just need more time, and we
should do more hearings, and we should do this and we should do that--
no. I mean, this is put up or shut up time for all of us. This is an
opportunity that we cannot miss.
So the choice for Members on both sides is simple. I mean, we are
either going to do something--again, this is way more modest than
anything that I would suggest that we do. But we are either going to do
something, or we are going to do the same old same old, nothing.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, the American people know that we cannot
sit idly by and watch preventable gun deaths happen day after day, year
after year.
Over the past few weeks, I have heard from hundreds of constituents
of all ages and all walks of life who are demanding action to reduce
gun violence.
When our Framers gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution,
they were explicit about the purposes of that entire document: . . .
establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense''--not individual Armageddon--``promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.''
With those words, our Government was created to meet the needs of the
people.
But how can we meet the needs of the people if we don't take action
to prevent them from being gunned down in their schools, workplaces,
houses of worship, or neighborhood streets?
How can we be faithful to the purposes of the Constitution while
allowing the routine terrorization and slaughter of our children,
neighbors, teachers, doctors, and seniors?
I refuse to tell the American people, and particularly our children,
that they must be sacrificial lambs to a twisted theory of armed Second
Amendment liberty that defies the express purposes of our Constitution
by undermining the general welfare and destroying domestic tranquility.
The American people know, as well as we do, that the time is now to
act. The Safer Communities Act is a minimal first step in taking action
to keep our children and communities safe. But after 30 years of Senate
inaction, it is a step, and we know that it should not be the last.
Our children deserve a brighter future in which they can enjoy the
blessings of liberty, instead of being traumatized by active-shooter
drills and actual active shooters.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would just like to mention that my distinguished colleague
repeatedly talks about how this is not controversial. If it is not
controversial, then committee hearings held by the majority should not
be a problem. So I would ask again that we follow the procedures of the
House.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congressman Hudson's STOP
II Act, critical legislation that addresses two issues that both sides
of the aisle should be able to agree on, hardening for schools and
active-shooter training, law enforcement, and mental health funding.
I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the
Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote
on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
There was no objection.

[[Page H5886]]

Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, House Republicans are committed to
addressing the tragedy of these school shootings, but we cannot and
should not impede the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
This is not a matter of Democrat or Republican; it is a matter of what
is in the Constitution.
Congressman Hudson's legislation is something we can pass right now,
today, that will have immediate positive effects, keeping students safe
while getting Americans the mental health resources they need.
Many of these solutions are included in the bill we are considering
under the rule, but Congressman Hudson's solution achieves the same
outcome without infringing on our Second Amendment rights.
Madam Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Hudson), to speak further on the amendment.
Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so
that we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 7966, the STOP II,
Secure Every School and Protect our Nation's Children Act.
It is an honor to be here today. In fact, what an honor that the
people of North Carolina's Eighth Congressional District have bestowed
upon me to allow me to be their Representative here in the United
States Congress.
As I walked the Halls of this Capitol building this morning, I
couldn't help but think of the great American patriots who have served
here before us.
I think about the patriots who came before, who pledged their lives,
their property, and their sacred honor so that we could live in the
freedom and prosperity we enjoy today. People like Patrick Henry, who
famously said: ``Give me liberty or give me death.''
The courage of our Founders, the faith, the strength of their
convictions, the belief in an ideal--indeed, an idea--that all people
are endowed by our creator with certain unalienable rights. And they
devised a Constitution that protects and guarantees these rights. It is
an incredible thing to think about, the legacy they have left in the
hands of this, the 117th Congress. Each one of us swore an oath when we
accepted this office. It wasn't an oath to a person or a political
party. It was an oath to defend the Constitution.
The issue before us today is what can we do--no, what should we do
when faced with the challenge before us, this epidemic of children
taking the lives of other children in our schools?
Every single one of us grieves for the lives taken. As the father of
an elementary school child, my heart aches for the lives lost and the
unimaginable pain and grief felt by those who love them. Neither party
cares more about this. Neither political party has a monopoly on
wanting to do something.

That is why Republicans have come to the table with ideas that will
actually get to some of the root causes of this violence. More than 12
pieces of legislation have been introduced by Republican Members of
this House to strengthen background checks, to improve law enforcement
coordination and response, to address the mental health needs of our
children, to make schools safer, and to prevent this violence.
To date, my colleagues across the aisle have been unwilling to engage
with us, to seek consensus, to work together to solve this problem.
Just a few weeks ago, the majority party brought forth a package of
gun control measures. This legislation targeted the constitutional
rights of law-abiding citizens. This legislation did nothing to address
the security in our schools. It did nothing to provide better mental
health resources to improve the ability of school officials and law
enforcement to intervene with these children in crisis. But it did let
a lot of people around here feel better, because they could go home and
say: We did something.
Over in the Senate, they aren't even considering this reckless
package of bills. But Republicans and Democrats in the Senate did
attempt to work together to find a solution, and there are many things
that I like about this Senate legislation. In fact, I am flattered that
they use much of the mental health and school safety provisions from my
legislation. But as much as we feel the need to do something to tackle
this problem, we cannot forget that oath that we all took on the first
day of this Congress.

{time} 0945

Our highest calling as a Member of Congress is to defend the
Constitution. And that is where this legislation sent to us by the
Senate falls short. This open-ended gun control legislation opens the
door to Federal funding of State red flag laws. First of all, these
laws don't work.
Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a list of 12 mass shootings
that have taken place in States that already have red flag laws.

``Red Flag'' Failures

May 14, 2022, Buffalo, N.Y.
Payton S. Gedron, 10 fatalities
New York's ``Red Flag'' law went into effect August 24,
2019
May 26, 2021, San Jose, Calif.
Samuel Cassidy, 9 fatalities
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016
April 15, 2021, Indianapolis, Ind.
Brandon Scott Hole, 8 fatalities
Indiana's ``Red Flag'' law went into effect in 2005
March 31, 2021, Orange, Calif.
Aminadab Gaxiola Gonzalez, 4 fatalities
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016
March 22, 2021, Boulder, Colo.
Ahmad Al Aliwi Alissa, 10 fatalities
Colorado's ``Red Flag'' law went into effect January 2020
December 10, 2019, Jersey City, N.J.
David N. Anderson and Francine Graham, 4 fatalities
New Jersey's ``Red Flag'' law went into effect September 1,
2019
July 28, 2019, Gilroy, Calif.
Santino William LeGan, 3 fatalities, 12 injured
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016
February 15, 2019, Aurora, Ill.
Gary Martin, 5 fatalities
Illinois's ``Red Flag'' law went into effect January 1,
2019
January 23, 2019, Sebring, Fla.
Zephen A. Xaver, 5 fatalities
Florida's ``Red Flag'' law took effect March 2018
November 7, 2018, Thousand Oaks, Calif.
Ian David Long, 12 fatalities
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016
September 12, 2018, Bakersfield, Calif.
Javier Casarez, 5 fatalities
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016
November 14, 2017, Rancho Tehama, Calif.
Kevin Janson Neal, 5 fatalities
California's ``Red Flag'' law was enacted in 2016

Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, the State with the most mass shootings is
California. California has the most restrictive gun laws in America.
California already has a red flag law. But more important to this
debate, red flag laws subvert due process protections and threaten the
constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.
Why would we agree to borrow more money that we don't have so the
Federal Government can give it to States to enact laws that don't work
and that actually threaten the rights of our citizens?
Why would we do that?
Second, this legislation singles out law-abiding citizens under the
age of 21 by giving the government discretion to delay, for any reason,
their constitutionally protected right to a firearm--a right, by the
way, affirmed, yet again, by the Supreme Court just yesterday.
We all want to keep firearms out of the hands of people that
shouldn't have them, and I am willing to consider ways to better
identify people with mental health challenges, but I can't help but
think about that 20-year-old paratrooper stationed in Fort Bragg, North
Carolina.
Our Nation entrusted him to defend us with an automatic weapon or a
multimillion-dollar-weapon system, but we can't trust him with a
semiautomatic weapon to defend themselves in their own home?
What about the 20-year-old spouse back home in Spring Lake, North
Carolina, alone because our paratrooper has deployed in service of our
Nation. Are we to tell this spouse that the government doesn't trust
you to defend your home?
Instead, we are going to delay your purchase for 10 days. At the end
of the 10 days, the government doesn't even have to get back to the gun
owner or the gun store. Let that gun dealer decide if they want to take
a risk on selling you this firearm while an FBI investigation is still
open.
No, this is a de facto ban on gun sales to law-abiding citizens under
the age of 21.

[[Page H5887]]

Third, this legislation also broadens firearm prohibitions for
misdemeanors and nonviolent offenders. I think most of us can agree,
someone convicted of beating up their spouse ought to be put on the
background check system. The law extends this to misdemeanor assault on
a spouse or someone with whom you share a child. But we have to be
careful when we are talking about taking away a constitutionally
protected right over other misdemeanors.
The language of this bill is so broad it can include nonviolent
offenders, and I am concerned that the due process protections are
simply not there.
So what are we proposing today? Let's set aside these controversial
unconstitutional provisions that divide us. Let's unite around the idea
that we are going to tackle the real causes of this violence. These
school shootings are almost always done by a young male, often from a
single-parent or no-parent home. They have experienced some trauma in
their life. Most are likely on some behavioral medication, and they
have shown plenty of signs of being in crisis. Yet, effective
intervention and mental health treatment did not happen.
So let's start there. Today, I rise to propose we defeat this
previous question and replace the Senate language with H.R. 7966.
This legislation builds on the STOP School Violence Act signed into
law in 2018 by providing a billion dollars in grants to hire more
school resource officers. It provides $1 billion to hire mental health
guidance counselors so that schools have the resources to intervene
with these children in crisis.
Imagine, if we had been able to intervene with the shooter in Uvalde
before he dropped out of high school.
This legislation includes $5 billion to fund STOP School Violence
programs to make schools safer, to provide active shooter training to
law enforcement, and to better equip school officials and students and
law enforcement to intervene before one of these students reaches the
breaking point. This $7 billion is paid for by redirecting unspent
COVID-19 funds that have already been approved.
Also, under my legislation, schools can apply for a threat assessment
to identify weaknesses in their security and to assess the mental
health services at the school. We would also codify a clearinghouse at
Homeland Security to collect and share best practices for school
safety. These are practical, commonsense solutions that we should all
be able to agree will have a real impact.
Madam Speaker, I agree with my friend. Now is our moment. Today, we
can come together--Republicans and Democrats--and really address these
issues in a meaningful way. We can do this while at the same time
keeping the promise made by the sacrifice and the courage of our
Founders by upholding our pledge on the first day in office to defend
this Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous
question so we can immediately consider this important legislation. God
bless you.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Let me just say a couple of words in response to the gentleman from
North Carolina.
He just said that Democrats and Republicans should come together.
Well, they did. I mean, Mitch McConnell is a Republican. Lindsey Graham
is Republican. Tony Gonzalez is a Republican. I mean, Republicans and
Democrats have come together like they never have before on this issue.
Maybe my Republican friends ought to get together with their Republican
friends to try to work it out on their side. But Democrats and
Republicans have come together.
I am having trouble following the gentleman's logic when he basically
implies that if we can't do something to stop all shootings, then maybe
it is not worth doing anything. Nobody is saying that what we are doing
today will prevent every shooting. What we are saying today is that it
will prevent some. What we are saying today is it will protect lives.
In the aftermath of Uvalde and Buffalo, people all across this
country, regardless of their politics, were so horrified. They are
demanding that we act. Again, as I said at the outset, I would have
preferred that we do more. I understand that we can only get done what
we can get done in the reality in which we are living here in the
Congress; and in the Senate you need 10 Republicans to get permission
to have a cup of coffee. The fact of the matter is, there is a process
over there that has prevented even a debate on gun safety legislation
because of the filibuster. But a number of Republican Senators came
together because they listened to their constituents, and I think they
finally said we have to do something.

No one is saying this will stop every shooting, but under that logic,
why do we have fire departments?
We have fire departments but there are still fires.
Why do we have seatbelt laws?
There are seatbelt laws and there are still people that get killed in
car crash fatalities.
I mean, the bottom line is, we have them because they save some
lives, and it is worth it. As I said at the outset, for every item in
this bipartisan package there has been a hearing on at some point. None
of these ideas are new. So there has been a process.
But what I find particularly ironic is that as we are being lectured
about, oh, we need more time, we need more hearings, the gentlewoman
says that we should bring up the gentleman's bill and consider it
immediately with no hearings, with no process. I mean, I get whiplash
just trying to follow the logic of my friends from the other side.
Madam Speaker, the bottom line is either we are going to do
something, or we are not. And those who are arguing for delaying this
more and more and more are the same people who will never vote for it.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let my thank the chairman very much
for yielding, and for the expeditious way in which the Committee on
Rules realized that we are in crisis.
Let me just start by saying to stop the carnage and the bloodshed, I
rise in support of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act. And since I
know that this Congress has vision and it has passion to move, as well,
the Protect Our Kids Act as we go forward in the future.
I realize that this bipartisan effort is historic, particularly in
light of the Supreme Court decision which took history and literally
shredded the constitutional privileges of life and liberty by
suggesting that laws that under Heller were legal, could not be in
place. Legislation that is going to come before us will, in fact,
emphasize that we want to save lives.
Madam Speaker, I support this effort going forward because I want to
say to the grieving families of Buffalo, the grieving families of
Mother Emanuel, the grieving families in Uvalde, the parent who spoke
to me just two nights ago whose daughter bled out, that we are
listening.
I also rise today to support H. Res. 1132, which says to the world
that the United States Congress calls on the Government of Russia, the
Russian Federation, to immediately release Brittney Griner.
This bill was introduced by myself, Congressman Stanton and
Congressman Allred, because we realize this young woman who grew up and
was born in Houston, Texas, who, was a two-time Olympian, who is a
renowned WNBA player, is now wrongfully detained in Russia. She has had
a prolific collegiate career and went to Nimitz High School and Baylor
University.
She is someone who has been known to be generous in her community by
providing an outstanding program that helps young people. She has the
Heart and Soul Shoe Drive. She is an American's American.
We ask that you support this H. Res. 1132 to release Brittney Griner
now.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule which brings to the
floor S. 2938, the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, and H. Res. 1132,
``Calling for the immediate release of Brittney Griner''.
Both the bill and the resolution addressed by this rule advance
bedrock American values and priorities that are intrinsic to our
national character.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act provides reasonable, common-
sense measures to enhance safety and reduce gun violence that is
increasingly inflicting unspeakable pain and suffering on American
families.

[[Page H5888]]

I have never met an American who does not want to keep their children
safe, and especially protect them from gun violence. The bipartisan
nature of the bill emphasizes the universal desire to protect our
children and families.
When modest, reasonable measures can be taken to protect lives and
avert tragedy, it is our responsibility to embrace that opportunity.
The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will surely save lives. Even if
it prevents just one mass shooting--or even if it only saves one life--
its worth will be proven.
Consider what America would think if, without enactment of this bill,
children were murdered in a mass shooting, and it were determined that
the killer would have been prevented from their heinous acts if only
this bill had become law. For those families in mourning, Congress's
failure to act would be unforgiveable.
Instead, by advancing this legislation, we will be averting the most
painful tragedy that a family could experience, and many families will
be spared that devastation.
The bill's reasonable steps will have a positive impact on public
safety and family security for years to come.
H. Res. 1132, which is also addressed by this rule, calls for the
release of Brittney Griner and, in so doing, puts Congress on record
emphatically defending true American values such as our devotion to
human rights, respect and dignity for each person, the right to due
process, and justice based on truth.
Each of these have been offended by Russia unjustifiably holding
Griner, and by the Russian distortion of a judicial system that extends
her detention, preventing her release to return home, without a factual
or legal basis for doing so.
Brittney Griner, who grew up in Houston, Texas, is an extension of
all of us. She represents quintessential American stories and
qualities. The injustices inflicted upon her by Putin and his acolytes
in Russia could have been imposed on any Americans within their reach.
The denial of basic rights from Brittney offends all Americans
because they are rights to which we believe all people are entitled. We
do not accept the dehumanization that is commonplace in Russia, and our
values compel us to seek justice for Brittney, her immediate release,
and her return home to her family and friends.
As a mother who has raised a family, I can only imagine the gut-
wrenching pain that her parents, family, and friends must be feeling
right now. There is no worse feeling than when someone in your family
is in imminent danger and they are beyond your reach to help them.
As a Black woman, I can say there's no greater fear than having a
loved one being wrongfully placed in a situation or environment over
which there is no control.
For any of us, if we had a loved one placed in this situation, we
would be doing everything in our power to ensure their prompt and safe
return.
We would be calling and seeking the help of everyone possible--
including the media, the U.S. State Department, and even allies in
Russia.
We would press every politician and public figure to fight against
the corrupt government of Russia to ensure that our family member is
guaranteed their natural born rights to due process, a fair trial, and
a prompt release from detention.
No American citizen should be detained in a foreign country for
months, denied access to American consular officials, and dependent
upon the performance of a Russian lawyer, especially in absence of
substantial evidence of a crime.
Ms. Griner is suffering from Russia's heinous demonstration of power
and control that stems from centuries of bigotry and hatred embodied in
an autocratic leader who is the very antithesis of everything Ms.
Griner represents.
Ms. Griner's detention is primarily based on the country of her
citizenship, in a game of political leverage. Since she was targeted
because of being an American, every American should take this
personally. Her detention is an offense against our country, and
against our people.
Griner was detained on February 17, 2022, her initial release date
was set to be May 19th, it was then shifted to June 19th, and when that
date approached, it was delayed to July 2nd.
That is not justice--it's oppression. We call on Putin and the
Russian government to comply with their international treaty
obligations.
By passing the rule bringing H. Res. 1132 before us, Congress
insists, alongside the Griner family, that Brittney Griner must be
immediately and safely released and returned home to the U.S. We are
unified in demanding respectful treatment and justice for her, in
accordance with American values.
I also rise in support of the rule by which the House has passed H.
Res. 1132, ``Calling for the immediate release of Brittney Griner''.
A very important component of the rule currently before the House is
that it: ``Provides that House Resolution 1132 is hereby adopted.''
I fought hard for passage of H. Res. 1132, introduced by Congressman
Stanton, myself, and Congressman Allred, because, by raising our voices
for Brittney Griner, we raise our voices for bedrock American values
and priorities that are intrinsic to our national character.
H. Res. 1132 calls for the release of Brittney Griner and, in so
doing, puts Congress on record emphatically defending true American
values such as our devotion to human rights, respect and dignity for
each person, the right to due process, and justice based on truth.
Each of these have been offended by Russia unjustifiably holding
Griner, and by the Russian distortion of a judicial system that extends
her detention, preventing her release to return home, without a factual
or legal basis for doing so.
Brittney Griner, who grew up in Houston, Texas, is an extension of
all of us. She represents quintessential American stories and
qualities. The injustices inflicted upon her by Putin and his acolytes
in Russia could have been imposed on any Americans within their reach.
The denial of basic rights from Brittney offends all Americans
because they are rights to which we believe all people are entitled. We
do not accept the dehumanization that is commonplace in Russia, and our
values compel us to seek justice for Brittney, her immediate release,
and her return home to her family and friends.
As a mother who has raised a family, I can only imagine the gut-
wrenching pain that her parents, family, and friends must be feeling
right now. There is no worse feeling than when someone in your family
is in imminent danger and they are beyond your reach to help them.
As a Black woman, I can say there's no greater fear than having a
loved one being wrongfully placed in a situation or environment over
which there is no control.
For any of us, if we had a loved one placed in this situation, we
would be doing everything in our power to ensure their prompt and safe
return.
We would be calling and seeking the help of everyone possible--
including the media, the U.S. State Department, and even allies in
Russia.
We would press every politician and public figure to fight against
the corrupt government of Russia to ensure that our family member is
guaranteed their natural born rights to due process, a fair trial, and
a prompt release from detention.
No American citizen should be detained in a foreign country for
months, denied access to American consular officials, and dependent
upon the performance of a Russian lawyer, especially in absence of
substantial evidence of a crime.
Ms. Griner is suffering from Russia's heinous demonstration of power
and control that stems from centuries of bigotry and hatred embodied in
an autocratic leader who is the very antithesis of everything Ms.
Griner represents.
Ms. Griner's detention is primarily based on the country of her
citizenship, in a game of political leverage. Since she was targeted
because of being an American, every American should take this
personally. Her detention is an offense against our country, and
against our people.
Griner was detained on February 17, 2022, her initial release date
was set to be May 19th, it was then shifted to June 19th, and when that
date approached, it was delayed to July 2nd.
That is not justice--it's oppression. We call on Putin and the
Russian government to comply with their international treaty
obligations.
By passing the rule and adopting H. Res. 1132, the House insists,
alongside the Griner family, that Brittney Griner must be immediately
and safely released and returned home to the U.S.
We are unified in demanding respectful treatment and justice for her,
in accordance with American values.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I wanted to point out to the gentleman
from the Massachusetts that the majority solely holds the power to give
the bill a hearing. And I am sure I can speak on behalf of the
gentleman from North Carolina that he would be happy to be granted a
hearing on his bill and would love to have that done given that you are
in control of those hearings.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Weber).
Mr. WEBER of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding.
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to be here. This is a somber time.
Yes, the Senate has sent us something over

[[Page H5889]]

again that we never got to really look into before we have to vote in
the House.
Madam Speaker, I actually have a bill, H.R. 7909, that I think you
all would be interested if I had gotten to speak to it in the Committee
on Rules this morning.
It does three things: It says to our law enforcement retired
professionals if they want to get a part-time job as an armed resource
officer with the school district, they don't have to pay Social
Security, withholding taxes, FICA--none of that--that is so they don't
get thrown into a higher income tax bracket.
The second thing it does, is it allows schools to hire an absolute
professional, a retired law enforcement professional at a reduced rate,
because they don't have to match Social Security, withholding, and
FICA.
But third and most importantly what it does, is it gives the students
and the teachers and the staff of that facility, first-class armed
protection in that school system and in that school district so that
when and if this happens, they have got a professional there.
May 18, 2018. It was a Friday; 10 people were killed in Santa Fe High
School, in my district.
John Barns, a police officer, an unarmed police officer was there
within 3 minutes.
He came around to confront the gunman, and the gunman pretty much
eviscerated his right arm with a shotgun. Other police officers showed
up quickly.
Madam Speaker, we can do this with help to the school districts. We
can get armed professional police officers there to help protect our
schools, the kids, teachers, and the staff. It doesn't have to be about
violating the Second Amendment. It doesn't have to be about taking away
gun rights. This is one simple thing.
Madam Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to look at that bill, see
if they are interested in it because it is one way we can help.

{time} 1000

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I just want to take a moment to
recognize and thank a longtime Rules staffer who will be leaving us
next week for the Department of Commerce as their director of
legislative affairs.
Rose Laughlin, who is next to me, has been with the Rules Committee
for 8 years, starting as an intern with the late Congresswoman, Chair
Louise Slaughter. Rose was Ms. Slaughter's right-hand woman.
Rose, I know that Louise was terribly proud of all of your
accomplishments and your dedication to the people of this country.
Madam Speaker, I think it is fitting today that Rose is here because
this will be her last rule on the House floor. It is fitting that she
is here because this is a historic bipartisan measure on gun reform
that will actually make it to the President's desk. No one on this
committee has worked harder or more thoughtfully over the years for gun
reform than Rose.
Her dependable, resourceful, collaborative attitude has made this
work easier for us all. This institution, and those we serve, are
better off because of her dedication to public service.
Rose, you always will have a home here at the Capitol. We are going
to miss you, but we are excited about continuing to work with you in
your new role, and we are very proud of you.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, we join the chairman in wishing Rose
the best in her future endeavors. Thank you for that.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, House Republicans want to ensure that our schools and
communities are safe, but today the lack of hearings, the lack of
public input, and the lack of procedure offends our duty to our
constituents and our oath to defend the Constitution.
We are not willing to subvert constitutional rights of law-abiding
Americans, like this bill would do. There are solutions to prevent
tragedies like we have seen without affecting law-abiding gun owners.
We can pass those today, and that, both sides can agree on.
Unfortunately, the legislation provided under the rule attaches these
solutions to unconstitutional and misguided policies that are a ``small
step'' in the Democrats' broader gun control agenda.
Madam Speaker, I oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do the same. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and
Republicans, to vote for this bipartisan bill. It is not that long, and
people have had it since Tuesday. It has been posted since Tuesday.
As I said, it is not everything that I think needs to be done.
Certainly, it is not everything that we have passed in this House, but
it is a start. If we pass this and send it to the President for his
signature, and it becomes law, it will save lives. It is what the
American people want.
Madam Speaker, I have talked to so many families who have lost loved
ones to gun violence. I have watched the hearings in which grieving
parents and brothers and sisters have talked about how horrific it was
to lose a loved one to gun violence, begging us to do something so that
no other family has to go through that.
For years, all of those pleas have fallen on deaf ears. When we have
even tried to get anything done here, modest legislation, we send it
over to the Senate and couldn't get the 60 votes to even have a
discussion on the Senate floor. That just changed.
It changed, I think, because people are so horrified about what just
recently happened, but also what has been happening time and time again
in this country.
I know the question for everybody here is not about: Does this
violate the Second Amendment, or is this taking away guns from lawful
gun owners? It is not. That is all garbage. It really is. That is not
what this is about.
I get it. The gun lobby is making phone calls and threatening to hold
back checks if people somehow don't frustrate this bill so that it
can't get to the President's desk.
We were elected to help people and to protect people. In the Senate,
we have this remarkable bipartisan collaboration, and in the House, we
have Republicans who have supported sensible gun safety legislation.
Madam Speaker, I hope this is an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote in
the House. I know that it may not be because the leadership here has
urged Republican Members to oppose this. I regret that very much.
When people say that this is somehow a leftwing bill--I mean, Mitch
McConnell, Lindsey Graham? Give me a break. This is a truly bipartisan
bill. It is a compromise.
To suggest that we need more hearings on a bill on a compromise that
every single topic in this compromise has had hearings on before, to
suggest to do that by people who don't want this to move to begin with,
come on.
This is the put-up-or-shut-up moment for people here. We either do
something, or we are going to do nothing. We have been doing nothing
for years.
I urged in my opening that people think long and hard before they
vote. Consult your conscience.
I can't go back and talk to parents who lost loved ones to violence
and say: ``Oh, we tried, but it wasn't perfect.'' I could easily go
back and say: ``I wish it were bigger and more. It is not perfect, so I
am not going to support it.'' I am supporting this because it is
something, and it is going to save lives.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to please support this. I
urge a ``yes'' on the rule and a ``yes'' on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1204

Strike the first section after the resolving clause and insert the
following:

That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 7966) to provide for increased authorization of
funding to secure schools, 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 and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

[[Page H5890]]

the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit. Clause 1(c) of
rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 7966.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time and
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 204, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 297]

YEAS--218

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)
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
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
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--204

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
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
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
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
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack

NOT VOTING--7

Allen
Conway
Kinzinger
Pence
Price (NC)
Turner
Zeldin

{time} 1058

Mr. CHABOT changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. CLEAVER changed his 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

Allred (Gomez)
Auchincloss (Beyer)
Babin (Weber (TX))
Barr (McHenry)
Barragan (Correa)
Boebert (Bishop (NC))
Bonamici (Beyer)
Bourdeaux (Correa)
Bowman (Chu)
Brown (OH) (Stevens)
Bush (Williams (GA))
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (LA) (Williams (GA))
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Casten (Foster)
Cawthorn (Donalds)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Williams (GA))
Cohen (Beyer)
Costa (Correa)
Crist (Soto)
Davis, Danny K. (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
Espaillat (Correa)
Fletcher (Pallone)
Frankel, Lois (Kuster)
Garcia (IL) (Beyer)
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gosar (Weber (TX))
Gottheimer (Neguse)
Guest (Fleischmann)
Hartzler (Bacon)
Hayes (Neguse)
Hice (GA) (Bishop (NC))
Jacobs (NY) (Smucker)
Jayapal (Gomez)
Jeffries (Neguse)
Johnson (GA) (Williams (GA))
Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
Katko (Meijer)
Keating (Neguse)
Khanna (Ocasio-Cortez)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
LaMalfa (Van Duyne)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Manning (Bera)
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Stevens)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Neguse)
Pressley (Trahan)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Rogers (KY)
(Reschenthaler)
Rush (Neguse)
Salazar (Diaz-Balart)
Sires (Pallone)
Spartz (Harshbarger)
Stansbury (Stevens)
Strickland (Neguse)
Suozzi (Neguse)
Takano (Chu)
Taylor (Nehls)
Timmons (Wilson (SC))
Tlaib (Gomez)
Underwood (Neguse)
Van Drew
(Reschenthaler)
Walorski (Baird)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Williams (GA))
Wittman (Carl)
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.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 203, not voting 9, as follows:

[Roll No. 298]

YEAS--217

[[Page H5891]]

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
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--203

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
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
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
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack

NOT VOTING--9

Cawthorn
Cicilline
Conway
Donalds
Kinzinger
Pence
Price (NC)
Turner
Zeldin

{time} 1115

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

MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

Allred (Gomez)
Auchincloss (Beyer)
Babin (Weber (TX))
Barr (McHenry)
Barragan (Correa)
Boebert (Bishop (NC))
Bonamici (Beyer)
Bourdeaux (Correa)
Bowman (Chu)
Brown (OH) (Stevens)
Bush (Williams (GA))
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (LA) (Williams (GA))
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Casten (Foster)
Cherfilus-McCormick (Williams (GA))
Cohen (Beyer)
Costa (Correa)
Crist (Soto)
Davis, Danny K. (Gomez)
DeSaulnier (Beyer)
Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
Espaillat (Correa)
Fletcher (Pallone)
Frankel, Lois (Kuster)
Garcia (IL) (Beyer)
Gimenez (Waltz)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gottheimer (Neguse)
Guest (Fleischmann)
Hartzler (Bacon)
Hayes (Neguse)
Hice (GA) (Bishop (NC))
Jacobs (NY) (Smucker)
Jayapal (Gomez)
Jeffries (Neguse)
Johnson (GA) (Williams (GA))
Johnson (TX) (Stevens)
Katko (Meijer)
Keating (Neguse)
Khanna (Ocasio-Cortez)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Krishnamoorthi (Neguse)
LaMalfa (Van Duyne)
Lawson (FL) (Soto)
Manning (Bera)
McEachin (Beyer)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Moulton (Stevens)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Porter (Neguse)
Pressley (Trahan)
Rice (SC) (Meijer)
Rogers (KY)
(Reschenthaler)
Rush (Neguse)
Salazar (Diaz-Balart)
Sires (Pallone)
Spartz (Harshbarger)
Stansbury (Stevens)
Strickland (Neguse)
Suozzi (Neguse)
Takano (Chu)
Taylor (Nehls)
Timmons (Wilson (SC))
Tlaib (Gomez)
Underwood (Neguse)
Van Drew
(Reschenthaler)
Walorski (Baird)
Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wilson (FL) (Williams (GA))
Wittman (Carl)

____________________