Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 152 (Wednesday, September 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8022-H8030]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8873, PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REFORM
ACT

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1372 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1372

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8873) to
amend title 3, United States Code, to reform the process for
the counting of electoral votes, 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 House Administration or their respective
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Maryland is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam 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. 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 Maryland?
There was no objection.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a
rule, House Resolution 1372, providing for consideration of H.R. 8873,
the Presidential Election Reform Act, under a closed rule.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration, as well as one motion to recommit.
This bipartisan legislation, brought forward by Ms. Lofgren and Ms.
Cheney of Wyoming, is the product of more than 2 years of work by the
Committee on House Administration and more than a year and a half of
deliberations and investigation by the January 6th Select Committee.
The electoral college, of course, has been with us from the beginning
of the Republic. In a sense, this is legislation America has been
working on since 1887, for the last 135 years, because that was the
last time that Congress legislated to try to lend statutory coherence
and legislative direction to the provisions of the Constitution
governing the electoral college.
The electoral college, as you know, Madam Speaker, is a Byzantine,
complex, and multifaceted institution, but it is clear, in the wake of
the debacle of January 6, 2021, that we must modernize it, update it,
and make it work as well as possible for as long as we have it.
That is why both supporters of the electoral college system and those
who would replace it with a national popular vote for President, and
that is a camp I am in, a camp that represents around two-thirds of the
American people, are strongly supporting this legislation and should be
supporting this legislation in order to clarify the mechanisms of our
Presidential election process.
First of all, this legislation reaffirms that the Vice President's
role at the count of the electoral college electors on January 6 is a
ministerial role and does not include any substantive authority to
count or reject or dismiss or nullify or vaporize electoral college
votes sent in by the States, nor does the Vice President have any
independent, substantive power to halt or delay the joint session or to
return electoral college votes to the States.
We believe there was never any ambiguity about that. Former President
Trump was told there was no ambiguity about it by his own Vice
President, by his White House counsel, by the Attorney General of the
United States, yet insisted that there was some kind of ambiguity and
wiggle room for the Vice President to step outside of his assigned
constitutional role and simply declare the electoral college votes of
certain States, including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania, null and
void and return them to the legislatures of those States for some
undefined further action.
All of that is clearly outside the history of the electoral college
and what is contemplated constitutionally. We clarify that in this
legislation.
Moreover, the current provisions in the Electoral Count Act governing
objections brought forward to the receipt of electoral college votes
from particular States would be changed in this legislation.
Under the current rules, all it takes is a Member of the House and a
Member of the Senate to bring an objection

[[Page H8023]]

to the receipt of electoral college votes from a State. That would be
changed to a requirement, under this act, of one-third of the House and
one-third of the Senate together raising an objection, obviously
meaning that this could not be done for purely fanciful purposes. There
would have to be a substantial body of Members in both Chambers who
agree that there is a serious objection being made.
By the way, the Senate proposal differs slightly in that they are
suggesting a one-fifth requirement on both sides as opposed to the one-
third requirement that is being advanced in this legislation.
Furthermore, the rules in this statute define explicitly the
constitutional grounds upon which an objection to electoral college
votes can be made. These objections are limited to a very narrow set of
discrete issues that are grounded in the constitutional text of the
12th Amendment or other parts of the Constitution, such as whether an
elector has voted for two candidates from the elector's own State,
which is clearly in violation of the 12th Amendment.
The rules also clarify the denominator, or the method of calculating
the whole number of electors that have been cast for the purpose of
winning a Presidential election.
Our counting rules would also clarify the applicable parliamentary
procedure at the count, ensuring that strategic bad faith actors are
unable to exploit procedural loopholes in an effort to delay or subvert
the count.
Confusion has plagued electoral counts in Congress at different
points in our history, almost since the beginning of the Republic. We
are confident that under this bill, future counts will be far more
orderly and ministerial in nature, even during controversial elections,
and will act simply to certify the choice of the American people as
expressed through the State elections, which is the full extent of
Congress' counting role under the Constitution.
We want to make sure that Congress does not pretend to arrogate to
itself the power to decide who is going to be the President. The role
of Congress is simply to count the electoral college votes that have
come in. Maybe if I get a moment later, I can get into a little more
specificity about the grounds for objection.

There is also clarification of when a State's Presidential election
can be extended in case of a truly catastrophic event. Today's Federal
law allows a State legislature to appoint electors by itself if a State
has had a failure to elect at its November election. That very vague
provision is dangerous, dangerously unclear, and it was targeted by
former President Trump's supporters in 2020.
Our legislation provides, instead, that voting in a State's
Presidential election can only be extended if a State experiences a
genuinely catastrophic event, which we define specifically with respect
to natural disasters and terrorist attacks and like calamities. The
event must also be widespread enough to potentially affect the outcome
of the State's election. All of this is mediated judicially by
appearance before a Federal court. Any extension may only cover the
area that was directly affected by the event, and any extension cannot
last longer than 5 days after election day.
We know that a provision like this is, unfortunately, necessary. The
September 11 terror attacks on America occurred on primary election day
in New York City, and Hurricane Sandy in 2012 very nearly derailed New
York and New Jersey's Presidential elections that year. We are
confident that our bill ensures that Federal law will account for
unforeseen emergencies in future Presidential elections.
There are other provisions that I hope to get into in a little more
detail, but I close, Madam Speaker, just by saying that this is an
absolutely necessary and urgent update of the Electoral Count Act,
which hasn't been touched since 1887.
We saw in January 2021 how some of the imperfections in the current
process can be exploited by actors who are determined to derail the
electoral college counting process or, indeed, overthrow the whole
election. We want to do whatever we can, within the confines of the
electoral college system, in this legislation to improve the situation
and to prepare for the next Presidential election.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

{time} 1230

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman
and my good friend from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of
H.R. 8873, which--let's just call it what it is--this is a partisan
messaging bill from my friends across the aisle.
My colleagues want to ram this bill through Congress to change the
way Presidential elections are conducted. H.R. 8873 is attempting to
reform the Electoral Count Act for the first time since 1887. This is
the first time in 135 years we are taking a look at this. Yet, despite
that, no hearings were held on this bill, and the text was introduced
just a mere 24 hours before it was presented in the Rules Committee
yesterday.
During testimony before the Rules Committee, the sponsor of the bill,
Chair Lofgren, mentioned repeatedly the lengthy process they undertook
to draft this bill, including consulting the country's leading so-
called experts. Yet, she did not bother to bring this legislation
before her own committee for consideration.
Given the majority's constant claims of democracy itself being under
attack, one would think that the Democratic Party and my colleagues
across the aisle would bring bills through the appropriate channels and
mechanisms. But my colleagues across the aisle will also try to tell
you that this bill is a reform, it is a reaction to the objections to
certifying the 2020 election. However, both sides of the aisle have
long used their legal authority to object to Presidential elections.
Notable individuals that have exercised this authority include no
other than Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi--and
that is just to name a few.
Again, they have all used this authority to object to Presidential
elections. Even our distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules,
and someone I consider a good friend, objected to the 2016 elections.
My other Rules Committee colleague and good friend from Maryland also
objected.
In fact, following the 2016 election, Democrats objected to
certifying the electoral votes of more States than Republicans did in
2021.
Following her loss to President Trump, Hillary Clinton continued to
attack the integrity of our democratic process by insisting ad nauseam
that President Trump was, ``an illegitimate President.''
Stacey Abrams--another great example--the current Georgia Democratic
gubernatorial nominee, has built a national brand on denying election
results and making baseless accusations of suppression and voter fraud.
She claimed that she won the 2018 election for Governor and has yet to
concede the 2018 race.
But we can go all the way back to 2005. Democrats objected in that
year to certifying Ohio's electoral votes with Senator Barbara Boxer
joining Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones to require a vote.
Madam Speaker, 31 Members of the House voted against certifying these
results; 12 of whom are still in Congress today, and I presume those 12
are now supporting this legislation, hypocritically. But this precedent
goes back even further than 2005 and 2001.
We can take this back to 1961 with President John F. Kennedy. JFK--
this is a great history lesson--drafted his own secret slate of
electors declaring himself the winner of Hawaii's electoral votes when
the State was originally called for Richard Nixon.
Let's just talk about today. Despite the history, today, the actual
purpose of this bill is nothing more than an attempt to federalize our
elections. This is a way to backdoor H.R. 1 into legislation.
This is nothing more than an attack on President Trump and the 2020
election, an attack on a man who has not been in office for nearly 2
years. This is about giving Congress unprecedented authority on how to
interpret State law, how to restrict State discretion, and how to
impose control on State election officials.

[[Page H8024]]

Madam Speaker, for those reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this
rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I was delighted to hear my friend offer those
comments. I am afraid I don't really understand his objection to this
legislation. He says we are trying to ram this through. After 135 years
of doing nothing about the Electoral Count Act, I guess you have to be
a true conservative to see 135 years as moving too quickly in reforming
the provisions of this very opaque, and in places, vague and
inscrutable language.
But in any event, the gentleman from Pennsylvania argues there have
been times that Members of both parties have raised objections in the
past. That is absolutely right. Both Republicans and Democrats have
made objections on the floor in the past. Obviously, none of the
objections attributed to those on our side had anything to do with a
violent assault on the institutions of the country or an attempt to get
the Vice President to step outside of his constitutional role, or other
efforts to conduct what has been called a political coup in the
country.
In any event, the gentleman is correct that there have been a lot of
objections raised. If that is your problem, then you should be
absolutely supporting this legislation because we are proposing to go
from a situation where any single Member can raise an objection if he
or she can get a Senator to join them, to a situation where you need a
third of the entire House of Representatives and a third of the entire
U.S. Senate before an objection can be raised. The objections can be
raised only according to very specific constitutional criteria. They
have to be grounded in the text of the Constitution.
For example, if a State has not been admitted yet, and yet is
purporting to offer electors, that would be grounds for rejecting it
and for adjusting the denominator. If there are attempts by electors to
vote for two people from the same State, which is clearly in violation
of the 12th Amendment, then that would be rejected.

Right now, anybody can object for any reason he or she wants. There
were people in 2021 who were running around talking about precinct
problems in particular States or claims of votes appearing in the
middle of the night.
Now, there was nothing to any of those. More than 60 Federal and
State courts rejected every claim of electoral fraud and corruption.
But in any event, that is not the job of the House of Representatives
to be out trying to police the counting of ballots in Pennsylvania or
Arizona or Georgia, or any other State.
All we are supposed to do is take the certificate of ascertainment
that is provided by the Governor based on the State legislature's
determination of what the vote is in the casting of the electors from
the State. So once that certificate of ascertainment comes in, our job
is to accept it.
Now, if someone tries to not comply with what the will of the State
really was--say, if a Governor says I disagree with how the people
voted, I am not going to turn it in--then that person can be taken to
court by one of the Presidential candidates, or both, or all of the
Presidential candidates, and can be ordered to comply with the
political will of the people of the State. If the Governor still
refuses to do it, then the Court is empowered to give it to another
appropriate official like the Secretary of State, who would then have
the authority to file the certificate of ascertainment with the
Congress of the United States and with the archivist.
So what we are trying to do is take, shall we say, an antique kind of
instrument, the electoral college, and we are trying to bring it up to
date, so it works for us in America in the 21st century. If your
objection is it is too easy for people of any party to object, I think
you totally should be supporting this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern), the very distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Rules, who I should say was very much with us on January 6. He was
there that night. He was the last person at the dais before we were
forced to evacuate from the Chamber.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my colleague from Pennsylvania mentioned
me by name in his speech. And I just want to say, because I think it is
important to clear things up, please do not compare my objections or
the objections of others in the past to what happened on January 6. It
is insulting.
Our objections were symbolic. What happened on January 6 was violent.
It was an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States of
America. It was an attempt to basically overturn the will of the
American people.
Madam Speaker, we are here today because democracy faces a crisis of
legitimacy, not just here at home, but around the world.
According to Freedom House, 2021 was the 16th consecutive year in
which more countries declined in freedom than gained. Democracy's reach
has ebbed and flowed through the decades, but it is clear that right
now we are in a democratic recession.
More countries are turning toward authoritarianism than ever before.
Countries we had thought were free are losing ground. Even the United
States, the global bastion of democracy, has been labeled a backsliding
democracy for the first time our history. This fact alone should set
off alarm bells in all of our heads.
I have seen what happens when democracies fall, and I have seen the
good that can come when the United States upholds democratic values
around the world.
We can't preach democracy abroad when democracy is under attack at
home. Because the deal is, there are people sowing the narrative that
democracies cannot handle the problems of this century. There are
people who advocate for authoritarian regimes that ignore the will of
the people. In the global struggle between democracy and autocracy,
these bad actors are a cold reminder that it isn't inevitable that
democracy prevails. We have to fight like hell to make sure that it
does.
Madam Speaker, all this is to say that the world is watching what we
do here today. We have to make a choice, and if we make the wrong one,
the consequences will be grave. No one is coming to save us. We have to
save ourselves.
The Presidential Elections Reform Act addresses some serious issues
with our Presidential elections. It used to be that our leaders would
respect the will of the voters--win or lose. In a functional democracy,
that is how it works. But now, people who don't like the results of an
election feel empowered to lie and reject those results--sometimes
violently.
The dismantling of our democracy won't happen all at once; it will
continue to erode bit by bit until one day we will look around and see
that it is too late. And the thing is, it starts with the elections.
Our elections are the keystone of our democracy. They are how the
will of the people becomes the action of the government. We have a
responsibility to shore up the institutions of our democracy against
the forces that seek to erode them.
The Presidential Election Reform Act gives us the opportunity to do
just that.
This bill is about strengthening democracy, prohibiting election
officials from refusing to certify elections, clarifying that the Vice
President can't just throw away electoral college votes, ensuring
States only send one accurate election certificate to Congress so we
don't see illegal, fraudulent slates of electors like we did in 2020.
These reforms will strengthen our elections and breathe life into our
democratic institutions. Perhaps equally as important, they will send a
signal to the world that American democracy is more resilient than the
forces that seek to subvert it.
Madam Speaker, I know that sometimes when we talk about things like
democracy or democratic institutions, it sounds abstract and lofty. Let
me be perfectly clear. There is nothing abstract about this.

If we cannot ensure free and fair elections, we cannot ensure a free
and fair society. We have to ask ourselves whether we believe our
country should be governed with force or with consent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page H8025]]

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, our government cannot work and our
democracy cannot survive if we fall on different sides of this
question. The choice we make matters. What we do here today matters.
This should not be partisan; it should not be controversial. We all
have a stake when it comes to the survival of our democracy. If you
believe that freedom and democracy are worth it and you believe in the
promise of what America can be, I implore you to vote in favor of the
Presidential Election Reform Act.
Vote like the future of our democracy depends on this bill, because
it does.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I would remind my colleague and good friend from
Massachusetts that he objected to Alabama in 2017, just like my good
friend from Maryland objected in 2017 to Florida.
Now, as far as this bill being rammed through, I would take a minute
to rebut the accusation that it hasn't been rammed through. It
absolutely was.
We were given almost exactly 24 hours to look at this bill before it
came to the Committee on Rules. When we had the hearing in the
Committee on Rules, to my knowledge, that was the only hearing that we
have had in the House because Chair Lofgren didn't even have the
foresight or the willingness to take this through her own committee
process, her own committee that she chairs.
So I am just saying let's follow the process. And let's be frank
about something. If this bill were just about increasing the number of
necessary objectors to one-third in this Chamber and one-third in the
other Chamber, it might have a chance of passing with bipartisan
support. But that is not what this bill does. This bill is a backdoor
for H.R. 1.

{time} 1245

Let me just give you a few examples of extra material in this bill
that makes it unpalatable.
This bill allows for Presidential candidates to sue to extend the
voting period, even after polls have closed, due to a broadly defined
catastrophic event. Then a panel of Federal judges, not State election
officials, are then responsible for deciding whether States must allow
for up to 5 additional days of voting. The real kicker here is that
this suit must be filed no more than 1 day after the election. So you
can see how a ``catastrophic event'' would probably be any Democrat
that is losing on the night of the election.
Rather than working with Republicans in a bipartisan manner on a
skinny form of an actual reform bill, House Democrats and the January 6
committee are desperately trying to score cheap political points on a
bill that does nothing to improve the Electoral Count Act and does
everything to take away constitutional and State sovereignty over
elections.
Let's be blunt about something else. The American people don't care
about this, especially when they are dealing with catastrophe after
catastrophe and failed policy after failed policy of this
administration. So while House Democrats are focusing on a partisan
messaging bill that has zero chance of actually becoming law, our
southern border just hit a record 2 million border crossings this
fiscal year. That is the highest amount ever recorded in a single year.
Meanwhile, for the past year-and-a-half, the Biden administration has
been transporting illegal immigrants from the southern border to places
all over the country, often in the dead of night, and with zero
notification to elected officials.
That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally
offer an amendment to the rule immediately to consider H.R. 6592, the
Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act of 2022.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser), my good friend, who is here to explain
more on this amendment.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I thank my good friend from Pennsylvania
for his leadership and for his support of this commonsense legislation.
Madam Speaker, I do rise to oppose the previous question so that we
may immediately consider my bill, H.R. 6592, the Immigration
Transparency and Transit Notification Act, which would provide much-
needed transparency for the secret immigration flights sent by the
Biden administration to my hometown and to communities across,
primarily, rural America.
Thanks to their open border policies, the Biden administration has
been sending hundreds of flights full of illegal immigrants into
American communities, often in the dead of night. Over the last year-
and-a-half, these flights have been landing in towns across America,
placing thousands of illegal immigrants into communities with no prior
notice, yet no one has flinched, no mainstream media attention, no
outrage from the podium at the White House or Democrats in this House.
Now that Chicago, Washington, D.C., and Martha's Vineyard have
received flights, now it has become a seemingly national crisis.
Remember, the Biden administration was flying thousands of these
illegals secretly to middle America for well over a year now, and no
one has batted an eye.
Sanctuary cities and States offering benefits to illegal immigrants
and the open border rhetoric from the Biden administration continue to
induce illegal immigration and likely violates Title 8 of the U.S.
Code.
Republicans have endlessly called on the Biden administration and my
colleagues in this House, Democrat colleagues, to secure our border and
ultimately put an end to this practice of airdropping illegal
immigrants into American communities. This should not be a partisan
issue.
I became aware of these flights in my area only from local
whistleblowers at our local airport. I engaged in good faith with DHS
and HHS and was met with nothing but nontruths and empty promises. We
were first told no illegals were being flown into Pennsylvania. This,
of course, turned out to be completely untrue. I saw it with my own
eyes.
I was also told that it was just a coincidence these flights were
coming in at 2 o'clock in the morning into remote rural airports. One
flight was around midnight on Christmas night.
After these meetings, I was told that I would receive notification of
future flights. No such notifications were ever received, yet the
flights continued.
At this point, I introduced this responsible piece of legislation to
bring transparency, accountability, and decency, and local help and
support to the situation.
The current situation at our border is not humane. Millions of
illegals are enduring a treacherous journey, as we all know, facing
perilous conditions, assault, rape, and death, all because the Biden
administration's words and actions, and that of the cartels certainly,
that we allow to exist, have led them to believe that they can come.
This is not humane, Madam Speaker. Nothing about the Biden
administration's border policy is. When such illegals arrive on ghost
flights, as mentioned, in these communities, no one on the ground has
any idea where they are coming from or where they are going.
In addition to all of this, we have deadly drugs like fentanyl
pouring across the border, killing over 100,000 Americans just in the
past year.
The cartels are getting rich as migrants are giving away their life
savings under the pretense set out by the Biden administration that
they are welcomed here. The illegals are not to blame for making this
journey. It is the cartels and the Biden administration's encouraging
them who are to blame. The false message is out: Show up to our border
and all will be fine.

As a result, our border is overrun and border communities and others
across the country--yes, even now Martha's Vineyard--are now feeling
the effects of this. It needs to stop.
Of course, if our southern border is secured, there would be no need
for

[[Page H8026]]

such ghost flights to take place. Effective border policy should be
fully implemented. Catch and release must end. Our border must be
secured.
Until these policies change and our border is secured, I offer this
legislation to bring accountability and transparency to these flights
and ensure American communities are properly informed, ensure that the
sponsor is legitimate and verified and safe, that we are not aiding and
abetting human trafficking, and we give the State's Governor the
authority to approve flights and determine if they have the means to
provide the support necessary.
The schools should also be notified, Madam Speaker. How is it when 10
young children here illegally, who do not speak English, show up at a
school district on a Monday morning, without notification? It is wrong.
It is a terrible shame that it took flights to liberal enclaves like
New York, Chicago, D.C., and Martha's Vineyard for this to be taken
seriously and receive the attention that it finally deserves.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, our border must be secured. I think I am
making my point.
Until then, this bill will bring order and transparency to this
practice. I hope my Democrat colleagues are truly outraged by some of
these practices, as I have outlined. I urge them to join me in
defeating the previous question in support of my bill. In doing so, we
will address the reality that so many communities across America have
been facing for nearly 2 years. Let's act responsibly.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we are here to fortify the integrity of American
Presidential elections, the process by which the people choose their
own President. One can only regard with amazement the gentleman from
Pennsylvania's casual assurance that the American people don't care
about this. The American people don't care about solidifying the
process by which we elect our own President? The American people don't
care about whether or not a Presidential election is going to be stolen
by a lot of backroom games and manipulation of the rules? I beg to
differ. Even the Wall Street Journal today endorsed the legislation
that we are bringing forward.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania
(Ms. Scanlon), a very distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I would reiterate Mr. Raskin's point that
certainly the voters in Pennsylvania that I have heard from care deeply
about whether or not their votes are counted.
Madam Speaker, the Presidential Election Reform Act will reinforce
one of the defining American characteristics of our American experiment
in democracy: the peaceful transition of Presidential power.
It is critical to that experiment that Americans have faith that our
leaders will honor the will of the people when they vote. The process
of counting and transmitting votes is a question of procedure and
should not be treated as an opportunity to manipulate the outcome of a
free and fair election as it was in the wake of the 2020 election.
I am heartened that the legislation under consideration today is a
bipartisan bill. I don't care if you are a Democrat, a Republican, a
conservative, a liberal, an Independent. If you love this country and
believe in a government by the people, for the people, and of the
people, we all have an obligation to confront the dangers posed by
antidemocratic agents who try to undermine our elections, abandoning
the rule of law and the peaceful transfer of power for their own
personal or political gain.
I regret that we must bring this bill to strengthen the guardrails of
our democracy after the subversive actions of the disgraced former
President and his supporters threatened to derail our government
entirely.
But we must confront those continuing threats to our electoral
system, in Pennsylvania and across the Nation, where bad actors
continue to promote lies about election security. To be clear, there
was never justification for the efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
But bad actors lied about the election results and willfully
misinterpreted the law, and Members of the former President's party,
whether explicitly or by their silence, continue to support these lies
and baseless legal challenges.
These tactics demand the bipartisan set of reforms we are considering
today to insulate our democracy from demagoguery.
I look forward to working with my colleagues of all political stripes
to strengthen the guardrails of our democracy and to support and defend
the Constitution.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I can tell you that in my area of Pennsylvania, nobody
is talking about this. What they are talking about is failed economic
policy, failure to support law enforcement, which is leading to both
inflation, economic hardship, and some of the highest crime rates we
have ever seen on record.
I would implore my colleagues across the aisle to actually talk to
real Americans, not just the woke yuppies that comprise their voting
base, to see what Americans care about. But something tells me that the
American people will say loud and clear what they care about come
November.
It is also rich hearing about all of these ``assaults on democracy.''
Let's just go back to 2019. In 2019, Hillary Clinton said: ``No, it
doesn't kill me, because he knows''--meaning Trump--``that he is an
illegitimate President.'' So you have the former Presidential candidate
calling the former President an illegitimate President. That is clearly
echoing some of the sentiments that my friends across the aisle are now
accusing us of doing.

Adam Schiff, for example, my colleague from California, in his
opening statement for the Senate's January 2020 impeachment trial said:
``The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for
we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.'' How about that
for criticizing and questioning the democratic process?
Representative John Lewis, in 2017, said: ``I don't see this
President-elect as a legitimate President. I think the Russians
participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy
the candidacy of Hillary Clinton.'' That was a baseless claim based on
the Steele dossier that was discredited.
Representative Jerry McNerney of California, in 2017: ``The election
of Mr. Trump lacks legitimacy.''
Vicente Gonzalez of Texas, just this month--this isn't even the last
Presidential election cycle. This was this month, regarding a special
election. This month, when discussing Mayra Flores' upset victory in
his upcoming election against her, said: ``They stole that last
election.'' So it is quite rich hearing all of these accusations now
coming from my friends across the aisle.
When we call into question election results, it is somehow a threat
to democracy. When they do it, they are magically upholding democracy.
But it just doesn't stop with my friends across the aisle here in
this Chamber. Let's talk about Kamala Harris. She agreed with the radio
show host that she should be concerned over Trump's legitimacy. She
said: ``We should believe exactly what the intelligence community has
told us, which is Russia did interfere in the election of the President
in 2017.'' That is the now Vice President saying that.
Also, it is absolutely rich that she cites the intelligence
community, when they knew the Steele dossier was a product of the
Hillary Clinton campaign; the same intelligence community that wasn't
able to discern that the Russian interference story was a hoax; the
same intelligence community that told us that the Hunter Biden laptop
was Russian disinformation, despite knowing that the FBI had that
laptop in their possession at the time they made that baseless
accusation; the same intel community, by the way, that told us that
Kabul would stand strong for months on end and Ukraine would fall
within hours. So that is the intel community that my friends across the
aisle are citing.

[[Page H8027]]

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Garbarino), my good friend, to speak more on the issue of immigration
and transparency.

{time} 1300

Mr. GARBARINO. Madam Speaker, I rise today to urge the defeat of the
previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 6592, the
Immigration Transparency and Transit Notification Act of 2022.
The crisis at our southern border is a threat to our national
security, public safety, and public health. While this administration
continues to tell the American people that all is well, fentanyl, the
number one killer of young people in America, has flooded across the
border at record rates; drug smugglers and human traffickers are
thriving; and the migrants themselves are facing dire conditions all
because President Biden told them it was okay to come here illegally.
Since Joe Biden took office, over 1 million undocumented immigrants
have been allowed to resettle here. Long before border State Governors
started busing migrants to sanctuary cities so they might share the
burden of this crisis, President Biden was putting them on flights and
buses in the dead of night and sending them to communities far north of
the border without a warning to the people who live there or the
officials who would become responsible for them.
The New York Post first exposed secret, dead-of-the-night flights of
migrants into Westchester, New York, last year. But to date, the
administration has refused all requests for transparency and
accountability regarding these resettlements, this despite multiple
letters from myself and other Members of Congress requesting that they
stop these covert flights and provide information to Congress and local
officials about who these migrants are and what vetting they received
before being dropped off in our communities.
H.R. 6592 would require officials to be notified before undocumented
immigrants may be placed in their jurisdiction and would provide
Governors with the authority to refuse placement.
We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the border crisis or the
strain that these relocations are placing on communities across the
country.
Madam Speaker, I urge this body to act and immediately consider H.R.
6592 to require transparency and accountability of the administration
for the relocation of undocumented immigrants throughout the United
States and put the power to oversee these relocations in the hands of
people in these communities which are most affected by it.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I just want to quickly point out the false
equivalency just invoked by the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
On the one hand, you have people of both political parties pointing
out the 100 percent documented interference of Vladimir Putin in our
2016 Presidential election, with millions and millions of dollars spent
on his so-called Internet Research Agency to engage in cyber
surveillance, cyber espionage, and cyber sabotage of our election. On
the other side, we have a violent insurrection incited by the President
of the United States, where 150 of our officers were wounded and
injured, ending up with broken arms, legs, jaws, and necks;
concussions; contusions; and traumatic brain injury.
Those are two very different things. One is an exercise of people's
First Amendment right to speak. The other is a violent effort to
overthrow the electoral process and the constitutional order of the
United States.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman
from California (Mr. Garamendi).
Mr. GARAMENDI. Madam Speaker, on January 6, America witnessed the
first and most serious attempt since the Civil War to stop our
democracy. It was an insurrection engineered by the then-President,
Donald Trump, so that he could put forth a coup and remain in power. It
did not succeed.
We came here that night over blood-stained floors and smashed doors
and windows, and we voted. We voted to put in place the will of the
voters of America to transfer power. Fortunately, the attempt by the
President was unsuccessful.
Nevertheless, in Hollywood, there is always a sequel, often to a very
bad movie. We are headed for a new sequel in 2024. Unless we change the
1887 Electoral Count Act, we will see a sequel. We know, all across
this Nation, that it is being set up.
There are candidates running for critical offices--secretaries of
state, various county offices--with the intent to use the 1887
Electoral Count Act to put in place a sequel to the January 6, 2021,
violent insurrection. It is in place now. It is an attempt happening
now to have a new coup, to use the 1887 law.
We must pass this bill. We must change the law. It is ancient. It has
already been proven by January 6 and the attempted coup then to use
that law to install in the Presidency a person who was not legitimately
elected by the people of America.
We have to do this. It is our task. It is our work, and this bill
does it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I have a lot of respect and
admiration for my good friend from California, and he knows that. But
if you want to talk about sequels, let's just talk about all the times
the Democrats objected to election results. We can go all the way back
for decades.
Many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Barbara Lee, Maxine
Waters, and Sheila Jackson Lee, have cast doubt on every single
Republican Presidential victory in the last two decades. In fact, every
single Democrat President since 1977 has cast doubt on the legitimacy
of U.S. elections.
I will just go through some of that because my good friend from
California said this looks like a sequel to a bad movie. Let's just
look at the current administration. In both 2013 and 2016, Biden
claimed that Gore won the 2000 Presidential election. In May 2019,
Biden said that he ``absolutely'' agrees that Trump is an
``illegitimate President.'' That is the current Democratic President
casting doubt on elections.

It doesn't stop with him, though. Let's again go to his Vice
President, Kamala Harris. In 2019, the Vice President agreed that Trump
was an illegitimate President.
It is just not those that were elected to office. Let's look at key
senior staffers.
For nearly two decades, Biden Chief of Staff Ron Klain claimed that
Al Gore won the 2000 election.
President Biden's press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, tweeted that
the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial race was stolen. Jean-Pierre also cast
doubt just not on that election but also on the 2016 election by
tweeting: ``Stolen election, welcome to the world of #unpresidented
Trump.''
Jamal Simmons, the communications director for Kamala Harris, for
years tweeted that Bush had stolen the 2000 election.
Then-Representative Marcia Fudge of Ohio, now the HUD Secretary, said
that Trump ``may not be a legitimate President.''
If you are talking about sequels to bad movies, this goes all the way
back to the 1970s, when my friends across the aisle undermined faith in
our elections by loose talk and baseless claims that elections were
stolen.
I will end the list of quotes with this because it is my good friend
from Maryland. In 2002, my friend from Maryland wrote that the Supreme
Court had ``[frozen] the election results'' in an ``outrageous assault
on democracy,'' saying that the Court had determined the outcome of a
Presidential election.
In 2003, my good friend also called Bush America's first ``court-
appointed President.''
I have a litany of other quotes from my friends across the aisle, not
only current Members serving in this Chamber but also well-known
Democrats from across the United States that have questioned results of
elections.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the very
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend.
Mr. SCHIFF. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Presidential
Election Reform Act, but first, let me respond to my colleague from
Pennsylvania, who partially quoted me in the first impeachment trial.
I did, in fact, predict that if the former President was not held
accountable for trying to extort Ukraine by withholding military aid to
get Ukraine's help to cheat in the election that he would go on to try
to cheat in

[[Page H8028]]

even new and worse ways in the upcoming election. In fact, I believe I
said that the odds were not 5 percent, not 10 percent, not even 50
percent, but 100 percent that he would go on to try to cheat again. In
that, sadly, I was all too correct.
Over the last year, the House Select Committee to Investigate the
January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol has conducted a
thorough investigation into the multiple lines of effort by President
Trump and his allies to overturn the election, efforts that included a
pressure campaign against the Vice President to violate the
Constitution and assume powers he does not hold to unilaterally reject
valid electoral count votes.
Our democracy held, but barely. These events have revealed underlying
vulnerabilities to our democracy, vulnerabilities that could be
exploited in a future Presidential election.
This bill will help ensure that the will of the American people, as
expressed through their votes, cannot be overturned by any official of
any political party at any time or for any purpose.
Consistent with the Constitution, it raises the threshold for
challenging a slate of electors during a joint session of Congress. It
reaffirms the role of the presiding officer, that it is a ministerial
one. Perhaps most important, it affirms that State officials cannot
change the rules of an election after the fact in an effort to overturn
the will of the people, as expressed through their popular vote.
This bill will help ensure that the cornerstone of our democracy,
free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power, remains in
place for future generations of Americans. This is not a partisan task
but a patriotic one.
Over the past several months, we have told the story of what happened
on January 6, documenting the events for the American people.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the
gentleman.
Mr. SCHIFF. Now is the time for our committee and this Congress to
look to the future. It is my hope that this legislation becomes one of
the most significant pieces of our legacy, that it makes our
Constitution, our country, and our democracy stronger and more secure.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time to close.
Madam Speaker, inflation is at the highest rate in over 40 years,
literally the highest rate since I have been alive. The majority of
American workers confirmed their income has fallen behind the rising
cost of things like buying groceries, paying utility bills, and just
filling up their gas tanks.
We have set a record for the highest illegal border crossings in 1
year, including 78 individuals on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
So far in 2022, homicide rates have increased roughly 50 percent
compared to this time in 2019.
The Federal Government is also set to run out of funding in 9 days,
yet here we are, focused for the second week in a row on trying to
attack President Trump, a President that hasn't been in office for
nearly 2 years. That is how we are spending our time.
House Democrats have chosen once again to put on yet another
partisan, political show while the American people are at home
suffering the consequences of their failed agenda, suffering the
consequences of inflation that is out of control, wages that are
dropping, energy costs that are skyrocketing, and crime rates that are
making them less safe in their communities.

H.R. 8873 tramples on States' rights and would do serious harm to the
integrity of our elections.
Madam Speaker, for these reasons, 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. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, to my dear friend from Pennsylvania, if you think that
this legislation is an attack on President Trump, you simply haven't
read the legislation because there is nothing in there attacking
President Trump. This is about reforming the Electoral Count Act so it
works for the American people.
As long as we are going to have the electoral college, we must update
it and modernize it to make it work and to make sure that the will of
the people is vindicated at every level--at the State level, with the
Governor who has to provide the certificate of ascertainment; and then,
when it comes here, we have to be able to receive it and not have the
Presidential electoral process consumed by a bunch of ideological
antics and tantrums.
My friend mobilizes a number of episodes of Democrats raising
objections in the past. Of course, I could equal each one of those with
Republicans raising objections in the past because this has become a
fine bipartisan tradition in the history of the electoral college. But
if you think it is too easy for people to get up and object, support
our legislation because we are saying you can't make an objection until
you get one-third of the House of Representatives to sign the objection
to attest to its validity and its substance.

{time} 1315

Then in order for it to be validated, you need not just a third of
the House, you need a third of the Senate. You need bicameral adoption
of the objection by a third of each body before it is even heard and
then debated. So if you think that too much frivolous stuff is going
on, well, then you should be supporting our legislation.
The rest of what you are saying is just complaint about political
rhetoric, and I happen to like the political rhetoric pointing out that
Vladimir Putin is an enemy of democracy not just in Ukraine but in the
United States and all over the world. Maybe we disagree about that. I
know that there are some cheerleaders for Vladimir Putin over on that
side of the aisle.
In any event, remember this: Today, you can object for any reason at
all, and one person can get up and do it if they can find one other
person in the other Chamber, but under this legislation, under the
Presidential Election Reform Act there will be a neatly cabined set of
approved constitutional objections, all of them grounded in the text of
the Constitution:
For example, if a State purports to submit more electoral college
votes than they actually have.
For example, an elector in the Presidential election process
constitutionally cannot hold another Federal office, so if they hold
another Federal office that will be grounds for an objection.
For example, a President must be a natural-born citizen at least 35
years of age. So it would be a valid objection to claim that the
candidate that a State is purporting to cast electors for is only 26
years old.
Also, under section 3 of the 14th Amendment, Federal office holders
must not be guilty of insurrection or rebellion against the Union;
something that was insisted upon by the radical Republicans after the
Civil War. Therefore, that would be a legitimate ground for objection.
Presidents are limited to two terms in office, so that would be a
legitimate ground for objection if a State purports to cast electors
for someone who has already served two terms in office. Under Article
II, section 1, clause 4, and the 12th Amendment, electors must vote on
the same day throughout the Nation distinctly by ballot for President
and Vice President, one of whom must not be an inhabitant of the
elector's State.
In other words, we finally have provided real precision and
definiteness as to what is a valid objection. That doesn't mean the
objection is necessarily ratified bicamerally by concurrent majorities,
which is what you need in order to uphold it, but it is not a free-for-
all. You can't just start finger painting on it.
To the extent that the gentleman's only substantive objection I have
heard is that in the past it has been too easy for Members of both
parties to raise objections, then you should absolutely be supporting
this legislation.
This is a thorough legislative project that reflects the common sense
and the wisdom of people who are the real experts in this field.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler
is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1372

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

[[Page H8029]]

Sec 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 6592) to require the Secretary of Homeland
Security and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to
notify the relevant Federal, State, and local officials of a
jurisdiction before placing a covered alien in such
jurisdiction, 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 the
Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 6592.

Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on:
Adoption of the resolution, if ordered;
The motion to commit on Senate 1098; and
Passage of Senate 1098, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 209, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 445]

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
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cheney
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
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
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
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
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--209

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
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
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
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
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
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--4

Crow
Herrera Beutler
Kinzinger
Vargas

{time} 1406

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

Baird (Bucshon)
Bass (Correa)
Brown (MD)
(Ruppersberger)
Bush (Bowman)
Chu (Beyer)
Conway (Valadao)
DeFazio (Pallone)
Garcia (IL) (Correa)
Gomez (Evans)
Granger (Ellzey)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lamb (Pallone)
McEachin (Beyer)
Meng (Escobar)
Moore (UT) (Curtis)
Napolitano (Correa)
Newman (Beyer)
Palazzo (Fleischmann)
Ryan (OH) (Correa)
Sanchez (Pallone)
Swalwell (Correa)
Trone
(Ruppersberger)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Courtney). 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 yeas and nays were ordered.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 209, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 446]

YEAS--219

[[Page H8030]]

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
Peltola
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (NY)
Ryan (OH)
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
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--209

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
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
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sempolinski
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Taylor
Tenney
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zeldin

NOT VOTING--4

Kaptur
Kinzinger
Thompson (PA)
Vargas

{time} 1418

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

____________________