[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

     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
     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
     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)

[[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

     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)

                          ____________________