[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 195 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H9859-H9863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8393, PUERTO RICO STATUS ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1519 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1519

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8393) to 
     enable the people of Puerto Rico to choose a permanent, 
     nonterritorial, fully self-governing political status for 
     Puerto Rico and to provide for a transition to and the 
     implementation of that permanent, nonterritorial, fully self-
     governing political status, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Natural Resources now printed 
     in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-74 shall 
     be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further 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 Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Velazquez). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a 
rule, House Resolution 1519, providing for consideration of H.R. 8393, 
the Puerto Rico Status Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 
hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and provides one 
motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, Puerto Ricans have been U.S. citizens since the Jones-
Shafroth Act of 1917. That is over 100 years the Puerto Rican people 
have been Americans. Yet, for those 100 years and more--in fact, going 
all the way back to the United States' annexation of the island in 
1898--the U.S. Government has not guaranteed our fellow citizens on 
Puerto Rico the full and equal rights of citizens on the mainland.
  Puerto Rico has faced multilayered crises rooted in this century-long 
policy, crises that have been compounded in recent years by natural 
disasters, the COVID-19 pandemic, and migration.
  Puerto Rico's current status prevents the island from enjoying full 
democracy at the national level. Puerto Rico's Delegate to Congress has 
limited voting rights, and the Puerto Rican people cannot vote in U.S. 
Presidential elections, even though the U.S. Government enacts and 
enforces their national laws and residents pay Federal taxes.
  Puerto Rico also cannot set its own monetary trade or immigration 
policy. They are unable to join international organizations or enter 
into international agreements, highlighting the complicated 
implications of the island's current status as a territory.
  Puerto Rico's status also limits the island economically. For 
example, in

[[Page H9860]]

granting Puerto Rico the ability to restructure its debt in 2016, 
Congress established an oversight and management board that had the 
power to override decisions of the Governor and legislature of Puerto 
Rico.
  Look, it is time Congress recognizes that Puerto Rico has no interest 
in being a colony, just as we in the United States should have no 
interest in being a colonizing power in the year 2022.
  We are here today to consider a rule that would bring H.R. 8393, the 
Puerto Rico Status Act, to the floor.
  This bill details the transition to and the implementation of a 
nonterritory status for Puerto Rico, finally giving the people of 
Puerto Rico a choice to determine their own status. It tasks the Puerto 
Rico State Elections Commission to carry out a nonpartisan campaign to 
educate and inform voters before holding a referendum for Puerto Ricans 
to decide between statehood, independence, or independence followed by 
free association with the United States.
  I am proud to represent a vibrant Puerto Rican community in central 
Massachusetts, and many of my Puerto Rican constituents have family 
members still living on the island. Their family members, just like 
Americans on the mainland, deserve the right to self-determination. 
They ought to have an opportunity to carve their own path and build the 
future that they want.
  The Puerto Rico Status Act is the result of serious negotiation and 
careful compromise to clarify available status options and ensure a 
productive process.
  I am grateful to Chairman Grijalva, Chairwoman Velazquez, and 
Congresswoman Gonzalez-Colon, the Resident Commissioner from Puerto 
Rico, for all the work that they have done to get us to this point.
  Ultimately, the people of Puerto Rico must decide on the island 
status, and it is up to us in Congress to help facilitate that process.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the 
underlying bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
and my good friend from Massachusetts 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. 8393, the Puerto Rico Status Act. This is a bill that received an 
emergency Rules hearing yesterday with just 3 hours' notice, 3 hours 
for an issue that deserves to be heard through regular order.
  H.R. 8393 would authorize a federally sponsored, taxpayer-funded 
election to be held in Puerto Rico on 5 November 2023. This election 
would require the voters of Puerto Rico to choose between three status 
options: independence, sovereignty and free association, or U.S. 
statehood.
  You might notice something missing here. This bill doesn't even give 
Puerto Ricans the option to preserve their current status as a 
territory of the United States. So not only do House Democrats want to 
control how the States run their elections, they now want to control 
how Puerto Rico runs their elections.
  H.R. 8393 even takes things a step further than that. If Puerto 
Ricans vote to become a sovereign or independent nation, this 
legislation tells them what they have to include in their new 
constitution, how they have to ratify their constitution, and how 
elections for government officers should take place.
  My friends across the aisle want to talk about colonial power. What 
does that sound like?
  Further, this bill would completely circumvent congressional 
authority by not allowing Congress to ratify the option that Puerto 
Rico ultimately chooses.
  The question of Puerto Rico's statehood is a serious topic, one that 
I am not necessarily opposed to, but it is a topic that deserves a 
deliberative process with careful consideration and expert input.
  There have been numerous hearings on this issue, but there were no 
hearings on this specific bill. There has been no vetting of legal 
implications of using this unprecedented, self-executing process to 
statehood.
  This is not a question that should be run through a lameduck Congress 
on the last day of a scheduled session with less than 24 hours' notice. 
That is unacceptable.
  Again, I am not debating the merits of Puerto Rican statehood, but I 
am pointing out the glaring problems in this ill-conceived, half-baked 
legislation that leaves too many questions unanswered.
  House Democrats are doing nothing more today than using Puerto Ricans 
as pawns to score cheap political points with a bill that has zero 
chance of becoming law.
  Let's just be frank and honest about that. This bill has zero chance 
of becoming law this session of Congress. It is a joke that we are even 
considering it today.
  We owe it to the voters of Puerto Rico to do better than this. They 
deserve more.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  This shouldn't be controversial. We are not deciding the fate of 
Puerto Rico. We are setting a process in place so that the people who 
live on the island can make that decision.
  Listening to my colleague's speech, as he mentions Democrat, 
Democrat, Democrat, Democrat, you would never know that this compromise 
was actually written in conjunction with the Republican--let me repeat 
that--with the Republican Delegate from Puerto Rico.

                              {time}  0930

  So I don't understand what the big fuss is about.
  But if my friend believes that the people of Puerto Rico should 
decide their future, then he should support this bill which will set in 
place a process so they can determine their future. If the gentleman 
doesn't, if he continues to believe that we should act like a 
colonizer, then vote ``no'' on the bill. But this is the commonsense 
thing to do.
  One other thing we heard him say, they are taxpayer-funded elections. 
All of our elections proceed with the support of taxpayer funds. I 
don't understand what that is all about. But the bottom line is that 
people of Puerto Rico do pay taxes.
  In any event, this really is about self-determination, and it is that 
simple. I hope that my colleagues will not only support the rule but 
also the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I would like to inquire as to 
whether my friend has any additional speakers.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will close.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, I have no 
further speakers, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I have already talked about the fact that this bill 
did not go through regular order. It is even questionable whether the 
committee that heard this hearing has jurisdiction to consider this 
bill.
  I haven't even touched on the fact that the status options that are 
called for don't give Puerto Rico the chance to keep its current 
status. The status quo is totally off limits.
  We have also talked about dictating to a sovereign nation what is in 
their constitution. It also, as I said before, abrogates constitutional 
authority. This has never been done before.
  Also, there is no CBO score on this. We have zero idea how much this 
is going to cost. This also doesn't take into consideration PROMESA 
which is the financial oversight and management board that helps Puerto 
Rico.
  A big glaring issue here is citizenship. We haven't had a single 
hearing on how this would affect citizenship.
  So you are in Puerto Rico and born to two U.S. citizens, what happens 
to your status?
  Are you a U.S. citizen or not?
  That is not considered in this bill.
  So, again, this bill is half-baked. It didn't go through regular 
order, and it didn't go through proper committees of jurisdiction, yet 
here we are considering it in a lameduck session.
  I am incredibly disappointed by this. I am here just 1 day after this 
bill was

[[Page H9861]]

considered in a hearing that was held in the Rules Committee debating 
legislation scheduled on, again, the last day of the 117th Congress. 
Again, this bill has zero chance of becoming law. We are wasting the 
time of the American people.
  I have said it repeatedly, but it requires saying again: we have real 
crises that this Nation is facing. Our southern border is one great 
example.
  At no time has our southern border been more dangerous and more 
unstable than right now. This past fiscal year set the record for 
encounters of illegal immigrants, also a record for migrant deaths, a 
record for apprehension of suspected terrorists, and a record for 
seizure of fentanyl at the southern border.
  The seizure of fentanyl might sound as if we are doing something 
good, but we only interdict less than 10 percent of the fentanyl. So if 
our fentanyl seizures are up, then the amount of fentanyl coming into 
the United States is, of course, up. Yet with all that, congressional 
Democrats won't even acknowledge that there is a problem at our 
southern border. Even the Biden administration won't admit the gravity 
of the situation.
  Vice President Kamala Harris, the so-called border czar, has said: 
``Our border is secure.''
  That is gaslighting. That is gaslighting the American people. 
President Biden himself has said: ``There are more important things 
going on.''
  He refuses to even visit the southern border. That is gaslighting, 
and that is also dereliction of duty.
  Further, House Democrats failed to meet the fundamental duty of 
funding the government, despite spending most of last year passing 
trillions of dollars in wasteful spending that has done nothing but 
driven up inflation, driven up our national debt, and has seen real 
wages decrease for working Americans.
  So now we are letting two Senators who won't even be in office next 
year ram through a massive omnibus spending bill that was written 
behind closed doors and without the input of House Republicans.
  So with today's rule, House Democrats are, once again, refusing to 
put forward solid legislation that has an actual chance of moving 
forward and bringing relief to the American people.

  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President or the Vice President.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I don't even know where to start in 
response to all of that.
  Let me, first of all, inform Members about what the legislative 
history of the bill that we want to bring to the floor is because if 
you listen to the gentleman, Madam Speaker, you would think that it 
just came out of nowhere.
  On July 15, 2022, Chairman Grijalva introduced H.R. 8393, the Puerto 
Rico Status Act, with original cosponsors Chairwoman Velazquez, 
Resident Commissioner Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon--I will remind my 
friend, again, that she is a Republican Resident Commissioner from 
Puerto Rico--and Representative Darren Soto of Florida.
  The Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on April 14, 2021, 
titled: ``Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing on Puerto Rico Political 
Status,'' and a hearing on June 16, 2021, titled: ``Office of Insular 
Affairs Legislative Hearing.''
  On July 20, 2022, the full committee met and held a markup of the 
bill and favorably reported it with an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute by a vote of 25-20 with Resident Commissioner Gonzalez-Colon 
joining the majority. So the idea that somehow nobody has been talking 
about this doesn't reflect what the legislative history is.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an AP article from June 4, 
2022, titled: ``Puerto Ricans speak out on U.S. territory's political 
status.''

       Puerto Ricans Speak Out on US Territory's Political Status

                            (By Danica Coto)

       San Juan, PR (AP).--Hundreds of Puerto Ricans crowded into 
     a convention center Saturday where federal legislators held a 
     public hearing to decide the future of the island's political 
     status as the U.S. territory struggles to recover from 
     hurricanes, earthquakes and a deep economic crisis.
       One by one, dozens of people ranging from politicians to 
     retirees to young people leaned into a microphone and spoke 
     against the island's current territorial status, which 
     recognizes its people as U.S. citizens but does not allow 
     them to vote in presidential elections, denies them certain 
     federal benefits and allows them one representative in 
     Congress with limited voting powers.
       The hearing comes two weeks after a group of Democratic 
     congress members including the House majority leader and one 
     Republican proposed what would be the first-ever binding 
     plebiscite that would offer voters in Puerto Rico three 
     options: statehood, independence or independence with free 
     association, whose terms would be defined following 
     negotiations.
       Congress would have to accept Puerto Rico as the 51st state 
     if voters so choose it, but the proposal is not expected to 
     survive in the Senate, where Republicans have long opposed 
     statehood.
       ``Everyone, even congress people themselves, know that the 
     possibilities of this becoming law are minimal and maybe non-
     existent, but it doesn't stop being important,'' former 
     Puerto Rico governor Anibal Acevedo Vila told The Associated 
     Press.
       About an hour into the hearing, a small group of people 
     including a former gubernatorial candidate who supports 
     independence burst into the ballroom, pointed fingers at the 
     panel of U.S. legislators and yelled, ``120 years of 
     colonialism!''
       The majority of the audience booed the group and yelled at 
     them to leave as U.S. lawmakers called for calm. ``Democracy 
     is not always pretty, but it's necessary,'' said Rep. Raul 
     Grijalva of Arizona, chairman of the U.S. House of Natural 
     Resources Committee, which oversees affairs in U.S. 
     territories.
       The proposal of a binding plebiscite--a measure that has 
     not yet been introduced in committee--has frustrated some on 
     an island that already has held seven unilateral, nonbinding 
     referendums on its political status, with no overwhelming 
     majority emerging. The last referendum was held in November 
     2020, with 53 percent of votes for statehood and 47 percent 
     against, with only a little more than half of registered 
     voters participating.
       Luis Herrero, a political consultant, said during the 
     hearing that even if enough people support statehood, there 
     are not enough votes in the Senate to make Puerto Rico a 
     state: ``Not today, not yesterday, not tomorrow. Since 1898, 
     Puerto Rican statehood has been a mirage, lip service to 
     score cheap political points or to raise a few dollars for a 
     campaign.''
       Saturday's hearing comes amid ongoing discontent with 
     Puerto Rico's current political status, with the U.S. Supreme 
     Court further angering many in April after upholding the 
     differential treatment of residents of Puerto Rico. In an 8-1 
     vote, the court ruled that making Puerto Ricans ineligible 
     for the Supplemental Security Income program, which offers 
     benefits to blind, disabled and older Americans, did not 
     unconstitutionally discriminate against them.
       As a result, many of those who spoke at Saturday's public 
     hearing welcomed the proposed binding plebiscite.
       ``We finally see the light at the end of the tunnel,'' said 
     Victor Perez, a U.S. military veteran who lamented the 
     current political status. ``Even after all our service and 
     sacrifice, we come back home and we are denied full voting 
     rights and equality. . . . We cannot vote for our president, 
     our commander in chief,
       (but) they send us to war.''
       Grijalva said the testimonies given Saturday will help him 
     and other legislators revise the proposed measure, which he 
     said is a way to make amends. He said he hopes it will go to 
     the House floor by August. If eventually approved, it would 
     be held on Nov. 5, 2023.
       Acevedo, the former governor, said he hasn't lost hope 
     despite numerous attempts throughout the decades to change 
     the political status of Puerto Rico, which became a U.S. 
     territory in 1898 following the SpanishAmerican War.
       ``A solution to this problem of more than 120 years has to 
     happen at some point,'' he said. ``When will conditions allow 
     for it? That's unpredictable.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is clear something needs to change. 
Puerto Ricans don't want to continue under the island's territorial 
status for many reasons--namely because while the status recognizes its 
people as U.S. citizens, it doesn't allow them to vote in Presidential 
elections, denies them certain crucial Federal benefits, and limits 
their congressional Representative's voting power.
  The Puerto Rico Status Act is a good solution that will allow Puerto 
Ricans to decide themselves what the next steps should be. We should 
give them that opportunity.
  The gentleman talked about process in terms of how this House is 
being operated. Let me remind the gentleman--and let me remind all my 
colleagues--that the last time the Republicans were in charge of the 
House, the Senate, and the White House--they controlled everything, and 
I mean everything--the last time they did that, do you know what they 
did?
  They shut the government down and walked away. That is not 
responsible governing. That was unconscionable.

[[Page H9862]]

  And leading up to that government shutdown in the Rules Committee we 
had an emergency meeting, on what?
  Cheese.
  Don't even ask me to explain that, but that is what they did. They 
had an emergency meeting in the Rules Committee, and it was a meeting 
on cheese.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a HuffPost article titled: 
``House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting On Cheese As Shutdown 
Approached.''

                     [From HuffPost, Dec. 22, 2018]

   House Republicans Called Emergency Meeting on Cheese as Shutdown 
                               Approached

                             (By Amy Russo)

       As the federal government was heading for a shutdown Friday 
     night, House Republicans called an emergency meeting.
       Plot twist: it was about cheese.
       During her broadcast that evening, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow 
     appeared astonished while reporting on the gathering, which 
     was arranged so that lawmakers could discuss the Curd Act, a 
     proposal to allow some cheeses to be advertised as 
     ``natural'' despite having artificial ingredients.
       Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) was clearly irked, feeling the 
     timing was pretty inconvenient.
       ``This is an emergency meeting that we're having here and 
     I've seen some surreal things around this place, but this is 
     really something,'' McGovern said. ``Vital parts of our 
     government are about to shut down in just a few hours, and 
     the Republicans have called an emergency meeting on cheese.''
       Venting his frustration with Republicans in the room, 
     McGovern wondered whether his colleagues had thought about 
     how the meeting would look to the public, which would soon be 
     faced with the third shutdown of the year.
       ``I mean, has anybody considered how ridiculous this is or 
     how bad the optics are as the American people are watching 
     what's going on here?'' he asked. ``By all means, if you 
     think the most important thing we have to discuss right now 
     is cheese, I'll let you have at it.''
       Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas) eventually jumped in to defend 
     the meeting, calling the cheese bill ``important to small 
     business,'' then eventually segueing into the issue of 
     funding for the southern border wall, the key matter that 
     prompted the shutdown.
       ``We are being overrun on our southern border,'' Sessions 
     declared.
       That's when McGovern piped up, appearing confused, asking, 
     ``There's no wall in this bill, right?''
       ``It is important,'' Sessions argued back, clarifying that 
     he was ``not talking about the wall of cheese.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues seem to be 
confused about why we are moving quickly here.
  Let me explain that simply in the last few hours that they were in 
charge, as I said, they called an emergency meeting on cheese. Don't 
get me wrong. I love cheese just as much as everybody else in this 
Chamber does. But I think the systematic disenfranchisement of millions 
of American citizens is a little bit more important than cheese. Maybe 
my Republican colleagues disagree.
  I also point out that this is not the last day of this Congress. We 
will be here to complete our business on an omnibus appropriations 
bill. But I want the American people to understand how my Republican 
friends have acted in these last few days. We are still trying to work 
out the details of this government spending bill. We are working with 
Republicans and trying to come up with some sort of an accommodation. 
We need a little bit more time.
  What we voted on yesterday was a continuing resolution to keep the 
government running a few more days so we don't have a shutdown and to 
work out the details. It is not the final package. Lots of stuff still 
remains to be figured out.
  But what we said is that we need to pass a short-term continuing 
resolution for a few days so that we can work out those details and so 
we don't shut the government down and cause all kinds of chaos because 
we know what government shutdowns do.
  I think it is really interesting for people to understand that 201 
Republicans voted to shut the government down. If they succeeded, then 
the government would shut down tomorrow. They voted to shut the 
government down--
  Who does that?
  What are they thinking?
       All because there is a small group of people here in the 
     House whose allegiance to Trump and the hard-line rightwing 
     fringe of the Republican Party say they don't want to have 
     any kind of deal. They don't want to govern. They would 
     rather shut the government down costing the economy billions 
     and billions of dollars, causing all kinds of uncertainty, 
     and hurting the American people.
  They did that before. If they had their way, then the government 
would be shut down tomorrow. Talk about irresponsible.
  So I also should point out that every Democrat--215 Democrats--who 
voted yesterday voted to keep the government running. So apparently, 
Members of the Republican Party do not think they are responsible for 
governing. They vote ``no'' on everything--on everything--and they 
criticize us for the way we do the job that they won't do.
  We heard the gentleman criticize President Biden for dealing with the 
drug crisis at the border, for actually seizing fentanyl. He is getting 
criticized because we are seizing it at the border.
  Really?
  Madam Speaker, this is simple. The legislation that this rule will 
bring to the floor gives the people of Puerto Rico a choice--one that 
they deserve--to determine their status. It is past time we provide 
them this opportunity to decide for themselves what kind of 
relationship they want with the United States moving forward.
  So that is what this rule will do. It will bring that bill to the 
floor.
  Before I close, Madam Speaker, I would just, again, urge my 
Republican friends: stand up to the Freedom Caucus, stand up to the 
hard-line rightwing in your conference who says ``no'' to everything. 
Put the American people first. Put people over politics.
  That is something that I think is not an unreasonable request.
  The idea that over 200 of my friends voted to shut the government 
down yesterday?
  Give me a break.
  So we are going to do our work, and we are going to pass this bill 
today. We are going to get to an agreement on an omnibus bill that will 
help the American people. That will be next week. And we are going to 
do our job because we believe our job is to govern. That is the 
responsible thing to do, not shut the government down. Madam Speaker, I 
urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 527]

                               YEAS--217

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     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
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal

[[Page H9863]]


     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
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--201

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     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
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     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
     Yakym
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Buck
     Cheney
     Conway
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Hartzler
     Hinson
     Kelly (MS)
     Kinzinger
     Long
     McKinley

                              {time}  1023

  Mr. HUIZENGA changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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

     Auchincloss (Beyer)
     Axne (Pappas)
     Beatty (Neguse)
     Boebert (Gaetz)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brown (MD) (Evans)
     Bustos (Schneider)
     Carter (LA) (Horsford)
     Cawthorn (Gaetz)
     Cherfilus-McCormick (Brown (OH))
     Cicilline (Jayapal)
     Cleaver (Davids (KS))
     Cuellar (Correa)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     DelBene (Schneider)
     Dingell (Pappas)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Evans)
     Duncan (Williams (TX))
     Dunn (Salazar)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Espaillat (Correa)
     Ferguson (Gonzales, Tony (TX))
     Gibbs (Smucker)
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Herrera Beutler (Valadao)
     Issa (Calvert)
     Jacobs (NY) (Sempolinski)
     Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
     Kelly (IL) (Horsford)
     Khanna (Pappas)
     Kim (NJ) (Pallone)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Krishnamoorthi (Pappas)
     LaHood (Kustoff)
     Larson (CT) (Pappas)
     Lawrence (Garcia (TX))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Letlow (Moore (UT))
     Levin (CA) (Huffman)
     Malliotakis (Armstrong)
     Maloney, Sean P. (Beyer)
     Mfume (Evans)
     Moulton (Trone)
     Newman (Correa)
     Norcross (Pallone)
     O'Halleran (Pappas)
     Omar (Beyer)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Beyer)
     Pressley (Neguse)
     Rice (SC) (Weber (TX))
     Rush (Beyer)
     Sewell (Schneider)
     Sherrill (Beyer)
     Simpson (Fulcher)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Speier (Garcia (TX))
     Stevens (Craig)
     Stewart (Owens)
     Strickland (Correa)
     Suozzi (Correa)
     Tiffany (Fitzgerald)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Trahan (Lynch)
     Welch (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Evans)

                          ____________________