[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 7, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H720-H728]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 185, TERMINATING CDC REQUIREMENT
FOR PROOF OF COVID-19 VACCINATION FOR FOREIGN TRAVELERS; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 24, DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN APPROVING THE LOCAL RESIDENT VOTING RIGHTS
AMENDMENT ACT OF 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 26,
DISAPPROVING THE ACTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COUNCIL IN
APPROVING THE REVISED CRIMINAL CODE ACT OF 2022
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules,
I call up House Resolution 97 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 97
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 185) to terminate the requirement imposed by
the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention for proof of COVID-19 vaccination for foreign
travelers, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. No amendment to the bill
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 24) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia
Council in approving the Local Resident Voting Rights
Amendment Act of 2022. All points of order against
consideration of the joint resolution are waived. The joint
resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order
against provisions in the joint resolution are waived. The
joint resolution shall be debatable for one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability or
their respective designees. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final
passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit (if otherwise in order).
Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 26) disapproving the action of the District of Columbia
Council in approving the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022.
All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall
be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Oversight and Accountability or their respective designees.
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
joint resolution to final passage without intervening motion
except one motion to recommit (if otherwise in order).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), 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. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 97 provides for
consideration of three measures: H.R. 185, H.J. Res. 24, and H.J. Res.
26.
The rule provides for H.R. 185 to be considered under a structured
rule with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or
their designees and provides for one motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I should point out that in only our second week after
organizing, this Republican majority has already tied House Democrats
in the number of times a structured rule makes in order more minority
amendments than majority amendments. In the 117th Congress, House
Democrats only reported one structured rule making in order more
Republican amendments than Democratic amendments. Clearly, House
Republicans are delivering a more open and transparent legislative
process for the American people.
The rule further provides for consideration of two measures, H.J.
Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26, under closed rules with 1 hour of debate each
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the
[[Page H721]]
Committee on Oversight and Accountability or their designees.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying legislation.
H.R. 185 would finally end the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention's proof of COVID-19 vaccination requirement for foreign
travelers entering the United States.
This legislation should receive broad, bipartisan support. After all,
it was President Biden in September 2022 who acknowledged that ``the
pandemic is over.''
Life has returned to normal across the country. Yet, despite the
world moving on from the pandemic, this administration persists in
retaining an unnecessary vaccination requirement for those visiting the
United States.
Maintaining this mandate has led to great hardship for many
Americans, including those in my own district in western New York.
People have been separated from their family, their friends, and loved
ones for years. It is time that we acknowledge that these vaccine
mandates do not definitively stop the spread of COVID. It is time for
Congress to act where this administration refuses and finally end this
mandate.
Additionally, the rule before us provides consideration of H.J. Res.
24, a resolution disapproving of the District of Columbia's Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act of 2022, a law which would allow
noncitizens of the U.S. to vote in D.C.'s local elections.
Citizenship is at the core of our society. It represents an
acceptance of duties and privileges, including the right to vote. The
oath of allegiance for newly naturalized individuals includes the
following: ``I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or
sovereignty.''
These aren't just words. This is a pledge of loyalty to this country
and an assumption of responsibilities as a citizen.
With the enacting of the Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act,
the District of Columbia has violated the core idea of what it means to
be a citizen of this great country.
America is not a geographic expression where the concept of
citizenship and sovereignty is meaningless or relative. We are a
sovereign nation and a sovereign people. It is Congress' right and
responsibility to step in and right a wrong that threatens one of the
pillars of our democracy--the right of citizens to vote.
Finally, this rule provides before us the consideration of H.J. Res.
26, disapproving of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code
Act of 2022.
In the past few years, murders, rapes, carjackings, robberies, and
theft have skyrocketed here in our Nation's Capital. The District of
Columbia's law enforcement remains understaffed and overwhelmed by the
soaring rates of violent crime. Residents have routinely registered
this concern, as a recent poll showed 75 percent of D.C. residents
sought more police officers and safer streets.
Yet, the D.C. Council, in their infinite wisdom, chose not to heed
the concerns of D.C. residents or its many visitors and, instead,
approved the Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022, a bill patterned after
the disastrous policies already implemented in Democratic-led cities
across this country.
The Revised Criminal Code Act of 2022 will drastically reduce
sentences for violent offenders and make it easier than ever before for
those offenders to obtain early release. To be clear, when I say
``violent offenders,'' I am referring to those convicted of murder,
rape, and other seriously horrific crimes.
Additionally, D.C.'s revised criminal code provides a right to a jury
trial for a slew of misdemeanors, forcing the court system, already
strained, to take on a new workload. Not only does this deprive
Americans of their right to a speedy trial, but it will also deny
victims resolution and closure against perpetrators of serious offenses
as they face an overwhelmed and understaffed justice system.
Democratic leadership in most major cities across this country are
trading the safety of Americans for the lawlessness of their pie-in-
the-sky policies that, in reality, let violent offenders go, reduce
sentences, avoid prosecution, and deny victims justice.
Just downstate from my own district, New York City has seen its crime
rate skyrocket by 22 percent since this time last year alone. Arrests
linked to shootings and homicides jumped 12 percent in just 1 year.
In Chicago, Illinois, the homicide rate is up a whopping 34 percent
from 2019.
In San Francisco, businesses from mom-and-pop shops to national
retail chains have closed their doors. They have laid off workers
because they can't afford to stay open in a city whose leadership
refuses to prosecute basic offenses like theft and shoplifting.
Now, not to be outdone, the District of Columbia has chosen to import
these dangerous and disastrous policies.
Just last week, only a mile or so away from this Capitol, a gunman
went on a rampage at the Potomac Avenue Metro Station. A Metro
employee, 64-year-old Robert Cunningham, was killed, and three people
were injured.
This tragic event is just one more in a wave of violent crime that
has swept across the District of Columbia in recent years. Yet, the
D.C. Council seems unperturbed as it steamrolls ahead with a policy
that will only make the District, its residents, and the many visitors
to this city, our Nation's Capital, less safe.
Residents of D.C. have the same rights as other Americans to be
secure in their homes and to be protected against crimes committed
against their lives, their families, and their property. Putting
violent offenders back on the streets and reducing sentences for
violent crimes will only endanger the lives of D.C. residents.
It is our duty as Members of Congress, as laid out in the D.C. Home
Rule Act, to disapprove of a policy like this that threatens the safety
of this city's residents.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve
the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Langworthy) for
yielding the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, here we are, 6 weeks into a new Congress, and the
Republican majority has yet to bring substantive, serious legislation
to the floor that does anything to address the serious issues
confronting our great Nation.
Instead, we have seen Republican leadership buckle under time and
again to the demands of a rightwing minority that seems more interested
in stoking controversy and conspiracy theories than crafting actual
legislation or governing.
Instead of delivering for the American people, we have seen precious
time and taxpayer dollars wasted in power struggles and political
stunts, rather than doing the people's business.
True to that pattern, today's rule provides for the consideration of
three deeply problematic measures, measures that further the objectives
of that extremist minority, measures that stoke division, that
undermine government institutions, and that threaten fundamental
American freedoms when they don't align with the radical right's
ideology.
By caving to these fringe forces, Republican leadership is
squandering precious time and taxpayer dollars that would be better
spent working together on the issues most Americans want us to address
lowering prices; housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our
communities safer; and protecting our planet.
The first two resolutions under consideration today would nullify
legislation recently passed by the democratically elected D.C. Council
and, in the process, would undermine the fundamental right of citizens
of Washington, D.C., to political self-determination.
{time} 1245
H.J. Res. 24 would overrule the Local Resident Voting Rights Act,
which was recently passed by the D.C. Council.
With this measure, the citizens of D.C. decided to join other
municipalities around the country in allowing noncitizen residents to
vote in local D.C. elections.
H.J. Res. 26 would nullify the Revised Criminal Code Act, the RCCA,
which reformed D.C.'s criminal code. That code has not been
comprehensively revised since it was first enacted in 1901.
[[Page H722]]
The American people expect their Members of Congress to prioritize
their most pressing kitchen table issues, but instead of focusing on
lowering costs or creating better-paying jobs, we are here today to
interfere with legislation duly enacted by the citizens of D.C. and
their government.
Not only is that not what our constituents sent us to do, it is
distinctly antidemocratic to substitute our policy judgment for the
local policy judgment of D.C.'s elected officials.
The nearly 700,000 residents of the District of Columbia, a majority
of whom are Black and Brown, are worthy and capable of self-government.
Instead of seeking to undo the work of that democratically elected
body, we should be holding hearings and considering whether it is
finally time to address the issue of D.C. statehood.
As my colleague, Mr. Raskin, said in the Rules Committee yesterday,
if my Republican colleagues insist on acting as a colonial overseer of
the District of Columbia, the least they can do is hear from the people
of D.C.
Those promoting these resolutions should have called a hearing or at
least attempted to engage the D.C. Council and community leaders in
some way.
If my colleagues think they have the best interests of the people of
D.C. at heart, let's hear from the D.C. residents.
I believe they have made it quite clear they don't appreciate being
made a pawn in national political battles.
We owe it to the people of D.C. to enact statehood, not this radical
attempt to interfere with the district's Democratic process.
The subject of these disapproval resolutions, the Revised Criminal
Code Act and Local Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, should be
irrelevant.
But just so we are clear, let's look at the legislative history of
those two acts that our colleagues across the aisle want to overturn.
Under the D.C. Home Rule Act, which is a Federal statute, the
democratically elected 13-member D.C. Council is required to enact a
new law twice, with at least 13 days intervening between each vote, in
order to pass legislation.
Legislation passed by the council and affirmed by the Mayor or with a
veto override is then transmitted to Congress for a review period.
The legislation takes effect at the expiration of the review period
unless Congress intervenes by passing a resolution of disapproval.
Congress has only overturned duly elected D.C. laws three times
before the misguided efforts that we are forced to consider today.
Now, the D.C. Council passed the Revised Criminal Code Act by votes
of 12-0 and 13-0. While the Mayor vetoed it, the council voted to
override that veto by a vote of 12-1.
The Revised Criminal Code Act is the culmination of a 5-year process
to revise and update D.C.'s criminal code, which, as mentioned
previously, has not happened since it was first created over a century
ago.
Everyone in the D.C. legal system, from prosecutors to judges to
defense attorneys to scholars, agrees that this revision is long
overdue.
Our colleagues across the aisle object to the revised criminal code
that has been crafted with so much care to meet local conditions
because they don't like some sentencing provisions that seek to match
up the law with current standards.
They posit that harsher penalties would be a greater deterrent to the
criminal conduct that they want to target when, in fact, the data shows
that harsher penalties in some of the States that they represent does
not, in fact, deter that conduct.
So think about this: Republican politicians from Georgia and Kentucky
and Texas, who haven't bothered to take the time to hold a hearing or
study this issue, have decided to parachute in and dictate to the
700,000 residents of D.C. that they know better than those residents
and their elected Representatives how to run their city.
Can you imagine how those politicians would react if the D.C. Council
tried to tell them how to run the jails in Athens, Georgia; Lexington,
Kentucky; or Buffalo, New York?
What is particularly infuriating is that our Republican colleagues
claim that they want to block the D.C. law because they want to be
tougher on crime. But, once again, this is empty rhetoric. Overturning
the D.C. criminal code will do nothing to increase public safety in
D.C. or anywhere else.
As I mentioned at the outset, we are 6 weeks into the new Congress,
and the Republican majority has not brought forward any legislation to
address crime in America.
They won't consider legislation to block the flood of unregulated
guns into American communities, they won't ban the weapons of war that
take innocent lives in horrifying and predictably regular mass
shootings, and they haven't taken any action to address the societal
issues that produce violence.
The second resolution under consideration would vacate the Local
Resident Voting Rights Amendment Act, which the D.C. Council passed by
votes of 12-1 and 12-0 after holding hearings and soliciting public
comment.
This act would allow otherwise qualified D.C. residents who are not
U.S. citizens to vote in local D.C. elections.
Qualified noncitizen residents could vote in races for Mayor,
council, attorney general, neighborhood commissioners, school district,
and local referenda.
Of course, this does not apply to Federal elections. Our colleagues
are trying to paint this legislation as some radical new idea, but
there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution--which I understand was read
here on the floor today, so we could check--that prohibits noncitizens
from voting in local, State, or Federal elections.
In fact, there is a long history in the U.S. of noncitizens being
allowed to vote in those elections, and they have done so since at
least 1704 in what would later become the U.S. At various points, 40
States have permitted noncitizens to vote. Congress only first
prohibited noncitizens from voting in Federal elections in 1996.
Currently, there are at least 15 municipalities that permit
noncitizens to vote in local elections. They do so in recognition of
the fact that noncitizens, who are allowed to vote under such local
laws, pay a variety of State, local, and Federal taxes, and they have
an inherent interest in helping to shape policies in the communities
where they live.
I strongly encourage all of my colleagues to oppose these profoundly
undemocratic and paternalistic resolutions.
Now, today's rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 185, which
would terminate the CDC requirement for proof of COVID-19 vaccination
for foreign travelers to enter the U.S.
The CDC order was put in place to open the world back up and allow
vaccinated foreign travelers to visit the U.S. while keeping our
community safe.
Revising or revoking the COVID-19 public health guidance should be at
the behest of public health experts with understanding and knowledge of
global case trends, up-to-date data, and real-time safety information
about emerging infections and COVID-19 epidemiology, not partisan
politicians looking to settle political scores or curry favor with the
disgraced former President and his base.
This bill would upend our current COVID-19 travel protocol, and
worse, tie the hands of our public health experts by prohibiting any
future order to require COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of
entering the United States.
As I said last week when the majority brought several bills to the
floor attacking COVID-19 emergency declarations and vaccines, we
shouldn't jeopardize our progress in fighting COVID with political
stunts.
This is just the latest bill inspired by anti-vax conspiracy theories
that has been rushed to the floor, uninformed by any hearings or any
scientific evidence.
It is dangerous to repeatedly mislead the public about the efficacy
of these vaccines that are proven to save lives.
This bill increases the risk of spreading new variants, just as
hospitals and public health infrastructure are trying to rebuild.
Once again, an extremist fringe is putting politics over science and
undermining public health experts at the expense of the American
people, and Republican leadership is letting them get away with it.
We need Republican leaders to embrace science and promote the public
[[Page H723]]
good, instead of undermining them to score political points.
I am disappointed that my colleagues continue to waste this body's
time and taxpayer dollars on frivolous bills and resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, the resolutions and bill we are considering today do not
address the issues we were elected to address for the American people.
We have now been in this Congress for over a month and have yet to
take up any serious legislation. I hope my colleagues can work in a
bipartisan manner to address the problems our constituents sent us here
to solve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, and I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
As we talk about following the science, I have to ask the question:
France, Germany, Italy, Great Britain, they don't have a vaccine
mandate for their visitors.
Are they following the science?
Are they in great peril?
Back to the matter of public safety. I think it is very important to
point out that in letters to the leadership of this great body, the
National Fraternal Order of Police, a union representing the men and
women of the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, they are proudly
standing against the wrongheaded policies in the District of Columbia
that overrode their Democratic Mayor's veto on this very legislation,
as well as the D.C. Police Union itself in a letter to Speaker McCarthy
doing the same.
Are they wrong? I don't think so.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota
(Mrs. Fischbach), my fellow Rules Committee member.
Mrs. FISCHBACH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
He is new to the Rules Committee, and we have really enjoyed having him
there so far.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution providing for
consideration of three important bills.
H.J. Res. 24 and 26 would repeal two recent actions by the D.C.
Council that would have drastic negative consequences nationwide.
The first would give illegal immigrants the right to vote in local
elections. By pursuing this effort, D.C. leftists would dilute every
lawful vote, which would have profound implications on all of our
elections.
The second would further promote the left's soft-on-crime agenda.
According to the Major Cities Chiefs Association, cities across the
country have experienced increases in homicides by nearly 50 percent
and aggravated assaults by over a third.
The so-called Revised Criminal Code Act would only accelerate these
crime rates by eliminating mandatory minimums, reduce penalties for
violent crimes, and bottle up local courts that are paid for by the
Federal Government--Federal tax dollars from across the country.
Under the D.C. Home Rule Act of 1973, Congress retains the ultimate
say over affairs within the seat of our Federal Government.
The authority is derived under Article I of the Constitution, which
grants Congress the authority over D.C., in ``all cases whatsoever.''
Congress has voted to overturn various D.C. efforts throughout the
years, as recently as 2014. Western Minnesotans know these efforts will
not simply remain in Washington. Radical leftists in the Twin Cities
are pursuing similar efforts.
Recently, it was claimed at the Minnesota State Capitol that illegal
immigrants are voting in droves. Western Minnesotans know that the Twin
Cities' liberals will not be outdone by D.C. in promoting soft-on-crime
policies.
My constituents know that if we do not take a stand, these radical
ideas will continue to spread across the country.
Finally, I appreciate that Representative Massie's legislation to
repeal the vaccine mandate for air travel is also included in this
rule.
We still face issues at the land ports of entry in my district and
across the northern border. It is my sincere hope that we also repeal a
similar restriction on travel between the U.S. and Canada at land ports
of entry in the coming weeks.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Sentencing
Project advocacy group, which is signed by over a dozen civil rights
organizations opposing the Republican efforts to obstruct the enactment
of the District of Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act.
It states: ``Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice
policies in their community and deserve the right to determine their
own laws. Local leaders are better positioned and retain more expertise
to address safety and justice issues in the District than Congress.''
The Sentencing Project,
February 6, 2023.
Re Oppose efforts to obstruct the District of Columbia's
Revised Criminal Code Act.
Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Chairman Jim Jordan,
Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Ranking Member Jerry Nadler,
Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington,
DC.
Dear Speaker McCarthy and Minority Leader Jeffries: On
behalf of the undersigned organizations, we write to express
our opposition to efforts to obstruct the District of
Columbia's Revised Criminal Code Act, including any
resolution of disapproval or budget rider. The Revised
Criminal Code Act of 2022 (RCCA) is the product of 16 years
of research, an expert commission, 51 public meetings,
extensive public feedback, and robust negotiation. As such,
the D.C. Council voted unanimously to pass the RCCA and the
RCCA is supported by 83% of District voters. Opponents of the
RCCA, however, are spreading misinformation about the RCCA's
impact in a blatant attempt to erode home rule and trample on
the rights of District residents. We urge you to oppose these
attacks on the RCCA and vote against any resolution of
disapproval.
Washingtonians know best how to address criminal justice
policies in their community and deserve the right to
determine their own laws. Local leaders are better positioned
and retain more expertise to address safety and justice
issues in the District than Congress. Federal overstepping to
interfere with RCCA's implementation, which does not go into
effect until 2025, would be inappropriate and misguided. The
D.C. Council can continue to amend the RCCA, if desired, to
address stakeholder concerns.
The RCCA is a long-overdue modernization of the D.C.
Criminal Code. Since the 1960s, dozens of states have
embarked on criminal code reforms, removing obsolete
provisions, ensuring sentences are proportionate and
equitable, and simplifying overlapping charges. The RCCA
follows that trend--the District last comprehensively revised
the criminal code in 1901. A revision to reflect best
practices in sentencing and criminological evidence is
necessary to ensure justice, fairness, and safety in the
District. By ensuring the statutes are clear and
constitutional, the RCCA makes the law easier for police
officers, attorneys, and judges to understand and administer.
To arrive at that revision, the District engaged in a
thorough, transparent, and evidence-based process. The D.C.
Council created a Criminal Code Reform Commission (CCRC)
which prepared recommendations based on a review of recent
code reforms in other jurisdictions, current sentencing
practices in D.C. Superior Court, court data, recommendations
by the American Law Institute, social science, and the
current sentencing guidelines. The CCRC Advisory Group, whose
five voting members included representatives from the Office
of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, the Office
of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia, the
Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia, and two
professors from Georgetown University Law Center and George
Washington University Law School, unanimously voted to
approve the recommendations. The D.C. Council also made
numerous changes to the introduced version of the bill,
reflecting negotiations with the Metropolitan Police
Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Office of the
Attorney General, the Public Defender Service, D.C. Superior
Court judges, and members of the community. As Mayor Bowser
acknowledged in her January 4, 2023 letter to D.C. Council
Chairman Phil Mendelson, there is ``consensus agreement'' on
``95% of the bill.''
The RCCA is a balanced bill--bringing the District in line
with national sentencing norms by lengthening some sentences,
reducing some maximums, and other reforms. The RCCA includes
many modernizations, such as aligning D.C. with the majority
of the country by creating the right to a jury trial for
misdemeanors. The RCCA also lengthened sentences for several
offenses and permits enhancements and stacking that can make
the sentences much longer. The RCCA increases penalties for
possession of assault rifles, ghost guns, and restricted
explosive
[[Page H724]]
devices, to 4 years from 1 year under current law. It also
creates a new offense, endangerment with a firearm, which
criminalizes discharging a firearm in a public place, or in a
manner that creates a substantial risk of death.
Additionally, the RCCA reduced the statutory maximum for
certain offenses, in order to improve proportionality and
reflect current sentencing practices, which are typically
well below the maximum. As such, the sentence maximum changes
in the RCCA are not expected to lower sentences for serious
crimes. For example, the RCCA's 20-year maximum penalty for
robbery is seven times higher than the median sentence
imposed for robbery, and 11 years higher than the 97.5th
percentile sentence imposed for robbery. For robberies and
carjackings, over 97.5% of sentences currently imposed by
judges are lower than the maximum allowable penalty outlined
in the RCCA.
The people and leaders of the District support the RCCA.
The RCCA is also backed by an abundance of research, data,
and stakeholder feedback. Attempts by Congress to intervene
are rooted in efforts to end home rule and falsehoods. We
urge you to respect the will of Washingtonians and oppose all
efforts, whether a resolution of disapproval or budget rider,
to obstruct the RCCA.
Sincerely,
American Civil Liberties Union, American Civil Liberties
Union of the District of Columbia, Center for Disability
Rights, DC Justice Lab, Drug Policy Alliance, Due Process
Institute, FAMM, FWD.us, Justice Policy Institute, National
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National Council for
Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls,
NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, The Festival
Center, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights,
The Sentencing Project.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), our esteemed colleague.
{time} 1300
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
I strongly oppose this rule. This rule would allow the House to
consider two resolutions that would nullify two bills recently enacted
by the District of Columbia's local legislature, the D.C. Council.
These are profoundly undemocratic, paternalistic resolutions.
The House, in which the nearly 700,000 D.C. residents have no voting
representation, is attempting to nullify a bill enacted by the D.C.
Council, whose members are elected by and accountable to D.C.
residents.
What is democracy? The dictionary defines it as a ``government in
which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them
directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually
involving periodically held free elections.''
Perhaps President Lincoln described democracy best in the Gettysburg
Address as ``government of the people, by the people, and for the
people.''
The D.C. Council has 13 members. The members are elected by D.C.
residents. Eight members are elected by geographical area and five
members are elected at-large. If D.C. residents do not like how the
members vote, they can vote them out of office.
Congress has 535 Members. The Members are elected by residents of the
several States. None are elected by D.C. residents. If D.C. residents
do not like how Members vote, even on legislation that applies to the
District of Columbia, such as the two disapproval resolutions, they can
ask politely for residents of the several States to vote Members out of
office.
The Revolutionary War was fought to give consent to the governed and
to end taxation without representation. Yet, D.C. residents cannot
consent to any action taken by Congress, whether on national or D.C.
matters, and pay full Federal taxes. Indeed, D.C. residents pay more
Federal taxes per capita than any State and more Federal taxes than 23
States.
Instead of abusing its power by nullifying legislation enacted by the
D.C. Council, the House should adhere to democratic principles and pass
my D.C. statehood bill, which would give D.C. residents voting
representation in Congress and full control over its local affairs.
I will have more to say on these undemocratic, paternalistic
resolutions during floor debate on them on Thursday; but I will say to
all Members of the House now: Keep your hands off of the District of
Columbia.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, as a reminder, the resolutions before us
today, they are not about the question of D.C. statehood. These are
based on current law and not what we would like the law to look like as
it relates to the District of Columbia.
Under the Home Rule Act, Congress has the ability, the
responsibility, to provide oversight and review of policies enacted by
the D.C. Government.
Let's also remember that the District of Columbia isn't just another
town or locality. It is a Federal district. It is our Nation's capital.
We have an obligation to protect the residents of this country in our
Nation's capital.
The criminal justice revisions, as well as weakening the protections
for the elections in the District of Columbia by opening it up to
foreign nationals, go and fly directly in the face of that.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Massie), my fellow Rules Committee member.
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York for
yielding.
The U.S. should be leading the free world right now but, instead, we
are falling behind. Hundreds of countries have a vaccine policy that is
more liberal than the United States at the moment.
If you live in Japan, Italy, Spain, Canada, the United Kingdom,
Ukraine, Israel, Germany, France, Australia, South Africa, Egypt,
Brazil, Taiwan, Mexico, all of our neighbors to the north and to the
south, to the east and to the west have gotten rid of their COVID
vaccine mandates to enter their countries, but we have not. Why is
that?
What is our policy right now?
To enter into the United States, if you are a foreigner, you have to
have a COVID vaccine. Who can enter right now without a vaccine?
Well, if you are an illegal alien apprehended at the border and
awaiting a trial or a hearing, you don't need a vaccine; just come on
into the country, we will check it out later.
What if you are somebody who comes in and you have been vaccinated,
but you have got a full-blown case of symptomatic COVID? Oh, you are
vaccinated? No problem. Come on in. Bring your new variant, whatever it
is. We will welcome you.
If you are a healthy tennis player who has not been vaccinated, then
stay out of our country. That is the message that we have been sending.
Our policy is at least 2 years out of date. The U.S. Travel
Association recognizes this. They said that every day this policy
remains in place encourages some travelers to avoid the U.S., costing
us valuable visitor spending and delaying our efforts to re-ignite
inbound travel.
So our economy is suffering. But that is not really what compelled to
me to offer this bill. I am concerned about the families who have been
separated for 3 years; children who haven't seen their parents; spouses
who haven't seen each other, separated for 3 years.
There is no religious exemption in the vaccine mandate policy that
the United States has. In fact, there are dictatorships that have
better policies than ours right now: Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, Syria;
oh, not vaccinated? Not a problem because they recognize at least the
science behind it.
Mr. Speaker, this is a structured rule. During the debate, we are
going to allow three amendments from the Democrats on my bill, and we
are going to allow two Republican amendments. I think that is very kind
of us. We didn't see this kind of openness and legislative deliberative
process when the other party was in the majority.
Think about this as I close: Today, later in this Chamber, there will
be over 1,000 people, sharing the oxygen, the air in this room with the
President and the Vice President of the United States, and none of
those thousand people that will be in this room have been mandated to
take the vaccine.
So when you think about casting your vote on this, just consider for
a second: Are you being a hypocrite?
None of your staff and none of the Members of this legislative body,
or the Supreme Court, or the Senate who are going to join us here later
today with the President, none of them have been mandated to take the
vaccine. We shouldn't do the same.
We should not project xenophobia from this country. We should allow
visitors; we should reunite families; and we should re-ignite our
economy by eliminating this policy.
[[Page H725]]
Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am afraid we have to dig into the weeds a little bit with Rules
Committee process right now.
Earlier, the gentleman from New York said that with this rule, the
new majority has tied the number of times that more minority amendments
were made in order than majority amendments.
While I am certainly supportive of minority amendments, that sounded
wrong, so we asked our staff to check. They haven't had much time while
we have been speaking, but they have already found at least two times
that the Democratic majority did this in the last Congress, H.R. 302
and H.R. 963. Perhaps our colleagues need to check their facts.
What I do know is that this rule contains the 18th and 19th closed
rules of this new Congress. That is already over 30 percent of what we
did during the first year of the Democratic majority. So it is more
like a return to Republican habits, just like they ran the most-closed
Congress in history last time they had control.
I am also astonished to learn that it was the possibility of family
separation that inspired our colleagues to introduce H.R. 185, when the
issue of family separation due to our outmoded, broken immigration
system has not served to inspire any urgency to reform that system.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me just say we will all have an
opportunity to debate this legislation in general debate. I do think it
is important to frame the challenges that all of these particular
initiatives have.
Frankly, let me, first of all, say that I am disappointed that the
Rules Committee did not let a very straightforward amendment which I
think expresses the view of many of us to strike the entire text of
H.R. 185.
During the pandemic, I organized a bipartisan COVID-19 task force. We
worked very hard; included a Republican, a doctor, and other Members.
We held meetings with doctors. We held meeting with scientists,
hospital administrators. They were very grateful.
Many of you may have heard me say that I did over 70-plus testing
sites and over 70-plus vaccination sites, going up to 150 in my
community.
It is about the science. People understood the science and they
gravitated toward vaccines. That means that any elimination of the
requirement of foreign travelers should be on the science, not to be on
the whims of individuals who believe that they are helping to unify
families. It is about the science.
The reason why we are where we are today, even though there are 500
people getting COVID, and there are people dying every single day, is
because more Americans believed in the science than did not. That is
why we developed this protection. So I think this is wrongheaded to
have this legislation.
Finally, H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26, disapproving the actions of
the District of Columbia on voting rights and on the criminal code is,
again, undermining local rule, and they have the right to local rule.
Constitutionally, everyone should have the right to equal protection
under the law in the place where they are.
Washington, D.C., Mr. Speaker, should not have the intrusion of the
United States Congress.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Roy) my fellow Rules Committee member.
Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am glad
to have him on the Rules Committee and glad to serve with him.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have been asking
what have we been doing over the last few weeks?
Well, I will tell you what we have been doing. We have been
protecting babies born alive. We have been protecting families from the
invasive audits of the Internal Revenue Service, or at least trying to
if Chuck Schumer doesn't block it; trying to protect the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve from 200 million barrels being dumped by the
President heading right into an election, lo and behold.
Now, how about protecting, last week, nurses and doctors from being
fired for daring to want to protect their own health and well-being by
not taking a shot, a shot which the CDC Director says does nothing for
transmission of COVID. Those are the facts.
We are standing with the American people. American people are sick
and tired of an overbearing Federal Government sticking its nose where
it doesn't belong into the well-being, into the health, into the jobs,
into the lives of the American people. That is the truth.
Now, what are we trying do? Today, we want to protect individuals
from being punished if they want to try to come to the United States
but haven't had a vaccine; again, a vaccine which the CDC Director says
does nothing for transmission. Those are the truths.
Here is the fact: Right now, a vaccinated noncitizen with COVID can
enter the United States, via air travel, but an unvaccinated noncitizen
who doesn't have COVID would be denied entry. That is the logic of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle; that is, there is no logic.
That is the problem.
Everything about COVID has been free of logic and, rather, full of
emotion. That is the truth.
We have been destroying the American economy. We have been destroying
the future of our children; forcing them into the corners with masks;
forcing them to be denied education. We have been destroying the
futures of families whose family members have lost jobs; who haven't
been able to serve; who haven't been able to carry out their
livelihoods as doctors, as nurses, as public servants who have been
unable to carry out their jobs, including men and women in uniform,
until Republicans demanded, in December, that we protect our men and
women in uniform from getting fired for daring to say I don't want to
have a needle stuck in my arm when there is plenty of evidence
indicating myocarditis and other concerns that arise from it.
I wonder why we haven't had any committee hearings by my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle diving into the origins of COVID, diving
into the side effects of the vaccine?
Well, we are going to do it now, and history is going to judge us,
and we are going to be on the side of protecting the American people.
I will tell you one last thing: This is the capital city of the
United States of America, and Congress has the authority to protect the
people who want to visit here and to make sure that American citizens
are the ones who vote. It is not a State. It is our Nation's Capital
seat.
{time} 1315
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will
offer an amendment to the rule to ensure that H.R. 185 does not take
effect unless it is certified that it won't decrease Social Security
benefits.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, Social Security is the bedrock of our
Nation's social safety net. Since its inception, it has lifted millions
of our seniors out of poverty. Protecting the benefits that Social
Security provides should be a priority for this Congress, for everyone
in this Congress, as my Republican colleagues demand reckless cuts in
exchange for paying our Nation's bills.
Democrats are going to continue to push to ensure that these vital
benefits are protected and will continue to give Republicans every
opportunity to ease the American people's anxiety by demonstrating with
their votes, including on this measure, that they do not intend to cut
Social Security.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Alford).
Mr. ALFORD. Mr. Speaker, my dad died 5 years ago. I think one of the
most precious moments I remember with him as a child is going with him
to vote back in the late 1960s, early 1970s, when the polling stations
had the
[[Page H726]]
boxes you would go in and the curtains would close and you would go in
and pull a lever.
My dad wanted to make sure that we all knew, me and my three
brothers, just how important voting was. It is not only our right; it
is our responsibility as U.S. citizens.
Today, I rise in support of the rule, House Resolution 24. Free,
fair, and trusted elections are the most sacred and the most essential
part of our democracy for a healthy republic.
Unfortunately, the D.C. Council has tried to undermine the voice of
American citizens who vote in D.C. by granting illegal aliens the right
to vote. This is wrong. We know it is wrong. It jeopardizes the
sanctity of our elections. Law-abiding U.S. citizens should not be
disenfranchised by noncitizens voting.
Preserving the integrity of our elections could not be more
important. We must trust the vote. We must protect the vote. We must
ensure the highest level of confidence for all Americans.
If the D.C. Council allows illegal voters to exercise the right to
vote, this would have massive affects across our Nation.
Where would it end?
Our Constitution has set forth the founding law which determines
voting rights, and it could not be more clear. The 26th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution says: ``The right of citizens of the United
States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.''
The Constitution is clear, Mr. Speaker. The right to vote is a
privilege reserved for U.S. citizens, not illegal aliens.
Let me continue to section 2: ``The Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'' That is what we are
here today to do, with appropriate legislation, this resolution.
The right to vote is one of the most sacred rights we have. It is a
bedrock of our society. It is a fundamental part of what we are as a
Nation. We cannot throw this right away to the D.C. Council. We will
not let it happen.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to support this resolution and join my
colleagues to take a stand to protect the integrity of our elections,
the right of every U.S. citizen, including my late father.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Beyer).
Mr. BEYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26 are blatant attempts to undermine D.C.
Home Rule. These resolutions are explicit efforts by Members of
Congress to interfere in local government. They aim to directly
override the D.C. Council and dictate what D.C. residents can and
cannot do on a local level.
I firmly believe that the District of Columbia, like any other
jurisdiction across the country, should be allowed to govern itself. I
am just confused that my Republican friends, who have such a deep
commitment to federalism--federalism, where decisions are best made at
the local level--why they would work to impede the right of 700,000
American citizens to self-govern?
It is critical that we fiercely protect this right on behalf of
citizens living in D.C. We weren't voted to be D.C. City Council
members. D.C. citizens didn't ask for our say in local matters. I trust
my mayor of the city of Alexandria, Justin Wilson, to represent me ably
there, and everyone else respects the people in their hometown, their
home States, to do the same.
I am certainly not here offering to overturn local city council
rulemaking in Kentucky or Georgia or Texas, but I am sure I could find
plenty to disagree with.
We have got to respect the American democratic process and allow the
people of D.C. to govern themselves. If we, as a Congress, value and
respect the principle of local self-governance that makes up the core
of our democracy, it is hypocritical of us to revoke that right for the
citizens of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to strongly join me in opposing
H.J. Res. 24 and H.J. Res. 26.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. LaMalfa).
Mr. LaMALFA. Mr. Speaker, let's just sort this out in our minds for a
minute here.
Giving the privilege that our soldiers have fought for, the very
cornerstone privilege of voting in this country, to people that have
broken into this country and are here in this city illegally, granting
them the right to vote, the people all across the fruited plain have
got to believe that they are out of their minds here to extend that
privilege to people whose first act was to break into this country.
Now, they want to confer the privilege of voting and deciding who the
decisionmakers in Washington, D.C., are going to be for them. It is
absurd.
Now, there are a lot of things going on with D.C. politics and
demands for the area here. I understand, on some level, part of it. But
D.C. is about one-eighteenth the size of Rhode Island. Its population
is only a little bit larger than Fresno, California, one of the towns
in my home State.
They are demanding statehood?
It is right in the Constitution that the District of Columbia will be
kept separate from any State, so it doesn't have undue influence by a
State in conducting the business of the city and of the district and of
the Federal Government housed here.
It just shows that Congress, having been authorized and given the
duties of overseeing the district, needs to reassert itself once again,
because the council here is out of control, thinking that that is a
good idea, with some of the crime legislation that is being talked
about. But the right to vote being conferred upon people whose very
first act was to break into this country, people are really wondering
if this place has lost its collective mind.
I support this legislation to put D.C. back on the right path, the
right foot, of following the law. It would undermine elections all
across this country to have the idea of illegal immigrants voting in
this city or other ones around the country.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time for
closing.
Mr. Speaker, these measures today do nothing to address the important
issues facing American families. These resolutions are misguided and
unserious at best and deeply undemocratic at their core. House
Republicans continue to waste precious time and taxpayer dollars on
power struggles and political stunts.
Republican leadership's acquiescence to the fringe forces in their
party is a disservice to the American public. With all of the
challenges this Congress should contend with, an extremist overreach to
nullify democratically passed legislation and rolling back lifesaving
COVID protections is a waste of precious time and resources.
My Democratic colleagues and I are here to work on behalf of the
American people and are ready to do the serious work of delivering for
them, fighting for better jobs and safer communities. We will oppose
extremist attempts to stoke division, to undermine government
institutions, and to threaten fundamental American freedoms.
I invite my colleagues to work across the aisle, to work together on
the issues that matter to all of our constituents: lowering prices;
addressing housing, healthcare, and education needs; making our
communities safer; and protecting our environment.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question and
the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time
for closing.
Mr. Speaker, if individuals would like the power to vote in our
elections, they must go through the legal process to become U.S.
citizens, like the millions before them did.
Ask yourself: Should we be extending the right to vote, no matter at
any level, to the CCP members who work at the Chinese Embassy?
Should we extend the right to vote in elections in this country to
members of the Russian Federation staff at their embassy?
That would happen under the D.C. voting rights legislation.
If individuals attack, kill, steal, and destroy property, they should
be punished for those offenses, not let off the hook. These are basic
tenets of our society, of our democracy, and of this great Nation.
The District of Columbia is the seat of the Federal Government, and
as
[[Page H727]]
such has a special place in American society. Congress has a clear
responsibility under the Home Rule Act to block policies that
jeopardize the democratic rights and the lives of American citizens.
We have an opportunity today not just to provide much-needed
oversight to D.C.'s disastrous policies but to also finally end a
draconian vaccine mandate that has kept families and friends apart.
Let's remember that around the world, other countries have ended
their own COVID-19 vaccine mandates for air travelers. Europe, Canada,
and elsewhere no longer require Americans to arrive with a proof of
vaccination.
Why has the administration persisted in upholding this mandate?
With the proof about the vaccine's true efficacy and limitation in
preventing the spread of COVID, why have they so obsessively upheld
this mandate or any of the others, for that matter?
The time has come for Congress to step in and to remind the
administration that the pandemic is over and allow families and friends
and loved ones to reunite after years of forced separation.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Scanlon is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 97
Strike the first section after the resolving clause and
insert the following:
That at any time after adoption of this resolution the
Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
185) to terminate the requirement imposed by the Director of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for proof of
COVID-19 vaccination for foreign travelers, and for other
purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed
with. All points of order against consideration of the bill
are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and
the amendments specified in this section and shall not exceed
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce or their respective designees. After general debate
the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. The amendment printed in section 4 of this
resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in
the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as the original bill for the purpose of further
amendment and shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such further
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such further
amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill, as amended, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit.
Insert at the end the following:
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in the first section of
this resolution is as follows:
``At the end, add the following:
``This Act shall not be effective unless and until the date
on which the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
certifies that this Act will not result in a decrease to
Social Security benefits.''.
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. 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, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 208, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 108]
YEAS--217
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Green, Al (TX)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--208
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
[[Page H728]]
NOT VOTING--9
Aderholt
Arrington
Hunt
Johnson (GA)
Larson (CT)
Mfume
Nehls
Spartz
Steube
{time} 1352
Ms. LEE of Pennsylvania, Mr. JEFFRIES, Ms. PORTER, Messrs. SCOTT of
Virginia, EVANS, McGOVERN, and Ms. STANSBURY changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. COLE changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
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.
Recorded Vote
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 217,
noes 208, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 109]
AYES--217
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Santos
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Stewart
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--208
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jackson Lee
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Peltola
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Raskin
Ross
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Sherrill
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Spanberger
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--9
Aderholt
Arrington
Hunt
Johnson (GA)
Larson (CT)
Mfume
Spartz
Steube
Timmons
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1401
Mrs. PELTOLA changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
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.
____________________