[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.

                          ____________________