[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 13, 2023)]
[House]
[Pages H2822-H2834]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 44, PROVIDING FOR 
  CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL UNDER THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF 
  ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES RELATING TO ``FACTORING 
CRITERIA FOR FIREARMS WITH ATTACHED `STABILIZING BRACES' ''; PROVIDING 
 FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 277, REGULATIONS FROM THE EXECUTIVE IN NEED 
   OF SCRUTINY ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 288, 
      SEPARATION OF POWERS RESTORATION ACT OF 2023; PROVIDING FOR 
 CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1615, GAS STOVE PROTECTION AND FREEDOM ACT; AND 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1640, SAVE OUR GAS STOVES ACT

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 495 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 495

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 44) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 
     Explosives relating to ``Factoring Criteria for Firearms with 
     Attached `Stabilizing Braces' ''. 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 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint 
     resolution and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  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. 
     277) to amend chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, to 
     provide that major rules of the executive branch shall have 
     no force or effect unless a joint resolution of approval is 
     enacted into law. 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 the Judiciary or their respective designees. 
     After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-6 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 under the five-minute 
     rule 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 part A of 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.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 288) to amend 
     title 5, United States Code, to clarify the nature of 
     judicial review of agency interpretations of statutory and 
     regulatory provisions. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on the Judiciary now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 118-7 shall be considered as 
     adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill, as 
     amended, are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  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. 
     1615) to prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves. 
     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 part C of 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

[[Page H2823]]

     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. 5.  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. 
     1640) to prohibit the Secretary of Energy from finalizing, 
     implementing, or enforcing the proposed rule titled ``Energy 
     Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
     Consumer Conventional Cooking Products'', 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 part D of 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. 6.  The ordering of the yeas and nays on the question 
     of reconsideration of the vote on adoption of House 
     Resolution 463 is vacated to the end that the motion to 
     reconsider be laid on the table.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), 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.

                              {time}  1230


                             General Leave

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  House Resolution 495 provides for a structured rule for consideration 
of H.R. 277, the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act 
of 2023 and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for 
consideration of H.R. 288, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 
2023. It also provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.
  House Resolution 495 further provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 1615, the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, 
and provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  This resolution further provides for a structured rule for the 
consideration of H.R. 1640 and provides 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Furthermore, House Resolution 495 provides for a closed rule for 
consideration of H.J. Res. 44 and provides 1 hour of debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee 
on the Judiciary.
  These are five bills that may seem unrelated, but they are very 
related, and they have to do with the power of Congress and the fact 
that our power has atrophied considerably since the beginning of this 
country. In fact, we are almost a vestigial organ of this Republic at 
this point, we have ceded so much power to the executive branch, and 
that is how all of these bills are related.
  Three of the bills seek to repeal laws or regulations that the 
administrative branch is unconstitutionally, I would argue, 
promulgating.
  Two of these bills get at the heart of the matter, the problem that 
we have. One of them specifically is the REINS Act, which is very 
important. This would rein in our power to legislate.
  I don't think our Founders would recognize our form of government at 
this point. They never intended for the administrators to be the 
lawmakers; yet here we are.
  The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act would send 
every major regulation that is suggested--and I say suggested--by the 
administration back to Congress where there would have to be a positive 
vote of the House and the Senate in order for that to go to the 
President and then, with his signature, become law, as all laws should 
do.
  The other bill in this package that seeks to address the sort of 
chronic problem that we have here in Congress is the Separation of 
Powers Restoration Act.
  It is basically a repeal of a horrible Supreme Court precedent called 
the Chevron deference that says, basically, any way the administration 
wants to construe one of our laws, they can get away with it.
  The Supreme Court will give deference to the interpretation, no 
matter how far afield from the original interpretation the law was 
given from Congress.
  Finally, the three bills today that deal with individual regulations, 
two of them deal with gas stoves. This administration has a war on gas 
stoves, depending on which person from the administration you listen 
to, a rule that is being promulgated by the Consumer Product Safety 
Commission and also by the Department of Energy.
  There are two rules here. They would ban between 50 to 95 percent of 
the gas stoves on the market for arbitrary reasons. It is not clear 
that there would be any consumer benefit from banning these. In fact, 
consumers would suffer from this ban.
  These are the types of rules that we need the REINS Act for. They 
would have a significant impact on our economy, and that is why they 
should be here in front of Congress, and that is why we are seeking to 
countermand them here today.
  Finally, I think this is the most important rule that we are 
countermanding in legislation this week, and that is the pistol brace 
rule from the ATF.
  We are not talking about an interpretation of a law where the EPA 
says, we think we should allow this much sulfur dioxide instead of that 
amount of sulfur dioxide and create a civil infraction where 
corporations could be sued or punished. We are talking about criminal 
penalties.
  The ATF has twisted the existing statute, a law that was passed by 
Congress in 1934, and has magically reinterpreted it to create tens of 
millions of felons beginning on June 1.
  We have a bad situation in this country right now where millions of 
people have been turned into felons, law-abiding individuals who are 
following the rules that were set forth by the ATF. That is why urgent 
action is required on the pistol brace rule repeal here today, and that 
is H.J. Res. 44.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it is great to see you again. How are you? It has been a 
while. You look terrific.
  We haven't had votes in what, 5 legislative days, all because some 
Republican Members decided to throw a temper tantrum last week on the 
House floor, wanting to rehash legislation that was passed the week 
before.
  What we saw was essentially a fight between the rightwing and the 
extreme

[[Page H2824]]

rightwing. I mean, what the hell is going on here?
  With each passing week, it becomes more and more obvious that the 
Republican Party is completely out of touch with what everyday people 
care about in this country.

  We are bringing a new rule to the floor that incorporates the bills 
that we were supposed to do last week and adds an additional bill to 
make it easier to kill people.
  I am told that the Republicans now have the votes to pass this rule. 
The question is: What was the deal? Better yet, what was the secret 
deal to convince the Republicans who were problematic last week to go 
along to get along this week?
  Reading the press, we see that members of the Freedom Caucus are 
saying they have this deal on power sharing.
  I am not quite sure what that means. Power sharing with the Speaker 
and the extreme rightwing; is that the deal?
  We hear from the Speaker that there is no deal on anything. I don't 
know what the truth is. Maybe my friend can enlighten us at some point 
about what the truth is.
  My Republican friends like to say that this place should be run like 
a business. Well, if they really believe that, then this place should 
be out of business because this is not the way Congress should be run. 
This is not the way you run a democracy. This is ridiculous.
  Democrats have worked tirelessly to try to lower costs for people, 
bring jobs back from China, rebuild our country, fight pollution, and 
keep our communities safe.
  Republicans? What do they stand for? Well, forgive me if I say I am 
not entirely sure because right now, the only thing I have seen so far 
since they took over is dysfunction and disarray.
  Republicans began this Congress by wasting a week fighting with each 
other about who would be Speaker. Now we are 5 months in, and they have 
enacted five laws.
  One a month. Boy, what an achievement. Even Democrats and President 
Trump were able to enact 21 laws at this point.
  The far right fringe of the Republican Party, the same fringe that 
demanded Speaker McCarthy give them all of his power, has succeeded in 
even dictating to him what bills he can and can't bring to the House 
floor.
  This is important. I want the American people to understand who is in 
charge here right now. It is not the Speaker of the House. It is not 
Kevin McCarthy. It is the far right of the far right.
  We have sitting members of the Republican Conference right now openly 
advocating for civil war. These are the people calling the shots. Are 
you kidding me?
  In what world should the 11 most extreme people in the Republican 
Party get to dictate the entire agenda of a legislative body that 
represents 332 million people? What are we doing here, Mr. Speaker?

                              {time}  1245

  We have smoke from wildfires clogging up our air. Scientists are 
telling us we need to do more on climate change, yet we are passing 
messaging bills about gas stoves.
  By the way, that is not even me calling them messaging bills. It is 
the Republicans saying that. This is a Republican: We do not need to 
leave D.C. early because messaging bills are not coming to the House 
floor. That was Congresswoman Boebert last week.
  How about this one: When we pass things around here that are 
messaging bills that don't do anything, is it really a loss that we 
aren't passing anything?
  I mean, their own Members are saying that the bills they are passing 
do nothing. Essentially, they are just playing a messaging game. Is 
this really the best we can do with all of the challenges that we face 
in this country and around the world?
  Meanwhile, our constituents are begging us and they are pleading with 
us to do something about gun violence in this country. What do 
Republicans do? How do they respond? By bringing to the floor a bill 
that makes it easier for the next mass shooter to kill more people. It 
is sick.
  Mr. Speaker, killed were: 9 people outside a bar in Dayton in 2019; 
10 people, including a police officer, at a grocery store in Boulder in 
2021; 5 people in an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs in 2022; and 6 
people, including children, at a school in Nashville just a few months 
ago. What do they all have in common? They were all killed by mass 
shooters who used stabilizing braces.
  By the way, the ATF rule that the Republicans are trying to overturn, 
contrary to what they say, doesn't even make stabilizing braces 
illegal. It doesn't ban them. All it does is it says that you need to 
register braces because they are used in a lot of mass shootings.
  But for Republicans, any amount of commonsense gun safety regulation 
is too much. Why? Because the NRA says so.
  Our kids are being slaughtered, for God's sake. Does anyone care? Do 
my Republican colleagues care at all that America's parents stay up 
wondering whether their kids will be the next one shot at school or at 
a mall or at a movie theater or at their own graduation?
  People come up to me all the time and they ask me: Why can't 
Democrats and Republicans just work together? I tell them I wish we 
could. There was a time when we did.
  I say to them: Go online and Google the bills that Republicans are 
bringing to the floor. Ask yourself why Republicans oppose background 
checks on a gun accessory that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask 
yourself if it is right that this bill was introduced by a Republican 
Member of Congress--and you are going to love this--who owns a gun 
store and makes millions of dollars by selling guns and these types of 
gun accessories that mass shooters use to kill people. Ask yourself if 
it makes sense that the only reason this bill is even on the floor is 
because Speaker McCarthy isn't even in charge of the House schedule 
anymore; the far, far, far right is.
  The craziest thing is this rule was inspired by guidance published 
under the Trump administration. Let me repeat that. Even the Trump 
administration thought it was necessary to further regulate stabilizing 
braces. I can't believe I am about to say this, but I agree.
  If you want to know why we can't have real action when it comes to 
gun safety, follow the money. In the last decade, the NRA has spent 
more than $100 million to help elect Republicans who will support their 
extreme agenda. Follow the money. It is no surprise that the far right 
is demanding this bill, but it is a shame.
  How many more mass shootings need to happen? How many more kids need 
to die before my Republican colleagues pull their heads out of the sand 
and say the NRA's blood money is not worth the damage that is being 
done to our country?
  I wish I was wrong, Mr. Speaker, but sadly the cowardice and moral 
bankruptcy on the other side of the aisle seems to know no bounds.
  Between the new concept of power sharing in the House, which really 
just means that the Speaker is going to have to keep a tiny minority of 
extremist Members happy for the House to be able to function, and the 
fact that their party's frontrunner for the 2024 Presidential election 
is being indicted with very serious charges for the second time this 
afternoon, I am sorry to say the Republican Party is a train wreck, and 
it doesn't bode well for what is to come.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the gentleman on the other side of 
the aisle is demanding to know what the power-sharing structure is here 
in the House, when, in fact, he will spend the rest of his time arguing 
that we should give our power to the White House, that the 
administrative branch should be making law, in fact, major regulations 
that have more than $100 million of impact.
  I would say to the gentleman on the other side of the aisle that if 
he is wondering about the power-sharing arrangement, then he should 
seek to put some power here in the House, restore the power that the 
Founders gave us in Article I of the Constitution.
  With respect to the solution to the tragic school shootings, some 
States have taken it upon themselves to allow qualified teachers and 
staff to carry

[[Page H2825]]

firearms. Imagine that, the children are protected by firearms the same 
way we are protected here. Why do we sit here and say, oh, we have got 
to do something, when we sit behind protection and the children aren't?
  I would encourage the other side of the aisle to cosponsor my bill to 
change the default setting here in this country. The default setting 
was set by the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which makes it illegal to even 
be near a school and have a firearm, which makes it harder for States 
to set policies that would save our children. All it does is make 
felons of law-abiding gun owners.
  I would encourage them to look at a real solution. You can ban a 
pistol brace, but you are not going to stop a single mass public 
shooting. Most of these mass public shootings occur with a pistol, not 
a pistol with a brace on it or with a short-barreled rifle, as they 
would say, or with a rifle, an assault rifle they might call it.

  They can start banning these pieces of plastic, like the Biden 
administration is doing, and then they can move on to banning 
magazines. As the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee admitted to 
me last night, he would like to ban all of the AR-15s. They could ban 
handguns. Then they will get down to shotguns. The reality is you can't 
stop these tragedies with a ban. You have to change the way we protect 
our children.
  This pistol brace rule that has been promulgated by the 
administrative branch will cause--they just haven't been arrested--will 
cause and has already caused tens of millions of Americans to be 
felons. That happened on June 1. Time is up. You are done. You are now 
a felon if you own one of these braces on your firearm.
  Whether you own one or not, most Americans understand what is 
happening here. Our system of lawmaking has been turned on its head. 
Even more fundamental than that, people were told it was legal by the 
ATF. The technical division of the ATF reviewed the prototypes of these 
pistol braces in 2012 when Obama was the President.
  What did Obama's ATF say to Mr. Bosco, the inventor of the pistol 
brace? ``You are asking if the addition of this sample, a buffer tube 
forearm brace, would convert a firearm in a manner that would cause it 
to be classified as a `rifle' and thus a `firearm' regulated by the 
National Firearms Act. . . . `'
  ``Based on our evaluation,'' our technical department ``finds that 
the submitted forearm brace, when attached to a firearm, does not 
convert that weapon to be fired from the shoulder and would not alter 
the classification of a pistol or other firearm.'' ``. . . Such a 
firearm would not be subject to NFA controls.''
  This is a letter on ATF letterhead, in fact, the Department of 
Justice letterhead, dated November 26, 2012, that millions of Americans 
relied on, that many entrepreneurs relied on.
  Now what happens? The rug is getting pulled out from under them, but 
not by the legislative branch. By the way, we could have repealed this. 
The Democrats controlled both chambers. They could have passed a 
legislative ban on these braces. They didn't do it. Why didn't they do 
it? Maybe it is because they are accountable. They are accountable to 
the people, unlike these bureaucrats. Nobody is going to lose an 
election at the ATF for promulgating this rule.
  The people here are scared. The people here in this Chamber are 
scared to do their jobs, and the people in the Senate are scared to do 
their jobs, so they would much prefer the administration do our jobs.
  What have they done? What is the penalty for owning this piece of 
plastic on a firearm that is connected to a pistol? I asked the ranking 
member of Judiciary Committee last night in the Rules Committee 
meeting. He did not know. It turns out it is a quarter of a million 
dollars and 10 years in prison. Is that the appropriate sentence for 
somebody who followed the law for 10 years, followed ATF guidance that 
was given during the Obama administration and now doesn't even know 
they are violating the law? Is 10 years and a quarter million dollars 
appropriate? I don't think so. They relied on this letter.
  Now, to another part of the pistol brace rule. The ranking member of 
the Judiciary Committee and the ATF Director Dettelbach have both 
testified incorrectly that you can comply with this pistol brace rule 
from the ATF by merely separating the firearm from the brace. That is 
wrong. That is not what the ATF rule says.
  Why did they say this in testimony? Why did the ranking member of the 
Judiciary Committee say this? Why did the ATF Director say this? 
Because they wanted to sound reasonable. That may seem like a 
reasonable solution, but it is not the solution that the ATF has put 
into law.
  Again, this isn't a fine. This isn't like saying the EPA decided that 
we have too much sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere so we are going to 
reduce emissions and set the sulfur dioxide emissions at a different 
level and you can be fined if you don't comply and you are a 
corporation.
  This is not a civil infraction. This is a criminal infraction that 
will put millions of Americans in jeopardy of going to jail. For what, 
a piece of plastic? Does it make the firearm more dangerous? No. Does 
it make the firearm more concealable? No. Does it make the firearm more 
deadly? No.
  Then I hear from the other side of the aisle: Oh, well, we are not 
banning them. Oh, we wouldn't ban them. Really? You are telling people 
in the United States you have to register them as short-barreled 
rifles. Guess what? That is illegal in 13 States. Thirty-six percent of 
Americans live in those 13 States where you can't even comply. You 
cannot legally comply with the ATF directive to register that pistol 
with that brace on it as a short-barreled rifle. Compliance is 
impossible if you want to keep that accessory. It is a ban. It is a de 
facto ban, especially on people in those 13 States.
  Here is what it is really about. They can't ban guns. They would love 
to, but they can't ban them. They can't do it legislatively. The 
President came into office and looked at all of the regulations and how 
could he ban some guns. Well, he found this one here. How can he get 
more guns registered.
  By the way, it is illegal for the administrative branch to create a 
registry of firearms that are in common circulation here in the United 
States. That is illegal. They are not allowed to do it in the 
administrative branch. What have they done with this pistol brace rule 
over there that we seek to countermand? They are going to create a 
registry of millions of Americans who own pistols who happen to have 
this brace.
  I would argue this wasn't just a way to ban guns with certain 
accessories. It was a way to do something else that is not legal, not 
authorized by Congress, and that is to require millions of Americans to 
register.
  To close out this pistol brace rule, I thank Mr. Clyde for 
introducing this resolution. It is absolutely necessary. It is very 
timely. I wish we had gotten it done before June 1 because now we have 
got millions of felons in the United States just waiting to be 
arrested; don't even know they are not in compliance. This ATF rule 
will do nothing to increase safety.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say a couple of things. First of all, nobody is 
talking about banning anything here. What we are saying is that an 
accessory that has been used in a number of mass shootings be 
registered. That is it.
  By the way, the gentleman said the administration should not be 
making laws. The administration is not making laws. They are 
administrating and enforcing the laws that we have passed, and they do 
that through regulation and rulemaking. I am not sure what the 
gentleman is talking about.
  Let me also say that he keeps on saying that this bill will turn gun 
owners into automatic felons, that by owning or buying one of these 
stabilizing braces, American gun owners will become felons. That is 
just not true.
  By the way, I should tell the gentleman, someone has to be convicted 
of a crime in a court to become a felon. Let me give him an example, 
one that he might be able to relate to. Despite being charged with 37 
counts for mishandling classified documents, former President Trump is 
not a felon. He only becomes a felon if he is found guilty of the 
crimes that he was charged with and is sentenced to a year or more in 
prison, which may very likely happen.

[[Page H2826]]

  


                              {time}  1300

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article from the Washington Post titled: ``Here are the 37 charges 
against Trump and what they mean.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.

                [From the Washington Post, June 9, 2023]

        Here Are the 37 Charges Against Trump and What They Mean

                           (By Rachel Weiner)

       A court on Friday unsealed the federal indictment against 
     Donald Trump and an aide over classified documents found at 
     his Mar-a-Lago home and the men's alleged efforts to keep the 
     government from finding the materials. Here's what we know 
     about the charges against the former president, brought by 
     special counsel Jack Smith.


                   How many charges does Trump face?

       Trump is accused of violating seven federal laws but faces 
     37 separate charges. That is because each classified document 
     he is accused of holding on to illegally is charged in a 
     separate count, and his alleged efforts to hide classified 
     information from federal investigators is charged in several 
     ways. His longtime aide Walt Nauta faces six charges, five of 
     which are also lodged against Trump.


                  What are the charges against Trump?

       Espionage Act/unauthorized retention of national defense 
     information: Trump is charged with 31 counts of violating a 
     part of the Espionage Act that bars willful retention of 
     national defense information by someone not authorized to 
     have it. Such information is defined as ``any document, 
     writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, 
     photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, 
     instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national 
     defense, or information relating to the national defense 
     which information the possessor has reason to believe could 
     be used to the injury of the United States or to the 
     advantage of any foreign nation.'' Technically, that 
     information does not have to be classified, but in practice 
     the law is almost exclusively used to prosecute retention of 
     classified material. In Trump's case, prosecutors say that 
     all but one of the 31 documents he is charged with illegally 
     retaining were marked as classified at the ``secret'' or 
     ``top secret'' level. The unmarked document concerned 
     ``military contingency planning,'' according to the 
     indictment.
       A conviction does not require any evidence of a desire to 
     disseminate the classified information; having it in an 
     unauthorized location is enough. But the crime requires a 
     ``willful'' mishandling of material ``the possessor has 
     reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United 
     States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.'' Charges 
     are generally not brought without some aggravating factor 
     making clear the retention was not accidental--such as 
     evidence of intent to share the information, signs of 
     disloyalty to the U.S. government, or simply the volume of 
     documents taken.
       Unlike other government employees, the president does not 
     go through a security clearance process that includes a 
     pledge to follow classification rules. But Trump received 
     requests from the National Archives and Records 
     Administration (NARA) and subpoenas from the Justice 
     Department indicating that the documents in question were 
     classified and needed to be returned to the U.S. government. 
     Prosecutors say he instead sought to hide them from federal 
     investigators. And while the president can declassify most 
     information, there is a process for doing so. According to 
     the indictment, Trump twice showed classified information to 
     others, once while saying that the document was still 
     classified and lamenting that he no longer had the power to 
     declassify it.
       Conspiracy to obstruct justice: Trump is charged with one 
     count of conspiring with Nauta to hide classified material 
     from federal investigators, by lying to the FBI about what 
     was found at Mar-a-Lago and moving boxes of documents out of 
     a storage room before agents searched the home. Trump 
     specifically is accused of suggesting that one of his 
     attorneys lie to the FBI and help hide or destroy documents.
       Tampering with grand jury evidence: Trump and Nauta face 
     two counts of trying to keep evidence out of grand jurors' 
     hands: one count of withholding the classified documents and 
     one of corruptly concealing them. As part of those charges, 
     Trump is accused of trying to persuade one of his attorneys 
     to help conceal the documents, while Nauta is accused of 
     hiding the evidence by moving the boxes of classified 
     documents.
       Concealing evidence in a federal investigation: For the 
     same alleged conduct of hiding the classified information at 
     Mar-a-Lago, Trump and Nauta separately face one count of 
     concealing evidence with the intent to obstruct an FBI 
     investigation.
       False statements: Both Trump and Nauta together face one 
     count of scheming to making false statements for allegedly 
     hiding from the FBI and the grand jury that the former 
     president still had classified documents in his possession. 
     Trump faces a separate count for causing his attorney to 
     falsely claim in June 2022 that all classified documents in 
     the former president's possession had been handed over in 
     response to a subpoena, according to the indictment. Nauta 
     alone is accused of lying to the FBI by falsely claiming that 
     he had nothing to do with moving any boxes.


                What possible penalties does Trump face?

       The maximum punishment for each count of unlawful retention 
     of national defense information is 10 years in prison. 
     Conspiracy to obstruct justice, tampering with grand jury 
     evidence, and concealing evidence in a federal investigation 
     all carry punishments of up to 20 years. Each false statement 
     charge is punishable by up to five years in prison.
       If Trump was convicted on all charges, the sentences could 
     run consecutively, amounting to hundreds of years in prison. 
     But federal defendants are rarely given the maximum possible 
     punishment. He does not face any mandatory minimum sentences.
       Sentences in unlawful retention cases vary widely, 
     depending in part on how sensitive the material is, how much 
     of it there is, how long the person held on to it and his or 
     her cooperation with investigators. A Defense Department 
     employee in Manila who took home a small amount of secret-
     level information to work on a classified thesis project 
     served only three months behind bars. Kenneth Wayne Ford Jr., 
     who was found guilty at trial of bringing home national 
     defense information after leaving the National Security 
     Agency and lying about the case, received a six-year 
     sentence. A former NSA contractor who over two decades 
     amassed a huge trove of highly sensitive material, including 
     hacking tools and details of overseas operations, was 
     sentenced to nine years in prison. A Navy sailor who took 
     pictures of classified areas of a nuclear-powered submarine 
     and then destroyed the evidence was sentenced to a year in 
     prison for retention and obstruction; Trump later pardoned 
     him.
       Retired Gen. David H. Petraeus was given probation after 
     pleading guilty to sharing classified information with his 
     biographer. At the time, the crime of mishandling classified 
     information--as opposed to national defense information--was 
     a misdemeanor with a maximum punishment of a year behind 
     bars. It became a felony during Trump's presidency.


              What other criminal charges does Trump face?

       Trump is charged in New York State Court with unrelated 
     crimes for conduct that predates his presidency. He is 
     accused of falsifying business records to hide payments 
     during the 2016 campaign made to an adult-film star to keep 
     her from saying publicly that she had an affair with Trump.
       Trump is also under investigation by a state prosecutor in 
     Georgia, who is looking at his efforts to overturn President 
     Biden's 2020 victory in that state. Smith is also 
     investigating Trump's attempts to stay in office after losing 
     the presidential election, including his pressure on 
     officials in battleground states and fundraising off false 
     claims of election fraud.


                  Has Trump responded to the charges?

       The former president described himself as ``an innocent 
     man'' being treated unfairly in comparison with Biden. 
     Classified documents from the Obama administration were 
     discovered in Biden's Delaware home late last year by lawyers 
     cleaning out his home office. Biden's attorneys turned those 
     documents over to NARA, and the president gave the Justice 
     Department permission to search the home, as well as his 
     beach house and think tank office. The White House has said 
     that only ``a small number'' of documents from Biden's vice-
     presidential tenure were found. A special counsel has been 
     appointed to oversee that investigation.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my next speaker, I have 
to say, we heard a lot of words from the gentleman and from other 
Republicans who speak on these issues. Do you know what we don't hear? 
We don't hear any empathy for the families who have lost loved ones to 
gun violence.
  I began my opening remarks by citing examples of how this accessory 
was used in mass shootings. Children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, 
and grandfathers lost their lives. They were murdered. Police were 
murdered. There is not even any empathy. There is no acknowledgment 
that this is a terrible tragedy.
  All we hear about is: Don't take away my toys. Don't interfere with 
my hobby. You can't register any of these things.
  I think people are so sick and tired of where our priorities are. 
People are sick and tired of having the National Rifle Association and 
all of their money dictate what our policies should be on guns. They 
don't care about all the people who have died and have been murdered in 
this country.
  By the way, other countries have similar challenges and problems that 
we do, but they don't have the level of gun violence. They don't have 
massacres on a regular basis. This is what we get. Enough.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. 
McBath).
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the underlying 
resolution and the rule.

[[Page H2827]]

  Mr. Speaker, I speak today not just as a Member of Congress but as a 
mother, a mother whose son was taken from her by gun violence, the very 
thing that we are talking about again today, and a mother who has 
fought every day since then to make sure that no other mother, no other 
family, no other community feels that pain or feels that loss.
  Arm braces have become the attachment of choice for mass shooters in 
this country, the attachment of choice for the King Soopers shooter in 
Boulder who took the lives of 10 people, including a law enforcement 
officer; the attachment of choice for the shooter who murdered five 
individuals at Club Q, an LGBTQ nightclub; and the attachment of choice 
for the Nashville shooter who slaughtered three innocent babies in an 
elementary school.
  We cannot continue to allow weapons of war in our communities, in our 
meeting centers, and in our schools.
  What I just cannot understand is: What are our Republican colleagues 
afraid of? You swore an oath to protect and serve your constituents. 
What are you afraid of?
  My Democratic colleagues are doing their job. We bring forth policy 
after policy after policy: Federal background checks for all gun sales, 
so a law-abiding gun owner can still own guns; the assault weapons ban, 
keeping those weapons of mass destruction, weapons of war, out of the 
hands of people who shouldn't have them; closing the Charleston 
loophole. These are just commonsense solutions that the American people 
are crying out for.
  As a mother who has lost her child, I spend all of my time talking to 
survivors, day in and day out.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia.
  Mrs. McBATH. Mr. Speaker, I spend all of my time, day in and day out, 
with survivors and families. What are you afraid of?
  We have to do the right thing and preserve human life. That is why we 
were sent here. I implore you, and I am sure I will do it again and 
again and again, to do what is right, to respond to that oath to 
protect and serve the people who are waiting and crying out for us to 
keep them safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, as a father and a grandfather, my heart 
breaks when I see the victims of these deranged killers at schools and 
elsewhere. We need serious solutions.
  I think it is an insult to the victims and families that banning a 
piece of plastic is going to save a life--it won't--or telling them 
that putting up a sign that says gun-free zone will save a life. It 
won't. It will cost lives.
  When one of my former staffers was married for less than a year, she 
and her husband had a karaoke business, and she had a stalker who 
followed them to each of their events. She got a concealed carry 
license in Tennessee and carried her gun to protect herself from the 
stalker. This was Nikki who worked for me.
  One night, they set up their business in a bar, and the sign said 
``No Guns Inside'' because they served alcohol. Nikki left her firearm 
to protect herself in the car, but her stalker did not leave his.
  He came into the bar and shot her husband viciously in front of her. 
She has to live with that. That is why she wants serious solutions. She 
knows that gun-free zones are unserious. She knows that banning pieces 
of plastic is not serious. She knows that children deserve the 
protection that we have here.
  We all know, if you are willing to look at the data, that in every 
school that has allowed qualified teachers and staff to carry a 
firearm, there has never been a school shooting. It is a fact.
  We need to work on serious solutions, not unserious solutions like 
banning a piece of plastic.
  Mr. Speaker, going to the stove ban, which is also unserious, it is 
going to cost consumers. It is going to make the products less safe, 
not more safe. It is going to make them less available. It is not about 
safety or efficiency or consumer benefit. It is about banning fossil 
fuels. That is why this administration has declared a war on gas 
stoves.
  Two of the bills in this package would repeal those rules from this 
administration.
  Natural gas, when it is used in appliances, is 3.4 times more 
affordable than electricity. Why is that? Let's think about where that 
electricity comes from. A natural gas plant can burn electricity, spin 
a turbine, create electricity at maybe 50 percent efficiency and then 
put it on wires that are hundreds of miles long to go to a household. 
Those wires may be 70 percent, 80 percent efficient.

  When it gets to the household, what do you do with that energy that 
came from the natural gas that is now electricity? You turn it back 
into heat if you have an electric stove, which is how this 
administration would want you to live.
  Guess what? That is less than half as efficient. It costs 3.4 times 
more to do it that way than to create electricity with natural gas and 
then use the electricity at your house than if you just brought the 
natural gas to the household. In fact, consumers who use natural gas in 
their house save over $1,000 a year.
  This is a war on the middle class and the poor. The war on gas stoves 
is a war on affordable heating and cooking.
  When the electricity goes out in natural disasters, whose stoves 
work? The ones who have gas stoves.
  Who can boil water to drink when the water is unsafe because of a 
natural disaster? Those who have gas stoves.
  This administration should quit gaslighting consumers by telling them 
they are acting in their best interest. The Federal Interagency 
Committee on Indoor Air Quality has never identified gas stoves as 
contributing to asthma or respiratory illness. The Consumer Product 
Safety Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency have never 
identified gas stoves as a significant contributor to adverse air 
quality or as a health hazard.
  Why are they doing this? It is a war on gas stoves. These two bills 
would seek to reverse that. It is just common sense.
  In fact, the other side of the aisle said these are messaging bills. 
Guess what? Some Democrats liked the message because they voted for 
these bills in the Energy and Commerce Committee. It must be a great 
message. It must be a message the American people want to hear. It must 
be a message that they like to hear because they know if we had the 
Senate and the White House, this kind of ridiculousness would not go 
on. That is why it is important to pass these two bills to protect our 
gas stoves.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, we didn't call them messaging bills. Members of the 
Republican Conference called them messaging bills, I would remind the 
gentleman.
  The gentleman says that we need serious solutions to gun violence in 
this country. I think I heard the gentleman correctly, that he is 
suggesting it is okay for people to carry guns into bars when they are 
drunk. I don't think that is very serious.
  The idea that we can shoot our way into gun safety is insane. We 
already have more guns than people in this country. We are the only 
country in the world that has massacres that occur on a regular basis.
  The gentleman is saying that people should be able to carry guns into 
bars when they are drunk, that we ought to give teachers more guns, and 
that everybody ought to have more guns and everybody will be safe. This 
is insane. It doesn't make any sense.
  At some point, people are going to have to have the courage to stand 
up to the gun lobby and say no to the NRA's money and actually do what 
is in the best interest of the American people, do what will protect 
the people of this country. To hear this nonsense--this place is 
crazier than usual.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the GOP has become, sadly, the ``Guns Over 
People'' party. Their answer to the desperate pleas of families from 
all across America who want to stop the slaughter of schoolchildren and 
other innocents--their answer is to do absolutely nothing.
  Today, during this National Gun Violence Awareness Month, what do 
they do?

[[Page H2828]]

  They go a step further. This is the only opportunity this year that 
Speaker McCarthy has permitted us to consider any gun violence 
legislation. What do they do about gun violence?
  They enable a little more of it. More pistol braces in the hands of 
killers will cause us to brace for more death.
  Republicans want to stop an ATF rule that will require background 
checks in certain narrow instances when a brace turns a handgun into a 
rifle. Background checks are exactly what we need for all gun purchases 
so that those who go through the gun shop loophole and don't get a 
check when they buy it at a gun show or on the internet have to have 
the same standard as if they bought it in a gun shop.
  They will not even permit us to respond to the desperate pleas of the 
people of Uvalde to ban weapons of war from the hands of teenagers who 
couldn't on their own go out and buy a beer.
  There is an orgy of violence going on, and they are obstructing those 
of us who want to respond to the police from doing anything about it, 
from banning weapons of war, from requiring background checks to ensure 
we know what kind of person is getting a gun and, if they have a 
problem, they ought to be denied that access.
  The gun industry is marketing these so-called ``stabilizing braces'' 
to convert heavy pistols into short-barreled rifles that are more 
concealable.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, the guns are already the number one killer 
of children in our country. This year, there have been 291 mass 
shootings. We can count the numbers, but we can't count the pain of an 
empty chair where there was once a vibrant parent or a wonderful little 
child who was murdered in a mass shooting. This Congress could do 
something about it if we could end the obstruction. We need to move 
toward reducing gun violence, not enabling it.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I wonder, since we are proposing that 
children would be saved by banning a piece of plastic, has anyone on 
the other side of the aisle proposed that Congressmen are safer now 
that this piece of plastic is banned?
  I don't think so.
  Has anyone proposed that gun-free zone signs would keep us safe?
  I don't think so.
  What I see surrounding me here and right outside the door are people 
with firearms protecting us. Our children deserve the same respect and 
the same serious solutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), 
who is my good friend and colleague on the Rules Committee, to speak in 
favor of the rule as he did in the committee.
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Kentucky for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, here we are engaging in the theater of the absurd, yet 
again, from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle just 
blatantly denying the power grab being carried out by the executive 
branch yet again. They don't seem to care so long as it suits their 
ends in terms of policy.
  Everybody who follows this understands that the court is almost 
certain to strike this down. We have already seen it happen in the 
Fifth Circuit. We are pretty clear about the extent to which this is an 
abuse of the Administrative Procedures Act, the extent to which this is 
an unconstitutional violation of our Second Amendment rights, and the 
court, no doubt, like the Fifth Circuit, will follow suit.
  That is just the simple truth, just like we expect the court to most 
likely rule that the President's power grab to extend a bailout for 
student loans will also be struck down. That is almost certainly true.
  However, what is also true is that it is incumbent upon the United 
States Congress--the House of Representatives in particular--to stand 
up in defense of the Constitution, in defense not just as might seem 
most apparent here, a defense of the Second Amendment which this most 
certainly is, but, in fact, a defense of separation of powers, that, in 
fact, it is not the executive branch that makes law.
  When the Speaker of the House actually says that the President 
doesn't have power to do something and then refuses, as the previous 
Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, did to do anything about what the President is 
doing to exercise that authority unconstitutionally--as was the case 
with the student loan--then it begs the question: Do any of my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle give a whit about separation 
of powers or about the fact that it is a clear abuse of the power of 
the executive branch?
  The answer is no. That is the clear truth. They don't give a whit 
about that, nor do they give a whit about it here because they like the 
outcome of the policy: the banning of a piece of plastic. That is the 
truth.
  However, it is not really about the pistol braces, is it? Because 
really that was, in fact, something created by marine and Army veteran 
Alex Bosco inventing the pistol stabilizing brace to help his friend, a 
disabled combat veteran, at the shooting range.
  At the time, the ATF--President Obama's ATF--advised Mr. Bosco that a 
stabilizing brace did not convert a pistol into a short-barreled rifle. 
He relied upon that.
  Now, here we are a decade later, and the Biden ATF wants to reverse 
that by executive fiat, not through the congressional powers, not by 
legislation, as was possible last summer when my colleagues had the 
House, the Senate, and the White House. No. No. They prefer to go ahead 
and use the unaccountable and unelected bureaucrat at the ATF to make 
policy.
  We are here to say that that is a bad idea. It is a bad idea for the 
Republic, it is a bad idea for freedom, and it is a bad idea with 
respect to our fundamental rights.
  The reality here is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle know 
full well what they want to do. It is not just to ban an accessory. 
They want to ban firearms. They want to ban firearms from top to 
bottom, and this is a step to do it. I have always been taught that if 
your opponents say something, you should believe them. That is the 
reality.
  I hope my colleagues on this side of the aisle will stand up to the 
CRA and send it over to the Senate where it most assuredly might end up 
being a message amendment because the President of the United States 
will almost assuredly veto it because he doesn't care about separation 
of powers either.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
This is strange what we hear on the House floor today. My friends keep 
on talking about veterans and people with disabilities, but I don't see 
any major veterans organization or disability organization that has 
endorsed this bill. The gentleman talks about the fact that we have 
security here. Yes, the Capitol Police who protect us all have had 
background checks and have all had training.
  It is interesting that we have a rule when my friends are in charge 
where you can't bring weapons on the House floor. I feel good about 
that after I have listened to some of my colleagues here today.
  I also remind the gentleman that there were police officers at 
Uvalde. We hear from police officers and organizations all across the 
country all the time how they don't want to have to get into situations 
where they are battling with somebody who has an AR-15.
  People are dying in this country on a regular basis. Massacres are 
happening on a regular basis, and we are on the floor to basically make 
it easier for people to have access to an accessory that can make a gun 
more deadly and more accurate that can kill more people. I mean, it 
doesn't make any sense. All I can think of is the fact that some of my 
friends are afraid to take on the gun lobby. They are afraid to lose 
their money. $100 million in NRA money went into campaigns in the 
last 10 years--$100 million. We have to get our priorities straight 
here in this Congress. We have to put people ahead of guns. Mr. 
Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question, and 
if we do, then I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for 
consideration of a resolution which states that it is the House's duty 
to protect and preserve Social Security

[[Page H2829]]

and Medicare for our future generations and reject any cuts to these 
essential programs.

  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Casar), to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. CASAR. Mr. Speaker, I was here alongside all of you during the 
State of the Union when my Republican colleagues stood up and started 
jeering, booing, yelling, and complaining saying that indeed, they 
weren't interested in cutting Social Security or Medicare. However, in 
the weeks since, it has become clear to me that was all talk and no 
votes, or as we say in Texas, all hat and no cattle.
  In fact, this week the Republican head of appropriations just said 
that she wants to see even deeper cuts to critical Federal programs. 
That means bigger classroom sizes for our students and our struggling 
teachers and longer wait times for our veterans seeking healthcare, all 
to finance bigger tax cuts for billionaires and multinational 
corporations.
  Social Security and Medicare are not safe until we step up and vote 
to make sure they are safe. That is why I urge my colleagues to defeat 
the previous question so that we can vote for H.R. 178, which would put 
our money where our mouth is.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to prove me wrong because what we are 
planning on voting on this week are things like a ludicrous gas stove 
bill of rights.
  Are they kidding me?
  What we are talking about voting on this week is deregulating gun 
accessories that have been used in mass shootings across the country.
  Really?
  It is disrespectful, it is dangerous, and it is a distortion of our 
oath and our job that we have committed to doing here today.
  So instead of bowing to the gun lobby, we are passing these ludicrous 
messaging bills. Let's work on solving real problems, or, at a minimum, 
let's stop these attacks on Social Security and Medicare.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time each side 
has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Kentucky has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time.
  This really is about saving lives. Eight children a day die from gun 
violence. In addition, 40,000 Americans die from gun violence 
throughout the year.
  I thank Congressman Thompson of California for making clear what we 
are saying here today. A veteran can buy a brace any day of the year.
  We love, respect, and admire our veterans. However, at the same time, 
we respect our first responders, police officers, firefighters, and 
others who are on the front line or former combat officers who say that 
we don't need automatic weapons in the hands of civilians. There is no 
hunting purpose. There is no purpose.
  You haven't lived until you see a shoot-out in your district between 
a criminal with a ghost gun against police officers. That is what we 
are trying to prevent. I don't want to see that in Houston, Texas, ever 
again.
  A person can buy the brace without a background check. When it 
becomes a dangerous weapon, when that brace changes the gun's legal 
status and makes it, in essence, the same that caused a mass shooting 
at a Boulder, Colorado, supermarket, then the stabilizing brace and a 
shorter barrel made a pistol under Federal gun regulations.
  Saving lives is why I am standing here on the floor. Protecting 
police officers and protecting firefighters is why I am on the floor. 
The highest calling that I have on the floor is protecting children and 
stopping Uvalde, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Santa Fe, and the list goes on.
  A brace can be bought without a background check, and the rule that 
is being overturned simply says the ATF is doing the right thing.
  Mr. Speaker, vote for the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here today to speak in opposition to the proposed 
legislation, H.R. 1615--the Gas Stove Protection Freedom Act and H.R. 
1640--the Save our Gas Stoves Act.
  The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is responsible for 
protecting children and other consumers from unreasonable risk of 
injury or death from consumer products.
  The CPSC carries out its mission by investigating allegations that 
consumer products pose an unreasonable safety risk, working with 
industry to develop voluntary product safety standards, issuing, and 
enforcing mandatory standards on hazardous consumer products, and 
recalling unsafe consumer products or arranging for their repair.
  The CPSC has a history of protecting children and adults from safety 
risks across a wide range of products, including removing hazardous 
infant sleep products from the market, adopting corded window coverings 
standards to prevent strangulation of children, and working with 
industry to reduce the risk of fires from micro mobility devices like 
hoverboards and e-scooters.
  Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public with this 
legislation, which is designed to scare consumers and, unfortunately, 
Republicans are ignoring the reasonable steps the CPSC has taken to 
study and address the hazards posed to our children by gas stove 
emissions.
  Legitimate concerns have been raised about the health impact, 
particularly on children, of the nitrogen dioxide emitted by gas 
stoves.
  Observational studies have found that children living in households 
that use gas stoves are 42 percent more likely to have asthma.
  In December 2022, CPSC issued a recall on a specific gas stove 
product that was found to be a serious risk of injury or death from 
carbon monoxide poisoning.
  H.R. 1615 would prohibit CPSC from using its rulemaking authority to 
ban all such hazardous products to protect to Americans.
  As the Chairman of the CPSC explained earlier this year, the 
Commission does not have a proceeding to ban gas stoves but is 
researching gas stoves and exploring ways to address health risks.
  The Republicans' bill peddles the lie that the Biden Administration 
is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply are not on their 
side.
  H.R. 1615 will stifle scientific investigation into health hazards 
and create bad precedent when it comes to protecting our children from 
health and safety hazards.
  Protecting and improving the health and well-being of our children 
should not be a partisan issue.
  On a bipartisan basis, we should be encouraging the CPSC to explore 
all allegations that appliances or other consumer products put our 
children's health at risk and give the CPSC more, not fewer, tools for 
eliminating or mitigating safety risks they uncover.
  It is unconscionable to limit the CPSC's options for addressing the 
potential risks of gas stoves--a product found in homes across 
America--before the CPSC has fully explored the risks posed by gas 
stoves and potential solutions.
  Efficiency standards are not bans.
  Republicans are deliberately misleading the American public to 
prevent the Department of Energy (DOE) from fulfilling its statutory 
obligations and finalizing an efficiency standard that will save 
consumers money.
  H.R. 1640 prohibits the Secretary of Energy from finalizing or 
enforcing a February 2023 proposed rule that would improve the 
efficiency of electric and gas stoves, ultimately saving families money 
on their energy bills.
  The Republicans' bill simply peddles the lie that the Biden 
Administration is attempting to ban gas stoves, but the facts simply 
are not on their side.
  DOE cannot ban gas stoves. DOE is simply proceeding with a 
Congressionally mandated efficiency standard.
  The proposed efficiency standard will save Americans money through 
lower energy bills while cutting harmful indoor air pollution that 
disproportionately impacts children's health.
  DOE's proposed rule is one of their statutorily required standards--
and it follows years of inaction and missed statutorily mandated 
standards deadlines by the Trump Administration.
  In the Fall of 2020, multiple organizations and states filed lawsuits 
asserting Trump's DOE was in violation of deadlines for the review of 
25 of its energy conservation standards.
  This Republican bill doubles down on that legacy by obstructing DOE 
from doing what Congress and a court settlement have required it to do.
  Republicans' fearmongering over gas stoves is nothing more than a 
cheap political stunt

[[Page H2830]]

designed to scare consumers and protect their fossil fuel friends.
  H.R. 1640 prioritizes profits for Big Oil and Gas over the health and 
economic well-being of everyday Americans.
  Efficiency standards save Americans money, while the Republicans' 
bill will only increase energy costs for Americans and pad the pockets 
of their fossil fuel friends.
  Republicans' scare tactics include pushing a false narrative about 
how ``96 percent of gas stoves on the market don't meet the proposed 
standard.''
  This is simply not true.
  This deliberate fearmongering is the result of Republicans 
purposefully misrepresenting DOE data to serve their own political 
goals.
  The statistic Republicans are referencing comes from a DOE test of 
high-end models that they anticipated would not meet the standard. The 
test, by design, was not representative of the entire market.
  The truth is, nearly half of products on the market today are already 
in compliance with the proposed rule, including all entry level models.
  In a testament to just how far Republicans are willing to go to prop 
up their polluter friends, H.R. 1640 goes beyond an amendment offered 
by Rep. Palmer (R-AL) that was added to H.R. 1 by significantly 
limiting future DOE rulemaking.
  This bill does not include a sunset clause--it could forever limit 
DOE from taking substantive action to improve the energy efficiency of 
Americans' cooktops.
  While the Palmer Amendment would prevent DOE from moving forward with 
one standard related to cooktop efficiency, H.R. 1640 goes even further 
by amending the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to restrict DOE from 
taking similar action in the future.
  This bill sets a bad precedent that polluters could seek to exploit.
  DOE is already prohibited from banning products based on their fuel 
source, but H.R. 1640 adds yet another hurdle: it requires DOE to prove 
that a conservation standard is not likely to result in the 
unavailability of a product based on the fuel it consumes.
  This added condition could significantly weaken and slow down DOE's 
ability to issue future energy conservation standards.
  DOE's proposed energy efficiency standard for gas and electric stoves 
is smart, commonsense policy that would cut pollution, improve 
Americans' health, and lower energy bills. And it can be achieved using 
readily available design changes.
  DOE's commonsense proposal will benefit Americans' health and 
pocketbooks.
  DOE estimates the proposal will: Save consumers as much as $1.71 
billion and slash nearly 22 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and 
245 thousand tons of methane.
  These benefits would come without imposing any undue burdens on 
manufacturers.
  DOE's proposed rule gives manufacturers three years after the date of 
the rule's publication to comply.
  Nearly half of products on the market today are already in compliance 
with the proposed rule, and there are readily available design changes 
available for those that don't.
  Energy efficiency standards are popular: three out of five Americans 
support stricter energy efficiency standards for appliances and 
buildings.
  It is time we stop the negativity and counterproductive efforts that 
are ripping apart our country, and to instead focus on coming together 
to work towards sensible and effective solutions that can work for the 
betterment and growth of our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to reassert my opposition to H.R. 277, the 
``Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act'' and 
H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2023.''
  First in addressing, H.R. 277, the REINS Act, is a measure that has 
been offered by Republicans dating back to 2012, is and has always been 
a problematic bill that would restrict agency rulemaking procedures and 
undermine public health and safety.
  Because it would require both houses of Congress to pass, and the 
President to sign, a joint resolution of approval for any major rule 
before they can take effect, this bill would effectively act as a 
chokehold on Federal agency rulemaking.
  I along with my colleagues have attempted to address many of the ills 
these bills purport by offering common sense amendments that 
Republicans have continued to refuse any meaningful consideration.
  My amendment to H.R. 277, listed on the Rules Committee roster as 
Amendment #30 would have exempted from the bill the congressional 
approval requirement for any proposed rule that is made to ensure the 
safety of products used or consumed by children under the age of 2.
  Without such an amendment, the RAINS act cripples the Federal 
government's ability to protect our children and prioritize their 
safety.
  As it stands, this bill has no exceptions or flexibility when it 
comes to pressing issues of public health and safety.
  It is deeply troubling that REINS Act will delay the implementation 
of integral new public health and safety safeguards, putting our 
children at risk.
  As such, the REINS Act will ultimately fail to protect the public as 
it places an expertise-based process into the hands of the government, 
allowing the political games we have seen in the House this Congress to 
continue.
  Because of the special vulnerability of young children and the 
distinct threat that the implementation of the REINS poses to the 
current regulatory process, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
opposition to H.R. 277.
  Second in addressing H.R. 288, ``The Separation of Powers Restoration 
Act of 2023'' which purports to address constitutional and statutory 
deficiencies in the judicial review of agency rulemaking.
  Yet, this bill is a long-repeated effort to shift the scope and 
authority of judicial review of agency actions away from federal 
agencies by amending Section 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act 
(APA) to ``require that courts decide all relevant questions of law, 
including all questions of the interpretation of constitutional, 
statutory, and regulatory provisions, on a de novo basis without 
deference to the agency that promulgated the final rule, unless 
otherwise expressly provided by statute.
  Effectively, H.R. 288 would abolish judicial deference to agencies' 
statutory interpretations in federal rulemaking and create harmful and 
costly burdens to the administrative process.
  Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the ability for agencies to act in 
times of imminent need to protect citizens.
  In particular, H.R. 288 would make sweeping and dangerous changes 
that would jeopardize the ability of the Department of Homeland 
Secuirty to protect our nation in times of urgent and imminent need.
  My amendment to H.R. 288, listed on the Rules Committee roster as 
Amendment #3 would have been a simple but necessary revision that would 
remedy this concern by excluding from the bill cases with rules made by 
the Secretary of Homeland Security and pertaining to any matter of 
national security.
  As a Senior Member of the Homeland Security Committee, I understand 
the many challenges the Department of the Homeland Security (DHS) 
already faces and its critically important role in preventing terror 
threats and keeping Americans safe.
  The Department is the first line of defense in protecting the nation 
and leading recovery efforts from all-hazards and threats which include 
everything from weapons of mass destruction to natural disasters.
  We do not need to be reminded of the heightened state of security are 
nation is in and the ever-increasing demands imposed upon our 
government agencies tasked with keeping our borders and citizens safe.
  Now is not the time to undermine or slow the ability of DHS and its 
ability to address growing threats and active acts of terrorism.
  The overall mission of DHS is too critical and its functions 
indispensably essential, such that it would be impugned to do anything 
that will slow down the process that allows DHS to do its job.
  Given the absence of my essential amendment and the fact that H.R. 
288 would cripple Federal agency's ability to act in times of imminent 
need, I urge opposition to H.R. 288.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the other side of the aisle for pointing out 
that all the ATF rule does is change the legal status, that you can 
still get the brace and you can still get the pistol.
  The last thing that is on a criminally deranged person's mind is: 
What is the legal status of my firearm? Is this a pistol? Is this a 
rifle? Is it a short-barreled rifle? How much time will I get when I go 
on this suicide mission for doing this because of the legal status?
  However, what changing legal status does is it creates millions of 
felons out of legal firearm owners who presumed they were operating 
legally.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Roy).
  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Kentucky for 
yielding.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts was questioning why he hasn't heard 
from any veteran groups in support of this.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record an 
article titled: ``Wisconsin veterans sue ATF over new rule for 
stabilizing braces.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.


[[Page H2831]]


  


               [From the Capital Times, January 31, 2023]

    Wisconsin Veterans Sue ATF Over New Rule for Stabilizing Braces

                           (By Jessie Opoien)

       A conservative Wisconsin law firm filed a lawsuit on 
     Tuesday challenging a new federal firearm registry rule it 
     says would curb the Second Amendment rights of disabled 
     military veterans.
       The Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty is representing 
     two Wisconsin veterans and one from Texas in the suit, which 
     was filed in the Northern District of Texas. It's the first 
     legal challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 
     and Explosives rule, and the sixth WILL has filed against the 
     Biden administration.
       Under the rule, pistols with stabilizing braces must be 
     treated as short-barreled rifles, which have been subject to 
     heightened regulations including stricter registration 
     requirements since the 1930s. Those regulations include 
     mandatory background checks for all transfers (sales), 
     including private transfers.
       Stabilizing braces were invented to help disabled shooters 
     fire guns safely--but they have also been used in recent mass 
     shootings in Colorado and Ohio.
       ``In the days of Al Capone, Congress said back then that 
     short-barreled rifles and sawed-off shotguns should be 
     subjected to greater legal requirements than most other guns. 
     The reason for that is that short-barreled rifles have the 
     greater capability of long guns, yet are easier to conceal, 
     like a pistol,'' said ATF director Steven Dettelbach in a 
     statement. ``But certain so-called stabilizing braces are 
     designed to just attach to pistols, essentially converting 
     them into short-barreled rifles to be fired from the 
     shoulder. Therefore, they must be treated in the same way 
     under the statute.''
       The plaintiffs in the case are Gabriel A. Tauscher, of 
     Oconomowoc; Shawn M. Kroll, of Hartland; and Darren A. 
     Britto, of Amarillo, Texas. All three are Marine veterans who 
     own pistols with barrels less than 16 inches and use 
     stabilizing braces. They use their weapons for personal 
     protection, recreational shooting and hunting. Under the ATF 
     rule, they would be required to register their firearms as 
     short-barreled rifles.
       A stabilizing brace is attached to the shooter's forearm to 
     assist with accuracy, comfort and safety. The lawsuit argues 
     that stabilizing braces are not designed and intended for a 
     pistol to be fired from the shoulder, unlike a rifle.
       ``These military veterans defended our country overseas, 
     and now they are defending our rights here at home,'' said 
     WILL deputy counsel Dan Lennington in a statement. ``WILL is 
     proud to represent these patriots. The Biden administration 
     has no power to re-classify pistols as rifles, and we will 
     vigorously defend the Second Amendment in federal court.''
       WILL's complaint argues the rule violates the Second 
     Amendment and the separation of powers.
       The rule implements a 120-day period for manufacturers, 
     dealers and individuals to register affected weapons tax-
     free. People can also comply with the rule by removing 
     stabilizing braces or surrendering guns covered by it to the 
     ATF. Those who don't comply could face fines or imprisonment.
       WILL's lawsuit asks the court to block the rule.

  Mr. ROY. Mr. Speaker, there are others. The fact of the matter is 
there are many veterans groups--that is one; we will get you some 
more--who are supportive of this bill and who are supportive of this 
effort to protect their Second Amendment rights.
  That is a fact because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
want registration because they want to take guns from the American 
people because they know that liberty rests with the people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I won't hold my breath waiting for the 
other names.
  It is astounding to me that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
don't want any gun laws. Basically, they lack empathy for the murders 
and deaths in this country that happen on a regular basis. I mean, at 
some point, we have to say enough is enough. They have to put people 
ahead of the gun lobby, and my friends are incapable of doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), who is a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, last month, there were two mass 
shootings in my district, one in Farmington and another in Red River.
  On Friday, I met with police officers, victims, and neighbors who 
were terrified and wounded. An 18-year-old used an assault rifle and 
several other guns to kill three beautiful souls and injure six, 
including two police officers.
  I sat with the victims and listened to their stories of horror and 
pain. There were 144 bullets fired before the shooter even left his 
front yard. One neighbor held my shoulders as he shared, from a place 
of unbearable pain, what it sounds like when a powerful weapon 
discharges and you see your neighbor bleeding to death on the street.
  We know that the trauma of gun violence extends beyond those killed 
or injured. That is why my constituents and Americans are pleading with 
Congress to do what we can to prevent gun violence.
  What happens, though? What do we come back to? Instead of addressing 
gun violence, Republicans stand with the gun lobby to make it easier to 
evade gun safety laws.
  When it became obvious that gun manufacturers were selling powerful 
pistols and then selling shoulder braces to turn them into rifles, the 
Trump administration began work on a regulation to treat these 
constructed rifles as the powerful weapons they are. The Biden 
administration finished the job.

                              {time}  1330

  Gun manufacturers and sellers are using a loophole to avoid public 
safety protections. This is how gun salesmen are describing the 
loophole: ``It might look and function like a rifle, but thanks to the 
fact that AR-15 pistols don't come built with a stock, they're legally 
classified as pistols, giving them a full pardon from inconvenient NFA 
restrictions.''
  Listen, if it looks like a rifle, shoots like a rifle, and kills like 
a rifle, we should treat it like a rifle. That is common sense, but 
sometimes common sense isn't that common in the House these days.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand with the victims, to stand 
with the people, and put people over the profits of the gun lobby.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, 6,000 veterans signed a petition opposing the ATF rule, 
so I hope that is enough to convince the other side.
  However, I now switch to two other bills that are in this rules 
package because this is Groundhog Day. We will be here again. The 
administration does something which has the effect of law, and then we 
are feckless to change it.
  There have been over 90,000 rules promulgated since the Congressional 
Review Act was put into place. Only 20 rules have ever been 
countermanded because it is such a high bar to get a majority of the 
House and a majority of the Senate and the President to sign something 
to undo a law.
  How did it become law? Just because the administrative branch willed 
it into existence.
  Our Constitution says: ``All legislative powers herein granted shall 
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a 
Senate and a House of Representatives.''
  Does it say, and also an ATF or also an EPA? No, it does not. It says 
House and Senate.
  Does it say, some legislative powers? No. It says, all legislative 
powers are vested in Congress.
  The REINS Act would do quite a bit to restore our power. Not enough, 
though, because the Chevron deference still exists.
  The other bill in this package is the Separation of Powers 
Restoration Act, which is a legislative repeal of the tragic Chevron 
deference that has plagued this country for so many years, where the 
Supreme Court gives full latitude, broad authority to the 
administrative branch to twist and contort the laws that we make in 
creating new laws.
  I urge people to vote for this rule because it includes these two 
packages, which put our Republic back into a structure that our 
Founding Fathers envisioned, where the legislators make the laws, and 
the administration enforces the laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the gentleman how many 
additional speakers he has?
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, we have real problems in this country. I mean, the 
Northern Hemisphere was on fire. You couldn't walk outside last week 
without a mask in Washington, D.C., New York City, or a number of major 
cities and communities all across the Northeast. Our

[[Page H2832]]

planet has a fever. I mean, we have a real issue here with climate 
change, but we don't talk about those things.
  There are a zillion issues that we need to deal with, but instead we 
come to the floor with--this is what the Republicans have said--
messaging bills. Those are their words, not mine. These messaging bills 
promote their culture war against gas stoves, and these messaging 
bills, I guess, make the NRA even happier.
  The gentleman talks about veterans who want this. There are 16 
million veterans in this country. If this were a priority of our 
veterans, these major organizations would be supporting this bill, but 
they are not.
  The bottom line is, we are here talking about stuff that will not 
help anybody. In fact, this gun bill just makes it easier for people to 
kill people.
  Why are we doing this? This makes absolutely no sense.
  Last week, my Republican friends fought with each other, and nothing 
got done. This week, we are bringing bills to the floor that Republican 
Members are calling nothing more than messaging bills.

  Congress was created to help solve problems, to help people. My 
Republican friends think that that is a foreign idea. This is helping 
nobody. It is a joke that we are here today bringing this horrific bill 
to the floor basically so that the NRA can be happy and justify another 
$100 million into their campaigns.
  People are dying every single day in this country, and we hardly hear 
a word about it from the other side of the aisle. In fact, during this 
debate, very little was even acknowledged in terms of the people who 
are dying in this country. We can do so much better.
  I used to have a history teacher who used to say the world will not 
get better on its own. I didn't really know what he was talking about 
when I took the course, but I do now. Nothing good happens unless good 
people come together and make change.
  There have to be some reasonable people on the Republican side who 
understand that gun violence is out of control. We have more guns in 
this country than people. We can't shoot our way out of this problem, 
and yet that is what my Republican friends are suggesting.
  Enough is enough. We need to get back to doing the people's business.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, vote ``no'' on the rule, and vote ``no'' on all this garbage 
messaging legislation that will follow. We are here to solve problems, 
to make people's lives better. Let's do something that actually makes 
the American people proud of this Congress. This is embarrassing.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the 
Record a letter to Speaker McCarthy, Ranking Member Hakeem Jeffries, 
and others signed by 11 veterans and military organizations in support 
of H.J. Res. 44.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kentucky?
  There was no objection.
                                                     June 7, 2023.
     Hon. Kevin McCarthy,
     Speaker of the House
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Minority Leader of the Senate
     Hon. Steve Scalise,
     Majority Leader of the House
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Majority Leader of the Senate
     Hon. Hakeem Jeffries,
     Minority Leader of the House
       Dear Speaker McCarthy, Leaders Schumer and McConnell, and 
     Leaders Jeffries and Scalise: We, the undersigned veteran and 
     military serving organizations, endorse immediate passage of 
     House Joint Resolution 44 (H.J. Res. 44) and Senate Joint 
     Resolution 20 (S.J. Res. 20). Congress must execute its 
     oversight powers under the Congressional Review Act to rein 
     in this unconstitutional and discriminatory overreach of 
     Executive Branch powers by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 
     Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to wrongfully limit the use of 
     ``pistol braces,'' and should follow up such Resolutions with 
     more permanent legislation to reclaim this unconstitutional 
     delegation of legislative powers by Congress to the Executive 
     Branch and limit the ability of Executive Branch to engage in 
     such Administrative assumption of Congress' enumerated 
     legislative powers.
       ATF is exercising extreme Executive Branch powers overreach 
     in unilaterally declaring pistol braces as the equivalent of 
     short-barreled rifles. They are not. Instead, pistol braces 
     are compensatory accommodation devices for disabled U.S. 
     citizens to exercise their fundamental natural ``right to 
     keep and bear arms'' safely and securely by stabilizing the 
     use of a handgun where they would not otherwise have full use 
     of both hands.
       The inventor of the first stabilizing brace for pistols was 
     Alex Bosco of SB Tactical, who designed and intended his 
     device to accommodate a friend and wounded veteran. Bosco 
     testified to the House Judiciary and Oversight and 
     Accountability Committees: One day at the range, an over-
     eager range officer told one of my range buddies, a wounded 
     veteran, that he was not carefully firing his weapon. The 
     range officer said that because (in his opinion) my friend 
     was firing erratically, he had to bench his pistol from the 
     seated position. Because of the wounds my friend had received 
     in service of his country, the range officer's suggestion 
     made me angry, first because I did not agree that my friend 
     was shooting in a dangerous manner, and second, because I 
     thought it unconscionable that he or anyone like him should 
     be denied the opportunity to safely use a firearm due to 
     wounds received in service of the United States. This 
     experience led to the invention of the pistol stabilizing 
     brace.
       The first pistol brace design was approved by ATF in 2012, 
     and so SB Tactical began marketing them to other disabled 
     veterans. In the years following, millions of stabilizing 
     brace-equipped pistols were sold legally across the country. 
     That interpretive guidance stood for almost 10 years and was 
     first made when now President Biden was Vice President of the 
     United States. But then, with less than four months of legal 
     sanctuary for the millions of disabled firearm owners who 
     relied on that decade of regulatory precedent, The ATF 
     implemented its draconian, unnecessary, poorly developed, and 
     unconstitutional gun-grab making millions of these law-
     abiding citizens, including hundreds of thousands of military 
     service veterans disabled in the service of their country to 
     defend exactly these rights, criminals as of May 31st, 2023.
       Now is the time for Congress to act to preserve these 
     fundamental rights and stop this unconstitutional assumption 
     of legislative powers by the Executive Branch. Because, 
     despite that incredibly short legal grace period, if a 
     disabled veteran brings such a pistol brace to a legally 
     operating gun range as of June 1st, 2023, and is acting in a 
     legal manner in all other respects, they are subject to 
     arrest by the ATF, a criminal fine of $250,000, and 
     incarceration in federal prison for 10 years--all because 
     they wished to more safely and securely exercise their 
     inalienable rights to keep and bear arms.
       And while ATF lamely claims there are adequate safeguards 
     for ``legitimate'' use of pistol braces, those safeguards 
     contained in ATF's Final Rule ATF 2021 R-08F, are wholly 
     inadequate and barely conceal ATF's apparent underlying 
     desire simply to outlaw pistol braces without so blatantly 
     doing so. In fact, those ``accommodations'' only apply if a 
     veteran has not turned their pistol over to the ATF, 
     registered their firearm with the federal government, 
     destroyed their lawfully acquired pistol, or rebuilt their 
     firearm such that it is no longer handicap accessible.
       Instead of complying with this rule, many gun owners and 
     organizations opted to fight for the right to have these 
     handicap-accessible firearms. Now, veterans who did not 
     comply with ATF's rule and who are current members of the 
     organization who sued the federal government in State of 
     Texas and Gun Owners of America v. Garland, Mock v. Garland, 
     SAF v. ATF, or Britto v. ATF are protected from this Rule 
     because four federal courts ruled that these plaintiffs are 
     likely to succeed in their lawsuits and have enjoined the ATF 
     from punishing the plaintiffs for not rebuilding, 
     registering, destroying, or turning in their pistols.
       Still, other veterans who have sued the federal government 
     in different lawsuits have not been granted an injunction 
     yet. Rick Cicero, who ``lost two limbs while serving his 
     country in Afghanistan'' and ``cannot fire certain pistols 
     without a stabilizing brace'' has yet to receive a ruling 
     from the Eighth Circuit as to whether he is protected from 
     the Biden Administration's new rule. No one should have to 
     join an organization or file a lawsuit to have their firearm 
     ownership rights protected from a federal overreach, and so 
     therefore now is the time for Congress to act to restore 
     these protections to all Americans.
       Indeed ATF's actions disproportionately impact disabled 
     veterans, as 27 percent of those veterans, and 41 percent of 
     post-9/11 veterans, suffer under at least one service-
     connected disability. And with almost half of the country's 
     19 million veterans owning firearms (as compared to 30 
     percent gun ownership by the general population), the ATF's 
     action disproportionately and discriminatorily impacts 
     disabled veterans, which ATF did not adequately investigate 
     nor consider in its Final Rule. Fortunately, Congress has the 
     power to reclaim its Constitutionally enumerated legislative 
     powers from this Executive Branch overreach.
       And while such proscriptive restriction of ATF is supported 
     by the federal courts, those courts do not have sufficient 
     power to prevent Executive Branch overreach. Yes, the Supreme 
     Court did decide in District of Columbia v. Heller the 
     individual right to have a pistol at home. And, a Seventh 
     Circuit Court affirmed that banning pistols equipped with 
     stabilizing braces violates the Constitutional protections 
     against undue restrictions

[[Page H2833]]

     of that individual right to keep and bear arms because: 
     braces are needed by certain individuals with disabilities to 
     operate a firearm. Thus, arm braces are an integral part of 
     the meaningful exercise of Second Amendment rights for such 
     individuals and can also be considered an ``arm.'' . . . 
     [because i]t is uncontroverted that law-abiding members of 
     society, including the elderly, infirmed, and disabled, have 
     the constitutional right to arm themselves for self-
     defense.''
       But those Court decisions are insufficient to protect these 
     gun rights for disabled veterans because they still allow ATF 
     to exercise arbitrary and capricious Executive Branch power 
     to define the specifics of a crime (which is clearly a 
     Legislative power), prosecute it on their own recognizance 
     based upon those non-legislatively defined crimes, and then, 
     effectively adjudicate what constitutes a deprivation of 
     fundamental liberties and property without due process by a 
     judicial court. Only Congress can restrain this 
     unconstitutional Executive Branch power grab, and that is why 
     the immediate passage of Congressional Review Act resolutions 
     to strike down these impertinent actions is needed.
       We stand ready to assist you in its House and Senate 
     passage and to engage the Biden Administration as to why this 
     is not the time to veto a resolution which so clearly 
     protects disabled veterans' rights.
           Very Respectfully,
       National Defense Committee, The Ranger Leadership and 
     Policy Center, Arizona Veterans, US Army Ranger Association, 
     Naval Enlisted Reserve Association, Worldwide Army Rangers, 
     Sea Service Family, Foundation, The 75th Ranger Regiment 
     Association, The Gallant Few, American GI Forum, and Three 
     Rangers Foundation.

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  The REINS Act, which I would argue is the most important part of 
these five bills, is here, and we are debating it today because my 
constituent, Lloyd Rogers--who grew up in an orphanage in Kentucky, 
where he met his future wife in that same orphanage--sent this idea for 
this bill to his Congressman who preceded me.
  Lloyd Rogers served in the Army during the Korean war. Then he came 
home, and he served as a county judge executive. He was shocked when he 
was trying to serve the people in his community at how many of the 
rules and regulations that tied his hands were never passed by 
Congress. He wrote this bill, and he sent it to his Congressman.
  By the way, he and his wife were married for 65 years, and Lloyd 
turned 90 on Saturday. He is watching this debate.
  This is how our Republic is supposed to work. Laws aren't supposed to 
come from unelected bureaucrats with no accountability. They are 
supposed to be ideas that people in our communities have that would 
make their lives better, and then we are accountable to them, so when 
they talk to us, we have to listen. They can throw us out every 2 
years. Maybe they should throw more of us out every 2 years.
  Lloyd came to his Congressman and said, please, put this bill on the 
floor. It went to legislative counsel. The Congressman introduced this 
bill, and it has been very popular. It is one of the most popular bills 
among the American people because they know the structure of our 
government intended by our Founding Fathers was for us to write the 
laws and for the administrative branch to execute the laws, not to 
write them themselves.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule, which contains five bills 
that I urge the passage of.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An amendment to H. Res. 495 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 178) affirming the House of 
     Representatives' commitment to protect and strengthen Social 
     Security and Medicare. The resolution shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the resolution and preamble to adoption without intervening 
     motion or demand for division of the question except one hour 
     of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees.
       Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H. Res. 178.
  Mr. MASSIE. 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.
  Mr. McGOVERN. 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, this 15-
minute vote on ordering the previous question will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the adoption of the resolution, if ordered, and the 
motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3099.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 209, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 249]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bean (FL)
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Brecheen
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Burlison
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Chavez-DeRemer
     Ciscomani
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Collins
     Comer
     Crane
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     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)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     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
     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
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     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--209

     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
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     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
     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
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moskowitz
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Mullin
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Nickel
     Norcross
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi

[[Page H2834]]


     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
     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--8

     Bost
     Carter (TX)
     Casten
     D'Esposito
     Finstad
     Gottheimer
     Sewell
     Turner

                              {time}  1406

  Mr. PAPPAS and Ms. HOULAHAN changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  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

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 218, 
noes 209, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 250]

                               AYES--218

     Aderholt
     Alford
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     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
     Davidson
     De La Cruz
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duarte
     Duncan
     Dunn (FL)
     Edwards
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ezell
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     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)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hageman
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Houchin
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hunt
     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
     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
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Strong
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     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--209

     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
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     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
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Hoyle (OR)
     Huffman
     Ivey
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson (NC)
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Kamlager-Dove
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Landsman
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Lee (PA)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lynch
     Magaziner
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McClellan
     McCollum
     McGarvey
     McGovern
     Meeks
     Menendez
     Meng
     Mfume
     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--6

     Casten
     D'Esposito
     Finstad
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Turner

                              {time}  1416

  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.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 250.

                          ____________________