Congressional Record, Volume 170 Issue 89 (Wednesday, May 22, 2024)

[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 89 (Wednesday, May 22, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3414-H3419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

{time} 1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4763, FINANCIAL INNOVATION AND
TECHNOLOGY FOR THE 21ST CENTURY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 5403, CBDC ANTI-SURVEILLANCE STATE ACT; AND PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 192, PROHIBITING VOTING BY NONCITIZENS IN
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS

Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1243 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1243

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 4763) to provide for a system of regulation of
digital assets by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
and the Securities and Exchange Commission, 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
Financial Services or their respective designees. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendments in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the Committees on
Agriculture and Financial Services now printed in the bill,
an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 118-33, modified by the
amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment 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 B of the report of the Committee
on Rules. 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. 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.
5403) to amend the

[[Page H3415]]

Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks
from offering certain products or services directly to an
individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital
currency for monetary policy, 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 amendments
specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Financial Services or
their respective designees. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by
the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill
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 C 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. 192) to
prohibit individuals who are not citizens of the United
States from voting in elections in the District of Columbia.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute
recommended by the Committee on Oversight and Accountability
now printed in the bill 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 Oversight and
Accountability or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. 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.

General Leave

Mrs. HOUCHIN. 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
gentlewoman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee met and produced a rule,
House Resolution 1243, providing for the House's consideration of
several pieces of legislation.
The rule provides for H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and
Technology for the 21st Century Act, to be considered under a
structured rule. It provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services or their designees and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Additionally, the rule also provides for H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-
Surveillance State Act. H.R. 5403 would be considered under a
structured rule, and it also provides for 1 hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Financial Services or their designees and provides for one
motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a bill
which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the
District of Columbia, to be considered under a closed rule. It also
provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and
Accountability or their designees and provides for one motion to
recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and in support of the
underlying pieces of legislation beginning with H.R. 4763, the
Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act, or FIT21.
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the rule provides for consideration
of this legislation. As a member of the Financial Service Committee, we
have spent countless hours trying to develop a responsible regulatory
structure for blockchain technology and digital assets.
These conversations have become increasingly necessary as regulators
like the Securities and Exchange Commission have failed. Instead of
developing a targeted and purposeful framework that would promote
innovation and protect consumers, they have led with regulation by
enforcement action.
This approach threatens the United States' leadership in the future
of digital assets, a future that could better protect privacy, reduce
business costs, and empower more Americans.
This flawed approach by the SEC has required congressional action,
and FIT21 is the joint response of the Financial Services Committee and
the Agriculture Committee. FIT21 establishes a framework consistent
with existing law but also appropriate for the digital assets in
question and their unique characteristics.
First, there is no current clear market structure for the regulation
of digital assets in the United States. The SEC has merely been
regulating by enforcement action.
This leaves digital asset innovators and consumers to play a guessing
game. This not only stifles innovation but lends itself to the SEC
picking winners and losers.
Meanwhile, there is currently no way for digital asset commodities to
be registered or regulated by the CFTC. Chair Gensler has repeatedly
said most digital assets are securities. However, by his own admission,
we know that not all digital are securities. In fact, it is estimated
that 70 percent or more are commodities.
This is among the most important reasons for the passage of FIT21.
The SEC does not regulate commodities. It regulates securities. The
CFTC does not regulate securities. It regulates commodities. The advent
of digital assets, which can be either securities or commodities, has
created a regulatory black hole that FIT21 seeks to remedy.
By defining digital asset commodities and securities and creating a
clear regulatory market structure, FIT21 protects consumers and
provides the regulatory clarity for digital asset developers to
innovate.
The framework offered by FIT21 will give clear guidance to regulators
and thus allow consumers to better judge digital assets for themselves,
avoid scams, reduce instances of data theft, and lessen the potential
for market manipulation.
FIT21 is good for our constituents and good for the country. Mr.
Speaker, I encourage all of us to support this important legislation.
Moving on to H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, I am
proud of H.R. 5403 because I share the concerns of many of my
colleagues about the consequences of a Federal Reserve Bank digital
currency and what that could mean for our constituents and their
privacy.
If issued, a government-controlled CBDC, central bank digital
currency, would give Federal bureaucrats the ability to track every
transaction Americans make, as well as the ability to block any
transaction they so choose. This would be an unprecedented level of
surveillance on the daily lives of everyday Americans, and we should
all be concerned about the potential threats to individual rights and
privacy.
A CBDC would give the government the power to shut off access to
payments and freeze the bank accounts of law-abiding citizens and
institutions for political reasons, just like we saw with the Canadian
trucker protest or with Operation Choke Point.
Mr. Speaker, I hope all of my colleagues will join me in standing
against the creation of a central bank digital currency by supporting
this bill.

[[Page H3416]]

Finally, this rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 192, a
bill which would prohibit noncitizens from voting in elections in the
District of Columbia.
Americans are rightly concerned with election integrity. Free and
fair elections are essential to any democracy. We all agree on that.
What we should also agree on is that noncitizens voting in elections
undermines confidence in elections.
That is why the District of Columbia's Local Resident Voting Rights
Amendment Act is so objectionable. It allows noncitizens to vote in
D.C. elections, including illegal immigrants and foreign agents.
It goes without saying that these individuals, in particular, have
interests that are at odds with our own. They literally represent the
interests of other countries, including countries hostile to the United
States. Why would we want to allow Russia or China or any foreign agent
to vote on policies that impact the U.S. Capital? It defies logic, but
that is exactly what D.C. has aspired to do.
My colleagues might ask why we even have an interest in the affairs
of local laws in this respect. The answer is quite simple: D.C. has a
unique and constitutional relationship with the United States Congress.
A lack of confidence in American elections anywhere threatens the
confidence in American elections everywhere. It is incumbent upon us to
protect the integrity of D.C. elections when the District's elected
officials fail to do so and when they allow noncitizens and people with
loyalty to other countries to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to consideration of these three important
pieces of legislation and urge the passage of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Speaker, there is really not much to say. If you were to listen
to my friend on the other side, you would think these bills are going
to change the world the second the ink dries, but they are not.
This is just another week of wasted time, more of the same from the
Republican leadership here in Congress that is completely out of touch
with what the American people actually care about.
H.R. 192 is another GOP attempt to meddle in D.C. politics. They
spend more time worrying about Washington, D.C., than they do about
their own constituents.
It is astounding to me that the party that claims to care about small
government and local control wants to have the Federal Government tell
local leaders here in D.C. how to run their local elections.
Apparently, they are all for local control unless it is local control
by Democrats--in which case, never mind.
To hear anybody on the Republican side talk about election integrity
is rich, especially from a party that is filled with election deniers.
We are also here to consider H.R. 4763, a bill that provides an upper
hand to the crypto industry instead of meaningfully addressing gaps in
digital asset regulation.

{time} 1230

Finally, we will meet on H.R. 5403, a bill that prevents the U.S.
from exploring digital currency. I know my friends on the other side of
the aisle are afraid of innovation, but 130 countries representing 98
percent of global GDP are looking into digital currency. Maybe, just
maybe, it is something we should look into as well.
Unfortunately, I think some of my friends on the other side want to
go back to stone tablets. It is our job in Congress to address the
privacy concerns, not to bury our heads in the sand and pretend like
the world isn't moving forward.
Mr. Speaker, it is all stunts instead of solutions, extremism over
bipartisanship, and it is really a shame. This narrow majority could
have given us a chance to work together in a bipartisan way, but
instead, my friends over on the other side of the aisle have pandered
to their most extreme Members over and over and over again.
They let the extremists kick out their own Speaker. They let the
extremists dictate the agenda on the House floor. They let the
extremists take down seven rule votes since January 2023, a stunning
indictment of their ability to get anything done.
Speaking of indictments, Republicans are skipping their real jobs to
take day trips up to New York to try to undermine Donald Trump's
criminal trial.
Republicans have no time to work with Democrats but plenty of time to
put on weird matching cult uniforms and stand behind President Trump
with their bright red ties like pathetic props.
Maybe they want to distract from the fact that their candidate for
President has been indicted more times than he has been elected. Maybe
they don't want to talk about the fact that the leader of their party
is on trial for covering up hush-money payments to a porn star for
political gain, not to mention three other criminal felony prosecutions
he is facing.
Now, I understand why my Republican friends want to distract from
Donald Trump.
They don't want to talk about how Trump had the worse jobs record
since the Great Depression, how he sold out our allies and empowered
our adversaries.
They bring silly things like this to the floor to deflect blame and
distract from the fact that they have no real vision, just division,
and no real plans to make life better for the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain
from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the
Office of the President.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to note that the bury-
the-head-in-the-sand approach is the very approach that Chairman
Gensler has been taking with regard to the regulation of digital
assets.
Our colleagues seem to be less concerned about getting a regulatory
framework for consumer protection and are hurrying to put in a central
bank digital currency for digital surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago, I was admonished for
stating the simple fact that the former President was indicted by a
Grand Jury and is on trial in a court of law. That is not my opinion.
It is just the truth. I have a parliamentarian inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair determined it is
unparliamentary to state a fact?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is not in a position to determine
the veracity of remarks made on the floor. Members must avoid
personalities.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, that is unbelievable. Last week during
debate, a Republican Member of this House said: ``Watch the former
President of the United States being hauled into court day after day
with a sham trial.'' He wasn't admonished. I just referenced the same
trial, and I was.
Mr. Speaker, I have to ask a further parliamentarian inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is it correct that Members of Congress can
mention the trial of the presumptive nominee for President, call it a
sham and question the integrity of the judge, but a reference to the
mere existence of that same trial without any characterization, that is
out of order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not issue an advisory
opinion.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I have one last parliamentary inquiry. Is
this restriction originally founded at least in part on the principle
in Jefferson's Manual that ``in Parliament, to speak irreverently or
seditiously against the king is against order,'' is that what this is
about? I have Jefferson's Manual here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members must avoid personalities in debates.
The Chair will direct Members

[[Page H3417]]

to rule XVII and section 370 of the House Rules and Manual.
Mr. McGOVERN. So it is, in fact, based on what is in Jefferson's
Manual.
Mr. Speaker, Donald Trump might want to be a king, but he is not a
king. He is not a presumptive king. He is not even the President. He is
a presumptive nominee. And I know you are trying to do your job and
follow precedent, but frankly, at some point it is time for this body
to recognize that there is no precedent for this situation.
* * *
Ms. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand that the words of the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) be taken down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts will be
seated.

{time} 1330

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carl). The clerk will report the words.
The CLERK. We have a presumptive nominee for President facing 88
felony counts, and we are being prevented from even acknowledging it.
These are not alternative facts. These are real facts.
A candidate for President of the United States is on trial for
sending a hush money payment to a porn star to avoid a sex scandal
during his 2016 campaign and then fraudulently disguising those
payments in violation of the law.
He is also charged with conspiring to overturn the election. He is
also charged with stealing classified information, and a jury has
already found him liable for rape in a civil court.
Yet, in this Republican-controlled House, it is okay to talk about
the trial, but you have to call it a sham. It is okay to say the jury
is rigged but not that Trump should be held accountable. It is okay to
say the court is corrupt but not Trump is corrupting the rule of law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The words of the gentleman from Massachusetts accuse a presumptive
nominee for the Office of President of engaging in illegal activity.
Presumptive nominees for the Office of President are accorded the
same treatment under the rules of decorum in debate as a sitting
President. This practice is memorialized in section 370 of the House
Rules and Manual. This is warranted even though a candidate may not
have officially obtained the party's nomination once there is no
reasonable dispute that the candidate will receive the nomination.
The Chair reaches this conclusion in part based on the statement of
Speaker Wright of September 29, 1988. On that day, the Speaker made it
clear that actual party nomination is not a prerequisite for treatment
under the precedents as though a nominee. The Chair has admonished
Members on this basis on numerous occasions and as recently as earlier
today.
This standard entails an application of the strictures against
personality to references to candidates under the rules of decorum in
debate. Therefore, although remarks in debate may include criticism of
such a candidate's official positions as a candidate, it is a breach of
order to refer to the candidate in terms personally offensive, whether
by actual accusation or by mere insinuation.
Also as stated in section 370 of the Manual, an accusation that the
President has committed a crime, or even that the President has done
something illegal, is not in order. The Chair relies on the precedents
of March 19, 1998, and September 10, 1998, and finds that the remarks
constitute a personality.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the offending words are
stricken from the Record.
There was no objection.

{time} 1345

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Indiana is recognized.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Langworthy).
Mr. LANGWORTHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Indiana for
yielding time. It is great to finally get to make a speech here.
Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of the legislation being
considered under the rule before us today, including the Central Bank
Digital Currency Anti-Surveillance State Act, which will prohibit the
Federal Reserve from pursuing a path that could jeopardize the
financial freedoms and privacy of the American people.
Around the world, we are seeing authoritarian regimes embrace digital
currencies, and why?
It is because it is a means to more effectively and tightly control
their people.
That is why the Chinese Communist Party is actively developing a
digital currency that will allow them to throttle the Chinese people's
access to bank accounts and subject them to Orwellian social credit
systems, among other forms of oppressive state control.
Yet, we have also seen freer democratic governments, not too
different from our own, pursue policies in recent years to try and
control their citizens' access to basic financial services, destroying
their livelihoods in the process. In fact, it was our neighbors in
Canada who recently shut down access to personal bank accounts of
protesters who had the audacity to exercise their right to demonstrate
in opposition to their government's draconian lockdowns and vaccine
mandates.
Mr. Speaker, before coming to Congress, I joined our healthcare
workers and others in the State of New York to protest against Governor
Cuomo's oppressive COVID vaccine mandates that led to thousands of New
Yorkers, including many frontline healthcare workers, losing their
jobs.
With tools like digital currency at their disposal, it creates a new
pathway for the government to retaliate against those who speak up and
voice a difference in opinion.
If they had that power back then, would they have used it?
Based on our experience with the Biden administration over the past 4
years and the weaponization of government agencies, I am not surprised
that the American people can clearly see the danger here.
This administration with regulation after regulation and policy after
policy has chipped away at the freedoms of the American people.
Under President Biden, everyday Americans are left wondering if they
will be able to purchase a gas stove, drive an affordable car, do what
they like with their private land, or even whether they can safely
voice a conservative viewpoint without some form of reprisal from their
government.
We cannot take for granted our rights as Americans, especially when
we have an administration, captured and intimidated by the radical
left, that has weaponized our Federal agencies against the freedoms of
individuals as the Biden administration has done over the past 4 years.
The American people are sick and tired of giving up their freedoms
and being spied on by our Federal Government. First, it was warrantless
surveillance through FISA. Today, it is a government-controlled digital
currency.
If we allow this dangerous trend to continue, what is next?
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass the underlying legislation to prevent
any further pursuit of authoritarian policies like the creation of a
centralized and controllable digital currency. Let's pass this rule and
protect the financial privacy and the freedoms of the American people.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Rose).
Mr. ROSE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5403, the CBDC Anti-
Surveillance State Act, a bill I was proud to cosponsor. I thank
Majority Whip Tom Emmer and Chairman McHenry of the House Financial
Services Committee for their work on this legislation to protect
Americans' privacy and financial data.
A central bank digital currency, or CBDC, would have devastating
consequences for the Fourth Amendment rights of all freedom-loving
Americans. Just as we have seen the Federal Government weaponized
against conservatives, whether it is the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, or even
the Fed, no three-letter government agency should be able to trample on
our Constitution.
In 21st century America, the freedom to purchase goods and services
necessary to care for and protect our families shouldn't be left up to
the government. A CBDC is a slippery slope toward ceding that liberty.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this bill.
Mrs. HOUCHIN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself
the balance of my time.

[[Page H3418]]

Mr. Speaker, Americans have always been a leader in innovation and
technology, particularly in financial services. In order for this to
remain the case, we must support regulatory structures that continue to
foster that same innovative spirit without sacrificing privacy while
providing necessary consumer protections and preserving market
integrity.
Before us is the opportunity to move legislation that could have a
positive effect on the everyday lives of all Americans.
H.R. 4763, the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st
Century or FIT21, is a bill that delivers on all of these fronts for
the future of digital assets here in the United States.
Speaking of protecting Americans, H.R. 5403, the Central Bank Digital
Currency Anti-Surveillance State Act ensures that the government is
never in a position to weaponize the financial system against the
American people.
Innovation cannot come at the cost of sacrificing individual
liberties. The issuance of a CBDC would only work to compromise
Americans' rights and privacy.
Finally, H.R. 192 protects the integrity of American elections here
in the District of Columbia, and we must prevent it. Congress must step
in when local officials in the District fail to protect election
integrity in this most basic sense. Noncitizens, including illegal
immigrants and agents of foreign governments, must not have the ability
to vote in American elections at any level anywhere. This is a basic
issue of responsible governance.
To ensure government is responsive to and protective of the people it
serves, elections must not include noncitizens or foreign actors.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to moving these bills out of the House
this week, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting ``yes'' on the
previous question and ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yakym). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 205,
nays 203, not voting 22, as follows:

[Roll No. 221]

YEAS--205

Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (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
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke

NAYS--203

Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Amo
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bowman
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bush
Caraveo
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
Carter (LA)
Cartwright
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
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
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Frost
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Garcia, Robert
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, Vicente
Gottheimer
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jackson (NC)
Jacobs
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Manning
Matsui
McBath
McClellan
McCollum
McGarvey
McGovern
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Morelle
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Neguse
Nickel
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pascrell
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
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Suozzi
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Trone
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)

NOT VOTING--22

Barr
Blumenauer
Evans
Ferguson
Granger
Grijalva
Hunt
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Landsman
Loudermilk
Magaziner
Massie
McCaul
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Nunn (IA)
Scalise
Smith (NJ)
Stansbury
Velazquez
Wilson (SC)

{time} 1430

Mr. TORRES of New York, Mses. HOYLE of Oregon, and CRAIG changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. CARTER of Georgia and McHENRY changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The question is on the
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 203, not voting 23, as follows:

[Roll No. 222]

AYES--204

Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bean (FL)
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Buchanan
Bucshon
Burchett
Burgess
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chavez-DeRemer
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
D'Esposito
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais

[[Page H3419]]

Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duarte
Duncan
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Ezell
Fallon
Feenstra
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Gaetz
Garbarino
Garcia, Mike
Gimenez
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean (NJ)
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
LaTurner
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lesko
Letlow
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Luna
Mace
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McHenry
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Molinaro
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Moran
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Obernolte
Ogles
Owens
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reschenthaler
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (NY)
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Zinke

NOES--203

NOT VOTING--23

Alford
Blumenauer
Evans
Ferguson
Granger
Grijalva
Hunt
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Lamborn
Landsman
Loudermilk
Luttrell
Magaziner
Massie
Moore (WI)
Murphy
Nunn (IA)
Scalise
Schweikert
Stansbury
Velazquez
Yakym

{time} 1443

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 for:
Mr. YAKYM. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been
present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 222.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. NUNN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, due to a natural disaster event in the
district, I made an emergency trip back to Iowa to provide assistance
to my constituents who have been left devastated by the tornado. Had I
been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 221, ordering the
Previous Question on H. Res. 1243 and YEA on Roll Call No. 222,
Adoption of H. Res. 1243.

____________________