[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 144 (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H3771-H3780]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4553, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2026; PROVIDING FOR
CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 104, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL
OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO
``MILES CITY FIELD OFFICE RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT''; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES.
105, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY
THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``NORTH DAKOTA FIELD OFFICE
RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN''; PROVIDING
FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 106, PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL
DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
RELATING TO ``CENTRAL YUKON RECORD OF DECISION AND APPROVED RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN''; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 672
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. 4553) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2026, 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 Appropriations 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. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 or
clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No amendment to H.R. 4553 shall be in order
except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in
section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments
described in section 4 of this resolution.
(b) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered 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 except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
(c) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of H.R. 4553 for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of H.R. 4553 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. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House any joint resolution specified
in section 7 of this resolution. All points of order against
consideration of each such joint resolution are waived. Each
such joint resolution shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in each such joint resolution are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on each such 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 Natural Resources
or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Sec. 7. The joint resolutions referred to in section 6 of
this resolution are as follows:
(a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 104) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``Miles City Field Office Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment''.
(b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 105) providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United
States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``North Dakota Field Office Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan''.
(c) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 106) providing for
congressional disapproval under
[[Page H3772]]
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to
``Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource
Management Plan''.
Sec. 8. House Resolution 668 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 9. House Resolution 605 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 10. House Resolution 598 is laid on the table.
{time} 1230
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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
Mr. GRIFFITH. 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 Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met last night and reported out a
rule providing for consideration of four measures.
Those measures are H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act; H.J. Res. 104, providing for
congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States
Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management related to
``Miles City Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource
Management Plan Amendment''; H.J. Res. 105, providing for congressional
disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``North Dakota
Field Office Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management
Plan''; and H.J. Res. 106, providing for congressional disapproval
under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted
by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``Central Yukon Record of
Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan.''
House Resolution 672 provides for consideration of H.R. 4553, the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act
under a structured rule, making in order 36 amendments.
The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees and provides for one
motion to recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 104, H.J.
Res. 105, and H.J. Res. 106, all under closed rules, with 1 hour of
general debate each equally divided and controlled by the chair and
ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources and
provides each one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides that H. Res. 668 and H. Res. 605 are
hereby adopted and House Res. 598 is laid on the table.
Today's rule, House Resolution 672, allows for debate on several
measures including H.R. 4553, the Energy and Water Development and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2026.
This appropriations bill funds many programs at the center of helping
to assert our country's energy dominance. The bill cuts $766.4 million,
when compared to last year's funding bill, by focusing our efforts on
energy innovation and water infrastructure.
This appropriations bill provides funding to numerous scientific
energy endeavors from nuclear fusion research, small modular reactors,
nuclear fuel production, electric transmission system enhancements,
energy storage, and traditional fossil fuel research.
At a time when energy demand from data centers and new manufacturing
is increasing, these research efforts will greatly contribute to
meeting the new normal. Our example is the increase of funding for
nuclear energy projects, which will make more advanced nuclear fuel
available and accelerate small modular and advanced reactor testing.
The Department is also essential to our national security.
This appropriations bill has over $20 billion in funds for the
management of our nuclear weapons stockpile and over $2 billion for our
nuclear Navy.
This bill also funds numerous Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of
Reclamation projects to provide dredging to maintain navigable ports
and rivers and water storage projects to increase the water supply in
drought-ridden sections of our country, as well as helping to forestall
flooding in areas from coastal regions to mountainous valley regions
such as the area I represent.
The rule also provides for debate on H.J. Res. 104, H.J. Res. 105,
and H.J. Res. 106, all of which are Congressional Review Act
Resolutions of Disapproval.
These resolutions overturn the Biden administration's Bureau of Land
Management plans that were aimed at restricting gold mining and oil and
gas drilling on Federal lands.
H.J. Res. 104, sponsored by Congressman Downing of Montana, overturns
the Montana Resource Management Plan, which would prohibit new coal
mining on about 2.75 million acres of Federal land in Montana. This
Bureau of Land Management rule would stop an estimated 30 percent of
our country's coal reserves from being mined, even as electricity
demand is increasing in the United States for the first time in over 10
years.
H.J. Res. 105, sponsored by my Energy and Commerce colleague,
Congresswoman Fedorchak, would overturn a similar Bureau of Land
Management Resource Management Plan for North Dakota. Under this Biden-
Harris administration rule, 4 million acres of Federal land in North
Dakota would not be available for coal mining or oil and gas
extraction.
Additionally, the rule allows for debate on H.J. Res. 106, sponsored
by Congressman Nick Begich of Alaska, which would nullify the Central
Yukon Resource Management Plan. Under this rule, which affects 13.3
million acres of Federal land in Alaska, millions of acres would be
barred from energy development.
Disallowing energy development on these lands will also hamstring
efforts to get more American liquid natural gas onto the international
market and improve our country's standing as the leading energy
producer in the world.
We will also be considering a resolution that would direct the House
Oversight Committee to continue their investigation into the Jeffrey
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell files.
The Committee has already undertaken important steps in their
investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. Just this week, the committee met
with the victims of Jeffrey Epstein. They have already issued subpoenas
to the Department of Justice related to the Epstein records.
Further, they have already received over 33,000 documents from the
Department of Justice with more on the way. Those 33,000 documents, Mr.
Speaker, were released last night to the public.
The committee already has transcribed interviews scheduled and have
other subpoenas out, as well. They are also doing this work in a
bipartisan manner, and we must give them all the tools necessary to
continue this important investigation.
This resolution will bring transparency into all the documents and
records related to Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, flight logs, any
individuals referenced in connection to Epstein, any entities with ties
to Epstein, any agency internal documents, documents related to
Epstein's detention and death, and other areas.
Mr. Speaker, there are strings attached to this resolution, as well,
to ensure that we have full transparency, such as requiring written
justification requirements for certain documents that are redacted,
unless they fall under certain sensitive categories.
This is a critical step forward in providing transparency into the
Epstein files and will give the public all the necessary information.
This vote will show the American people we are committed to full
transparency and cooperation when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein and the
investigation thereof.
Lastly, this rule is standing up a new select committee to continue
investigation of the events surrounding January 6. They will bring more
transparency and continue to investigate
[[Page H3773]]
what happened that day so the American public is aware of the facts
involved.
I believe this new subcommittee is another critical step forward to
bringing more transparency to everyone about the events and details
surrounding that day. I hope Members of this House support the passage
of the rule and the underlying bills and resolutions.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, here we go again. Mr. Speaker, here we go again. This
rule is insane. Notwithstanding the gentleman's monotone delivery,
there is a lot going on here in this rule, and much of it is not good.
What are Republicans doing the first week back? Are they doing
something to lower food costs as Trump's tariffs drive prices up? No.
Are they doing something to fully fund the government before it shuts
down in less than a month? No.
Are they doing something to help with skyrocketing healthcare prices
or reversing their devastating cuts to Medicaid? No.
They are doing none of that. They are doing nothing to help regular
people. They are doing nothing to help workers, families, or people
struggling to get by.
Instead, Mr. Speaker, these guys are continuing to cover up the
Epstein files.
{time} 1240
Republicans are deeming as passed--which means no debate, no hearing,
and no markup--they are deeming as passed a new, fake Epstein
resolution and killing their last fake Epstein resolution.
All the while we already have a real, bipartisan bill to unseal all
these files. It is the Massie-Khanna bill. Last night, every single
Republican on the Rules Committee voted against that bipartisan bill,
every single one.
As if that is not bad enough, every single Republican on the Rules
Committee also voted to create, out of thin air, a brand-new committee
to rewrite the history of what happened here on January 6, 2021.
They are so desperate to paper over what happened that day, to
whitewash it and to pretend it was a normal tourist visit. I was here,
Mr. Speaker, here in this Chamber where you are sitting right now, and
you can be damn sure I am not going to let anyone pretend that January
6 was a normal tourist visit. However, Republicans, the gentleman from
Virginia included, refuse to even display a plaque to honor the police
officers who were here that day.
I am so sick of this BS about how Republicans support law
enforcement. Mr. Griffith and every other Republican on the Rules
Committee voted against displaying a plaque to honor the law
enforcement officers who were here on January 6. That plaque, Mr.
Speaker, already exists. Congress already passed a law to create it,
and the Speaker just refuses to display it.
Why? Why would he refuse to do it?
I know why, and we all know why. It is the same reason why every
Republican voted against releasing the Epstein files. It is because
Rules Republicans are scared as hell.
This is not a deliberative body anymore. Under this Republican
majority, Congress has become a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. This is
all about the ego of the man who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Republicans think they work for Trump. They are obsessed with him. It
is pathetic.
Republicans are ruining this institution, Mr. Speaker. They are
destroying this institution. Again, let me repeat: Every single
Republican on the Rules Committee voted against releasing the Epstein
files, every single one.
We heard last night that all Republicans want full transparency, but
that is just not true.
Mr. Speaker, let me read you a quote from the top Republican in this
country, President Donald J. Trump. This is what he says about the
Epstein files: ``It has all been a big hoax. It is perpetrated by the
Democrats and some stupid Republicans.''
At a press availability just minutes ago, the President again said
that this is all a hoax.
Now, what do Republicans think of that?
Donald Trump says this is all a hoax, and if you want to release the
files you are stupid.
Now, I am not surprised. I am not surprised the guy who once called
Epstein a ``terrific guy'' and who Epstein considered his closest
friend is not actually interested in getting to the truth.
Do you know when this clicked in for me, Mr. Speaker, and for a lot
of people?
It clicked after Trump won and then the backtracking began. It
clicked again yesterday. It clicked after the same Republican leaders
who invited influencers to the White House and then passed out binders
about the soon-to-be-released client list suddenly changed their tune.
It clicked again yesterday when phase two of the binders came out, more
information released that has already been released. Mr. Speaker, 97
percent of it has already been released. It clicked when the same MAGA
politicians who once pledged to release everything suddenly came up
with more excuses, more delays, and more stalling tactics. What is
obvious to everyone is that someone is hiding something.
While all of this stalling goes on, what happens?
Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein's partner in crime, winds up in a cushy,
country club prison courtesy of Trump's political appointees. There is
not a word of outrage from the Republican majority, not a whisper of
accountability, just silence.
Now let's not pretend that this is complicated. It is pretty obvious
what is going on. The Trump administration has the power to release the
Epstein files today. They could redact names to protect victims and
survivors and deliver the truth, but they refuse.
There is a simple through line to all of this, Mr. Speaker. We all
know why Republicans are doing this with the Epstein files. We all know
why Republicans refuse to display the plaque honoring the brave law
enforcement officers who protected our democracy and protected all of
us on January 6. We all know why Republicans vote again and again and
again for all these giveaways for the rich and powerful.
It is Donald Trump. He wants to rewrite history. He wants to hide the
truth about Jeffrey Epstein, and he wants to continue his giveaways to
the well-off and the well-connected.
This is all straight out of the authoritarian playbook, Mr. Speaker,
and you can bet your ass we are going to continue fighting like hell to
oppose this insanity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sessions). Members are reminded to
refrain from engaging in personalities toward the President of the
United States.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I believe that would apply to Members of
Congress being called names, would it not. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is so fascinating how facts don't seem to matter
sometimes on the floor. The only administration that has ever released
anything on the Epstein files is the Trump administration. Last night,
the House Oversight and Reform Committee released over 33,000 files.
Now they say that 97 percent of it had already been released, 33,000
files. That is a lot of files.
Let's take that 97 percent and say that it is accurate for argument
and for argument only.
That means that of 33,000 files, 3 percent of that is new. In fact,
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you, as I was going through clips this
morning, I noticed one conservative news source that said: Eureka, the
missing minute surrounding Epstein's death is in the material that has
been released.
There has been a lot of controversy about that. A lot of people want
to know about it, and there it is.
More and more information is coming out, and it is coming out because
of the Trump administration and because of the House Oversight and
Reform Committee.
However, somehow if we don't adhere to the exact demands of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle, then we are not doing it
right. I submit to you,
[[Page H3774]]
Mr. Speaker, that the House Oversight and Reform Committee is doing it
right. They are going through it.
As I pointed out in my opening, Mr. Speaker, if they decide to use
one of the limited areas that they could do a redaction, then they have
to explain why. If the administration doesn't turn over some
information, if they redact information before sending it to the House,
then they have to explain why.
Of course, some of the information that you want to protect, Mr.
Speaker, is information related to victims that has not yet been in the
press.
Why would we want to take young women who were victims of Epstein and
his colleagues and who don't want to have their name in the press, why
would we suddenly expose them to that?
Of course, we don't want to do that, so there has to be some limited
areas where redactions have to occur, but all of that has to be
explained.
Then they bring up the President's comments this morning about a
hoax. They are trying to mislead, in my opinion, some are trying to
mislead the American people into thinking that the President said that
Epstein and the investigation was a hoax. It is not what he said.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at what he said, it was the controversy over
the Epstein files that was a hoax because they have been releasing more
data than any other administration.
I say that because the Biden administration had all this information,
and they didn't release it. They had 4 years. They could have released
it all. They didn't choose to do it, and now my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle somehow want to claim that it is a conspiracy by
Trump to hide information that was in the hands of their party's
President and their party's Department of Justice. It was in their
hands, and they didn't release it, but somehow it is our fault. Mr.
Speaker, it is the Republicans' fault that the Biden administration
didn't do what they now claim that the Trump administration should be
doing.
It is hard to understand that logic, but somehow we are at fault, Mr.
Speaker, for them not doing the job that they think we should have made
their President do.
It is fascinating. It is absolutely fascinating.
Then, of course, we get to all the consternation about this January
6th Committee. This is an outgrowth of an investigation that started as
a part of the House Administration Committee.
I served on the subcommittee that was doing that investigation. It is
really interesting. That group, and I was a part of it, found that
there was more than one terabyte of missing data. Based on the
inventory of the digest and statements from Chairman Thompson, there
should have been four terabytes turned over, and there were only three.
That is equivalent to 6.5 million document pages as PDFs or office
files, 500 hours of high-definition video, or 250,000 photos. The
depositions were not filed properly or they weren't filed at all and
archived as they are supposed to be, and as the rule that set up the
prior committee said, they were supposed to be there.
{time} 1250
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as a former member of this
preceding group, we are just trying to get the data that is missing. We
are trying to make sure we put all the information on the table. We
want the files released that were out there. We want to find that
missing terabyte of information. Some of it has been recovered, but not
all of it, and that work needs to be continued.
Further, the House Administration subcommittee didn't have the power
to subpoena records. I would submit that it is necessary just to get
all the information out.
As I said last night to my colleagues, as a person who loves history
and has a history degree, I need to get all the documents on the table,
the good, the bad, and the ugly, and let history determine what
occurred on that day.
There is no point in trying to hide it. I don't understand why my
colleagues on the other side want to hide a terabyte. A fourth of what
the prior committee did was never properly turned over to the House.
That information belongs to the House and to the people of the United
States. It does not belong hidden somewhere in a drawer or destroyed.
Unfortunately, because of that lack of turning over the records in a
proper manner to the House, we have to continue the work that was not
done by the previous Democrat-controlled--I know they had two
Republicans on it, but they weren't the Members picked by the House
Republicans, and it wasn't in the numbers usually allocated or
originally called for, for a select committee.
We are going to do it right, and we are going to put the information
on the table. We are going to let the American people make a judgment
now, and let the historians argue over what happened on that day as
time moves forward.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This is laughable. It is also unconscionable. We know what is going
on here. This is an attempt to distract and to rewrite the history of
January 6. Quite frankly, it is offensive. It is offensive to the brave
men and women who protected our lives on that day.
There is not a bunch of destroyed evidence like the gentleman claims.
That is just not accurate. The select committee complied with the
requirements of the resolution establishing it, in consultation with
the Clerk of the House and the document retention precedents of other
committees of this House. The select committee's final report and its
support materials are posted publicly online. Just to be sure, I
checked again today. All of them, every single page of every
transcript, are posted online publicly. Maybe the gentleman can't find
them. I would be happy to give him the website information.
The truth is, they just don't like what the evidence shows, so they
want to go on a fishing expedition to try to twist the truth instead of
accepting the fact of that day. The fact is this: The people who
stormed the Capitol and beat police officers, in order to try to stop
the peaceful transition of power, were supporters of Donald Trump,
period. It was one of the most shameful and darkest episodes in our
democracy. No fishing expedition for alternative facts is going to
change the reality.
What is particularly offensive is that Donald Trump pardoned all
these people, pardoned the people who beat the police officers who
protect all of us every single day. It is shameful.
In speaking about the Epstein files, again, I am looking at the video
of a few minutes ago, of Donald Trump speaking to reporters and calling
all of this a hoax, the Epstein files a hoax. He is not talking about
what we are doing here.
Let me just say to the gentleman and anybody else who wants to know:
Listen to what the victims were asking for outside this Capitol just a
few minutes ago, the survivors, the survivors of Mr. Epstein and Ms.
Maxwell. Listen to what the survivors have been saying. They want the
Massie-Khanna bill passed. They want something with teeth in it that
will force this administration to comply because they don't trust that
they will.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico
(Ms. Leger Fernandez), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Mr. Speaker, last night, the Rules Committee
spent hours helping Trump and the White House cover up the Epstein
files.
Trump is terrified the House will agree to the Massie-Khanna
resolution to require that his administration release the damn files.
He is lobbying against it. What is he afraid of?
To kill the Massie bill, Republicans are pushing a resolution that
will give Chairman Comer of the Oversight Committee sole power over
what gets released.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't trust a self-proclaimed--these
are his words--Trump man to decide what to redact and what Americans
get to see.
Remember, Trump repeatedly--not just today, but repeatedly--called
the Epstein scandal a hoax, and he has called Epstein himself a
terrific guy.
The Oversight Committee acted only because Democrats forced the
subpoenas. Today, Republicans, as we heard, are patting themselves on
the
[[Page H3775]]
back for releasing the same documents that were given to rightwing
influencers months ago. We want the Oversight Committee to do its job,
hold the hearings, follow the money, pursue the truth, and protect the
victims.
We can do both. The committee can do its job. All we need are two
more Republicans to sign Massie's discharge petition so the files get
released to the public.
Let's not forget that this is about the women and children who were
terrorized and abused by a pedophile and his rich friends. It is about
the coverup that started with the rich and powerful and is still
coming from a gold-plated Oval Office.
We have listened to the survivors share their stories. They have made
many of us cry, but we won't stop at tears. We will work to bring
justice to these brave women, to do what they have asked, which is to
release the files.
The rule, by the way, is also a Republican attempt to cover up how
they are raising energy prices for American families in the Energy and
Water appropriations bill. Renewable energy brings down the cost of
electricity. Trump and Republicans are destroying this clean and
affordable energy by cutting its funding in half. They are doing this
to benefit the fossil fuel companies that donated to their campaigns.
Finally, they are also rewriting the history of January 6. They
quietly slipped into the rule a brand-new select committee on selective
memory designed to protect the very insurrectionists who stormed this
Capitol. These were violent thugs who attacked our democracy and
brutalized police officers. Donald Trump pardoned those violent
criminals. Now, Republicans want to give them cover in the same Halls
of Congress that the thugs once attacked. Shame, shame, shame.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me state up front that I make no apology for being pro-U.S.
energy. I make no apology for saying that the United States needs more
electric power. I make no apology for saying we can get that electric
power with things like these bills that are in this rule today. It
works on small modular reactors. It works on nuclear. It works on
fusion. It works on coal. It works on making sure that we have the
ability to mine the coal in the United States. It makes sure we have
the ability to extract our oil and our natural gas resources.
If we want to compete with the Chinese, Mr. Speaker, we are going to
have to up our game on producing electric power. It is fascinating to
me that when we hear these debates, my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle will often point out--in fact, they did it last night--that
the Chinese are doing so much more with wind and solar. They never
mention that the Chinese are building dozens of new power plants, as we
speak, powered by coal.
If we are going to use the Chinese as the model that we are supposed
to follow in generating electricity, we should, therefore, not be
closing down all of our coal power plants.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the coal in the United States and the way
that we burn it is much cleaner than the way the Chinese burn it in
their plants. We need to be working on making sure that we have new
energy development, which the energy and water bill does, and ways that
we can burn that coal and our natural gas even cleaner than we are
doing today, even though we produce electricity cleaner with our fossil
fuels than any other country in the world.
{time} 1300
Guess what we can do, Mr. Speaker. If we can continue to move forward
and build new plants and show how this new technology can be used, we
can then be the ones who are exporting it to sub-Saharan Africa and
India instead of having the Chinese exporting facilities and the
technologies that are from the 1960s and 1970s, instead of the
technologies that are available today.
When you talk about the air on the planet Earth, Mr. Speaker, I have
to tell you that the air is shared by all of us. In fact, there is a
NASA study that I often cite that says it takes air 10 days to get from
the middle of the Gobi Desert to the eastern shore of Virginia. That is
why a majority of the mercury in California comes from Asia and not
from the plants in California. It comes from overseas.
Mr. Speaker, the more that we can do with our fossil fuel plants and
our technologies to make our processes cleaner and then export it to
the rest of the world, the more we can do to clean up the air in the
world as a whole because the air is not something that uniquely belongs
to the United States. It doesn't sit over one town very long. Sometimes
we get a little inversion in the Roanoke area and it sits there for a
few days, but it doesn't sit there for weeks and months and years. We
need to be looking at the worldwide issue in regard to that.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apology for supporting bills that will take
care of making sure that we can, in this Nation, as a nation, all of
us, profit and have the AI needed and have the electricity needed for
data centers instead of giving it and ceding it to the Chinese because
we don't want to work on oil, natural gas, and coal because somehow my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have decided that those
resources are not appropriate to be used in the United States.
If we want to be a second-rate country, have at it, but that is not
what I stand for, Mr. Speaker. I stand for us being the leading energy
producer in the world and making sure that we do it as clean as
possible so that we can export our clean coal technology, our clean
natural gas facilities, new fusion if we can get there, new modular
reactors, and export that technology to the world and be the leader in
the world when it comes to energy production; but, number one, making
sure that we take care of our needs in the United States as we are
looking at not having enough electricity going forward to keep our
economy as the number one economy in the world.
Mr. Speaker, I often tell people back home that this is important not
just for today but for the generations to come because when you look at
the powers in the economic sphere in the past, some very small nations
have reached into the future and benefited their children,
grandchildren, and great-grandchildren.
In fact, I often talk about Royal Dutch Shell Group, Shell Oil, which
was a derivative. Mr. Speaker, you can attack how they got the money
because it was all part of colonialism, and I get that. Yet, because
they were the number one economic nation in the world from roughly 1650
to 1700, there are still people and families in the Netherlands who are
benefiting. Notwithstanding the fact that they moved their headquarters
to London, they are benefiting from the fact that, at one time, their
nation was the number one economic nation in the world.
I want that for the United States. I want us to be the number one
economic nation as long as possible so that children and grandchildren
and great-grandchildren and great-great-grandchildren out 10
generations will benefit.
Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for supporting these bills that we
have in this rule today and supporting the fact that American energy is
predominant and should remain a major force in the world instead of
ceding everything to the Chinese.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, that is an awful lot of words to defend the fossil fuel
industry. While the gentleman was defending Big Oil and all these big
corporations that rip off the American people by charging exorbitant
prices for energy and while he was going on that tirade, I went back
and I listened to Donald Trump's press conference at the White House.
Not only did he call the move to release the Epstein files a
Democratic hoax, he said it was designed to get the American people to
focus in on something that was irrelevant.
Mr. Speaker, let that sink in. If you listened to the survivors who
were in front of the Capitol just a few minutes ago and listened to
their horror stories, that is irrelevant? That the President of the
United States of America would say something like that is pathetic.
He could very easily put all of this controversy to rest by just
releasing the files, and that is why we need to
[[Page H3776]]
pass the Massie-Khanna bill because we could actually pass a bill that
would compel him to do that.
What you all did in the Rules Committee last night is a resolution
that doesn't really mean anything. It is designed as cover. Quite
frankly, it is not enough.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New
Mexico (Ms. Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I am always amazed,
disturbed, and sometimes can't believe what I hear on this floor.
We are sitting here today as a government shutdown is looming.
Survivors of the crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein and his associates
are here on this campus sharing their harrowing and heartbreaking
stories. A court has just ordered that Trump's illegal tariffs have
been put in place and are harming Americans and violating the law, and
the President is deploying our brave men and women who serve in the
National Guard to occupy American cities.
What is the GOP's agenda for this week, crammed into this one
resolution that we are here to debate? There is one fake appropriations
bill that they know will never pass, three resolutions to undermine
protections for the environment, one resolution snuck in during the
dark of night to reconvene the January 6 commission to try to rewrite
history, and one resolution designed to provide Donald Trump and the
White House cover in one of the largest Epstein coverups that we have
seen.
This isn't about protecting people. We have a bipartisan discharge
petition right there at the Clerk's desk. If my colleagues would like
to see the files released, the two of you who are in this Chamber right
now could literally walk down there and sign that petition right now.
But you don't want the files released. You want it controlled by the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee because, if you did, you
would sign that petition right there that would release those
unredacted files.
Mr. Speaker, let's also be clear. Donald Trump issued a statement
today that said to all of you, you Republicans here in this Chamber,
that if you sign that discharge petition, he will count it as a hostile
act. That is right. The United States President is threatening members
of his own party in this Chamber from signing a petition that would
release the full, unredacted Epstein files.
Mr. Speaker, my question is: What are they hiding? Who are they
protecting, and why are our colleagues failing to have a backbone not
only to stand up for the survivors but to stand up for the American
people?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. I remind my colleagues that they need to
address the Speaker and not the audience that is here.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, this Epstein situation is very serious,
and I take it as such. We have victims whose lives can never be made
whole, and this debate has taken on a life of its own. In many ways, it
is illogical.
On the one hand, we have the resolution included in the rule that has
subpoena power and has broader authority than the Massie-Khanna piece
of legislation that my colleagues on the other side want. It gives us
the ability to subpoena banking records, estate files, and depositions,
none of which are required in the Massie bill.
Further, I find it interesting, because ours is a resolution that
gives the endorsement of the House, gives more power in the oomph
behind the Oversight and Government Reform Committee's hard work.
The opposing piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, should it pass the
House, goes over to the Senate. Should it pass the Senate, it requires
the signature of the very President who they say wants to block it.
{time} 1310
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the American people, it would
only be logical to go with the one that can get voted on in the House
and have action going forward and have action taking place that deals
with these serious issues and brings to light every piece of
information that we can put on the table with the rare exceptions of a
few redactions, which have to be explained and some of which are
necessary to protect some of the victims themselves because they don't
want to have their names out there in the public.
Mr. Speaker, I don't understand it. If what we want is the
information, we should pass this rule and move forward, and not have to
rely on passage in the Senate and signature by the President.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am going to thank the gentleman for
publicly splitting with the President of the United States. He said
that the Epstein matter was a serious matter. The President just a few
minutes ago said it was irrelevant. I think it takes a little courage
for Republicans these days to stand up to the President.
I do want to point out for the Record that the resolution that is
deemed passed in this rule grants no new authority, no new power, and
no new nothing to the Oversight Committee. It doesn't do anything.
If you want to do something, you can go to the well and you can sign
the discharge petition to allow us to vote on the Massie-Khanna bill,
which would compel and force the Justice Department to release the
files.
If the President, by the way, wants to veto that bill, I would like
to think that Democrats and Republicans unanimously would join together
to override such a veto. I can't imagine anybody here wanting to defend
the indefensible.
We have another way you could be helpful here. If we defeat the
previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for
consideration of H.R. 4405, the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency
Act, introduced by Representatives Khanna and Massie.
Mr. Speaker, Republican leadership is twisting themselves into knots
trying to look like they are doing something on Epstein to give their
Members something to vote on, anything for political cover, while also
not upsetting the President.
That is why they have deemed in this rule a nonbinding resolution to
tell the Oversight Committee to keep doing what they are already doing,
which, best as I can tell, is to slow roll the release of documents
that the DOJ seems to think are acceptable to the President for
release.
Mr. Speaker, the American people didn't ask for an Oversight
Committee investigation. They asked for all the Epstein files to be
released, the very thing that the Trump administration promised and
then suspiciously backtracked on.
This bill is bipartisan, and it is the only legislation on Epstein
that has the force of law. It has the votes to pass. The survivors of
Epstein's and Maxwell's crimes spoke today at the Capitol demanding
this very bill get passed. Republican leaders need to stop standing in
the way, and now is their chance.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment into the Record, along with any extraneous material,
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Khanna) to discuss our proposal, the sponsor of this
bipartisan legislation.
Mr. KHANNA. Mr. Speaker, I am just returning from hearing the
survivors tell their stories, and I was so deeply moved. This is not a
political issue. This is an issue of 14-year-olds and 15-year-olds who
told the stories of how they were solicited by Jeffrey Epstein and
raped and assaulted. Then they went to the police and the police didn't
do anything because Jeffrey Epstein knew rich people, because he knew
Presidents, because he knew donors.
This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue.
Marjorie Taylor Greene was there speaking out for the survivors. Nancy
Mace was in tears, because she is a survivor, when she heard their
stories. Lauren Boebert has said we need to speak up for the survivors.
This is an issue that could actually bring this country together to
say that a Nation in which rich and powerful men can rape young girls
without consequence is a nation that has lost its moral and spiritual
soul.
[[Page H3777]]
We can fight about a lot of things. We shouldn't fight about this. We
need two more Republicans to sign the discharge petition. I have a
pretty simple rule. Most people don't understand all the jargon of
Congress, but the survivors very clearly said they want the Massie-
Khanna bill. They want it for closure. They want it for the release of
the files. You know what the irony here is? President Trump could
actually be the person who does good in this. He can still change his
mind.
Speaker Johnson is a true Christian. I know him. I know his family.
He is a good Christian man. He can be for bringing justice. I really
don't understand why we are fighting over this. Why don't we do
something good for this country? Why don't we stand with these
survivors and show this Nation we are still capable of coming together
when it matters for truth and justice?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, it seems lonely over there.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms.
McClellan).
Ms. McCLELLAN. Mr. Speaker, for the last 6 weeks, I traveled around
not just my district but the entire Commonwealth of Virginia to talk
about the work that we are doing here in Washington as we headed back
to try to avoid a government shutdown in the next 28 days.
Frankly, I didn't hear a lot about Jeffrey Epstein, although what
happened is very serious and the survivors do indeed need closure. I
didn't hear very much about January 6, although that was a serious
stain on American history.
What I did hear about were concerns about rising costs. The costs of
everything from healthcare to childcare, energy, food, and technology,
everything is going up. The President's illegal tariff policy is making
that worse.
I heard concerns from providers and patients about the impact that
Medicaid cuts are going to have on hundreds of thousands of Virginians.
I heard from State legislators and local government officials about the
concerns they have about shifting costs on their budgets. That is why I
oppose the energy appropriations bill here today because one way to
reduce costs while meeting our energy demands is through energy
efficiency programs and clean and renewable energy. However, this bill
cuts in half the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy Office and by extension the programs for energy
efficiency and clean energy.
We will never meet our exploding energy demands affordably, reliably,
and quickly without energy efficiency and clean energy programs, and
that is why I stand to oppose this bill.
{time} 1320
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to energy, I can tell you that I represent a
region of the country where when we were using our coal resources,
which God has blessed us with abundantly, we had the third or fourth
lowest electric rates in the country.
Then suddenly fossil fuels became a bad idea. Even natural gas, oh,
my gosh, we can't use it, and the electric rates keep going up and up
and up. My district is not a wealthy district, and the people in my
district are complaining because their electricity rates are going up.
One of the major drivers are prior Democratic policies, Mr. Speaker,
that said we are not going to be doing any more coal-fired power
plants. We are not going to encourage natural gas to be used to create
electricity, and we stranded the assets.
Now, as you know, Mr. Speaker, what that means is that they are
paying for the electricity generated by wind and solar, and they are
paying for the electricity that was there for plants that were opened
which have not met their full expectation or life cycle.
For example, there is a facility in my district that I went to the
ribbon cutting on in 2012 that Democrats in the Commonwealth of
Virginia, including some of my esteemed colleagues on the other side
from that great Commonwealth, thought it was appropriate to say: Let's
close that down early.
It opened in 2012 with a 50-to-60 year life expectancy, and they
wanted to close it down somewhere around 2035 or 2040, well before its
life expectancy is up. What that does is that pushes the power
companies to have to find different and more expensive ways, as it
turns out, to create that electricity.
What this bill does is, it pushes us on nuclear, which if you don't
want to use fossil, that is the only way you can get the baseload power
to supply us and make us competitive with the Chinese in the field of
AI. Yet, somehow, once again my colleagues on the other side of the
aisle cannot realize that it is the policies of their prior Congresses
and their prior administrations which, in large measure--not
exclusively, but in large measure have caused the spike--not a general
increase, not inflation level, but a spike over and above your general
inflation--on the cost of energy in this country.
If we get back to the basics, if we pass this rule--we have three
CRAs and the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act, all of which help make the United States of America
more viable when it comes to energy and makes those electric prices
that my colleagues said was one of the bigger concerns that she heard
when touring around the Commonwealth--the cost of those energy prices
will go down if we pass this rule and pass the underlying bills. I
reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Ms. Pou).
Ms. POU. Mr. Speaker, across New Jersey and our country, Americans
are struggling with skyrocketing energy costs and are demanding relief.
Yet, that did not stop the congressional Republicans from repealing the
Energy Efficient Home Improvement Credit, a major mistake that could
not have come at a worse time.
Amidst the rising cost of living, Americans are now being denied an
important tool to lower their energy costs solely so billionaires could
get another unneeded tax giveaway. That is why I introduced a
commonsense amendment to study the impacts of tearing this program away
from American homeowners.
I am absolutely disappointed, but not surprised, that the House
majority continues to hide the impacts of their big, ugly bill and
block Americans from seeing how it raises their electric bills.
I came to Congress to lower high costs, and I will not stop working
to lower energy costs for hardworking Americans.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, a vote for this rule is also a vote to create a new
select subcommittee to investigate the remaining questions regarding
the insurrection on January 6, 2021.
I have a radical idea. Instead of wasting time creating a select
subcommittee to investigate January 6, maybe, just maybe, we should
read the report that the January 6th Select Committee already finished
in 2022. Here it is: thousands of pages, millions of records, testimony
from Trump's own people. You could use it as a doorstop, it is so
thorough.
But no, Republicans want to rewrite history. If we were all being
honest here, that is what this is all about: Pretend January 6 was just
a field trip gone wrong; pretend the police weren't bludgeoned,
crushed, or tased; pretend the gallows outside this building were just
some kind of art installation.
It is insulting. It is a slap in the face to every officer who put
their body on the line to save ours. Here is the kicker: This majority
still hasn't even hung the plaque honoring those officers, a plaque
required by law--required by law. Instead of a sham committee, how
about you get a screwdriver and hang the damn plaque because every day
it sits in a box is another day Republicans dishonor the heroes who
defended this place.
If they insist on this little circus, at least investigate something
real, like why Donald Trump pardoned people who assaulted police
officers. One of those men is now serving a life sentence for plotting
to murder nearly 40 law enforcement officers and blow up the FBI. His
lawyers even tried to argue that Trump's pardon should cover his murder
plot.
Another pardoned rioter committed a home invasion less than 4 months
[[Page H3778]]
later. I bet those homeowners wish he had been behind bars serving his
8-year sentence for assaulting cops instead of terrorizing their
family.
In fact, at least 10 of Trump's pardoned insurrectionists have
already been re-arrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bost). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself an additional 15 seconds.
Quite a record. Maybe we should call this new panel the subcommittee
on criminal recidivism by Trump's friends.
But let's be honest. That is not what this is about. This is about
distraction, another shiny object, because the majority doesn't want to
talk about the things that they are actually blocking, like the
bipartisan effort to release the Epstein files.
I will make it simple. Stop rewriting history. Stop wasting time.
Stop dishonoring the police. Follow the law, for God's sake. Hang the
plaque.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman prepared to close?
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, I am.
Mr. McGOVERN. He has no more speakers?
Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 2\1/4\
minutes remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, what we have heard today is excuse after excuse after
excuse, diversion after diversion, but no answers to the questions that
I have asked: Why won't the Trump administration release the Epstein
files? Why won't the Speaker hang up the plaque honoring the law
enforcement officers who defended our democracy on January 6? Why do
Republicans continue voting time and time and time again to help their
rich and powerful friends?
I know the answer, Mr. Speaker. The answer is because of the man who
occupies the Oval Office. Republicans want to let Trump rewrite history
to protect the rich and powerful perpetrators of Epstein's crimes, to
protect the people who came into this building to desecrate our
democracy, and to protect his wealthy donors and Big Oil who want
another giveaway.
At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, this is about trust. How can the
American people trust Republicans when they promised to release the
Epstein files, and then they broke that promise? How can Americans
trust Republicans when they claim to support law enforcement, and then
they want to rewrite the truth about what happened on January 6? How
can we trust Republicans, who want to ignore the fact that Trump
pardoned people who brutally assaulted law enforcement officers? How
can they be trusted?
How can anyone trust Republicans, when they negotiated spending
bills, bills which have become law only to let Donald Trump illegally
shut down Federal agencies in direct violation of those negotiations?
I don't trust these guys to tell me the correct time, let alone trust
them to do what is right for the American people.
The way to restore trust is simple: Hang the January 6 plaque
honoring the officers who defended our democracy on that day, stop the
giveaways for those at the top, and release the damn Epstein files. The
victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's horrific crimes were
outside the Capitol Building this morning to demand that we pass the
bipartisan Khanna-Massie bill to release these files.
Mr. Speaker, we have a bill to do it. Stop delaying, stop
obstructing, stop protecting the powerful perpetrators of these crimes,
and just release the damn files. I urge a ``hell, no'' on this rule,
and I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1330
Mr. GRIFFITH. Mr. Speaker, this rule covers a number of topics, and
we have been over them--energy, water. We didn't get much into the full
funding of the Army Corps so they can help take care of flooding
problems in my district and other districts, take care of water
problems, et cetera.
We have argued for over an hour, most of it being the same repetitive
things. This rule gives that extra oomph. It shows the support for the
work that the Oversight Committee is doing regarding the Epstein files.
It moves us forward on energy and water. It moves us forward on energy
production in the United States. It moves us forward on nuclear power
and making sure that we are using it in a responsible but effective way
so that we can continue to be the world's leader when it comes to
energy production, instead of handcuffing our capabilities.
We have gone over a lot of serious issues. The American people who
are paying attention to this have already heard all of those arguments.
Mr. Speaker, I will simply say that I hope that all the Members of
this House will support the passage of this rule. It is important for a
number of reasons, and I hope they will pass the underlying bills and
resolutions when those come up.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment To H. Res. 672 Offered By Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 4405) to require the Attorney General to release
all documents and records in possession of the Department of
Justice relating to Jeffrey Epstein, and for other purposes.
All points of order against consideration of the bill are
waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of
order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4405.
Mr. GRIFFITH. 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, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212,
nays 209, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 221]
YEAS--212
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gimenez
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
[[Page H3779]]
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS--209
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gillen
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING--10
Alford
Crenshaw
Gomez
Hern (OK)
Hunt
Schmidt
Sherrill
Stauber
Stutzman
Swalwell
{time} 1357
Ms. LETLOW changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
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 212,
noes 208, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 222]
AYES--212
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Buchanan
Burchett
Burlison
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Crane
Crank
Davidson
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzales, Tony
Gooden
Gosar
Graves
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Houchin
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kean
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
LaMalfa
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Letlow
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luna
Luttrell
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (OH)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Patronis
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Orden
Wagner
Walberg
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NOES--208
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bishop
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Brownley
Budzinski
Bynum
Carbajal
Carson
Carter (LA)
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Cherfilus-McCormick
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conaway
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Cuellar
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Davis (NC)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Figures
Fletcher
Foster
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garamendi
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Golden (ME)
Goldman (NY)
Gomez
Gonzalez, V.
Goodlander
Gottheimer
Gray
Green, Al (TX)
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Horsford
Houlahan
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (NV)
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Lieu
Lofgren
Lynch
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McBride
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menendez
Meng
Mfume
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Moskowitz
Moulton
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Panetta
Pappas
Pelosi
Perez
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Riley (NY)
Rivas
Ross
Ruiz
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schneider
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sewell
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Soto
Stansbury
Stanton
Stevens
Strickland
Subramanyam
Suozzi
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Vasquez
Veasey
Velazquez
Vindman
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Whitesides
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1
Kiley (CA)
NOT VOTING--10
Crawford
Crenshaw
Dean (PA)
Gillen
Gimenez
Hern (OK)
Hunt
Schmidt
Sherrill
Swalwell
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.
{time} 1405
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:
Ms. GILLEN. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted No on
Roll Call No. 222.
[[Page H3780]]
____________________