PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1280, GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN POLICING ACT OF 2021; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 38
(House of Representatives - March 01, 2021)

Text available as:

Formatting necessary for an accurate reading of this text may be shown by tags (e.g., <DELETED> or <BOLD>) or may be missing from this TXT display. For complete and accurate display of this text, see the PDF.


[Pages H864-H872]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1, FOR THE PEOPLE ACT OF 2021; 
   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1280, GEORGE FLOYD JUSTICE IN 
              POLICING ACT OF 2021; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 179 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 179

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1) to expand 
     Americans' access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of 
     big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public 
     servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for 
     the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     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 House Administration or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution 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, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on House Administration or her 
     designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further 
     amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed

[[Page H865]]

     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 House Administration or 
     their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1280) to hold 
     law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve 
     transparency through data collection, and reform police 
     training and policies. 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. 6.  The following resolutions are hereby adopted:
        (a) House Resolution 176.
       (b) House Resolution 177.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), 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. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported 
a rule, House Resolution 179, providing for consideration of H.R. 1, 
the For the People Act of 2021, under a structured rule. It self-
executes a manager's amendment by Chairperson Lofgren and makes in 
order 56 amendments.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on House Administration 
and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1280, the George 
Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2021, under a closed rule. The rule 
provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and provides 
for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also deems as passed H. Res. 176, which directs the Clerk of 
the House of Representatives to make a correction in the engrossment of 
H.R. 1319, and H. Res. 177, which authorizes candidates for election to 
the House and Members of the House to file statements with the Clerk 
regarding the intention to participate or not participate in the small 
donor financing system for such elections created by H.R. 1.
  Mr. Speaker, the House will be considering two pieces of critically 
important legislation this week that are a long time coming.
  H.R. 1, the For the People Act, will expand voting rights, limit 
partisan gerrymandering, improve election integrity, and revise rules 
for political spending and government ethics. The 2020 election brought 
out unprecedented turnout, even in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. 
Thanks in large part to voting by mail, more than 159 million Americans 
voted, the largest total vote turnout in United States history.
  What followed was the most heavily scrutinized election in modern 
history, with our airwaves filled with horrific and dangerous lies that 
fundamentally damaged many people's faith in our democracy. Yet, 
through that entire ordeal, not a single shred of evidence of any 
systemic fraud was ever discovered--none at all.
  Voting in this country, however, is far from perfect. Many people, 
particularly Americans of color and those from low-income families, 
face tremendous barriers to making their voices heard, from long lines 
at the polls to discriminatory ID laws.
  I believe, and the Democratic majority believes, our national effort 
should be aimed at eliminating barriers to the ballot. We believe true 
participatory democracy can only be achieved when everyone--everyone--
is afforded the opportunity to vote. We believe it is better for 
America that every voice be heard here in Washington, in State 
capitols, and in city, town, and village halls across our Nation.
  It is better for all of our citizens when each and every citizen has 
a stake in what their government says and what their government does. 
And we believe it is better for us on the world stage when our 
democracy shines as a beacon of hope and success for others to emulate.
  It is becoming increasingly clear that not everyone believes our 
national interest is served by greater voter participation. It is held 
in some quarters that, rather than seeing greater participation as a 
sign of our democracy's enduring strength, it is instead seen as 
evidence of a dark, sinister plot. Or perhaps, more cynically, they 
express that view because suppressing votes, particularly of those with 
whom they disagree, will improve their chances for electoral success, 
even though it weakens our democracy.
  Rather than trying to build on the successes of record voter turnout, 
many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would rather turn 
their backs on those successes and begin an organized effort to change 
the rules because they didn't like the outcome.
  The minority has put forward a narrative that suggests we must choose 
between two separate paths, accessibility and security. But that is a 
deliberately false narrative. We can, and we must, achieve both. H.R. 1 
is the vehicle to advance both.
  The For the People Act places a significant emphasis on election 
security, in everything from voter registration to ensuring all voting 
systems are secure with paper ballots and robust election result 
audits.
  The outrage we have heard from Republican leaders in Congress 
demonstrates how out of touch they are with their own voters. More than 
two-thirds of likely voters, including 57 percent of Republicans, said 
they would back the proposals in H.R. 1. Americans want more 
accountability from their leaders, not less.

                              {time}  1930

  They want the influence of money out of politics. They want an end to 
gerrymandered districts. They want voting to be a celebration of our 
civil duty, not a constant battle to overcome administrative hurdles.
  We owe it to those Americans to create the ethical and accessible 
democracy that they so richly deserve.
  The House will also take up H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act. This legislation represents the work of hundreds of 
legislators and millions of American advocates who have fought for 
decades for a more equitable future.
  This fight is especially personal for me, as my own community of 
Rochester, New York, has grappled with two recent tragedies that 
underscore just how necessary police reform truly is.
  Just one block from here, on the west pediment of the United States 
Supreme Court, is a promise to every American: ``Equal justice under 
law.''
  Sadly, we know that for too many Americans, that promise is an empty 
one. It was an empty promise for Daniel Prude, who, while naked and 
unarmed, faced a mental health crisis in the streets of Rochester when 
police arrived on the scene last March. He needed a warm blanket and 
treatment by a mental health professional. He got neither and died in 
police custody just days later.
  It wasn't true just a month ago for a young girl in my community, who 
was forcibly restrained and pepper sprayed as she called out for her 
father. She is 9 years old. A police officer on the scene, impatient 
with her pleas to see her dad, urged her to stop acting like a child. 
Her response: ``I am a child.''
  It would be laughable if it were not heartbreaking.
  Equal justice under law was an empty promise for George Floyd, 
Breonna Taylor, Jacob Blake, and for countless others in every corner 
of America and for countless more still to come unless we take bold, 
decisive action.

[[Page H866]]

  Indeed, it is up to each of us to make the changes necessary to 
finally fulfill the promise of equal justice.
  The time for incremental change has passed. It is clear that we need 
a cultural paradigm shift and massive reimagining of our public safety 
protocols, and that starts with the George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act.
  The bill prohibits religious, racial, and discriminatory profiling by 
every police department in America, supported by improved training for 
officers and comprehensive data collection and tracking to ensure 
departments are following the law.
  It will save lives by banning dangerous police practices, like choke 
holds and no-knock drug warrants. It will ensure that law enforcement 
uses deadly force only when absolutely necessary and only after 
exhausting deescalation tactics.
  This legislation would limit the transfer of military-grade equipment 
to State and local law enforcement because peace, safety, and community 
trust cannot--cannot--be realized with weapons of war.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will create desperately 
needed accountability by expanding the use of body-worn cameras and 
dashboard cameras and eliminating the qualified immunity protections 
that allow bad actors in law enforcement to stay on the force.
  As a whole, this legislation addresses police misconduct, creates 
greater transparency, and affords victims meaningful avenues for 
redress. With these policies, we can build trust and we can begin to 
build cooperation between law enforcement and the communities they are 
supposed to serve and protect.
  We passed both the For the People Act and the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act in the previous Congress, and it is my hope that this year 
represents a real opportunity to move both bills forward to the 
President's desk so that we can build stronger democracy and justice 
for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this rule and to support both 
underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Morelle), my very good friend, for yielding me the customary 
30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule covers two items, both of which will be 
familiar to Members who were here during the 116th Congress. We are 
once again considering H.R. 1, a bill that nationalizes our election 
system and substitutes Washington's judgment for a key responsibility 
of our States in the administration of free and fair elections. We are 
also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.
  Unfortunately, despite its title, H.R. 1 has nothing at all to do 
with the people. It is, instead, a bill about preserving the present 
Democrat majority. It is a bill by Democrats for Democrats. Though the 
majority claims this bill is about reforming our political system, the 
reality is that most of the changes in this bill, if enacted into law, 
would be to benefit the majority to the detriment of the minority.
  The most egregious of these provisions are those dedicated to 
changing our national system of campaign finance. Now, in general, I 
think this is a worthy goal, but the majority's proposed solution does 
not make much sense. The majority is proposing to create a new 
federally funded campaign ATM using corporate fines, ensuring that 
certain candidates will receive millions of dollars just for running a 
campaign.
  My colleagues in the majority have bemoaned the massive amount of 
money that has been entering into our campaign system over the past few 
decades, yet their proposed solution is to dump corporate dollars into 
the system.
  In what world does this make sense?
  Even Democrats know what a flawed program this is, which is why 
today's rule also includes a provision to allow Members of Congress to 
opt out of this program. Before this bill was even passed by the House, 
Democrats were already running from it. They should just keep running 
and pull this bill from the floor.
  Other proposed changes in this bill are just egregious. Wherever 
possible, the majority is attempting to impose one-size-fits-all 
systems from Washington onto the States. It does this with a one-size-
fits-all voter registration system, including forcing States to provide 
same-day voter registration whether they want to or not.
  It takes away the power of the States to choose how to redistrict, 
forcing them to adopt Washington-imposed ``independent redirecting 
commissions,'' something that less than 20 percent of the States who 
undertake redistricting actually do.
  These provisions impede the traditional power of the States to 
control their own elections. As a former secretary of state and 
election official in my home State of Oklahoma, I find these changes to 
be particularly concerning.
  But what is worse, H.R. 1 also includes severe restrictions on free 
speech and repeals the Lois Lerner rule, a rule put into place after 
the IRS began targeting the speech of conservative organizations in 
determining whether or not they would qualify for tax exempt status. If 
enacted into law, these provisions would reweaponize the IRS and limit 
the abilities of organizations, corporations, and individuals to freely 
exercise this most-important right guaranteed under the Constitution.
  How the majority can claim that this bill is for the people when they 
are blatantly restricting the people's right to free speech is beyond 
my understanding.
  Mr. Speaker, what the majority is attempting today is egregious. 
Changing the national campaign finance system to benefit themselves, 
taking traditional powers away from the States, and restricting the 
right of free speech are all part of an unprecedented power grab.
  I strongly urge the majority to change course, and I urge my 
colleagues to reject this terrible bill.
  Today, we are also considering H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act. As with H.R. 1, this bill will be familiar to our 
returning Members, as the House passed an identical bill last summer.
  Unfortunately, while I think this bill is well-intentioned, it, too, 
is misguided. Reforms contained in H.R. 1280 will do more harm than 
good. I do not doubt the majority's good intentions with this 
legislation.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act came about following the 
tragic events of last summer. George Floyd's death demonstrated what so 
many Americans know only too well, that abuses of power clearly exist 
and must be grappled with.
  And while the overwhelming majority of law enforcement officers 
faithfully and bravely carry out their duties and responsibilities each 
day, all too often many Americans receive different treatment due to 
the color of their skin. Americans across the country rightly condemn 
this horrific and unacceptable act.
  Unfortunately, rather than choosing to come together to legislate in 
a bipartisan manner, the majority chose to take the exact opposite 
course last summer, and we are once again considering the same flawed 
and deeply partisan bill we considered then and that the Senate failed 
to take up. I believe this bill will face the same result, should the 
House pass it again this week.
  During the last Congress, when the Judiciary Committee met to mark up 
this bill, the majority completely shut out Republicans from the 
process. Republicans made good-faith attempts to work with the 
Democrats to find common ground on needed reforms, yet every single one 
of these attempts were rejected.
  This year, the majority has not even deigned to bring this bill to a 
markup in the Judiciary Committee, and, once again, the majority has 
shut Republicans out of the process.
  This is no way to legislate on an issue that is this important, Mr. 
Speaker. Republicans and Democrats alike agree that reforms are 
necessary. We all watched the tragedy of George Floyd unfold last 
summer and we all watched the resulting protests. We all agree that 
action is necessary. But rather than working together in the best 
interest of the American people, the majority is once again telling 
Republicans that they can only have a

[[Page H867]]

Hobson's choice. They can take the Democrats' bill or they can take the 
Democrats' bill with no other options.
  But I, along with my fellow Republicans, reject that idea. We fully 
recognize the critical need for reform. My colleagues, both in the 
House and in the Senate, have put together our own package, the JUSTICE 
Act, filled with bipartisan reforms that could pass both the House and 
the Senate and be signed into law quickly. These reforms include 
critical measures, like providing funding for body cameras for police 
officers, requiring deescalation procedures, and banning choke holds.
  My colleague, Representative Stauber, offered this as an amendment at 
the Rules Committee earlier today, but, once again, the majority chose 
to shut out Republicans and refused to make this amendment in order.
  That is a sad state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, but the real losers here 
are the American people. This is an issue we can and should cooperate 
on. I urge my colleagues in the majority to rethink the path they are 
on. On an issue that is this important and this critical to the 
American people, the very best thing we can do is work together. And 
with a reduced majority, I think that would actually be good political 
advice for my friends.
  We can work on bipartisan reforms together and we can produce 
consensus legislation that has the buy-in of Members on both sides. 
Unfortunately, the majority has once again chosen the opposite path: 
Partisan bills filled with provisions that do not reflect the best 
interest or consensus of the country.
  We can do better than that, Mr. Speaker. The American people deserve 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just a brief comment. As much as it pains me, because I 
have nothing but incredible admiration and respect for my distinguished 
colleague, the gentleman from Oklahoma, but when it comes to 
the question of voting in the United States, the fact is that States 
right now are working--many of them overtime--to restrict ballot 
access. That is why it is necessary for the Congress to step forward, 
as is given us, the power in the Constitution, to make sure that we 
pass laws that fulfill the dream of voter access for all Americans.

  I do also note that I think it would be much easier for us to believe 
that there is good faith on the other side of the aisle to negotiate 
some of these items and to perhaps reach compromise, but I find it hard 
to believe--and I stated this in the Rules Committee--given what 
happened over the last several months, that we would be in this 
position, that there is any ability to have a belief in good faith.
  It is hard to imagine 60 lawsuits were brought against decisions made 
by States--not the Federal Government, but States--on the electoral 
college. Two-thirds of the members of the House Republican Conference--
two-thirds--objected to the results of the electoral college, and, in 
many cases, States that had Republican leadership and Republicans 
serving as secretaries of state or as elections commissioners.
  So I would suggest that since--for the first time since 1800, when 
John Adams turned over the keys to the White House to President 
Jefferson and we observed the first peaceful transfer of power from one 
party to another, that since that foundational moment in American 
history over two centuries ago, this is the first time that people in 
this House have objected so strenuously and systematically to the 
results of the free and fair election of the American people.
  So we are for the people. We want to continue to expand ballot 
access, and we want nothing more than those wishes of the American 
public to be respected by their elected officials.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lofgren), the chair of the Committee on House Administration.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Our 
democracy is in urgent need of repair. The American people deserve a 
transparent, inclusive, and healthy democracy, and H.R. 1 will get us 
there.
  It is transformational, a once-in-a-generation, pro-democracy, 
anticorruption reform package. It is composed of comprehensive policies 
for eliminating structural and legal barriers to voting, ending the 
dominance of big money in our campaign finance reforms, and 
implementing real government ethics and accountability reforms.
  With this landmark bill, we take a giant leap toward ensuring our 
Republic is an authentic and inclusive representative democracy, and 
ensuring the voices of everyday Americans are no longer drowned out by 
those of wealthy special interests.

                              {time}  1945

  Article I, Section 4 says this:
  ``The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and 
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the legislature 
thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such 
regulations.''
  Mr. Speaker, that is what we are doing here. As the gentleman has 
said, we had a huge turnout in the 2020 election, despite efforts by 
some to suppress turnout. Now, we see legislatures all over the country 
trying to put barriers in place so the American people will not be able 
to exercise their franchise. That is simply wrong. We should look to 
our constitutional obligation to make sure that every American has the 
capacity to vote.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend, also a 
member of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Cole for 
yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1, which should more appropriately be titled, the 
for the politicians act, is nothing more than a top-down Federal power 
grab that nationalizes our elections and empowers the Democratic party 
to permanently hold on to their majority.
  Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution gives States the 
primary role in establishing election law and in administering 
elections.
  H.R. 1 upends this constitutional balance by forcing States to 
permanently expand mail-in voting, legalize ballot harvesting, and 
disregard voter ID laws. Even more alarming, this bill allows for the 
first-ever Federal funding of campaigns, creating a 6 to 1 government 
match to small-dollar donors. This means that for every $200 donated, 
the Federal Government would contribute $1,200. Additionally, certain 
voters will be given publicly funded vouchers to donate to candidates 
of their choice.
  H.R. 1 also stifles free speech and empowers President Biden's IRS to 
target conservative organizations and deny them their tax-exempt 
status.
  Last, but certainly not least, H.R. 1 increases vulnerability for 
foreign election interference at a time when we should be increasingly 
more vigilant about hostile regimes seeking to undermine our democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on H.R. 1.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1 is the most significant democracy reform package 
in a generation. It will make it easier to vote--regardless of income, 
ability, geography, or race; ends the domination of big money in 
politics; and enacts tougher ethics standards to ensure that public 
officials actually work for the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud of three provisions that I 
helped incorporate into this bill:
  Bringing the Oregon vote-by-mail model nationwide;
  Paving the way for all States to offer vote-by-mail and early voting;
  And automatic voter registration for individuals interacting with 
State agencies.
  Mr. Speaker, this is personal for me. I started my political career 
as a college student, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
on the constitutional amendment to lower the voting age. I spent 2 
years of my life working in Oregon on that and on the national 
campaign. Subsequently, I was on a national commission from the Ford 
Foundation, the National League of Women Voters, and the Civic League 
to deal with how we were to reform the election process to make it more 
uniform and easier for the American people.

[[Page H868]]

  Mr. Speaker, I was proud of that work, but I am a little embarrassed 
that that was four decades ago and we are still talking about the need 
for those reforms. And as my colleagues have mentioned, there are 
people right now in various State legislatures that are actively 
continuing a process of making it hard for Americans to vote. This is 
embarrassing. This isn't just a matter of what happened with civil 
rights, this has been refined as a high art to be able to gerrymander 
people into unrepresentative patterns that undercuts the ability of 
politicians selecting their voters, rather than people selecting their 
politicians.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been pained by the lies that have been made about 
mail-in voting. I am the first Member of the House of Representatives 
to be elected as a result of a mail-in ballot. We pioneered that in 
1996, and we have continued to pioneer that effort. And it is secure, 
it is convenient, it saves money for local government. It allows people 
to process this in their own home, in their own time, in their own way. 
In an era of the pandemic, it provides health--keeping older poll 
workers from being exposed.
  The notion that somehow this is a problem that justified some of the 
outrageous statements and behavior, defies description.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an 
additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I am pained with this misrepresentation 
that the President of the United States would denigrate mail-in 
balloting while he, in fact, does it. This has been done by Republicans 
and Democrats alike. It is secure. It is safe. And it helps the 
American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge approval of H.R. 1 and rejection of the 
bogus claims about the problems alleged with mail-in ballots. It is the 
most secure. It is the most effective. And it is one that I think the 
public deserves.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis), my very good friend, and the distinguished 
ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.
  Mr. RODNEY DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member 
Cole and the Committee on Rules. It was a fun day up there for a few 
hours.
  This nearly 800-page bill that, if signed into law, would impact 
millions of Americans' right to vote and to participate in the 
political process, was introduced on January 4 of this year. And the 
first and only hearing on H.R. 1 was held just 4 days ago, in the 
smallest committee in Congress.
  Democrats on the Committee on House Administration also decided a 
markup of this bill wasn't needed, despite the fact that both the bill 
itself and the membership of our committee have changed since last 
Congress. This is especially concerning since Democrats changed House 
floor rules this Congress to weaken the MTR, making committees the only 
real opportunity for the minority to provide an alternative. But now, 
they are not even doing that. They are not even holding a markup on 
this major elections bill.
  This bill was rushed. And I guarantee most of my colleagues 
supporting this bill have no idea how this bill would really impact 
elections or political speech. But I bet they do know that if this bill 
were to become law, they would get a lot more funds for their own 
campaigns through the public financing provision.
  H.R. 1, the for the politicians act, includes hundreds of pages of 
mandates on States and local election administrators. At the only 
hearing Congress has held on this massive bill, the minority's witness 
was the only person on the panel with experience in actually running 
elections. And he told this committee that it would be unworkable in 
States like his.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be reviewing the issues that we saw during the 
2020 election cycle and helping States develop a better process. Simply 
mandating how States run their elections is not only unconstitutional, 
but it will lead to chaos and confusion for voters.
  The for the politicians act creates a first-ever fund to publicly 
finance our own congressional campaigns by providing corporate money, 
the first corporate dollars allowed into individual Members of 
Congress' campaigns since 1907, laundered through the Federal 
Government and into Members of Congress' own campaigns.
  Provisions in this bill also attack free speech protections under the 
First Amendment. We did not have any hearings on the impact of changing 
the current bipartisan balance of the Federal Election Commission to a 
partisan makeup or the effect that a ``speech czar'' will have on 
people's ability to participate in the political process.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is terrible. This bill doesn't address the 
important issues that deserve hearings. Any bill to fundamentally 
change our elections or restrict our freedom of speech needs--at the 
very least--to go through regular order. The American people deserve to 
know what is in this bill and the real-life impact it will have on 
them.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and on the underlying 
bill, and I figure my time has expired since you have the gavel.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Illinois, 
and I may not agree with him very much on this subject. But I really 
disagree if he thinks the Committee on Rules today was fun. He must be 
a heck of a cheap date.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, and distinguished colleague from the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago, I began volunteering to provide election 
protection services to voters after I saw political operatives try to 
block Swarthmore College students from voting by posting signs around 
their campus saying that they could not legally vote where they 
attended college. That was a lie. But we had to get a court order to 
take the signs down.
  Fast forward almost 20 years, and Haverford College students and 
their neighbors had to wage a multiyear campaign to get local officials 
to put a polling place on campus. The existing polling place was 1\1/2\ 
miles away, in another district entirely, and was inconvenient for 
students--most of whom had no cars--and the majority of residents 
alike.
  The college offered to provide free space and parking for the polling 
place, but students and neighbors were met with excuse after excuse. 
These excuses were textbook voter suppression tactics used to box out 
young voters from making their voices heard.
  If we have learned anything from this past election, it is that when 
we make it more convenient for eligible voters to vote, they do.
  That is why I am offering an amendment to H.R. 1 that requires States 
which offer early voting to make it available to polling places serving 
college campuses. It is high time we make our democracy, our elections, 
accessible to the generations who will inherit the world that we are 
legislating about.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, to support my 
amendment, and to support final passage of H.R. 1.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, my friend and I disagree on the two pieces of 
legislation today, but we absolutely agree that the Committee on Rules' 
meeting was not fun.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. 
Greene), my friend.
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition today 
against H.R. 1280. This bill is nothing more than a get-cops-killed 
campaign. It sends one clear message: Democrats hate law enforcement.
  This bill does not bring justice to victims. It just takes revenge on 
all of the men and women in uniform. Meanwhile, Speaker Pelosi is 
surrounded by an army of taxpayer-funded law enforcement 24 hours a 
day, 7 days a week.
  This bill disarms cops and opens them to frivolous lawsuits by 
lawyers representing criminals who got their feelings hurt simply 
because they broke the law and got arrested.
  Speaker Pelosi is putting police on a hit list to be ambushed while 
on the job keeping our streets safe. So I have one message for 
Democrats: Shame on you.
  Shame on you for using these men and women to protect your fortress

[[Page H869]]

while destroying their rights and livelihoods. Don't call a cop for 
help if this is how you are going to treat them. You should tell them 
to go home. At least then, they won't have to stand guard while you 
dismantle everything they stand for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to address their 
remarks to the Chair.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  2000

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman), my very good friend and the 
ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, it seems like we were just here, debating 
a COVID relief bill that was not about COVID relief but Democrats' 
special interests. Now, we are debating the rule for the so-called For 
the People Act, but it is not for the people but against the people, 
against our freedom, and against our fundamental right to vote.
  H.R. 1, the Democrats' plan to nationalize elections, stack the deck 
in their favor, and pad their campaign accounts with corporate money 
laundered through the IRS, is exactly what this country does not need.
  What we do need are States carrying out Federal elections with 
integrity and transparency, as the Constitution dictates. We need 
American voters to have confidence in the voting process.
  That is what my amendment was designed to do. Mr. Speaker, while 
leaving the details and specifics of elections to the States, my 
amendment would create two simple standards to promote integrity and 
transparency. My amendment would provide standards and best practices 
for postelection audits and would be published online by each State 
within 30 days after the election. My amendment would require States to 
attest to the security and accuracy of their voter ID requirements and 
maintenance of voter registration lists.
  While H.R. 1 actually forbids voter ID laws, Mr. Speaker, you have to 
have an ID to buy tobacco and alcohol in this country. What is the 
problem with having to identify who you are to vote?
  Two simple provisions to promote integrity and transparency, but my 
colleagues across the aisle must not be here for integrity, 
transparency, and improving voter confidence in our elections because 
they wouldn't even make my amendment in order.
  Mr. Speaker, since we can't have a debate in committee or here on the 
floor, I will file the Voter ID Act, and then maybe my friends can 
explain to the American people why they are opposed to election 
integrity and transparency and what is wrong with having to verify the 
identification of voters.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do want to again just note, although it has been said 
ad nauseam for the last several months, that while we clearly respect 
States' roles in these elections and that it is the States who run 
elections and organize them, we do have the power in the Congress given 
to us in the Constitution. But more importantly, this year, while the 
voters in Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Arizona cast ballots in free and 
fair and open elections, and those were certified repeatedly despite an 
onslaught of lawsuits brought by the former President and his 
advocates, all of which were denied going all the way up to the Supreme 
Court, our colleagues didn't respect those States' elections even 
though they were certified and even though, as we all met on what will 
be one of the darkest days in American history on January 6 to accept 
and certify those results given to us by the States, my colleagues and 
friends objected to them.
  I am not sure what that says about their respect for State elections 
since they didn't respect the results of those elections, in many cases 
run by Republicans in their respective States.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say I find this a most curious discussion. If we 
are not going to abide by the results of elections, and if we are not 
going to trust those various States to submit elections unless they 
agree with the outcome that we want, why we would be arguing so 
strenuously for the continuation of State control and no involvement by 
the Federal Government, despite the fact that the Constitution clearly 
vests that power here in the Congress?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, just quickly to my friend from New York, I wasn't here, 
and he wasn't here, but our friends thought to challenge in this 
Chamber the election in 2001, after 2000. I was here in 2004 when they 
challenged a State and demanded a recount. Then, I was here in 2017 
when my friends on the other side sought to challenge 10 different 
States. So, let's not act like this is somehow unusual.
  Mr. Speaker, another part of today's rule includes a provision to 
deem passed a correction to last week's budget reconciliation measure. 
Given that the majority now wishes to reopen last week's 
reconciliation, it is certainly appropriate to further amend that 
resolution to correct one of the more egregious provisions in it.
  If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the 
rule to immediately adopt H. Res. 178, an engrossment correction to 
strike funding in the budget reconciliation bill for the Pelosi subway 
tunnel in California and instead direct the $140 million to support 
mental health and suicide prevention in States where children do not 
have the option of in-person instruction in school.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. 
Bice), my good friend, for further explanation of the amendment.
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous 
question today, we will call up a resolution that I introduced, H. Res. 
178, which would instruct the House Clerk to modify the text of H.R. 
1319, the American Rescue Plan Act, to direct $140 million from Speaker 
Pelosi's pork subway project and to instead put those funds toward 
critical mental health services for the Nation's children who have 
continued to suffer in isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  My resolution would ensure that mental health and suicide prevention 
services are provided in States where children do not have the option 
of in-person instruction in school, as isolation has been a major 
driver of mental health impacts on our Nation's kids.
  Mr. Speaker, children across this Nation have been disproportionately 
affected by the mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. A study 
by the National Institutes of Health found that social isolation has 
had a significant impact on America's children. Social isolation during 
quarantine has caused many to develop feelings of sadness, anxiety, and 
loneliness.
  Unfortunately, a study by the American Academy of Pediatrics found 
that there has been an increase in suicides among children following 
the imposition of stay-at-home orders last year.
  Another study by the Virginia Pediatrics Association found a 90 
percent rise in cases among children involving depression, anxiety, and 
academic struggles.
  Mr. Speaker, there is hope. The CDC recently released new guidelines 
that recommend students return to in-person instruction where it can be 
done safely. Dr. Anthony Fauci himself has backed these new guidelines 
and has spoken in support of getting our Nation's kids back in school.
  The feelings of social isolation felt by so many children today can 
be quickly alleviated by reopening our schools. In areas of the country 
where reopenings are not happening, my resolution would provide $140 
million to bolster mental healthcare for these affected children. I 
think we can all agree that the mental health impacts on our children 
should be swiftly addressed on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, let me state again that America's children deserve the 
very best. Let's defeat the previous question today so that we can 
provide needed relief and critical mental health services

[[Page H870]]

to children who are suffering across the Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote to defeat the previous 
question.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as I indicated when I began my comments this evening, I 
have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect for the 
distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  I don't want to be argumentative, but I would note that I think there 
is a significant and substantial difference between a symbolic 
objection made by one or two Members to the electoral college results 
of a single State versus the objection of 140 Members of this House, 
particularly as it follows a violent, unprecedented attack on what I 
consider the sacred cathedral of democracy, the United States Capitol.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, obviously, I oppose the rule. The majority is proposing 
two significant pieces of legislation today that are, unfortunately, 
both deeply partisan. In neither case has the majority allowed 
Republicans to be involved in the process of legislating.
  Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1, the majority is proposing a deeply troubling 
takeover of election practices that will benefit only Democrats. The 
bill will take away the traditional powers of the States to run their 
own elections as they see fit, imposing a one-size-fits-all regime from 
Washington.
  It dumps huge amounts of corporate money into the campaign finance 
system, particularly benefiting certain candidates. It imposes severe 
restrictions on free speech that are anathema to a free and fair 
election.
  On H.R. 1280, the majority is once again seeking to pass the same 
flawed police reform bill it passed last Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, we had a real opportunity here for both Democrats and 
Republicans to work together to pass real reforms for the American 
people. Instead of taking ``yes'' for an answer, the majority is 
instead seeking to impose a deeply partisan bill that will not fix the 
problems or help heal the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, we deserve better than that. The American people are 
best served when their Representatives in Congress can come together 
and work in a bipartisan manner. One side attempting to impose partisan 
legislation on the country does us all a disservice.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to rethink this path, reject both 
of these bills, and return to the negotiating table and work with 
Republicans for a brighter future for all Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I mean this with all sincerity. There is a great gap 
between us on H.R. 1. We just simply look at this matter differently. I 
think it is egregious partisan overreach. On H.R. 1280, there really is 
an opportunity for bipartisan cooperation. The JUSTICE Act that Mr. 
Stauber filed last year and presented today as an amendment has a great 
deal in common with some of the objectives I know my friends want to 
achieve on their side of the aisle.
  Mr. Speaker, in an almost evenly divided House and an evenly divided 
Senate that still has the filibuster, you can't do things by 
reconciliation every day. Most days, to get much done, it is going to 
require bipartisan cooperation.
  We often say that never happens. The reality is it happens a lot more 
than people acknowledge. Five times last year we came together as 
Republicans and Democrats and passed COVID relief packages that made a 
big difference in this country. We also passed the spending bill on a 
bipartisan basis that funded the government for this entire fiscal 
year. We did that in the middle of a Presidential election year that 
was extraordinarily divisive.
  Mr. Speaker, we can work together. I would ask my friends to rethink 
the course of the reconciliation bill and now these two pieces of 
legislation and start thinking about where we can actually get things 
done. I think the George Floyd bill, H.R. 1280, is one of those places. 
I also think the appropriations process can be one of those places. We 
can probably even find some common ground on some of the electoral 
issues, although personally, in my view, H.R. 1 is a very flawed piece 
of legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York for the debate 
and tell him that, despite our disagreements on these two pieces of 
legislation, I look forward to working with him. I don't think either 
of these are likely to get through the United States Senate. I do think 
we can get a product back from the United States Senate that both of us 
might be able to vote for, in terms of police justice and overhaul. We 
will wait and see what happens with H.R. 1. I am less optimistic we 
will ever see it again, but I am happy to say good-bye to it out of 
this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule and I urge rejection of 
both underlying pieces of legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much, as always, the thoughtful 
comments by my colleague and friend, the distinguished gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. Speaker, as it relates to the question of matters before us here, 
we do have significant differences in how we view access to the ballot.
  I would note that, historically, parties change. They evolve. 
Typically, because this is in keeping with American democracy, we 
evolve to reflect the needs and concerns and wishes and results of 
American elections and their expression of the will of the people of 
this country.
  Mr. Speaker, what I find troubling right now is that friends across 
the aisle seem to be focused not so much on learning the lessons given 
to us by those voters, by the American public, as expressed in the 
first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.
  But instead, conscientious, by-design work to limit those who would 
want access to the ballot so that they can choose the voters, as 
opposed to the other way around--disenfranchising those, and setting up 
barriers, as we see happening in State capitals across the country, is 
troubling indeed. And, I think, it demonstrates the clear division 
between the two parties on this particular issue.

                              {time}  2015

  We seek, and we will always seek, to expand access to make sure that 
every single American, every single citizen who wants to participate in 
our democracy has the right, because that is how we end up with a 
better America, and we fulfill the promise of moving toward a more 
perfect Union.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues for their words in support 
of the rule before us today. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 179

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 7. House Resolution 178 is hereby adopted.

  Mr. MORELLE. 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 on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 201, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 50]

                               YEAS--220

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)

[[Page H871]]


     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--201

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Calvert
     Carter (TX)
     Crenshaw
     Estes
     Graves (MO)
     Johnson (SD)
     Loudermilk
     Sessions
     Van Duyne
     Wittman

                              {time}  2105

  Messrs. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia, GONZALEZ of Ohio, and KINZINGER 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Beatty (Johnson (GA))
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fudge (Kaptur)
     Gaetz (McHenry)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)
     Granger (Arrington)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Higgins (NY) (Kildee)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Huffman (McNerney)
     Katko (Stefanik)
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Trahan)
     Mrvan (Kelly (IL))
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neguse (Perlmutter)
     Norman (Rice (SC))
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Reed (Arrington)
     Rodgers (WA) (Herrera Beutler)
     Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Thompson (MS) (Butterfield)
     Timmons (Green (TN))
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
     Young (Malliotakis)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the 
adoption of the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 207, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 51]

                               YEAS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick

[[Page H872]]


     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Womack
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Crenshaw
     Graves (MO)
     Loudermilk
     Sessions
     Wittman
     Young

                              {time}  2151

  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.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent on Monday, March 
1, 2021.
  On the Motion on Ordering the Previous Question on the Rule, H. Res. 
179, if I had been present, I would have voted YES.
  On H. Res. 179, the rule Providing for consideration of H.R. 1 and 
H.R. 1280, if I had been present, I would have voted YES.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Beatty (Johnson (GA))
     Buchanan (LaHood)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Fudge (Kaptur)
     Gaetz (McHenry)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez)
     Granger (Arrington)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Higgins (NY) (Kildee)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Huffman (McNerney)
     Katko (Stefanik)
     Kind (Connolly)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Trahan)
     Mrvan (Kelly (IL))
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neguse (Perlmutter)
     Norman (Rice (SC))
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Reed (Arrington)
     Rodgers (WA) (Herrera Beutler)
     Roybal-Allard (Escobar)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Thompson (MS) (Butterfield)
     Timmons (Green (TN))
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

     

                          ____________________