[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 12, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H143-H147]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2230
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Vice President for his
excellent leadership, for his professionalism, and, frankly, for his
faithfulness to our Constitution.
Not only would it be an abuse of the 25th Amendment for Mike Pence to
invoke it to make a political statement, it is clearly not our role in
Congress to do what we are doing here tonight or what is proposed to be
done by the majority.
Speaker Pelosi claims that President Trump incited the mob that
attacked the Capitol at a rally. As Mr. McClintock spoke earlier, he
read the President's statement. He encouraged people to come peaceably
and patriotically.
The Washington Post is reporting something that I would hope that our
chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence would know
about. The FBI report warned of war at the Capitol the day before the
attack on our Capitol. I am curious how someone proposes that the
President incited the mob at a rally the day before the rally.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the article.
[From The Washington Post, Jan. 12, 2021]
FBI Report Warned of `War' at Capitol, Contradicting Claims There Was
No Indication of Looming Violence
(By Devlin Barrett and Matt Zapotosky)
A day before rioters stormed Congress, an FBI office in
Virginia issued an explicit warning that extremists were
preparing to travel to Washington to commit violence and
``war,'' according to an internal document reviewed by The
Washington Post that contradicts a senior official's
declaration the bureau had no intelligence indicating anyone
at last week's demonstrations in support of President Trump
planned to do harm.
A situational information report approved for release the
day before the U.S. Capitol riot painted a dire portrait of
dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the
complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be
conspirators to meet in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts
and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington.
``As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information
indicating calls for violence in response to `unlawful
lockdowns' to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,''
the document says. ``An online thread discussed specific
calls for violence to include stating `Be ready to fight.
Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in,
and blood from their BLM and Pantifa slave soldiers being
spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or
a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we
die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal.''
BLM is probably a reference to the Black Lives Matter
movement for racial justice. Pantifa is a derogatory term for
antifa, a far-left anti-fascist movement whose adherents
sometimes engage in violent clashes with right-wing
extremists.
Yet even with that information in hand, the report's
unidentified author expressed concern that the FBI might be
encroaching on free-speech rights.
The warning is the starkest evidence yet of the sizable
intelligence failure that preceded the mayhem, which claimed
the lives of five people, although one law enforcement
official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to avoid
disciplinary action, said the failure was not one of
intelligence but of acting on the intelligence.
At the FBI office in Norfolk, the report was written within
45 minutes of receiving the information, officials said, and
shared with counterparts in Washington.
The head of the FBI's Washington Field Office, Steven
D'Antuono, told reporters on Friday that the agency did not
have intelligence suggesting the pro-Trump rally would be
anything more than a lawful demonstration. During a news
conference Tuesday, held after The Post's initial publication
of this report, he said the alarming Jan. 5 intelligence
document was shared ``with all our law enforcement partners''
through the joint terrorism task force, which includes the
U.S. Capitol Police, the U.S. Park Police, D.C. police, and
other federal and local agencies.
He suggested there was not a great deal for law enforcement
to do with the information because the FBI at that time did
not know who made the comments. ``That was a thread on a
message board that was not attributable to an individual
person,'' D'Antuono said Tuesday.
D'Antuono did not say what, if anything, the FBI or other
agencies did differently as a result of that information. Nor
did he explain why he told reporters on Friday that there had
been no such intelligence.
Steven Sund, who resigned as Capitol Police chief, said in
an interview Tuesday that he never received nor was made
aware of the FBI's field bulletin, insisting he and others
would have taken the warning seriously had it been shared.
``I did not have that information, nor was that information
taken into consideration in our security planning,'' Sund
said.
Since the riot, agents and prosecutors have been intent on
tracking down and arresting the most violent participants in
the mob, in part because there is already significant online
discussion of new potential clashes for Sunday and again on
Jan. 20, when President-elect Joe Biden is set to take the
oath of office.
Michael R. Sherwin, the acting U.S. attorney for D.C., said
there would be a strike force of prosecutors looking to file
charges of seditious conspiracy where the evidence merited
it.
[[Page H144]]
The Jan. 5 FBI report notes that the information represents
the view of the FBI's Norfolk office, is not to be shared
outside law enforcement circles, that it is not ``finally
evaluated intelligence,'' and that agencies receiving it
``are requested not to take action based on this raw
reporting without prior coordination with the FBI.''
Multiple law enforcement officials have said privately in
recent days that the level of violence exhibited at the
Capitol has led to difficult discussions within the FBI and
other agencies about race, terrorism and whether
investigators failed to register the degree of danger because
the overwhelming majority of the participants at the rally
were White conservatives fiercely loyal to Trump.
``Individuals/Organizations named in this [situational
information report] have been identified as participating in
activities that are protected by the First Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution,'' the document says. ``Their inclusion
here is not intended to associate the protected activity with
criminality or a threat to national security, or to infer
that such protected activity itself violates federal law.
``However,'' it continues, ``based on known intelligence
and/or specific historical observations, it is possible the
protected activity could invite a violent reaction towards
the subject individual or others in retaliation or with the
goal of stopping the protected activity from occurring in the
first instance. In the event no violent reaction occurs, FBI
policy and federal law dictates that no further record be
made of the protected activity.''
The document notes that one online comment advised, ``if
Antifa or BLM get violent, leave them dead in the street,''
while another said they need ``people on standby to provide
supplies, including water and medical, to the front lines.
The individual also discussed the need to evacuate
noncombatants and wounded to medical care.''
On Jan. 6, a large, angry crowd of people who had attended
a rally nearby marched to the Capitol, smashing windows and
breaking doors to get inside. One woman in the mob was shot
and killed by Capitol Police; officials said three other in
the crowd had medical emergencies and died. A Capitol Police
officer died after suffering injuries.
The FBI said in a statement that its ``standard practice is
to not comment on specific intelligence products,'' but added
that FBI field offices ``routinely share information with
their local law enforcement partners to assist in protecting
the communities they serve.''
For weeks leading up to the event, FBI officials discounted
any suggestion that the activities of Trump supporters upset
about the scheduled certification of Biden's election win
could be a security threat on a scale with the racial-justice
demonstrations that followed the police killing of George
Floyd in Minneapolis in May.
While the nation's capital is one of the most heavily
guarded cities on the planet, local and federal law
enforcement agencies sought to take a low-key approach to
last week's event, publicly and privately expressing concerns
that they did not want to repeat last year's ugly clashes
between protesters and police.
Some law enforcement officials took the view that
protesters who support Trump are generally known for over-
the-top rhetoric but not much violence, and therefore the
event did not pose a particularly serious risk, according to
people familiar with the security discussions leading up to
Jan. 6.
Even so, there were warning signs, though none as stark as
the one from the FBI's Norfolk office.
FBI agents had in the weeks before the Trump rally visited
suspected far-right extremists, hoping to glean whether they
had violent intentions, said a person familiar with the
matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the
law enforcement activity. It was not immediately clear who
was visited or if the FBI was specifically tracking anyone
who would later be charged criminally. These visits were
first reported Sunday by NBC News.
In addition, in the days leading up to the demonstrations,
some Capitol Hill staffers were told by supervisors to not
come in to work that day, if possible, because it seemed the
danger level would be higher than many previous protests,
according to a person familiar with the warning who spoke on
the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter. Capitol
Police did not take the kind of extra precautions, such as
frozen zones and hardened barriers, that are typically used
for major events near the Capitol.
Federal agents are on high alert as the inauguration nears,
with authorities bracing for possible violence not just in
Washington but also nationwide, officials said.
The FBI recently issued a different memo saying that
``armed protests'' were being planned ``at all 50 state
capitols'' and in D.C. in the run-up to the inauguration,
according to an official familiar with the matter, speaking
on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive law
enforcement matter.
The memo--first reported by ABC News and later confirmed by
The Post--is a raw intelligence product, compiling
information gathered by the bureau and several other
government agencies, the official familiar with the matter
said. Some of it is unverified, and the threat probably will
differ significantly from place to place, the official said.
But the information it highlights to law enforcement is
nonetheless troubling--including that there was data
suggesting people might storm government offices or stage an
uprising were Trump to be removed from office, the official
said.
In a statement, the FBI declined to comment specifically on
the memo about state capitols but said: ``Our efforts are
focused on identifying, investigating, and disrupting
individuals that are inciting violence and engaging in
criminal activity. As we do in normal course of business, we
are gathering information to identify any potential threats
and are sharing that information with our partners.
``The FBI respects The rights of individuals to peacefully
exercise their First Amendment rights,'' it said. ``Our focus
is not on peaceful protesters, but on those threatening their
safety and the safety of other citizens with violence and
destruction of property.''
Mr. DAVIDSON. Others are reporting a timeline that has the breach out
of sync as well, but that highlights the importance. There is far too
little that we know about this attack on our Capitol.
Here is what we do know. No one has defended this attack on our
Capitol. On the contrary, we are missing--willfully missing, in my
opinion--a moment of extreme unity in our Nation, just like what was
willfully done earlier this year.
At a time of great political and partisan division, even seething
anger, one thing all Americans seem to agree on is that these attacks
were wrong. The President condemned them. He discouraged violence, not
just on January 6 but on other days throughout the year as he talked
about law and order and as he talked about something that we finally
seem to agree on, that there is a clear distinction between the
Constitution's First Amendment protection of the right to assemble
peaceably and riots, criminal, unlawful riots.
There is a distinction between rioters and protesters. Frankly, it
took us months to agree on that as a body in Congress, but the people
of the United States of America agreed to it. They understood it.
I encourage my colleagues across the political spectrum, the Members
of Congress gathered here together today and tomorrow, to stand united
and move forward with the agreement our country had, that this was
wrong.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to Mr. Espaillat from New
York.
Mr. ESPAILLAT. Mr. Speaker, we have all known it for a while now, but
this past week it has become undeniably clear: Donald J. Trump is
unfit.
To the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, Commerce, Education, and
Transportation: He is unfit.
To the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Housing, Interior, and Labor: He is unfit.
To the Attorney General: He is unfit.
To the Vice President of the United States: He summons his goons.
They shut their hoods and came with their racist Confederate flag to
assassinate him, to assassinate the Vice President.
He is unfit. Invoke the 25th Amendment. If not, we will impeach him
tomorrow.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, after listening to all
that I have heard this evening, I still have the faith and belief that
we can come together as a unit.
I was reading my Bible the other day and saw that it said: Come and
let us reason together. Otherwise, we shall all be destroyed by the
edge of the sword.
I say to my colleagues: Let's reason together. You cannot erase truth
with a lie. You cannot pretend that what has happened did not happen.
Yes, we ought to have a President, but it is time for this one to go.
Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this resolution and agree
wholeheartedly.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United
States instigated an attack against our democracy.
For months, he ginned up his supporters with lies about our election
and incited them to violence. On the 6th of January, he unleashed a mob
on the Capitol.
[[Page H145]]
The President must be held accountable for this vile attack. He knew
what he was doing, and now, five people are dead.
Congress will not be intimidated. America will not succumb to mob
rule.
The Vice President can initiate removal of a President who is unfit
for office, and this President is unfit. He must be removed.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this resolution, and I urge a
``yes'' vote on impeachment tomorrow.
Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, what happened at the Capitol on January 6 was as wrong
as wrong can be. It is not what America is about, and we condemn this
violence. We commend the men and women of the Capitol Police for their
bravery, and we mourn the loss of those lives that were taken last
week.
Republicans have been consistent. We condemn the violence last
summer; we condemn the violence last week. Democrats have been
consistent about one thing: their endless quest to overturn the 2016
election. They are still trying to overturn the 2016 election after the
2020 election. This has been an obsession with the Democrats.
In the first round, the first impeachment was based on the anonymous
whistleblower. The majority tried to remove the President from office
based on a guy whom we weren't allowed to see, know who he or she was,
and couldn't cross-examine; who was an anonymous whistleblower with no
firsthand knowledge; who was biased against the President; and who
worked, interestingly enough, for Joe Biden.
So continuing this quest is not, as has been said so many times on
the floor tonight, what the country needs. It is not what the country
needs, particularly after the year the country has lived through.
I hope we will not vote for this, that this thing will go down, and I
urge my colleagues to vote against the resolution sponsored by the
gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. David Scott), who is the distinguished chairman of the
Agriculture Committee.
Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing
tonight isn't about us. It is about the will of the American people.
They are brokenhearted. They are crying. And they are discouraged.
An overwhelming number of American people want this President out of
office now. This is why we have to do it now. We have to heal the
wound. The longer the President is over there, the more we are tearing
the heart and soul out of the American people. Let us do it now.
Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
resolution. I thank our Speaker for scheduling this, and Rep. Raskin
for his leadership and deep knowledge of our Constitution.
I speak today with sadness in my heart but purpose in my bones. This
Congress must take action to remove Donald Trump from office as soon as
possible, for the clear and present danger he poses to our Democracy,
our national security, and to the American people.
Last Wednesday, we saw Donald Trump incite a violent and deadly
insurrection at our U.S. Capitol in an attempt to reverse the results
of a free and fair election. The risk that he might do so again in the
next week is why he cannot be trusted for another minute as commander
in chief, overseeing the nuclear codes and the U.S. Military.
The fastest way to protect our republic from Donald Trump is for the
Vice President and the cabinet to take action under the 25th Amendment.
I implore them to do so. But if they do not, my colleagues and I stand
ready to defend our democracy from Donald Trump.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res. 21,
calling on Vice President Pence to invoke his powers under the 25th
Amendment. We are in the midst of a national emergency and President
Trump must be removed from office immediately, before any further
damage to this Capitol--or to our Republic--can be done.
Last week's violent attack on the Capitol took root more than 5 years
ago when Donald Trump first descended the escalator at Trump Tower to
announce his run for President.
The hateful rhetoric, baseless accusations, and contempt for the
democratic process were all on display that day. Later, they formed the
foundation of his presidency. Last week, they reached a violent
crescendo.
After losing his bid for reelection--in decisive fashion--President
Trump embarked on a campaign of misinformation aimed at delegitimizing
the results of a free and fair election. When this failed, he tried to
intimidate local election officials into reversing the results. When
those brave public servants refused to do his bidding, he made one
final desperate attempt to hold onto power by attacking the
constitutionally mandated process of counting and certifying the
electoral votes in a Joint Session of Congress.
Although the President had willing volunteers to join him, Vice
President Pence refused to exceed his limited authority and reject the
results of the election. That is when the President unleashed his
supporters to storm the Capitol. And the result--an armed
insurrection--left in its wake lost lives, property destroyed,
desecration of hallowed ground, and physical and emotional scars that
may never fully heal.
Vice President Pence upheld his constitutional duty and his oath of
office that day. It is time for him to do so once more.
Under the 25th Amendment, the Vice President, along with a majority
of the members of the Cabinet, may inform Congress ``that the President
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,'' upon
which ``the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and
duties of the office as Acting President.''
This is not a step to be taken lightly--but it is the step that must
be taken today.
The President is clearly incapacitated and unable to exercise the
powers of the presidency to protect the United States, as witnessed by
the attack on the Capitol itself. Rather than immediately calling for
an end to the violence and calling on his supporters to withdraw, the
President waited several hours before releasing a half-hearted video
that also expressed his ``love'' for the rioters who were ``special
people''. All the while, he continued his efforts to subvert the
election, seeking Senators who would object to the certification of as
many as ten states' electoral votes, without a shred of evidence that
there was any reason to doubt their authenticity.
And reports indicate that the threat that our country faced on
January 6th--from a president who would do anything to hold onto
power--is ongoing. It is a national crisis. It demands immediate
action.
I thank the Gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Raskin--a constitutional
scholar and a valuable member of the Judiciary Committee--for bringing
forward this important resolution, and I call upon the Vice President
to do his constitutional duty and to protect the American people from
one more day of a dangerous presidency.
Mr. MICHAEL F. DOYLE of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in
support of the resolution urging Vice President Pence and the Cabinet
to remove President Trump from office.
In the interest of full disclosure, I want to make it clear that I've
always thought that President Trump was unstable and unfit to hold the
highest office in the land. But since the election, I believe that his
actions have become more erratic and angry and dangerous.
He has developed an alternative worldview with no basis in reality in
which he won more votes than Joe Biden, but the election was `stolen'
from him. I suspect that he may actually believe that.
But the facts are clear. The 2020 Presidential election was one of
the most open and transparent elections in our nation's history
according to election officials and observers, both Republican and
Democratic. The FBI said that it found no evidence of widespread voter
fraud. The Attorney General, chosen by the President, said that there
was no evidence of widespread voter fraud. And the chairman of the
bipartisan U.S. Election Assistance Commission said that there was no
evidence of widespread voter fraud.
Nevertheless, Donald Trump has widely repeated this message in
speeches and over social media in the months before and after the
election, which has led to its widespread acceptance by thousands and
perhaps millions of Americans.
In August, for example, he said ``the only way we're going to lose
this election is if the election is rigged. Remember that. It's the
only way we're going to lose this election.''
Subsequently, he said ``This is a case where they're trying to steal
an election . . . . They're trying to rig an election, and we can't let
that happen.''
After the election, he said, ``If you count the legal votes, I easily
win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election
from us.''
And on Christmas Eve, he wrote on Facebook, in all capital letters,
``VOTER FRAUD IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY, IT IS A FACT!!!''
What's even more disturbing is that his actions have displayed a
similar unhinged quality. On election night, for example, he urged
[[Page H146]]
his supporters to harass workers counting votes in Arizona and
Michigan. He had his campaign file over 60 lawsuits challenging the
election processes in a number of states, nearly all of which were
rejected by state and federal courts--including several which were
rejected by the Supreme Court, He called Republican members of the
Wayne County Board of Canvassers in Michigan and pressured them to
derail the certification of the state's election results. More
recently, he called Georgia elections officials and pressured them to
``find votes'' to overturn the presidential election results in
Georgia. And just last week, he reportedly ignored requests to mobilize
the National Guard in the midst of the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
I believe that his false, misleading claims over an extended period
of time, culminating in his speech on the morning of January 6--
repeated and validated on conservative cable shows and social media--is
the root cause of the assault on the Capitol last week.
President Trump has spent months and months undermining the American
people's faith in the November presidential election. I believe part of
it may be a coping mechanism for him because he's totally unwilling to
accept that he was defeated by someone else. But I also believe that
parts of it are criminal and a deliberate, lengthy effort to undermine
and overturn what are, by all credible accounts, legitimate election
results in order to stay in office.
Regardless of the motivation for his actions, the President currently
appears to be unstable, unfit, and unable to carry out his duties as
President of the United States. Moreover, his instability raises
concerns for many, myself included, that in his last few days in
office, he might take some dangerous action or pursue some policy that
will harm the American people in a significant way.
This man currently controls the entire federal government, including
the U.S. military, and he has the U.S. nuclear codes at his fingertips.
I fear for our nation as long as he remains in office under these
circumstances.
That's why I'm supporting this resolution today to urge Vice
President Pence, and a majority of the Cabinet to remove him from
office as soon as humanly possible. I believe that the future of our
nation may be at stake.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 38, the previous question is ordered on
the resolution and on the preamble, as amended.
The question is on adoption of the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. JORDAN. 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 223,
nays 205, not voting 5, as follows:
[Roll No. 14]
YEAS--223
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)
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
Kinzinger
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
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Phillips
Pingree
Pocan
Porter
Pressley
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
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--205
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
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
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)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
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
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
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Wagner
Walberg
Walorski
Waltz
Weber (TX)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Wright
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--5
Crenshaw
Granger
Murphy (NC)
Steel
Webster (FL)
{time} 2324
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. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, had I been present, I would have voted
``nay'' on rollcall No. 12, ``nay'' on rollcall No. 13, and ``nay'' on
rollcall No. 14.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Adams (Brown)
Axne (Stevens)
Baird (Bucshon)
Bergman (Walberg)
Bilirakis (Fortenberry)
Bishop (GA) (Butterfield)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Bonamici (Clark (MA))
Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
Buchanan (Cammack)
Cardenas (Gallego)
Carson (Underwood)
Costa (Correa)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
DesJarlais (Kustoff)
Deutch (Rice (NY))
Dingell (Stevens)
Doyle, Michael F. (Cartwright)
Eshoo (Thompson (CA))
Fleischmann (Kustoff)
Fletcher (Allred)
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Gonzalez (OH) (Joyce (OH))
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
Jones (Jacobs (CA))
Kaptur (Stevens)
Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
Kuster (Pingree)
Lamborn (Walberg)
Langevin (Lynch)
LaTurner (Mann)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lee (NV) (Stevens)
Leger Fernandez (Davids (KS))
Lieu (Beyer)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
McEachin (Wexton)
McNerney (Huffman)
Nadler (Jeffries)
Napolitano (Correa)
Ocasio-Cortez (Tlaib)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Peters (Beyer)
Porter (Wexton)
Pressley (Garcia (IL))
Richmond (Butterfield)
Rush (Underwood)
Schneider (Sherrill)
[[Page H147]]
Sires (Pallone)
Smith (WA) (Courtney)
Strickland (Kilmer)
Thompson (MS) (Butterfield)
Titus (Connolly)
Tonko (Pallone)
Vela (Gomez)
Walorski (Banks)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Wild (Scanlon)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
Young (Malliotakis)
____________________