excellent leadership, for his professio..... on pages H143-H147 covering the 1st Session of the 117th Congress published on Jan. 12, 2021 in the Congressional Record.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
{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.
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.
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.
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 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:
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)
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)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 7
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up