The publication is reproduced in full below:
GLOBAL RESPECT ACT
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I call up the bill (H.R. 3485) to impose sanctions on foreign persons responsible for violations of internationally recognized human rights against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) individuals, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, in lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Foreign Affairs printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-30 is adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 3485
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Global Respect Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The dignity, freedom, and equality of all human beings are fundamental to a thriving global community.
(2) The rights to life, liberty, and security of the person, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of expression and association are fundamental human rights.
(3) An alarming trend of violence directed at LGBTQI individuals around the world continues.
(4) Approximately one-third of all countries have laws criminalizing consensual same-sex relations, and many have enacted policies or laws that would further target LGBTQI individuals.
(5) Every year thousands of individuals around the world are targeted for harassment, attack, arrest, and murder on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(6) Those who commit crimes against LGBTQI individuals often do so with impunity, and are not held accountable for their crimes.
(7) In many instances police, prison, military, and civilian government authorities have been directly complicit in abuses aimed at LGBTQI citizens, including arbitrary arrest, torture, and sexual abuse.
(8) Celebrations of LGBTQI individuals and communities, such as film festivals, Pride events, and demonstrations are often forced underground due to inaction on the part of, or harassment by, local law enforcement and government officials, in violation of freedoms of assembly and expression.
(9) Laws criminalizing consensual same-sex relations severely hinder access to HIV/AIDS treatment, information, and preventive measures for LGBTQI individuals and families.
(10) Many countries are making positive developments in the protection of the basic human rights of LGBTQI individuals.
SEC. 3. SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR VIOLATIONS
OF HUMAN RIGHTS AGAINST LGBTQI PEOPLE.
(a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act and biannually thereafter, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a list of each foreign person the President determines, based on credible information, including information obtained by other countries or by nongovernmental organizations that monitor violations of human rights--
(1) is responsible for or complicit in, with respect to persons based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics--
(A) cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment;
(B) prolonged detention without charges and trial;
(C) causing the disappearance of such persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of such persons; or
(D) other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of such persons; or
(2) acted as an agent of or on behalf of a foreign person in a matter relating to an activity described in paragraph
(1).
(b) Form; Updates; Removal.--
(1) Form.--The list required by subsection (a) shall be transmitted in unclassified form and published in the Federal Register, except that the President may include a foreign person in a classified, unpublished annex to such list if the President--
(A) determines that--
(i) it is vital for the national security interests of the United States to do so; and
(ii) the use of such annex, and the inclusion of such person in such annex, would not undermine the overall purpose of this section to publicly identify foreign persons engaging in the conduct described in subsection (a) in order to increase accountability for such conduct; and
(B) not later than 15 days before including such person in a classified annex, provides to the appropriate congressional committees notice of, and a justification for, including or continuing to include each foreign person in such annex despite the existence of any publicly available credible information indicating that each such foreign person engaged in an activity described in subsection (a).
(2) Updates.--The President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees an update of the list required by subsection (a) as new information becomes available.
(3) Removal.--A foreign person may be removed from the list required by subsection (a) if the President determines and reports to the appropriate congressional committees not later than 15 days before the removal of such person from such list that--
(A) new, credible information is discovered confirming that such person did not in fact engage in the activity for which the person was included in such list;
(B) such person has been prosecuted appropriately for the activity in which such person engaged; or
(C) such person has credibly demonstrated a significant change in behavior, has paid an appropriate consequence for the activities in which such person engaged, and has credibly committed to not engage in an activity described in subsection (a).
(c) Public Submission of Information.--The President shall issue public guidance, including through United States diplomatic and consular posts, setting forth the manner by which the names of foreign persons that may meet the criteria to be included on the list required by subsection (a) may be submitted to the Department of State for evaluation.
(d) Requests From Chair and Ranking Member of Appropriate Congressional Committees.--
(1) Consideration of information.--In addition to the guidance issued pursuant to subsection (c), the President shall also consider information provided by the Chair or Ranking Member of each of the appropriate congressional committees in determining whether to include a foreign person in the list required by subsection (a).
(2) Requests.--Not later than 120 days after receiving a written request from the Chair or Ranking Member of one of the appropriate congressional committees with respect to whether a foreign person meets the criteria for being included in the list required by subsection (a), the President shall transmit a response to such Chair or Ranking Member, as the case may be, with respect to the President's determination relating to such foreign person.
(3) Removal.--If the President removes from the list required by subsection (a) a foreign person that had been included in such list pursuant to a request under paragraph
(2), the President shall provide to the relevant Chair or Ranking Member of the appropriate congressional committees any information that contributed to such decision.
(4) Form.--The President may transmit a response required by paragraph (2) or paragraph (3) in classified form if the President determines that it is necessary for the national security interests of the United States to do so.
(e) Inadmissibility of Certain Individuals.--
(1) Ineligibility for visas and admission to the united states.--A foreign person on the list required by subsection
(a), and each immediate family member of such person, is--
(A) inadmissible to the United States;
(B) ineligible to receive a visa or other documentation to enter the United States; and
(C) otherwise ineligible to be admitted or paroled into the United States or to receive any other benefit under the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.).
(2) Current visas revoked.--
(A) In general.--The Secretary of State, or the Secretary of Homeland Security (or a designee of one such Secretaries) shall, in accordance with section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)), revoke any visa or other entry documentation issued to a foreign person on the list required by subsection (a) and to each immediate family member of such person regardless of when the visa or other entry documentation is issued.
(B) Effect of revocation.--A revocation under subparagraph
(A) shall--
(i) take effect immediately; and
(ii) automatically cancel any other valid visa or entry documentation that is in the foreign person's possession.
(3) Sense of congress with respect to additional sanctions.--It is the sense of Congress that the President should impose additional targeted sanctions with respect to foreign persons on the list required by subsection (a) to push for accountability for flagrant denials of the right to life, liberty, or the security of the person, through the use of designations and targeted sanctions provided for such conduct under other existing authorities.
(4) Exceptions.--
(A) Exception with respect to national security.--This section shall not apply with respect to--
(i) activities subject to the reporting requirements under title V of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 3091 et seq.); or
(ii) any authorized intelligence or law enforcement activities of the United States.
(B) Exception to comply with international obligations.-- Sanctions under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply with respect to a person if admitting or paroling the person into the United States is necessary to permit the United States to comply with the Agreement regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations signed at Lake Success June 26, 1947, and entered into force November 21, 1947, between the United Nations and the United States or other applicable international obligations.
(5) Waiver.--The President may waive the application of sanctions or restrictions imposed with respect to a foreign person under this section if the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, not later than 15 days before such waiver is to take effect, that the waiver is vital to the national interest of the United States.
(f) Report to Congress.--Not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act and annually thereafter, the President, acting through the Secretary of State, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on--
(1) the actions taken to carry out this section, including--
(A) the number of foreign persons added to or removed from the list required by subsection (a) during the year preceding each such report, the dates on which such persons were so added or removed, and the reasons for so adding or removing such persons; and
(B) an analysis that compares increases or decreases in the number of such persons added or removed year-over-year and the reasons therefor; and
(2) any efforts by the President to coordinate with the governments of other countries, as appropriate, to impose sanctions that are similar to the sanctions imposed under this section.
(g) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Appropriate congressional committees.--The term
``appropriate congressional committees'' means--
(A) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the Committee on Homeland Security, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives; and
(B) the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on Foreign Relations, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate.
(2) Immediate family member.--The term ``immediate family member'' has the meaning given such term for purposes of section 7031(c) of division K of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
SEC. 4. DISCRIMINATION RELATED TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER
IDENTITY, OR SEX CHARACTERISTICS.
(a) Tracking Violence or Criminalization Related to Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.--The Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor shall designate one or more Bureau-based senior officer or officers who shall be responsible for tracking violence, criminalization, and restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in foreign countries based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics.
(b) Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.--The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended--
(1) in section 116(d) (22 U.S.C. 2151n(d))--
(A) in paragraph (11)(C), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end;
(B) in paragraph (12)--
(i) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end; and
(ii) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking the period at the end and inserting ``; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(13) wherever applicable, information relating to violence or discrimination that affects fundamental freedoms, including widespread or systematic violation of the freedoms of expression, association, or assembly, of individuals in foreign countries that is based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics.''; and
(2) in section 502B(b) (22 U.S.C. 2304(b)), by inserting after the ninth sentence the following new sentence:
``Wherever applicable, such report shall also include information relating to violence or discrimination that affects the fundamental freedoms, including widespread or systematic violation of the freedoms of expression, association, or assembly, of individuals in foreign countries that is based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics.''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, shall be debatable for 1 hour equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or their respective designees.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Meeks) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
General Leave
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 3485.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day with a very important bill, and I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, as amended, and introduced by my friend and great American, Congressman David Cicilline.
Mr. Speaker, we live in a country that espouses that all human beings are created equal, endowed with equal rights, no matter what we look like, how we pray, or where we come from.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights tells us, ``all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights states that, ``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law.''
And our own Declaration of Independence famously says, ``We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.''
Mr. Speaker, the Global Respect Act brings us closer to realizing these treasured ideals.
Today, unfortunately, shamelessly, millions of people are living in fear. In countless countries, LGBTQI-plus people face punishment simply for being who they are. They are subject to brutal beatings, imprisoned for lifetimes, tortured, hanged, and stoned. When human rights abuses are being committed, the United States of America must do its part to hold the perpetrators accountable. And that is why Congressman Cicilline introduced H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.
This legislation is critical, straightforward, and overdue. It requires the President to identify foreign individuals responsible for these human rights violations against LGBTQI-plus people and to prevent them from entering the United States of America.
In addition, the Global Respect Act requires the State Department to designate at least one senior officer responsible for tracking violence, criminalization, and restrictions on the freedoms of LGBTQI-
plus people abroad. This legislation also requires the Department of State to include information relating to violence or discrimination against LGBTQI-plus communities in its annual human rights reports.
Now, unfortunately, several of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say they oppose the bill because they claim it is duplicative of Magnitsky sanctions. While Global Magnitsky is a landmark tool in the fight against human rights abuses, rarely has it been used by administrations to sanction those who persecute LGBTQI-plus persons. This bill simply builds on existing human rights-related authorities to ensure that human rights abusers are held accountable everywhere on this planet.
They also argue the language of the bill is overly broad when, in fact, the words they quibble with come directly from what has already been enacted in the United States Code, drawing word-from-word the definition of ``gross violation of human rights.''
There are critics out there who say this bill infringes on religious beliefs. I wholeheartedly, 1,000 percent, reject this notion. The Global Respect Act is about holding accountable individuals responsible for committing human rights abuses against LGBTQI-plus people; Individuals who commit the absolute worst crimes, such as murder, forced detentions, and disappearances of persons. This bill is clear in that it targets heinous acts, and does not authorize any action against an individual based solely upon religious belief.
Mr. Speaker, I can't thank Congressman David Cicilline enough for his work, for his commitment, for his dedication on presenting this legislation so that equality and human rights are protected. I also recognize the courageous LGBTQI-plus activists who are out there and who dared to stand up and claim their basic human rights in the face of violence, discrimination, persecution, simply for whom they love.
Mr. Speaker, I have a brother who had to stand up for who he is. He is a human being. And we should not allow any violations of human rights here in the United States or anyplace we know as planet Earth.
So when LGBTQI-plus people are murdered simply for existing, the world is watching. And the world is watching what we do. And the world is watching how we react to it. And the world is watching what we say, and what we stand for when we say we have value for human beings. That is what is at stake here.
This should not be a partisan issue. It has never been a partisan issue. This should be an issue about all human beings, protecting human beings, the human race, because when you break it down, we are all the same. And that is why I am heartened that this legislation is in fact bipartisan. And I am heartened and proud that this legislation passed out of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs by a voice vote. One of the proudest moments I have is introducing and being on this floor today as chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs to strongly support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we all believe that all people have inherent dignity and possess equal human rights. We all reject violence directed at individuals on the basis of their race, religion, biological sex, or sexual orientation. The problem with this bill, however, is that it borrows language from two existing laws: the Global Magnitsky Act and the so-called Section 7031(c) sanctions, and then creates a new reporting mechanism that is not focused on the human rights of all, but rather the human rights of particular groups.
I don't see why we should focus on some human rights violations more than any others. Every person's human rights are of equal value and certain violations of those rights should not be subordinate to others.
Furthermore, the bill's broad language has the potential to sweep in nonviolent conduct and impose visa restrictions on individuals engaged in that conduct.
For example, it speaks about ``complicity'' and ``cruel treatment,'' vague terms. Is a parent overseas who rejects her minor child's wish for a sex change operation complicit in cruelty? Is the Pope engaged in
``degrading treatment'' when he expresses opposition to same-sex marriage based on the tenets of his religious faith?
Mr. Speaker, there are no safeguards in the bill that address these situations. When free speech, religious freedom, and parental rights' protections were proposed to be added to the bill, the Democrats balked and voted against it. They preach tolerance until they are asked to vote on it.
Regardless of the author's intent, which I think is good, there are people that will use the bill to target their political and ideological opponents in the culture wars. The bill's author will say that there should be no problem since it just uses the very same language as other human rights statutes, but those existing provisions already address and punish the conduct this bill targets.
{time} 0930
So, the real question is, why is this bill so necessary? In the committee report, Democrats acknowledge the bill is redundant. But in search of some--any, perhaps--rationale, they claim that not enough sanctions have been rolled out that cover crimes committed against LGBT-identifying individuals. That is simply not true.
We know, for example, under the Trump administration, groups and individuals from Chechnya were sanctioned under Global Magnitsky for human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings and the torture of LGBT-identifying individuals.
The former Gambian President was also sanctioned after having rounded up people based on sexual orientation and after making shocking statements against LGBT-identifying individuals. These sanctions, as I said, were imposed under the Trump administration, but even more have been imposed, using the Global Magnitsky Act, under President Biden.
We know, based on a recent Global Magnitsky report to Congress that came out a few weeks ago, individuals last year in places like Cuba, Uganda, and even Bangladesh have been sanctioned, and all are associated with groups or conduct targeting LGBT-identifying individuals.
So, this bill is clearly unnecessary. It reflects and represents the administration's aggressive attempts to push the envelope regarding culture war issues at every possible juncture, not only domestically but abroad.
That is distracting and requires diplomats to devote time and resources to culture war issues at the expense of attention paid to China, Russia, Iran, the quagmire in Afghanistan, and the crisis at our southern border.
It is disappointing that as Ukraine is on the verge of being invaded by Russia, as North Korea continues to conduct ballistic missile tests, as illegal aliens stream through our southern border--some on our terror watch list--the majority has decided now is the time to bring this bill forward.
The State Department agrees. It has reviewed the Global Respect Act and recommended extensive changes, signaling it, too, sees this bill as superfluous, potentially misguided, and definitely duplicative. Other groups have said much the same, including The Heritage Foundation, the Center for Family and Human Rights, Concerned Women for America, and the Family Research Council.
Although I agree with the sentiment that human rights violations of any kind are deplorable and despicable, the devil is really in the details on this bill. We oppose this bill for the reasons I have stated.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I just want to state that the notion that this bill is not supported by the administration is just blatantly false.
Just last week, the Biden administration released a Statement of Administration Policy in full support of the bill and noted the urgent need to address threats to the human rights of LGBTQI-plus, not just abroad but right here in the United States of America.
Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), the author of this bill.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in support of H.R. 3485. I want to begin by expressing my profound gratitude to Chairman Meeks for his consistent, passionate, and powerful support of this bill and of the LGBTQI community broadly. He has been such a champion for our community. We would not be here today on this floor without his support, and we are grateful for that.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to recognize Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick, Senator Shaheen, and Senator Portman for their partnership and leadership in making this legislation bipartisan and bicameral.
Of course, I want to recognize and thank President Biden for his incredible commitment to LGBTQI equality here at home and around the world.
With today's vote, the U.S. House will send a strong message across the world that every member of the LGBTQI community deserves to live with dignity and free from violence, unlawful detention, torture, and other forms of brutality.
H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act, builds on existing sanction authorities by requiring the President to deny visas to foreign nationals who commit gross human rights violations against members of the LGBTQI community. Let me be clear. This bill protects LGBTQI people from murder, torture, and other forms of violence.
If you reject this proposal, you are saying people like me can be murdered and tortured with no consequence. Whether that is your intention or not, that is the impact of your vote.
In past years, we have seen a dangerous increase in violence against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people and their families.
So, when my colleague on the other side of the aisle says, ``What is the need for this?'' tell that to the victims who are being tortured, detained, and murdered because of who they are.
In too many places, violence against this community is pervasive and even sanctioned or directed by government officials.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that ``all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.'' As with any form of social or legal marginalization, whether based on sex, race, religion, ethnicity, or other status, the denial of human rights of LGBTQI people is not only wrong but negatively affects health outcomes, social stability, the rule of law, and economic potential.
This bill sends a signal to not just the abusers but also signals to the victims and survivors that the United States stands with them, as we have throughout the course of human history, in standing up for human rights.
Victims like Camila Diaz Cordova, a 29-year-old transgender woman from El Salvador who was arrested, beaten, and thrown from a moving vehicle after being deported from the United States--she died several days later; or the young gay man who fled from Sudan to Egypt after threats of public outing and violence, only to experience kidnapping and further stigmatization and violence in his new home; or I.J., a victim of Ramzan Kadyrov's systematic rounding up and torture of men and women thought to be gay in Chechnya.
In recounting the attack, I.J. said: ``They threw me to the floor and beat me. They beat my chest and my face with their feet, and they hit my head against the floor. One of them said: `Do not beat him until the shock stage. At that point, he will stop feeling pain. We don't need that.' They addressed me with female pronouns and demanded that I tell them the names of other gay people I knew. They threatened to kill me if I didn't.''
In public reports, we heard of ISIS officials throwing gay men off rooftops and then stoning them to death.
These are just some examples of the many, many stories.
The Global Respect Act is simple. It is straightforward. It gives the executive branch greater tools to punish those who murder and torture members of the LGBTQI community.
I want to take a quick moment to tell you what this bill does not do. It doesn't duplicate existing rights legislation such as the Global Magnitsky Act because Global Magnitsky is obviously a very important tool for human rights, but it is voluntary. It has only been used once for LGBTQI human rights violations, despite many documented cases.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. The Global Respect Act is different because it requires sanctions if a foreign national commits gross human rights violations against LGBTQI people.
It doesn't have overly broad language. As the chairman said, it has language that comes from 22 U.S.C. 2304. It doesn't create any new definitions. It has the definition in existing law of what gross human rights violation is.
It doesn't prevent speech or religious beliefs. This bill targets conduct and actions. The Global Magnitsky has never, nor will this bill ever, be used to impede anyone's right to say or believe anything. It is their actions, the gross human rights violations, that are at issue.
My friend on the other side of the aisle said it is cancel culture. When did preventing murder, torture, and violence, and standing up for human rights, become cancel culture?
We have a long tradition in this country of doing this all around the world. The Global Respect Act honors that history, that responsibility that we have as a world superpower to continue to protect and stand up for human rights in the face of unspeakable human violence.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill, and I end where I began, with enormous gratitude to our extraordinary chairman for his leadership on this issue.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's passion, and I support his support of condemning and sanctioning these terrible acts against the LGBT community.
I just wanted to let the Speaker know, in the newest Global Magnitsky Act report, which was just released a few weeks ago and covers 2021, sanctions were imposed on Cuban police; in Uganda, the Chief of the Military Intelligence; also in Bangladesh, the Rapid Action Battalion.
All of these were associated with LGBT causes, which means this act is being used to sanction those who commit acts of violence of any kind against people of the LGBT community. I just wanted to make sure that the gentleman is aware of that. The State Department is already reporting and already doing this, and it is being done.
Though I support everything that he is stating here, it is already being done. In the interest of good legislation, we don't want to overburden our bureaucrats and people that are working on these issues. Also, reporting, they have indicated that additional reporting requirements only take more time out of the organization.
I do appreciate the messaging from the gentleman from Rhode Island. It is very important that we signal to the world that we condemn acts against the LGBT community. The problem is, we already have this, and we already have the ability and two tools that are very effective and used internationally to condemn these acts.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say this real quick. I don't mind burdening anyone if it is going to save somebody's life. There are certain burdens that we have to carry, and this is one of them.
Mr. Speaker, I, with pride, yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus), a strong fighter for human rights.
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Global Respect Act that is being led by my friend, Mr. Cicilline. I thank him for his passion and his leadership in the committee on this issue.
Since the Supreme Court's landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage in 2015, we have sought out domestic opportunities to ensure that individuals' basic rights are not infringed upon simply because of their sexual orientation. We have to make more progress not just here at home but around the world, where we take leadership on this issue.
Throughout the last century, we have stood for human rights, and in 2016, I was proud to support the Global Magnitsky Act, which imposed certain restrictions, as you have heard mentioned already. Magnitsky, however, did not go far enough to protect the LGBTQ-plus community.
In at least 42 countries, there remain legal barriers to freedom of expression on sexual orientation and gender identity. In at least 51 countries, there are specific laws and policies against the formation, establishment, or registration of NGOs working on sexual orientation issues. Nor has Magnitsky dissuaded the persecution of LGBTQI communities whose rights continue to be violated.
That is why I was grateful to have a part in working on this Global Respect Act legislation because it will impose needed visa sanctions on foreign people responsible for such actions.
My own legislation, the GLOBE Act, I think would take a step further to assert U.S. global leadership in this area and provide the administration with additional tools to carry out those things established in this landmark legislation. Some of those would be: ensuring that foreign assistance and global health programs don't discriminate against LGBTQ-plus populations, and also ensuring fair access to asylum for LGBTQ people.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman and the sponsor, and I urge everyone to vote for this much-needed and very important bill.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).
Ms. MANNING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Global Respect Act, including my amendment to ensure accountability for torture.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I am proud to work with my colleagues, Chairman Meeks and Congressman Cicilline, to protect and defend human rights and uphold our values around the world.
Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan bill would require the President to identify and impose visa sanctions on foreign individuals responsible for human rights violations against LGBTQ-plus people.
My amendment would direct sanctions against those responsible for one of the most horrific acts of violence: torture. No one should face violence because of who they are or who they love.
{time} 0945
We must hold those responsible for gross violations of human rights accountable no matter what. This important legislation ensures that the United States continues to protect the human rights of all people, including LGBTQ people targeted by some of the world's worst and most oppressive regimes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Global Respect Act.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. I am prepared to close, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, again, I support the underlying idea behind the bill, and I really appreciate the passion of the sponsor and those speaking out on behalf of it and protecting the human rights of all individuals living abroad and holding violators accountable. But as I have said, we have a strong difference of opinion about whether a bill that is duplicative of current law is necessary.
I think the Global Respect Act, at the moment, the way it is drafted is counterproductive insofar as it would create a separate regime aimed at protecting human rights of some rather than human rights of all. And I fear it could be used to target the left's political opponents in the culture wars.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, let me start by commending and thanking the Biden administration for its strong support in moving this legislation.
What is noted in his support is that legislation like this is needed at a time especially when countries are undertaking steps to further marginalize or harm LGBTQ-plus community members and that the administration looks forward to working with Congress on what I know will be a bipartisan vote.
I also happen to agree with President Biden and echo his statement that in a time when a global rise in authoritarianism and hate persists that it is critical that we send a strong message to the world that the United States of America, the world's greatest democracy--that the United States of America, who leads with its values--that the United States of America can speak up and speak out striving to be a more perfect Union, and that the United States of America can lead the world to say that we are going to stop the persecution of human beings simply for who they are.
This is the year 2022, Mr. Speaker. I would think by now we would have learned that our voices should never be shut when we see violations of human rights. One of the things that I pledged when I became chair of this committee was that human rights would be on the front burner because if we can't come together no matter what party we are in, no matter what religion we have, no matter what ethnicity we have, and no matter where we come from on this planet, if we can't come together and say that we are going to stand up, speak out, and stop where individuals are being persecuted and prosecuted--murdered--that is the least that we can do.
I don't care how difficult it is. I don't care if it puts a burden on the administration to do it because those are our values, that is what should take precedence.
I have seen too much right here in the United States--individuals just walking down the street holding hands with whom they love, and someone walks up and does something horrific to them.
We have had to pass these bills and laws in our country so that they can live their life. If we see it happening to anyone else, then we have got to make sure that voice is heard and stop individuals who are persecuting and prosecuting people from anyplace else on this planet from coming to this country.
Send a message. Don't send it once, send it twice. If it takes three or four times, then so be it. That is what this is all about. The camera of history is recording this, looking to see what we do and what we say.
How do we react to a human tragedy?
Generations yet unborn will be saying: What did the United States Congress do when they knew?
No one denies what is taking place all over the world when it comes to LGBTQI-plus individuals. Nobody denies that they are being killed. No one denies that they are being tortured. Nobody denies that they are treated in an inhumane way. That is not being denied.
So as long as it exists, we should use every tool available to make sure that we wipe it off the planet Earth, and that is what David Cicilline, this great Congressman, intended when he offered this bill.
This should be an historic moment and a proud moment for the United States Congress to say: We have stood up and led the world to stop human rights violations to people just like us, human beings.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the House and the Committee on Homeland Security, and as Chair of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, and a member of the Equality Caucus, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act of 2021.
I strongly support H.R. 3485 the Global Respect Act, which would mandate the listing of, and visa restrictions on foreign persons responsible for or complicit in human rights violations against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people around the world continue to face discrimination, violence, and bigotry.
Sixty-eight countries criminalize same-sex sexual relations, which means that more than one-third of United Nations Member States criminalize consenting, adult, same-sex sexual relations.
In up to nine countries, same-sex sexual relations may be punishable by death, and so-called anti-LGBTQ+ ``propaganda'' laws inhibit LGBTQ+ advocacy in at least three countries.
While many countries have made tremendous strides in embracing equality for LGBTQI+ community members, other countries remain stagnant or, worse, are undertaking steps to further marginalize or harm LGBTQI+ community members.
That is why I support H.R. 3485, a bi-partisan bill, which requires the Administration to provide Congress with a list of foreign individuals found responsible for human rights violations against LGBTQI+ persons abroad, and equally important, mandates that individuals included on this list are ineligible for visas to, or entry into, the United States.
The U.S. Department of State's annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices has documented hostility toward LGBTQ+ citizens in every region of the world.
These violations include murder, rape, torture, death threats, extortion, imprisonment, and loss of employment and access to health care, as well as restrictions on freedoms of assembly, press, and speech.
The Global Respect Act would provide a means to prevent individuals who violate the human rights of LGBTQ+ people from entry into the United States.
The Global Respect Act also would require the Executive Branch to biannually send Congress a list of foreign persons responsible for, complicit in, or who have incited extrajudicial killing, torture, or other gross violations of human rights based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
As I stated, there is teeth in the legislation because it requires the denial or revocation of visas to individuals placed on the list, with waivers only for national security or to allow attendance at the United Nations;
Finally, the legislation requires the annual State Department Report on Human Rights to include a section on LGBTQ+ international human rights, as well as an annual report to Congress on the status of the law's effectiveness; and requires the Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor to designate a staffer responsible for tracking violence, criminalization, and restrictions on the enjoyment of fundamental freedoms in foreign countries based on actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this legislation and urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 3485, the Global Respect Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Each further amendment printed in part A of House Report 117-241 not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 900, 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.
It shall be in order at any time after debate for the chair of the Committee on Foreign Affairs or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part A of House Report 117-241, not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc 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 Foreign Affairs or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Amendments En Bloc Offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 900, I offer the amendments en bloc.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendments en bloc.
Amendments en bloc consisting of amendment Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, printed in part A of House Report 117-241, offered by Mr. Cicilline of Rhode Island:
amendment no. 1 offered by mr. crist of florida
Page 9, after line 21, insert the following:
(_) Exception for certain immediate family members.--
(i) In general.--A covered individual shall not be subject to sanctions under this section if the President certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, in accordance with clause (ii), that such individual has a reasonable fear of persecution based on--
(I) actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics;
(II) race, religion, or nationality; or
(III) political opinion or membership in a particular social group.
(ii) Determination and certification.--A certification under clause (i) shall be made not later than 30 days after the date of the determination required by such clause. Any proceedings relating to such determination shall not be publicly available.
(iii) Covered individual.--For purposes of this subparagraph, the term ``covered individual'' means an individual who is an immediate family member of foreign person on the list required by subsection (a).
amendment no. 2 offered by mr. gottheimer of new jersey
At the end of the bill, add the following:
SEC. __. STUDY REQUIRED.
Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to Congress a report that comprises of sections from each regional bureau detailing past risks to LGBTQI individuals, with a summary on the differences between regions with respect to such risks.
amendment no. 3 offered by mr. harder of california
Page 11, after line 17, insert the following:
(__) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section may be construed to allow the imposition of sanctions with respect to, or otherwise authorize any other action against, any foreign person based solely upon religious belief.
amendment no. 4 offered by ms. manning of north carolina
Page 3, line 15, insert ``torture or'' before ``cruel''.
amendment no. 5 offered by ms. porter of california
Page 10, after line 24, insert the following:
(_) Form; Publication.--The report required by subsection
(f) shall be submitted in unclassified form but may include a classified annex. The unclassified portion of such report shall be published on a publicly available website of the Department of State.
amendment no. 6 offered by ms. williams of georgia
Page 10, after line 24, insert the following:
(_) Report on Prevention.--Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report describing steps the Department can take to improve coordination with foreign governments, civil society groups, and the private sector, to prevent the commission of the human rights violations described in section 3(a)(1) against persons based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline) and the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Rhode Island.
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Before I address the en bloc amendments, I just want to respond quickly to a claim that has been made again on this floor that was made in the Rules Committee by my friend on the other side of the aisle that the Magnitsky Act has already adequately covered LGBTQI human rights violations. I am going to say it one more time: That is simply, factually incorrect.
All of the cases that my friend cited, Mr. Speaker, do not involve LGBTQI people, save one. There is one specific LGBTQI case in which sanctions were imposed in 2019 against the Chechen leader for kidnapping, torturing, and killing members of the LGBTQI community.
The cases she makes reference to in Bangladesh, in Cuba, and in Uganda involve judicial corruption, and they involve a government crackdown on democracy, but they don't involve individuals who were targeted or brutalized because they were members of the LGBTQI community.
So there is, in fact, not sufficient use of Magnitsky. That is what the Global Respect Act will fix. It will make visa sanctions against such individuals a mandatory requirement.
So this idea of pulling other human rights cases and saying, Isn't this enough?
It is not. This is a growing, serious, and deadly problem.
Mr. Speaker, I move these amendments which, taken together, both strengthen the bill and make a strong statement that the United States stands with the LGBTQI community around the world.
This package of amendments clarifies that torture is a part of the definition of a human rights violation. This definition, which we have used since the passage of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, makes it clear that it is actions--torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment--that lead to sanctions.
These amendments firmly state that the value of religious freedom is protected. The United States has long been a leader of protecting freedom of religion, and our foreign policy must uphold that tradition. The Harder amendment within the en bloc makes it clear that no one--I repeat, no one--will be sanctioned due to their religious beliefs; instead, only those who commit egregious acts of violence--torture, enforced disappearances, or extrajudicial killings--will be denied entry to the United States.
Despite what some of my colleagues may say, religious freedom is not in conflict with the promotion of global LGBTQI rights. This amendment acknowledges this truth and upholds the rights of all people regardless of their religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, or sex characteristics to be protected from violence and brutality.
These amendments will also provide the Biden-Harris administration with additional tools to continue its historic work to build the international coalition of countries protecting LGBTQI people. It is important that we stand with countries around the world, including those like Botswana, which legalized same-sex relationships in 2019, to strengthen equality around the globe.
With today's vote, the U.S. House will send a strong message around the world that every member of the LGBTQI community deserves to live with dignity and free from violence, unlawful detention, torture, and other forms of brutality.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. TENNEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, just to respond a little bit to the sponsor, and, again, I can't say enough that we support and echo the sentiments of protecting the rights of the LGBT community around the world and at home.
But this bill actually mirrors the Global Magnitsky Act, and the language is the same. So it is kind of hard to argue we should just have another set of standards and require even more reporting from a State Department that is overwhelmed by issues around the world when we already have this.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at these instances, the State Department doesn't disclose necessarily what the nature of it is because of the confidentiality, but if you actually go into a Google search and look at the reporting in each of these countries, they are all based on conduct against people with LGBT leanings, and that is why the act was used. The State Department preserves confidentiality.
{time} 1000
So in the end, yes, we are using this act right now, today, to condemn and to sanction this activity against the LGBTQ communities around the world. So I oppose the en bloc of amendments. While some of the amendments are well-intentioned, they are ultimately duplicative and unnecessary, again, just like the underlying act. They require the Department of State to do what it is already doing in practice.
For example, the Gottheimer amendment No. 2 requires a study examining risks to LGBTQI individuals. The State Department publishes its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices each year, including this data, and they just provided another report recently.
Human rights officers who are stationed at our embassies and consulates around the world meet routinely with local activists and local officials to gain this information. They talk to individuals on the ground to compile these reports, which are detailed and comprehensive. Each regional bureau in the Department is involved in this process. This amendment, therefore, calls for the Department to do what it is already doing, and is burdensome on the Foreign Service officers and career officials.
Other amendments, like the Harder amendment No. 7, also very well-
intentioned and also messaging in a very positive way, show that the Democrats know they have overreached on the bill. The Harder amendment prevents sanctions against any individual based solely upon religious belief.
I agree with this sentiment, but at markup, Democrats rejected a very similar religious freedom and free speech amendment offered by Representative Scott Perry. The rationale was: Well, this bill just isn't about that. Well, it seems one of their colleagues disagrees.
While I appreciate the Democrats are willing to acknowledge some of the flaws in the bill, the Harder amendment is also insufficient. The amendment speaks only of religious belief. It does not speak to situations in which religious adherents manifest or express their beliefs in daily life.
So under Representative Harder's amendment, a person who expresses belief in the traditional family, or in conventional human biology, could still be sanctioned because sanctions would not be based on beliefs but, rather, on actions.
This amendment is not as robust as the measure that Representative Perry put forward at markup, and we have no choice but to oppose it.
This en bloc does not contain amendments that would enhance the legislation, in our opinion. Instead, these amendments seek to add safeguards to a bill that, as I have explained, is duplicative, unnecessary, and even dangerous insofar as it can be used by the left to target political opponents in the international culture wars.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Ms. Williams).
Ms. WILLIAMS of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of my amendment to proactively prevent human rights abuses against LGBTQI individuals.
As the Congresswoman representing the LGBTQI capital of the South, this amendment is just another way that my district is leading the way to achieve human rights and equity for all. Decades of advocacy, from Atlanta's first gay pride march in 1971, to annual events like Black Pride and Southern Fried Queer Pride have made Atlanta the city ``too busy to hate.''
Atlanta gets a perfect score from the Human Rights Campaign, and the community that the Black and LGBTQ-plus activists have created in Atlanta is the kind of world that we want everywhere. At home, we have a saying, ``Atlanta influences everything,'' and my amendment is designed to do just that by extending human rights protections beyond my city and our Nation's borders.
With my amendment, the State Department will study how it can better coordinate internationally to prevent international human rights abuses based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex characteristics before those abuses occur. This will create a better world for everyone no matter where they live, who they love, or how they identify.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back balance of my time.
Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I just want to respond quickly to two things before I close. The first is, again, the Global Respect Act, like Magnitsky, does not punish and cannot be invoked for speech. It is very clear. It has never been used in that way, and it specifically targets conduct. But out of an abundance of caution, to reassure our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Harder offers an amendment that makes that explicit, that says that no one will be sanctioned due to their religious beliefs. Instead, only those who commit egregious acts of violence, including: torture, enforced disappearance, or extrajudicial killings will be denied entry into the United States.
This notion of like, well, we were concerned about this religion issue, but when it is explicitly addressed because it is offered by a Democrat through the amendment process and not a Republican, it doesn't satisfy my friends on the other side of the aisle. It is very disappointing; very disappointing.
This Global Respect Act legislation is designed to address a real problem, and I will just say one last time, in section 3 of the bill, the language in the bill includes gross violations of internationally recognized human rights as codified in 22 U.S.C. 2304. What is that? Not your view on marriage, not whether you like someone. It is defined as: ``. . . torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, prolonged detention without charges and trial, causing the disappearance of persons by the abduction and clandestine detention of those persons, and other flagrant denial of the right to life, liberty, or the security of person.''
This is a well-established definition for gross human rights violations. This bill simply says, if you engage in that kind of behavior, you do not have a right to enter the United States of America. We will deny you a visa because we stand for human rights.
So I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendment, support this bill, be proud today that the United States is standing again for the protection of human rights of all people here in the United States, and around the world.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. DelBene). Pursuant to House Resolution 900, the previous question is ordered on the amendments en bloc offered by the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
The question is on the amendments en bloc.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HIGGINS of Louisiana. Madam 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 207, not voting 3, 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 (MD) Brown (OH) Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick 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 Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Katko 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 Stansbury 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 Cammack Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Ellzey Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald 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) 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) Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kinzinger Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Letlow 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 Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart 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) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
NOT VOTING--3
Calvert Murphy (NC) Salazar
{time} 1052
Mr. KELLER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the en bloc amendments were agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Aguilar (Correa) Amodei (Balderson) Baird (Bucshon) Bass (Takano) Bera (Correa) Bergman (Stauber) Bowman (Jeffries) Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer) Brooks (Moore (AL)) Brownley (Meng) Clarke (NY) (Kelly (IL)) Cohen (Beyer) Crist (Wasserman Schultz) Cuellar (Correa) DeSaulnier (Raskin) Doggett (Raskin) Dunn (Joyce (PA)) Fallon (Ellzey) Frankel, Lois (Meng) Fulcher (Simpson) Garamendi (Correa) Gimenez (Cammack) Gohmert (Weber (TX)) Gonzalez (OH) (Balderson) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa) Gosar (Gaetz) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Hagedorn (Carl) Huffman (Gomez) Issa (Garcia (CA)) Johnson (SD) (Bice (OK)) Kahele (Case) Keating (Cicilline) Kelly (PA) (Balderson) Khanna (Gomez) Kinzinger (Rice (SC)) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Kuster (Bonamici) Larson (CT) (Cicilline) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lofgren (Jeffries) Loudermilk (Fleischmann) Lowenthal (Beyer) Lucas (Mullin) Malinowski (Pallone) McEachin (Wexton) Moore (WI) (Raskin) Napolitano (Correa) Omar (Garcia (IL)) Payne (Pallone) Pingree (Bonamici) Porter (Wexton) Reed (McHenry) Roybal-Allard (Correa) Ruiz (Correa) Ruppersberger (Beyer) Rush (Kaptur) Schneider (Kelly (IL)) Sewell (Cicilline) Sires (Pallone) Soto (Wasserman Schultz) Strickland (Takano) Suozzi (Raskin) Trone (Beyer) Vargas (Correa) Waters (Jeffries) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The previous question is ordered on the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam 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 227, nays 206, not voting 0, as follows:
YEAS--227
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown (MD) Brown (OH) Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Carter (LA) Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Cherfilus-McCormick 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 Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Katko 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 Meijer 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 Reed Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Salazar Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stansbury 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--206
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 Carey Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Ellzey Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald 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) 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) Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Letlow Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart 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) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
{time} 1111
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress
Aguilar (Correa) Amodei (Balderson) Baird (Bucshon) Bass (Takano) Bera (Correa) Bergman (Stauber) Bowman (Jeffries) Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer) Brooks (Moore (AL)) Brownley (Meng) Calvert (Garcia (CA)) Clarke (NY) (Kelly (IL)) Cohen (Beyer) Crist (Wasserman Schultz) Cuellar (Correa) DeSaulnier (Raskin) Doggett (Raskin) Dunn (Joyce (PA)) Fallon (Ellzey) Frankel, Lois (Meng) Fulcher (Simpson) Garamendi (Correa) Gimenez (Cammack) Gohmert (Weber (TX)) Gonzalez (OH) (Balderson) Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa) Gosar (Gaetz) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Hagedorn (Carl) Huffman (Gomez) Issa (Garcia (CA)) Johnson (SD) (Bice (OK)) Kahele (Case) Keating (Cicilline) Kelly (PA) (Balderson) Khanna (Gomez) Kinzinger (Rice (SC)) Kirkpatrick (Pallone) Kuster (Bonamici) Larson (CT) (Cicilline) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lofgren (Jeffries) Loudermilk (Fleischmann) Lowenthal (Beyer) Lucas (Mullin) Malinowski (Pallone) McEachin (Wexton) Moore (WI) (Raskin) Napolitano (Correa) Omar (Garcia (IL)) Payne (Pallone) Pingree (Bonamici) Porter (Wexton) Reed (McHenry) Roybal-Allard (Correa) Ruiz (Correa) Ruppersberger (Beyer) Rush (Kaptur) Salazar (Kim (CA)) Schneider (Kelly (IL)) Sewell (Cicilline) Sires (Pallone) Soto (Wasserman Schultz) Strickland (Takano) Suozzi (Raskin) Trone (Beyer) Vargas (Correa) Waters (Jeffries) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 168, No. 26
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