This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Congressional Daily Record
This section captures a floor statement or debate entry. It mentions legislation such as Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 8029) making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026, and for other purposes; providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 1128) expressing the support of the House of Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5103) to establish a program to Beautify the District of Columbia and establish the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful Commission; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7084) to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to the types of vessels that may enter or operate in navigable waters of the United States or transfer cargo in any port or place under the jurisdiction of the United States, and for other purposes; and for other purposes., committees such as Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, members such as Mike Ezell.
Issued
March 27, 2026
house side of the record
People
3
Linked members mentioned in this section
Legislation
2
Bills and resolutions linked from this section
Committees
1
Committees connected to this section
Senate Holds
0
No hold activity linked here
Source Document
Connected Data
People mentioned
Bills and resolutions
Source Control
Reader mode is for comprehension. The linked government PDF is the official published source.
Download official House Record PDFReturn to issue contextMr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1131, I call up the bill (H.R. 7084) to amend title 46, United States Code, with respect to the types of vessels that may enter or operate in navigable waters of the United States or transfer cargo in any port or place under the jurisdiction of the
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stutzman). Pursuant to House Resolution 1131, the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure printed in the bill is adopted and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 7084
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 “Defending American Property
Abroad Act of 2026”.
SEC. 2. CONDITION FOR ENTRY INTO PORTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
Section 70022 of title 46, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(2)(A)—
(A) in clause (i)—
(i) by striking “subsection (b)(1)” and inserting
“subsection (b)(1)(A)”; and
(ii) in subclause (II) by striking “; or” and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in clause (ii)—
(i) by striking “subsection (b)(2)” and inserting
“subsection (b)(1)(B)”; and
(ii) by striking the period at the end and inserting “;
or”; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
“(iii) vessel described in subsection (b)(1) in the case
of—
“(I) an emergency being experienced by a vessel or an
individual on the vessel; or
“(II) a vessel authorized by the owner, as described in
subsection (b)(1)(C)(ii), to transit the facilities described
in subsection (b)(1)(C).”; and
(2) in subsection (b)—
(A) in paragraph (2) by striking the period at the end and
inserting “; or”;
(B) by redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as
subparagraphs (A) and (B) (and by moving the margins of such
subparagraphs accordingly);
(C) by striking “A vessel referred” and inserting the
following:
“(1) In general.—A vessel referred”; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
“(C) a vessel that has transited a port, harbor, or marine
terminal, that at the time of such transit—
“(i) was located within the territory of a Western
Hemisphere country that has in effect a free trade agreement
with the United States;
“(ii) was accessible only through land that is owned,
held, or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a United
States person; and
“(iii) was designated by the President under paragraph
(2), and has not had such designation removed under paragraph
(3).
“(2) Designation.—The President may designate a port,
harbor, or marine terminal under this subsection if an agency
or official of the government of the Western Hemisphere
foreign trade partner has—
“(A) nationalized, or expropriated the port, harbor, or
marine terminal, owned, held, or controlled, directly or
indirectly, by a United States person; or
“(B) taken any other action that has the effect of
expropriating or nationalizing that port, harbor, or marine
terminal, or land providing the exclusive access to that
port, harbor, or marine terminal, as described in paragraph
(1)(C)(ii), as long as the matter is not the subject of a
currently pending arbitration under a free trade agreement
described in paragraph (1)(C)(i).
“(3) Removal of designation.—The President shall remove
the designation of a port, harbor, or marine terminal made
under paragraph (2) if the President determines that—
“(A) the conditions set forth in paragraph (2) are no
longer met;
“(B) the Western Hemisphere country has restored ownership
of the property of the United States person and terminated
any measures that had the effect of seizing ownership or
possession of that property;
“(C) the Western Hemisphere country has provided adequate
and effective compensation for such property in convertible
foreign exchange or other mutually acceptable compensation
equivalent to the full value thereof, as required by
international law; or
“(D) the dispute has otherwise been resolved to the
satisfaction of the President.”.
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 Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective designees.
The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Ezell).
General Leave
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous materials on H.R. 7084.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mississippi?
There was no objection.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
address an unlawful taking of a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal by another government in the Western Hemisphere.
quickly and decisively in response to another government expropriating or nationalizing a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal.
President to impose a consequence on a foreign government that illegally takes a maritime facility.
statecraft. The authorities that H.R. 7084 establishes are completely complementary to similar authorities that Congress has already granted the President.
dispute resolution. It simply gives the President another meaningful, targeted tool that can encourage negotiations and resolution.
legislation previously passed over the past six decades, and provides the President with one or more options in a continuum for protecting overseas American investments.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this legislation and reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
the Coast Guard has broad authority to enforce American laws on the water.
In fiscal year 2025, the Coast Guard set record breaking numbers. The service seized over 510,000 pounds of cocaine in the maritime domain, over triple its yearly average.
over $40 million of property by running over 6,700 search and rescue cases. They do all this while protecting global fish stocks and by enforcing domestic and international fisheries laws.
H.R. 7084 does not help the Coast Guard address violations of the law at sea. Instead, the bill inserts the Coast Guard into what is a property dispute between a U.S. company and the Mexican Government that, if anything, will only add to the Coast Guard's burden.
Transportation and Infrastructure that the Coast Guard is a $20 billion organization operating on a $13 billion budget.
H.R. 7084 prohibits vessels, commercial shipping or cruise vessels, from entering or operating in U.S. waters if that vessel made a port of call at a port that was nationalized or expropriated by another company from a U.S. citizen or company.
entering U.S. waters due to an international property dispute further strains the service's resources.
is written so broadly it could encompass disputes in other countries and with other companies both today and in the future.
{time} 0920
constituents. Instead, we are interjecting Congress into an international land dispute.
Now, I want to be really clear. I am sympathetic to the plight of this particular U.S. company involved in this dispute. This legislation doesn't solve their problem. That solution can be found, and opportunities are available through diplomacy and even trade agreements but not really legislation.
For those reasons I will be voting “no” on this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), the bill's sponsor.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act. I thank Chairman Graves for his support.
to fear arbitrary government actions that undermine their property rights, but right now, that is exactly what is happening. When countries violate trade agreements and illegally seize assets from U.S. companies, it puts American job security, economic security, and, quite frankly, our national security at risk.
H.R. 7084 ensures there are enforceable consequences for those actions. Specifically, it strengthens U.S. maritime security law to address these unlawful seizures. Through existing Coast Guard authorities, it also authorizes the President to deny entry into U.S. ports for vessels that operate through expropriated American-owned port infrastructure in Western Hemisphere countries with U.S. free trade agreements.
We know this is not just a hypothetical example. For years, the Mexican Government has targeted the U.S.-based Vulcan Materials Company.
Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula, and for decades this operation supplied crushed limestone to critical infrastructure projects across the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, roads, bridges, housing, and energy facilities in States represented by Members on both sides of the aisle.
endless pressure campaign against Vulcan Materials and sent the military to forcibly shut down its operations.
“naturally protected area” to complete the expropriation, and now Mexico is weaponizing its tax authority, pursuing billions in retroactive dollars in claims to seize what remains.
same exact region for Mexican companies to operate freely. Let me say that again. Mexico used its military to forcibly shut down an American company and created false environmental claims to do so. That is a direct violation of the USMCA.
We did not resort to legislation as a first option. In fact, for 4 years, the United States has pursued every available diplomatic tool, congressional letters, administration engagement, and bilateral pressure, and none of that worked.
an American company that undermines our diplomatic progress and threatens all U.S. investment in Mexico.
Now, my colleagues may ask: Why is this bill the right response? First, it is surgical. It targets expropriated port infrastructure only. It will not disrupt current, legitimate shipping operations. Second, it includes clear off-ramps. If the foreign government returns the property, provides fair compensation, and resolves the dispute, then the restrictions are lifted. Lastly, it includes exceptions for emergencies and maritime safety.
Carbajal and Sewell and Chairman Graves' committee staff on this legislation.
This isn't just about one company. We cannot allow a foreign government to steal American property and face zero consequences.
to protect American companies, and to protect our own communities. If you are an American company operating abroad, we have vowed to protect you, and this legislation does just that.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal).
Mr. CARBAJAL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding. I thank Representative Pfluger for his leadership today.
I rise in support of the Defending American Property Abroad Act. This is a commonsense and targeted bill that gives the United States a real tool to respond when foreign governments unfairly seize property owned by Americans without due process.
terminals where American-owned property has been expropriated or taken without due process.
vessels serving them may be restricted from entering or operating in United States ports.
Let me be clear about what this means.
business as usual with the United States. We can identify those ports and terminals and restrict the ships that use them from entering our ports.
That is real consequences, not just words.
It is a targeted solution to support American innovation. This legislation focuses on one bad actor.
port and terminal infrastructure in Mexico in good faith under the expectation that its property rights and contracts would be respected.
offered. Mexican officials pointed to environmental and permitting concerns, but the same government that is accusing this company of environmental harm awarded six Clean Industry awards from PROFEPA, which is their environmental enforcement agency, for the company's environmental stewardship.
You can't speak out of both sides of your mouth.
Trade should not be a race to the bottom. It should support good- paying jobs, protect the environment and labor standards, and strengthen local communities.
benefit from access to U.S. markets also respect the rights of workers, investors, and communities tied to that trade.
This bill reinforces that principle.
governments, I have also spoken out when our own government does something similar, including under President Trump, who has imposed blanket tariffs without rhyme or reason, an equally reckless action.
This bill is a targeted solution. I urge my colleagues to also support this bill.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore).
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, what we have seen happen to Alabama's own Vulcan Materials Company should concern every Member of this body.
moved to seize its property, and ignored the rule of law. If it can happen to one American company, it can happen to any of them.
the principles that the United States will stand for its people and its companies wherever they operate.
expropriating a deepwater port and quarry, and hiding behind environmental designations set a dangerous precedent that weakens trade relationships and threatens our national security.
The Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026 makes it clear. If you target American businesses, there will be consequences.
authority, and allows the United States to take real action against those who seize or interfere with American property.
{time} 0930
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Garcia).
Mr. GARCIA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to this bill.
is undergoing consideration by the international bodies established by the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. We really should wait until a decision is arrived at with respect to that mechanism, but there are other considerations.
First, let's consider other far-reaching implications. The bill gives the President the authority to prohibit vessels that travel through certain Western Hemisphere ports, which he designates, from entering U.S. waters. While supporters say that the bill is narrowly written to target a specific project in a specific country, the reality is that the President will be given broad authority that could be applied to other countries in the future.
Let's not forget who we are talking about here. This is the same President who used military force in Venezuela to force regime change, the same President who is now engaging in an illegal war with Iran without even consulting Congress.
Mr. Speaker, do we really want to entrust the President with this new authority granted under this bill?
fighting for their right to safe drinking water in a surrounding environment free of contamination. That is what is in the dispute resolution matter being addressed now.
environmental damage caused by these mining operations. This bill limits the ability of foreign governments to adopt measures that protect their communities and their environment, essentially coercing those foreign governments to prioritize the interests of U.S. corporations over their people.
to protect its citizens from environmental harm. We should not be granting the President a new authority that could have broad foreign policy implications.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join with me and to vote “no” on this proposal.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. McGuire).
Mr. McGUIRE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
thank my colleague, Chairman Pfluger from Texas, for his leadership on this matter.
limestone quarry in Mexico operated by a U.S.-based company. This seizure violated the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, undermined American property values, and threatened U.S. economic growth and national security.
and vessels from being unfairly targeted or having their assets unlawfully seized while operating around the world.
I am proud to support H.R. 7084, which ensures that there are real consequences when American property is seized abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill and show the world that America stands firmly behind its workers, businesses, and investments at home and abroad.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Figures).
Mr. FIGURES. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Defending American Property Abroad Act because it is the right thing to do.
We have talked here today about this being a U.S.-based company. It is a little bit more personal than that to me, my colleague Congresswoman Sewell, and a few of my other colleagues from the State of Alabama.
because, Mr. Speaker, when you have a company that is operating on land lawfully acquired nearly four decades ago that is performing lawful operations, paying taxes lawfully, and exporting the goods lawfully— many of which come through my hometown, the Port of Mobile, which is now the deepest port in the Gulf, which they are doing lawfully—then they should be treated lawfully.
What we have here is not really complicated. It is not complex in terms of what the Mexican Government did here. They came in and just took it and said: We are not abiding by a process. We are not abiding by any contractual terms or any other terms. We are just taking it, and by the way, we are not going to pay you for it.
government to take away property rights from an Alabama-based company, I am going to stand up for them.
of our government in response to it. That is what this legislation does. I urge my colleagues to support it for that reason.
but tomorrow it could be a Mississippi company or a Washington company or Oregon, Indiana, Illinois, or any other State. We cannot sit by quietly and not respond, and not respond proportionately, to what the Mexican Government has done.
I don't have anything, certainly, against the Mexican people. What I do have a problem with is that when we see a government, even our own government, mistreating businesses and people, we have an obligation to speak out and to stand up for that. For that reason, I stand in support of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Strong).
Mr. STRONG. Mr. Speaker, the question is: Do we support President Trump with this authority? Absolutely, we do.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
This legislation makes it clear: The United States will not stand for unlawful harassment campaigns against American companies and American workers.
lawfully owned and operated a limestone quarry in Mexico. Yet, since 2018, the Mexican Government has unlawfully restricted Vulcan's operations and wrongfully targeted them through coercion and intimidation.
In 2022, the Mexican President attempted to seize the property. When Vulcan refused to surrender, Mexico retaliated by issuing shutdown orders.
takeover or punished for standing up for its lawful rights. Vulcan followed the law, held up its end of the deal, and operated transparently. What they received in return was their property stolen and seized by the Mexican Government.
Yucatan Peninsula—owned, constructed, and operated for years by Vulcan—and the surrounding land open for sale to our adversaries. This is unbelievable.
the tools to push back against foreign countries and trading partners when our companies are unlawfully targeted and harassed.
America owes Mexico nothing. This is about fairness and accountability. The United States will no longer sit by and allow foreign nations to profit from stolen American property.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 7084. I thank Congressman Pfluger for his leadership in advancing this important legislation.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Alabama (Ms. Sewell).
Ms. SEWELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Defending American Property Abroad Act. This narrowly tailored bill will target vessels that attempt to enter the U.S. after moving through a seized American-owned port.
The facts of the case are clear. The Government of Mexico used its military force to illegally occupy Vulcan's property, and, in 2022, President Obrador illegally shut down Vulcan's operations.
clear that the government wants to take Vulcan's port because it is the only deepwater port in the region.
Mr. Speaker, Vulcan has attempted to use all existing legal and diplomatic options to resolve this situation. Since 2018, they have used the USMCA arbitration policies and processes, and multiple U.S. Ambassadors to Mexico under the Biden and Trump administrations have attempted to find an amicable resolution.
I have met directly with President Obrador about this issue. While previous Ambassadors have been sympathetic to our concerns, President Obrador and now President Sheinbaum have overruled their own diplomats and staff.
It is time for Congress to act. I was told by the President that we had to have an act of Congress in order for the port to be returned. So, today, I say proudly: We are doing something. Congress is doing something.
This is just not about an Alabama company. It is about American property abroad.
Mr. Speaker, I urge Congress to vote in favor of this bill, and I support this legislation wholeheartedly.
{time} 0940
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Palmer).
Mr. PALMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act of 2026.
nations should not profit from properties stolen from Americans. This bill is needed because for years the Mexican Government has engaged in a deliberate campaign against an American company, Vulcan Materials, headquartered in my district.
Vulcan's lawful operations. Then, in 2024, they took the dramatic step of declaring Vulcan's private property a protected natural area. The move was not designed to conserve land but to justify taking it.
However, this is about more than one company. Mexico's actions sent a dangerous signal to every American business operating abroad that their investments, their assets, their rights could be stripped away at any moment by the corrupt Mexican Government.
manner, met with the Ambassador from Mexico, he described his government's actions as a civil dispute. I pointed out to the Ambassador that in America we don't send in our military to resolve civil disputes.
The port at the center of the dispute is not just any asset. As has been pointed out by other speakers, it is the only deepwater port on the Yucatan Peninsula, built by American investments and critical to supplying construction materials for infrastructure across the United States.
supply chains. The illegal action is more like an action by a cartel than it is a trustworthy government, and it raises serious questions about entering into any agreements with Mexico.
governments cannot seize American-owned infrastructure and then benefit from the infrastructure. It authorizes the United States to deny entry to vessels operating out of or that have visited ports unlawfully expropriated from American companies.
Mr. Speaker, this is about protecting American businesses and, fundamentally, the rule of law. If we fail to act here, then we invite more of this behavior not just from Mexico, but from any nation watching to see how the United States responds.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
this dispute between the Mexican Government and an American company. There are tools available and that continue to be available to resolve that. It gives the Coast Guard more work on top of all the work our U.S. Coast Guard is already doing.
I had an amendment in the Rules Committee. They rejected an amendment that would have required the President to consider potential costs before exercising the authorities granted in this bill. That Rules Committee amendment was rejected.
solve international disputes. These are appropriate venues for this dispute and not legislation. For those reasons, I will be voting “no.”
In conclusion, I do want to note something. These 13 to 14 bills that came before this body earlier this week from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee—those were on suspension. This one was not. But it needs to be said that the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee works extremely well. We see ourselves as an island of partnership in a sea of partisanship in the U.S. Congress.
way because of one person, and that one person is Representative Sam Graves.
just note that we are going to be losing a fierce advocate for infrastructure investment and for transportation safety with his announcement that he will not run again.
Sam and I have served together nearly 26 years. We came in together. In recent years, we have developed a partnership that overrode the partisanship in Congress. This body has dealt with the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization, a Coast Guard reauthorization, a Water Resources Development Act reauthorization, and a lot of other things. We have passed a FEMA act that reforms FEMA. We have yet to get that to the floor. We certainly want to see that get to the floor.
surface transportation authorization to fix roads, bridges, highways, transit, rail, and some other things. We are working on that right now. That work continues to progress, all because of the work of Representative Sam Graves.
Tarkio, Missouri, at some point at the end of this year. His family is getting him back. I have always said that Sam likes three things in life: his grandkids, vintage aircraft, and Congress, and in that order.
us to continue to do the work of this Committee to bring bills to the floor that we can debate in a manner that is respectful of the body that we all get to serve in.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. EZELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In closing, passage of H.R. 7084 gives the President the authority to effectively address the illegal taking of a United States citizen-owned port, harbor, or marine terminal throughout the Western Hemisphere.
infrastructure projects, represent significant potential business opportunities for American companies.
Protecting overseas U.S. investments is an important policy objective. This bill creates an appropriate cost and consequence for stealing property from an American-owned business.
other authorities Congress has given the President to act against the illegal taking of American businesses and investments.
Mr. Speaker, I am a former sheriff from Mississippi. Where I come from, when you take something that doesn't belong to you, that is stealing, and you have broken the law. If you break the law, there are consequences.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this bill, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ADERHOLT. Mr. Speaker, today, the U.S. House of Representatives is acting in response to a situation in which a foreign government shut down an American company's operations, seized its property, and ignored the rule of law.
attack on one company, it is an attack on American workers, American jobs, and American interests.
years in Mexico. Yet the Mexican government illegally seized its assets. If this can happen to an Alabama company today, it can happen to any American business tomorrow.
That is why this legislation, H.R. 7084, the Defending American Property Abroad Act is so important. It allows the United States to take real action against foreign entities that seize American property.
This is about fairness and accountability. It is about ensuring that American companies and workers are not punished for following the rules while foreign governments face no consequences for breaking them. With this, we are ensuring protection for American companies that operate in the Western Hemisphere.
only for economic growth but also for our national and economic security. When we stand up for our businesses, we stand up for the workers and communities who depend on them.
I am proud to support H.R. 7084 because it defends American property owners from wrongful seizure and sends a clear message: the United States will stand beside its companies, its workers, and its values.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Weber of Texas). All time for debate has expired.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. LARSEN of Washington. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Roll No. 105
YEAS—247
Aderholt
Alford
Allen
Amodei (NV)
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Barrett
Baumgartner
Bean (FL)
Begich
Bentz
Bergman
Bice
Biggs (AZ)
Biggs (SC)
Bilirakis
Bishop
Boebert
Bost
Brecheen
Bresnahan
Brownley
Budzinski
Burchett
Burlison
Bynum
Calvert
Carbajal
Carey
Carter (GA)
Carter (LA)
Carter (TX)
Ciscomani
Cline
Cloud
Clyburn
Clyde
Cole
Collins
Comer
Correa
Costa
Crane
Crank
Crawford
Cuellar
Davidson
Davis (NC)
De La Cruz
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Downing
Dunn (FL)
Edwards
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Evans (CO)
Ezell
Fallon
Fedorchak
Feenstra
Figures
Fine
Finstad
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Fong
Foster
Foxx
Franklin, Scott
Fry
Fulcher
Garbarino
Gill (TX)
Gillen
Gimenez
Golden (ME)
Goldman (TX)
Gonzalez, V.
Gooden
Gosar
Gottheimer
Gray
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hageman
Hamadeh (AZ)
Haridopolos
Harrigan
Harris (MD)
Harris (NC)
Harshbarger
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Hinson
Horsford
Houchin
Houlahan
Hudson
Huizenga
Hunt
Hurd (CO)
Issa
Jack
Jackson (TX)
James
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kennedy (UT)
Kiggans (VA)
Kiley (CA)
Kim
Knott
Kustoff
LaHood
LaLota
Langworthy
Latta
Lawler
Lee (FL)
Lee (NV)
Letlow
Lofgren
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luttrell
Lynch
Mace
Mackenzie
Malliotakis
Maloy
Mann
Massie
Mast
McBride
McClain
McClintock
McCormick
McDowell
McGuire
Messmer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Mills
Moolenaar
Moore (AL)
Moore (NC)
Moore (UT)
Moore (WV)
Moran
Murphy
Newhouse
Norman
Nunn (IA)
Obernolte
Ogles
Onder
Owens
Palmer
Panetta
Patronis
Perez
Perry
Pfluger
Reschenthaler
Riley (NY)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rouzer
Roy
Ruiz
Rulli
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schmidt
Schneider
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Self
Sessions
Sewell
Shreve
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Soto
Spartz
Stanton
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Strong
Stutzman
Suozzi
Taylor
Tenney
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (PA)
Tiffany
Timmons
Turner (OH)
Valadao
Van Drew
Van Duyne
Van Epps
Van Orden
Vasquez
Veasey
Vindman
Wagner
Walberg
Walkinshaw
Wasserman Schultz
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Whitesides
Wied
Williams (TX)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Yakym
Zinke
NAYS—164
Adams
Aguilar
Amo
Ansari
Auchincloss
Balint
Barragan
Beatty
Bell
Bera
Beyer
Bonamici
Boyle (PA)
Brown
Carson
Casar
Case
Casten
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu
Cisneros
Clark (MA)
Cleaver
Cohen
Conaway
Courtney
Craig
Crockett
Crow
Davids (KS)
Davis (IL)
Dean (PA)
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Deluzio
DeSaulnier
Dexter
Dingell
Doggett
Elfreth
Escobar
Espaillat
Evans (PA)
Fields
Fletcher
Foushee
Frankel, Lois
Friedman
Frost
Garcia (CA)
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
Goodlander
Green, Al (TX)
Grijalva
Harder (CA)
Hayes
Himes
Hoyer
Hoyle (OR)
Huffman
Ivey
Jackson (IL)
Jacobs
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Kamlager-Dove
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy (NY)
Khanna
Krishnamoorthi
Landsman
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latimer
Lee (PA)
Leger Fernandez
Levin
Liccardo
Magaziner
Mannion
Matsui
McBath
McClain Delaney
McClellan
McCollum
McDonald Rivet
McGarvey
McGovern
McIver
Meeks
Menefee
Menendez
Meng
Min
Moore (WI)
Morelle
Morrison
Mrvan
Mullin
Nadler
Neal
Neguse
Norcross
Ocasio-Cortez
Olszewski
Omar
Pallone
Pappas
Pelosi
Peters
Pettersen
Pingree
Pocan
Pou
Pressley
Quigley
Ramirez
Randall
Raskin
Rivas
Ross
Ryan
Salinas
Sanchez
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Scholten
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Sherman
Simon
Smith (WA)
Sorensen
Stansbury
Stevens
Subramanyam
Swalwell
Sykes
Takano
Thanedar
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tokuda
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres (NY)
Trahan
Tran
Underwood
Vargas
Velazquez
Waters
Watson Coleman
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
NOT VOTING—20
Buchanan
Cammack
Cherfilus-McCormick
Clarke (NY)
Crenshaw
Garamendi
Goldman (NY)
Gonzales, Tony
Graves
Hern (OK)
Kean
Lieu
Luna
McCaul
Mfume
Miller (OH)
Moskowitz
Moulton
Nehls
Strickland
{time} 1027
Mr. SUBRAMANYAM changed his vote from “yea” to “nay.”
Messrs. HORSFORD and SOTO changed their vote from “nay” to “yea.”
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Speaker, I missed a series of votes today. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA on Roll Call No. 105.
Stated against:
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due to an urgent commitment in my Congressional district. Had
I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 105.