Law-Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act
Floor Speech
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, H.R. 2189, the taser bill. I would note that the bill doesn't mention tasers anywhere in the bill, other than in the title.
I am a supporter of innovation. I am a supporter of de-escalation. I am a supporter of tasers. My son is a deputy sheriff. I support giving him and all law enforcement every tool needed to keep them and the people they serve safe, but let me be clear: This bill does nothing to help law enforcement access tasers. The fact is, this bill recklessly and needlessly weakens both the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act.
Under current law, tasers are not regulated by the National Firearms Act. That is the law that regulates especially dangerous devices like machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Under current law, law enforcement in their official capacity are not subject to the background check requirement in the Gun Control Act. That is the law that prevents felons and domestic abusers from buying weapons.
Under the current law, contrary to what the chairman just mentioned, law enforcement is not subject to the excise tax for firearms or for tasers.
Instead of helping law enforcement access tasers, this bill weakens the law that regulates machine guns and opens the door to another flood of unregulated, deadly ghost guns in our community. I don't know one person in law enforcement who wants more untraceable ghost guns on our streets.
Mr. Speaker, it is unclear what barriers law enforcement faces in using long-range tasers. I have never received a complaint from law enforcement in my district, nor have I seen any reports suggesting that this is a problem. Long-range tasers are already used by law enforcement--and listen to this--in all 50 States, and in all 50 States, law enforcement pays zero excise taxes on these devices. It is important to know that long-range tasers can already be legally purchased by civilians. All they need to do is pass a background check.
I support tasers. I support law enforcement. This bill does not mention tasers once, and law enforcement is only mentioned in the title. I don't know what they are trying to do, but it looks to me like this might just be the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to oppose this bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out, my good friend from New York was talking about how important this is for law enforcement to have access to these types of tasers. As I said in my opening remarks, all 50 States already have access to these tasers.
As a matter of fact, in New York, the gentlewoman who just spoke talked about their need to have them. The New York Police Department uses these tasers and the Syracuse Police Department uses these tasers. As a matter of fact, their use is funded by a State grant. The Ramapo Police Department uses these tasers.
In Arizona, where my good friend Mr. Schweikert is from, the Phoenix Police Department uses these tasers. The Mesa Police Department uses these tasers. The Scottsdale Police Department uses these tasers.
This is not about providing access for law enforcement to use these tasers. They are already used in all 50 States.
Chu).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank Mr. Stauber for his time in public safety. I thank him for being a cop. We all owe a deep gratitude to those in uniform who keep us safe.
As I mentioned when I first made my opening statement, my son is a cop. I appreciate him, and I appreciate all his colleagues.
However, it is disingenuous to stand on this floor and say that this bill is needed so cops can have access to this particular type of taser technology.
Mr. Stauber is from Minnesota. I just want to point out that Minnesota uses this. The Minnetonka Police Department uses this technology. The Minneapolis Police Department uses these tasers. The St. Charles Police Department uses these tasers. The Hastings Police Department uses these tasers. The Brooklyn Park Police Department uses these tasers.
This is not about police not having access to this taser technology. They have it, and they can use it. It is not about that. Please focus on the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for making my point.
If it is about the tax code, then let's address that. That is not what this bill does. This opens a huge loophole that will allow people who are a danger to themselves and others to have access to devices that none of us believe that they should have access to.
If it was all about what Mr. Schweikert said, then why didn't the majority take my amendment that I filed that would have taken the ghost gun loophole issue off the table?
If it is about the tax code, then let's deal with the tax code. However, as Mr. Doggett made the argument about domestic abusers, these are people who perpetrate the most heinous of crimes. That is why when this House and Senate passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, we closed the boyfriend loophole to ensure that abusive boyfriends were blocked from accessing firearms, the same way we block abusive husbands from getting their hands on weapons.
The Gun Control Act is the Federal statute that requires background checks which block these abusers from getting their hands on firearms. This bill weakens the Gun Control Act and would allow convicted domestic abusers to purchase long-range tasers and ghost guns. That is not what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that they want to do.
So why don't we deal with the tax issue? We can do it. The chairman of the Ways and Means Committee is right here. That is an easy one for us to fix. But don't create a loophole big enough to drive a truckload of ghost guns through.
Again, this bill does not do what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting that it does. They say that police need this bill in order to have access to and use this new taser, this new innovation in tasers. As I have pointed out a number of times, everyone who has spoken, in their home State they use these tasers. The police departments have access to these, and they use them.
As a matter of fact, all 50 States use these tasers today. I have a list of all those.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record that list of States. Sampling of State and Local Law Enforcement and Correctional Adoption of Axon's Taser 10 (Firearm-Classified Taser)
Despite the claim from proponents of H.R. 2189 and H.R. 4242 that the bills are needed for state and local law enforcement to be able to obtain and use Taser 10, in reality, law enforcement departments across the country in every state have already obtained and use these devices-- making this legislation unnecessary. ALABAMA
Baldwin County Sheriff's Office
Spanish Fort Police Department
Mobile Police Department ALASKA
Anchorage Police Department
Kodiak Police Department
Bristol Bay Borough Police Department ARIZONA
Phoenix Police Department
Another article on procurement
Mesa Police Department
Scottsdale Police Department ARKANSAS
Little Rock Police Department
Pulaski County Sheriff's Office
Van Buren Police Department
Bryant Police Department CALIFORNIA
San Diego Police Department
Another article on procurement
Santa Clara Sheriff's Office: A pilot program in county jails
Los Angeles Sheriff's Office: --``a CEW deployment is an intermediate use of force tool''
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Official Temple Station
Murrieta Police Department
Desert Hot Springs Police Department
Hemet Police Department
Modesto Police Department
Orange County Sheriff's Office
Santa Ana Police Department
Anaheim Police Department COLORADO
Denver Police Department
Denver Regional Transportation District
Montezuma Police Department Taser-10 Challenge Coins
Montezuma County Sheriff's Office
Cortez Police Department
Mountain View Police Department
Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Cherry Hills Village Police Department
Fort Collins Police Department CONNECTICUT
Wallingford Police Department
Fairfield Police Department
Tybee Island Police Department
East Hartford Police Department
Hartford Police Department DELAWARE
Delaware County Park Police Department
Wilmington Police Department FLORIDA
Bradenton Police Department
Oviedo Police Department
Naples Police Department
Port St. Lucie Police Department
Seminole County Sheriff's Office GEORGIA
Dougherty County Sheriff's Office
Clayton County Police Department
Pelham Police Department
St. Mary's Police Department
Trenton (GA) Police Department
Nashville (GA) Police Department
Dekalb County Department of Police Services HAWAII
Hawaii Department of Law Enforcement
Hawaii County Police Department IDAHO
Chelan County Sheriff's Office
Idaho Peace Officer Standards and Training ILLINOIS
Oregon City (IL) Police Department
Chicago Police Department
Woodstock Police Department
Joliet Police Department
City of Dekalb Police Department
Monmouth Police Department: Funded by a state grant.
McCook Police Department: Funded by a state grant.
Rockton Police Department INDIANA
Clarksville Police Department
Bloomington Police Department
Rockville Police Department IOWA
Polk County Sheriff's Office
North Liberty Police Department: ``Use of Force Report'' says Electronic Control Devices are not a ``deadly force.'' KANSAS
Riley County Police Department
Wichita Police Department
Topeka Police Department: Policy and Procedural Manual says ``ECW is a less lethal force alternative.''
Rawlins County Sheriff's Office KENTUCKY
Louisville Police Department
Newport Police Department
Ashland Police Department
Fort Wright Police Department LOUISIANA
New Orleans Police Department
Shreveport City Marshal's Office
Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office
Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office
Central Police Department MAINE
Old Towne Police Department
Maine Criminal Justice Academy: Approved Taser 10 as an authorized ``less than lethal'' device statewide. MARYLAND
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
Bladensburg Police Department
University Park Police Department
University of Maryland, Baltimore Police Department: The `Use of Force Pyramid' says tasers are a Level 5 of 6 (6 being ``deadly force''). MASSACHUSETTS
Quincy Police Department
Chelmsford Police Department
Newton Police Department
Boston Police Department MICHIGAN
Dearborn Police Department
Chelsea Police Department
Grand Traverse County Sheriff's Office
Macomb County Sheriff's Office
Muskegon County Sheriff's Office
Canton Township Police Department MINNESOTA
Minnetonka Police Department
Minneapolis Police Department
St. Charles Police Department
Hastings Police Department
Brooklyn Park Police Department MISSISSIPPI
Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol
Laurel Police Department
Meridian Police Department
University of Mississippi University Police and Campus Safety
Ridgeland Police Department MISSOURI
Saint Louis Police Department
Springfield Police Department: The `Use of Force' chart says tasers are a Level 4 of 6 (6 being ``deadly force'').
Ballwin Police Department
Ferguson Police Department
Lake Winnebago Police Department
Jefferson College Law Enforcement Academy MONTANA
Missoula Police Department
Montana Department of Corrections: Offers training courses for ``new probation and parole officers and others needing TASER 10 Certification.''
Billings Probation and Parole Officers training to prepare for use.
Lake County Forest Preserves Police Department NEBRASKA
Lincoln Police Department
Clay County Sheriff's Office NEVADA
Sparks Police Department NEW HAMPSHIRE
Manchester Police Department
Londonderry Police Department
Portsmouth Police Department NEW JERSEY
The state government has explicitly approved the use of Taser 10
Newark Police Department NEW MEXICO
Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office
Santa Fe Police Department
Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office
New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy NEW YORK
New York City Police Department
Syracuse Police Department: Funded by a state grant
Ramapo Police Department NORTH CAROLINA
Raleigh Police Department
Wake County Sheriff's Office
North Carolina Department of Adult Corrections
Goldsboro Police Department NORTH DAKOTA
North Dakota Highway Patrol
Ward County Sheriff's Department
Minnehaha County Corrections OHIO
Ohio State Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
DRC wants to expand use to all Ohio State prisons.
Cleveland Police Department
Norwood Police Department
Ashland County Sheriff's Office
Fairfield Township Police Department
Franklin Township Police Department OKLAHOMA
Bartlesville Police Department
Comanche County Sheriff's Department
Temple Police Department
Broken Arrow Police Department OREGON
Eagle Point Police Department
Tualatin Police Department
Astoria Police Department PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania State University Police and Public Safety Department
Upper Gwynedd Township Police Department
Scranton Police Department
Waynesboro Police Department
Bucks County Sheriff's Office RHODE ISLAND
South Kingstown Police Department
Triverton Police Department
Hopkinton Police Department SOUTH CAROLINA
Florence County Sheriff's Office
Moncks Corner Police Department
Hardeeville Police Department SOUTH DAKOTA
Watertown Police Department
Somerset Police Department
Codington County Sheriff's Office: Includes County jail staff TENNESSEE
Nashville Police Department
Clarksville Police Department
Monterey Police Department
Loudon County Sheriff's Office TEXAS
Austin Police Department
El Paso Police Department
Ennis Police Department
Plano Police Department
Fredericksburg City Police Department
League City Police Department
Another article on procurement
Guadalupe County Sheriff's Office
City of Dallas Police Department
DFW Airport Department of Public Safety UTAH
Salt Lake City Police Department
Kanab City Police Department
Cedar City Police Department VERMONT
St. Albans VIRGINIA
Falls Church Police Department
Virginia Commonwealth University Police Department
City of Fredericksburg Police Department WASHINGTON
Seattle Police Department
Bellevue Police Department
Anacortes Police Department
Everett Police Department
Thurston County Sheriff's Office
Clark County Sheriff's Office WEST VIRGINIA
Spencer Police Department WISCONSIN
Waukesha Police Department: In Rep. Fitzgerald's district
Brookfield Police Department: In Rep. Fitzgerald's district
River Hills Police Department: `Use of Force' guidelines says Taser 10 is considered ``non-lethal force.''
Grand Chute Police Department
Another article on procurement WYOMING
Green River Police Department
Laramie County Sheriff's Office
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Also, on the issue of domestic abusers, the idea that this body would make it easier for domestic abusers to get new technology in tasers is just beyond explanation. We should be extremely worried about these people getting this type of technology.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a February 9, 2026, to House leadership. February 9, 2026. Speaker Mike Johnson, House of Representatives. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, House of Representatives.
To Speaker Johnson and Leader Jeffries: In 2014, a Washington, DC resident (name withheld to protect the victim's privacy) abused his wife with a TASER, repeatedly shocking her in the face and head. While she was still suffering the effects of the TASER, he repeatedly hit her in the head with a baseball bat, punched her multiple times in the face, and then sexually assaulted her. In 2018, a New Jersey man threatened his girlfriend repeatedly with a TASER in the course of raping her several times over multiple incidents. Eventually, he carried through with his threat, tasing her in the neck and raping and sodomizing her.
These incidents are both horrific and emblematic of a larger issue: domestic abusers' use of weapons to exert power and coercive control over their victims. Abusers threaten the victim, the children, pets, and others. As a nation, we should erect more barriers to domestic abusers acquiring weapons, not demolish existing protections. But that is exactly what H.R. 2189/S. 1283 would do by undermining laws designed to keep so-called ``less-than-lethal projectile devices,'' such as TASERs classified as firearms, and ghost guns out of the hands of adjudicated abusers.
To be clear, despite their marketing, TASERs are not always ``less-than-lethal,'' as claimed in H.R. 2189. Perhaps they are less lethal than other firearms, but between 2012 and 2021, 538 people were killed by TASERs or stun guns. And studies that have found TASERs have only minor health impacts were not only primarily funded by the manufacturer, they did not mimic real-life situations, having exclusively healthy subjects, a short exposure time, and no long-term follow-up. Moreover, domestic violence continues or for some populations even escalates during pregnancy, and there is evidence that the use of a TASER on a pregnant woman can cause her to miscarry.
Under current federal law, adjudicated domestic abusers (with a few notable exceptions) are prohibited from possessing TASERs that are classified as firearms in addition to ghost guns and traditional firearms. Removing such TASERs and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' modified to be lethal from the definition of a ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a) will not only allow adjudicated domestic abusers to acquire projectile weapons without a background check, it will make it perfectly legal for a domestic abuser--and other people convicted of violent and abhorrent crimes such as felony child molestation--to possess these weapons. While that might not be the intent of the bill authors, that will be the real-life impact.
H.R. 2189/S. 1283 will have another chilling unintended consequence: domestic abusers and others who are prohibited under federal law from possessing firearms will modify ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' to circumvent federal laws and regulations, including those regulating so-called `ghost guns.' In 2022, an adjudicated domestic abuser who was prohibited from possessing firearms used a ghost gun to murder his three daughters in a Sacramento church during a supervised visitation then murdered the chaperone and killed himself. Unable to pass a background check, he assembled his own firearm from untraceable gun parts which were unregulated at the time. Since that incident, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a regulation, upheld by the United States Supreme Court in Bondi v. Vanderstock, to require background checks and serial numbers on unfinished frames and receivers and on some weapons parts kits. But only firearms frames and receivers are thus regulated; removing ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' from the definition of ``firearm'' in 18 U.S.C. 921(a) would also allow ghost guns modified from such devices to proliferate among individuals with criminal records. And since only firearms frames and receivers are regulated, kits to modify such devices into fully-lethal projectile weapons would be entirely legal and unregulated. Plus, while the bill stipulates that ``less-than-lethal projectile devices . . . must be designed and intended to be used in a manner that is not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury,'' the bill fails to prohibit or even acknowledge the inevitable modification of ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' into entirely-lethal projectile devices. Once again, adjudicated domestic abusers who are prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law would be legally permitted to possess a firearm-equivalent, with the same lethal capacity, due simply to semantics.
So, now, let us return to the depraved domestic and sexual violence offenders whose heinous acts were detailed in the opening paragraph. Despite their use of TASERs to physically and sexually abuse their intimate partners and the attendant criminal convictions that would prohibit them from possessing firearms, immediately upon their release from prison these individuals would legally be permitted under federal law to acquire TASERs and other high-powered ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' that today are classified as firearms. Moreover, once they obtained such weapons, there would be no barrier in federal law to obtain the necessary parts to modify them into lethal projectile weapons.
The purpose of this bill is truly perplexing. Not only will H.R. 2189/S. 1283 arm adjudicated domestic abusers and others who pose a danger to public safety, it in no way achieves its stated goals and is a solution in search of a problem. The federal classification of TASERs as firearms in no way precludes law enforcement agencies from accessing TASERs, just as it does not preclude them from accessing an array of any of the ``less-than-lethal'' devices currently classified as firearms. Law enforcement agencies are easily able to procure firearms, including ``less-than-lethal projective devices'' currently classified as firearms, with many civilian requirements for purchasing firearm--and federal taxes--being waived. And contrary to a further argument in support of H.R. 2189/S. 1283, removing ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' from the federal definition of a ``firearm'' will not decrease law enforcement's liability for the use of deadly force. In terms of federal law, both regulations and courts have held that, on its own, the use of TASERs and other ``less-than-lethal projectile devices'' do not constitute deadly force. Moreover, even if that were not the case, changing the federal definition of a firearm to exclude TASERs and similar devices would in no way impact liability for using deadly force, because such liability outside the context of federal law enforcement is established in state and local law, which H.R. 2189/S. 1283 cannot alter.
So what, then, is the purpose of H.R. 2189/S. 1283? Perhaps it is to exempt individuals attempting to acquire TASERs and similar devices from undergoing a background check. In that case, the benefits to public safety are unclear, while we have amply demonstrated the risks. Perhaps an individual seeks to acquire such a device for self-protection. If the individual does not have a prohibiting record, they should be able to pass a firearms background check with no inconvenience to themselves--most firearms background checks take only a few minutes to complete. And if they do have a prohibiting record, for the safety not only of victims and survivors of domestic violence but for public safety more broadly, they should not have access to either a ``less-than- lethal'' device or a fully-lethal firearm.
For all of these reasons, we oppose H.R. 2189/S. 1283, and we urge you to oppose it as well. If you have any questions, please reach out. Sincerely,
Jewish Women International; Catholics for Family Peace Education and Research Initiative; Congregation of Our Lady of Charity of the Good Shepherd, U.S. Provinces; Hope Rise Thrive; Interfaith Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence; Legal Momentum: The Women's Legal Defense and Education Fund; National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd; Nuns Against Gun Violence; Safe Havens Interfaith Partnership Against Domestic Violence and Elder Abused; Sisters of Mercy of the Americas Justice Team; Ujima: The National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community; United Church of Christ.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, for folks who make the argument that people are afraid, they want to have the newest taser technology to keep themselves safe in the civilian space, I understand that. They are not precluded from being able to purchase and have this new technology in tasers. They just have to get a background check to make sure they aren't domestic abusers and to make sure they are not prohibited individuals who couldn't otherwise get firearms.
This bill does a lot more than the proponents are suggesting that it does. If, in fact, they want to deal with the issues that they stood on this floor today and talked about, they are all good issues, everybody will agree with that, let's do it. Let's draw the bill to deal with those issues. We could have done that had the majority accepted my bill that would have closed the ghost gun loophole, but they chose not to.
If they really want to make this bill do what they are claiming, then let's write a bill that does that. This bill doesn't do it. This puts American communities at risk.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233, nays 185, not voting 13, as follows: [Roll No. 70] YEAS--233 Aderholt Alford Allen Amodei (NV) Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Barr Barrett Baumgartner Bean (FL) Beatty Begich Bentz Bergman Bice Biggs (AZ) Biggs (SC) Bilirakis Bishop Boebert Bost Boyle (PA) Brecheen Bresnahan Buchanan Burchett Burlison Calvert Cammack Carey Carter (GA) Carter (LA) Carter (TX) Ciscomani Clarke (NY) Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Collins Comer Correa Crane Crank Crawford Crenshaw Cuellar Davidson Davis (NC) De La Cruz DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Downing Dunn (FL) Edwards Ellzey Emmer Estes Evans (CO) Ezell Fallon Fedorchak Feenstra Fine Finstad Fischbach Fitzgerald Fleischmann Flood Fong Foxx Franklin, Scott Fry Fulcher Garbarino Gill (TX) Gimenez Golden (ME) Goldman (TX) Gonzalez, V. Gooden Gosar Graves Gray Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hageman Hamadeh (AZ) Haridopolos Harrigan Harris (MD) Harris (NC) Harshbarger Hern (OK) Higgins (LA) Hill (AR) Hinson Houchin Hudson Huizenga Hurd (CO) Issa Jack Jackson (TX) James Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Kean Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kennedy (UT) Kiggans (VA) Kiley (CA) Kim Knott Kustoff LaHood LaLota Landsman Langworthy Latta Lawler Lee (FL) Letlow Loudermilk Lucas Luttrell Mace Mackenzie Malliotakis Maloy Mann Massie Mast McCaul McClain McClintock McCormick McDowell McGuire Messmer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (OH) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Mills Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (NC) Moore (UT) Moore (WV) Moran Nehls Newhouse Norcross Nunn (IA) Obernolte Ogles Onder Owens Palmer Panetta Patronis Perez Perry Pfluger Reschenthaler Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rouzer Roy Rulli Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schmidt Scholten Schweikert Scott, Austin Self Sessions Shreve Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stanton Stauber Stefanik Steil Steube Strong Stutzman Taylor Tenney Thompson (MS) Thompson (PA) Tiffany Timmons Tran Turner (OH) Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Van Epps Van Orden Vasquez Veasey Vindman Wagner Walberg Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Westerman Wied Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Yakym Zinke NAYS--185 Adams Aguilar Amo Ansari Auchincloss Balint Barragan Bell Bera Beyer Bonamici Brown Brownley Budzinski Bynum Carbajal Carson Casar Case Casten Castor (FL) Cherfilus-McCormick Chu Cisneros Clark (MA) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Conaway Costa Courtney Craig Crockett Crow Davids (KS) Davis (IL) Dean (PA) DeGette DeLauro DelBene Deluzio DeSaulnier Dexter Doggett Elfreth Escobar Espaillat Evans (PA) Fields Figures Fitzpatrick Fletcher Foster Foushee Frankel, Lois Friedman Frost Garamendi Garcia (CA) Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gillen Gomez Goodlander Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Harder (CA) Hayes Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Hoyle (OR) Huffman Ivey Jackson (IL) Jacobs Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Kamlager-Dove Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Kennedy (NY) Khanna Krishnamoorthi Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latimer Lee (NV) Lee (PA) Leger Fernandez Levin Liccardo Lieu Lofgren Lynch Magaziner Mannion Matsui McBath McBride McClain Delaney McClellan McCollum McDonald Rivet McGarvey McGovern McIver Meeks Menefee Menendez Meng Mfume Min Moore (WI) Morelle Morrison Moskowitz Mrvan Mullin Nadler Neal Neguse Ocasio-Cortez Olszewski Omar Pallone Pappas Pelosi Peters Pettersen Pocan Pou Pressley Quigley Ramirez Randall Raskin Riley (NY) Rivas Ross Ruiz Ryan Salinas Sanchez Scanlon Schakowsky Schneider Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Simon Smith (WA) Sorensen Soto Stansbury Stevens Strickland Subramanyam Suozzi Sykes Takano Thanedar Thompson (CA) Titus Tlaib Tokuda Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Underwood Vargas Velazquez Walkinshaw Wasserman Schultz Watson Coleman Whitesides Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) NOT VOTING--13 Castro (TX) Dingell Goldman (NY) Gonzales, Tony Gottheimer Hunt Luna Moulton Murphy Norman Pingree Swalwell Waters
Mr. COURTNEY changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. PEREZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
Ms. KELLY of Illinois changed her vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
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 against:
Mr. GOLDMAN of New York. Mr. Speaker, I was unable to vote today due to an urgent commitment in my district. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY on Roll Call No. 70.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source