[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 24, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H602-H609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 803, COLORADO WILDERNESS ACT OF 
     2021, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5, EQUALITY ACT

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 147 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 147

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 803) to 
     designate certain lands in the State of Colorado as 
     components of the National Wilderness Preservation System, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 117-2, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural 
     Resources; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 
     of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in 
     section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution 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     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 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.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Natural Resources or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section 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 Natural Resources or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5) to prohibit 
     discrimination on the basis of sex, gender identity, and 
     sexual orientation, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) 90 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is 
recognized for 1 hour.

[[Page H603]]

  

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman and my colleague from the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 147, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 5, the Equality Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 90 
minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary and one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 803, the Protecting 
America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act, under a structured rule. The 
rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking member of the Committee on Natural Resources and 
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Grijalva. It also 
makes in order 29 amendments, provides en bloc authority to Chairman 
Grijalva, and provides one motion to recommit.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate the rule for two critical 
pieces of legislation, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, and H.R. 803, the 
Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act.
  This is a historic day for Congress and for equal rights. Over 45 
years ago, Congresswoman Bella Abzug introduced the first version of 
the Equality Act, a bill that will provide full legal protections to 
LGBTQ people all across our country by extending the protections of the 
Civil Rights Act to them and making clear that we must respect, defend, 
and celebrate the dignity innate of everyone in our communities, 
including--and perhaps especially--those who are perceived as different 
or non-binary.
  The version of the Equality Act that we consider today is the result 
of years of careful legislative drafting and amends existing civil 
rights laws to provide protection from discrimination based on sexual 
orientation and gender identity in key areas of public life: 
employment, housing, credit, education, public spaces and services, 
federally funded programs, and jury service.
  Additionally, the Equality Act updates the public spaces and services 
covered in current law to include retail stores and services, such as 
banks, legal services, and transportation. These important updates 
would strengthen existing protections for everyone.
  The journey to this final version of the Equality Act was led by a 
dear colleague who is a historymaker in his own right, co-chair of the 
LGBTQ Equality Caucus and my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, 
Congressman   David Cicilline of Rhode Island. Congressman Cicilline 
worked with lawyers and advocates from the left and the right, 
religious groups, and a host of civil rights groups to make sure the 
language of the Equality Act achieved full legal equality while 
protecting existing civil rights for other marginalized groups.
  The resulting bill is supported by 130 of the largest employees in 
the country, our largest labor unions, and the hundreds of 
organizations including, to name just a few, the Leadership Conference 
on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Women's Law Center, 
the Episcopal Church, the Union for Reform Judaism, and the United 
Church of Christ.
  And, most importantly, it is supported by a clear and overwhelming 
majority of the American people. Seventy-one percent of Americans 
support this legislation, including majorities of Democrats, 
Independents, and Republicans.
  The clear majority of both the House and the American people 
recognize that for too long LGBTQ people have faced discrimination with 
no Federal legal recourse. It is beyond dispute that LGBTQ people--
especially transgender people and, even more so, transgender women of 
color--face discrimination across this country.
  To echo other speakers, this issue is deeply personal for me. It has 
been personal since my baby sister came out to me almost 40 years ago. 
For many people all across this country and across this House, that is 
when this fight hits home.
  It gets personal when someone whom you love says: This is who I am.
  It gets personal when you know and value that person and you want to 
do whatever you can to make sure that your loved one can live their 
life to the fullest, free from hate and discrimination.
  I am sad to say that my home, Pennsylvania, is one of the 30 States 
that defies the will of its people by not having legal protections for 
LGBTQ people. The idea that my sister--someone who put her life on the 
line for our country when she served in our Armed Forces--could drive 
across State lines and lose protections is heartbreaking.
  The Equality Act ends the patchwork of State laws and creates 
uniform, nationwide protections. LGBTQ people won't have to worry that 
being transferred to another State by their employer or needing to move 
home to take care of ailing parents will cause them to lose civil 
rights protections. From sea to shining sea, LGBTQ people will have the 
security and stability that comes from knowing that, if they face 
discrimination, they have legal recourse.
  It is also important to note what the Equality Act does not do. The 
Equality Act does not impinge on religious freedom. Religious liberty 
is a cornerstone value of our Constitution and our country. Religious 
organizations are currently able to prefer their own members and their 
version of morality in hiring for religious positions, such as 
ministers and schoolteachers. The Equality Act does nothing to change 
that. The Equality Act does not force anyone to perform or obtain 
abortions in violation of their religious beliefs, and it does not 
strip girls of their title 9 protections.
  The Equality Act does clarify what has long been held: That religious 
freedom laws do not create an exemption to civil rights laws.

                              {time}  1345

  Just like a person can't use a claim of religious freedom to refuse 
to sell a house to an interracial couple, under the Equality Act LGBTQ 
families will be protected from discrimination regardless of its 
motivation.
  Consider the stakes facing LGBTQ people too often all across this 
country. A same-sex couple walks into a restaurant. Having hired a 
babysitter to look after their young children, they are hoping to have 
a relaxing night out. But, instead, when they are seated and looking at 
the menu, the manager comes over and tells them that they have to 
leave. They aren't welcome.
  This kind of insecurity and humiliation occurs on a daily basis 
across this country, and in 30 States the couple would have no legal 
recourse. Often, humiliation is just the tip of the iceberg. Same-sex 
couples are far more likely to be denied housing; qualified and high-
performing transgender people are more likely to be fired from their 
jobs; and LGBTQ young people face rejection and discrimination in 
school, which can deny them an education.
  These injuries compound and lead to poverty, homelessness, and 
violence. The impact is felt the hardest by transgender women of color, 
who confront racial discrimination, sex discrimination, and gender 
identity discrimination. The intersection of these forms of 
discrimination is all too often deadly.
  The protections provided by the Equality Act give LGBTQ people an 
equal chance at the American Dream. While discrimination and rejection 
has ended the lives of too many transgender people, many are succeeding 
despite discrimination.
  We are talking here about the civil rights of our friends, our 
family, and public servants. In Pennsylvania, Dr. Rachel Levine, a 
transgender woman, served in the Governor's cabinet as Secretary for 
Health, and has recently been nominated by President Biden to serve as 
Assistant Health Secretary.
  Mara Keisling, a Pennsylvania native, is the founder and Executive 
Director of the National Center for

[[Page H604]]

Transgender Equality and a pioneer for civil rights protections.
  Sarah McBride was recently sworn in as the first transgender Senator 
in the State of Delaware.
  And of course, Pete Buttigieg was recently sworn in as the U.S. 
Secretary of Transportation, becoming the first openly gay cabinet 
member to be confirmed by the Senate.
  Opponents of the Equality Act keep trying to pit cisgender girls 
against transgender girls, when really this legislation is about 
strengthening opportunity for all girls and women. Whether it is 
women's sports, single-sex colleges, or homeless services for women, 
the Equality Act simply prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation and gender identity in these areas. It doesn't undermine 
these institutions or prohibit them; it simply ensures that they are 
inclusive of all women and girls, including trans women and girls.
  Support for this legislation is overwhelming and deserves an 
overwhelmingly positive response from this body. I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support the rule and underlying legislation, and further 
encourage the Senate to swiftly act to pass this bill so that we can 
finally provide firm, statutory protections to the LGBTQ community.
  Next, Mr. Speaker, is H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness 
and Public Lands Act. This is a package of public bills from the 
Natural Resources Committee that will designate more than 1.5 million 
acres as wilderness areas, and more than 1,200 river miles into the 
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
  The bill would also withdraw more than 1.2 million acres of public 
land from new drilling and mining, ensuring that iconic landscapes like 
the Grand Canyon and Colorado's Thompson Divide are permanently 
protected for future generations to enjoy.
  Few things in the United States are as universally cherished by 
Americans as are our public lands. Our country is home to more than 111 
million acres of designated wilderness, and these lands help us combat 
climate change, provide for an array of ecological diversity, and offer 
recreational activities to Americans young and old.
  As we continue to endure the devastating effects of climate change, 
providing for millions of additional acres of wilderness will allow for 
these areas to continue to serve as critical ``carbon sinks'' to 
capture and mitigate carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
  A similar version of this legislation passed the House last Congress, 
but this version includes a critical new piece from Natural Resources 
Committee Chairman Grijalva, the Grand Canyon Protection Act. This bill 
would permanently ban new mining claims on approximately one million 
acres of public land surrounding Grand Canyon National Park, while 
helping to protect the clean water resources critical to the 
livelihoods of local Tribal communities.
  The Grand Canyon Protection Act was developed by Chairman Grijalva in 
close consultation with all of the relevant stakeholders in his 
district and serves to protect one of the most cherished places in the 
United States.
  You may hear my colleague from Pennsylvania argue that this bill is 
nothing but a land grab, an attempt to subvert private industry. Of 
course, this couldn't be farther from the truth.
  Mining, like every other industry, is subject to the whim of the free 
market. Historically, when the demand for these minerals has dropped, 
mining companies are all too prepared to skip town without cleaning up 
any of their mess.
  This bill isn't about whether or not nuclear energy and its inputs 
will be part of our clean energy future, but if we want to ensure that 
it is, then I would recommend that we first start by supporting 
effective regulations on new and existing nuclear plants and their 
capabilities. The best way to ensure demand for a product is to 
similarly ensure that its user won't decide it isn't worth pursuing or 
is unaffordable.
  The merits of nuclear energy aside, you can't deny that its use in 
this country is on the downswing or, at the very least, stagnant. This 
isn't due to over-regulation; it is due to under-regulation. It is due 
to massive cost overruns and incompetent government oversight.
  The U.S. has had only one new nuclear reactor become operational in 
the last 20 years. This isn't because a mining company or two hasn't 
been afforded the opportunity to desecrate our national resources, but 
because the U.S. has not yet proven we can responsibly operate a 
nuclear plant that, from start to finish, is safe and has the trust of 
the American people.
  Public lands do not belong to those only in the Congressional 
district in which they are located; they belong to all of us. 
Wilderness areas in the great State of Colorado belong to you and me as 
much as Independence Hall belongs to a native of Colorado. We all have 
a role to play in protecting these lands and seeking carveouts for 
mining companies is not the right way forward.
  I want to especially thank my colleague, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, 
for her tireless and bipartisan work in getting this legislation to 
such a great place.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from my home State of 
Pennsylvania for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides for the consideration of two 
pieces of legislation. Let's just look at both pieces one at a time.
  The first bill, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, provides for civil rights 
protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer 
individuals.
  Let me start by saying that Republicans believe all people should be 
treated equally under the law. Let me repeat that. Republicans believe 
all people should be treated equally under the law. But the Equality 
Act misses that mark.
  Rather, H.R. 5 represents a radical departure from existing civil 
rights protections that will have significant implications on everyday 
life, and eliminate laws ensuring women and girls have the same 
opportunities as men and boys.
  Just take student athletics. H.R. 5 would redefine sex to include 
gender identity, meaning a transgender woman, a person who was born 
genetically male but identifies as a woman, could not be barred from 
participating in girls' or women's athletics.
  Further, I have concerns that, due to the lack of committee action, 
this bill has not been fully thought out and it may be difficult, 
frankly, if not impossible, to actually implement in line with 
congressional intent.
  Perhaps the most pressing example of this is the term ``gender 
identity,'' which is so vague that even the special interest groups 
backing this bill cannot agree on a single definition of that.
  Lastly, I am troubled that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is 
not applicable under this measure. Without this vital protection, 
churches, synagogues, mosques, and religiously affiliated schools will 
be forced to act contrary to their deeply held beliefs or stop offering 
certain services to the public.
  Religious freedom was once an issue that all Americans, regardless of 
political party, strongly supported. It is incredibly disappointing to 
see my colleagues across the aisle abandon this principle in an effort 
to appease their far-left radical progressive base.
  Mr. Speaker, the second part of this rule provides for consideration 
of H.R. 803, the Protecting America's Wilderness and Public Lands Act. 
This legislation consists of 8 natural resources bills, and will create 
nearly 1.5 million acres of wilderness, establish the most restrictive 
Federal land use classification, as well as lock up rivers and other 
lands across four western States.
  Like all my Republican colleagues, I strongly support responsible 
preservation of our Nation's natural resources. Remember, it was 
Republican Teddy Roosevelt who started this movement.
  However, my colleagues across the aisle have ignored this and have 
gone way too far. This bill takes a partisan approach to public land 
protection, and not a single Republican has cosponsored the underlying 
measures.
  Further, some of the lands affected by this legislation lie in 
congressional districts where Members of Congress do not support such 
actions. These Members have not had the opportunity to share their 
opposition or their concerns, as bills in H.R. 803 were not marked up 
by this Congress.

[[Page H605]]

  H.R. 803 also ignores input from local communities, who voiced 
concern that these measures will hurt local economies and rural jobs. 
As we recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the last thing that we should 
be doing is eliminating good-paying, family-sustaining jobs.
  Further, this bill will actually increase catastrophic wildfires, as 
the new wilderness and scenic river designations prohibit scientific 
forest management.
  I am especially concerned that this measure withdraws 1.2 million 
acres from mineral production, including uranium, a necessary component 
for the U.S. nuclear reactor fleet.
  Currently, our Nation is relying on China for the vast majority of 
rare earth elements and critical materials, which are necessary for 
everything from building a fighter jet to a cell phone.
  Just last week, we saw China threaten to cut off its mineral supply 
to American defense contractors. We have watched as China has done this 
to sister democracies such as Japan.
  This bill will give the Chinese Communist Party, and other unstable 
and hostile regimes, control over our energy and mineral needs, putting 
our economic and national security at risk.
  We must not cut off access to the minerals and materials necessary 
for everyday life and for the protection of our Nation.

  I would urge my colleagues across the aisle to seek a bipartisan 
approach to these two bills, to this rule, not just today, but also in 
the weeks and months ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
a distinguished member of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the 
time; and I want to thank her for her eloquent opening.
  Mr. Speaker, we are just weeks away from the 53rd anniversary of 
Martin Luther King, Jr.'s famous speech at the National Cathedral. That 
is when he uttered the powerful line, ``The moral arc of the universe 
is long, but it bends towards justice.''
  In many ways, those words are as misconstrued as they are well-known, 
because some have taken them to mean that if you just wait long enough, 
justice is inevitable. Dr. King knew better, though. He knew that for 
the moral arc to bend, people needed to be courageous enough to 
actually bend it.
  Just 6 years after this line was spoken, Members of this Chamber 
showed that courage when they introduced the original Equality Act. 
They did so in the shadow of the Stonewall riots, at a time when even 
discussing LGBTQ issues publicly was seen by many as taboo.
  These Members recognized the fundamental unfairness in a patchwork of 
State laws being used to deny some Americans fundamental rights like 
jobs and homes, just because of who they were or who they loved.

                              {time}  1400

  They had the backbone to act, giving a voice in these hallowed Halls 
to the many advocates nationwide fighting for equality from the 
outside.
  Getting to this point has been a long, long, long road, and I am a 
proud cosponsor of the Equality Act that is before us today, and I have 
pushed for this day for a long time. I know this hasn't been easy. So 
many people and so many organizations, though, never wavered. And along 
the way, they changed hearts and minds on this issue.
  What may have been a radical idea then is not now. In fact, most 
people today not only support such protections for LGBTQ Americans, 
they incorrectly believe that they are already in place. That is how 
common sense this bill is, Mr. Speaker.
  This House made history when it passed the Equality Act for the first 
time last Congress, and we did so in a bipartisan way. Unfortunately, 
it didn't even get a vote in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the 
prior Republican President didn't support it. But now we have new 
leadership in the Senate and a President who has made passing this bill 
a top priority.
  This moment represents our best chance yet to finally make the 
Equality Act the law of the land. This moment, Mr. Speaker, is an 
opportunity to bend the moral arc toward justice, toward fairness, and 
toward equality, and I encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle to seize it.
  Let's support this rule and the underlying bill, and let's take a 
historic step forward toward building a more fair and just society for 
all Americans.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), my good friend.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
  The underlying legislation we are considering in this rule is wrought 
with concerning provisions. One underlying bill, H.R. 803, is just 
another land grab that will kill jobs, make our Nation hostage to 
hostile foreign powers, restrict public access and recreation 
opportunities on our public lands, and threaten our energy 
independence.
  Specifically, in my home State of Arizona, this bill has dangerous 
implications for our mining industry. These provisions also threaten 
our national security by making the United States reliant on foreign 
nations for critical minerals.
  The other bill in this rule, the so-called Equality Act, is anything 
but equal. In fact, it is a threat to women's privacy and safety. This 
bill effectively outlaws facilities reserved for biological females. 
This includes restrooms, showers, and locker rooms. And outrageously, 
this also includes women's domestic violence shelters.
  As a survivor myself of domestic violence, I know the importance of 
these women's shelters. They are critical for women who are trying to 
escape domestic violence and sometimes sexual assault. Under this 
Equality Act, a man, a biological man, identifying as a woman cannot 
legally be turned away from any of these facilities.
  Women will lose all rights to bodily privacy, safety, and security. 
Vulnerable women across America deserve better, Mr. Speaker.
  In addition, this bill will end girls sports as we know it by 
mandating schools accept males into girls sports.
  I stand in opposition to both of the underlying bills, and I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would just note for the record that over 
20 States already have versions of this law, the Equality Act, with 
respect to participation in sports, as do the Olympics, and we have not 
seen the kind of behavior that has just been suggested.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy 
and her careful, thoughtful explanation of what we are doing.
  I strongly support the Equality Act, extending civil rights 
protections to all citizens. I have been honored to be a part of this 
process throughout my political career, dating back as a child 
legislator in the 1970s in county government, in city government in 
Oregon, and for the last 25 years here in Congress.
  The arguments that we are hearing have been heard before. The same 
sort of hysterical concerns have proven not to be the case. Wild claims 
have been proven wrong; and especially I think of marriage equality as 
the most compelling. Each reform, each step of the way, has been for 
progress, and equality was positive, and ultimately supported by the 
public, as is the Equality Act. The wild claims have been proven 
groundless.
  At the end of the day, one of the reasons is that Americans are 
biased in favor of fairness and equality. Another important reason, as 
alluded to by my friend from Pennsylvania, is personal experience. 
There was fear and misapprehension, but as people became experienced 
with a family member who married, a transgender child, when you deal 
with the reality of real people, what we find is that they are people 
like everybody else, and we do not want their lives to be turned upside 
down.

  I come from a State where by and large these protections are in 
place, but they aren't in place for everybody everywhere, and we have 
an opportunity to make additional progress. One of the reasons that we 
have seen

[[Page H606]]

this progress take place is the advocacy of those in the LGBT community 
who have been tireless, thoughtful, articulate, strategic, moving the 
agenda forward and bringing along often reluctant politicians.
  Last but not least, I would reference what happened with our young 
people. Young people understand this. Young people are not hysterical. 
Young people express their concern and willingness to embrace others, 
regardless of sexual orientation, and that is why ultimately this cause 
will win. It is why so much progress has been made and why it will 
ultimately be successful.
  I deeply appreciate this being brought before us, an opportunity for 
us to approve the Equality Act, affirm the bedrock principle of full 
equality, move it on to the Senate, and hopefully now with an 
administration committed to equality, we can enact it into law for the 
benefit of citizens all across the country.
  I just have one 30-second evaluation of the notion of scientific 
forest management.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Oregon.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I will just say, I come from an area 
where so-called ``scientific management'' of forests has resulted in 
more forest fires, problems with water quality, problems with habitat. 
We are learning that we need to make different changes, and one of the 
tools that we have is extending wilderness protection. It strengthens 
the environment, protects wildlife, water resources, and makes them 
more resilient, not less.
  It is not a matter of raking the forests, as Donald Trump said, but 
having an opportunity to allow the healing power of nature to provide 
those protections.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, in their continued relentless 
assault on religious freedoms, Democrats are trying today, with this 
terrible bill, to make wholesale and damaging changes to our Nation's 
civil rights laws with little to no debate or even discussion on how 
this legislation will affect the daily lives of Americans and the 
institutions we hold dear.
  While the Equality Act purports to be an inclusive piece of 
legislation, it is actually exclusive of those with a different 
viewpoint. It would ultimately put civil rights laws at odds with 
longstanding religious beliefs pertaining to sex, sexuality, and other 
moral issues.
  The result would be that faith-based nonprofits, such as a Christian 
shelter for women or an adoption agency or other religiously affiliated 
providers of social services, could not minister in good conscience 
without suffering consequences under Federal law.
  We have past history as a precedent, an ominous precedent, as we saw 
the Obama-Biden administration seek to close down the Little Sisters of 
the Poor and Catholic nuns who care for the dying simply because they 
would not pay for their employees' contraception or drugs inducing 
abortion.
  A vote for the Equality Act would solidify the Biden-Harris 
administration's efforts to enforce the same radical religious and 
moral litmus tests that leave no room for faith-based ministries and 
organizations to operate without subscribing to the dogma of the left.
  The Equality Act essentially weaponizes civil rights laws against 
Americans' fundamental liberties, and we must reject this assault on 
our most precious of freedoms. I oppose this rule, and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would just restate that this act does not 
take away any of the religious freedoms that are already enshrined in 
multiple laws. It does not change those laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the debate here 
for the rule, there seems to be quite a disagreement between each side 
over what exactly this bill says, so for a parliamentary question, I 
would like to request that the entire bill be read.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman's request will not be 
entertained.
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Well, then, let's read some of the rules. You 
keep saying it doesn't violate religious freedoms when, in fact, it 
does. It says so directly here in the bill in these sections, and it is 
a shame that we aren't reading the exact text because it is the text 
that matters. It doesn't matter what you have to say or what I have to 
say. It is the actual wording.
  In section 1107, it actually talks about: ``The Religious Freedom 
Restoration Act of 1993 shall not provide a claim concerning, or a 
defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for 
challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.''
  This bill, in the text, also specifically talks about: ``With respect 
to gender identity, an individual shall not be denied access to a 
shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing 
room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to 
the gentlewoman from Georgia just to close.

  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, in the wording in the text of 
the bill of the Equality Act, it also says: ``With respect to sex, 
pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition shall not receive 
less favorable treatment than other physical conditions.''
  As a parliamentary question, what does that mean? Does that mean that 
anyone can demand an abortion? And it is discrimination to be refused 
this medical service?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has again 
expired.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, with respect to the gentlewoman's question, 
with respect to the language in question, it has long been held by our 
courts that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act does not apply to 
civil rights laws.
  The Equality Act looks to treat discrimination against LGBTQ 
individuals the same way as other forms of discrimination, including 
racial discrimination. So, these arguments just don't hold water.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from the great State of Texas (Mr. Pfluger).

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to both bills. 
However, I am here to talk about the partisan Federal land grab 
package.
  Last week, my home State of Texas endured a harrowing winter storm 
that wiped out electricity and water for millions of Texans. It 
devastated homes and businesses and caused irreparable damage to 
livestock, crops, and industry production across the State. Tragically, 
some even lost their lives.
  Our State was under an extreme emergency. Living through that 
underscored the need for safe, affordable, reliable energy. We 
absolutely must have a reliable baseload for our energy grids and a 
level playing field for all forms of energy. The Federal Government 
cannot pick favorites in energy.
  What happened in Texas should shake our country into the realization 
that, as our population grows and our energy needs expand, any move to 
limit production will have dire consequences on our safety and our 
national security.
  Unfortunately, this bill is another step in the vendetta to limit the 
American energy production. The partisan $1.2 million Federal land 
grab----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, the land grab is another Democrat attempt 
to restrict our country's abundant natural resources under onerous 
regulations that will kill jobs in the energy industry and put 
Americans at risk.
  This is a matter of national security, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this bill and to vote for the

[[Page H607]]

safety and energy independence that this country so deserves. Please 
join me in voting ``no'' for both bills and both rules.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that what we saw in Texas 
this past week was a truly astonishing, unusual snowstorm with frigid 
cold conditions that are not normal--as the Speaker knows--in Texas, 
and that happens because of climate change.
  Because we haven't done enough to protect our wilderness and to 
protect our environment, we end up with extreme climate events like we 
just saw, and this bill is a step toward redressing that imbalance.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen 
Schools Act.
  I will do this to ensure that the $54.3 billion that Congress 
appropriated just last month to help schools reopen is, in fact, 
prioritized to meet the expenses of actually being able to open up 
schools for in-person learning.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the 
text of my amendment, along with any extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), who will explain the amendment.
  Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous question. This is 
the third time here today that Republicans have called on this body to 
consider my bill, the Reopen Schools Act. It is a commonsense solution 
to get students and teachers to return to the classroom and to do it 
safely.
  This legislation would condition a portion of State COVID relief 
grants for education on schools actually reopening. My Democrat 
colleagues already voted for these funds to be used specifically for 
schools to reopen safely back in December, $54 billion.
  The science on this is definitive. If certain safety precautions are 
taken, teachers and students can resume in-person learning safely. So 
that is why Congress sent the States this money back in December.
  But after nearly a year of this pandemic lockdown, millions of 
students are still learning exclusively from behind a screen. Our 
children are struggling academically and they are falling behind.
  But the toll on mental health is what is most concerning to me. Even 
after a year, many kids haven't seen their school friends. They haven't 
been out to play on a playground. They are isolated, disconnected, and 
they are lonely. From increased stress and anxiety, depression, even 
suicidal thoughts or attempts, our youngest generation is facing a 
mental health crisis.
  Hospitals have seen a staggering increase in mental health 
emergencies among young children. It is heartbreaking. And the longer 
the goal posts continue to be moved on reopening schools, the worse 
this mental health crisis for our young people will become.
  My home State of Iowa is leading the way to put students' education 
and mental health first. My two sons got on the school bus this morning 
in Iowa. They are in class right now receiving hands-on attention from 
their teachers, and they will play with their friends at recess today.
  As a parent, I am grateful that I had the ability to make the right 
choice for my children and send them back to class to learn in person. 
But millions of parents around the country have not been given this 
choice, with many school districts still only offering virtual 
learning. I have heard of so many families who are struggling as 
schools remain shuttered and they have no clear timetable for 
reopening.
  It is vulnerable families with at-risk children who are impacted the 
most by these decisions. Let's think about the kids who don't have 
access to a computer or WiFi to try to complete their lessons online. 
Or let's talk about the kids who rely on school breakfast and lunch and 
they are going hungry without these vital nutrition programs. Or what 
about the victims of child abuse and neglect who are locked in with 
potential abusers. Or kids who are left at home all day because their 
parents have no choice but to go to work.

  We cannot allow children and families to continue to suffer right 
now. It is time for students to get back into the classroom, and we can 
do it safely. With the Reopen Schools Act, they will be able to do so 
safely. Teachers will be back in the classroom safely, and we can get 
this country moving forward again.
  Mr. Speaker, I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
join me in supporting our students by defeating the previous question. 
We need to get kids back to school. So I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I have some good news for the gentlewoman who just spoke. The 
reconciliation bill that is coming to the floor, hopefully, on Friday 
will have a whole bunch of resources in it to help States safely reopen 
schools. So I hope we will get a good bipartisan vote on that.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup), the good doctor.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous 
question. If the previous question is defeated, Republicans will amend 
this rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, 
which I am proud to cosponsor.
  As a father of two small children, their overall health and well-
being is my top priority; not just my children, but all of America's 
children. And as I have looked around this Chamber, I see lots of 
Members on both sides of the aisle who I know to be great parents and 
grandparents, and I know they want the best for their children, too.
  I am also a doctor, and I am co-chair of our Doctors Caucus. 
Throughout this pandemic, we have heard calls from Members, and now 
from President Joe Biden, that we need to trust the science.
  As a doctor, I wholeheartedly agree--and the science is clear--
students and teachers can go back to in-person learning safely. I know 
this because my own children have been fortunate enough to go back to 
school in person all of this school year safely.
  The American Academy of Pediatrics has stressed the importance of 
students returning to school for their overall health and well-being, 
and the CDC research is clear that transmission in schools is extremely 
low.
  Last week, I joined Congresswoman Hinson, Whip Scalise, and Ranking 
Member Foxx on a call with parents from all across the country who want 
their children to be able to go back to school. It was a bipartisan 
event. To them, this wasn't a partisan issue. The parents on the call 
were from across the entire political spectrum: Republicans, Democrats, 
and Independents.
  We heard heartbreaking stories from them about some of their children 
falling into depression, losing their reading comprehension, and 
struggling to focus.
  Kids are attempting or committing suicide at an alarming rate. In one 
county in Nevada, the suicide rate doubled from the previous year. 
Hospitals across the country are seeing unprecedented increases in 
children suicide attempts and mental health admissions.
  Yes, there is some risk to returning, but nothing in life is zero 
risk. The consequences of staying closed are far too grave and our 
children are suffering both socially and academically because of it.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the Reopen Schools Act because 
we have given schools the funding needed to reopen safely. However, 
some schools, seemingly under pressure from powerful teachers' unions, 
refuse to return to in-person learning.
  Congress has provided more than $54 billion in State COVID relief 
grants for education to help reopen schools. We didn't, however, 
require the schools to actually reopen if they were to access the 
money, and that was a mistake.
  Congresswoman Hinson's bill will address that issue by conditioning 
those funds on States producing a reopening plan to get students back 
to school as quickly as possible.

[[Page H608]]

  There are at least 3 months left in most school years around the 
country. We can't just let schools put off returning to in-person 
learning until next fall or later. We need to do what is best for our 
students, our children, our grandchildren, our nieces and nephews. We 
need to reopen the schools now.
  We can't, for example, expect sixth-grade teachers to teach fourth 
graders.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting to defeat the 
previous question. I thank Congresswoman Hinson for her leadership on 
this bill.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would just note, as a parent, a former school board member, and 
education advocate, of course, we all want what is best for our 
students and what is best for our schools.
  But I would also suggest that a one-size-fits-all, everybody has to 
go back in person to schools does not serve anybody well.
  We have seen around the country--first of all, our schools in 
Pennsylvania are not closed. They are open. Some are virtual, some are 
hybrid, some are in person. But each community is doing what it needs 
to do in response to the conditions that are present at this time.
  So I agree with my colleague on the Rules Committee that we 
absolutely need to get our school districts and our State and local 
governments the money they need to safely reopen schools, and we are 
looking forward to doing that with our reconciliation bill on Friday.
  Mr. Speaker, I just inquire whether the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
is prepared to close. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I have no further speakers and at this time, and I am prepared 
to close.

  Mr. Speaker, Republicans believe everyone should be treated equally 
under the law. But H.R. 5 is a radical approach that will have serious, 
unintended consequences for female athletes, victims of sexual 
violence, houses of worship, and healthcare professionals. The list 
goes on and on. Critically, the bill undermines important religious 
freedom protections.
  As for H.R. 803, let's call this what it is. It is a land grab. This 
is a land grab, which will kill jobs in rural communities. It will 
leave us vulnerable to hostile nations for our energy and mineral 
needs. It will restrict access and recreation opportunities for the 
American public.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today, we are moving forward on two pieces of 
legislation whose timely consideration is long overdue. And I would 
note that H.R. 5 did pass last Congress with a bipartisan majority.
  So we are looking forward, at long last, to passing the Equality Act 
through both Chambers and removing the burden of discrimination that 
can move us closer to a country where members of the LGBTQ community 
have an equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream.
  The Equality Act isn't going to be the end of our long journey toward 
full LGBTQ equality, but it will bring our laws into line across the 
country with values that our country was founded upon.
  We must continually take steps to make our country more perfect. 
Acknowledging in law the challenges that actually face LGBTQ people and 
taking concrete action to correct them brings us another step closer.
  Mr. Speaker, we will pass the Protecting America's Wilderness and 
Public Lands Act in order to ensure that the sacred lands that all 
Americans share equally cannot be tarnished for the benefit of a few.
  We have a long way to go in addressing the myriad problems facing 
this country, but the two bills before us today are a strong and 
necessary start to helping our Nation live up to its full potential.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 147

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-
     person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, and 
     for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit. If the Committee of the 
     Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on 
     the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, 
     immediately after the third daily order of business under 
     clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole 
     for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 682.

  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, 
nays 211, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 34]

                               YEAS--219

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     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
     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
     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

[[Page H609]]


  


                               NAYS--211

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     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)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     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--1

       
     Matsui
       

                              {time}  1531

  Mr. STEWART changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. CRAIG changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Allred (Davids (KS))
     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bowman (Clark (MA))
     Buchanan (Donalds)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Carter (TX) (Nehls)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
     Gaetz (Franklin, C. Scott)
     Gonzalez, Vincente (Gomez)
     Gosar (Wagner)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Joyce (PA) (Smucker)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McCaul (Kim (CA))
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Moulton (Trahan)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Neguse (Perlmutter)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Roybal-Allard (Bass)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  February 24, 2021, on Page H609 (center column proxy list), the 
following appeared: Rush (Underwood) Watson Coleman (Pallone)
  
  The online version has been corrected to read: Rush (Underwood) 
Vargas (Correa) Watson Coleman (Pallone)


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

                          Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
                                     
                                     

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________