[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 27, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H3920-H3931]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4502, LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN 
 SERVICES, EDUCATION, AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, ENERGY AND WATER 
   DEVELOPMENT, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT, INTERIOR, 
 ENVIRONMENT, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, VETERANS AFFAIRS, TRANSPORTATION, 
  AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; AND FOR 
                             OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 555

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4502) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human 
     Services, and Education, and related agencies for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2022, 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 117-12, 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 Appropriations or their respective 
     designees; (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 Appropriations or her designee to

[[Page H3921]]

     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 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations 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.  House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as 
     most recently amended by House Resolution 508, agreed to June 
     30, 2021), is amended by striking "July 30, 2021" each place 
     it appears and inserting (in each instance) "September 22, 
     2021".
       Sec. 6. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, July 30, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, or July 27, 2021, in 
     the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were 
     ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 
     8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.
       Sec. 7.  Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of 
     adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered 
     on the legislative day of July 26, 2021, or July 27, 2021, 
     may continue to be postponed through the legislative day of 
     September 22, 2021.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 
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

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 555. The rule provides for 
consideration of H.R. 4502, the Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water 
Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, 
Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, 
and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2022, under a 
structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Appropriations or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's 
amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro, makes in order 229 amendments, 
provides en bloc authority for the chairwoman or her designee, and 
provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule provides the majority leader, or his designee, the ability 
through July 30 to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension 
bills considered on July 26 or 27.
  The rule also provides that requested roll call votes on suspension 
bills considered on July 26 or 27 may be postponed through September 
22, 2021.
  Finally, the rule amends H. Res. 188 to provide recess instructions, 
suspension authority, and same day authority through September 22, 
2021.
  Madam Speaker, if you care about protecting our seniors and taking 
care of our veterans and military families; if you care about fighting 
climate change and combating gun violence; if you care about closing 
health disparities and creating good paying jobs; and if you care about 
our economy not only rebounding from the COVID pandemic, but being 
strengthened for years to come, then the underlying measure is a 
lifeline. Because these seven appropriations measures provide landmark 
funding to deal with our Nation's most pressing issues.
  It turns the page on an era where the prior administration demanded 
disinvestment in seemingly everything that helped all but the 
wealthiest of the wealthy. And now we are working with the Biden 
administration to stand up for our workers and to rebuild the middle 
class.
  It is no secret that the appropriations process can seem a little 
arcane. But this measure is truly historic, Madam Speaker.
  I want to make two points here in particular. First is what is not in 
here. Finally, after more than 40 years, the Hyde amendment is nowhere 
to be found. And let me say, it is about damn time. Because however we 
feel about abortion, we should not deny health coverage just because 
someone is working to make ends meet.
  More than half of the women affected by the Hyde amendment are women 
of color. Nearly one-third are Black, 27 percent are Latina, and one-
fifth are Asian American and Pacific Islanders, as well as indigenous 
women also covered by Medicaid.
  That is what inequality looks like, Madam Speaker, and I am proud 
that we are confronting it. The decision about whether to get an 
abortion is a deeply personal one. We don't know the circumstances. But 
I do know this: we should not defer to the politicians and special 
interest groups who want to impose their values on others. We should 
trust women and families to make their own decisions about what is best 
for them.
  It is about justice. It is about freedom. And it is about respecting 
women's personal autonomy.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank Appropriations Committee Chairwoman 
Rosa DeLauro for leading the way on this, and I want to recognize the 
many Congresswomen, in particular, who have waged a sometimes lonely 
battle year after year after year to make this day a reality.
  Second, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize language that is included 
here, which will help combat hunger across America. This measure 
expands access to healthy foods like fruits and vegetables to more than 
6 million people through the WIC program. It ensures that more than 40 
million people in SNAP-eligible families get benefits that they 
desperately need. And it also makes key investments in child nutrition 
programs, like school meals. This is incredibly important since we all 
saw the COVID crisis lay bare the truth about hunger in America.
  The lines outside our food banks included some of the most affluent 
cars from the wealthiest neighborhoods, because no one is immune from 
food insecurity.

                              {time}  1230

  It is an epidemic in every State and every congressional district in 
this country. Even before the COVID pandemic hit, there were more than 
35 million people who were going hungry in this country, including 10 
million children.
  The United States is the richest country on the face of the Earth. 
That anybody--anybody--goes without food is unconscionable, Madam 
Speaker.
  I have often said that we have everything we need to end hunger in 
America. We have the food, the know-how, and, yes, the money. The only 
thing we lack is the political will. Hunger is a political condition.
  I think that is finally beginning to change, Madam Speaker.
  For the last several months, the Rules Committee has acted as a kind 
of select committee on hunger, holding hearings, roundtables, and site 
visits, all to develop a road map to eradicate hunger in this country 
by 2030, as the United Nations has called for.
  I am more convinced than ever that, with a holistic approach and the 
full weight of the Federal Government, a hunger-free America is within 
our grasp.
  This rule makes in order my bipartisan amendment to provide $2.5 
million for a White House conference on food, nutrition, hunger, and 
health. The conference will bring together the heads of food banks, 
hospitals, government agencies, educators, farmers, the faith-based 
community, people with lived experiences, our business community, 
anybody who has anything to do

[[Page H3922]]

with finding a solution, not to hold an event that is essentially a 
press release, but to develop a real plan to tackle this, something 
with benchmarks that better connects the dots between all the different 
Federal programs and expands successful local and State initiatives.
  The first and only time such a conference was held was the same year 
we put a man on the Moon, over 52 years ago. It developed and 
strengthened many programs we still rely on, like SNAP, WIC, and the 
National School Lunch Program.
  A hunger conference for the 21st century can finish what was started 
so many decades ago by Senators George McGovern, Senator Bob Dole, and 
others.
  Senator Dole wrote to Ranking Member Cole and me recently, saying: 
``I remain proud of the work Senator McGovern and I did then, and I 
endorse your effort to secure a second White House conference to 
identify the next frontier of programs to finally end hunger in 
America.''
  I believe we can do big things, and I hope that we can do them in a 
bipartisan way.
  Madam Speaker, we can combat hunger; we can confront climate change; 
we can stand up for women's reproductive rights; and we can take care 
of the most vulnerable among us. This bill is proof of that.
  I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule 
and the underlying measure so that we can build a more just and 
equitable future for every single American.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the 
distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, and my good friend, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, today's rule covers H.R. 4502, a seven-bill 
appropriations package for fiscal year 2022, including the Labor, 
Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies 
Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member.
  Though I have great affection for my good friend, Chairwoman Rosa 
DeLauro, and respect all of my colleagues across the aisle, I think 
this package is deeply misguided, and I will be opposing it today.
  From the beginning, this package was structured on a flawed premise. 
The majority chose to use the 302(b) allocation numbers, the levels 
that tell each subcommittee how much money they can spend, that were 
totally off the mark.
  The majority chose to mark their bills to spending levels that called 
for a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending, and an inadequate 1 
percent increase in defense spending, less even than the amount the 
President requested in his own budget.
  At a time when our national security is facing repeated threats, 
ranging from the Middle East to Afghanistan to the South China Sea, we 
can hardly afford to return to the continual underfunding of our 
military that was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden years.
  What is worse, these seven bills account for a 21 percent increase 
over fiscal year 2021. Across the seven titles, the majority is asking 
to spend more than $100 billion more in fiscal year 2022 than we did 
just last year. This comes on top of massive spending earlier this year 
with the majority's $1.9 trillion COVID spending package, and at a time 
when Democrats in the House and the Senate are looking to spend another 
$3.5 trillion as part of a new partisan reconciliation bill. This is 
truly tax-and-spend politics like we have never seen before.
  But the problems with this bill aren't just with the amount of money 
that they spend. In drafting this package, the majority has also chosen 
to strip out longstanding bipartisan policy provisions and, instead, 
has filled this package with partisan, far-left policy that simply 
cannot pass both Chambers and become law.
  There is no better illustration of this than the majority's shocking 
decision to remove the Hyde and Weldon amendments.
  For 45 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations 
and Democratic and Republican majorities in the House, the Hyde 
amendment has been the law. It is a commitment that no Federal tax 
dollars can be used to fund abortions, except in certain rare 
instances, and a commitment to protect the conscience rights of the 
great majority of American taxpayers who are opposed to publicly 
funding abortions.
  Since 2006, the Weldon amendment has protected the conscience rights 
of healthcare providers to not participate in abortions if they have a 
moral objection to the procedure.

  The very same Democratic majority that controls the House today had 
no apparent issue with the Hyde and Weldon amendments just 1 year ago 
since they were carried on their Labor-HHS-Education appropriations 
bill without any issue. Yet, this year, the majority has inexplicably 
chosen not to include these bipartisan provisions, despite receiving 
support from every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee only last 
year.
  Removing language that has been included in appropriations bills for 
decades is not only an overreach by the far left, but it also threatens 
to destabilize and upend the entire appropriations process. 
Appropriations bills simply cannot pass both Chambers and be signed 
into law without this language.
  Eliminating the Hyde and Weldon amendments, given all of their 
importance to the American people, also eliminates the opportunity for 
bipartisanship. Without a bipartisan deal approved by both Chambers, we 
cannot reach a successful conclusion to the fiscal year 2022 
appropriations process.
  Removing this language sends us on a collision course for a yearlong 
continuing resolution or, worse, a government shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, I filed an amendment to today's package to restore the 
Hyde and Weldon amendments. I did not do so alone. I was joined by 
every single Republican Member in this body--every single one. All 213 
members of the Republican Conference signed on to this important 
amendment. Yet, when the Rules Committee met yesterday, I was shocked 
that my amendment was not made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I find it stunning that the majority would not back 
provisions that are this important to the American people. But it 
serves to show how deeply partisan the package before us today actually 
is. The majority simply prefers to ram through their own partisan 
policy rather than provisions that have had bipartisan support for 
decades.
  I find that deeply disappointing, Madam Speaker. But I know that 
today's bill will not be the last word. Whether the majority likes it 
or not, at the end of the day, we will have to reach a bipartisan and 
bicameral deal on spending for fiscal year 2022. The alternative is too 
bleak to contemplate.
  But if the majority fails to compromise and fails to work with 
Republicans, both here and across the Capitol, then they will have only 
themselves to blame. They will bear the responsibility for the 
consequences, a continuing resolution or, even worse, a government 
shutdown.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying 
legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Morelle), I want to point out, for the record, the last time 
we had a government shutdown was when we had a Republican Congress and 
a Republican President, so I am not so much worried about that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the chair of the 
Rules Committee, who not only leads us every day in the committee but, 
I think, deserves high praise for his inspired leadership on the 
question of hunger.
  I have been privileged to be in a number of hearings that he has 
held, and I know we are making a difference in the appropriations bills 
before us, so I thank him for his continued leadership in that regard.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.
  It is said that budgets are a statement of values. With this year's 
appropriations package, we are making our priorities crystal clear: 
uplifting working families and building a strong economic future for 
all Americans.

[[Page H3923]]

  This is arguably one of the most important funding bills in many 
years as it comes in the midst of a historic global pandemic that has 
left families and businesses alike reeling from its impacts.
  As we work to rebound from the devastation of the COVID-19 crisis, we 
must seize the opportunity before us and make transformational 
investments to support our Nation's recovery, both now and in the 
future. I am pleased to say that my colleagues and I have worked hard 
to craft an appropriations package that will do just that.
  I am particularly proud to have helped deliver essential funding to 
uplift families in my community of Rochester, New York, by expanding 
community health services, workforce development initiatives, youth 
programs, and more.
  We are investing in infrastructure, in better-paying jobs with 
benefits and apprenticeship training, and in affordable housing and 
daycare resources for working families.
  Madam Speaker, COVID-19 has shined a stark light on the inequities 
that have existed within our communities for decades. We have a 
responsibility to take action and ensure that we don't just rebuild 
what was, that we truly embrace President Biden's creed and build back 
better.
  That is why, with this appropriations package, we are also going to 
support equity for underserved communities with targeted economic 
investments, confront the climate crisis head-on, and invest in our 
Nation's greatest assets, its people, by empowering them with the tools 
they need to uplift their families and be successful.
  Coming out of this pandemic has not been easy, but we have made 
tremendous strides. Let's keep our foot on the gas, pass this rule, and 
move forward with this historic investment.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the rule and in support of 
the underlying appropriations bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4698 for immediate 
consideration. This bill addresses the growing problem in American 
schools of educators pushing their own ideology onto students by 
forcing them to use the pedagogy of critical race theory.

  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with 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 Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah 
(Mr. Owens), the author of this amendment to further explain the 
amendment.
  Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to moving the previous 
question so we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 4698, the Say No 
to Indoctrination Act, which prohibits Federal funds from advancing the 
hateful critical race theory concepts.
  I grew up in the Deep South during the days of KKK, Jim Crow, and 
segregation. I have felt the pain of racism and have seen and 
experienced firsthand when people act unjustly toward others due to the 
color of their skin. And, yes, it still happens today when individuals 
choose hate.
  Once an unknown academic theory, the increasingly pervasive CRT says 
that racism permanently stains the fabric of American society. The 
critical race theorists believe that we are defined solely by our skin 
color. They believe that America's institutions preserve white 
supremacy. Some even believe that our Nation is hopelessly racist.
  To try to make this divisive theory understandable, teachers often 
separate students into separate groups based on intrinsic 
characteristics like race, color, and national origin. In doing so, 
students are taught to judge others based on their appearance. In the 
1960s, this was called pure racism.
  In the span of a few weeks, Democrats have gone from claiming that 
CRT was only a myth to boldly embracing it. They have gone from 
dismissing parental objections to endorsing indoctrination in schools 
across the country. The American people are right in their distrust.
  Make no mistake, I want our students to learn about the hundreds of 
moments that shaped us into the country we are today. Students should 
learn about slavery and its legacy. Students should learn about the 
Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the 
Emancipation Proclamation, Juneteenth, Jim Crow, the Tulsa race 
massacre, and the Civil Rights Acts.
  They should also be taught and be proud of a Nation that, for over 
200 years, has progressed, a country that has shown its commitment to 
its mission statement that all men and women are created equal.
  We have not always lived up to our ideals but have come closer with 
each passing generation in doing so.
  Racism exists. I grew up with it and have zero tolerance for bigotry 
and hate. More can be done to create a world that teaches greater 
tolerance and respects the dignity of every individual, regardless of 
race, color, or creed. CRT is not the solution.

                              {time}  1245

  It is absolutely wrong and un-American to indoctrinate our children 
into believing that because of their skin color, they are forever part 
of the oppressed or oppressor class. Hate has no place in our schools, 
and CRT has no place in our classes.
  We live in a world of imperfect people and in a country that from its 
inception understood this. It was, therefore, placed within our mission 
statement a goal to grow, to change, and to form a more perfect union.
  I choose to believe in a country where we are judged not by the color 
of our skin but by the content of our character.
  I choose to believe in a country that empowers all individuals to 
dream big and to live fulfilling lives.
  Madam Speaker, if you share my belief in our great Nation, then you, 
too, will vote to defeat the previous question so we can take up and 
pass, on behalf of the American people, the Say No to Indoctrination 
Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, it should be easy to agree that schools, 
especially primary schools, should focus solely on facts-based 
education, without political overtones.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South 
Carolina (Ms. Mace), who will speak more about the importance of 
defeating the previous question because of the potential indoctrination 
of school children posed by schools teaching critical race theory.
  Ms. MACE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition today to moving the 
previous question so that we can immediately consider H.R. 4698, a 
critical bill to ensure none of the funds made available in any 
legislation providing appropriations may be used to teach or advance 
concepts that separate individuals based on race, color, or national 
origin; that would assign characteristics or assumptions to individuals 
based on race, color, or national origin; or that would state or imply 
that the United States is an inherently racist country.
  Critical race theory assumes that the tenets of freedom and equality, 
upon which our country was founded, are simply a mirage to mask 
systematic racism, and that our government should not provide any tax 
money to fund its teaching. Critical race theory is Marxist ideology 
that should not be taught anywhere or be used by anyone's tax dollars 
to be spent on our veterans or our children in public schools today.
  Critical race theory assumes that to be born White is to be born 
guilty and to be born racist. And to be born Black is to be born 
oppressed or to be born a victim. These concepts have begun to trickle 
into our public schools, even though the vast majority of Americans 
disavow it and reject it.
  Nothing could be more un-American than seeking to divide our young 
children based on factors outside of their control. You can watch many 
school board meetings across the Nation right now where parents, Black 
and White, are rejecting critical race theory.
  The future leaders of our country must be encouraged to chart their 
own path without seeing everything through a lens of race. Rather than 
teaching our Black and Brown and African-American children that they 
are

[[Page H3924]]

victims and they are oppressed, we can teach them that they are heroes.
  We can teach them about heroes in our history like Harriet Tubman, 
who saved 750 slaves, rescued them in one night in Beaufort County, 
South Carolina; we can teach them about Robert Smalls, who commandeered 
a Civil War ship during the Civil War and freed himself and everyone on 
that ship and their families; and we can teach them about Joseph 
Rainey, who was the first Black American elected to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, who was elected from the State of South Carolina, as a 
Republican, in fact, from South Carolina's First Congressional 
District.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 14 Media 
Matters article entitled, ``FOX News' Obsession with Critical Race 
Theory, by the Numbers.''

                  [From Media Matters, July 14, 2021]

     Fox News' Obsession With Critical Race Theory, by the Numbers

                             (By Lis Power)

       Update (7/14/21): Following the publication of this study, 
     Media Matters continued to track mentions of ``critical race 
     theory'' on Fox News. In June, there were 901 mentions on the 
     network, the highest number of any month and an increase from 
     537 mentions in May. In the past 3\1/2\ months there have 
     been over 1,900 mentions of critical race theory on the 
     network.


                             Original Study

       Critical race theory, to those who can actually define it, 
     is an academic and legal framework that examines the impact 
     of systemic racism on American society. For conservatives 
     however, it's the latest boogeyman they can use to scare 
     people into thinking America's children are being 
     ``indoctrinated'' by ``woke'' leftist teachers. And while 
     that is not even remotely the case, this idea is exploding on 
     Fox News and in Republican-run state legislatures, leading to 
     legislative bans in many states and skyrocketing mentions of 
     critical race theory on the network.
       As Media Matters has previously noted, Fox News' current 
     obsession with ``critical race theory'' has been a year in 
     making. What once was a slow trickle of monthly mentions has 
     developed into a full blown assault. Since February, month 
     over month mentions of the theory have more than doubled on 
     Fox News as the network has begun to spin an illusion of what 
     it is and where it's being taught (in reality, critical race 
     theory is not generally taught in K-12). Coverage of the 
     theory sharply increased in March, with 107 mentions on the 
     network according to data from Kinetiq media monitoring 
     service. The following month, network figures and guests 
     mentioned it 226 times, and by May, the number had increased 
     to 537 mentions. Not even halfway through June, there's 
     already been 408 mentions on the network.
       Just last week, Fox mentioned ``critical race theory'' a 
     record 244 times--an increase from the previous record high 
     of 170 mentions the week before.
       Fox has admitted its reason for this souped-up coverage: 
     the 2022 midterm elections. And in order to drum up outrage, 
     the network has repeatedly amplified a lie that critical race 
     theory teaches that one race is ``inherently superior to 
     another.'' More recently, in its continued efforts to 
     demonize it, Fox News has promoted a pamphlet that echoes the 
     white nationalist ``Great Replacement'' conspiracy theory.
       Fox's obsession with what it defines as ``critical race 
     theory'' has frequently crossed the threshold into the absurd 
     and overly dramatic. Fox host Tucker Carlson called it ``a 
     cult,'' while host Will Cain said it is ``modern-day Jim 
     Crow.'' Fox contributor Miranda Devine claimed that teaching 
     the theory would ``warp the minds of American children'' and 
     ``is a recipe for social upheaval and mental illness.'' Fox's 
     Newt Gingrich said it was being driven by ``people who want 
     to brainwash your child.''
       By labeling everything that has to do with race ``critical 
     race theory,'' Fox is attempting to shut down conversations 
     about race and racism--which is ironic given the network's 
     claims that it champions free speech. And even though many 
     conservatives who lambast it don't have a clue what the 
     theory actually is, their efforts are working as 21 states 
     are either introducing bans or have banned what they call 
     ``critical race theory.'' Many educators in those states have 
     argued that the bills and laws would essentially ``whitewash 
     history'' and have criticized legislators for making it 
     difficult to have necessary conversations about race.


                              Methodology

       Media Matters searched transcripts in the Kinetiq video 
     database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for 
     the key phrase ``critical race theory'' from June 2020 
     through June 13, 2021. We counted each instance of the phrase 
     as a single mention.
       Methodology update (7/14/21): Data now includes midnight 
     episodes of Fox News @ Night (which recently shifted its time 
     slot) and all new programming from June 14 through July 11, 
     2021.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, apparently my Republican friends and 
their allies in the media need a new scare tactic because they don't 
want to talk about things like the economy or how we put people back to 
work or how we crushed the virus. But we are not going to debate on 
whether racism exists in America because it does.
  We are not going to debate whether we should teach our kids racism is 
wrong. We should.
  We are not going to debate whether individual States and schools can 
decide what their kids learn. They can.
  And we sure as hell are not going to be lectured about racism by the 
party that is trying to dismantle the Voting Rights Act that Martin 
Luther King and John Lewis paid for with their blood.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Roybal-Allard), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on 
Appropriations' Subcommittee on Homeland Security.
  Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD. Madam Speaker, I support this rule and commend the 
chairs who worked diligently to produce funding bills that reflect our 
goal to ``Build Back Better'' for the American people.
  As vice chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human 
Services, Education, and Related Agencies, I am delighted that this 
bill lives up to its reputation as the ``People's Bill,'' thanks to the 
work and commitment of its chair, Rosa DeLauro.
  The bill has strong outlays in job training and apprenticeship 
programs, increased funding for childcare and worker protections, 
transformative investments to help adults in all communities access 
post-secondary educational opportunities, and critical investments to 
ensure our children can return to school safely and receive high-
quality education to overcome the pandemic setbacks.
  The Labor, HHS, and Education bill has historic investments to 
strengthen our public health system and ensure the infrastructure and 
resources needed to address future public health challenges.
  This includes increased investments in REACH, the Childhood Lead 
Poisoning Prevention Program, the Climate and Health Program, and the 
Chronic Disease Education and Awareness Program.
  As co-chair of the Maternity Care Caucus, I am grateful for the 
strong investments in mothers and babies, like the large increases in 
the MCH block grant, the Healthy Start Program, and Safe Motherhood 
programs. I am also pleased the bill expands the capacity of the 
Maternal Mental Health Hotline, the SAMHSA Pregnant and Postpartum 
Women Program and midwifery education funding within the Scholarships 
for Disadvantaged Students.
  Madam Speaker, President Biden said: ``Don't tell me what you value. 
Show me your budget, and I will tell you what you value.''
  I thank all the subcommittee chairs for outlining our values so 
distinctly in their appropriation bills, and I urge passage of the rule 
and this minibus.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a passionate advocate on this issue, who 
will speak more about the previous question.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, we should defeat the 
previous question in order to immediately consider H.R. 4698, 
Representative Burgess Owens' bill, called the Say No to Indoctrination 
Act.
  The Nation has awakened to the insidious ideology, or better said, 
theology of critical race theory and its allied neo-Marxian concepts, 
all spawned in the fringes of academia.
  After a few hardy individuals began focusing on this phenomenon, 
Americans have discovered with growing alarm that it seems to be 
everywhere: in the media, in the workplace, in our armed services, in 
healthcare, in churches, and, yes, in the classrooms where our school 
children are taught.
  With this daunting realization, employees, soldiers, and moms and 
dads from all walks of life have been speaking out.
  Now, the proponents of CRT are scrambling. Their first answer has 
been to play word games, to ridicule the notion that the ideology is 
present. But whether couched as CRT, critical social justice, conflict 
theory, race essentialism, intersectionality, White fragility, or many 
other names, Americans have seen it and they have caught on.

[[Page H3925]]

  So the second line of defense--we just heard it--by the activists is 
to erect a straw man to falsely ascribe to those who confront CRT a 
motive to deny or conceal racial and group injustice in our history.
  But Americans are on to that as well. They know that at the core of 
critical race theory is the mission to indoctrinate people, especially 
young people, into the idea that our country is forever locked into 
group conflict, especially racial conflict, so that the country, and 
certainly all White people, are irredeemably racists. It casts the 
American principles of individual liberty, meritocracy, and free 
enterprise as systems of oppression.
  This condemns the progress our Nation has made since first stating 
its founding principles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from North Carolina.
  Mr. BISHOP of North Carolina. Madam Speaker, CRT has nothing to do 
with teaching accurate history.
  It is impossible to overstate the danger of indoctrinating Americans 
with the belief that their race, or other group membership, is the 
primary determinant of their path in life.
  My friends, Mr. Owens' bill ensures that this poison is not funded 
with taxpayer dollars. The U.S. Congress should catch up with the moms 
and dads confronting school boards across the country.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and 
to support Representative Owens' bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, think about what we are dealing with as we gather here 
on the House floor. We have a pandemic that we are trying to crush, we 
have a crumbling infrastructure, and what do my friends want to talk 
about? A FOX News talking point.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 23 ABC News article 
entitled: ``Martin Luther King, Jr., the KKK, and More May Soon Be Cut 
from Texas Education Requirements.''

                     [From ABC News, July 23, 2021]

 Martin Luther King, Jr., the KKK, and More May Soon Be Cut From Texas 
                         Education Requirement

                          (By Kiara Alfonseca)

       Some lessons on the civil rights movement, white supremacy, 
     the women's suffrage movement and Martin Luther King Jr. may 
     soon be cut from Texas' public education requirements, 
     according to legislation being considered in the state--one 
     of several bills targeting critical race theory around the 
     country.
       The Texas Senate has passed Senate Bill 3 in a continued 
     effort to proscribe education on racial inequality in K-12 
     education. It removes several Texas Education Code lesson 
     requirements that were proposed by Democrats in prior 
     education legislation to be implemented in the upcoming 
     school year. It also stipulates that lessons cannot teach 
     that ``one race or sex is inherently superior to another race 
     or sex'' or make students ``feel discomfort, guilt, [or] 
     anguish'' about privilege or systemic racism.
       The concept critical race theory, an academic discipline 
     that analyzes how racism is perpetuated in U.S. laws and 
     policies, has become a lightning rod for conservatives around 
     the country amid the racial reckoning spurred by George 
     Floyd's death.
       At least 26 other states have introduced or implemented 
     similar legislation on race education by Republican 
     lawmakers, echoing concerns about racial division.
       Opponents say that children should not be made to feel 
     responsible for past injustices based solely on the color of 
     their skin or be forced to accept the idea that the United 
     States and its institutions are not only structured racially 
     but perpetuate that racism.
       Some teachers interviewed by ABC News have said critical 
     race theory isn't being taught in grades K-12 and instead is 
     reserved for academic institutions. Some Texas educators told 
     ABC they believe the fight against ``critical race theory'' 
     is a veiled attempt to turn back the clock on racial 
     equality.
       The new legislation, SB3, would remove several staples of 
     U.S. history education from state requirements, according to 
     Ovidia Molina, the president of the Texas State Teachers 
     Association.
       The state currently requires teaching ``the history of 
     white supremacy,'' ``the institution of slavery, the eugenics 
     movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is 
     morally wrong; the Chicano movement; women's suffrage and 
     equal rights; the civil rights movement'' and more.
       However, SB3 would cut those requirements--a move that some 
     teachers say signals a growing effort to remove specific 
     lessons from classrooms.
       ``Specifically editing out that you can't teach that white 
     supremacy is morally wrong--that is deeply concerning,'' said 
     Jennifer Lee, a teacher in Killeen, Texas. ``I think the 
     angle here is just . . . preserving the ideals behind white 
     supremacy.''
       Though the new legislation doesn't necessarily ban these 
     lessons from being taught, removing them from the list of 
     requirements means they may come under scrutiny due to the 
     vague, anticritical race theory language of this bill.
       Gov. Greg Abbott already signed anti-critical race theory 
     into law in June with HB3979--stating that teachers are 
     banned from linking systemic racism to the ``authentic 
     founding principles of the United States.'' But teachers and 
     advocates say it is so vague that it could infringe on their 
     ability to have truthful dialogue about history and racism 
     with their students.
       SB3 was added to the state legislature's special session 
     after Abbott signed HB3979 into law, saying said ``more must 
     be done'' on critical race theory in schools.
       And SB3 has been called troubling by education groups 
     including the National Education Association for its 
     potential to censor teachers and students in the classroom.


                `Provide guardrails' against `animosity'

       Defenders of the bill, including Republican state Sen. 
     Bryan Hughes who sponsored the bill, say that some lessons on 
     racial inequality blame white students for systemic racism 
     and creates tension between students of different 
     backgrounds.
       ``This bill is meant only to provide guardrails against 
     imposing division and animosity on our students,'' Hughes 
     said before the July 16 Senate vote. ``Since [critical race 
     theory] is so prevalent in higher education and since we see 
     it popping up in public schools, that's why it needs to be 
     addressed.''
       Other proponents of anti-critical race theory bills, such 
     as Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, have said that some lessons on 
     race could lead to the ``indoctrination'' of public school 
     students toward progressive political leanings.
       Ovidia Molina, the president of the Texas State Teachers 
     Association, said that students have so much to gain from 
     education about America's racial history, including those 
     that would be erased by this new legislation.
       ``We want to keep honesty in education,'' Molina said. ``We 
     want to make sure that we teach our students the truth, the 
     whole truth, the good, the bad, the failures, the 
     successes.''
       Molina said teachers have spoken up at hearings and called 
     their local legislators to denounce the new legislation--but 
     said lawmakers are not listening.
       ``They don't know what's happening in our public schools,'' 
     Molina said. ``We still want to celebrate women's suffrage, 
     we still want to celebrate the Chicano movement, we still 
     want to celebrate people of color, so that our students see 
     themselves in the history and so they see themselves in the 
     future.''
       The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to 
     requests for comment.
       Molina said that Texas districts have yet to announce what 
     punishment for teaching these subjects might look like for 
     teachers.


             Concerning shift toward `patriotic' education

       Some teachers told ABC they are worried about retaliation, 
     termination, or other forms of punishment. But others are 
     more concerned about what this shift toward more 
     ``patriotic'' education means for their students.
       ``One of the first things Hitler did was start to reform 
     education and impact the way that history is taught. One of 
     the first things Mussolini did was go through and incorporate 
     patriotic education,'' Lee said. ``Education has always been 
     that first line of defense in preserving a certain way of 
     thinking.''
       Former President Donald Trump, among several other 
     conservatives, have become proponents of ``patriotic'' 
     education in response to critical race theory and The New 
     York Times' 1619 project--which dissects the founding of the 
     United States of America and its legacy of slavery. Trump's 
     proposed ``1776 commission'' aims to envision U.S. history in 
     a positive light, instead of through a condemnatory, racial 
     lens.
       A school bus is seen outside Condit Elementary School in 
     Bellaire, Texas, on Dec. 16, 2020. San Antonio teacher 
     Christopher Green said he believes that lessons on race, 
     inequality and oppression are vital to helping children 
     navigate the world and understand our society.
       ``Rather than adding a more diverse perspective to the 
     teaching of history, it's eliminating things that really need 
     to be in there to understand the full picture of the American 
     story,'' Green said.
       The bill will now be headed to the state House, but it will 
     likely be stalled due to protests from Texas Democratic 
     representatives. They have fled the state in protest of new 
     voting restrictions, meaning there won't be enough members to 
     conduct business according to House rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, many of my Republican colleagues think 
they can interfere with everything from what our teachers teach in 
school to what happens between women and their doctors.
  This is from the party who pretends to be the party of local 
government.

[[Page H3926]]

One of my colleagues on the Republican side in an interview yesterday 
said that we should have cameras in the classroom to monitor what 
teachers do every single minute. So the party that claims to be the 
party of liberty and the party of local government wants to be the 
party of super-big government and control everybody's life.
  Give me a break. Let me close with that.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North 
Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise in favor of the rule and to highlight 
two amendments that I am offering to the minibus.
  In my home State of North Carolina, we lead the East Coast in 
offshore wind energy generation potential, and our manufacturing 
workforce stands ready to support offshore wind projects up and down 
the Atlantic coastline.
  Unfortunately, former President Trump issued a 10-year moratorium on 
offshore wind leasing off our coast that is set to take effect in 2022. 
This ill-conceived moratorium puts our State's ability to develop this 
resource and capture its economic and environmental benefits at risk.
  I am proud to offer an amendment to this bill, which would prohibit 
the use of funds to implement the offshore wind component of this 
moratorium while leaving the moratorium on offshore oil and gas leasing 
in place.
  This amendment, and a similar bill I introduced with Congressman 
Tonko, are essential in order to meet our State and national climate 
goals.
  My second amendment highlights the obstacles faced by pregnant and 
parenting students. Today, nearly 22 percent of undergraduate students 
are parents. Pregnant and parenting students face significant barriers 
in education, from difficulty accessing college, to insufficient 
childcare, to lack of holistic supports.
  As a result, pregnant and parenting students experience 
disproportionately low graduation rates as well as a median debt that 
is nearly 2\1/2\ times higher than that of students without children. 
Pregnant and parenting high school students too frequently find 
themselves pushed out of school entirely.
  My amendment instructs the Institute of Education Sciences to conduct 
a study on the obstacles pregnant and parenting students face in the 
pursuit of education and provides recommendations for improving 
educational outcomes, including graduation rates for these students.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from North Carolina.
  Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the rule, my 
amendments, and the underlying bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a distinguished member of 
both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to demand of the majority 
that they restore the use of the resolution of inquiry. Resolutions of 
inquiry are used by the House to obtain information from the executive 
branch. If a resolution of inquiry is not marked up in committee within 
14 days, it becomes a privileged resolution on the House floor.
  Now, for a year the majority has turned off the tolling days for 
resolutions of inquiry. They said this was because of the pandemic. But 
there is no need for this. Committees are open, committees are 
operating. The House floor votes have returned to near normal 
operations.
  This is a request for information. It is not an opinion. It is a 
request for information that we, as Members of the House, should have 
available from the administration.
  But if you want an opinion, yesterday I introduced a resolution of 
inquiry directing the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and 
Human Services to turn over information on the care of unaccompanied 
alien children in the custody of Customs and Border Protection and the 
Office of Refugee Resettlement. This used to be something in which the 
majority was interested.
  There is a crisis along our southern border, and the Biden 
administration and the majority should see the importance of having 
transparency for the protection of these children that are, by law, 
under our care.
  I urge the majority to restore minority rights, and turn back on the 
tolling days for resolutions of inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Let me just say that I think that it will be a lot easier for us to 
be able to accommodate the gentleman if he could control members of his 
own party from trying to disrupt and derail everything that we try to 
do here.
  Suspension votes, which are really pretty noncontroversial, that 
usually pass overwhelmingly, we have had to impose a new rule to be 
able to consider them in order to be able to overcome their objection 
to every single one of them. And now they are even objecting to that; 
bipartisan bills, Republican bills.
  Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort on behalf of some in the 
minority to try to stop all of the people's business, and we are going 
to move forward and get the people's business done. That is what we are 
doing here today, and we will continue to do that.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).
  Mr. TRONE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman McGovern for 
yielding, and also for his leadership on the Rules Committee and, 
equally important, his relentless leadership in the House to help those 
that are unacceptably hungry in America.
  I rise today as a member of the House Appropriations Committee to 
urge support for the rule and the bill, which includes important 
investments to fight our Nation's substance use and mental health 
crisis, and significant funding for the National Institutes of Health.
  The COVID pandemic has only worsened our Nation's addiction and 
mental health epidemics. The data is alarming. Last year over 93,000 
people died in America from an overdose. That is a 30 percent increase 
in our country. This year more people are reporting frequent thoughts 
of suicide and self-harm than ever before.
  Unlike COVID, there will be no vaccine for addiction, no vaccine for 
mental health.
  It is going to take consistent, increased funding to meet the needs 
of our most vulnerable Americans. I am happy to say this bill does 
that. I am also happy to have secured over $6 million in this bill for 
critical projects in Maryland's Sixth District that invest in important 
social services for the most vulnerable and job training in our 
community for those that need it the most.
  I want to thank Chair Rosa DeLauro for her work to lead this 
committee and invest long term in this important funding for our 
country. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the most distinguished 
defender of life in the Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, sadly the rule under 
consideration precludes a vote on the Cole amendment to preserve the 
Hyde amendment and Weldon conscience protection law as well as other 
pro-life amendments, including one that I first successfully offered 
back in 1983 prohibiting abortion funding in the Federal Employees 
Health Benefits program. All of our amendments were ruled out of order. 
That is tragic; we are not even going to get to vote on these 
lifesaving measures.
  Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment has saved more than 2.4 million 
lives, about 60,000 per year since first enacted. If retained in law, 
more innocent lives will be protected.
  It is time, I believe, for more of us to face the harsh reality of 
what abortion actually does to children. No one in the media ever 
bothers to expose the violent methods of abortion that include 
dismemberment of a child's fragile body, including decapitation; that 
drugs like RU-486 starve the baby to death; or that unborn babies 
killed by abortion at 20 weeks or later experience excruciating 
physical pain, and until rendered unconscious or dead by

[[Page H3927]]

these hideous procedures, the baby feels the pain of every single cut.
  Madam Speaker, abortion is not healthcare unless one construes the 
precious life of an unborn child to be analogous to a tumor to be 
excised or a disease to be vanquished.
  Mr. Biden once wrote to constituents explaining his support for laws 
against funding for abortion by saying, ``It would protect both the 
woman and her unborn child.'' He went on to say that ``those of us who 
are opposed to abortion should not be compelled to pay for them.''
  Over the years, the polls have consistently shown that Americans do 
not support taxpayer funding of abortion. The January 2021 Marist poll 
found that 58 percent of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion 
as opposed to 38 percent who support it. The Marist poll also found a 
supermajority of 65 percent Independents oppose taxpayer funding of 
abortion.
  Madam Speaker, unborn babies need the President of the United States 
of America and Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle to be 
their friends and advocates, not powerful adversaries.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, we can talk about polls. I have a poll here that just 
recently came out that shows the exact opposite of that.
  But rather than talk about polls, we should be talking about values, 
and a majority of Americans believe that women should not be denied 
reproductive healthcare because they can't afford it. They believe that 
people should not be denied healthcare because, you know, they are 
working hard to try to make ends meet.
  So, I mean, here's a poll that just came out that shows the exact 
opposite of that, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that 
Medicaid should, in fact, cover women's reproductive healthcare.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin 
(Ms. Moore).
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
this rule and the underlying legislation, which funds key health, 
education, and other priorities that our Nation has simply 
underinvested in for much too long.
  I am particularly appreciative for the increased investments in 
TRIO--and I would mention that is a bipartisan initiative--and WIC--
Women, Infant, and Children--among other things.
  I want to talk now about two amendments that I have offered to this 
bill, which were made in order under this rule. The first is a 
bipartisan amendment to increase the Low Income Heating Energy 
Assistance Program funding by $10 million. In the United States, 40 
million households every year are unable to afford their basic 
household energy needs.
  I know in my State the temperature ranges between 55 degrees below 
zero to over 100 degrees. So it is not optional to have heating or 
cooling.
  In many cases this means choosing between food, medicine, and 
electricity needs to make ends meet, or leaving a home that is unsafe 
and unhealthy because of the upper or lower temperatures.
  In Wisconsin, only 31 percent of eligible households received LIHEAP 
assistance in 2020. Increasing the funding available for this program 
will help ensure that more of our most vulnerable citizens have 
adequate resources to prevent their energy needs from further straining 
their budgets.
  The second amendment, Madam Speaker, would provide an additional $2 
million for school breakfast expansion grants included in the 2010 
child nutrition reauthorization. I am so proud that the committee 
included $10 million for this program in the underlying bill. Every 
child deserves a morning free of hunger and to have the opportunity to 
learn, grow, and focus in school without worrying where their next meal 
will come from.
  Currently, out of the 97,000 schools that participate in the school 
meals program, over 7,000 of them do not provide breakfast. With these 
additional funds, we can close the school breakfast gap.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman.
  Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, with these funds we can close 
the school breakfast gap and ensure that all students receive breakfast 
who want it.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend.
  Mr. VAN DREW. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this shameful 
legislation.
  This single vote encompasses seven unrelated spending bills. This is 
a broken legislative process.
  The bill includes poison pills that make it impossible for me and for 
my colleagues to support this in good conscience. This is exactly as 
the majority intended. Today's vote is simply an attempt to 
strategically inflict political pain.
  Our country is tired, tired of political gamesmanship, tired of 
partisan maneuvering, tired of this selfish dysfunction.
  On behalf of the American people, I ask the majority to stop. I must 
ask the majority to stop. There is an ability to work together. This is 
not it.
  If this were an earnest attempt at legislating, I could lend my 
support where appropriate. Unfortunately, I must oppose this rule and 
this legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am very proud of this process. The shameful process 
was when my friend's party was in control of the House and the White 
House, and they shut the government down. That is what people don't 
want to see happen ever again.
  By the way, I mean, these bills do things like tackle hunger, they 
lift up our rural communities, they rebuild health and safety 
infrastructure, they invest incredibly important dollars in the 
National Institutes of Health and medical research to try to find cures 
for everything from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's disease, to get a better 
handle on how we can deal with future pandemics. It creates and 
sustains good-paying jobs, it grows opportunities through education. It 
advances equal treatment for women.

  There are so many important, good things in here that, by the way, I 
think are bipartisan everywhere in the country but in this Chamber, and 
so this is what the American people want. This is what they voted for. 
I am proud of the Appropriations Committee, Chairwoman DeLauro, and all 
of those who put the American people front and center on our agenda.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Lois Frankel).
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this 
bill that invests in the love and commitment we have for our families, 
from the very young to the very old.
  It gets our children off to a good start with historic funding for 
pre-K and child care, and makes sure all children have access to high-
quality public education regardless of their ZIP Code.
  We want our children to have a chance to live out their dreams, so we 
make unprecedented investments in Pell grants for college students, 
including DACA recipients.
  And our grandparents have given us so much. To help them age with 
dignity and comfort, the bill increases funding for home and community-
based services and research on Alzheimer's and other conditions that 
impact older Americans.
  And, of course, we want our families to be safe and healthy, so this 
bill doubles funding for research on gun violence, pluses-up mental 
health treatment, and makes historic investments in combatting climate 
change and protecting Florida's Everglades, drinking water for 
millions.
  And this is a country that honors our veterans. I am proud to 
champion Centers of Excellence for Student Veteran Success programs 
that help veterans transition from Active Duty to civilian student 
life.
  And today we celebrate reproductive freedom with historic investments 
in Title X Family Planning program, which provides health service to 
millions of low-income patients in our

[[Page H3928]]

most underserved communities, and we eliminate provisions blocking the 
use of Medicaid funding for abortion.
  No matter how we feel about abortion, politicians should not deny 
someone's health coverage just because they are struggling financially. 
Women must have the freedom to decide when and if to become a parent. 
This is monumental.
  This is a bill filled with love and hope and justice that lifts up 
our families. I am proud to support it.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I wish I could say I was rising in 
support of this legislation but, again, we are being asked to vote on a 
bill that represents a missed opportunity on the backs of our 
constituents.
  I am pleased I was able to secure needed improvement for DFW Airport 
in the appropriations legislation. These projects would not only 
improve my district but the whole region.
  I have held roundtables and formed a working group with local leaders 
and stakeholders who know what is best for my community and what I 
heard from them and fought to include in legislation funding our 
government is, sadly, not what we are debating today.
  Instead of working to craft bipartisan legislation which Members on 
both sides of the aisle can support, the Senate can pass, and the 
President can sign into law, we are, instead, debating monstrous 
appropriations bills that are based on unrealistic, irresponsible 
funding levels and include partisan policy provisions that will only 
delay funding and passage.
  These political games only serve to impede badly needed 
infrastructure projects. No, the Democrats didn't shut down the 
government, they just tried to shut down the rest of the country. I 
would love to be able to work on legislation that we can work on 
together that will actually advance what we are trying to do in this 
country. I urge opposition to this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise to defend the dignity of life 
and the rights of pro-life Americans. We must protect taxpayers from 
being forced to fund abortion against their own conscience.
  The Hyde amendment which prohibits taxpayer dollars for paying for 
abortion has had bipartisan consensus since 1976 and the majority of 
Americans still support it today. This pro-life protection has saved 
nearly 2.5 million lives.
  Driven by a radical agenda, Democrats and the Biden administration 
have stripped this vital amendment from these appropriation packages. 
It is incredibly disappointing that Democrats want to force American 
taxpayers to bankroll the destruction of life.
  I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 18, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion 
Act, which would make this prohibition the law of the land. Pro-life 
Americans must stand together to protect the most vulnerable among us. 
Lives are depending on us.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill to 
prevent taxpayer funding from paying for abortions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the ranking member of the 
Budget Committee.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, we are debating a spending bill under a budget that 
doesn't exist. Six months into Joe Biden's Presidency and a Democrat-
controlled Congress, we have still not passed a budget for fiscal year 
2022. In fact, Democrats have been in the majority for over 1,000 days 
and they have yet to put a real budget on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  In this bill before us today, the Democrats want to give Washington 
bureaucrats an average increase of 21 percent. Their plan will fuel a 
massive growth in red tape that will harm small businesses. It will 
hurt working Americans and families, and it gives Washington more 
control over their lives and livelihoods.
  But notice what they have left out.
  What they have left out is, where is the money to protect our 
homeland?
  Where is the money for our men and women in uniform?
  Perhaps our colleagues have not brought these bills to the floor 
because they are ashamed to face the American people and explain why 
they want to flatline spending for our men and women in uniform.
  Or how, during the largest and worst immigration crisis of the 
southern border in years, they refuse to put in one additional dollar 
to secure our border.
  I suppose this shouldn't surprise us. Democrats have been very, very 
clear about their objectives. While we are debating a raise for 
bureaucrats, the Senate is figuring out how to abuse the budget process 
to spend at least $3.5 trillion more on their socialist agenda: amnesty 
for millions of illegal immigrants; subsidies for wealthy 
environmentalists; forcing States to expand Medicaid; and tax increases 
for working Americans while giving tax breaks for the wealthiest 
Americans.
  This is the first year in the last decade without a spending cap 
agreement and look what is happening. Without missing a beat, the 
Democrats are opening the floodgates to reckless spending. While they 
argue over how many trillions to spend, we are just days away from 
reaching our debt limit. Democrats have ignored runaway government 
spending this year and look what is happening: Americans are paying 
more at the pump and in the checkout lines than they have in years.
  The debate around our Nation's debt limit provides Congress with the 
opportunity to seriously address runaway government spending and rising 
inflation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 
seconds.
  Mr. SMITH of Missouri. But as we are here today, Democrats would 
rather bypass their budget process and talk about their liberal wish 
list.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  People always ask: Why don't you work together? How do you work with 
that? To come down here and to lecture us about deficits or about 
budgets, give me a break.

  When the gentleman's party was in power, when they controlled the 
House, the Senate, and the White House, they gave us a $2 trillion debt 
because of a tax cut that went to wealthy people, to big corporations.
  When they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they 
shut the government down. They couldn't even agree amongst themselves. 
It was the first time in history that we ended a Congress with a 
government shutdown.
  When they lost power, they gave Democrats a government that was shut 
down. We had to clean up the mess, and we continue to do that.
  In all of the years of disinvestment when they were in charge with 
Donald Trump, we are now trying to put the people first. That is what 
this is about.
  I am proud of this bill. I am proud of the investments in medical 
research, in our families, in our children, in our senior citizens, and 
in our veterans. That is what this is all about. These bills are being 
brought to the floor.
  I hate to tell the gentleman that is what we are doing; they are 
coming to the floor. He can vote ``no'' on them and go home and explain 
to his constituents why he voted against their interests, but that is 
what we are doing. And I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I am 
prepared to close whenever he is. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much 
time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oklahoma has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I want to begin by thanking my good friend, Mr. McGovern, the 
chairman of

[[Page H3929]]

the Rules Committee, as we always have a spirited debate and lively 
exchange and we don't always agree on things, but I always appreciate 
his faith in the institution, his willingness to engage in debate, and 
his friendship and decency as we work through our differences.
  Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a deeply misguided bill. I 
say that as someone who serves on the Appropriations Committee. The 
spending package covering seven different appropriations bills is 
marked to numbers that simply don't make sense.
  Contrary to what my friend claimed, we haven't had a massive 
disinvestment in domestic spending over the last 4 years. Quite the 
opposite. There have been steady and, I think, genuinely merited 
increases. This is an explosion of spending tied to additional spending 
that is promised down the road in the form of a $3.5 trillion 
reconciliation bill.
  Now, everything is funded except, as my good friend from Missouri 
said, the things that keep us safe and free. The defense budget is 
laughable. We have had a succession of Secretaries--on both sides of 
the aisle, by the way--who have told us we need a 3 to 5 percent 
increase beyond inflation in defense over the next several years.
  We don't have a defense bill on the floor. We are not likely to see 
one any time soon, but the reality is, the defense bill my friends 
propose actually is an inflation-adjusted cut in the defense of the 
United States, a cut at a time that we are dealing with Russian and 
Chinese aggression and dangerous adventurism in other parts of the 
world by regional adversaries like North Korea and Iran. That is 
irresponsible.
  We all know we have a crisis on the southern border. We won't see the 
Homeland Security bill either because that is flat funded and not 
meeting the obvious needs that we have there. But we do have an 
extraordinary explosion in domestic spending, one that is simply not 
justified and can't be sustained.
  If those were my only objections, I would think at some point we 
could probably find some sort of reasonable compromise, because my 
friends know at the end of the day they have to get to 60 votes in the 
United States Senate. However, in addition to that, they have ripped 
out things like the Hyde and Weldon amendments that have been in these 
bills for 45 years, in the case of the Hyde amendment, 15 or 16 years 
in the case of the Weldon amendment. Those are deal-breaking bills to 
us.
  Now, my friends have routinely voted for those things for decades; 
not for years but for decades, and Presidents of both parties have 
signed them. As I have mentioned to my friends yesterday in the Rules 
Committee, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the Hyde amendment, 
overwhelmingly Democrat in both Chambers.
  My friends have changed their view about the life issue. That is 
their right. I respect it. We have not. We have not changed our views 
on conscience issues. My friends know that if that language in the Hyde 
amendment and the Weldon amendment are not restored to the 
appropriations bills, they are not going to have any of these grand 
bills or even compromise bills. They are going to end up with a 
continuing resolution, at best.
  For those people who are watching that don't know what a continuing 
resolution is, it is simply last year's spending with the Weldon and 
Hyde amendments. In effect, a Democratic President, a Democratic House, 
and a Democratic Senate will have produced Donald Trump's last-
negotiated budget. That is where we are headed unless my friends decide 
to restore that language. That is an absolute deal-breaker for us if it 
is not.
  The other thing that I would mention to my good friends on the other 
side is that there is still some time to do some things. This is a long 
process, and I understand setting out your negotiating position. But 
let's not be under any illusion that what we are talking about today 
will ever become law. It will never be passed by the Senate. It will 
never reach the desk of the President of the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my friends to reject the rule, reject the bill, 
and sit down and bargain in good faith. We can get there.
  As I have said on many occasions, I have had the great privilege of 
having been chairman and ranking member of the largest component bill 
in this group. On six different occasions, both as chairman and 
ranking member, working with my good friend, the chairwoman of the full 
committee, Representative DeLauro, we came to a deal. All six times, 
the bill was out of committee, across the floor, signed by the 
President. It didn't matter who was chairman or ranking member. It 
didn't matter which party controlled. It didn't matter who the 
President was.

  That is six times in a row. We can do that again a seventh time in 
this bill. There are some good things in this bill, as my friend says, 
some things I certainly support. But there can be such a thing as too 
much of a good thing, and there is way too much of a good thing in this 
bill in terms of the amount of money it spends.
  At the end of the day, if we are going to have an appropriations 
process that works, if we are going to have a deal--and we both should 
want a deal--then the defense number is going to have to come up. The 
discretionary spending number, which is embodied in this bill, is going 
to have to come down, and the Hyde and Weldon amendments are going to 
have to be restored.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, earlier I referred to when one of my 
Republican colleagues came to the floor and had a meltdown. I 
commented: How do you work with that? Coming to the floor and yelling 
and screaming and scolding and distorting and trying to find the worst 
possible version of everything, that never accomplishes anything. It 
never does.
  Madam Speaker, I would never characterize my colleague from Oklahoma 
that way. When we get to a final product, he will be part of the 
solution because he respects this institution, and he understands the 
importance of give and take. We have some very strong disagreements in 
the Rules Committee but I never question his integrity, and he never 
questions my integrity or anybody else's on the committee. I wish there 
were more people like him, quite frankly, in this Chamber.

                              {time}  1330

  Madam Speaker, to hear some of my friends on the other side today, 
you would think that the sky is falling.
  What is so controversial about trusting women to make their own 
healthcare decisions, free from politicians and special interest groups 
trying to control them?
  What is so controversial about confronting climate change, or making 
America the world's clean energy superpower?
  Or helping our farmers in our rural communities?
  Or making sure our veterans have the support and the care that they 
have earned when they return home?
  Apparently, since Democrats proposed it, this minibus is a bridge too 
far for some. But I have to tell you, to most Americans, what is 
included here is just common sense.
  I am proud that we are doing our work and keeping our government 
funded, and doing so in a way that respects women's autonomy and builds 
a more just and equitable future.
  Madam Speaker, too many of these issues can't wait another day, 
another year, another decade for us to act, so I urge all of my 
colleagues to support this rule and this minibus so that we can meet 
the scale of the challenges that we face today and put the building 
blocks in place to grow our economy for years to come. That is what 
these bills are all about.
  Someone earlier described them as bills filled with hope and love. 
They are. This is about putting our families first. This is about 
respecting our kids, understanding that our children are 100 percent of 
our future. This is about understanding that we have a climate crisis, 
and we have to do something about it. This is about respecting equity 
and justice and things that, quite frankly, should be shared values.
  Madam Speaker, I know that there are some disagreements here. We will 
all get through this, work it out, and get to a conclusion, but the 
final product will be much, much better because of what we are doing on 
this House floor today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

[[Page H3930]]

  


                   Amendment to House Resolution 555

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 4698) to prevent the use of Federal funds to 
     advance discriminatory concepts, 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) one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 4698.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. COLE. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217, 
nays 201, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 222]

                               YEAS--217

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--201

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     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)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     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
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blunt Rochester
     Buck
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Crawford
     Higgins (LA)
     Kinzinger
     Loudermilk
     Mast
     McHenry
     Murphy (FL)
     Scott, Austin

                              {time}  1403

  Mr. LONG changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay''.
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. BLUNT ROCHESTER. Madam Speaker, had I been present, I would have 
voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 222.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Fulcher (Meuser)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Graves (MO) (Wagner)
     Green (TX) (Perlmutter)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Horsford (Jeffries)
     Jones (Williams (GA))
     Kelly (PA) (Keller)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawrence (Beatty)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Maloney, Carolyn (Velazquez)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Ruppersberger (Brown)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wild (Axne)
     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. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218, 
nays 207, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               YEAS--218

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     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
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)

[[Page H3931]]


     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--207

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Bourdeaux
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     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)
     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
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     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
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Buck
     Carter (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Mast
     Scott, Austin

                              {time}  1430

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Aderholt (Moolenaar)
     Amodei (Balderson)
     DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
     Fulcher (Meuser)
     Garcia (IL) (Garcia (TX))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
     Graves (MO) (Wagner)
     Green (TX) (Perlmutter)
     Grijalva (Stanton)
     Horsford (Jeffries)
     Jones (Williams (GA))
     Kelly (PA) (Keller)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawrence (Beatty)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Maloney, Carolyn (Velazquez)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     McHenry (Budd)
     Meng (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Ruppersberger (Brown)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wild (Axne)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________