[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)
____________________