[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 163 (Tuesday, September 21, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H4564-H4576]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3755, WOMEN'S HEALTH PROTECTION ACT
OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4350, NATIONAL DEFENSE
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
H.R. 5305, EXTENDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING AND DELIVERING EMERGENCY
ASSISTANCE ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 667 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 667
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3755) to
protect a person's ability to determine whether to continue
or end a pregnancy, and to protect a health care provider's
ability to provide abortion services. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. 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 Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4350) to
authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2022 for military
activities of the Department of Defense and for military
construction, to prescribe military personnel strengths for
such fiscal year, and for other
[[Page H4565]]
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a
substitute recommended by the Committee on Armed Services now
printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of a
substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
117-13, modified by the amendment printed in part B 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 Armed Services or
their respective designees; (2) the further amendments
described in section 3 of this resolution; (3) the amendments
en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution; and (4)
one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. After debate pursuant to section 2 of this
resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the
report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as
part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 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. 4. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to section 2 of this resolution for the chair of the
Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part C 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 Armed Services or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 5. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5305) making
continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2022, and for providing emergency assistance,
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
Appropriations or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 7. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Friday, September 24, 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, July 27, 2021, or
September 21, 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. 8. (a) Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX or section
7 of House Resolution 555, 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 October 1, 2021.
(b) 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 September 21, 2021 may be postponed
through the legislative day of October 1, 2021.
Sec. 9. House Resolution 188, agreed to March 8, 2021 (as
most recently amended by House Resolution 555, agreed to July
27, 2021), is amended by striking ``September 22, 2021'' each
place it appears and inserting (in each instance) ``October
27, 2021''.
Sec. 10. The ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion
that the House suspend the rules and pass S. 2382 is vacated
to the end that the motion be considered as withdrawn.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from North Carolina is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. 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
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
{time} 1615
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 667, providing for consideration of
three measures.
First, H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act, under a closed
rule. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman
Pallone, provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and provides one motion to recommit.
The rule also provides for the consideration of H.R. 4350, the
National Defense Authorization Act, under a structured rule. The rule
self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairman Smith, provides 1
hour of debate on the bill equally divided and controlled by the chair
and ranking minority member of the Committee on Armed Services, and
provides one motion to recommit. The rule makes in order 476
amendments, provides en bloc authority, and provides one motion to
recommit.
The rule further provides for consideration of H.R. 5305, the
Extending Government Funding and Delivering Emergency Assistance Act,
under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate on the bill
equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations, and provides one motion to
recommit.
The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to
en bloc requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills through
September 24. Requested roll call votes on certain suspension bills may
be postponed through October 1.
Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension authority,
and same day authority to October 27 and provides that the ordering of
the yeas and nays on the motion that the House suspend the rules and
pass S. 2382 is vacated.
Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the three bills in this rule, H.R.
4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022; H.R.
5305, the continuing resolution; and H.R. 3755, the Women's Health
Protection Act.
I want to start by recognizing the contributions of the North
Carolinians and all American servicemembers who served in Afghanistan
over the past 20 years. Your sacrifices will never be forgotten.
It is in honor of these American heroes that I am proud to support
the Fiscal Year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act. This bill
invests in our servicemembers and their families and ensures that the
United States is ready to confront future threats to our Nation.
This NDAA provides our men and women in uniform with a 2.7 percent
pay increase; makes critical changes to how the military addresses
sexual assault; and improves TRICARE coverage and benefits, including
by removing cost sharing for contraceptive coverage.
I am grateful that three of my amendments were made in order. Two of
these amendments aim to support military women and families by
requiring reports on access to menstrual products and accommodations
and on potential TRICARE coverage of preconception and prenatal genetic
carrier screening tests.
My other amendment expands the definition of PFAS to better align
with the current science. This change will help keep our servicemembers
and all Americans safe from toxic chemicals.
[[Page H4566]]
In addition to supporting our military personnel, this legislation
supports American innovation through a 32 percent increase in defense-
wide research, development, testing, and evaluation. It also ensures
that our HBCUs and other minority institutions are more able to
contribute to DOD research and development.
Finally, this bill continues our commitment to supporting our Afghan
allies by authorizing $500 million for the Department of Defense to
support the relocation of at-risk Afghans.
The continuing resolution included in this rule also supports efforts
to evacuate our allies from Afghanistan. Afghans arriving to the U.S.
or awaiting processing overseas need medical care, food, housing, and
other assistance. This funding will ensure the government agencies
involved in the resettlement process have the capacity necessary to
help our Afghan allies build new lives in safety in the United States.
In addition, the continuing resolution ensures that our government
remains funded, raises the debt ceiling, and provides relief to areas
devastated by Hurricane Ida and other natural disasters.
Democrat or Republican, we are all Americans. We all benefit when our
democracy and economy are healthy, and we all suffer when our country
is in crisis.
Every Member in this body was elected to represent our fellow
Americans. It would be a dishonor to the trust they bestowed upon us if
we let the government shut down or allow the country to default on the
full faith and credit of the United States.
This CR will provide much-needed relief to communities devastated by
recent hurricanes and other disasters like the California wildfires.
Thousands of homes have been destroyed, and many Americans still have
limited access to fresh water and electricity. Additional delays in
relief could be the difference between life and death.
Lastly, this rule includes the Women's Health Protection Act, which
safeguards reproductive freedom for people across this country.
Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for nearly 50 years. With
this bill, the House is stepping in following the Supreme Court's
failure to uphold decades of American jurisprudence.
This bill affirms what our Constitution and international human
rights bodies have long upheld: that access to reproductive care is
central to health and equality. A woman living in Texas should have the
same access to care as a woman living in California.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Ross), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my remarks in a positive way by
discussing H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2022. I am glad that this bill has not been poisoned by all the
partisanship that has plagued the House for the past year, and that, as
they have done for the past 61 years, the House Armed Services
Committee came together and produced a bill that both Republicans and
Democrats can support. We saw this in the overwhelming 57-2 vote to
report the bill out of committee.
This outcome wasn't always assured, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately,
President Biden proposed a defense budget number that was woefully
inadequate for America's defense needs. At a time when we are facing
new and emerging threats around the globe, from the Middle East, to
Afghanistan, to the South China Sea, we cannot afford to underfund our
national defense.
Chronic underfunding of national defense was a hallmark of the Obama-
Biden administration, and it appears that President Biden himself is
determined to continue down that path. Fortunately, both the House and
Senate Armed Services Committees disagreed, and the House now has
before it a bill that fully funds our defense needs for the coming
fiscal year.
The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the
U.S. Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and
development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military
will be well-prepared to meet any new and emerging challenges in the
coming years. And it provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay
raise.
And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions
designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled
withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about the
decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that
occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that
they will get them.
And while I do not support every provision in the NDAA, I want to
applaud the good work of the House Armed Services Committee. I think
their process should serve as a model for all committees in the House.
In an age when so much legislation is produced by one party behind
closed doors in leadership offices, the committee did the hard work and
produced a bill that both parties can support. Indeed, it is truly
refreshing to be considering this bill today, and I want to commend
Chairman Adam Smith and Ranking Member Mike Rogers for their good
work and bipartisan working relationship.
Unfortunately, the next measure I will discuss isn't nearly so
positive. This bill is a continuing resolution to fund the government
through December 3, 2021. But rather than advancing a clean, negotiated
CR, the majority is using the bill as a vehicle to push through a
suspension of the national debt limit. This is a nonstarter with
Republicans, as the majority well knows and, as such, I expect all
Republicans will oppose it.
Since taking control of the Presidency and the Senate in January, the
majority has been on a spending spree unlike any other in our history.
Earlier this year, the Democrats rammed through a partisan $1.9
trillion reconciliation bill, ostensibly about COVID relief, but really
about pushing forward a laundry list of progressive policies.
Last week, 13 authorizing committees met on another partisan
reconciliation bill, this one larded up with a whopping $3.5 trillion
in progressive policies like those found in the Green New Deal. And
sadly, even that wasn't enough for some committees, who, according to
the CBO, spent more than double what the budget resolution told them
to. These bloated spending measures come on top of normal Federal
spending and on top of the large bipartisan COVID-19 relief packages
passed last year.
The last suspension of the debt limit covered all the spending that
was done in the past, along with the first 9 months of the Biden
administration. But since then, the majority has opened the national
checkbook. They have done so with only Democratic votes. That is their
prerogative. After all, they control the White House, the House of
Representatives, and the Senate.
But since the majority is spending this money over Republican
objections, and without Republican cooperation, it is up to the
majority to raise the debt limit. They should not expect Republican
votes to help them cover their out-of-control spending.
Mr. Speaker, it is a sad state of affairs that what should be a
relatively simple measure to fund the government is being used in this
manner. I urge my friends across the aisle to rethink this plan, and I
hope they will come to their senses before government funding runs out
nine days from now.
Our last bill covered by this rule is somehow even more partisan and
controversial than the CR. This is H.R. 3755, which the majority is
pitching as a simple codification of the Supreme Court decision of Roe
v. Wade. In reality, this measure goes far beyond that. It is the
greatest threat to the protection of innocent, unborn life that we have
seen in over 50 years.
The bill before us preempts any State law that seeks to protect life,
including policies that those who identify as pro-choice support.
Instead, every single State would be required to allow abortion on
demand at any time up to the point of birth.
No more would States be able to protect conscience rights; no more
would they be able to ban barbaric procedures like dismemberment
abortions; and no more would they be able to prevent abortions
targeting fetuses with Down
[[Page H4567]]
Syndrome, which 70 percent of the American people oppose.
I would call on all Members, Republicans and Democrats, to reject
this measure.
Protecting the unborn has always been one of my highest priorities as
a Member of Congress. We need only to look at the Declaration of
Independence for a reminder that the right to life is one of those
inalienable rights endowed upon all of us, even unborn children, by our
Creator. I urge this House to remember those words, remember the
unborn, and to reject this egregious attack on life.
Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and two of the underlying
bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1630
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and
its underlying legislation. Specifically, I want to highlight H.R.
3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.
The passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg just a year ago removed the last
major impediment to an all-out assault by conservative extremists on
the freedom of American women to make their own reproductive choices.
With the culmination of a decades-long campaign to pack the Supreme
Court with far-right abortion foes, championed by The Federalist
Society and Mitch McConnell, we have seen a tidal wave of legislation
and court cases designed to overturn the constitutional protections
outlined in Roe v. Wade.
Those efforts have included S.B. 8, the Texas bill outlawing abortion
after 6 weeks and offering a bounty to vigilantes who seek to enforce
that ban; the Supreme Court's refusal to block implementation of the
Texas law; and the Court's scheduling of a December argument in a case
that seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade. They all demonstrate a clear and
present threat to women's reproductive rights in this country.
The decision to have, or not to have, a child is deeply personal and
may profoundly impact a woman's mental, physical, and financial health
and, in some instances, her very life. Women should have the freedom to
make personal healthcare decisions with those they love and the doctors
they trust, free from undue State interference and invasion of the
woman's privacy.
With increasing attacks on women's reproductive freedom, we are once
again seeing the urgent need for Federal legislation to codify Roe v.
Wade. To ensure that Roe's protections remain, we must absolutely pass
the Women's Health Protection Act and protect a woman's freedom to
choose a safe and legal abortion, no matter where she lives.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, I will offer an
amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4828, the Border Security for
America Act, for immediate consideration.
The last couple of days have made it plainly obvious that the Federal
Government has lost control of our southern border. More than 15,000
migrants have set up camp under the Del Rio International Bridge.
Customs and Border Patrol have been completely overwhelmed, to the
point that Texas Governor Abbott had to take things into his own hands
and deploy both the National Guard and Texas Rangers to stop the flow.
Rather than allowing the President to simply fiddle, we must do
something in Congress to address this unprecedented crisis. H.R. 4828
will address the ongoing crisis in three ways. It would require the
immediate resumption of construction of the wall at the southern
border; it would provide for new investments in technology; and it
would ensure an appropriate level of Customs and Border Protection
officers to fulfill CBP's mandate at all ports of entry and along the
border.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include the text of my
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Pfluger), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to further
explain the amendment.
Mr. PFLUGER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous
question. There is absolutely no denying that there is a crisis at our
southern border.
I spent Saturday in Del Rio, Texas, where I would invite everyone in
this House to go take a look for themselves at what I saw, nearly
15,000 people crammed under the bridge in unsafe, shanty-like
structures after bum-rushing our border and getting into this country
illegally. Meanwhile, the port of entry is closed, just a hundred yards
from this bridge.
Most of these people are from the age of 18 to 35, but I spoke with
many children, families, and even women who were expecting within the
next day, multiple of whom have given birth this past week, all while
suffering the sweltering heat, 100 degrees during that day.
You cannot fathom the horrific conditions--the rape, the assault, the
crime, the drugs--right here on our border.
I spoke to migrants who told me that the U.S. border is easier to get
into than that of Mexico, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala. This is
unacceptable and is a direct result of the Biden administration's
disastrous crisis and policy at our border.
Just today, senior DHS officials have told us that the border is
secure. It is not.
I am proud to join with Ranking Member Katko and my colleagues on the
Homeland Security Committee to offer a comprehensive border security
solutions bill. It is time to stop playing political games with our
security and with our immigration laws. We must return to policies that
we know work to stem the flow of illegal immigration and regain
operational control of our southern border.
Enough is enough. Something must be done. I urge my Democratic
colleagues to call this what it is, a crisis, and to stand for our
border security.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a Military.com article
entitled ``Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low-
Income Military Families.''
[From Military.com, July 27, 2021]
Defense Bills Would Provide New Food Allowance for Low-Income Military
Families
(By Patricia Kime)
A House panel is weighing a $770 billion defense policy
bill that includes a provision to give lower-income military
families a basic needs allowance--a stipend that advocacy
groups say would relieve stress and ``food insecurity'' among
U.S. troops.
The draft of the House's 2022 National Defense
Authorization Act released Tuesday contains a provision
similar to the Senate's proposal that would provide service
members additional money for food and other basics if their
household incomes do not exceed 130% of the federal poverty
level--which in 2021 meant $21,960 for a family of three,
$26,500 for a family of four, and slightly higher for even
larger families.
This is the third time the proposal has been incorporated
into the House defense policy bill; unlike previous years, it
also has been included in the 2022 Senate defense bill,
increasing the likelihood that it will pass later this year.
For an E-4 with several years in the military, a spouse and
two children, the stipend could equate to roughly $250 extra
a month.
Advocates say the provision is needed as junior military
service members face the stresses of supporting families in
areas where spouse employment is low or child-care expenses
make it difficult to pay monthly bills.
``When I got to the [Defense Department], I started talking
about food insecurity, and I really did get a look that said
to me, `We really don't think we have a problem,' '' Patty
Barron, deputy assistant secretary of defense for Military
Community and Family Policy, said at an event on military and
veterans food insecurity Tuesday.
The data is mixed on the extent of food insecurity among
military families. This year, the Defense Department's
Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation found that an
estimated 880 to 4,690 U.S. service members use the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, a rate of
between .08% and .42% of troops. Civilian usage of SNAP, also
known as food stamps, is 9.6%.
Critics note, however, that the report pulled data from
only two months in 2019, and the data does not include
numbers from 40% of states, including several with large
military populations such as California, Hawaii and Virginia.
``The reason we thought we didn't have a problem is, we
were looking at the low SNAP numbers, and we believe we are
compensating our people well, and if not, they will promote
out of it and get those pay raises to solve the problem,''
Barron added.
[[Page H4568]]
``The department is much more aware of the issue now, and
it is one of Secretary [Lloyd] Austin's biggest priorities,''
Barron said during the discussion hosted by the Center For
Strategic and International Studies.
A survey released in May found that nearly 33% of more than
5,600 respondents at an unidentified Army installation were
considered marginally food insecure, meaning they faced food
hardship or had difficulties ensuring that their food budget
stretched through the end of the month.
And according to a report from the organization MAZON: A
Jewish Response to Hunger, one in eight military families
experiences food insecurity compared with one in 10 in the
U.S. civilian population.
``The mental health of our service members is key to their
long-term connection to the military and the well-being of
their families, and given that we find service members'
mental health is associated with food insecurity, addressing
food insecurity may be one way to address [mental health
issues],'' said Matthew Rabbitt, an economist with the USDA
Economic Research Service, during the CSIS event.
The House Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee will
consider its portion of the 2022 National Defense
Authorization Act on Wednesday. The bill is expected to be
debated by the full committee on Sept. 1 and must be
reconciled with the Senate's version before it can become
law.
The proposed legislation provides for a 2.7% pay raise for
military personnel in 2022 and a number of other benefits,
including an increase in parental leave for service members
and designated caregivers as well as foster parents,
expansion of the department's in-home, child-care pilot
program and the establishment of an advisory council to
support the services' Exceptional Family Member Programs.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, it is unconscionable that members of our armed services
and their families are going hungry. I have heard about this in my home
State of North Carolina, where there are food banks associated with
military bases.
I am grateful that this 2022 NDAA will provide servicemembers
additional money for food and other basic needs. No one in America
should go hungry, especially those serving our country.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Biden administration's reckless and dangerous
policies have led to a crisis on the southern border, as the illegal
flow of drugs, weapons, and people continues to threaten American
communities.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs.
Spartz), my good friend and a distinguished Member, to speak more about
this crisis and solutions contained in H.R. 4828.
Mrs. SPARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my enormous dismay
with the situation at our southern border.
I went to the border three times this spring and have seen firsthand
the escalating human and national security crisis, but what I have seen
from my colleagues going to the border this weekend is beyond any
words.
Our government is becoming an accomplice to human and drug
trafficking for Mexican cartels and is completely disregarding its duty
to protect the American people.
I am an immigrant myself and value the contributions of immigrants to
our country over the years, but what is happening at the border is an
invasion of our country and complete lawlessness.
We are not an anarchy. We are a country with the rule of law. It is
our duty as Congress to help the State of Texas protect our Republic.
It is becoming even more urgent in light of the Afghanistan debacle and
increased risk for terrorism.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so
we can consider the Border Security for America Act.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding
me the time. I also am most appreciative to the members of the Rules
Committee, who have devoted an inordinate amount of time to bringing
this legislation to the floor.
I am also appreciative for the consideration of three amendments that
we will have in the NDAA.
Our first amendment, Homes for Heroes, requires the Department of
Housing and Urban Development, as well as public housing agencies, to
improve consideration of and reporting on the status of veterans.
Friends, outside of my office in Houston, there is an overpass. There
are persons living under that overpass, some of whom claim to be
veterans.
We need to know what is happening to our veterans in this country. We
want to make sure everybody is given equal opportunities and equal
access to the opportunities that we have in this country. But I
especially am concerned about the veterans because, quite frankly, it
hurts my heart to hear someone say, ``I served my country, risked my
life,'' and we find them sleeping under bridges. This will give us an
opportunity to get more information on what is happening to them.
The second amendment is the Universal Residential Loan Application.
This amendment will require housing enterprises to include a military
service question on the Universal Residential Loan Application in a
prominent position on the form.
This is done because many of our veterans are not aware of the VA
loans that are available to them, and we want to make sure that before
they sign that loan application, they understand that there are other
opportunities available to them.
We also have an amendment that will deal with our merchant mariners.
This amendment requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to
distribute a payment to the U.S. merchant marines who engaged in
qualified service during World War II and who have not received their
just desserts, in the sense of something positive, for something that
they did for this country.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, finally, the private student loan
borrowers amendment, I am a cosponsor of this amendment with
Representative Alma Adams. This would extend the private student loan
forbearance period to January 31, 2022, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as
the rationale.
I think these amendments are exceedingly important. They are in this
NDAA, and I will be supporting it in large part because these
amendments are there, as well as for other reasons that I have not been
able to discuss today.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the crisis at the southern border is affecting
communities across the United States, but nowhere is that more apparent
than in those communities that are near the southern border.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tony
Gonzales), my good friend and a distinguished fellow member of the
Appropriations Committee, to speak more about the need for the Border
Security for America Act.
Mr. TONY GONZALES of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the
humanitarian and national security crisis happening as we speak in my
district.
The flood of migrants at the International Bridge in Del Rio has
highlighted the vulnerabilities we have in both our immigration system
and as a Nation. That is why I rise today to speak in opposition to the
previous question.
We need much-needed commonsense reforms to provide the Border Patrol
with more advanced technology, supplemental boots on the ground, and
additional support to secure our southern border through
infrastructure.
In order to prevent an event like this from happening again, there
needs to be substantial policy changes.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier).
Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Speaker, to the members of the Rules Committee, I
appreciate the hard work that you have put into getting this bill to
the floor.
I am only going to speak about one issue in this particular NDAA,
something that I have been working on for 10 years.
This is a helmet that was given to me by sexual assault victims in
our military.
Since I started working on this issue, 200,000 soldiers, sailors,
marines, and airmen have been sexually assaulted in
[[Page H4569]]
the military, 20,000 a year. We have spent $2 billion on programs in
those 10 years that have yielded us nothing but more sexual assaults.
Finally, in this very bill, we are doing what we should have done 10
years ago. We are taking these cases out of the chain of command and
making the decisions by those who are professionals, who are lawyers,
who are trained, along with the investigators, so that we will have a
situation where sexual assault victims feel like they can come forward
and file their cases.
I have had too many servicemembers say to me that they were ready to
fight against the enemy that was outside the wire; they never thought
the enemy was going to be a fellow soldier.
I am grateful to all my Republican and Democratic colleagues who have
recognized, finally, it is time to put their safety first.
{time} 1645
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, it should be easy to agree that securing our
southern border is vital for national security. Our next speaker will
talk more about H.R. 4828 and the need for vital security improvements
as part of an overall strategy to secure and protect the southern
border.
I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Katko),
the author of the bill, and the ranking Republican member on the
Homeland Security Committee.
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the previous
question and in support of immediately considering legislation I
introduced with dozens of my colleagues to address the deadly, record-
breaking crisis along the southwest border.
Specifically, this bill, H.R. 4828, requires the Department of
Homeland Security to secure our Nation's borders through the immediate
renewal of the border wall project that was initiated by the previous
administration, major investments in security technologies, and
increased hiring of frontline Border Patrol agents and Federal law
enforcement officers.
The Border Security for America Act is a multifaceted solution to
secure our borders and prioritize the safety of Americans.
As a result of President Biden's misguided and destructive border
security policies, there were 208,887 encounters along the southwest
border in August 2021. That is a 317 percent increase from the previous
year.
August was the sixth straight month with more than 170,000 illegal
encounters, a trend never before recorded. In a 24-hour period on
August 1 of this year, the U.S. Border Patrol encountered over 5,900
individuals from 33 different countries trying to cross the border.
This is not seasonal migration from Northern Triangle countries, as
this administration would have you believe. This is a self-inflicted
disaster stemming from this administration's destruction of any
semblance of border security that began on President Biden's first day.
While many of us thought the border crisis couldn't possibly get any
worse, just this week over 15,000 migrants illegally surged into Del
Rio, Texas.
According to the recently departed chief of the Border Patrol, the
front line is rapidly losing the situational awareness required to know
who and what is entering our homeland. Border Patrol has already
intercepted known or suspected terrorists trying to come across the
border this year ``at a level we have never seen before.''
Illegal immigration is not the only threat along the border. This
year CBP has already seized enough fentanyl at the border to kill every
man, woman, and child in the United States seven times over. That is
just what we caught at the border. Without adequate resources and
personnel, fentanyl and other destructive drugs are able to flood into
our communities all over this great Nation and poison our constituents,
as has happened in my district in central New York.
In addition to ensuring preparedness along the border, the Border
Security for America Act would resume construction of the border wall
system, requiring the hiring and training of additional officers and
agents to maintain an active-duty presence along the southwest border--
something we don't have right now, an increased number of agricultural
specialists, K-9 units, and support officers.
We know these policies work and that President Biden's negligence has
already proven dangerous to our national security. That is why this
bill has the support of the National Border Patrol Council, which
represents 18,000 frontline Border Patrol agents and support staff. We
are simply trying to provide the frontline agents with what they are
asking for.
I often hear my friends on the other side of the aisle, whom I
respect, accuse Republicans of complaining about problems without
offering solutions. Well, here we are, giving you the opportunity to
vote on a strong, commonsense solution to secure our borders and
protect our communities.
I urge my colleagues to support the security of the United States and
to support our frontline men and women by passing this bill.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2022 NDAA authorizes funding for
cybersecurity investments in people, programs, and technology. It
directs the executive branch to establish a cyber-threat information
collaboration environment which will facilitate the transmission,
sharing, and analysis of cyber-threat information, which is so crucial,
particularly at this time.
This legislation implements key recommendations of the National
Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence by authorizing funding
for key AI-related initiatives, including investments in the workforce,
emerging technologies research, and support for our small business
contractors.
Additionally, the legislation authorizes funding to support
biological threat reduction programs, requires a publicly available
report on threats regarding weapons of mass destruction by China and
Russia, and directs a report on biosecurity efforts across the
Department of Defense, all needed and crucial investments.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, and a fellow member
of the Rules Committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, and a member
of the Budget Committee.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, the National Defense Authorization Act
includes a provision requiring women now to register for the Selective
Service. We all know that men have 30 days from their 18th birthday to
register for the Selective Service in case a draft becomes necessary.
Of course, we also know the last draft was during the Nixon
administration in 1972.
We are fortunate to have an all-volunteer military force, and we know
that our citizens unite in times of need. The Selective Service System
has outlived its necessity.
However, since it remains a requirement, we must not fundamentally
change the relationship between the government and the governed by
adding a provision to add women to the draft in this massive defense
bill.
A change of this magnitude requires its own vote by every Member
representing their constituents. I supported an amendment to strike
this language from the bill by the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs.
Greene), but unfortunately the Democrats are not permitting its
consideration on the floor.
I think this is a mistake. I think we should be heard. I think we
should be transparent, we should be recorded, and then let's get on
with the business of replacing the Selective Service System.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from North
Carolina for her leadership.
Let me make a proclamation here on the floor of the House, that when
you have the responsibility of governing, you govern.
The President of the United States, President Biden, who believes in
transformational government, the House and the Senate, the House under
the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the Senate under the leadership of
Chuck Schumer. You govern. Today, we are making an enforced, pointed,
and open statement about governing.
Let me quickly start with the NDAA, the vehicle that helps the men
and
[[Page H4570]]
women who put on the uniform unselfishly on our behalf. I am excited
about the increase in quality-of-life dollars, the raise in personnel
salaries, the concern about families. I am increasingly excited about
cyber protection, and as well that we ask the hard questions about
Afghanistan and how we will not see the return of such. But we are not
afraid to govern by asking those questions so that we can move forward.
I am also excited about recognizing that the quality-of-life issues
for our members in the military are important. The Jackson Lee
amendments emphasize those points:
$10 million to fight triple-negative breast cancer impacting our
women in the United States military, particularly women of color.
$2.5 million in PTSD. I have heard many times we give to PTSD, but it
keeps growing and growing, and there are those in our constituency, our
constituents who need these ongoing services. I have been working on
this for a long time.
To recognize that we must treat our men and women that go into the
United States military academies fairly. Does anyone know that they
admit people with speech disorders? Good for them. But when they
graduate, they are not given a command. My amendment, that I hope to
become law, will determine that you analyze all of your military
students to make sure they have a command when they graduate.
I am most excited about one that I will talk about quickly later.
And then, of course, we have done so much great work with the
momnibus to look at maternal mortality rates for military members
traveling around the world.
Space debris, to determine how we can remediate the risks and outline
plans to reduce the incidence of space debris.
To be able to ensure that we stop students from being recruited when
they go overseas to be engaged in spy operations. That happens. And we
are glad to have that, as well as to begin looking at renaming some of
these bases after historic African Americans.
Let me quickly say that amendment No. 194 should be one that we all
come together on, tracing the history of the service of African
Americans in the United States military, particularly in slavery, to
recognize that they can be a vital legacy to the United States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1
minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I will talk further about that as we
move into the NDAA, but let me talk about my original premise of
governing.
The continuing appropriations is crucial, and I support the lifting
of the debt ceiling not to spend money, but--when you have
responsibility to govern, you govern--to pay our bills. Does anyone
want to suggest that we should not?
I am looking for a few good men and women on the other side of the
aisle that will stand with us as Americans and be responsible to our
fellow Americans, governing, so that we can ensure we have a
supplemental food program and other aspects of it, but we have to
govern.
More response to COVID-19.
And finally, it is important to give women back their rights. Roe v.
Wade is the law of the land, and we are going to pass that legislation
along with my anti-stalking and vigilante bill because people are
suffering with the Texas law. It has no place in society. It is a
violation of the Constitution of the United States, and it should be
quashed, with the Roe v. Wade codification. I ask the other body to
support us in that. I ask everyone to support the underlying bills.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Jackson), my good friend, and a distinguished member of the House
Armed Services Committee.
Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of one of the most
important bills that comes before Congress, the NDAA. This year's NDAA
follows the National Defense Strategy by modernizing our military,
providing a pay raise for servicemembers, and restoring readiness.
This legislation will modernize our nuclear triad, supporting the
work done at the Pantex plant in Amarillo.
The NDAA also includes provisions that will support Sheppard Air
Force Base by funding the new fighter trainer and authorizing military
construction for a new child development center.
Also included are countless provisions I authored that put
servicemembers first and ensure the safety of all soldiers, airmen,
marines, and guardians.
The NDAA continues efforts on the Future Vertical Lift to make sure
we have a rotary aircraft that can operate in future conflicts with
China or Russia.
As we consider amendments, I hope that this bill remains focused on
national security and can be passed in a good-faith manner as we did
almost unanimously in committee.
Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for
their leadership in putting together a bipartisan defense bill.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I want to highlight an amendment that is sponsored by
several of our colleagues that will be in the NDAA and that we will
hear more about this evening and tomorrow. It deals with PFAS, forever
chemicals. We have debated issues about PFAS on this floor, but
unfortunately members of our armed services sometimes end up being
human guinea pigs for these PFAS.
This amendment will deal with many of these concerns. It directs the
Secretary of Defense to provide DOD medical providers with mandatory
training with respect to the potential health effects of PFAS. We have
seen this in North Carolina, particularly at Fort Bragg.
It requires the EPA to obtain analytical reference standards for
PFAS, for the development of protocols and methodologies and
enforcement activities.
It clarifies the scope of PFAS data reporting from the 2020 NDAA.
It amends title III, section 318 to clarify that DOD must comply with
safe incineration of PFAS as enacted in section 330 of the NDAA of
fiscal year 2020.
It requires the report on DOD progress to comply with EPA safe PFAS
disposal guidelines, and it requires that this report be submitted one
year after enactment of the act, and it includes that they report to
the Committee on Armed Services.
{time} 1700
It requires the report to include the actions the DOD has taken to
comply with that section. It defines the scope of prohibition to ensure
that PFAS materials sent to third-parties for disposal are also covered
by the provisions.
It expresses the sense of Congress that the Air Force has
contaminated real property with PFOS and PFOA chemicals, and it should
use existing authority to acquire property and provide relocation
assistance.
It requires a report detailing contamination sites and acquisition
and relocation status.
It requires a national primary drinking water regulation for PFAS,
and clarifies congressional intent by requiring manufacturers to
disclose all PFAS discharges over 100 pounds.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Comer), my good friend and the distinguished ranking
member of the Oversight Committee.
Mr. COMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to certain
PFAS-related provisions that are included in the National Defense
Authorization Act.
While it is important to provide funding for cleanup, it is also
critical that efforts to regulate PFAS do so in a way that defines the
chemicals consistently, adequately, and properly as supported by sound
science. In this current version of the NDAA, what is defined as PFAS
is left open to interpretation or defined under an extremely broad
definition.
Broad definition risks subjecting thousands of chemicals to
unnecessary restrictions and create regulatory uncertainty for numerous
products. A few products that could fall under this overly broad
definition include lithium ion batteries, semiconductors, refrigerants,
and medical devices. These products that could be impacted, provide
critical benefits to our military
[[Page H4571]]
and our broader society and should be manufactured in the United
States.
In the NDAA and with all legislation it is essential that we properly
define PFAS up front so that implementing regulations can focus on
materials such as PFOA and PFOS where there is scientific consensus for
regulation. Throughout bicameral negotiations, I urge the careful
consideration of drafting PFAS definitions that are properly focused,
targeted, and supported by sound science.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out some additional benefits
of this NDAA in dealing with global challenges.
H.R. 4350 invests in tools to combat the unprecedented challenge of a
global pandemic, racial inequities, and a deepening climate emergency.
The NDAA authorizes funding for national defense and prioritizes
programs and policies to confront the growing threat of China and
Russia.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte), my good friend.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that the continuing
resolution we are debating this afternoon includes a suspension of the
limit on our national debt through the end of next year.
Our national debt is already at historic levels. In fact, today our
national debt represents about $85,000 for every American man, woman,
and child, and it is going to get worse.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that at the rate we are
going in just a few short years that debt will more than double, and
just paying interest on that debt will consume 10 percent of everything
our country makes.
Every other time we have considered raising this debt ceiling that
conversation has been accompanied by a discussion of how we are going
to pay that money back. But, unfortunately, that is not occurring
today.
I have introduced a constitutional amendment that would require the
Federal budget to be balanced, which would help us pay down this
national debt over time. But absent discussion of getting our fiscal
house in order, it is unconscionable to leave that legacy of debt to
our children and kick the can down the road.
Mr. Speaker, I must urge a ``no'' vote.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, there are additional wonderful amendments
dealing with cybersecurity that are in the NDAA.
We will hear again about another cybersecurity training pilot program
for the Department of Veterans Affairs for veterans and members of the
Armed Forces transitioning from service to civilian life. It creates a
registered apprenticeship program at the Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency focused on cybersecurity and
infrastructure security. Both programs will be established in
coordination with the Department of Defense.
We know that we do not have enough people in civilian life with this
cybersecurity training as we face these threats like we saw in my home
State of North Carolina with the Colonial Pipeline.
Having this transition from DOD to civilian life and having
supportive apprenticeship programs will go a long way to fighting
cybersecurity.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs), my good friend.
Mr. JACOBS of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4350,
the National Defense Authorization Act.
Our Nation faces many challenges in the coming years, from the
growing threat of terrorism brought on by our reckless withdrawal from
Afghanistan to Chinese aggression.
This bill reverses defense cuts proposed by the Biden administration
to fund our military and ensure our Nation can counter any threat.
It also addresses President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from
Afghanistan by prohibiting financial support to the Taliban and
allocating resources for counterterrorism operations.
In addition, it provides our troops a pay raise and supports the
procurement of essential equipment.
Finally, the bill includes a bill I introduced to improve retention
and readiness for providing opportunities for reservists, and the rule
makes in order my amendment that will get more small and innovative
companies access to DOD contracts.
Mr. Speaker, we face numerous challenges both today and in the
future. This legislation prioritizes resources for our military at a
critical time, and I urge its passage.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the distinguished
Republican ranking member of the Budget Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Oklahoma for yielding.
For months, Democrats have been pursuing a radical partisan agenda
that will pile on trillions to our debt, and we are here today where
they are asking Republicans to basically help them get a loan.
They are pushing the most expensive piece of legislation in the
history of the United States with the largest tax increase in the
history of the United States. And yet Democrats are demanding we hold
the door open so that they can ram through this partisan reckless
agenda.
The debt limit is a chance for Congress to address government
spending, something we have done since 1985.
Sadly, today, the Democrats are playing chicken with a government
shutdown by tying the debt ceiling to a CR so they can enact their
multi-trillion-dollar partisan tax and spending plan, which currently
clocks in at $4.3 trillion, no matter the harm it will do, no matter
how it will fuel more inflation that is crippling family budgets.
Budget Republicans sent a letter to Congressional leaders back in
July outlining over half a dozen approaches Congress has taken in the
past to address government spending with a debt limit increase.
But they have ignored all of our suggestions, because the fact of the
matter is my colleagues have one goal in mind, an agenda of more
spending, more debt, and more taxes on working-class Americans.
Democrats control the White House, they control the Senate, and they
control the House. If they want to spend trillions of Americans' tax
dollars, they can stand alone and ask for that loan.
But Republicans will not cosign a loan for the Democrats' reckless
agenda that harms working families, fuels more record inflation, and
rewards their political allies and donors.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 101
faith-based religious and civil rights organizations expressing their
support for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.
June 16, 2021.
Hon. Dick Durbin,
Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on The
Constitution, Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on The Constitution, Washington, DC.
101 Faith-Based, Religious, & Civil Rights Organizations Express
Support for the Women's Health Protection Act
Dear Senators Durbin, Grassley, Blumenthal, Cruz, and
Committee Members: As faith-based, religious, and civil
rights organizations that share a commitment to religious
freedom and the separation of religion and government, we
write to express our strong and unequivocal support for S
1975, the Women's Health Protection Act.
We affirm our nation's founding principle of religious
liberty, which is integrally bound to reproductive freedom.
Religious liberty includes the right to follow one's own
faith or moral code in making critical, personal reproductive
health decisions, without political interference. While we
respect the right of every individual, including our
lawmakers, to hold their own personal and religious beliefs,
our country's Constitution demands that no one impose a
single religious viewpoint on all through civil law or
regulation. The Women's Health Protection Act is essential
legislation that embodies these shared ideals.
The Women's Health Protection Act is urgently needed. The
nearly 500 abortion bans and restrictions enacted since 2011
have severely reduced or eliminated abortion access
[[Page H4572]]
in large swaths of the country and fall hardest on those who
already face barriers to accessing health care--including
women; Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC); those
working to make ends meet; members of the LGBTQI+ community;
immigrants; young people; those living in rural communities;
and people with disabilities. The Women's Health Protection
Act is an important bill that would enact protections on the
federal level to safeguard access to high-quality care and to
secure constitutional rights by protecting patients and
providers from political or religious interference.
Rather than face onerous barriers due to their economic
status, employment status, or zip code, this bill would
ensure that each person can make a decision about abortion
led by their own circumstances, faith, or beliefs. It would
also protect the religious liberty of individual health care
providers seeking to administer quality care to their
patients and enable providers to deliver abortion services
free from burdensome restrictions designed to impede access
rather than improve patient health.
We believe in compassion, justice, and dignity for all,
compelling us to speak out for social justice and the right
of every person to access comprehensive, affordable, and
equitable reproductive health care. A compassionate nation
ensures equal access to quality, timely health abortion care
for everyone, an essential factor to social and economic
participation, reproductive and moral autonomy, and the right
to determine our own lives. In contrast, laws that limit the
availability of abortion disrespect human dignity, erode
constitutional rights, exact far-reaching health and economic
consequences, and ignore the moral agency of physicians
seeking to provide compassionate care.
Furthermore, laws that eliminate options for some based on
their geographic location are profoundly unjust, pushing care
out of reach for the most marginalized among us. We cannot
remain idle as state laws transform our country into a map of
``haves and have-nots'' with regard to access to reproductive
health services. We call on Congress to pass Women's Health
Protection Act to protect access to abortion and to help us
build a society where all can participate equally and thrive
in our communities with dignity.
Every day, we support equal, fair, and comprehensive access
to health care and respect for personal decision-making. We
support the Women's Health Protection Act as a means to this
end and urge you and your colleagues to do the same. The
117th Congress must act in solidarity with people and
communities fighting for racial, economic, and reproductive
justice and commit to protecting the right of every person to
make their own decisions about their bodies, free from
discrimination and political interference. It is the right
thing to do.
Please contact Shannon Russell, Legislative Counsel at the
National Council of Jewish Women, with any questions or for
additional information.
Respectfully,
National Council of Jewish Women, Catholics for Choice,
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Union for Reform
Judaism, Women of Reform Judaism.
National Organizations
A Critical Mass: Women Celebrating Eucharist; African
American Ministers In Action (AAMIA); ALEPH: Alliance for
Jewish Renewal; Ameinu; American Atheists; American Humanist
Association; American Jewish World Service; Anti-Defamation
League; Avodah; Bend the Arc: Jewish Action; CenterLink:
The Community of LGBT Centers; Central Conference of
American Rabbis; Chicago Women-Church; Clergy Advocacy
Board of Planned Parenthood Federation of America; CORPUS;
Disciples Justice Action Network; Episcopal Women's
Caucus; Freedom From Religion Foundation.
Global Justice Institute (MCC); Habonim Dror North America;
Human Rights Campaign; Interfaith Voices for Reproductive
Justice; Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action; Jewish
Council for Public Affairs (JCPA); Jewish Women
International; Jews United for Justice; Keshet; Methodist
Federation for Social Action; Metropolitan Community Churches
(MCC); Moving Traditions; Muslim Advocates; Muslims for
Progressive Values; National Center for Lesbian Rights;
National Center for Transgender Equality; National Coalition
of American Nuns (NCAN); National Organization for Women.
Network of Jewish Human Service Agencies; People For the
American Way; Presbyterians Affirming Reproductive Options;
Rabbinical Assembly; Reconstructing Judaism,
Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association; Religious
Institute; Society for Humanistic Judaism; Tivnu: Building
Justice; T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights;
Unitarian Universalist Women's Federation; United Church of
Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries; Voices for Progress;
We Testify; Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics, and Ritual
(WATER); Women's League for Conservative Judaism; Women's
Ordination Conference.
State & Local Organizations
Florida Interfaith Coalition for Reproductive Health and
Justice; Jewish Community Action; Just Texas: Faith Voices
for Reproductive Freedom; Michigan Organization on Adolescent
Sexual Health (MOASH); Michigan Unitarian Universalist Social
Justice Network (MUUSJN); National Council of Jewish Women,
Arizona Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Atlanta
Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Austin Section;
National Council of Jewish Women, Chicago North Shore
Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Cleveland Section;
National Council of Jewish Women, Colorado Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Essex County Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Greater Dallas Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Greater Long Beach & West Orange
County Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Greater New
Orleans Section.
National Council of Jewish Women, Houston Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Jersey Hills Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Kansas City Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Maine Section; National Council of
Jewish Women, Milwaukee Section; National Council of Jewish
Women, Minnesota Section; National Council of Jewish Women,
Nashville Section; National Council of Jewish Women, New York
Section; National Council of Jewish Women, Northern Virginia;
National Council of Jewish Women, Palm Beach Section;
National Council of Jewish Women, Peninsula Section; National
Council of Jewish Women, Pittsburgh Section; National Council
of Jewish Women, Sacramento Section; National Council of
Jewish Women, San Antonio Section; National Council of Jewish
Women, Sarasota-Manatee Section; National Council of Jewish
Women, Southeast Atlantic Section.
National Council of Jewish Women, South Cook Section;
National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section; Nebraska
Religious Council for Reproductive Freedom; New Mexico
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Ohio Religious
Coalition for Reproductive Choice; PA Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Justice; Religious Coalition for Reproductive
Choice of Connecticut, Inc.; Rhode Island Religious Coalition
for Reproductive Freedom; Sister Reach; South Carolina
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice; Texas Freedom
Network; United Church of Christ Detroit Area Social Justice
Team.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the
National Nurses United, dated September 21 expressing their resounding
support for H.R. 3755.
The letter states: ``On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses
represented by the National Nurses United, we write to you today to
endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 sponsored by
Representative Chu. We strongly urge you to vote `yes' on this critical
piece of legislation when it is brought to the floor of the House of
Representatives.''
National Nurses United,
September 21, 2021.
Dear Representative: National Nurses United supports the
right of all women and people who can get pregnant to full
and equal healthcare services, including reproductive and
family planning health services as a fundamental human right.
On behalf of the 175,000 registered nurses represented by
National Nurses United (NNU), we write to you today to
endorse the Women's Health Protection Act of 2021 (HR 3755)
sponsored by Representative Judy Chu. We strongly urge you to
vote yes on this critical piece of legislation when it is
brought to a vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives.
The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) establishes a
statutory right for health professionals to provide abortion
care without any medically unnecessary restrictions or
limitations that impede access to abortion. With increasing
attacks on reproductive rights, it is critical that Congress
swiftly takes steps to protect access to abortion and
reproductive health care.
Nurses, the majority of whom are women, play an essential
role in the delivery of reproductive health services for
millions of patients every day, and we have a duty to
advocate for the health and safety of our patients. Without
access to abortion services, patients who are pregnant may be
at risk of illness and death due to pregnancy, or may be at
risk of avoidable complications from unsafe and illegal
abortion practices. Further, access to quality reproductive
healthcare allows people to make decisions for themselves on
whether and when to have children, an essential component of
equality that enables full participation in our society.
Nurses know that unless we bring down the barriers to care,
people will go without the necessary healthcare they deserve.
The decision to have an abortion is a decision that should
be made between a person and their healthcare providers--it
is not a decision that politicians have any right to be
engaged in. Patients have the right to seek abortion care
with the counsel of a trusted healthcare provider, regardless
of where they live, and it is critical that Congress protects
that right.
We urge you to stand with nurses and vote yes on HR 3755 to
protect the right of all people to access abortion care and
reproductive health services.
Sincerely,
Bonnie Castillo, RN,
Executive Director, National Nurses United.
Deborah Burger, RN,
[[Page H4573]]
President, National Nurses United.
Zenei Cortez, RN,
President, National Nurses United.
Jean Ross, RN,
President, National Nurses United.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 20
medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians, and the American
Medical Women's Association, to name a few, expressing their support
for H.R. 3755, the Women's Health Protection Act.
June 14, 2021.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
U.S Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Judy Chu,
U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Blumenthal and Representative Chu: On behalf
of the undersigned medical organizations, representing
physicians dedicated to advancing the health of our patients,
thank you for introducing the Women's Health Protection Act
(S. 1975/H.R. 3755). The purpose of your legislation--to
protect the patient-physician relationship and preserve the
ability of physicians to provide evidence-based care to their
patients----is critically important.
Federal, state, and local lawmakers have long played an
important role in our health care system. The myriad policies
aimed at addressing the ongoing COVID-19 public health
emergency provide a prime example of legislators acting to
improve the health of their constituents. However, physician
leaders have long raised concerns, including in a New England
Journal of Medicine commentary nearly a decade ago, about the
alarming increase in legislators ``overstepping the proper
limits of their role in the health care of Americans to
dictate the nature and content of patients' interactions with
their physicians.'' This overreach has taken many forms,
including creating unnecessary obstacles for patients trying
to access medically appropriate care, forcing physicians to
practice outside the bounds of evidence-based medicine, and
criminalizing physicians for providing compassionate and
evidence-based care. The communities most impacted by these
barriers are those already experiencing grave inequities in
the health care system. The Women's Health Protection Act
would address an area of medicine systematically targeted
with government overregulation--reproductive health care--by
prohibiting these inappropriate restrictions and restoring
the ability of patients to receive comprehensive care free
from legislative intrusion.
Thank you again for sponsoring this important legislation
to prevent legislative interference in the practice of
medicine and protect the patient-physician relationship.
Sincerely,
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists;
American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of
Pediatrics; American College of Physicians; American
Gynecological & Obstetrical Society (AGOS); American Medical
Women's Association (AMWA); American Psychiatric Association;
American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Council of
University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology (CUCOG);
Infectious Diseases Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology
(IDSOG).
North American Society for Pediatric and Adolescent
Gynecology; Society of Academic Specialists in General
Obstetrics and Gynecology; Society for Adolescent Health and
Medicine; Society of Family Planning; Society of Gynecologic
Oncology; Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine; Society of OB/
GYN Hospitalists; Society of Reproductive Endocrinology and
Infertility; Western Association of Gynecologic Oncologists
(WAGO); Womxn's Health Collaborative.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 16
attorneys general expressing their support for H.R. 3755, the Women's
Health Protection Act.
State of New York,
Office of the Attorney General,
June 16, 2021.
Hon. Dick Durbin,
Chair, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Richard Blumenthal,
Chair, Senate Committee on the Constitution,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Chuck Grassley,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Ted Cruz,
Ranking Member, Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairs and Ranking Members of the Committee and
Subcommittee: As the Supreme Court has consistently
recognized, ``[t]he ability of women to participate equally
in the economic and social life of the Nation has been
facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive
lives.'' Accordingly, laws that impose an undue burden on a
woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy are
unconstitutional. Nonetheless, many states across the country
have enacted laws in the name of promoting women's health
that do not, in fact, advance women's health or safety but
are instead designed to restrict access to abortion services.
These include laws requiring physicians have admitting
privileges at hospitals and setting arbitrary requirements at
women's health clinics for the size of procedure rooms and
corridors. As the Attorneys General of our respective states,
we write in support of the Women's Health Protection Act,
which would protect the constitutional right to abortion by
prohibiting medically unnecessary restrictions that
specifically target abortion providers and undermine the
availability of abortion services.
The Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA) targets onerous
state laws that have been adopted in a concerted strategy to
restrict access to abortion. In Whole Woman's Health v.
Hellerstedt, 136 S. Ct. 2292 (2016), the Supreme Court ruled
that a Texas law that required abortion providers to maintain
admitting privileges at a local hospital failed to advance
women's health and posed an undue burden on women seeking an
abortion. Last year, a coalition of 22 attorneys general
helped to win another victory in June Medical Services v.
Gee, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), in which the Supreme Court held
that a similar law in Louisiana was unconstitutional. Rather
than waiting for medically unnecessary restrictions to
continue to be challenged in the courts--a process that can
often take years--Congress should pass the WHPA to ensure
that such restrictions are not imposed in the first place.
Medically unnecessary restrictions targeting abortion
providers actually disserve women's health and safety and
pose challenges for states that aim to provide a full range
of reproductive health services, including abortion services.
Often, strict requirements imposed on abortion providers
are presented as measures to protect and advance women's
health. Yet evidence shows that these restrictions instead
lead to worse health outcomes for women. One recent study in
Texas found that the maternal mortality rate in the state
doubled between 2010 and 2012, a period in which access to
women's health care services, including abortion services,
had become more difficult to obtain. Women who find
themselves too far from an abortion provider may have to
delay obtaining an abortion, which can. lead to health risks
and add to the cost of the procedure. Alternatively, some
women may resort to ``black market'' or self-induced
abortions, which can be extremely dangerous and lead to
serious injury or even death. And women who are forced to
carry a pregnancy to term after being denied abortion
services are four times more likely to develop potentially
life-threatening health conditions and are substantially more
likely to experience physical violence from abusive partners
or family members. These statistics illustrate the very real
cost to women throughout the United States from burdensome
laws that restrict the availability of safe and legal
abortion care. The widely known negative effects of laws
targeting abortion providers undermines any argument that
such laws are intended to promote women's health.
At the same time, the consequences of these laws are
already evident across the country. Research from 2017 found
that thirty-eight percent of women between the ages of 15 to
44 live in counties without an abortion clinic. Between 2014
and 2017, twenty-five abortion clinics shuttered in the South
and the Midwest. As of June 2019, six states have only a
single abortion clinic remaining. As providers close due to
the impact of medically unnecessary restrictions, women are
likely to be forced to travel farther and make greater
sacrifices to get access to services. Unfortunately, these
burdens often fall disproportionately on lower-income women
who cannot afford to travel, take time off work, or find
childcare in order to get to the nearest provider.
As Attorneys General, we are committed to ensuring that
each state satisfies its constitutional obligation to protect
the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy within its
borders. Among other things, we are deeply concerned about
protecting the constitutional rights of our residents who may
need medical care while present as students, workers, or
visitors in states with drastically restricted abortion
access. In addition, a substantial reduction in the
availability of abortion services in some states can cause
women to seek medical care in other states, thereby straining
their health care systems. Indeed, history shows that many
women will cross state lines, if they have the means to do
so, when abortions are unavailable in the states where they
live. For example, in the nearly three years between New York
State's liberalization of its abortion laws in 1970 and 1973
when the United States Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade ruled
that the right to choose was constitutionally protected,
close to 350,000 women came to New York from other states
where abortions were entirely or largely unavailable.In the
wake of recent abortion restrictions, some states, including
several of our own, have experienced a substantial influx of
out-of-state patients seeking abortions as a result of
reduced access in their home states.
Our states stand ready and willing to provide reproductive
care services to those who need them. However, a significant
and sudden increase in patients seeking abortions, especially
as a consequence of laws that do not advance women's health
and decrease available services, runs the risk of straining
the health care systems of less restrictive states. This in
turn can impair the availability of care and affect the
reproductive
[[Page H4574]]
choices of both residents and non-residents alike in those
states. Our states aim to continue providing a wide range of
reproductive health care services, including abortion
services, but our ability to do so could be substantially
burdened by the responsibility of ensuring that all women in
need of abortions are able to safely obtain one. The WHPA
would address this problem by safeguarding access to abortion
services in all states.
We support the passage of the WHPA given how it will help
to restore and facilitate access to abortion services
throughout the United States, upholding this critical
constitutional right. We look forward to working with you and
your committees as you consider this legislation. Please let
us know how we may be of assistance during this process.
Sincerely,
Letitia James, New York Attorney General; Rob Bonta,
California Attorney General; Philip Weiser, Colorado
Attorney General; William Tong, Connecticut Attorney
General; Kathleen Jennings, Delaware Attorney General;
Karl A. Racine, District of Columbia Attorney General;
Kwame Raoul, Illinois Attorney General; Aaron Frey,
Maine Attorney General; Brian E. Frosh, Maryland
Attorney General; Maura Healey, Massachusetts Attorney
General; Aaron Ford, Nevada Attorney General; Hector
Balderas, New Mexico Attorney General; Ellen F.
Rosenblum, Oregon Attorney General; Thomas J. Donovan,
Jr., Vermont Attorney General; Mark R. Herring,
Virginia Attorney General; Bob Ferguson, Washington
State Attorney General.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by thanking my good friend from North
Carolina. We don't agree obviously on the rule, we don't agree on every
piece of legislation, but I appreciate the civility and the quality of
the debate.
Mr. Speaker, to me, as I look at both the rule and the underlying
legislation, the phrase that immediately comes to my mind is the good,
the bad, and the ugly.
Let's start with the good. There is no question that the National
Defense Authorization Act is a product of bipartisan cooperation of the
highest order on the House Armed Services Committee. Nobody got
everything they wanted, but there are a lot of things in there that
both sides worked together on to achieve. I particularly want to
commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for the manner in
which they approached this bill. I want to commend them for the
additional $25 billion. I know that the chairman didn't support that,
but obviously many Democratic Members did. I think that was an
important sign that the country is united on the idea that we need to
spend more on defense in these very dangerous times.
Again, the quality of the compromise and some of the legislation that
is included in this is extraordinarily important. The gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Speier) mentioned the issue of sexual assault. It is
addressed in this bill in a bipartisan, thoughtful way. I thank her for
her tireless work on that very important subject.
I also thank those Members that worked hard to reposition our defense
where we focus on our emerging threats, our near-peer threats of China
and Russia while also dealing with North Korea, Iran, and the threat of
global terrorism.
It is a good bill. Not everybody will support it, but I think it will
get overwhelming support on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward
to voting for it.
To me, the bad is H.R. 3755. I make no bones about it, Mr. Speaker. I
am strongly pro-life. I have a 100 percent pro-life voting record. I
respect those with a different point of view, but this is not a
codification of Roe v. Wade. This is a radical abortion bill that would
allow abortion-on-demand in every State under almost any circumstances
that the provider of the abortion deems appropriate.
Quite frankly, it is an enormous overreach, and it will overturn
dozens of State laws in many States all around the country, laws that
have been constitutionally approved in the past. That is unfortunate,
and I think many on our side that certainly work on women's health are
not going to vote in support of abortion-on-demand.
{time} 1715
Mr. Speaker, finally, to me, the continuing resolution unquestionably
is the ugly. It is not all ugly. There are actually some good things in
there. I actually commend my friends for voting to keep the government
open. I would normally do that as well. No partisan debate there, at
least not from me.
I also very much support the relief for those Americans who have been
the victims of natural disasters, which is contained in the bill. That,
too, was negotiated by the Committee on Appropriations. It is an
appropriate measure.
So, too, is the money set aside to help those fleeing from the
Taliban, those who worked with our forces in Afghanistan and who now
come to our country and to other countries seeking refuge and support.
We should honor the commitment and the sacrifice they made on our
behalf.
We could have passed a bill like that in a united, bipartisan
fashion. Indeed, the Committee on Appropriations had essentially
negotiated the deal. Then a decision was made by Democratic leadership
to interject a debt ceiling resolution without any discussion, any
negotiation, any way to lower that debt or offset it or slow it down or
reform the process. That is what many of my friends object to.
I voted for debt ceiling increases in the past under both Republican
and Democratic Presidents. I certainly would be prepared to do so
again, but not without addressing some of the drivers of the debt, and
certainly not as a sign off on a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill that
is on top of our normal appropriations, on top of the bipartisan
release given and the coronavirus crisis thus far.
That is a stretch too far. My friends know that it won't work, yet we
are going to kick it over to the Senate, where we know the support is
not there.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will be back on this floor dealing with
this matter again, hopefully in a fashion where the two parties can
work together and keep the government open and operational.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Following the withdrawal from Afghanistan, we have a solemn duty to
provide for our servicemembers and to keep our promise to our Afghan
allies. The fiscal year 2022 National Defense Authorization Act will do
both.
This NDAA will also invest in our Nation's defense by promoting
cutting-edge research and development, much of which happens at our
institutions of higher education, such as those in North Carolina's
Research Triangle.
We also must pass the continuing resolution in order to support our
Afghan allies, provide relief to regions recovering from Hurricane Ida
and other natural disasters, suspend the debt limit, and keep our
government funded.
Finally, we must pass the Women's Health Protection Act to enable
women across the country to access reproductive healthcare, including
abortion care.
I want to highlight a discrepancy between the rhetoric and policies
of opponents of reproductive freedom, particularly those from States
like mine, including Texas. These opponents claim to be pro-life, to be
working to protect families and babies, but almost always, these are
the same people who oppose Medicaid expansion, universal childcare, and
the expansion of the child tax credit.
In the United States today, babies that do not get prenatal care are
five times more likely to die than babies that do get prenatal care.
Prenatal care is one of the many critical forms of healthcare that
Medicaid covers.
Medicaid also provides postpartum care coverage to new mothers, and
the American Rescue Plan gave States the option to extend that coverage
from 60 days to 12 months. Postpartum care is key to protecting new
mothers from a variety of serious conditions that can develop after
birth. Similarly, universal childcare and the child tax credit are
investments in babies and in families.
Today, in America, supporting children and families means supporting
Medicaid expansion, affordable childcare, tax benefits for families--
all of which are included in the Build Back Better Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous
question.
[[Page H4575]]
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 667
At the end of the resolution, add the following;
Sec. 11. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
bill (H.R. 4828) to secure the international borders of the
United States, 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
Homeland Security; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 12. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4828.
Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 218,
nays 210, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 263]
YEAS--218
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
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 (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--210
Aderholt
Allen
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Banks
Barr
Bentz
Bergman
Bice (OK)
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Boebert
Bost
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Gonzalez (OH)
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jackson
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kustoff
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Newhouse
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
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--3
Kinzinger
Lee (CA)
Lesko
{time} 1753
Messrs. WILSON of South Carolina and CRENSHAW changed their vote from
``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Ms. LEE of California. Mr. Speaker, on roll call vote 263, I was not
present because I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would
have voted ``yes'' on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 667.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Burgess (Jackson)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (TX) (Calvert)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Courtney (Perlmutter)
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
Latta (Walberg)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Morelle (Tonko)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Reed (Garbarino)
Rice (SC) (Wilson (SC))
Rush (Underwood)
Ryan (Kildee)
Smith (NJ) (Van Drew)
Smith (WA) (Kilmer)
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Stefanik
(Reschenthaler)
Strickland (Torres (NY))
Swalwell (Veasey)
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. COLE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 217,
nays 207, not voting 7, as follows:
[Roll No. 264]
YEAS--217
Adams
Aguilar
Allred
Auchincloss
Axne
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Bourdeaux
Bowman
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brown
Brownley
Bush
Bustos
Butterfield
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson
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
Houlahan
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jacobs (CA)
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson (TX)
Jones
Kahele
[[Page H4576]]
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim (NJ)
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
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
Brady
Brooks
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burchett
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
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
Guest
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Harshbarger
Hartzler
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Hinson
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Issa
Jacobs (NY)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
Kim (CA)
Kinzinger
Kustoff
LaHood
Lamborn
Latta
LaTurner
Letlow
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
Meijer
Meuser
Miller (IL)
Miller (WV)
Miller-Meeks
Moolenaar
Mooney
Moore (AL)
Moore (UT)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Nehls
Norman
Nunes
Obernolte
Owens
Palazzo
Palmer
Pence
Perry
Pfluger
Posey
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Spartz
Stauber
Steel
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
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--7
Grothman
Horsford
Jackson
LaMalfa
Lee (NV)
Lesko
Newhouse
{time} 1817
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
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.
Stated against:
Mr. GROTHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I was engaged in an important meeting. Had
I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 264.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Burgess (Jackson)
Cardenas (Gomez)
Carter (TX) (Calvert)
Cooper (Clark (MA))
Courtney (Perlmutter)
DeSaulnier (Thompson (CA))
Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA))
Fulcher (Johnson (OH))
Gonzalez (OH) (Timmons)
Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
Kirkpatrick (Levin (CA))
Latta (Walberg)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
McEachin (Wexton)
Meng (Jeffries)
Morelle (Tonko)
Napolitano (Correa)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Reed (Garbarino)
Rice (SC) (Wilson (SC))
Rush (Underwood)
Ryan (Kildee)
Smith (NJ) (Van Drew)
Stanton (Levin (CA))
Stefanik
(Reschenthaler)
Strickland (Torres (NY))
Swalwell (Veasey)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________