[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H1024-H1032]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3076, POSTAL SERVICE REFORM ACT OF 
  2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6617, FURTHER ADDITIONAL 
      CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2022; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 912 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 912

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3076) to 
     provide stability to and enhance the services of the United 
     States Postal Service, and for other 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 Oversight and Reform now printed in the 
     bill, an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting 
     of the text of Rules Committee Print 117-32 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 
     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 Oversight and Reform or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendment printed in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, if 
     offered by the Member designated in the report, which shall 
     be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall 
     be considered as read, shall be separately debatable for the 
     time specified in the report equally divided and controlled 
     by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to 
     a demand for division of the question; and (3) 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. 6617) making 
     further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending 
     September 30, 2022, 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 among 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. 3. (a) House Concurrent Resolution 69 is hereby 
     adopted.
       (b) For purposes of the joint session to receive the 
     President of the United States on March 1, 2022, former 
     Members, Delegates, and Resident Commissioners shall not be 
     admitted to the Hall of the House or rooms leading thereto.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Mrvan). The gentleman from Maryland is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield

[[Page H1025]]

myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this 
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, we met in the Rules Committee and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 912, providing for consideration of 
two different measures; first, H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act 
of 2022, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Oversight and Reform. It makes in order a manager's 
amendment and provides for one motion to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 6617, the Further 
Additional Extending Government Funding Act, under a closed rule. The 
rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations 
and provides for one motion to recommit.
  Finally, the resolution adopts H. Con. Res. 69, which provides for a 
joint session of Congress to receive a message from the President, and 
the rule restricts former Members' access to the House floor during the 
joint session.
  Mr. Speaker, the Postal Service Reform Act is a major update and 
improvement to what is going on with our post office. Even in this 
increasingly digital world, Americans rely on the U.S. Postal Service 
for access to lifesaving prescription drugs and other essential items 
of living.
  In the ongoing pandemic, the Postal Service has been critical in 
helping tens of millions of Americans vote safely and securely.
  The Postal Service is processing an astounding 5,000 pieces of mail 
each second and is responsible for processing and delivering 46 percent 
of the world's mail.
  It is no surprise that first class mail used to send things like 
letters and bills is on the decline in the digital environment we live 
in. Still, the Postal Service remains a critical lifeline, especially 
for people who live in rural areas and Tribal communities and for 
people with disabilities.
  The Postal Service adds a million new delivery points each year. That 
means that the Postal Service is delivering a little bit less mail but 
to a lot more places.
  This act addresses the financial needs of the Postal Service, 
ensuring that we can continue relying on it for generations to come.
  The decline in first class mail, increasing expenses, and the 
requirement that the Postal Service prefund retiree health benefits 
have all contributed to some financial instability in the Postal 
Service.
  H.R. 3076 puts USPS on a far more stable financial footing. 
Specifically, it requires future Postal Service retirees to enroll in 
Medicare, saving the Postal Service $22 billion over the next decade. 
While retirees have paid into Medicare their entire careers, a quarter 
of retirees choose not to enroll, requiring the Postal Service to pay 
for higher premiums.
  Similarly, the legislation also eliminates the uniquely arduous 
requirement that USPS prefund retiree health benefits for a period of 
75 years. No other company or governmental entity has this requirement, 
which has resulted in significant financial losses for USPS.
  The Postal Service Reform Act also strengthens transparency and 
requires 6-day integrated delivery, ensuring high-quality mail service 
for at least 6 days a week to all Americans. It requires USPS to 
develop an online dashboard detailing weekly national and local-level 
performance data to promote compliance with on-time mail delivery.
  Mr. Speaker, the consideration of this measure gives us the 
opportunity to celebrate the remarkable successes of the post office in 
our history. The Founders created the post office even before they 
signed the Declaration of Independence, and they named, of course, 
Benjamin Franklin as the first Postmaster General for the emerging 
Nation.
  It was the post office that unified 13 divergent and quarreling 
Colonies into a nation as it created a great communications network 
that brought the news of the day and the news of public events to the 
doorstep of every fledgling American citizen. It was an idea that 
scandalized and horrified the European powers that, of course, always 
wanted to keep the people in the dark under the monarchies and 
aristocracies of Europe.
  The post office also created the transportation system for America, 
which is why so many of our towns and cities have streets and roads 
called Post Road or Postal Road or Old Post Road running through the 
center of town.
  The post office, of course, was an explicit delegation of power to 
Congress in the Constitution, as well as the power to build postal 
roads under Article I, Section 8.
  The communications and transportation network created by the post 
office gave rise to the democratic political infrastructure of the 
Nation. This is how the committees of correspondence met that created 
the political will for the American Revolution and developed the 
political philosophy of our revolutionary forebearers.
  The post office also gave rise to America's glorious free press. That 
is why so many of our newspapers, again, bear the name The Washington 
Post, the Buffalo-Courier Express, the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They 
were named after the postal operation that made the mass media possible 
in the country.
  The post office has done wonders for American commerce and business, 
and continues to do that right up to today, so this legislation will 
help the post office grow and meet our needs in the new century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and my friend 
from Maryland for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield 
myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order H.R. 6617, a 
resolution to fund the Federal Government through March 11, 2022, and 
H.R. 3076, the Postal Service Reform Act of 2022.
  I know that Appropriations Chairwoman DeLauro and Ranking Member 
Granger continue to engage in bipartisan discussions to find a path 
forward on a fiscal year 2022 funding package, and I want to thank them 
sincerely for those efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to commend Chairwoman Maloney and Ranking 
Member Comer for working together to put forth a truly bipartisan 
package to stabilize the financial health of the U.S. Postal Service 
and to improve efficiency and transparency for senior citizens and 
other Americans who rely every day on the Postal Service.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 3 years, Democratic leadership has written 
major legislation behind closed doors with little to zero input from 
House Republicans and, frankly, almost zero to little input from even 
the committees that, of course, the Democrats control. This has truly 
been a behind-closed-door process that I have seen for the last 3 
years.
  So, it is finally refreshing to see the House consider a bill that 
was the subject of a robust bipartisan negotiation and that actually 
went through the normal committee process for once. I want to say that 
I hope my colleagues across the aisle will make this the new normal, as 
it has previously been the norm.
  Mr. Speaker, I also hope the majority will continue the 
bipartisanship that I have seen here today and continue to work with 
House Republicans to address the serious and pressing issues facing 
American families across this Nation.
  For example, thanks to President Biden's open border policy, deadly 
fentanyl continues to just pour across our southern border, which is 
ravaging our communities, literally killing people in the heartland of 
this country.
  For example, in 2021, drug overdose deaths in the U.S. topped 100,000 
for the first time in a single year. In fact, fentanyl overdoses are 
reported to be the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 45. 
It is past time that Congress acts to stem the tide of deadly fentanyl 
coming into our Nation

[[Page H1026]]

largely through our porous southern border. The fentanyl that comes--
let's just say it--is largely from China. It is time we address that 
issue.
  At the same time, America is in the midst of a crime crisis like we 
haven't seen before, largely thanks to the Democrats' demonization of 
our police in what I view as one of the worst public policy positions I 
have ever seen, their push to actually defund police.
  In 2021, at least 16 cities set new records in homicides. It is no 
wonder that 64 percent of Americans disapprove of how President Biden 
has handled crime. Congress should be working to address this crime 
surge and working to back the blue as well.
  Finally, Americans continue to pay higher prices to do everything, 
from feed their families, heat their homes, and even fill up their gas 
tanks. Instead of doubling down on the failed far-left radical policies 
and out-of-control spending that actually caused this economic crisis, 
we should be reclaiming our energy independence. We should be 
eliminating burdensome regulations that hamstring our job creators. And 
we should be working to ensure American families keep more of their 
hard-earned paychecks.

                              {time}  1230

  I want to applaud the bipartisanship work that went into these bills. 
I want to applaud the Committee on Oversight and Reform and, of course, 
the Committee on Appropriations. But there are many other pressing 
issues that we can also be working on and should be working on for the 
benefit of American families.
  I therefore urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his 
kind words for the bipartisan leadership and initiative taken in the 
Postal Service Reform Act, H.R. 3076.
  Unfortunately, I have to take exception to the suggestion that this 
is somehow unique on our part. The gentleman may remember the 
bipartisan infrastructure act that the Democrats brought forward but we 
incorporated lots of Republicans in the process and we passed it on a 
bipartisan basis. That is more than $1 trillion invested in the roads, 
the highways, the ports, the airports, broadband, and cybersecurity.
  That was something I remember was talked about during the last 
administration. I never saw a bill partisan, bipartisan, or otherwise 
come from that side of the aisle, but within the first year of the 
Biden administration that bipartisan infrastructure act was moved 
through Congress. We brought lots of Republicans in. I know a lot of 
them voted against it, some of whom are claiming credit for it back in 
their districts now.
  But, in any event, this is not new for us. It takes two to tango. So 
I am glad that the gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognizing what we 
are doing here, but it is hardly unique in terms of the leadership 
being offered.
  Mr. Speaker, speaking of bipartisan leadership, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), 
who is the chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform.
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding and for his leadership.
  I rise today in strong support of the rule on my bill, H.R. 3076, the 
Postal Service Reform Act. The Postal Service Reform Act has been years 
in the making, and I am proud to say that it is bipartisan.
  As we all know, the Postal Service is one of our Nation's most vital 
and respected institutions. It provides service to every American no 
matter where they live, binding us together in a way no other 
organization does.
  What's more, it is one of the oldest institutions in the United 
States. In fact, the Postal Service is older than the United States. It 
has been operating in some form since 1775 when Benjamin Franklin was 
appointed the first Postmaster General by the Continental Congress.
  Ensuring that this vital American institution has the tools that it 
needs to prosper and serve the American people for years to come is of 
the highest priority. This bill does just that. This bill would require 
postal employees to enroll in Medicare when they are eligible and 
retire. All postal employees already pay into Medicare through their 
careers, and the Postal Service has paid about $35 billion into the 
program since 1983, and it is the second largest contributor to the 
Medicare trust fund.
  In short, Postal Service employees have already earned these 
benefits. The bill would also eliminate the unfair requirement that the 
Postal Service prefund its retiree health benefits for 75 years into 
the future, a provision that has already passed the House in previous 
Congresses. These two reforms would save the Postal Service nearly $50 
billion over 10 years.
  I want to emphasize that these changes do not cost American taxpayers 
one single dime. In fact, the nonpartisan CBO just last week determined 
that this bill would save $1.5 billion over the next 10 years.
  In addition to these savings, the bill includes a provision that will 
allow the Postal Service to work with States and localities to provide 
non-postal service in post office locations. This provision would allow 
the Postal Service to more effectively serve communities based on their 
individual needs and raise revenue from currently untapped sources.
  It is abundantly clear that this bill is good for both the Postal 
Service and the American people.
  I thank Representative Comer for working diligently with me on this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of this rule.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her very lucid 
remarks.
  One other historic breakthrough of the post office, I am recalling 
now, is the fact that it was the first Federal public institution to 
provide for the hiring of women, African Americans, and other minority 
groups. So I am glad, again, that we have got bipartisan support for 
this really critical measure to reform the post office in different 
ways in order to make it viable in the new century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa).
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, rise in opposition to this postal reform bill not 
because it does nothing good but because it doesn't do enough.
  The post office is a constitutionally authorized yet failed 
organization. It has failed to make a profit. It has failed to properly 
serve the American people, and everyone who has a mailbox knows it.
  I am pleased that this body and the ranking member are tackling 
postal issues, but this is not sufficient reform. Unfortunately, for 
that reason, I cannot support this bill.
  The problems with the post office are clear and longstanding. 
Congress established the post office to be a self-supporting 
organization, and from the time it received a $100 billion-line of 
credit, it has simply used credit to cover its losses.
  I could agree that prepayment would not be necessary if they were 
meeting their responsibility on a pay-as-you-go basis to be profitable 
and to make those reforms. In fact, in 2020, under the CARES Act, 
Congress provided $10 billion in emergency funding, and yet in 2020 
they lost $18 billion and are on course over the next 18 months to lose 
$22 billion. The fact is they haven't made a profit since 2006 as they 
are mandated.
  The truth is the post office isn't lacking liquidity. It is bankrupt, 
and nothing in this bill will make the post office truly solvent. It 
simply wipes out and wipes away debts and shifts the burden on to 
taxpayers. The bill forgives $46 billion in debts owed by the Postal 
Service forcing the taxpayers to pay it.
  Years ago, when I offered real reform, reform that would save on a 
constant basis real money, 6, 7, $8 billion a year, those reforms, 
because they lowered total labor, were unacceptable to the post office 
even if they were through attrition.
  I do support some of the changes, and I do support the Post Master's 
attempt to modernize the post office, but without teeth in the actual 
organizational reforms, the post office will continue

[[Page H1027]]

to lose money, and for that reason I cannot yet support this bill.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, while I respect my good friend and 
colleague, especially for what he has done in the private sector as 
well as the public sector, I do have some concerns.
  I believe the Postal Service Reform Act is a strong bipartisan act, 
and I urge its passage. This measure will bring increased transparency. 
It will improve operations for senior citizens and Americans who use 
the Postal Service every day. It will help this institution that is 
critical, especially to rural America.
  Again, I have deep respect and admiration for my friend from 
California. I just would urge passage of this, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, a quick note on the gentleman from California's points. 
He concedes that our bipartisan legislation does a lot of good things, 
but he says that it doesn't do everything.
  He makes the point that the post office is not making a profit. That 
is true. It is not making a profit. Of course, our offices don't make a 
profit. There are very few Federal entities that make a profit. That is 
not what government does. Government serves the people. We want to be 
as efficient as possible in doing that, but the post office serves 
people from Alaska to Hawaii to Puerto Rico to Florida to Texas.
  Everybody gets mail, and we want to do it as efficiently and as 
effectively as possible, but the point is to make sure that we are all 
connected and that everybody gets the benefit of being able to get 
their prescription drugs, that small businesses are able to send out 
their parcels, that consumers are able to receive what it is they are 
ordering, and so on.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), who is a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Rules 
Committee for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, for as long as our country has existed, the United 
States Postal Service has played a critical role in the function of our 
country.
  Whether delivering news or bills, medicine or ballots, income tax 
refunds or in a few days maybe Valentines, Americans--our small 
businesses and our State, national, and local governments--rely on the 
post office and the essential daily services it provides.
  The famous motto of the Postal Service is: ``Neither snow nor rain 
nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift 
completion of their appointed rounds.''
  How glad we have been to see them completing those rounds during a 
pandemic which limited our ability to get goods and services from other 
places and which limited our ability in some cases to get to the 
polling places.
  While the U.S. Postal Service has always been essential, in the last 
2 years it has been even more so, as it has helped us all to navigate a 
highly transmissible virus.
  Unfortunately, during that same time, we have seen the Postal Service 
struggle to navigate a series of highly disruptive policy changes that 
slowed service and financial constraints that have threatened its long-
term health. Over the past 2 years I have heard from hundreds of 
constituents about problems with the Postal Service, all asking: What 
is Congress going to do about it?
  This week, I am proud to support the Postal Service Reform Act, a 
bipartisan bill that will improve the performance of the U.S. Postal 
Service and guarantee its long-term financial health.
  This bill will guarantee the Postal Service's 6-day delivery 
standard, improve customer support, and provide customers with 
increased transparency about their local service performance. Most 
notably, the Postal Service Reform Act will finally end the--unique to 
the Postal Service--statutory requirement that it prefund retiree 
health benefits, relieving the Postal Service of this onerous and 
unnecessary burden that has jeopardized the service's finances since it 
was enacted 15 years ago.
  These reforms which have been endorsed by the postal unions are 
estimated to save the Postal Service nearly $50 billion over the next 
10 years.
  The U.S. Postal Service is one of the oldest, core responsibilities 
of the Federal Government, and so I look forward to enthusiastically 
voting for this bill to ensure its continued success in the 21st 
century.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, today's rule also provides for 
consideration of another continuing resolution to fund the government. 
The House did its job. We passed our funding bills on time, and 
Chairwoman DeLauro has pushed her Senate counterparts to begin 
negotiations early so that a funding deal could be passed on time. 
However, Senate Republicans have hemmed and hawed and stalled to avoid 
negotiations because they prefer a CR to finding bipartisan compromise. 
We are nearly halfway through the current fiscal year. I regret the 
necessity of another CR, but I look forward to a quick resolution and a 
vote on an omnibus funding bill.

  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I do want to add one point to Ms. Scanlon's 
excellent delivery.
  This legislation, the Postal Service Reform Act, requires the Postal 
Service to develop an online dashboard that will detail for all of us 
weekly national-and local-level performance data to promote compliance 
at every level with the on-time mail delivery expectations that we all 
have.
  I too have spent time in a lot of neighborhoods of mine in Frederick 
County, Carroll County, and Montgomery County making sure that the 
Postal Service is getting on time delivery and making it happen. This 
new tool will allow all of us to monitor exactly what is going on in 
our particular communities.
  I reserve the balance of my time, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from the great State of Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is my good friend and 
fellow Rules Committee member.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as you have already heard, today's rule provides for 
consideration of yet another continuing resolution 5 months into the 
fiscal year and not a single appropriations bill has been signed into 
law.
  This time, the Rules Committee had less than 2 hours' notice before 
considering the continuing resolution rule in the Rules Committee 
yesterday leaving no time for Members who might want to offer an 
amendment or might want to come to the committee to speak on this CR.

                              {time}  1245

  This is no secret. This has not been an easy year for the American 
people; crisis after crisis, and this Democratic leadership in this 
Congress has not really led on those issues. We are still facing a 
crisis on our southern border. Mr. Speaker, 2 million migrants have 
crossed without documentation since President Biden took the oath of 
office. And in response, what did he do? Well, he halted construction 
on the border wall, and he tried to eliminate the remain in Mexico 
program except the courts wouldn't let him do that, so now they are 
slow-walking the enforcement.
  At the same time, Ukraine is facing down 130,000 Russian troops that 
look poised to invade, and President Biden just recently used his 
waiver authority to ease the sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, a 
direct link between Russia and Europe for oil and gas. If we had been 
given time to consider this CR, we could have revoked this waiver 
authority and reinstated sanctions on the Nord Stream 2.
  Another problem exacerbated by this administration is their continued 
push for vaccine mandates. We see it literally every day on the news. 
Mandates do nothing but drive unnecessary opposition, and we need to 
let people make an informed choice for themselves with their doctor. 
Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on enforcing mandates.
  Finally, it has been nearly impossible to get a response back from 
the executive branch agency and the reason is, we have delegated our 
spending authority. We have delegated our appropriations authority 
basically to the Speaker's Office, and as a consequence, no Cabinet 
Secretary feels obligated to answer a phone call from a Member of 
Congress from either party.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6617, of course, extends funding for 
the Federal Government until March 11, 2022.

[[Page H1028]]

We eagerly anticipate the success of bipartisan negotiations for the 
full omnibus package.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. 
Lawrence).
  Mrs. LAWRENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule providing 
for consideration of the Postal Service Reform Act. As the only Member 
of Congress who has a 30-year career as a Postal Service employee, I am 
honored to stand here today as the House takes action to protect the 
Postal Service for generations to come.
  Few know that the Constitution defines that America will have a post 
office service. For more than two centuries, the hardworking employees 
of the Postal Service have lived up to the agency's motto: ``Neither 
snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the 
swift completion of their appointed rounds.''
  As the agency finds itself losing billions of dollars, it is time for 
the Congress to step in and ensure the Postal Service can maintain its 
commitment to providing prompt and reliable mail service. This bill 
will provide the Postal Service with the critical reforms to help 
address this long-term financial solvency. The Postal Service has 
delivered the package. Today we have the opportunity to deliver the 
package.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for those excellent 
remarks and note that I think she speaks for millions of postal workers 
across the country who are excited about this legislation and the 
reforms that it is going to institute. This has the endorsement of the 
American Postal Workers Union, the National Association of Letter 
Carriers, the mail handlers, and a number of other organizations that 
are invested in this. So we are excited about this bipartisan 
investment in making the Postal Service work for the people in this new 
century.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Across this country, Democratic Governors and local officials have 
forced children to wear masks in schools. They have done this without 
real concern for the social developmental and emotional consequences of 
their authoritarian actions. These are the actions of petty tyrants, 
people who do not care about real science.
  In stark contrast, House Republicans have been consistent this whole 
time. We have been fighting for the rights of America's children, and 
the American parent.
  That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally 
offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 6619, the 
Unmask Our Kids Act. This legislation would block education agencies 
from receiving Federal funding unless schools are open for in-person 
learning and school mask mandates allow parents to opt out on behalf of 
their children.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record along with any extraneous material 
immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, here to explain the amendment is the 
legislation's author, Representative Ashley Hinson of Iowa, my good 
friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. 
Hinson).
  Mrs. HINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand for students, to stand for 
parents' ability to make decisions for their own kids. Across the 
country, children are struggling. Despite being nearly 2 years into the 
pandemic now, tens of thousands of students started this year off still 
being forced to learn from behind a screen, cut off from their peers.
  Many school districts are mandating masks for children of all ages 
against their parents' wishes. Parents should have the option to send 
their kids to school in person and to decide whether or not they want 
to have their kids wearing a mask at school. Thanks to the leadership 
of our great Governor of Iowa, Governor Reynolds, and our hardworking 
teachers in Iowa, parents have had the option to send their kids to 
school in person in class for over a year.

  Governor Reynolds stood for families by banning school mask mandates 
and allowing parents--parents--to make this personal health decision 
for their own children. That is at the heart of this issue we are 
talking about today. Parents should be empowered. They should be 
empowered to make choices that impact their children's physical and 
mental health, their development, and their future.
  As a mom, I know why parents across the country are standing up and 
speaking out when they are being told that they can't decide what is 
right for their kids or their family. And it is infuriating to watch 
the very same people who push for kids to wear masks all day long, and 
they are bending the rules for a photo op or maybe a night out on the 
town. Meanwhile, kids are sitting at home instead of going to school, 
and they are interacting with their friends in settings that are not 
normal. They are interacting from behind a screen. That is why I 
introduced the Unmask Our Kids Act.
  My bill would condition Federal education dollars to schools on those 
schools doing two very simple things: one, schools cannot receive 
Federal dollars if they enact wide-reaching mask mandates. They have to 
allow parents to decide whether their child will wear a mask at school; 
and two, parents have to have an in-person learning option. Schools 
must offer an in-person learning option. Our kids deserve normalcy. 
They deserve a chance to learn in person. They deserve a chance to play 
with their friends at recess.
  This is about giving parents a voice and the final say when it comes 
to personal health decisions that impact their family. This is about 
giving school-aged kids who have endured so much over the last 2 years 
a chance to finally just be kids, to be normal. The next generation is 
too important not to fight for.
  When it comes to our children and their well-being, we will not cave, 
and that is why this legislation is so important. So let's put politics 
aside here. Let's put kids first. We should pass the Unmask Our Kids 
Act today.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
The Washington Post this morning has an article about how a number of 
Governors--California Governor Gavin Newsom, New Jersey Governor Phil 
Murphy, Delaware Governor John Carney, and Connecticut Governor Ned 
Lamont--have all announced changes to indoor masking requirements 
because of changes of where we are in the disease.
  I certainly hope that my colleagues are not saying that we never 
should have worn masks, although I know some of them have said that and 
some of them have opposed masking guidance from the very beginning. 
Need I remind my colleagues that we have lost more than 900,000 people, 
including a lot of children, to this terrible disease. We have faced an 
epidemic of denialism from the beginning. Of course, the former 
President of the United States was out hawking quack medical cures and 
denying the virulence of the disease for a long time saying it would 
just disappear at Eastertime. Maybe everybody should just be injected 
with bleach.
  We have come a long way from then, and President Biden has led us in 
an aggressive scientific effort, including masking where it was 
appropriate, in order to beat the disease, and we are making great 
progress. Now the States and localities are able to drop the masking 
requirements. So I see that they want to get on top of the wave and 
somehow claim that they are responsible for that when it was the 
President from their party who presided over an historically reckless 
and irresponsible approach to COVID-19, one that gave us a leading 
position in the spread of COVID-19.
  So in any event, I haven't seen the bill that they have just 
introduced yet. I know that the Biden administration has used the post 
office to ship 500 million coronavirus test kits to people across the 
country, which, again, underscores the importance of the legislation we 
are really here to talk about today.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H1029]]

  

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that my good friend from Maryland 
would say the former President was ``reckless'' during the pandemic. 
This is a man who put together Operation Warp Speed, one of the 
quickest vaccination programs and one of the most effective the world 
has ever seen.
  If we are talking about numbers, let's just talk about the numbers. 
More people have died in this pandemic under Joe Biden than ever died 
under President Trump. The numbers don't lie. During President Trump's 
first year with the pandemic, there were just over 390,000 deaths and, 
again, every death is tragic. But to say that President Trump was 
reckless, look at the numbers of Joe Biden. Since Joe Biden has taken 
office, over half a million people, 500,000-plus people have died.
  So if President Trump was reckless, what word would you use to 
describe President Biden? I am interested to hear that. But there are 
two kinds of science; there is real science and there is political 
science. The risk of severe disease from COVID-19 to healthy children 
is very low. This is real science. The CDC data shows that 863 total 
pediatric deaths related to COVID-19 have occurred since the beginning 
of this pandemic, which is less than--and, again, for the party of 
science, this is real science--that is less than 0.001 percent of all 
COVID deaths in the United States. Many of these children had 
underlying medical conditions making them more vulnerable to severe 
COVID-19 than the average child, meaning that many of these children 
died with COVID not of COVID.
  But again, that is real science, not political science. Talking about 
real science versus political science, I have got a photo of Stacey 
Abrams. This is political science, and here is why. Because the kids in 
this photo trying to learn, all of them are masked up. Statistically, 
these children are at very low risk of contracting COVID and even lower 
risk of dying from COVID. Again, the stats don't lie; 0.001 percent.

  The real person in this photo who bears most of the risk is a 
governor-in-exile Stacey Abrams who is not wearing a mask. This photo 
is political science. If the mask wearing was reversed, that would be 
actual science.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
LaTurner), my good friend.
  Mr. LaTURNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the previous question so 
that we can immediately consider H.R. 6619 which will prohibit local 
education agencies from receiving Department of Education funding 
unless schools are open for in-person learning, and allow parents to 
opt out of mask mandates on behalf of their children.
  Over the past 2 years, our children have suffered academically and 
socially throughout the pandemic. As a father of four young children, I 
know how important it is that kids are back in the classroom and free 
of unnecessary and distracting mask mandates. Parents, not politicians, 
should have the power to make the best decisions for their children. 
Let me repeat that because so many across this country and some in this 
body don't understand that fundamental truth. Parents, not politicians, 
should have the power to make the best decision for their children. And 
that includes whether or not they wear a mask in school.
  It has been over a year since the CDC implemented universal mask 
mandates in schools with little science to back up their claim. Studies 
have shown that students can safely return to prepandemic educational 
settings; meaning in a classroom and without a mask.
  The House has also appropriated $120 billion to reopen schools, 
nearly three times what the CDC had requested. Yet, we still have 
school districts across our country refusing to return to in-person 
learning or forcing kids to wear a mask against their will.
  These school districts should not be given any more hard-earned 
taxpayer dollars from the Department of Education or any other Federal 
agency.

                              {time}  1300

  To make matters worse, the same elected officials who are 
implementing these draconian mandates are often seen disregarding them 
completely. The lengths some elected officials will go to gain a 
political advantage at the expense of the well-being of our children is 
truly astounding.
  The reality is, my colleagues across the aisle are not following the 
science, and it is damaging an entire generation's educational and 
social development.
  It is time we give parents the power to let their kids experience 
normal once again. I urge my colleagues to oppose the previous question 
and support H.R. 6619.
  Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania doesn't have to take it from me. He 
can take it from President Trump's own Coronavirus Response 
Coordinator, Deborah Birx.
  Dr. Birx said the first 100,000 deaths were perhaps inevitable, but 
the hundreds of thousands that came after it were avoidable and were 
the cost of the failure to undertake the public health precautions that 
were required. So, I would direct him to Dr. Birx.
  Of course, when the virus was out of control and President Biden came 
into office, he was doing everything in his power to try to reverse the 
damage done by the lethal irresponsibility of the prior administration.
  But in any event, Madam Speaker, we are here to try to get beyond all 
the wreckage at this point. We are here to fund the government through 
March 11. We are here to make these substantial reforms to the post 
office, on a bipartisan basis, that will make the post office far more 
efficient; that will guarantee 6-day service to our people all over the 
country; that will end that uniquely difficult and punitive policy of 
making the Postal Service alone have to prefund everybody's healthcare 
for the next 75 years, which explains a lot of its financial problems. 
That is what we are here to do today.
  We are making progress for America, and we are trying to do it on a 
bipartisan basis. It seems strange to me that my colleagues would try 
to pick a fight about COVID-19 in this context when we are just trying 
to recover from the wreckage left by the prior administration.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  My good friend from Maryland referenced Dr. Birx. Let's be honest: 
Dr. Birx is an unelected career bureaucrat who has been wrong 
repeatedly, just like Dr. Fauci has been wrong repeatedly.
  Although my friend on the left might cite Dr. Birx, I can cite Johns 
Hopkins University, which just did a study. According to this massive 
study from Johns Hopkins University--not a bastion of conservative 
ideology, I might add--they found that lockdowns only reduced COVID 
mortality by 0.2 percent in the United States. In sum, lockdowns didn't 
work at all.
  What is worse is that those on the left have failed to take into 
account that the lockdowns actually led to more deaths than they 
prevented, arguably, with drug overdose and suicide. But that is real 
science, not political science.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. 
Miller-Meeks) to talk about more real science.
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the 
previous question so that the House can immediately consider 
Congresswoman Hinson's H.R. 6619, the Unmask Our Kids Act.
  The Unmask Our Kids Act would restrict funds from going to any local 
education agencies that don't offer an option for in-person instruction 
at both elementary and secondary public schools. Further, the Unmask 
Our Kids Act would allow parents to opt their child out of having to 
wear a mask at school.
  As the mother of two children, I understand how important it is for 
all kids to be in school, learning among their peers. Unfortunately, 
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a political theater of 
both masking policies and virtual learning, which has resulted in K-12 
students paying the price through learning loss, which is at an even 
higher rate among students who come from disadvantaged families.
  Several studies have found that there are adverse effects on the 
quality of

[[Page H1030]]

education due to the lack of time students spend with their peers, 
especially for students who struggled with school before the pandemic. 
Students need and deserve to have in-person instruction so that they 
can receive the best education possible for their future.
  As a physician and former director of public health, I recognize that 
children are at low risk of severe illness with COVID and low risk of 
transmission. A recent study found that grade-schoolers are at a lower 
risk than vaccinated adults.
  Wearing a mask at school can create both behavioral and physical 
complications for students. A student wearing a pair of glasses may 
have to keep defogging their lenses, or a student that has a facial tic 
may have to keep correcting their fallen mask.
  As we have seen across the Nation, mental health has been a big part 
of this pandemic, and students are not immune to this impact. Not being 
able to see other peers or your teacher's face can lead to only further 
loneliness, anxiety, and depression, and the rate of suicide in 
children as young as 9 has been staggering. Many young students are 
also unable to learn because facial expressions are absent.
  Just yesterday, New Jersey's Democratic Governor announced that, 
beginning in March, the State will no longer require students and 
school employees to wear masks. The Governor was quoted saying that: 
``This is not a declaration of victory as much as an acknowledgment 
that we can responsibly live with this thing.'' Europe has had that 
policy for almost a year.
  Beginning this Friday, the Governor of Delaware, the President's home 
State, will lift Delaware's universal indoor mask mandate, with a lift 
on the school-based mask mandate beginning March 31.

  Also yesterday, a medical analyst for CNN said that the decision to 
wear a mask should shift from a government mandate to an individual 
choice.
  If a parent and student believe it is in the best interests of their 
health and well-being to wear a mask, so be it. Let them make that 
decision for themselves. We do not need elite, powerful people imposing 
their will upon our most innocent and most powerless.
  Remove the mask. Let students be back in school. And vote down the 
previous question.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Someone just tuning in right now might be a little confused and think 
that we are somehow debating COVID-19. We are here to talk about 
bipartisan legislation on the Postal Service and to keep the government 
open until March 11.
  I would just point out to my good friend from Pennsylvania, who I am 
afraid seemed to disparage science on our side or the professional 
credentials of Dr. Deborah Birx, who was the former President's 
coronavirus coordinator; she went to Penn State medical school. I don't 
think the gentleman from Pennsylvania meant to disparage her 
educational credentials, certainly as a graduate of Penn State.
  Look, we don't need the Federal Government dictating to the States 
and the localities what their policies are going to be about masking. I 
just read this morning about a bunch of States--I think they have 
Democratic Governors; New York, California, Delaware--that have pulled 
back on their masking policies because the virus, today, has 
dramatically subsided.
  Are we going to pass a Federal bill every time the virus goes up or 
the virus goes down and tell them what their rules are going to be? 
Come on. I thought that we were all champions of federalism. But 
instead, they want to dictate it from up on high.
  Remember, what this legislation is about--and I wish we could focus 
more on it--is reform of the Postal Service.
  We have bipartisan support now for this. I am delighted to learn that 
it is not just the postal unions that I invoked before, but we have a 
bunch of postal associations for it. We have the American Postal 
Workers Union, the National Association of Letter Carriers, the 
National Rural Letter Carriers' Association, the National Association 
of Postal Supervisors, the National Active and Retired Federal 
Employees, the National Postal Mail Handlers Union, the Package 
Shippers Association, the Major Mailers Association, the National 
Newspaper Association, Coalition for a 21st Century Postal Service, 
Publishers Clearing House, American Catalog Mailers Association, and 
the National Retail Federation.
  We have both the workers in the Postal Service and then big 
businesses and small businesses across the country, underscoring the 
fact that the Postal Service remains the central nervous system of 
commerce in America as well as our public life. That is something that 
we should be celebrating rather than picking an unnecessary fight, 
which is completely irrelevant to this legislation, about what is going 
on at the State and local level in other places.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, look, for the record, I would bet 
on Dr. Miller-Meeks any day of the week over Dr. Birx. She believes in 
the real science, not the political theater and political science that 
the CDC and Dr. Birx speak of. A great example: The CDC never even 
studied the effects of school mask mandates before mandating masks in 
school.
  Say what you will, but that is not how science works.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Hudson), who is my good friend.
  Mr. HUDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous 
question so we can immediately consider H.R. 6619, the Unmask Our Kids 
Act.
  This is critical because, as a Member of Congress, but more 
importantly as a dad of a kindergartner, I am frustrated. I am 
frustrated because all throughout the pandemic, bureaucrats, mayors, 
Governors, and school administrators have all lectured us to follow the 
science. Just follow the science.
  Well, I agree. Thankfully, 2 years into this pandemic, we now have 
science behind the mild impacts of COVID-19 on children and the 
importance of ventilation instead of masking to limit spread in 
classrooms. We also have science on how important it is to see faces 
for a child's development.
  Yet, even with this data, schools continue to impose mask mandates, 
including roughly 85 of the 115 North Carolina school districts. And if 
you break these mandates, you face severe consequences.
  Just last Thursday, 12-year-old Lincoln Matthews, from my district, 
decided not to wear a mask to school, with the support of his father. 
Lincoln said he can't breathe in his mask, especially when he is forced 
to wear it even while running in PE class. However, Lincoln was written 
up and kicked out for insubordination. This is wrong.
  What is worse is, these rules apparently don't apply to everyone. On 
Friday, just 1 day after Lincoln was kicked out for not wearing his 
mask, Stacey Abrams visited a classroom in Georgia without a mask while 
every child around her, as you can see, wore their masks. As my 
colleague, Mr. Reschenthaler, said, this photo is not science; this 
photo is political science.
  Sadly, this is just the latest example of politicians who want to 
control your life. They tell you what to do then ignore their own 
rules. For these hypocrites, it is rules for thee but not for me.
  Well, I am here to say that the American people are fed up. I am here 
to say, parents have rights.
  So let's actually follow the science. It is time to scrap these 
mandates and give parents the freedom to choose what is best for their 
own children.
  Today, I encourage my colleagues to pass the Unmask Our Kids Act and 
end these mandates once and for all. If it is good enough for the 
politicians, it is good enough for our kids.

  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, talking about more science, here is 
some more science: A North Carolina study, where my good friend 
resides, conducted before vaccines were available, found that not a 
single case of student-to-teacher transmission occurred when 90,000 
students were in school. That is the real science.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time as I am prepared to close.
  Madam Speaker, thanks to President Biden and thanks to House 
Democrats and their far left, radical policies, Americans are currently 
facing a border crisis, a crime crisis, and an economic crisis.

[[Page H1031]]

  Despite a lack of scientific evidence to support masks in schools, 
Democratic Governors, officials, unelected bureaucrats, petty tyrants, 
have mandated the use of masks in schools, damaging the educational and 
social development of our students. It is past time that Democrats stop 
prioritizing their woke agenda and work with Republicans to address 
these and other pressing issues facing American families today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question; I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule; and I yield 
back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to say a word on behalf of Stacey Abrams, who was the target 
of some rhetorical attacks over there.
  There is a picture of her without her mask on in front of a bunch of 
kids who did have their masks on, and it was being denounced by the 
speaker from North Carolina momentarily and also by the floor leader, 
who didn't have their masks on, standing in front of a whole group of 
people who did have their masks on.
  In other words, they were in exactly the same position Stacey Abrams 
was, because the rule of reason we have adopted according to medical 
advice, I think across the country, is where masks are recommended and 
indicated, people wear them unless they are speaking. To turn that into 
a political football to denounce a fellow public servant seems to be a 
little bit beneath the dignity of this body.
  But in any event, we are very excited about our postal reform 
legislation that we are moving through to guarantee excellent 6-day 
service to everybody, to have an online dashboard so we can all keep 
track of where the mail is in different parts of the country, and if 
there are problems, we can address them quickly.
  I am glad we have bipartisan legislation--at least I hope it is 
bipartisan--to keep the government open until March 11.
  As for COVID-19 policies, I think we should trust the States and the 
localities to deal with the manifold questions that come up as we 
continue to address this public health crisis, which was, of course, 
set into motion by a President who denied it, avoided it, said he would 
refuse to wear a mask even when it was indicated, who got it, who had 
dozens of doctors at his beck and call, who flew in a helicopter to get 
himself served.
  Look, we need to get back on track in America. That means the 
government has to work for everybody. We have got to stop fighting 
about public health. We have got to work together for public health, 
just like we have got to work together for the post office, a great 
American institution which we improve and we advance today in the 21st 
century.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 912

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 4. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 6619) to prohibit the Secretary of Education from 
     providing Federal funds to a local educational agency unless 
     in-person instruction is available to all students and 
     parents may opt out of student mask mandates, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 6619.

  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Lawrence). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 205, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               YEAS--221

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     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--205

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     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
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     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
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     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
     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

[[Page H1032]]


     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Armstrong
     Ellzey
     Gohmert
     Granger
     Kinzinger
     LaHood
     Waltz

                              {time}  1355

  Mr. GRIFFITH, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Messrs. ROUZER and BOST changed their 
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Baird (Bucshon)
     Bass (Takano)
     Bera (Correa)
     Bowman (Jeffries)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brownley (Meng)
     Clarke (NY) (Kelly (IL))
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Cooper (Beyer)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Cuellar (Correa)
     DeSaulnier (Raskin)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Dunn (Joyce (PA))
     Fallon (Ellzey)
     Frankel, Lois (Meng)
     Garamendi (Correa)
     Garbarino (Katko)
     Gonzalez (OH) (Balderson)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Gosar (Gaetz)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hagedorn (Carl)
     Huffman (Gomez)
     Jacobs (CA) (Correa)
     Kahele (Case)
     Keating (Cicilline)
     Kelly (PA) (Balderson)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Kuster (Bonamici)
     Larson (CT) (Cicilline)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lucas (Burgess)
     Malinowski (Pallone)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (WI) (Raskin)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Bonamici)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Reed (Johnson (SD))
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Kaptur)
     Salazar (Kim (CA))
     Schneider (Rice (NY))
     Sewell (Cicilline)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Soto (Wasserman Schultz)
     Strickland (Takano)
     Suozzi (Raskin)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Waters (Jeffries)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 211, not voting 1, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               YEAS--221

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     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--211

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     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
     Lesko
     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
     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--1

       
     Kinzinger
       

                              {time}  1421

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


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Baird (Bucshon)
     Bass (Takano)
     Bera (Correa)
     Bowman (Jeffries)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brownley (Meng)
     Clarke (NY) (Kelly (IL))
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Cooper (Beyer)
     Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
     Cuellar (Correa)
     DeSaulnier (Raskin)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Dunn (Joyce (PA))
     Fallon (Ellzey)
     Frankel, Lois (Meng)
     Garamendi (Correa)
     Garbarino (Katko)
     Gohmert (Weber (TX))
     Gonzalez (OH) (Balderson)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Gosar (Gaetz)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hagedorn (Carl)
     Huffman (Gomez)
     Jacobs (CA) (Correa)
     Kahele (Case)
     Keating (Cicilline)
     Kelly (PA) (Balderson)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Kuster (Bonamici)
     Larson (CT) (Cicilline)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lucas (Burgess)
     Malinowski (Pallone)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Moore (WI) (Raskin)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Pingree (Bonamici)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Reed (Johnson (SD))
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Ruiz (Correa)
     Rush (Kaptur)
     Salazar (Kim (CA))
     Schneider (Rice (NY))
     Sewell (Cicilline)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Soto (Wasserman Schultz)
     Strickland (Takano)
     Suozzi (Raskin)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Waters (Jeffries)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Cicilline)

                          ____________________