Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)

[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

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)

____________________