Congressional Record, Volume 168 Issue 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)

[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 19, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6711-H6719]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8294, TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2023;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8373, RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION ACT;
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8404, RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1232 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 1232

Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 8294) making appropriations for the
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban
Development, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2023, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their
respective designees. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. An
amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the
text of Rules Committee Print 117-55 shall be considered as
adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The
bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill
for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute
rule and shall be considered as read. Points of order against
provisions in the bill, as amended, for failure to comply
with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived.
Sec. 2. (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended,
shall be in order except those printed in part A of the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
considered pursuant to subsection (b), amendments en bloc
described in section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma
amendments described in section 4 of this resolution.
(b) Each further amendment printed in part A of the report
of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of
amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution
shall be considered only in the order printed in the report,
may be offered only by a Member designated in the report,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time
specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent
at any time before action thereon, shall not be subject to
amendment except as provided by section 4 of this resolution,
and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
(c) All points of order against further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules or against
amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or her designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed
in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Appropriations or their respective
designees, shall not be subject to amendment except as
provided by section 4 of this resolution, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
5 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may
have been adopted. In the case of sundry further amendments
reported from the Committee, the question of their adoption
shall be put to the House en gros and without division of the
question. The previous question shall be considered as
ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.
Sec. 6. During consideration of H.R. 8294, the Chair may
entertain a motion that the Committee rise only if offered by
the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee.
The Chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the
enacting words of the bill (as described in clause 9 of rule
XVIII).
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8373) to
protect a person's ability to access contraceptives and to
engage in contraception, and to protect a health care
provider's ability to provide contraceptives, contraception,
and information related to contraception. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted.
The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points
of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered
on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except:
(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 8. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8404) to repeal
the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State
regulation of marriage, 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 further
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 9. (a) At any time through the legislative day of
Thursday, July 21, 2022, the Speaker may entertain motions
offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House
suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with
respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and
the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without
debate or intervening motion.
(b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any
measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules
on the legislative day of July 18, 2022, in the form as so
offered, on which the yeas and nays were ordered and further
proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX.
(c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection
(a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas
and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with
respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such
motions are considered as withdrawn.
Sec. 10. House Resolution 1230 is hereby adopted.
Sec. 11. Clause 7 of rule XIII shall not apply to any
resolution introduced prior to the date of adoption of this
resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Pennsylvania is
recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on Monday the Committee on Rules met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1232, for three measures.
First, it provides for consideration of H.R. 8294 under a structured
rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations, makes in order 190 amendments, provides en bloc
authority, allows the chair the ability to offer up to five pro

[[Page H6712]]

forma amendments, and provides one motion to recommit.
Second, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8373 under a
closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, self-executes a manager's amendment,
and provides one motion to recommit.
Third, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8404 under a
closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and provides for one motion to recommit.
Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the
ability to en bloc requested votes on suspension bills this week and
deems passage of House Resolution 1230.
Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of three
important bills--one that is part of the regular process of funding the
government for the next year, and two that are emergency measures to
respond to the ongoing assault by an extremist rightwing minority
against Americans' individual rights and liberties.
The first bill is a package of bills called the minibus. This package
of six annual appropriations bills provides funding for the Federal
Government for the next fiscal year for a wide array of important
government programs: Food and farming, transportation, housing,
conservation and environmental protection, veterans programs, community
development, and general operations of the Federal Government.
Thanks to the strong leadership of House Democrats on the Committee
on Appropriations, today's bill makes major investments to meet the
needs of Americans at this difficult point in time. When we talk about
these huge budget bills each year, it can be overwhelming, so let's
look at some concrete examples of how these bills are going to benefit
our country.
This budget bill will increase funding for veterans' healthcare by
$20 billion, helping the VA to meet the health needs of our Nation's
veterans. In addition to funding traditional health services for
veterans, this bill will expand mental healthcare, including suicide
prevention, improve women's healthcare, homeless assistance programs,
substance use disorder programs, and invest in medical research to
address veterans' unique health needs.
With the lack of affordable housing being one of the major issues
impacting our communities across this country, this bill will increase
funding for housing by $9 billion and provide 140,000 more families and
seniors with stable, affordable housing. It will get lead and radon out
of public housing units and incentivize the construction of thousands
of new units of affordable housing.
This bill will provide a $7 billion boost for the Department of the
Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, which is funding for
our national parks, our land and water conservation programs, and for
enhanced enforcement of our environmental protection laws so that
Americans of all ages and backgrounds--and our children--can have clean
air to breathe and water to drink, and enjoy the natural wonders that
our amazing country has to offer.
This bill provides a $2 billion increase for programs that support
public health, rural development, and fight hunger. Vital funding for
SNAP and WIC will increase access to healthy foods for the 40 million
Americans who rely upon our Nation's antihunger programs, improving
their health and lowering the cost of living for those in need.
Funding for the FDA under this title will improve the safety and
availability of baby formula. It will strengthen oversight of our food
and drug safety laws and support supply chains for critical drugs and
medical devices.
Funding for rural development will provide grants and low-cost
financing to expand broadband and fix water infrastructure in rural
communities, promoting community and economic development.
The bill also provides an additional $4 billion in funding for
government operations so that our Federal agencies can do the work that
we all rely upon. Among other things, this boost will help the IRS
improve its processing times and provide more taxpayers with help when
filing. A stronger IRS will also be able to better enforce our tax laws
to make sure that billionaires and large corporations pay their fair
share.
This funding will more than triple the Election Security Grants
program which provides funding to the States to secure our Federal
elections by purchasing new technology and keeping ahead of bad actors
who try to attack our elections. This funding has helped to make the
U.S. elections so secure that anyone who says the 2020 election was
stolen is either a liar or a fool.
This funding will encourage economic development by funding the Small
Business Administration's lending programs and the Treasury
Department's Community Development Financial Institutions. Combined,
these programs are often the main source of financing for minority and
women-owned small businesses, many of which are increasingly leading
the way in creating jobs and economic opportunities.
The minibus also makes major investments in our servicemembers by
increasing funding for housing and childcare on military installations.

{time} 1030

This funding will provide more childcare services for the 1.2 million
children of Active-Duty servicemembers, as well as the ability to
construct and remediate thousands of substandard units of military
family housing.
Finally, this year's appropriations bills build on last year's
successes with community project funding, which allows Members of
Congress to better represent their districts and exercise Congress'
responsibility to direct Federal spending, rather than delegating it.
Community project funding allows Members to support smart, high-
impact investments in their districts in a way that is transparent and
ethically sound. I thank the Appropriations Committee for their work to
responsibly reinstate this opportunity.
Because of these rule changes, I have been able to bring millions of
dollars back to my district for a variety of locally backed efforts
ranging from mental health programs to community centers to workforce
development. This year, I am proud to have secured funding for 15
projects totaling $20 million for Pennsylvania's Fifth Congressional
District.
Madam Speaker, obviously, I could keep going on about the amazing
things that this bill will do, but all together the minibus is a strong
investment in our country that will help working families, small
businesses, and local communities, as well as helping to fight
inflation, create jobs, and support economic development.
Funding the government is Congress' primary responsibility. It is
right there in the beginning lines of Article I, Section 8 of the
Constitution, that Congress has the power to provide for the common
defense and general welfare of the United States.
With the consideration of these six appropriations bills this week,
and the other six later this month, House Democrats are meeting their
responsibility to the American people by passing a budget on time.
I say House Democrats because I am concerned that my Republican
colleagues may follow their recent practice of refusing to work in a
bipartisan manner to fund the government or to solve problems for the
American people, and then voting against this bill when it comes to the
floor.
Of course, over in the 50-50 Senate, where 10 Republican votes are
needed to pass a budget bill, the Senators have not even begun
consideration of any appropriations packages. Just like last year,
House Democrats are passing funding bills on time while Republicans in
the Senate are holding up the process for months by slow-walking
negotiations and refusing to compromise.
Last year, this obstructive behavior by Senate Republicans meant that
Congress didn't pass its 2022 budget until we were halfway through that
year. That meant by the time the Federal Government received its 2022
funding, it only had 6 months left to use it. That is irresponsible.
That is not good business, and it is not sound government.

[[Page H6713]]

At every turn, the filibuster and stonewalling by Republican Senators
squash every single legislative initiative that comes their way.
Madam Speaker, this rule also brings two other critically important
bills to the floor. Today's rule also provides for consideration of the
Right to Contraception Act, a bill that would codify fundamental
privacy rights relating to purchasing, using, and providing
contraception; and the Respect for Marriage Act, which would codify the
right to same-sex marriage in Federal law.
These are two basic freedoms that the overwhelming majority of
Americans support, and that most Americans are surprised to learn are
now under threat from an extremist rightwing minority in our Supreme
Court and many Republican State legislatures across the country.
In the wake of the Dobbs decision, we immediately saw a number of
States implement or try to pass abortion bans. The practical and tragic
consequences of those decisions are growing every day with women and
girls unable to get the healthcare they need, whether it is a 10-year-
old rape victim in Ohio being denied medical care in her home State or
a women with an ectopic pregnancy in Missouri whose healthcare
providers are withholding what is standard medical care because they
fear prosecution under these laws.
These tragic stories will continue, and they will get worse. This is
the world we live in in the aftermath of the extremist Dobbs decision.
But the impact of the Dobbs decision does not end with abortion care.
The extremist rightwing majority on the Supreme Court has put our
country down a perilous path. They have shown us the harsh reality of
judicial review--no objectivity, no textualism or originalism, this is
just politics by other means.
The majority in Dobbs and others who hold this minority view are
pushing a rightwing agenda that can be summed up as this: for all their
talk about States' rights and individual freedoms, the rightwing
majority is going to uphold the rights they support and take away the
rights they oppose.
The two bills we consider today respond to the immediate threat
articulated by Justice Thomas in his concurrence in the Dobbs
decision--that he wants to overturn decisions that protect rights to
contraception, same-sex marriage, et cetera. It is not just Justice
Thomas, Justice Alito has joined him in similar concurrences; and, of
course, he wrote the majority decision in Dobbs.
Rightwing legislators and Members of Congress are saying exactly what
they want to do and introducing bills to do exactly this--to undermine
the right to contraception and to undermine the right to same-sex
marriage. These are not hypotheticals but very real threats.
In response to this insanity, the House must vote this week on the
Right to Contraception Act and the Respect for Marriage Act. The Right
to Contraception Act would prohibit States from banning or restricting
possession, sale, purchase, transportation, use, prescription of
contraception, including birth control, IUDs, condoms, and other
products that aid in family planning.

The Respect for Marriage Act will codify the current law of the land
and protect the thousands of same-sex marriages and families across
this country, who are now justifiably afraid that their families are
under attack. I can't tell you how many constituents, colleagues,
friends, and their children that I am hearing from in the wake of this
decision and in the wake of Justice Thomas' explicit threat.
Both of these bills will protect rights enjoyed by Americans that are
now being threatened by the Supreme Court minority view and their co-
conspirators in the Republican Party. I am glad we are bringing these
bills up for a vote so we can see who is going to vote for them and who
is going to vote against them.
I am confident that House Democrats will provide the votes necessary
to pass the bills. It is time for our colleagues across the aisle to
stand up and be counted. Will they vote to protect these fundamental
freedoms, or will they vote to let States take those freedoms away?
Today we will find out. Then we will see what our colleagues in the
Senate will do. We are going to put these bills up for a vote, and the
public can see, on the record, how their Representatives and Senators
respond. At least everyone will know where their elected officials
stand.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank the distinguished
gentlewoman from my home State of Pennsylvania for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order three pieces
of legislation, including H.R. 8294, a bill to fund 6 of the 12
appropriations bills.
As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I want to just say I am
extremely grateful to Ranking Member Granger and Chairwoman DeLauro for
all the hard work that they put in, and also the committee staff. I
know a lot of effort went into this legislation.
Unfortunately, the product before us was flawed from the very start.
House Democrats drastically underfunded our national defense while
providing major increases to the same social programs that have already
received trillions of dollars in funding under the Biden
administration.
It is clear that the Democrats' out-of-control spending has been the
key driver to inflation. Don't take my word for it. Larry Summers,
former economic adviser to President Biden, went so far as to call the
American Rescue Plan ``the least responsible macroeconomic policy we've
had in the last 40 years.'' Again, that was Larry Summers, Democrat
adviser to the President.
You know what? He was right. Last month, inflation hit 9.1 percent.
That is the highest inflation rate in my lifetime. It is the highest
inflation rate since 1981.
President Biden's inflation crisis has cost the American worker over
$3,000 in annual income, and the skyrocketing cost of goods and
services will cost the average American family over $6,000. That is
what is so nefarious about inflation, it hits the working class and
those on a fixed income the hardest.
Yet, the Big Government Democrats with their reckless spending
policies have these six bills before us today included in the package.
The six bills included in today's package received a total increase of
11 percent over the previous fiscal year with some accounts, like the
Federal Trade Commission and the Office of Personnel Management,
receiving double-digit and triple-digit percentage increases, which
will, of course, fuel additional inflation.
Keep in mind, the Defense appropriations bill approved by the
Appropriations Committee had just a 4.4 percent increase. Additionally,
instead of addressing record-high gas prices, Democrats are pushing
this partisan Green New Deal initiative that will only worsen Biden's
energy crisis.
Under this measure, offshore oil and gas activities are restricted
and oil and gas inspection fees are increased. This is just going to
drive up the cost of energy for working families.
H.R. 8294 also includes numerous far-left, radical, liberal policies
like allowing taxpayer dollars to fund abortions, and keeping our
critical and strategic minerals in the ground. Alarmingly, it includes
provisions that threaten our national security, including allowing for
the closure of Guantanamo Bay, which houses some of the world's most
dangerous terrorists. It also fails to modernize the nuclear weapons
stockpile and complex, and provides incentives for illegal immigration.
Further, the rule before us today provides for consideration of H.R.
8373, which goes far beyond supporting access to contraception. Let me
just be clear about this point. Not a single State in the Union, not a
single general assembly in any State is debating considering making
contraception illegal.
This poorly drafted bill has extreme provisions that could harm the
health of women, send taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood and other
abortion providers, and force people to violate their religious and
sincerely held beliefs.
Madam Speaker, I, therefore, urge my colleagues to oppose this rule,
and I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, these appropriations bills are not going
to make inflation worse. It is a bad-faith argument. Inflation is bad.
It is

[[Page H6714]]

eating away at family paychecks not just here in America but all across
the globe.
My colleague cited the recent inflation figures here in the U.S.--
they are worse overseas. The economic shocks in supply chain
disruptions caused by the pandemic and then exacerbated by Russia's
invasion of Ukraine are hitting hard--yes, here at home and all across
the world. There are things that we are doing to bring those prices
down, and economic indicators show that prices are starting to come
down. It doesn't deny the real pain that we are all feeling right now.
Second, which spending would he have eliminated? Would it have been
the funding to develop vaccines and therapeutics? Maybe the funding to
keep people in their homes during the pandemic? Would it be the funding
that supported small businesses over the last several years, or maybe
it is just the paycheck protection funding?

I think it is a hollow argument, and I think it is also worth noting
that we are not seeing any alternative solutions.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North
Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, I rise today to discuss the urgent need to
protect access to contraception.
Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v.
Jackson Women's Health Organization stripped millions of women of the
right to abortion care. After this decision, draconian abortion bans in
States across the country immediately went into effect.
In my own State of North Carolina, Republican leaders have made it
abundantly clear that they will take any opportunity to restrict our
rights. Perhaps even more sinister than this decision are the opinions
that accompanied it.
Justice Clarence Thomas' concurring opinion laid the groundwork for
even greater government interference in the personal and family
decisions of our people, including the right to use contraception. Make
no mistake, the American people will not go backward on contraception.
We must codify Griswold v. Connecticut, which has protected women's
right to make decisions about their own contraceptive healthcare for
decades.
This week, we are considering the Right to Contraception Act. This
critical legislation will safeguard contraception and its access in the
face of these extreme attacks. Americans overwhelmingly support the
right to contraception.
Madam Speaker, I hope to hear from my colleagues across the aisle
about how they could do anything other than support expanding
contraception in the wake of the Dobbs decision.
If my colleagues want to prevent abortions, why would they restrict
resources to women who want to avoid unintended pregnancies?
Madam Speaker, I fought to expand access to contraception in North
Carolina with support from legislators on both sides of the aisle.
Twenty years later it is extremely disappointing that we could be going
backward.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from North Carolina.

{time} 1045

Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, women across the country are more determined
than ever to combat these relentless attacks on our freedom. I support
the rule and the underlying bills.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania asked me
which programs I would cut funding from as if this were some kind of
checkmate in floor debate. It is not because the answer is very
obvious. I have an extensive list of where I would cut.
Just for starters, let's look at some of the increases in the
appropriations package and, of course, where I would cut.
We have a 20 percent increase for the Environmental Protection
Agency. That could be cut.
We have a $1 billion increase for the Internal Revenue Service. That
could be cut right there.
There is a 30 percent increase for the Federal Trade Commission. That
could be cut. Don't take my word for it. Not one but two of the
Commissioners of the FTC said that they don't even need this increase.
There is money that you could cut right there, Madam Speaker.
There is a 12 percent increase to maintain and improve Federal
buildings. I don't know if anybody across the aisle has been paying
attention, but most of the people in these Federal buildings have been
working remotely from home for the last 2 years. Yet, we need to
increase funding to Federal buildings that are literally sitting empty
as people work from home?
Then, we have a lot of bad ideas regarding climate. $100 million is
provided for the President's proposal to use the Defense Production Act
authorities to accelerate domestic manufacturing of select clean energy
technologies. That can be cut.
While we are talking about the shift to clean energy technologies,
let's just be honest about who benefits from this. It is China because
they are the ones who are selling the rare earth elements that are
going into things like solar panels. By the way, they are bringing more
nuclear power plants online and more coal-fired plants online while we
hamstring our economy and our energy sector with these absurd climate
change proposals.
I have more, actually, but for the sake of time and brevity, I will
save them for later if the issue comes up.
Additionally, this notion that inflation is a worldwide issue, I am
not sure when they stopped teaching economics in school, but we are the
world's largest GDP. If we have inflation, then the world has inflation
because we literally export it. That is just how economics works.
To blame Ukraine, Ukraine might play a part in this, but who is to
blame for Ukraine? It is President Biden. It was the weakness and
vacillation--his surrender in Afghanistan--that emboldened Putin. It
was the vacillation. It was the ``minor incursion'' comment that he had
that gave Vladimir Putin the green light to invade. Had he just been
more resolute in our national security, then we could have deterred
this invasion. So, he owns Ukraine, as well.
The gentlewoman from North Carolina brought up Dobbs. I want to quote
the actual decision because I think a lot of the points in Dobbs were
taken out of context. The Court made it clear in that decision that the
decision on abortion should ``not be misunderstood or mischaracterized
. . . to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.''
The Court went out of its way to state that they are not concerned
about contraception, despite the gentlewoman from North Carolina saying
otherwise.
But let's go back to Dobbs. Since the point of the leak of the Dobbs
draft Supreme Court decision, there have been 70 violent attacks and
threats on churches, pregnancy centers, and pro-life organizations.
These attacks consist of vandalism. They consist of destruction of
property, arson, and even included protesters breaching the Arizona
State Capitol, forcing legislators to evacuate.
Radical pro-abortion groups have proudly declared ``open season'' on
pro-life pregnancy centers while these organizations are providing
critical resources to pregnant women, infants, and families.
Republicans want to protect public safety. We want to ensure pro-life
organizations can continue helping women and babies in need. That is
why if we defeat the previous question, I will personally offer an
amendment to the rule to immediately consider H. Res. 1233, a
resolution affirming the importance of pro-life crisis pregnancy
centers, condemning the violent attacks by far-left extremist groups,
and calling upon the Biden administration to use all law enforcement
authorities to uphold public safety and protect the rights of pro-life
facilities, groups, and churches.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?

[[Page H6715]]

There was no objection.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson). The vice chairman of the Republican
Conference and sponsor of the resolution is here to explain the
amendment.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I am grateful for the
opportunity. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for handling the
rule and highlighting this very important issue.
As he said, if the previous question is defeated, then Republicans
will amend the rule to immediately consider H. Res. 1233. That is the
resolution that condemns the spate of attacks that have recently
occurred against pro-life facilities, groups, and churches in the wake
of the Dobbs opinion.
Madam Speaker, these acts are reprehensible, but we shouldn't be
surprised they are occurring all across the country. They have gone
unchecked for far too long, ever since the draft Dobbs opinion was
inexcusably leaked to the public in that unprecedented act.

Republicans immediately condemned that leak as a threat to the
institution of the Court itself, as a threat to the Justices themselves
as individuals, and as a threat to our very Republic. The Democrat
leadership of this body did nothing.
Weeks went by as tensions grew. Protesters harassed sitting Supreme
Court Justices, a clear violation of the black-letter Federal Law.
Republicans filed a resolution condemning those acts. The Democrat
leadership of this body did nothing even as threats continued to pour
in against the Justices and their families.
The Senate acted. They unanimously passed legislation to extend
security to the families of the Justices. I and many of my colleagues
repeatedly called upon the Speaker of this House to bring this
resolution to the floor so we could pass it here and send it to the
President's desk. But do you know what we got, Madam Speaker? Nothing.
It was only when an attempt was actually made on the life of Justice
Kavanaugh that the Speaker finally gave in. She finally brought that
legislation to the floor so that we could push back against the angry
mobs.
Madam Speaker, the leadership of this body has another opportunity
before them today to, once again, push back against the mob. This has
gotten out of hand.
Radical leftists were emboldened by the inaction of this body and the
aftermath of a leaked opinion, and now they have targeted their
violence against the very groups that care for women and their unborn
children in their most vulnerable moments. It is unconscionable.
Here is a short list of some examples.
May 3, 2022: Individuals vandalized the Care Net Pregnancy Center in
Frederick, Maryland, with pro-abortion graffiti, including the messages
``not real clinic,'' ``end forced motherhood,'' and go to Planned
Parenthood instead.
May 5, 2022: Portland, Oregon, vandals smashed numerous windows and
spray-painted graffiti on the Southeast Portland Pregnancy Resource
Center.
May 7, 2022: Activists vandalized a crisis pregnancy center in
Denton, Texas, with the radical pro-abortion messages ``not a clinic''
and ``forced birth is murder.''
May 7, 2022: In Fort Collins, Colorado, activists painted ``my body,
my choice'' on the doors of a Catholic parish.
May 8, 2022, Mother's Day: Individuals attempted to break into the
Oregon Right to Life office in Keizer, Oregon, reportedly igniting and
throwing two Molotov cocktails at the building.
May 8, 2022: Vandals spray-painted pro-abortion messages such as
``abortion is a right,'' ``fake clinic,'' and ``liars'' on the side of
a pro-life pregnancy center in Manassas, Virginia.
May 8, 2022: A pro-life nonprofit center in Madison, Wisconsin, was
set ablaze and vandalized with the words ``if abortions aren't safe,
then you aren't either.''
May 13, 2022: Activists left threatening messages on the front of the
Alpha Pregnancy Center in Reisterstown, Maryland, including the
messages ``if abortions aren't safe, neither are you,'' ``you're anti-
choice, not pro-life,'' et cetera.
May 18, 2022: Vandals targeted a women's faith-based medical clinic
in Auburn, Alabama, defacing the clinic's sign and staff members'
vehicles.
May 25, 2022: In Lynnwood, Washington, anti-life activists smashed
windows and vandalized the Next Step Pregnancy Center with the threat:
``If abortion isn't safe, you aren't either.''
June 2, 2022: Jane's Revenge claimed credit for an attack in which
its members broke windows and scrawled messages, including ``God loves
abortion'' and ``fake clinic,'' at Agape Pregnancy Resource Center in
Des Moines, Iowa.
June 3, 2022: Capitol Hill Crisis Pregnancy Center here in
Washington, D.C., was the target of leftwing abortion extremists who
threw red paint on the door, threw eggs at the window, and spray-
painted the window with ``Jane Says Revenge.''
I have pages and pages of these. I don't think I need to belabor the
point. It is every day now. It is out of control.
I am going to tell you, Madam Speaker, that this last one, July 11,
on the list here, activists vandalized the Women's New Life Clinic in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, by spray-painting anti-life messages and
``Jane's Revenge'' on the exterior walls.
That last one is personal to me. The Women's New Life Clinic stands
right next to the abortion provider in Baton Rouge and has offered hope
to countless women over the years. Women's New Life Clinic is doing
extraordinary work. I am proud to call many of the leaders of that
clinic personal friends. They do not deserve the treatment that they
have endured, but they certainly deserve the support of the House of
Representatives in condemning violence from the radical left.
America's pregnancy care centers provide absolutely essential
services in all 50 States. There are 2,700 of these pregnancy centers.
They serve millions of women every year. They are supported by over
10,000 medical professionals. I used to serve as legal counsel to a
number of these groups, so I am telling you this from personal
experience.
Madam Speaker, I can go on all day with these examples. I will spare
you. I would assume that you recognize the obvious.
When will this body stand up against the mob? When will we restore
law and order?
Chuck Schumer stood on the steps of the Supreme Court itself and
infamously called out Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch by name and said
that we would release the whirlwind. Well, here it is. This shouldn't
surprise us.
Madam Speaker, our side is ready to act. We are ready to do
something. We have an obligation and responsibility to do it.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I am so happy that my colleagues are rising to condemn
political violence, but I find it disingenuous and maybe even a little
one-sided when they only condemn political violence that they disagree
with.
This previous question condemns violence, as my colleague just said,
by the radical left but not the radical right. They are conveniently
ignoring decades of violence, harassment, and even murder of abortion
care providers and harassment of those seeking such care on a daily and
weekly basis.
Why are they surprised by this political violence on this topic when
this is a model that the anti-abortion forces have utilized for
decades?
Also, on a more practical note, I am stunned that my colleague is
seeking to reduce funding for the IRS. Any responsible Member of
Congress who prioritizes constituent services knows that we receive
hundreds and hundreds of calls every year, particularly in recent
years, from people who are struggling to get a response from the IRS,
who are struggling to get their much-needed tax refund, and who are
struggling to get payments or straighten out difficulties. Why is that?
It is because the IRS has been underfunded for decades.
The IRS is facing a crisis with retirements and with the inability to
attract talent given the tight labor market. We need to fund the IRS
again so that billionaires and large corporations pay their fair share.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Garcia).
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, it has been interesting to listen
to

[[Page H6716]]

the debate. I feel like it is a rerun of the Judiciary Committee, which
we all serve on.
I think we should tell the folks across the aisle to just spare us
the indignation over this political violence because, as the manager so
aptly characterized, they wrote the book on it. I can think of at least
one doctor who was murdered and, I think, many others injured by
bombings and harassment. It is just beyond the pale what has happened
to abortion providers in the last decade.
I want to get back to appropriations because, Madam Speaker, that is
really what I came to talk about.
The FY23 appropriations minibus bill is something that I support. I
am really pleased that many of the projects that were included in my
request will come to fruition.
One of the six projects included in the bill is $4 million for the
Target Hunger Campus and Education Center, which will focus on hunger
prevention and nutrition education for my constituents.
Also included is $3 million for affordable housing construction
projects in my district for Avenue Community Development, which, of
course, will help us resolve some of the homelessness issues.
This bill also includes a request for almost $3 million for
enhancements to the University of Houston's Technology Bridge.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30
seconds.
Ms. GARCIA of Texas. Madam Speaker, those are just three of the 15
projects that were funded. I think that when they talk about cutting
and inflation, is this what they want to do, to stop a hunger project
in my district? Do they want to stop making sure our kids get a good
education? Just what is it they are doing?
Finally, Madam Speaker, just quickly, I also support, of course, the
bill to protect a woman's right to birth control and the right of same-
sex couples to marriage. So, Madam Speaker, there are so many reasons
to support this rule and the underlying bills.

{time} 1100

Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
There was an--I don't know if you want to call it an allegation--an
insinuation that the only time I speak to condemn violence is when it
is violence that I don't agree with.
I want to be clear about something. I condemn all acts of political
violence. I have been very consistent on that; so have my colleagues
across the aisle.
Great example: The first time I ever spoke here on the House floor
was in support of a resolution rejecting white supremacy, and I talked
at length at that time of the Tree of Life synagogue shooting that
occurred in Squirrel Hill, Pennsylvania.
As you know, I am from the South Hills of Pittsburgh. I have a lot of
friends that actually attend that synagogue. And again, the first time
I spoke on the House floor was to condemn violence.
So I just want the Record to reflect my consistency on this issue and
the consistency of my colleagues.
I wish my friends on the left would condemn violence that the left
has done. It seems that they cherry-pick their own outrage.
But let's just get back to economics. Again, there was this notion
floated that inflation is not as bad here as it is internationally, and
this is a global problem. Again, it is a global problem because we are
the world's largest GDP. We are exporting inflation.
But even with that said, inflation is far worse here than it is in
the developed world. Our inflation, by reference, is 9.1 percent. Japan
is at 2.4 percent. The U.K. is at 9.1 percent; they are the same as we
are. Italy is at 8 percent; Canada, 7.7 percent; France, 5.8 percent.
Again, all those countries I listed, those nations in the developed
world have inflation that is lower than where we are, with the
exception of the U.K., which is the same. In Brazil--I should say this
about Brazil. It is at 11.9 percent in Brazil.
So this idea that everybody is experiencing inflation, and that we
have it easier, is just not accurate when you look at the numbers.
Now, I gave a list of what I would cut from the budget. It wasn't an
exhaustive list, and neither is this, but I just want to give a few
more examples.
$75 million is allocated for public housing, energy efficiency and
climate resilience upgrades. That could be cut. There is 75 million
right there.
Funding for the FDA--and let's not forget, the FDA was the agency
that failed to prevent the infant formula crisis. The Democrats are
rewarding the FDA with a 10 percent increase. That can be cut.
And what is so insulting about a 10 percent increase to the FDA is,
at the same time Democrats want to increase the funding to the FDA--
again, the agency that led to the baby formula shortage--you have
farmers and ranchers that are struggling to make ends meet and to
actually harvest food because of the rising food costs and fertilizer
costs, and there is no increase to them.
And I think one of the most outrageous items that can be cut is the
$90 million that is going to The Presidio park, a park that is in an
incredibly affluent area of San Francisco, arguably, one of the
wealthiest areas in the entire United States. Yet, that park is getting
$90 million, when those around that park can fund it.
And again, what is so insulting about this is we are not even giving
allocations to places like Yellowstone and Yosemite that are actually
national parks. So those are just some of the areas I would cut.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, let me rise in support of and with
rebuttal to my good friend, my other good friend from Pennsylvania.
It is well-known that the appropriations process is an investment in
America, and so I rise to support the appropriations that will be
presented to us in this rule T-HUD, Agriculture, Energy and Water,
Financial Services, Interior, Military Construction, and Veterans.
I ask the question: Is anyone going to suggest that our military
personnel do not need better housing, better schools, better
facilities, and bases, both in the United States and across the world?
And so, investment in the American people I will never run away from,
and I hope the Senate does not, as well.
And on the question of inflation, I want to remind my good friend
from Pennsylvania, my other good friend, that the prices of gas at the
pump are going down, because inflation is not pertaining to one
administration; it is continuing. And the past administration dug the
hole of the inflation that we are now in today.
I also want to make sure that every aspect of reproductive freedom is
protected, and the contraceptive legislation should be strongly
supported because people are running for their lives. Women are running
for their lives because they do not have the lack of fear that they
could be arrested; that they could be stopped; or a doctor could say: I
am sorry, I cannot help you in your desperate time of need.
This rule is very important, and I support the underlying bills.
And finally, let me--as I was here, as we debated this concept of
whether or not you are free in your private rights to make a decision
of who you love, I support H.R. 8404 the rule provides for this because
it says the ``full faith and credit given to marriage equality.''
I want the LGBTQ community in Houston to hear me, the caucus to hear
me, we are hearing your voices as well. And I want you to know that
this bill includes, for the purpose of Federal law, rule, or regulation
in which marital status is a factor, an individual shall be considered
married if that individual's marriage is valid in the State where the
marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into
outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place where entered
into and the marriage could have been entered into, it is safe.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Garcia of Texas). The time of the
gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I know we are running short on time, but
I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman.

[[Page H6717]]

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I believe this law is key to rejecting the
interpretation of Justice Clarence Thomas, who indicated, or
speculated, that other provisions or rights under privacy may be in
jeopardy.
We should not jeopardize someone's right to love who they want to
love, interracial marriages, marriages of any kind. And I support the
Respect for Marriage Act and the underlying rule. I thank the
gentlewoman for her graciousness.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I have no further speakers at this
time, and I yield myself the balance of my time.
Since Democrats jammed through their $1.9 trillion stimulus bill last
year, inflation is at an over 40-year high; the value of American
paychecks has also fallen; and families are paying more for just about
everything.
Yet, the rule before us makes in order a funding package that
provides double-digit and triple-digit increases for nondefense
programs that will further fuel Biden's inflation crisis.
And by the way, while this bill is providing double-digit and triple-
digit increases for nondefense programs, the defense budget has only
increased 4.4 percent. That is appalling.
H.R. 8294 also is packed with far-left liberal wish list items like
taxpayer-funded abortion, rather than policies that will address
Biden's economic crisis and fix our supply chains, secure our border,
and invest in national security, and bring down gas and electricity
costs through domestic energy production.
Clearly, the Democrats' spending and policy priorities are out of
touch with everyday Americans. And that is just not me saying that.
According to a poll, a shocking 75 percent of Americans are
experiencing hardship because of Joe Biden and House Democrats'
inflation crisis. And the majority of Americans expect the economy to
get worse this year.
This bill, like the Democratic Party, is tone-deaf and out of touch.
I, therefore, urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Today's rule is a testament to the hard work and leadership of the
Appropriations Committee led by Chairwoman DeLauro. I applaud the
efforts of my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee and their
staff to prepare legislation that meets the needs of everyday
Americans; to grow our economy from the bottom up and the middle out,
rather than relying, once again, on the failed trickle-down economics
of the last 50 years.
Given the draconian consequences of failing to pass a budget, I
encourage my colleagues in the House and Senate to move quickly in
negotiating a final budget bill so we can fund the government on time.
It is the responsible thing to do.
We cannot afford to govern from CR to CR, or to pass a budget bill
halfway through the fiscal year.
And I am also incredibly grateful to my colleagues on the Energy and
Commerce Committee and the Judiciary Committee for stepping up to
present legislation to protect fundamental American freedoms that have
been placed at risk by the rightwing majority of the Supreme Court in
overturning Roe v. Wade.
I urge all of my colleagues to protect the right to contraception
with the act of that name, and to repeal the statutory ban on same-sex
marriage by approving the Respect for Marriage Act in its floor
consideration.
At a time when Americans' rights are under attack by a well-funded,
extremist minority which has seized control of the Supreme Court and
some State legislatures, it is more important than ever for elected
Members of Congress to use their legislative powers to protect and
expand Americans' personal and fundamental freedoms.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for the rule
and the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as
follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 1232

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 12. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the
resolution (H. Res. 1233) expressing the sense of the House
of Representatives condemning the recent attacks on prolife
facilities, groups, and churches. The resolution shall be
considered as read. The previous question shall be considered
as ordered on the resolution and preamble to adoption without
intervening motion or demand for division of the question
except one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the
Judiciary. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of House Resolution 1233.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and
I move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). 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.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of adoption of
the resolution.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 199, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 365]

YEAS--219

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
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
Velazquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Williams (GA)
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NAYS--199

[[Page H6718]]

Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
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
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
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
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

NOT VOTING--12

Burchett
Cheney
Davis, Rodney
Gonzalez (OH)
Gosar
Hartzler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Kinzinger
Lucas
McKinley
Zeldin

{time} 1155

Messrs. RUTHERFORD and CURTIS 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

Barragan (Correa)
Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)
Brown (MD) (Evans)
Carter (LA) (Beatty)
Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
Castro (TX) (Correa)
Cawthorn (Gaetz)
Connolly (Beyer)
Crist (Wasserman Schultz)
Demings (Kelly (IL))
DesJarlais (Fleischmann)
Fallon (Green (TN))
Foster (Spanberger)
Gohmert (Weber (TX))
Gottheimer (Spanberger)
Houlahan (Spanberger)
Kahele (Correa)
Kind (Beyer)
Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Leger Fernandez (Correa)
McEachin (Beyer)
Meng (Kuster)
Mfume (Evans)
Miller (WV) (Mooney)
Moore (WI) (Beyer)
Newman (Beyer)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Pallone)
Pingree (Kuster)
Porter (Neguse)
Salazar (Waltz)
Sessions (Babin)
Sires (Pallone)
Smucker (Keller)
Taylor (McHenry)
Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))
Walorski (Fischbach)
Williams (GA) (Neguse)
Wilson (FL) (Evans)
Wilson (SC) (Norman)
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.
This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 200, not voting 11, as follows:

[Roll No. 366]

YEAS--219

NAYS--200

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
Burgess
Calvert
Cammack
Carey
Carl
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Cawthorn
Chabot
Cline
Cloud
Clyde
Cole
Comer
Conway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donalds
Duncan
Dunn
Ellzey
Emmer
Estes
Fallon
Feenstra
Ferguson
Fischbach
Fitzgerald
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flood
Flores
Foxx
Franklin, C. Scott
Fulcher
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garbarino
Garcia (CA)
Gibbs
Gimenez
Gohmert
Gonzales, Tony
Good (VA)
Gooden (TX)
Gosar
Granger
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Green (TN)
Greene (GA)
Griffith
Grothman
Guest
Guthrie
Harris
Harshbarger
Hern
Herrell
Herrera Beutler
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
Luetkemeyer
Mace
Malliotakis
Mann
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClain
McClintock
McHenry
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
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Rodgers (WA)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rose
Rosendale
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Salazar
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sessions
Simpson
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

NOT VOTING--11

Burchett
Cheney
Gonzalez (OH)
Hartzler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Kinzinger
Lucas
McKinley
Smith (MO)
Zeldin

{time} 1206

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

[[Page H6719]]

Taylor (McHenry)
Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))
Walorski (Fischbach)
Williams (GA) (Neguse)
Wilson (FL) (Evans)
Wilson (SC) (Norman)

____________________