[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 121 (Thursday, July 21, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H6927-H6940]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       RIGHT TO CONTRACEPTION ACT

  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 1232, I call 
up 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Sanchez). Pursuant to House Resolution 
1232, the amendment printed in part B of House Report 117-420 is 
adopted, and the bill, as amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 8373

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Right to Contraception 
     Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Contraception.--The term ``contraception'' means an 
     action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of 
     contraceptives or fertility-awareness based methods, and 
     sterilization procedures.
       (2) Contraceptive.--The term ``contraceptive'' means any 
     drug, device, or biological product intended for use in the 
     prevention of pregnancy, whether specifically intended to 
     prevent pregnancy or for other health needs, that is legally 
     marketed under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, such 
     as oral contraceptives, long-acting reversible 
     contraceptives, emergency contraceptives, internal and 
     external condoms, injectables, vaginal barrier methods, 
     transdermal patches, and vaginal rings, or other 
     contraceptives.
       (3) Government.--The term ``government'' includes each 
     branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official of 
     the United States or a State.
       (4) Health care provider.--The term ``health care 
     provider'' means, with respect to a State, any entity or 
     individual (including any physician, certified nurse-midwife, 
     nurse, nurse practitioner, physician assistant, and 
     pharmacist) that is licensed or otherwise authorized by the 
     State to provide health care services.
       (5) State.--The term ``State'' includes each of the 50 
     States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
     Rico, and each territory and possession of the United States, 
     and any subdivision of any of the foregoing, including any 
     unit of local government, such as a county, city, town, 
     village, or other general purpose political subdivision of a 
     State.

     SEC. 3. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) The right to contraception is a fundamental right, 
     central to a person's privacy, health, wellbeing, dignity, 
     liberty, equality, and ability to participate in the social 
     and economic life of the Nation.
       (2) The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the 
     constitutional right to contraception.
       (3) In Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479 (1965)), the 
     Supreme Court first recognized the constitutional right for 
     married people to use contraceptives.
       (4) In Eisenstadt v. Baird (405 U.S. 438 (1972)), the 
     Supreme Court confirmed the constitutional right of all 
     people to legally access contraceptives regardless of marital 
     status.
       (5) In Carey v. Population Services International (431 U.S. 
     678 (1977)), the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional 
     right to contraceptives for minors.
       (6) The right to contraception has been repeatedly 
     recognized internationally as a human right. The United 
     Nations Population Fund has published several reports 
     outlining family planning as a basic human right that 
     advances women's health, economic empowerment, and equality.
       (7) Access to contraceptives is internationally recognized 
     by the World Health Organization as advancing other human 
     rights such as the right to life, liberty, expression, 
     health, work, and education.
       (8) Contraception is safe, essential health care, and 
     access to contraceptive products and services is central to 
     people's ability to participate equally in economic and 
     social life in the United States and globally. Contraception 
     allows people to make decisions about their families and 
     their lives.
       (9) Contraception is key to sexual and reproductive health. 
     Contraception is critical to preventing unintended pregnancy 
     and many contraceptives are highly effective in preventing 
     and treating a wide array of often severe medical conditions 
     and decrease the risk of certain cancers.
       (10) Family planning improves health outcomes for women, 
     their families, and their communities and reduces rates of 
     maternal and infant mortality and morbidity.
       (11) The United States has a long history of reproductive 
     coercion, including the childbearing forced upon enslaved 
     women, as well as the forced sterilization of Black women, 
     Puerto Rican women, indigenous women, immigrant women, and 
     disabled women, and reproductive coercion continues to occur.
       (12) The right to make personal decisions about 
     contraceptive use is important for all Americans, and is 
     especially critical for historically marginalized groups, 
     including Black, indigenous, and other people of color; 
     immigrants; LGBTQ people; people with disabilities; people 
     with low incomes; and people living in rural and underserved 
     areas. Many people who are part of these marginalized groups 
     already face barriers--exacerbated by social, political, 
     economic, and environmental inequities--to comprehensive 
     health care, including reproductive health care, that reduce 
     their ability to make decisions about their health, families, 
     and lives.
       (13) State and Federal policies governing pharmaceutical 
     and insurance policies affect the accessibility of 
     contraceptives, and the settings in which contraception 
     services are delivered.
       (14) People engage in interstate commerce to access 
     contraception services.
       (15) To provide contraception services, health care 
     providers employ and obtain commercial services from doctors, 
     nurses, and other personnel who engage in interstate commerce 
     and travel across State lines.
       (16) Congress has the authority to enact this Act to 
     protect access to contraception pursuant to--
       (A) its powers under the Commerce Clause of section 8 of 
     article I of the Constitution of the United States;
       (B) its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States to enforce the 
     provisions of section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment; and
       (C) its powers under the necessary and proper clause of 
     section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United 
     States.
       (17) Congress has used its authority in the past to protect 
     and expand access to contraception information, products, and 
     services.
       (18) In 1970, Congress established the family planning 
     program under title X of the Public Health Service Act (42 
     U.S.C. 300 et seq.), the only Federal grant program dedicated 
     to family planning and related services, providing access to 
     information, products, and services for contraception.
       (19) In 1972, Congress required the Medicaid program to 
     cover family planning services and supplies, and the Medicaid 
     program currently accounts for 75 percent of Federal funds 
     spent on family planning.
       (20) In 2010, Congress enacted the Patient Protection and 
     Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148) (referred to in this 
     section as the ``ACA''). Among other provisions, the ACA 
     included provisions to expand the affordability and 
     accessibility of contraception

[[Page H6928]]

     by requiring health insurance plans to provide coverage for 
     preventive services with no patient cost-sharing.
       (21) Despite the clearly established constitutional right 
     to contraception, access to contraceptives, including 
     emergency contraceptives and long-acting reversible 
     contraceptives, has been obstructed across the United States 
     in various ways by Federal and State governments.
       (22) As of 2022, at least 4 States tried to ban access to 
     some or all contraceptives by restricting access to public 
     funding for these products and services. Furthermore, 
     Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas have infringed on 
     people's ability to access their contraceptive care by 
     violating the free choice of provider requirement under the 
     Medicaid program.
       (23) Providers' refusals to offer contraceptives and 
     information related to contraception based on their own 
     personal beliefs impede patients from obtaining their 
     preferred method, with laws in 12 States as of the date of 
     introduction of this Act specifically allowing health care 
     providers to refuse to provide services related to 
     contraception.
       (24) States have attempted to define abortion expansively 
     so as to include contraceptives in State bans on abortion and 
     have also restricted access to emergency contraception.
       (25) In June 2022, Justice Thomas, in his concurring 
     opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (597 
     U.S. __ (2022)), stated that the Supreme Court ``should 
     reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process 
     precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell'' 
     and that the Court has ``a duty to correct the error 
     established in those precedents'' by overruling them.
       (26) In order to further public health and to combat 
     efforts to restrict access to reproductive health care, 
     congressional action is necessary to protect access to 
     contraceptives, contraception, and information related to 
     contraception for everyone, regardless of actual or perceived 
     race, ethnicity, sex (including gender identity and sexual 
     orientation), income, disability, national origin, 
     immigration status, or geography.

     SEC. 4. PERMITTED SERVICES.

       (a) General Rule.--A person has a statutory right under 
     this Act to obtain contraceptives and to engage in 
     contraception, and a health care provider has a corresponding 
     right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and 
     information related to contraception.
       (b) Limitations or Requirements.--The statutory rights 
     specified in subsection (a) shall not be limited or otherwise 
     infringed through any limitation or requirement that--
       (1) expressly, effectively, implicitly, or as implemented 
     singles out the provision of contraceptives, contraception, 
     or contraception-related information; health care providers 
     who provide contraceptives, contraception, or contraception-
     related information; or facilities in which contraceptives, 
     contraception, or contraception-related information is 
     provided; and
       (2) impedes access to contraceptives, contraception, or 
     contraception-related information.
       (c) Exception.--To defend against a claim that a limitation 
     or requirement violates a health care provider's or patient's 
     statutory rights under subsection (b), a party must 
     establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that--
       (1) the limitation or requirement significantly advances 
     access to contraceptives, contraception, and information 
     related to contraception; and
       (2) access to contraceptives, contraception, and 
     information related to contraception or the health of 
     patients cannot be advanced by a less restrictive alternative 
     measure or action.

     SEC. 5. APPLICABILITY AND PREEMPTION.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) General application.--Except as stated under subsection 
     (b), this Act supersedes and applies to the law of the 
     Federal Government and each State government, and the 
     implementation of such law, whether statutory, common law, or 
     otherwise, and whether adopted before or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, and neither the Federal Government nor 
     any State government shall administer, implement, or enforce 
     any law, rule, regulation, standard, or other provision 
     having the force and effect of law that conflicts with any 
     provision of this Act, notwithstanding any other provision of 
     Federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
     of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.).
       (2) Subsequently enacted federal legislation.--Federal 
     statutory law adopted after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act is subject to this Act unless such law explicitly 
     excludes such application by reference to this Act.
       (b) Limitations.--The provisions of this Act shall not 
     supersede or otherwise affect any provision of Federal law 
     relating to coverage under (and shall not be construed as 
     requiring the provision of specific benefits under) group 
     health plans or group or individual health insurance coverage 
     or coverage under a Federal health care program (as defined 
     in section 1128B(f) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1320a-7b(f))), including coverage provided under section 
     1905(a)(4)(C) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
     1396d(a)(4)(C)) and section 2713 of Public Health Service Act 
     (42 U.S.C. 300gg-13).
       (c) Defense.--In any cause of action against an individual 
     or entity who is subject to a limitation or requirement that 
     violates this Act, in addition to the remedies specified in 
     section 7, this Act shall also apply to, and may be raised as 
     a defense by, such an individual or entity.
       (d) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect immediately 
     upon the date of enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 6. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) In General.--In interpreting the provisions of this 
     Act, a court shall liberally construe such provisions to 
     effectuate the purposes of the Act.
       (b) Rules of Construction.--Nothing in this Act shall be 
     construed--
       (1) to authorize any government to interfere with a health 
     care provider's ability to provide contraceptives or 
     information related to contraception or a patient's ability 
     to obtain contraceptives or to engage in contraception; or
       (2) to permit or sanction the conduct of any sterilization 
     procedure without the patient's voluntary and informed 
     consent.
       (c) Other Individuals Considered as Government Officials.--
     Any person who, by operation of a provision of Federal or 
     State law, is permitted to implement or enforce a limitation 
     or requirement that violates section 4 shall be considered a 
     government official for purposes of this Act.

     SEC. 7. ENFORCEMENT.

       (a) Attorney General.--The Attorney General may commence a 
     civil action on behalf of the United States against any State 
     that violates, or against any government official (including 
     a person described in section 6(c)) that implements or 
     enforces a limitation or requirement that violates, section 
     4. The court shall hold unlawful and set aside the limitation 
     or requirement if it is in violation of this Act.
       (b) Private Right of Action.--
       (1) In general.--Any individual or entity, including any 
     health care provider or patient, adversely affected by an 
     alleged violation of this Act, may commence a civil action 
     against any State that violates, or against any government 
     official (including a person described in section 6(c)) that 
     implements or enforces a limitation or requirement that 
     violates, section 4. The court shall hold unlawful and set 
     aside the limitation or requirement if it is in violation of 
     this Act.
       (2) Health care provider.--A health care provider may 
     commence an action for relief on its own behalf, on behalf of 
     the provider's staff, and on behalf of the provider's 
     patients who are or may be adversely affected by an alleged 
     violation of this Act.
       (c) Equitable Relief.--In any action under this section, 
     the court may award appropriate equitable relief, including 
     temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunctive relief.
       (d) Costs.--In any action under this section, the court 
     shall award costs of litigation, as well as reasonable 
     attorney's fees, to any prevailing plaintiff. A plaintiff 
     shall not be liable to a defendant for costs or attorney's 
     fees in any non-frivolous action under this section.
       (e) Jurisdiction.--The district courts of the United States 
     shall have jurisdiction over proceedings under this Act and 
     shall exercise the same without regard to whether the party 
     aggrieved shall have exhausted any administrative or other 
     remedies that may be provided for by law.
       (f) Abrogation of State Immunity.--Neither a State that 
     enforces or maintains, nor a government official (including a 
     person described in section 6(c)) who is permitted to 
     implement or enforce any limitation or requirement that 
     violates section 4 shall be immune under the Tenth Amendment 
     to the Constitution of the United States, the Eleventh 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or any 
     other source of law, from an action in a Federal or State 
     court of competent jurisdiction challenging that limitation 
     or requirement.

     SEC. 8. SEVERABILITY.

       If any provision of this Act, or the application of such 
     provision to any person, entity, government, or circumstance, 
     is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, or 
     the application of such provision to all other persons, 
     entities, governments, or circumstances, shall not be 
     affected thereby.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The bill, as amended, is debatable for 1 
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or their respective 
designees.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) and the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).


                             General Leave

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and add extraneous material on H.R. 8373, the Right to Contraception 
Act.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H6929]]

  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 8373, the Right to 
Contraception Act introduced by Representative Manning.
  When the Supreme Court overruled a woman's constitutional right to 
abortion last month, it also called into question all the other 
fundamental freedoms that Americans cherish under the 14th Amendment's 
right to privacy, including the right to contraception.
  In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas went so far to even 
contend that the Court should reconsider Griswold, the landmark case 
that first recognized the constitutional right to use contraceptives.
  This has opened the door for Republican legislators in States like 
Idaho, Louisiana, and Mississippi to try to ban certain contraceptive 
methods. These extreme proposals build on decades of Republican efforts 
to restrict access to essential reproductive healthcare services. They 
have tried to gut the Title X Family Planning program, which provides 
access to contraceptives and family planning services for low-income 
and uninsured individuals. They have also repeatedly tried to 
invalidate the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive mandate, which 
ensures coverage for contraception free of charge.
  Contraception is basic preventive healthcare and is crucial to the 
health and human rights of all people. Millions of people rely on 
contraception not only to prevent unintended pregnancies but to prevent 
and treat a wide range of medical conditions. Access to contraception 
is essential to achieving gender equality as it advances women's health 
and economic empowerment.
  H.R. 8373 ensures that Republicans cannot limit people's access to 
contraceptives. It also ensures that healthcare providers can provide 
contraceptives and information about them free from political 
interference.
  Madam Speaker, while the right to contraception is legal today, we 
must act to ensure this remains true in the future. This legislation 
does exactly that, by enshrining the right to contraception in Federal 
law.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8373. Every woman's 
potential journey to motherhood is different, and I support their 
access to contraception.
  However, this legislation has a lot of problems. Democrats just 
introduced it on Friday and debated it for the first time on Monday in 
the Committee on Rules. And since then, they have had to introduce 
multiple amendments to address their own failures to draft good policy.
  This is not how we build trust in solutions to bring forward in the 
people's House. If Democrats came to me and asked to work together on a 
bill, I would have been happy to roll up my sleeves and work with them.
  For years, Republicans on both sides of the Capitol have led on 
solutions to allow for great access to safe and effective 
contraception, including making it available over the counter. Right 
now, Congresswoman Ashley Hinson and Congresswoman Stephanie Bice are 
leading on these bills.
  Unfortunately, today, rather than work with us, Democrats again, are 
spreading fear and misinformation to score political points. And they 
are doing it with a very poorly drafted bill that opens the door 
further to extreme abortion on demand and their agenda.
  H.R. 8373 is a Trojan horse for more abortions. It should be called 
the payouts for Planned Parenthood act. It would send more taxpayer 
dollars to Planned Parenthood, freeing up more funds for them to 
provide abortions and end vulnerable lives.
  This bill endangers the health and safety of women. It allows Planned 
Parenthood and abortion providers to prescribe both on- and off-label 
drugs to be used for abortions without any restrictions. Additionally--
and again, despite many drafts--Democrats included a definition of 
contraception that is not limited to FDA-approved products.
  The term ``contraception'' is defined as an action taken to prevent 
pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility awareness-
based methods and sterilization procedures.
  This means that the bill creates an individual right to engage in 
contraception which can include the use of FDA-approved products, but 
also any other action taken to prevent pregnancy, including non-
approved products.
  H.R. 8373 will also continue President Biden's war on religious 
liberty and conscience protections. It would force health providers to 
violate their religion and sincerely held beliefs to provide 
contraception and perform sterilizations, including on minors.
  It would also force organizations, like the Little Sisters of the 
Poor to violate their religion and provide contraception. For all the 
fearmongering Democrats are spreading about other Supreme Court 
precedents being threatened, where is the respect for the Little 
Sisters of the Poor and their victory for their constitutionally 
guaranteed religious freedom?
  The unfortunate reality today is that this bill goes too far and 
defies the most basic safeguards meant to protect women and children. 
Women deserve the truth, not more fear and misinformation that forces 
an extreme agenda on the American people.

  Again, Republicans have led to make birth control available over the 
counter. In 2019, the Federal Government, under a Republican President, 
spent $1.8 billion for family planning. We have solutions to build on 
this work to support women.
  Unfortunately, Democrats are conflating the issues of abortion and 
contraception to promote unrestricted abortion for all 9 months of 
pregnancy.
  Contraception is fundamentally different than abortion; a distinction 
recognized by the pro-life community, doctors, medical professionals, 
the science, and in Justice Alito's Dobbs opinion.
  Abortion intentionally ends a human life. Contraception is to prevent 
conception.
  There is a clear distinction, and to suggest otherwise is more 
fearmongering and scare tactics that are a disservice to women 
everywhere.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to H.R. 8373, and I urge my 
colleagues across the aisle to work with us. We welcome the 
opportunity. Rather than rushing another poorly drafted bill--an 
extreme bill--through the people's House, we can come together to 
support every woman's path to a better life and every woman's journey 
to motherhood.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Manning), the sponsor of this legislation.
  Ms. MANNING. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, the Right to 
Contraception Act. It seems unbelievable that in the year 2022, we 
should have to explain that access to birth control is about equality. 
It is critically important so that women can:
  Decide whether and when to have a family.
  Pursue an education.
  Build an economically secure future; and
  Protect their health.
  Let's be honest about the facts. Almost all women will use birth 
control at some point in their lives, and more than 96 percent of 
voters support access to birth control. Yet, the right to birth control 
is under attack by Republican lawmakers who are pushing disinformation 
about how contraceptives work and attempting to ban methods like IUDs 
and Plan B.
  Justice Thomas has added fuel to that fire by stating in Dobbs that 
the Court should reconsider the constitutional right to contraception.
  This extremism is about one thing: control of women. We will not let 
this happen. We will not play defense anymore. This time, we are 
playing offense.
  My bill creates a Federal statutory right for individuals to use 
birth control and for healthcare professionals to provide it.

                              {time}  0930

  It protects a full range of contraceptive methods, including birth 
control pills, IUDs, and emergency contraceptives.
  It subjects any State or government official who restricts access to 
contraceptive services to a civil action by the

[[Page H6930]]

attorney general, or an individual or healthcare provider whose rights 
are violated.
  Let's be clear, this bill is about allowing women the freedom to 
choose the contraception that works best for them to allow them to 
prevent unintended pregnancies.
  American women--indeed all Americans--deserve the freedom to make 
their own decisions about their bodies, their family planning, and 
their lives.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
vote ``yes'' on this well-crafted bill, the Right to Contraception Act, 
because women and girls across this country are watching you. They want 
to know:
  Are you willing to stand up for them?
  Are you willing to fight for them?
  Madam Speaker, I certainly am.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), the chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce 
Health Subcommittee.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I rise in the strongest support of H.R. 
8373, the Right to Contraception Act.
  We all belong to committees here, and when we do, as we do, we get to 
know Members very well. An observation of mine over these years as a 
member of the Energy and Commerce Committee is--I don't know any Member 
that has 10, 12, or 14 children. I would say there is some family 
planning going on here.
  This is a private decision that we all have had the freedom to make. 
This bill is about family planning. It is about birth control. It is 
not about controlling women. It is about the freedom that women can 
make.
  No politician or judge should be interfering in private healthcare 
decisions or restrict access to contraception. The Supreme Court has 
threatened this fundamental right, leaving this issue on the Court's 
chopping block.
  Madam Speaker, everyone should vote for this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8373, 
the right to deception act.
  First, this bill is completely unnecessary. In no way, shape, or form 
is access to contraception limited or at risk of being limited. The 
liberal majority is clearly trying to stoke fears and mislead the 
American people, once again, because in their minds stoking fear is 
clearly the only way that they can win.
  No State--not one--not one State across the country has banned access 
to contraceptives. That is a fact--and an inconvenient one on the left. 
Now they are left to make up wild stories about States that they cannot 
name banning contraceptives.
  However, rather than uniting behind the broad and commonsense notion 
that access to safe and legal contraception is important, my colleagues 
on the left have once again chosen political theater. I guess that 
would explain the connection to Hollywood, right?
  It is time to get past the theater and look at these inconvenient 
facts that my colleagues on the left will not tell you about, and their 
outrageous claims.
  They claim that this is a clean codification to ensure that 
contraceptives can never be banned in this country. Let me be clear, 
this goes far beyond that claim.
  In fact, this bill jeopardizes constitutional rights of individuals 
and organizations across this great land by forcing providers to 
prescribe various forms of contraception that violates their religious 
rights. We are a Nation that upholds and values religious freedom, and 
this bill here today flies in the face of individuals with religious 
liberty concerns.
  As a constitutional conservative, I am also disturbed by the 
provisions within this bill that attempt to provide a back door for 
abortion service providers, like Planned Parenthood, to tap into more 
Federal taxpayer dollars.
  This bill, brought under false pretenses by the left, in a vain 
attempt to scare Americans with lies and exaggeration represents a 
clear overstep of Federal authority.
  If you are still wondering why every single Member in this Chamber 
should be voting against this bill--the right to deception act--you 
should know that this administration has already proven that they will 
sick a highly politicized DOJ on concerned parents.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman 
from Florida an additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, if you are wondering, once again, why 
every single Member in this Chamber who took an oath to uphold the 
United States Constitution, not a political parties' oath, if you are 
wondering why you should vote against the right to deception act, you 
should know that this administration has already proven that they will 
sick a highly politicized DOJ on concerned parents. They have done it 
before. They will do it again.
  This bill here today would take away a parent's rights with regard to 
their children and the State laws that are designed to protect minors. 
No bureaucrat in Washington knows better than our parents back home. I 
would be happy to debate that fact any day.
  Let's recap. This bill--the right to deception act--is looking to 
solve a problem that doesn't exist. But more than that, in seeking to 
solve a problem that doesn't exist, you want to spend more of our 
taxpayer money to grow the size and scope of government and to allow 
more abortions to occur and kill our children. Cool. You all are a real 
piece of work. Folks back home, they see right through this, and they 
will see through it in November.
  Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), the chairwoman of the Consumer Protection 
and Commerce Subcommittee.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Madam Speaker, I thank the sponsors of this 
legislation for their support. I have been proud to join them.
  Madam Speaker, you know, you would think that everyone would want to 
protect access to contraception and to family planning, especially 
people who are opposed to abortion. Yet, we have seen that there have 
been efforts to exclude available and effective contraception, that 
there has been an effort to limit the choices that women have to even 
have contraception. So, yes, we absolutely need to pass this bill. We 
need to pass it into law. We need to do it right now.
  Madam Speaker, 99 percent of Americans are in favor of contraception, 
so let's pass this legislation. We should do it with all our Members on 
both sides of the aisle.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a member of our committee.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 8373, the 
Right to Contraception Act.
  Contraception is empowering. It gives people control over what 
happens to their bodies and supports the freedom to plan a family. 
Using birth control can shape an individual's life. Being able to 
choose the contraceptive that is right for you impacts your future 
health, education, employment, and economic security.
  The Supreme Court's decision was a direct attack on abortion, and 
Americans are now justifiably scared about the future of birth control. 
Republicans across this country will continue their extreme assault on 
basic freedoms. Justice Thomas made it clear that the Supreme Court 
will do nothing to protect our fundamental rights from these 
coordinated attacks.
  I refuse to sit back and watch as Republicans regress our Nation to a 
place where my granddaughter has fewer rights than her mother or I did.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from California.
  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, I refuse to sit back and watch where 
States can take away an individual's ability to make personal decisions 
about their body, their life, and their future.
  Madam Speaker, I implore you to really think about this and pass this 
bill.

[[Page H6931]]

  

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 8373.
  I am here today with my Republican colleagues to stand up for the 
health and safety of women and girls across our Nation.
  It is unfortunate that this bill is written in such a way that it is 
unclear that it just covers traditional contraceptives. It is 
disappointing to see that my colleagues across the aisle are continuing 
to push their extreme abortion on demand agenda.
  It is unclear why those who call themselves the ``party of women'' 
insist on prioritizing the billion-dollar, far-left abortion lobby over 
women and girls.
  This legislation--the payouts for Planned Parenthood act--permits the 
widespread use of chemical abortion pills. The FDA deems these drugs as 
high-risk because they can cause excessive bleeding, intense pain, 
infections, and even death.
  To make matters even worse, this bill allows abortion providers to 
administer non-FDA approved drugs and devices to women and girls 
without any regard for the drug's efficacy or the safety of the 
patient.
  We should not be promoting the widespread and unsupervised use of 
high-risk or unapproved drugs that could endanger women and girls' 
lives, and almost certainly will end the lives of their babies.
  This legislation also erodes decades of bipartisan agreement that 
taxpayer dollars should not be used to fund abortions. Instead, the 
payouts for Planned Parenthood act forces States to direct more Federal 
funding to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.
  This legislation is not about protecting access to contraception. It 
is not about protecting the rights of women and girls. It is about one 
thing, and one thing only, lining the pockets of Planned Parenthood and 
the rest of the abortion lobby.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Castor), who is a member of our committee and chairs the 
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

  Ms. CASTOR of Florida. Madam Speaker, we are at a perilous time where 
an extremist Supreme Court and the GOP are rolling back our rights. 
They are rolling back the legal guarantee to control our bodies and to 
make our own decisions about when to have children.
  In States like mine in Florida, the Governor has already instituted a 
cruel 15-week abortion ban, and recently struck a plan to provide 
contraceptive care to working-class women and girls for the second year 
in a row.
  I have served in Congress for enough years to watch the GOP over time 
fight to eliminate birth control and family planning funds. They fought 
to eliminate the no-cost birth control under the Affordable Care Act, 
in addition to the Democrats fighting to establish this right to 
contraceptives.
  This bill also would ensure that doctors can continue to do their 
jobs and provide contraceptives without being turned into criminals. 
Contraceptive use is crucial to preventing unintended pregnancies, 
preventing and treating countless medical conditions, and decreasing 
the risk of certain cancers.
  Everyone should have equal access to necessary preventative care no 
matter which State you live in. On behalf of the women in the State of 
Florida and America, I urge my colleagues to support the right to 
contraceptives and the right of women to control their own bodies.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Ms. KUSTER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Right to 
Contraception Act.
  The overturning of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court was a wake-up 
call. We cannot leave our right to privacy and our most fundamental 
freedoms up to chance.
  The government has no place inserting itself into the personal and 
private healthcare decisions of Americans, including access to 
contraceptives.
  Ongoing extreme attacks on women's freedom and control of our own 
bodies make clear that Congress must take action to protect our most 
basic right to medical care and contraception. There are countless 
reasons for patients to access contraception and why healthcare 
providers prescribe. These reasons are nuanced, complicated, and, 
frankly, none of the government's business.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and to protect 
the privacy and freedom of millions of Americans.

                              {time}  0945

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is a leader on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Washington 
for yielding.
  While practicing medicine for over 30 years back in Texas, I 
personally prescribed a lot of contraceptives. I have seen the benefit 
that they have over the lives of women who use them, and I will 
continue to support a woman's right to access contraception.
  But this bill was brought to the floor of the House urgently and 
outside of regular order. There was no attempt to work with 
Republicans. The majority hastily put forward an incomplete product 
that, at the end of the day, is never going to see the light of day in 
the Senate.
  The Right to Contraception Act would establish a statutory right for 
patients to obtain contraception and for doctors to prescribe. The 
kindest thing I can say about this legislation is that it is 
duplicative and unnecessary. But, unfortunately, it can also be 
damaging.
  Contraception is so broadly defined that it could guarantee access to 
medical abortion pills or even contraceptives that might not have FDA 
approval. It could lead to the dispensing of unsafe products. Even if a 
product gets FDA approval, it does not always ensure its safety.
  Essure was a medical device previously sold to cause sterilization. 
The FDA approved this device in 2002, but it didn't start examining 
reported concerns by users until 2015. In 2018, the FDA restricted the 
sale of Essure, and the manufacturer took the device completely off the 
market.
  The Dalkon Shield is an intrauterine birth control device 
manufactured and sold in the early 1970s. This device was responsible 
for many reported incidents of inflammatory infections, uterine 
perforations, spontaneous septic abortions, as well as at least four 
deaths. The FDA requested this device be taken off the market in 
October of 1974 but never issued a formal recall. Under the language of 
this bill considered today, a provider could provide that. When 
manufacturing ceased in 1976, more than 2 million of these devices had 
already been sold in the United States.
  Madam Speaker, I am the first to agree that the drug approval process 
at the FDA should be made faster, more transparent, and safer. But 
imagine the dangers of allowing contraceptives and devices where the 
FDA has not even considered their safety.
  Madam Speaker, you will find consensus in the Energy and Commerce 
Committee amongst Republicans regarding preserving access to 
contraception if the Democrats had only decided to work. We had no 
legislative hearing; we had no subcommittee markup; and we had no full 
committee markup.
  The bill was introduced last Friday and brought to the Rules 
Committee on Monday. I am also a member of the Rules Committee, so that 
was the only hearing that we had on this legislation. As I like to tell 
people, Rules Committee members are like the apex predators of the 
legislative process. We are only there at the end of the road.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is bad, and I urge it not to be adopted.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota (Ms. Craig), who is the co-lead on this legislation.
  Ms. CRAIG. Madam Speaker, to tell you the truth, I am disappointed to 
be here today, too, supporting the very idea and the very notion that 
we have

[[Page H6932]]

to be here today exerting and codifying the right for women to make 
their own healthcare and family planning decisions.
  It is 2022, and we are standing here today with Roe overturned and 
with 77 percent of this extreme GOP caucus voting against marriage 
equality, so you had better bet, Madam Speaker, that we are here 
because the Supreme Court has attacked reproductive rights. It is 
absolutely necessary that we take action today.
  For most of our lives, women across our country, including most in 
this room, have relied on birth control to exert control over their own 
futures. Yet, today, in the year 2022, many of those women are 
wondering if they will see that control disappear.
  Make no mistake about it, Madam Speaker, this is actually about 
control. An extreme GOP and extreme Supreme Court want to take away 
your freedom and your control over your own lives.
  Quite frankly, it is tragic. My colleague is right. The idea that we 
are even standing here today having to consider legislation that would 
codify Americans' right to contraception, birth control, and IUDs--and 
I can't believe the gentlewoman mentioned Trojan in her opening 
remarks. We are here because we are in an absurd time where an 
extremist GOP wants to take control.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation today.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks).
  Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
Allowing Greater Access to Safe and Effective Contraception Act and 
against H.R. 8373. My colleague, Dr.   Michael Burgess, has listed its 
many flaws, and this is an extreme bill from a desperate majority.
  I was proud to join my colleague, Representative Hinson from Iowa, in 
introducing this bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
motion to recommit so we can bring this bill to the floor. This bill 
would make FDA-approved oral contraceptives available for over-the-
counter use.

  In 2019, I championed similar legislation as a member of the Iowa 
State Senate that would allow women over the age of 18 to access over-
the-counter oral contraceptives.
  As a physician, a former director of the Iowa Department of Public 
Health, and a mother, I understand how important it is for women to 
have increased access to oral contraceptives. The Iowa Senate knew it, 
too, which is why our State senate passed that bill with overwhelmingly 
bipartisan support, and it would have passed with only Republican 
support.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8373 and for 
the motion to recommit.
  Madam Speaker, over the past month, the issue of abortion has been a 
prevalent topic in the news in light of the Supreme Court's Dobbs 
decision. I am pro-life. Most of my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are not. But regardless of our stance, we can all agree that we 
should enact policies to reduce the number of women who feel the need 
to seek an abortion.
  The evidence is clear. One of the best ways we can prevent abortions 
is to increase access to contraception. Research has shown us time and 
time again that if you make it easier for women to access oral 
contraceptives, you lower the rate of unplanned pregnancies.
  Providing over-the-counter contraceptives is safe and effective for 
women. Oral contraceptives were first approved by the Food and Drug 
Administration in 1960 and have been on the market since. But H.R. 8373 
would allow non-FDA-approved drugs and devices.
  The ones that have been approved are safe and pose fewer health risks 
than some drugs that are already being sold over the counter. Oral 
contraceptives are one of the most popular methods for preventing 
conception and avoiding pregnancy.
  In addition, women use birth control pills or oral contraceptives for 
a variety of other reasons. They can use them for regulating 
menstruation, to prevent anemia, to prevent painful heavy periods, and 
to address acne.
  Making oral contraceptives available over the counter will also 
provide benefits to populations that have historically faced challenges 
in accessing healthcare, such as low-income, rural, and young women. 
The NIH conducted a study that compared women receiving oral 
contraceptives through a prescription to women who were able to get 
oral contraceptives over the counter. The results of this study 
indicated that women were more likely to continue taking oral 
contraceptives if they are able to buy them over the counter.
  We can also ensure that young women have timely and more affordable 
access to care, but we do not want women to circumvent getting their 
preventative healthcare. We can ensure that young women who are 
statistically less likely to seek regular care at a primary care 
provider OB/GYN have access to oral contraceptives, and we can ensure 
that low-income women who may face financial challenges in taking time 
off their job to attend a doctor's appointment still have access to 
oral contraceptives.
  I want to be clear that this bill is not an effort to circumvent the 
need for women to seek regular, preventative care. If oral 
contraceptives are approved for over-the-counter use, then women should 
continue to meet with their primary care provider, and they should 
continue to see their OB/GYN. It is imperative that women are fully 
apprised of any potential side effects of contraceptives and advised if 
they are at increased risk of potential side effects, but that is not 
what H.R. 8373 does. It does not protect women's health.
  In my experience as a doctor in caring for women, we are 
knowledgeable; we are capable; and we are not going to avoid going to a 
doctor merely because we can get drugs or medicine without having seen 
that provider for a prescription. So, I trust the intelligence and 
capabilities of women to make informed decisions about their own care.
  Let me be clear. Our oral contraception bill is pro-family, pro-
women, and pro-life. H.R. 8373 is not.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing. Vote 
``yes'' on the motion to recommit and against H.R. 8373, and let's 
bring this commonsense bill to the floor.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, in response to the previous speaker, this 
bill defines contraceptives as those legally marketed under the Federal 
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Nothing prevents the FDA from removing 
unsafe products from the market.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Washington 
(Ms. Schrier). Dr. Kim Schrier is a member of our committee.
  Ms. SCHRIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, Representative 
Manning, for introducing this very straightforward bill.
  This bill affirms current law to ensure that women can determine the 
course of their lives and decide if, when, and under what circumstances 
to have a child. This is a fundamental right.
  Despite broad public support for birth control, we have already seen 
States use the Dobbs decision as an opening to try to block or ban 
certain methods of contraception. These actions bring a new sense of 
urgency to make sure no one can take away this very important tool from 
women.
  As a pediatrician, I have had the privilege of helping young women 
decide which method of contraception would be best for them, and not 
one of them wanted to become pregnant any time soon. Everybody should 
be able to choose the contraceptive that meets their needs without 
interference from politicians.
  This is not a controversial bill. It affirms our right to use 
contraception and for doctors to prescribe contraception. Frankly, it 
should get unanimous support in the Chamber.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, to clarify, the bill 
defines both contraceptive and contraception. Contraceptive is FDA 
approved; contraception is not limited to FDA-approved licensed 
products.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Bucshon). Dr. Larry Bucshon is a leader on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. BUCSHON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 8373.

[[Page H6933]]

  The bill isn't about access to traditional contraception. It is about 
preserving access to abortion drugs.
  As a physician, I adamantly believe that treatment decisions should 
be made by a patient and their provider. In making that decision, they 
need to be fully informed, knowing what we are using, for what purpose, 
and whether the FDA has determined it is, number one, safe; and, number 
two, unless the drug falls under right-to-try laws, fully proven to be 
effective.
  The legislation defines a contraceptive as any device or medication 
used to prevent pregnancy, whether specifically used to prevent 
pregnancy or for other health needs. There is no explanation of what 
the device or medication might be, and no definition for other health 
needs.
  The bill is dangerously vague. It could be applied to chemical 
abortion drugs to end a pregnancy in addition to traditional 
contraceptives. It could be used to provide statutory access to drugs 
without the guidance and administration of a trained healthcare 
professional or without any FDA review.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-crafted bill.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Mrs. Fletcher), who is a member of our committee.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Right to 
Contraception Act as an original cosponsor. I thank Representative 
Manning for her leadership--and her co-leads, Representatives Craig, 
Jacobs, and Williams--on this important bill, which responds to the 
very real threats to access to reproductive healthcare and to bodily 
autonomy that we face today.
  We saw this threat in Justice Thomas' concurring opinion in the Dobbs 
case, suggesting the landmark case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which 
gave married couples the right to use birth control, should be 
revisited and overturned. We see these threats from some in this body 
and legislatures across the country. We certainly see it in Texas.
  We also see that this effort does not represent the desires of the 
vast majority of people I represent who rely on contraception of all 
kinds every single day and have for more than 50 years. Yet, we see 
these efforts to block women from accessing contraception that works 
for them, including IUDs.
  Once again, I am proud to protect the health, privacy, dignity, and 
autonomy of women and families across this country by voting ``yes'' on 
this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

                              {time}  1000

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have three daughters. They are all adults. They are all amazed that 
we are here debating this issue. The ranking member said, me too; 
obviously, for different reasons.
  In 1965, the Supreme Court--long before any of the present Justices 
had these theories about what due process is and is not--said that 
women had a constitutional right and, in addition, men, to seek 
services related to family planning.
  Madam Speaker, women's rights are under assault in America. From the 
very beginning, of course, women were second-class citizens until we 
radically, in the beginning of the last century, decided, oh, well, 
women are part of America and we are going to let them vote. And 
successively, we have taken steps to treat women equally.
  The Supreme Court's extremist Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned 49 
years of legal precedent and erased decades of progress toward women's 
equality. This bill deals with 57 years of constitutional law, since 
1965, when Griswold was decided 7-2. It was not a controversial opinion 
with the American people nor, frankly, is this bill controversial, of 
whatever faith you may be.
  Not only did Republican-appointed Justices strip women of their 
constitutional right to access safe, legal abortions, they also opened 
the door for lawmakers to restrict women's ability to make reproductive 
healthcare decisions.
  Justice Thomas, of course, as all of us know, issued a radical 
concurring opinion that called for a reconsideration of landmark legal 
precedents, one of which we are dealing with today, Griswold v. 
Connecticut, as I said, decided in 1965, which established Americans' 
constitutional right to contraception.
  Birth control allows women and their partners to make essential 
decisions about their health and their lives, including whether to have 
children and start a family. That is the consensus in America, 
overwhelmingly.
  Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has put all forms of contraception in 
jeopardy with this decision. Now, some say, No, it doesn't. But Justice 
Thomas points out that the rationale of Dobbs is equally applicable 
from his perspective and, in my opinion, from his perspective, he is 
probably right, for himself and for radical members of the Court.
  Restricting contraceptives means undermining women's health, personal 
privacy, and bodily autonomy. Now, there are many authoritarian regimes 
in the world that don't take any consideration into the rights we have 
over our own bodies.
  Madam Speaker, we need to do everything we can here in Congress to 
ensure that all Americans have access to safe, reliable contraceptive 
care. That is why I am pleased to bring this bill to the floor.
  And I thank Kathy Manning for her leadership on the Right to 
Contraception Act. I also want to thank Representatives Williams, 
Jacobs, and Craig, as well as Lizzie Fletcher, who just spoke, for 
their leadership on this bill. I am grateful to them for standing up on 
this issue, as well as to Chairman Pallone, for moving quickly to 
advance this bill through the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  This legislation will enshrine the constitutional rights established 
by Griswold v. Connecticut and Eisenstadt v. Baird in Federal statute, 
ensuring that Americans can access contraceptive care legally wherever 
they live.
  As I said at the beginning, my three daughters are amazed that this 
legislation is on the floor; amazed that there would be a premise that 
somehow the Constitution did not guarantee to my three daughters the 
right to make these decisions and not all of us.
  This is about freedom. This is about individual integrity. And this 
vote will show the American people where Members stand on this question 
of whether it should continue to be legal for people in this country to 
pursue family planning as they perceive they want to do.
  So let's vote ``yes'' to promote women's health. Let's vote ``yes'' 
to prevent further restrictions on women's basic rights to privacy and 
autonomy.
  Let's vote ``yes'' for freedom. There is a lot of talk about freedom, 
right up until the time one decides to restrict that freedom, and then 
it is okay.
  I urge all my colleagues to vote ``yes'' to protect the Constitution, 
the constitutional precedents, and freedom.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I would like to clarify, 
this legislation never went through the Energy and Commerce Committee. 
The only debate was in the Rules Committee.
  And I also stand here proud that, in 2020, on the 100th anniversary 
of women gaining the right to vote, led by pro-life Republican women 
who fought for decades, we have a record number of women serving in the 
House of Representatives, a record number of Republican women.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van 
Duyne), a Member from the class of 2020.
  Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I rise today to adamantly oppose H.R. 
8373, the payouts for Planned Parenthood act, a poorly drafted and 
loosely defined bill that would be detrimental to women's health and 
send taxpayer dollars straight to abortion-on-demand beneficiaries.
  This bill is not about contraceptives which would prevent a 
pregnancy. This bill is about funding unlimited access to abortion 
pills.
  A woman's decision to get contraceptive pills should be an informed 
decision between her and her doctor, and not a pop-up ad.
  H.R. 8373 would allow providers to administer non-FDA-approved 
abortion

[[Page H6934]]

pills under the guise of preventing pregnancy without considering the 
side effects, the overall safety of the drug, or its intended use.

  And I would inform the majority leader that in 1965, the ability to 
pop a pill to terminate a pregnancy didn't even exist, so it is, 
therefore, not considered a right.
  This bill will send Federal tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, 
override State laws, subvert parental rights, and void requirements for 
informed consent for sterilizations.
  This is not about protecting access to contraception, but, rather, 
federally subsidizing abortion providers and allowing unapproved, 
dangerous contraceptive drugs to be widely available.
  This bill is the Democrats' latest attempt at normalizing the radical 
agenda. Just last week, we voted on Democrats' abortion-on-demand bill 
that advocated abortion until the birth of a child. You want to talk 
about extreme?
  I am so sick of hearing about what women's rights are from a party 
that can't even define what a woman is.
  I stand in front of you, a very proud woman, and I can tell you that 
aborting a fully formed child is not a woman's right. The abortion 
industry continues to lie to women and put their lives at risk in order 
to line their pockets, with the full support of my colleagues on the 
left.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 8373 and work on moving 
legislation that protects the unborn and empowers their mothers.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time that remains 
on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Brown of Ohio). The gentleman from New 
Jersey has 14\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  The gentlewoman from Washington has 8\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Jacobs) who is a co-lead on this legislation.
  Ms. JACOBS of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
making sure this bill could come to the floor so swiftly. I thank my 
friend, Congresswoman Manning, for her partnership on co-leading this 
bill with me. And I thank Speaker Pelosi for her continued leadership 
in this post-Roe reality.
  Madam Speaker, this bill could not be more important because, for me 
and for tens of millions of Americans, these threats from Justice 
Thomas and the Supreme Court to take away our right to contraception 
are not abstract.
  I have lived my entire life with this constitutional right to 
contraception, and it is a right I have exercised for decades, whether 
it was the birth control pills I used when I was a teenager to address 
debilitating cramps, the IUD I have relied on for years, or the Plan B 
I have used at times that was, thankfully, available over the counter 
when I needed it.
  I am probably the first person ever to speak about using Plan B on 
the House floor, and I know I am the first person in at least 35 years 
to talk about my period here. But you know what? We should be talking 
about it.
  We should be talking about periods and birth control and the 
healthcare that millions of Americans need for our everyday lives 
because this is not a side issue that only affects some people. This is 
a kitchen-table issue.
  The decision of how, if, and when to grow a family are decisions that 
are personal and private and should never be decided by the Supreme 
Court or Congress. It is a decision that is fundamental to our 
autonomy, our agency, and our ability to control our own lives.
  As a young woman, reproductive healthcare is my healthcare, and I am 
so grateful that, today, we will take a step to codifying that access 
into law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Joyce), a leader on the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. JOYCE of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding.
  I rise today in opposition to this legislation that has been rushed 
to the floor with no oversight, and without a single hearing in the 
Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee, the subcommittee of 
jurisdiction.
  It is clear that the majority is, once again, trying to score cheap 
political points in the press and, in the process, the patients' and 
their health outcomes have not been evaluated.
  This type of political malpractice would be similar to a doctor who 
prescribes a medication or recommends a surgery without doing the 
evaluation of the patient, without doing the due diligence, and without 
discussing the course of treatment which is best.
  We cannot continue to rush to legislation without seeing the entire 
picture.
  As a doctor, and as a Representative, I urge my colleagues to reject 
this bill and allow the committee of jurisdiction to do the work that 
is necessary in order to bring effective legislation to the floor.

                              {time}  1015

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle must have amnesia. You know why we are on this floor today? 
Because of the Dobbs case from a runaway Supreme Court, dominated by 
Members who answered that they understood precedent in Roe v. Wade and 
ignored it.
  I thank Congresswoman Manning and all of the cosponsors who recognize 
that we have to methodically protect women. Do you know what is 
happening to doctors? Every news station will have doctors on, 
frightened about what they should do about women's healthcare.
  This is important legislation, Right to Contraception, because it 
does deal with menstrual regulation, endometriosis, or hormonal 
imbalance.
  Teenagers are given this because of menstrual problems, but those who 
don't understand this, they are standing on the floor talking about 
this is a runaway bill.
  If it is coronavirus, the monkey pox, or any other health matter, it 
is Democrats who are saving America. This legislation is definitely 
needed because the Supreme Court has trampled on the Constitution, 
trampled on the Ninth Amendment, trampled on equal protection under the 
law.
  I support H.R. 8373. The women who are in need, who are vulnerable, 
who are individuals, who are minority women need this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise in strong support of H.R. 8373, the 
``Right to Contraception Act.''
  H.R. 8373 would expressly assert the right of an individual to obtain 
and utilize contraception.
  This would include any FDA approved device or medication used to 
prevent pregnancy, whether specifically used for that goal, or for 
other health needs like menstrual regulation, endometriosis, or 
hormonal imbalance.
  Additionally, the ``Right to Contraception Act'' would outline the 
rights of healthcare providers to prescribe and dispense contraceptives 
and relevant information to patients.
  This bill would require lawmakers who attempt to place additional 
requirements on providers or access to contraception to prove that the 
requirement significantly advances access to contraceptives and that 
access could not be better achieved by other methods.
  Birth control pills, IUDs, and other forms of contraception are all 
forms of safe and essential healthcare.
  They are central to women's ability to participate equally in the 
workplace, in academia, and in society.
  The right to contraceptives has long been an expectation held by the 
American people.
  In 1965, the United States Supreme Court's decision in Griswald v. 
Connecticut affirmed a married couple's right to birth control. In 
1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird protected that right for single people. Then 
in 1977, the right to contraception for minors was secured in Carey v. 
Population Services International.
  For more than 50 years, the right to contraception has been settled 
law.
  That is, until the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson 
Women's Health Organization, when five conservative Justices chose to 
let their personal opinions and beliefs supersede decades of 
established precedent by overturning women's right to abortion.
  Since then, the American people have witnessed the abhorrent 
consequences of Republicans' radical agenda to criminalize women's 
reproductive health decisions.
  In his concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas made it very clear 
that the extremist ruling that ended Roe v. Wade could be used to chop 
away at other rights--including the right to access contraception.

[[Page H6935]]

  Reproductive rights opponents are now including emergency 
contraception, IUDs, and other forms of birth control in their anti-
abortion legislation.
  These anti-abortion laws shackle women to unwanted pregnancies.
  Conservative lawmakers now seek to stop women from exerting agency 
over the prevention of pregnancy, as well.
  If a woman is not permitted to end a pregnancy, and she is not 
permitted to prevent a pregnancy, I ask you, what rights to her body 
does she have left?
  The ability to make personal choices about one's own body is the most 
basic of fundamental human rights.
  That right is engraved into the very foundation of our Nation and 
inked into the hallowed lines of the U.S. Constitution.
  Do we not uphold our Constitution for its promise of life, liberty, 
and pursuit of happiness?
  How then, can we withhold those rights from half of our population by 
robbing women of agency over their bodies?
  In 1965, the United States Supreme Court made the 7-2 Griswold v. 
Connecticut ruling that established the right for married couples to 
utilize contraception.
  This decision was not determined by the personal belief systems of 
those Justices nor their approval or disapproval of contraception.
  No, the right to access contraception was upheld by the promise of 
unenumerated rights and due process for all American people--as 
outlined in the United States Bill of Rights.
  As my colleagues know, the 9th Amendment states that the federal 
government does not retain final authority over the rights that are not 
listed in the Constitution.
  The Bill of Rights does not exhaust all the rights retained by the 
people.
  Instead, those undocumented rights belong to the people, as does the 
right to contraception.
  Also, as a hallmark of democracy, the 14th Amendment ensures that no 
right afforded to the American people can be taken away without due 
process of law, while also guaranteeing all Americans that they shall 
have equal protection under the law.
  The assurances of the 14th Amendment became part of our national 
governing documents as a protection against those who would use their 
power to wipe away the freedoms of others without restraint or consent 
of the governed.
  Unfortunately, it is just as necessary and relevant today as it was 
when it was ratified in 1868.
  Even before the barbaric Dobbs ruling, conservative lawmakers across 
the country have been moving to limit women's ability to make decisions 
about their own healthcare and bodies.
  In 2021 alone, at least 4 states attempted to ban access to some or 
all contraceptives by restricting public funding for these products and 
services.
  Those laws work in conjunction with actions conservative legislators 
in red states have taken to curtail funding for family planning 
services at reproductive health centers like Planned Parenthood.
  Such actions would limit access to birth control, particularly for 
Black and Brown low-income women.
  A 2010 study found that access to contraceptive care resulted in 
approximately one million fewer unplanned conceptions per year.
  That is one million fewer children born into families who are 
unprepared to support them.
  When access to contraceptives is limited, more children are born into 
lives of difficulty and hardship.
  After Texas Republicans excluded Planned Parenthood from its public 
family planning program for low-income women, there was a 35 percent 
drop in prescriptions for long-acting, reversible contraceptives and a 
31 percent drop in the use of injectable contraceptives.
  This caused a more than 25 percent increase in unintended births--
largely among Black and Brown low-income women.
  H.R. 8373, the ``Right to Contraception Act,'' would help ensure that 
children are born into families who are eager, equipped, and prepared 
for their arrival.
  We cannot allow human rights to be so callously stripped away from 
the American people.
  We must fight back and codify these rights into law.
  Contraception allows individuals, couples, and families to be in 
control of their own futures.
  Contraception can allow a young woman to achieve her dreams of 
earning a college degree.
  It can allow a young couple to prioritize their careers before 
raising a child.
  It can allow parents to focus their financial and emotional resources 
on the care of a special needs son or daughter.
  It is a tool that allows those who wish to become parents, and those 
who do not, the agency to make the decision that is best for them.
  The Right to Contraception Act asserts that we will no longer allow 
the human rights of women to be infringed.
  If conservative legislators and conservative Justices intend to 
continue to attempt to limit access to reproductive rights, we will 
fight back.
  We will not allow women to be regulated like reproductive chattel.
  American women deserve to have the final authority over their own 
bodies and their own lives, including whether or not to become pregnant 
and become a parent.
  Contraception is on the front lines of this battle.
  That is why I support H.R. 8373, the ``Right to Contraception Act'', 
and encourage my colleagues to do so as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee), the co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus.
  Ms. LEE of California. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 8373, of which I am a proud original cosponsor. I thank 
Congresswoman Manning for her tremendous leadership and also Chairman 
Pallone and Speaker Pelosi for bringing this bill to the floor.
  As co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, I know how important this bill 
is, especially after the Supreme Court's recent decision overturning 
abortion access.
  Radical extremists have been clear that they will be going after 
rights like contraception next, and that is just downright outrageous.
  It is hard to imagine so many freedoms are being taken away: abortion 
and contraception, no access to family planning, and, of course, no 
support at all from Republicans for comprehensive sex education.
  Everyone should have the freedom to make decisions about their 
bodies, their lives, and their future. That includes the right to 
choose which FDA-approved method of contraception is best for them.
  The Pro-Choice Caucus, and many of us, have urged the FDA to make 
birth control available over the counter. Safety and efficacy are 
extremely important, and I urge the FDA to move quickly but carefully. 
Birth control must be safe. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes.''
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
  Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, my new district is actually where Susan B. 
Anthony, a pro-life woman Republican who got us our right to vote, 
actually was tried for voting. I am just happy and proud to represent 
that district.
  We are elected Representatives. We should respect the Constitution 
and due process by debating these issues through regular order, getting 
the input from the people we represent, not the political partisans on 
one side or the other.
  If we allow the majority to undermine constitutional safeguards for 
an imagined and fake emergency, they will create more imagined 
emergencies in the future to violate and undermine our constitutional 
principles and the right of the people to have a voice through 
representative government.
  The law is clear. For years, the Supreme Court has consistently found 
that Americans continue to have access to many safe forms of 
contraceptives. Yet, we are here today, listening to another imagined 
emergency to try to repeal this right. The right to contraception is 
safe. This is not an emergency.
  Justice Alito's majority decision in Dobbs versus Jackson was clear. 
The decision to return the issue of abortion to the States does not 
impact other issues like marriage or contraception as stated numerous 
times by Justice Alito in his opinion.
  The real reason we are here today is because some of our colleagues 
would like to distract and scare the American people and score cheap 
political points rather than tackle the bread-and-butter issues 
affecting all Americans.
  The majority won't admit that their radical spending and war on 
energy have driven inflation and gas prices to record levels.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute now to the gentlewoman 
from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), our Assistant Speaker.

[[Page H6936]]

  

  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, today we vote to protect 
the right to obtain and use birth control, a choice that should be 
yours and yours alone.
  As a reminder, the year is 2022, not 1922, not 1822. It is well 
established. Birth control is central to a person's ability to plan 
their future, to care for their families, get an education, have a 
career.
  But the extremist Republican Party is determined to take us back in 
time and take away our freedoms. Politicians have no business in your 
bedroom or your doctor's office.
  They are coming for birth control. They are coming for IVF. We have 
seen the plans. We have seen the legislation. House Democrats are 
taking a stand. We will defend our rights and defeat the Republicans' 
assault on freedom.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to 
the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), a champion for life.
  Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, several pro-abortion policies 
are embedded in this bill, including section 4(b)(1), which states that 
``any healthcare providers who provide contraceptives may not be 
singled out through any limitation or requirement.''
  What does that language mean? Simply put, any Federal or State policy 
that ensures that taxpayer-funded family planning clinics are not 
colocated with abortion clinics would now be absolutely prohibited 
under the bill.
  In 2019, President Trump promulgated the protect life rule, 
reestablishing Ronald Reagan's Title X rule that prohibited taxpayer 
funding of the hundreds of family planning clinics that were colocated 
with abortion clinics. All funds were then redirected to family 
planning clinics that were not taking the lives of unborn babies.
  The original Title X statute of 1970 made clear that voluntary family 
planning projects should not be in a program where abortion is a method 
of family planning. President Reagan issued that rule in 1988. It was 
upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Rust v. Sullivan.
  Any future President now, if this legislation is enacted, would be 
precluded by law from reestablishing the protect life rule or any 
similar policy. Madam Speaker, Title X was intended to be about family 
planning, not abortion promotion.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, may I ask, again, about the time 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 10\1/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 5 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Colorado (Ms. DeGette), the chairwoman of the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Madam Speaker, at the hearing I had on this issue in my 
subcommittee the other day, Dr. Resneck, the president of the AMA, said 
he doesn't want to have, when he is in clinic with a patient, a State 
Attorney General sitting on his shoulder.
  I know how he feels because many of my colleagues on the other side 
not only want to stop a patient's ability and decision to have an 
abortion, they apparently want to tell people now what kinds of birth 
control they can use.
  Today I have heard my colleagues on the other side say falsely that 
IUDs, that chemical birth control, that other forms of birth control 
are ``abortifacients.'' Not only is this patently untrue, but it harms 
millions of Americans.
  I would say that I think everybody listening to this debate is 
probably confused. My colleagues say, oh, we support birth control. But 
make no mistake about it, there have been bills in a number of States, 
and there have been bills in this body to ban common forms of birth 
control--not abortion, birth control--and that has got to stop.
  My colleagues across the aisle, they think that the rhythm method or 
condoms or something like that are okay, but the things women use to 
stop getting pregnant can't be used, and I think that is important to 
point out.
  I think every woman in America needs to know this, and, frankly, 
every patient in America should be able to make their open decision 
about their healthcare for abortion and birth control.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel), co-chair of the Democratic Women's Caucus.
  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, my, my. Mark my words. 
The Supreme Court's decision to dismantle abortion was just the start 
of extreme unnecessary intrusion of our personal lives by Republicans.
  Next on their list? Limit the right to buy and use the birth control 
that give women the ability to plan their families.
  Listen to this: This is not imaginary. This is happening right now. 
Madam Speaker, I was in the room during committee debate when 
Republicans tried to go back to the horse-and-buggy days of birth 
control.
  On birth control counseling, condoms only, they said, say no to even 
the mention of medically approved contraception like implants and IUDs. 
Really? That is crazy, and that is why we need to pass this bill right 
now, the Right to Contraception Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I know that your committee, Energy and Commerce, has a full 
legislative load, and you prioritized this and made the time so that we 
could bring this to the floor in a timely fashion because it means so 
much.
  As our distinguished colleague from Florida, Congresswoman Frankel, 
said, my, my. Here we are.
  I rise today in strong support of the Right to Contraception Act, 
which is to defend access to birth control from the radical rightwing 
assault on reproductive rights.
  It is outrageous that nearly 60 years after Griswold was decided, 
women must, once again, fight for fundamental freedom to determine the 
size and timing of their families or if they even want young people 
having contraception in their exercise of freedom.
  But as Republicans turn back the clock on contraception, Democrats 
today are making it clear we are not going back.
  I wonder if some of our colleagues, or even people who are advocating 
to prevent contraception, know what is going on in their own families, 
with their spouses or with their children, and the rest. Could it be 
that they are all just not using contraception?
  Again, thank you to Kathy Manning, our lead sponsor. She has been so 
courageous so early on this subject, and I congratulate her and her 
staff for being so ready, as I commend the chairman, for accommodating 
the legislation.
  I also join in thanking Sara Jacobs, Angie Craig, and Nikema 
Williams, her cosponsors, on this legislation. Again, thank you, 
Chairman Pallone for your support.
  Let's be clear, that punishing and controlling women for using birth 
control is just another plank in the Republican extreme agenda for 
America, but House Democrats are fighting back.
  Our Right to Contraception Act enshrines into law the unequivocal 
statutory right to obtain and use contraception, and it protects 
against any extremist State laws that would seek to restrict that 
access.
  That way, even if the radical Republican supermajority on the Supreme 
Court succeeds in its mission to overturn Griswold, no American can be 
denied the basic right to birth control through contraception.
  This is a matter of women's health to prevent unintended pregnancies 
and to treat or prevent many medical conditions.
  Contraception is a medical tool beyond contraception. This is a 
matter of economic justice. This is a kitchen-table issue for America's 
families, as access to contraception is linked to higher rates of 
education and employment, while reducing poverty.

                              {time}  1030

  This is an assault on lower-income people in our country, many of 
them people of color. This is an economic justice assault, as well.
  Importantly, this is a matter of fundamental freedom to make your own

[[Page H6937]]

decisions about your own body and your own life. Proudly, the people 
are with us: 96 percent of voters agree that Americans should have 
access to contraception.
  By passing the Right to Contraception Act, House Democrats take 
another strong step to protect freedom for women and for every 
American.
  Last week, our proud pro-choice, pro-women Democratic majority passed 
two major bills to restore and protect health freedom.
  Our Ensuring Women's Right to Reproductive Freedom Act will protect 
the fundamental right to travel and obtain needed healthcare. That 
passed the House last week.
  Our Women's Health Protection Act will restore the essential 
protections of Roe v. Wade all across the country.
  Republicans have been clear, Madam Speaker, and the Republican leader 
in the Senate has been clear: The goal is to ban abortion in our 
country. The Associate Justice of the Court has been clear; we have 
only just begun to overturn women's rights and individual freedom and 
privacy when it comes to interaction among us all.
  Earlier this week, the House passed the landmark Respect for Marriage 
Act to ensure that marriage equality remains the law of the land now 
and for generations to come, whether it is interracial marriage, 
whatever.
  Let's be clear. Those who have opposed this vital legislation are 
only revealing their dark desire to punish and control Americans' most 
intimate and personal decisions.
  Madam Speaker, those of us who have served here for a while can tell 
you that House Republicans have been against contraception for decades. 
I couldn't even get our colleagues to vote for natural family planning.
  When the Catholic Church came to us and said we need a correction in 
the law so that funds for natural family planning can go forth, 
Republican colleagues said: Let us be clear. We are against family 
planning domestically or internationally, globally.
  We had one Republican vote with us and were able to pass the 
legislation, as requested by the Catholic Church.
  What is this about? They are against birth control, but they are for 
controlling women. This is about servitude. This is about servitude.
  We couldn't convince people. I would say to people that this isn't 
just about abortion. I understand people's position on that. I come 
from a pro-life family. I respect people's views. But this is about 
more than that. This is about contraception, birth control, family 
planning. But now it is clear.
  Today, we will have a vote on the right to contraception, and we will 
see where our Republican friends are. I hope they will be with us. We 
don't put this bill forth to put you on the spot. We put this forth to 
put women in control of their situation.
  I ask those who oppose contraception, again, do you even know what is 
going on in your own families? Why don't you ask? Do we need a session 
on the birds and the bees to talk about why this is important? What is 
going on here? Is the blind desire to have women controlled and in 
servitude such that they don't even want to know the truth about family 
planning and contraception?
  It is never too late, even though you may have opposed this in the 
past, to stand up for the rights of your wives, your daughters, your 
granddaughters, and all of America's women.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a strong, hopefully bipartisan vote for the 
Right to Contraception Act. I thank the makers of this motion; I thank 
the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning) for her leadership, 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Jacobs), the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. Williams), the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. Craig), and 
so many other cosponsors for their leadership. There is a long list of 
cosponsors, over 150 immediately. I very much thank the chairman for 
making this possible today.
  Madam Speaker, I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, again, so proud that it 
was pro-life Republican women like Susan B. Anthony who led the right 
to vote over 100 years ago. Just to correct the record, both Speaker 
Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer suggested that there was a legislative 
hearing. I don't remember any legislative action. I would ask the 
chairman, was there any legislative action on this bill?
  Mr. PALLONE. Will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, they weren't suggesting that there was a 
legislative hearing, just that the Energy and Commerce Committee worked 
to get this bill drafted with Ms. Manning and her staff.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Reclaiming my time, Congresswoman Diana 
DeGette, my colleague on the committee, said that we had a hearing. It 
was an Oversight and Reform Committee hearing on Dobbs. I want to quote 
because what the Democrat witness said confirms the Democrats' abortion 
on demand until birth act. The Democrat witness said: People find out 
they need abortions through their pregnancies, yes, at any time for any 
reason. The issue at hand is the Democrats' extreme agenda, abortion on 
demand up until birth.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Mrs. Bice), a proud member of the class of 2020 with record Republican 
women.
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I am offended that the other 
side of the aisle would make false accusations about Republicans' 
positions on contraception. This is fearmongering of the highest 
degree.
  I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 8373, the so-called Right to 
Contraception Act. This problematic legislation reinforces the left's 
pro-abortion agenda by utilizing an overly broad definition of 
contraception that includes pregnancy-terminating abortion drugs.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would incorrectly have 
the American people believe that Republicans don't care about women's 
access to contraception. This is false. In fact, a report released just 
this week by the Independent Women's Voice demonstrated that 84 percent 
of Republican primary voters support safe access to contraceptives.
  I am pro-life, and I support a woman's right to access contraception. 
That is why I introduced H.R. 8421, the Access to Safe Contraception 
Act, which would preempt States from establishing a ban on 
contraceptives while still respecting pro-life values. My legislation 
would safeguard access to contraception for Americans, including my two 
daughters, and importantly, does not protect the use of pregnancy-
ending medications, such as chemical abortion pills.
  I am also concerned that the bill we are considering today could 
endanger women by allowing the use of products or methods that are not 
FDA-approved.
  Madam Speaker, I say to my colleagues that we should reject this bill 
and instead bring up legislation to protect access to contraception in 
a way that respects the pro-life values of millions of Americans.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Chu).
  Ms. CHU. Madam Speaker, as the chair of the Contraception and Family 
Planning Task Force of the Pro-Choice Caucus and as a woman who lives 
in America, I rise today in strong support of the Right to 
Contraception Act, which would ensure every American has the federally 
protected right to access the birth control method that works for them.
  Birth control is healthcare, plain and simple, and it is critical to 
women's health and women's equality. And no one--not the Supreme Court, 
not Congress, not your boss--should be able to interfere with your 
family decisions.
  We have seen just how far this Court of unelected Justices will go to 
erode our constitutionally protected rights, which is why I am proud to 
support this very necessary bill today to create a Federal right for 
providers to provide and patients to receive contraceptive services.
  Madam Speaker, it is of great urgency that this House pass this 
critical bill today and afford us the agency to make our own healthcare 
decisions.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
  Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, the Republicans are so upset. The reality 
is it

[[Page H6938]]

is their Supreme Court and Justice Alito who opened Pandora's box. When 
we opened up the box and looked in, we saw there were nesting eggs. 
There were all kinds of issues there that were going to come to the 
fore.
  Clarence Thomas put a spotlight on it. It involved gay marriage and 
contraception. It was going to go further than Roe v. Wade. When they 
said they were originalists, we didn't realize what they meant by 
``originalist'' was everything origin came from them. They didn't care 
about precedent.
  Alito said Roe v. Wade was important precedent. Gorsuch and Kavanaugh 
said it was precedent that Roe v. Wade was settled. You can't trust the 
Supreme Court. They are radicals. They want to overturn privacy rights 
for all people in this country.
  Freedom is at stake. This bill needs to pass, and the only reason 
this bill is properly before this Congress is because of that Supreme 
Court that has gone off the radical right.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
North Carolina (Ms. Adams.)
  Ms. ADAMS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Right 
to Contraception Act.
  Family planning is a private decision, and contraception should 
always be legal, from prophylactics to Plan B.
  The Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs has opened Pandora's box. For 
some Justices, judges, and State legislators, the next steps include 
rolling back established rights and precedents, including the right to 
contraception.
  That is why the Right to Contraception Act is so important. This 
legislation establishes a statutory right to obtain contraceptives and 
for healthcare providers to provide them. It protects Americans from 
State and local legislation that would deny people's access to 
contraceptives.
  From reproductive care to LGBTQ rights, and now to contraceptives, 
Congress has a responsibility to stop State governments from rolling 
back our rights. My granddaughters shouldn't have fewer rights than my 
daughter had. Pass the Right to Contraception Act.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.

  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Massachusetts (Mrs. Trahan), a member of our committee.
  Mrs. TRAHAN. Madam Speaker, standing here today, 4 weeks after the 
Supreme Court's disastrous decision to overturn Roe, I fear for the 
future of my children.
  I fear for a future where Republican leaders agree with Clarence 
Thomas that the right for same-sex marriage should be revisited, that 
the right to birth control should be reexamined. Let me be clear: 
Neither of those rights should be up for debate.
  We voted this week to protect marriage equality. We will vote today 
to protect contraception. For those who believe this issue isn't on the 
minds of millions of Americans, open your eyes. Republicans in Idaho 
and Louisiana are pushing to ban forms of birth control. The Governor 
of Mississippi refused to rule out a contraception ban. Even the 
Republican Study Committee, which represents most House Republicans, 
has proposed eliminating contraception access programs for low-income 
Americans. That is not pro-life. It is antiwoman.
  Wake up already and join us in passing this critical legislation.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I ask you one more time how much time 
remains on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from Washington has 2\1/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney).
  Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, there is no 
democracy if women do not have control over their own bodies, including 
reproductive healthcare.
  Twenty-seven days ago, an extremist majority on the Supreme Court 
fulfilled the Republican Party's decades-old goal of overturning Roe v. 
Wade. Next on the chopping block is marriage equality and 
contraception.
  Make no mistake, these rightwing extremists are not pro-life but pro-
government controlling the bodies of women and girls. Their goal is to 
ban abortion in this country.
  Today, the House will pass Congresswoman Manning's Right to 
Contraception Act, which would codify the right to access birth control 
into Federal law. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to pass this bill 
immediately so that people have the freedom to make their own decisions 
about their futures.
  We will not go back. Pass this bill. It is fundamental to democracy.

                              {time}  1045

  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my 
time to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), another dynamic leader 
from the freshman class of 2020.
  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a reasonable 
solution to a challenge that millions of American women face: access to 
birth control.
  Seventy percent of women aged 18 to 64 reported using oral 
contraceptives throughout their lifetime. A majority of women also 
support making birth control available over the counter without a 
prescription. That is why I will be offering a motion to recommit this 
bill in a few moments, to stand for those women.
  Women should be able to access their preferred birth control method 
conveniently. Unfortunately, that is not the reality for many women. In 
rural Iowa, some women have to drive an hour to be able to see a 
gynecologist. That means taking a day off of work, finding additional 
childcare, spending hours in a car, and paying expensive gas prices to 
get there.
  This is unreasonable when we have safe and effective birth control 
options that have been FDA-approved that still aren't available over 
the counter.
  My amendment would require the FDA to give priority review for over-
the-counter access to routine-use oral contraceptives that the agency 
has already deemed safe for women aged 18 and up.
  I want to emphasize that this is for regular birth control pills, not 
emergency contraceptives like Plan B.
  Making birth control available over the counter would have a 
significant impact on women's lives. My colleagues across the aisle 
give you a whole lot of lip service about supporting women. They claim 
that their policies, no matter how far outside of the mainstream, are 
the only way to support women. That is just not true.
  Madam Speaker, I am proposing a solution today that the overwhelming 
majority of American women agree with, making their regular birth 
control pill available at their local pharmacy.
  We have an opportunity here to work together to enact meaningful 
legislation that will benefit women. Instead, my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle have offered a bill that I simply cannot 
support. Their bill attacks conscience protections for providers, 
expands access to abortion pills, and risks women's health.
  But I am not willing to vote ``no'' and just give up on this, so that 
is why I am offering a solution that we should all be able to get 
behind. We should work together to make oral contraceptives more 
accessible.
  I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the motion to recommit today, 
adopt my amendment, and give women an over-the-counter option for birth 
control.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Record prior to the vote on my motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Iowa?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I have heard many unfounded claims from the Republicans today, claims 
that this bill would prevent the FDA from acting to remove unsafe 
products or somehow direct funding for abortion.
  This bill simply provides a right to contraception. Republicans are 
trying

[[Page H6939]]

to distract from their poor record on women's health. The half-measures 
that Republicans are purporting to bring forward today do not establish 
a right to contraception, nor do they ensure that hostile State 
legislators can't take away birth control in the future.
  Only the Right to Contraception Act ensures that. That is why I 
support this legislation, and I hope my colleagues will, as well.
  Madam Speaker, I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on this bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 1232, the previous question is ordered 
on the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mrs. Ashley Hinson of Iowa moves to recommit the bill H.R. 
     8373 to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Hinson is as follows:

       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Allowing Greater Access to 
     Safe and Effective Contraception Act''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATIONS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER 
                   CONTRACEPTIVE DRUGS.

       (a) Priority Review of Application.--The Secretary of 
     Health and Human Services (referred to in this section as the 
     ``Secretary'') shall give priority review to any supplemental 
     application submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal 
     Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(b)) if--
       (1) the supplemental application is with respect to an oral 
     contraceptive drug intended for routine use;
       (2) the supplemental application is not with respect to any 
     emergency contraceptive drug; and
       (3) if the supplemental application is approved, with 
     respect to individuals aged 18 and older, such drug would not 
     be subject to section 503(b)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, 
     and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 353(b)(1)).
       (b) Fee Waiver.--The Secretary shall waive the fee under 
     section 736(a)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
     (21 U.S.C. 379h(a)(1)) with respect to a supplemental 
     application that receives priority review under subsection 
     (a).
       (c) Over-the-Counter Availability.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, with respect to individuals under age 
     18, a contraceptive drug that is eligible for priority review 
     under subsection (a) shall be subject to section 503(b)(1) of 
     the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 
     353(b)(1)), including after approval of the supplemental 
     application as described in subsection (a)(3).
       (d) Applicability.--This section applies with respect to a 
     supplemental application described in subsection (a) that--
       (1) is submitted before the date of enactment of this Act 
     and remains pending as of such date of enactment; or
       (2) is submitted after such date of enactment.
       Amend the title to read as follows: ``A bill to increase 
     access to safe and effective oral contraceptives, and for 
     other purposes.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XIX, the 
previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit.
  The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 190, 
nays 234, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 384]

                               YEAS--190

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     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
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harshbarger
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     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
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meijer
     Meuser
     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
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smucker
     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
     Zeldin

                               NAYS--234

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Biggs
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Boebert
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Buck
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Cline
     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)
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hayes
     Hice (GA)
     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
     Kinzinger
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Miller (IL)
     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)
     Rosendale
     Ross
     Roy
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (NJ)
     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

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burchett
     Davis, Rodney
     McCaul
     McKinley
     Miller (WV)
     Spartz

                              {time}  1129

  Mr. McEACHIN, Ms. CHU, Messrs. McNERNEY, DOGGETT, Mses. BLUNT 
ROCHESTER, SCHAKOWSKY, Mrs. CAROLYN B. MALONEY, Mr. NADLER, and Mrs. 
BOEBERT changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''

[[Page H6940]]

  Mr. McHENRY changed his vote ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    Members Recorded Pursuant to House Resolution 8, 117th Congress

     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bass (Spanberger)
     Bergman (Stauber)
     Bowman (Neguse)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bush (Kelly (IL))
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
     Crist (Soto)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Demings (Kelly (IL))
     Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Evans (Beyer)
     Foster (Spanberger)
     Gallego (Soto)
     Gomez (Correa)
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Houlahan (Spanberger)
     Jeffries (Kelly (IL))
     Kahele (Correa)
     Keating (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Larson (CT) (Himes)
     LaTurner (Mann)
     Lawson (FL) (Soto)
     Leger Fernandez (Correa)
     Letlow (Fleischmann)
     Luetkemeyer (McHenry)
     Meng (Kuster)
     Mfume (Kelly (IL))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Rice (NY) (Deutch)
     Ryan (Spanberger)
     Salazar (Moore (UT))
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Keller)
     Speier (Garcia (TX))
     Stevens (Kuster)
     Strickland (Kuster)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Taylor (Weber (TX))
     Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))
     Valadao (Garbarino)
     Walorski (Fleischmann)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Williams (GA) (Neguse)
     Wilson (SC) (Norman)


Moment of Silence in Memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective 
                             John M. Gibson

  The SPEAKER. The Chair asks all Members in the Chamber, as well as 
Members and staff throughout the Capitol, to observe a moment of 
silence in memory of Officer Jacob J. Chestnut and Detective John M. 
Gibson of the United States Capitol Police who were killed in the line 
of duty defending the Capitol on July 24, 1998.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jacobs of California). The question is 
on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas 
and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228, 
nays 195, answered ``present'' 2, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 385]

                               YEAS--228

     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)
     Cheney
     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
     Fitzpatrick
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (OH)
     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
     Katko
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kinzinger
     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
     Mace
     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
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Salazar
     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
     Upton
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     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
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     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)
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     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
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Zeldin

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--2

     Gibbs
     Kelly (PA)
       

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Burchett
     Davis, Rodney
     McCaul
     McKinley
     Miller (WV)
     Steube

                              {time}  1143

  So the bill was passed.
  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

     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bass (Spanberger)
     Bergman (Stauber)
     Bowman (Neguse)
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Beyer)
     Brownley (Kuster)
     Bush (Kelly (IL))
     Carter (TX) (Weber (TX))
     Cherfilus-McCormick (Neguse)
     Crist (Soto)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     Demings (Kelly (IL))
     Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Evans (Beyer)
     Foster (Spanberger)
     Gallego (Soto)
     Gomez (Correa)
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Houlahan (Spanberger)
     Jeffries (Kelly (IL))
     Kahele (Correa)
     Keating (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Larson (CT) (Himes)
     LaTurner (Mann)
     Lawson (FL) (Soto)
     Leger Fernandez (Correa)
     Letlow (Fleischmann)
     Luetkemeyer (McHenry)
     Meng (Kuster)
     Mfume (Kelly (IL))
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Newman (Beyer)
     Palazzo (Fleischmann)
     Pingree (Kuster)
     Porter (Neguse)
     Rice (NY) (Deutch)
     Ryan (Spanberger)
     Salazar (Moore (UT))
     Sires (Pallone)
     Smucker (Keller)
     Speier (Garcia (TX))
     Stevens (Kuster)
     Strickland (Kuster)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Taylor (Weber (TX))
     Thompson (MS) (Bishop (GA))
     Valadao (Garbarino)
     Walorski (Fleischmann)
     Wasserman Schultz (Soto)
     Williams (GA) (Neguse)
     Wilson (SC) (Norman)

                          ____________________