To adjust the boundary of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I thank the Chairwoman and all of the very important people on the Appropriations Committee for their work on this bill.

I ask the question, what side do you want to be on? Do you want to be on the side that provides our hardworking military pay raises for the troops, to be able to get money away from a misdirected war?

Do you want to be on the side that provides for working families?

Do you want to be on the side that stops those who can't pay for daycare to have that?

Do you want to be on the side of those who say, ``I am a Federal employee, and I have been shut out of my job''?

What side do you want to be on? I want to be on the side of negotiating an omnibus that works for the American people. I want my Republican friends to know that we have tried to negotiate, but we are adults and we are not going to let this government shut down.

What we are going to do is recognize these are dangerous times. We know that there is now an omicron variant. We are not going to play the antivaxxer game, we are not going to say that it is about vaccine mandates because we know that most of the Federal Government has been vaccinated; but what we are going to do is extend this resolution to keep the government open because the side that Democrats are on is the side of the American people and our government workers who go out and work every day and the families who go out and work every day.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. A shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, right in the middle of COVID-19.

In addition, families would be desperate as well.

I want you to understand that veterans would suffer. During the Thanksgiving holiday, I went to the veterans hospital. I can tell you, it is not empty. Veterans are there every day, and when they are there, they are getting services. Do you want to be part of a government shutdown where veterans hospitals are closed and veterans are standing outside with their hand asking what is happening?

I want to be on the side of those who understand the value of working for the American families and doing what Democrats have done, passing bills, passing laws that serve the American people.

Vote for the CR and vote for the omnibus so that we can get the job done. I thank the gentlewoman for her courtesies.

Madam Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, and on the Budget, I rise in support of H.R. 6119, the ``Further Extending Government Funding Act,'' which provides funding to continue the operations of the federal government through February 18, 2022, and avoids a wasteful and irresponsible shutdown, and also the underlying bill.

House Democrats passed government funding bills to create good paying jobs, support the hard-working middle class, and protect our national security; Senate Democrats have also released all their appropriations bills.

Without an omnibus, there will be a shortfall that will cause veterans not to receive their benefits in full.

For our national security, we need an omnibus to support defense readiness and modernization, sustain good-paying American jobs, secure our cyber infrastructure, and strengthen American leadership abroad.

Without an omnibus, a pay raise for troops will not be funded while funds will be misdirected to a war we are no longer fighting.

With a new deadline of February 18, we need Republicans to offer constructive proposals to address the critical issues facing the country by funding the federal government's important work for the American people.

Madam Speaker, I need not remind my colleagues that we are at a critical point in the fight against this pandemic--less than 24 hours ago, it was reported that the first case of the Omicron variant was confirmed in the United States.

Our response in the following days and weeks will be crucial.

Yet some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House and the Senate have indicated that they intend to block the passage of this stopgap spending bill in order to trigger a shutdown of the Federal government unless a bill is passed that undoes President Biden's initiatives to vaccinate and test employees at large companies.

Simply put, this is irresponsible and dangerous at a time when we have a new threat on our soil in the form of the Omicron variant.

A government shutdown would induce furloughs that could hit 62 percent of employees at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control.

It would be nothing other than reckless to hamstring the agency at the center of America's fight against the COVID-19 pandemic at this time--we need all hands on deck.

In September, Congress voted on a bipartisan basis to extend government funding through December 3 to allow time for bicameral, bipartisan negotiations to complete omnibus government funding legislation.

Since then, House and Senate Republicans have refused to negotiate with Democrats on government funding.

In fact, while House and Senate Democrats have put forward their proposals, Republicans have not presented an offer of their own.

Therefore, the Appropriations Committee introduced H.R. 6119, the Further Extending Government Funding Act, which continues government funding at current levels through February 18.

It makes minimal changes to address the most urgent of needs during the period of the Continuing Resolution.

Although this bill is necessary, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing an omnibus as opposed to short-term funding patches.

Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for the people.

For our communities, we need an omnibus to create jobs by supporting small businesses, bolster our public health infrastructure to prevent future pandemics and medical research to save lives, strengthen public schools with a focus on those serving students with the highest need, protect our air and water through environmental protection and enforcement efforts, combat the opioid epidemic on the ground in our communities, and support core services such as food safety and consumer product inspections.

Without an omnibus, investments in all these areas will be denied.

For our veterans, we need an omnibus to provide sufficient funding for veterans' benefits, reduce backlogs for veterans and their families seeking assistance, and meet the needs of the VA's health care system.

Throughout the 117th Congress, House Democrats have worked to deliver results for the American people, passing legislation to address each pillar of the ``For The People'' agenda: lower health care costs, higher wages by rebuilding America, and cleaning up corruption and strengthening our Democracy.

And under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, the House has passed hundreds of bills, including legislation to crush the COVID-19 pandemic, build our economy back better, lower health care and prescription drug prices, raise wages, advance economic and retirement security, end gun violence, act on the climate crisis, protect Dreamers, and strengthen voting rights.

For example, in this Congress the House has passed and sent to the President the following legislation that has been signed into law:

H.R. 1799, Paycheck Protection Program Extension Act:

This legislation extended the Paycheck Protection Program application deadline for two months through May 31, 2021 to help struggling businesses keep workers employed during COVID-19.

H.R. 1276, SAVE LIVES Act:

This law ensured that more veterans, their families, and caregivers got access to COVID-19 vaccines in a timely manner.

S. 937, COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act:

This law addresses the dramatic increase in hate crimes targeting the AAPI community since the start of the pandemic. This law designates a point person at the Department of Justice to review hate crimes related to the COVID-19 pandemic, bolsters state and local governments to improve their reporting of hate crimes and ensures that hate crime information is more accessible to Asian-American communities.

S. 475, Juneteenth National Independence Day Act:

This law established the first federal holiday in 38 years to formally recognize Juneteenth National Independence Day and commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.

House Democrats have also worked to advance critical pieces of legislation, which await action in the Senate:

H.R. 1, For The People Act:

This comprehensive legislation would promote government transparency, strengthen access to the ballot box and make it easier for Americans to exercise their right to vote, secure election infrastructure, and curb the influence of dark money in politics.

H.R. 5, Equality Act:

The Equality Act would codify consistent anti-discrimination legal protections for LGBTQ Americans by amending several existing civil rights laws to include explicit non-discrimination protections in key areas of life.

H.R. 6, Dream and Promise Act:

The Dream and Promise Act would protect Dreamers, Temporary Protected Status (TPS), and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) status holders from deportation and provide an opportunity to obtain permanent legal status that would enable these groups to work legally within the United States and continue to contribute to their local communities and economy.

H.R. 7, Paycheck Fairness Act:

This bill would strengthen labor protections around equal pay by prohibiting the use of salary history to set compensation, provide more transparent options for joining class-action lawsuits challenging systemic discrimination, and require employers to show that gender pay gaps are job-related and consistent with business need.

H.R. 8, Bipartisan Background Checks Act and H.R. 1446, the Enhanced Background Checks Act:

These bills would modernize federal laws around gun sales. The former would close current loopholes that allow buyers to purchase guns without a background check in certain venues, while the latter would prevent gun sales from going through before background checks are completed.

H.R. 1280, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act:

This bill, which House Democrats also passed in the 116th Congress 30 days after the murder of George Floyd, will address racial bias in policing, ensure accountability for police brutality and misconduct, and work to change the culture of law enforcement to promote better relationships with the communities they serve.

H.R. 842, Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act:

This bill aims to strengthen labor protections for union workers through overriding Republican-led ``right to work'' laws, promoting free and fair union elections, and holding companies that attempt to restrict union activity accountable.

H.J. Res. 17, Removing the Deadline for Ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment:

This resolution would remove the deadline for ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment in order to enshrine women's equality in the Constitution.

H.R. 1620, Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act:

This long-overdue legislation to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act passed the House with bipartisan support. It would reauthorize funding to vital grant programs that help prevent sexual assault, domestic violence, and improve access to resources for victims and survivors.

H.R. 3237, the Emergency Security Supplemental to Respond to 1/6 Appropriations Act:

This bill provides $1.9 billion in funding to secure the U.S. Capitol Complex and ensure the brave men and women of the U.S. Capitol Police have the resources they need to do

their jobs. The legislation responds to the direct costs incurred by the National Guard and DC police on January 6, provides funding to improve the security of windows and doors in the Capitol complex, and secures funds to improve Capitol Police training and equipment.

H.R. 3005, Legislation to #RemoveHate from the Capitol Building:

This bill would remove statues of those who perpetuated and supported slavery and segregation in this country, along with statues or busts of those who served voluntarily in the Confederate States of America, from public display in the U.S. Capitol.

H.R. 1603, the Farm Workforce Modernization Act:

This bipartisan bill would stabilize the agriculture industry's labor supply by reforming the H-2A guest worker program and creating a pathway to citizenship for agricultural workers, many of whom worked through the pandemic.

H.R. 51, the Washington, DC Admission Act:

This bill would admit Washington, DC as the 51st state in the Union and end the injustice in denying nearly 700,000 citizens the right to be represented fully in Congress. It would also end the unjust practice of treating District of Columbia residents differently when allocating government resources or relief.

H.R. 3985, ALLIES Act:

This bill would increase the visa cap and expedite the visa process for Afghan allies who worked alongside American military personnel, diplomats, development professionals, and partner forces, to help ensure they make it safely out of harm's way.

H.R. 803, Protecting America's Wildness and Public Lands Act:

This comprehensive bill would conserve and protect natural landscapes across America, designating over 1.5 million acres of public land as protected wilderness and withdrawing significant amount of public land from drilling and mining activities to promote a healthier environment.

H.R. 2467, the PFAS Action Act:

This bipartisan bill would improve the safety of Americans' drinking water by requiring the EPA to set a drinking water standard, prevent the future release of PFAS chemicals into our bodies of water, and start the process of cleaning up affected communities.

H.R. 256, Repeal of the 2002 AUMF Against Iraq:

This bill, which passed with bipartisan support, would repeal the 2002 Authorization of Military Force Against Iraq.

H.R. 1230, the Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act:

The bipartisan Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act restores protections for older workers that were weakened in a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that made it harder for older workers to prove age based discrimination in the workplace.

H.R. 2662, the Inspectors-General Independence and Empowerment Act:

This bill seeks to promote government transparency and accountability by ensuring the independence of federal inspectors-general, allowing government watchdogs to act freely without fear of political pressure or threats. It would also protect whistleblowers from threats of retaliation by making it a violation of House rules for Members to reveal their identities.

In addition, three Congressional Review Act resolutions have been signed into law, overturning dangerous rules put in place by the Trump Administration:

S.J. Res 13, a CRA overturning an EEOC rule to address discrimination in the workplace;

S.J. Res. 14, a CRA addressing dangerous methane emissions; and

S.J. Res. 15, a CRA to protect against predatory lenders.

These along with many, many others are among the bills awaiting Senate action.

Madam Speaker, let me briefly list several of the programs vital to Americans that are protected or extended by H.R. 6119. The bill:

Provides waiver language for certain intelligence programs as well as agencies that operate under the State Department Basic Authorities Act and Foreign Relations Authorization Act;

Allows the Food and Nutrition Service to spend at a higher rate during the period covered by the legislation to provide supplemental USDA foods to low-income seniors (age 60 and over) and to some low- income women, infants and children up to age six.

Allows a higher spending rate for the White House to support continuing COVID-19 operations.

Allows the Small Business Administration flexibility to spend at the rate necessary to accommodate potential demand increases for commitments for business loans through the 7(a) and 504 business loans, for the Secondary Market Guarantee Program, and for the Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program.

Allows District of Columbia voucher schools an additional year to be accredited and therefore remain in the program. The accrediting process requires in-school visits, which are not happening during the coronavirus.

Allows the District of Columbia to spend FY 2021 funds received from local tax revenues and other non-Federal sources in the amount and for the programs and activities provided in DC's FY 2021 Budget Act.

Extends the term of certain bankruptcy judgeships.

Allows the Federal Emergency Management Agency to access the entire DRF appropriation for fiscal year 2021 under the continuing resolution as necessary to respond to declared disasters.

Continues the authorization for the NFIP.

Extends funding for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program and the Child Care Entitlement to States program during the period of the continuing resolution. The extension will allow HHS to make first-quarter payments to States.

Extends the availability of funding for multiyear research grants supported by the National Institutes of Health that were interrupted in fiscal year 2020 by COVID-19 and would have expired at the end of the fiscal year.

Madam Speaker, our colleagues across the aisle have in both chambers have been obstructive, dilatory, petulantly uncooperative throughout the first session of the 117th Congress.

Nowhere was this more apparent than the refusal of the majority of J Republican members in the House voted 175-35 against H.R. 3233, legislation modeled after the 9/11 Commission establishing a National Commission to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the United States Capitol Complex Act.

Madam Speaker, American families do not get to choose which bills to pay and which ones to ignore; neither can the United States Congress without putting the nation into default for the first time in its history.

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

The nation's creditworthiness was one of its most important national assets and according to Hamilton: ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, I strongly support the provision in the bill before extending the public debt limit to December 16, 2021.

Madam Speaker, I would also like to discuss an important topic that is closely related to this bill and that this House must address very soon--raising the debt ceiling.

Preserving the full faith and credit of the United States by raising to the debt limit to ensure that America pays the bills for past expenditures when they come due is not a partisan exercise but an act of patriotism, a recognition and embrace of the solemn obligation to preserve the unrivaled advantages that flow from the ability provided in the Article I, Section 8, clause 2 of the Constitution to ``borrow money on the credit of the United States.''

Long ago, in 1789, Alexander Hamilton, the nation's first and greatest Treasury Secretary, understood that the path to American prosperity and greatness lay in its creditworthiness which provided the affordable access to capital needed to fund internal improvements and economic growth.

It is because of the existence and wise use of the Borrowing Power that the nation was able to expand its reaches, resources, and riches by financing the Louisiana Purchase, the purchase of Alaska from Russia, to fund the investments to end the Great Depression, to finance the mobilization of resources needed in World War II to defeat fascism and save freedom in the nation and the world, to revive the economy after the catastrophic Great Recession of 2008, and most recently, to protect the public health and safety and restore the economy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is why the ability to borrow money on the credit of the United States to finance its growth and protect its people and interests is essential to the national security and led Hamilton to proclaim that ``the proper funding of the present debt, will render it a national blessing.''

But to maintain this blessing, or to ``render public credit immortal,'' Hamilton understood that it was necessary that: ``the creation of debt should always be accompanied with the means of extinguishment.''

In other words, to retain and enjoy the prosperity that flows from good credit, it is necessary for a nation to pay its bills.

The United States has never defaulted on the payment of any debt incurred, and because of the size and strength of its economic and unmatched creditworthiness, is able to borrow on the lowest and most favorable terms of any nation or entity in the history of the world.

So secure and reliable is a bond issues by the Department of Treasury that the Unites States is the preferred haven for investments of foreign governments, corporations, and sovereign wealth funds.

The interest rate charged the federal government of the United States is the base for which every rate, from the prime rate charged the richest corporation to rates charged small business on purchases to the mortgages rates and students loans taken out by consumers.

If you raise the cost of borrowing for the government of the United States, you set off a chain reaction of increased interest rates for every other borrower in the United States and around the world.

This is why leading public finance experts and agencies, like Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi, have said it would be ``cataclysmic'' for the United States to default on its loan obligations.

Republicans know the debt ceiling needs to be raised; in 2019 during the Trump Administration, the Republican Senate Majority Leader marshalled Senate Republicans to vote to raise the debt ceiling, saying: ``We raised the debt ceiling because America can't default[,] that would be a disaster.''

Madam Speaker, this debate over extending the debt limit is not about restraining future spending, it is about paying the bills piled up already under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

The question of raising the national debt limit does not depend on how one feels about the Build Back Better agenda, as wildly popular as it is among all Americans, Democrats, Independents, and Republicans included.

It is instead about preserving the singular asset of the United States, its enviable and unrivaled creditworthiness, to finance future investments beneficial to the national interest, like the provision of free college for two years, or $2 billion investment to reduce violence in communities approved by the Committee on the Judiciary, or investments to preserve and strengthen Medicaid expansion programs, or extend broadband to underserved rural and urban areas, an action that will be as life-changing as the rural electrification program was in the 1930s.

Madam Speaker, if our friends across the aisle really want to shrink the deficit, reduce the national debt, practice fiscal responsibility, and bring about sustained economic growth and prosperity, there is a much better, easier, and more certain way to achieve these goals than by tampering with the U.S. Constitution.

The easier and better way is for the American people to keep a Democrat in the White House and place Democratic majorities in the House and Senate.

In the 1990s under the leadership of President Clinton the budget was balanced for four consecutive years, the national debt was paid down, the national debt, 23 million new jobs were created, and projected surpluses exceeded $5 trillion.

Under President Obama the financial crisis and economic meltdown inherited from his Republican predecessor was ended, the annual deficit was reduced by 67 percent, the auto industry was saved from collapse, and 15 million jobs were created.

In contrast, under every Republican administration since President Reagan the size of the deficit bequeathed to his successor was substantially larger than the deficit he inherited, a major economic recession occurred, and economic growth was lower than it was at the beginning of his administration.

To preserve the sanctity of the full faith and credit of the United States, protect American jobs and businesses of all sizes, and ensure the continued growth of the economy, raised.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of my bill, H.R. 3992, the Protecting Older Job Applicants Act of 2021.

I want to start by thanking my Republican co-lead on this bill, the dean of the House, Congressman Don Young of Alaska. I also want to thank Chairman Bobby Scott, my Democratic co-lead, for his tireless leadership to protect all workers, but especially older workers and older jobseekers.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will fix a loophole in current law that fails to protect older job applicants during the hiring process.

Despite what many people assume, older job applicants are not protected under the current Age Discrimination in Employment Act protections, commonly called ADEA.

Mr. Speaker, my bill seeks to fix this. This bill would allow older job applicants to bring claims for disparate impact discrimination hiring against employers.

While that may sound like legal technicalities and legal mumbo-jumbo to some people watching back home, Mr. Speaker, disparate impact claims are very, very important. They are important because some hiring practices might seem age-neutral on their face, but they actually impact job applicants that are older disproportionately.

The bill would clarify the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to give job applicants the right to bring these claims forward. Three- fourths of workers age 45 and older blame age discrimination for their lack of confidence in finding a new job.

But it is not just simple statistics. It is about real people and real stories.

It is like one of my neighbors, an engineer who can't find meaningful work after losing his job. He is about 60, but he is always told he is too experienced and overqualified. But he says it is all about his age.

It is about Rebecca in California, who is age 75, forced to provide her birth

date on a web-based job application where the year of her birth isn't even an option on a drop-down menu for the birth year. So she can't even apply, because the options don't include the year of her birth.

It is like Carolyn in Tennessee, age 52. She was let go from her job in March of last year. She has filed 65 job applications but gotten zero interviews. She has a BS in business finance and an MA in educational administration. She says people half her age are getting those jobs instead. She was told she needed more recent, relevant experience.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article sharing Carolyn's story entitled ``Older job seekers find experience, education may not be enough in pandemic.''

[From NewsChannel5 Nashville, Jan. 12, 2021]

Older Job Seekers Find Experience, Education May Not Be Enough in

Pandemic

(By Levi Ismail)

Nashville, Tenn. (WTVF).--Older workers are having trouble

making it back into the workforce and studies show it's part

of a trend we haven't seen in nearly 50 years.

In the first six months of the pandemic, older workers (55

and older) were 17 percent more likely to become unemployed

than their slightly younger peers.

Carolyn McKeown is 52 years old, but says she hasn't had

much luck finding a job in the nearly one year it's been

since she was let go back in March 2020. She first reached

out to us in September and since then, she's filed 65

applications with zero interviews. It's just finding the

right time and the right place,'' McKeown said.

McKeown has a Bachelor's degree in business and finance, as

well as a Master's degree in educational administration. For

decades she's worked in HR, insurance, and mortgage lending,

which she thought could be a valuable experience to any

prospective employer.

When jobs continued to turn her down, she began surveying

anyone who made the time to listen. McKeown asked how these

people half her age were getting jobs and many of them

explained that it was simply an option right out of school.

``I feel as though we're being scrutinized more heavily and

told that we need recent relevant experience, as though we've

never worked before,'' McKeown said:

The US Census Bureau found that for the first time in

nearly 50 years, jobseekers (55 and older) are facing higher

rates of unemployment than those a few years younger. They

also found that older workers stayed unemployed longer.

Tennessee Dept. of Labor & Workforce Development explains how

it works.

``This program right here can help a senior make themselves

more marketable or maybe upgrade an existing skill or teach

them an entirely new skill,'' Cannon said.

Cannon explains that these may not all be full-time jobs,

but they are jobs capable of helping someone earn an income

at a time where the money is tight.

McKeown is at the point where she's barely managing to pay

her bills. She's tapped out her savings and can no longer

afford health insurance. Not unlike the many other older

workers who now can't imagine the idea of voluntary

retirement.

That said, she's not looking for anything part-time or

without benefits. She acknowledges that some of her

qualifiers may keep her from getting certain jobs, but

McKeown says she knows her worth. Under a much different

time, her credentials could have landed her a high-paying job

with benefits. She's not expecting the same pay as before,

but McKeown says she should be afforded similar opportunities

she knows are out there.

For McKeown, she knows some employers think it's too

expensive to train an older worker in this more virtual

workforce. She says she's learning every day how to keep up,

so this stigma that older workers are somehow less capable is

the only thing outdated.

``How do they determine what the job applicant is lacking.

A job gap doesn't mean you lack the skills. It just means

you're lacking time,'' McKeown said.

What is the rebound?

As Middle Tennessee works to rebound from the impact of the

Coronavirus, we want to help. Whether it's getting back to

work, making ends meet during this uncertain time, or

managing the pressure, we're committed to finding solution.

In addition, we want to tell your stories of hope,

inspiration, and creativity as Middle Tennessee starts to

rebound.

Mr. Speaker, another story. Diana, age 53, was forced to take early retirement after her company downsized. She wasn't ready to quit working, but she hasn't found a job.

The loaded question in the application, she says, is always: When did you graduate from high school? This question tells her age. Because of that, she has gotten no interviews.

These folks are not alone. I want to read some comments from other jobseekers in their 50s about their experience job hunting:

``No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60 plus who still want to work are not so plentiful in rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work.''

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article entitled: ``I'm not dead: Inside the struggle of finding work after 50 in North Texas.''

[From the Dallas Business Journal, Feb. 11, 2019]

`I'm Not Dead': Inside the Struggle of Finding Work After 50 in North

Texas

(By Jason Wheeler)

The good news first: Diana Hinton's dog Maxwell has been on

a lot of walks lately. The bad news: She's had time for that.

Hinton's employer of almost three decades downsized, and

she had to take early retirement long before she was ready.

A recent data analysis by Pro Publica and the Urban

Institute found that early retirements are often not as

voluntary as they sound. The analysis also found that

shockingly high percentages of workers over 50 are forced out

of their jobs before they can reach retirement age.

On one of those frequent walks with Maxwell, Diana Hinton

told us she and her dog thought their outings would be for a

limited time only.

``I think the first few weeks he was looking at me like

aren't you going somewhere?'' Hinton said.

Those few weeks became a few years.

When we talked to her in September 2018, Diana was busy

going about her usual routine of filling out applications

online and sending out resumes. Often, she found herself

paining over that dreaded question on the application form.

``Here we go . . . `when did you graduate high school?'

Which I hate because I know they start adding in their

heads--she's gotta be in her 50s,'' Hinton said.

She was 53 at the time. When we talked to her, we had just

begun a series of reports on the middle class called ``Stuck

in the Middle.''

On social media, we heard from so many people in the 50-

plus age group talking about the difficulty of finding

employment. A sampling of the messages:

``. . . No jobs for older people.''

``Jobs for seniors 60+ who still want to work are not so

plentiful in the rural communities.''

``Age discrimination is alive and well in the job market.''

``No one hires old people.''

``I am 63 with no job . . . still trying to find work . .

.''

Many respondents also bolstered another of the findings

made by Pro Publica and the Urban Institute--that being

derailed so close to retirement age is devastating to

retirement plans. A sampling of the messages about how long

people will have to work:

``I'm still working at 78.''

``. . . gonna die working.''

``Looks like I'm working full time until dead, and leaving

nothing behind.''

``Foreverrrrrrrrrrrrr . . .''

``Till the end.''

``We don't even talk about retirement age anymore,'' said

Claire Turner, deputy director of the Elder Financial Safety

Center at The Senior Source. ``People are wanting to work as

long as they can. So they get the question in the interview

where do you see yourself in five years? I see myself

working.''

The Senior Source specifically helps people 50 and over to

search for jobs. They offer free resume workshops, conduct

mock job interviews, and teach software and social media

classes, among other things.

Each year, the center helps as many as 2,000 older workers,

and Turner said, unequivocally, ``There is age

discrimination. It is true. The average duration of

unemployment nationwide is 22.7 weeks, but for older adults,

it is 32 weeks.''

``I think seniors bring a lot to the table,'' said 64-year-

old Michael Dade, who took classes at The Senior Source after

he had to take early retirement from an accounting job at an

oil company that downsized. ``I felt like I had to be twice

as good as some young person.''

Dade cautioned others in his age group who still have jobs

to stay hungry.

``I have seen people who basically put it in cruise control

at (age) 55,'' Dade said. ``No one has paid enough dues to

have a guaranteed job now. Any day you go to work you have to

think it could be your last day and plan that way.''

Dade now drives the van and coordinates volunteers at The

Senior Source. He advised younger people to pay attention to

the plight of older workers who lose, or are forced out of,

their jobs. He warned those younger workers that they, too,

will be older workers someday. He also said the older worker

being forced out of a job could be their parents.

Dade suggested that younger people reduce their debt load,

save as much as they can, maximize contributions to their

retirement plans, and learn as many marketable skills as

possible. That's something he took advantage of in his former

job.

``I tried to make myself learn as much as I could,'' Dade

said.

Hinton also told us she took every training her former

company offered, and she advises others to do the same,

because it beats paying for those classes on your own

someday.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner said it's not enough to simply

acquire knowledge and skills--you have to be able to

communicate those assets to potential employers, while still

sounding humble. For instance, if you have always been a

dependable worker, you would say something like, ``Past

employers say my attendance is perfect . . . you want to say

people `say' I am good at this. That's always a great way to

deliver that message,'' Turner said.

A bright spot: Turner said she is seeing evidence that the

tight job market created by a low unemployment rate is

helping older workers who are unemployed.

``Employers are very open to older workers that they may

not have been before,'' Turner said.

We checked back with Hinton four months after our first

visit. She has seen no sign of that new openness to older

workers. Hinton's situation had become more desperate.

A few temporary gigs had come and gone, but she had yet to

land a permanent job, despite decades of customer service

experience, much of it in management.

The lack of employment was impacting most aspects of her

life:

Housing: ``Of course, the house, we don't want to lose it.

It may get to that point--not maybe soon--but maybe in the

next six (months) to a year.''

Health: ``I have medication I can't afford so I don't take

it.''

Retirement funds (which have depleted some): ``I don't even

want to check my Fidelity account.''

We asked her how many jobs she has applied for since she

lost permanent employment two years ago.

``Oh my God!'' she said. ``I would say . . . over 250. I

got out of that . . . maybe 10 interviews.''

That lines up with a 2017 study done by the Federal Reserve

Bank of San Francisco, in which researchers sent out tens of

thousands of fictitious applications from different aged

artificial applicants who had similar backgrounds. They found

that younger workers were significantly more likely to get a

call back from prospective employers than older workers were.

``I'm articulate,'' she said. ``I have an energy. I'm not

dead. Whatever the curse is . . . whatever it is it needs to

go away.''

Worried that her expansive resume might make her look

overqualified (and over age), she shortened it from four

pages to two.

Pro Tip: Claire Turner at The Senior Source said, ``When I

was looking, I had 25 resumes. Every single word was true,

but I had three different careers. We see all the time people

walk in with a resume that is very impressive, with all these

years of experience. They present that for a customer service

position and there is no correlation. The employer doesn't

even understand why you applied. So it is a matter of

tailoring your resume. It is definitely honest and factual;

it is just showing things that are relevant. The industry

standard is that people only show the last ten years.''

As we wrapped up our second visit with Hinton, she was

still filling out applications. But she had also just

received another rejection email.

``It says, `Dear Diana, thanks for your interest in our

customer service position. Unfortunately you have not been

selected to continue in our process for this position.' ''

Her dog, Maxwell, rests at her feet.

``Maybe he is my calm,'' Hinton said. ``He's calming me.''

Hinton wonders if she will ever leave him again to go back

to work.

``I am pretty strong, but I am almost sliding down, and I

have to keep telling myself, `Come on, Diana, you can do

this.' I didn't think it was going to be this hard.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill will help people trying to recover from this pandemic, including people who lost their job in the middle of their career who now fear they will never work again because of discriminatory hiring practices.

This is not about trial lawyers. It is not anything about what some of my colleagues across the aisle have talked about. It is just a simple clarification bill. It clarifies that job protections for older Americans begin at the time of the application.

I want to thank the AARP, the National Council on Aging, the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations, the American Federation of Government Employees, and the White House for supporting efforts and this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the letters of endorsement for this bill from the AARP and the National Council on Aging that I just mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, together we can and will protect older workers during the hiring phase of employment with this bill. Everyone deserves a shot at the American Dream, regardless of their age. This is common sense. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this bipartisan bill, protecting our older workers.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Pappas and Newman amendment. This amendment from my colleagues just enhances this bill.

As a former administrative law judge for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the Houston region, I can tell you personally that the type of information that would be gathered by the EEOC on the number of job applicants impacted by age discrimination on the job and all the issues that they have related to their applications would be very helpful.

It would not only be helpful to the administrative law judges at the EEOC; it would be helpful for judges that would finally hear the cases in court if they go to court. It would be helpful for research. It would be helpful for advocacy groups. This information would be vital, again, to help us in Congress to seek better ways to improve and work best on prevention and combating and addressing age discrimination in the hiring process.

Mr. Speaker, there is some discussion on the other side of the aisle that this is a remedy for a problem that doesn't exist. Let me tell you, if you talk to advocacy groups, discrimination is alive and well.

We need this legislation. We need this amendment. I urge adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, let me say again for the third time that, in fact, the committee did have a hearing on this subject. On March 18, 2021, the Subcommittees on Civil Rights and Human Services and Workforce Protections held a hearing titled ``Fighting for Fairness: Examining Legislation to Confront Workplace Discrimination.''

At that hearing, Laurie McCann, a senior attorney at AARP Foundation, testified about the erosion of protections for older workers in judicial decisions under the ADA, including specific mention in her testimony of the Seventh Circuit's Kleber decision and its harmful impact on older applicants.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment prevents the legislation from going into effect unless the GAO finds that there have been negative impacts. This is simply a delay tactic with no end date in sight.

The reason we are here today is precisely because we do have a problem due to the circuit court decisions which cut off access to the courts for job applicants seeking relief under the ADEA.

The Supreme Court has denied cert to review this matter.

We have heard from AARP, one of the Nation's preeminent authorities on age discrimination, which has advised Congress that these court decisions in the 7th and 11th Circuits are not only at odds with the intent of the ADEA, but that the courthouse doors have been unfairly slammed shut to deserving individuals seeking relief.

Testimony before the Subcommittee on Civil Rights and Human Services earlier this year noted that barring older applicants from seeking relief for disparate impact discrimination is a problem, and that without clarifying the ADEA, similar plaintiffs will not be able to seek justice under the law.

For example, in the 7th Circuit case, Kleber v. CareFusion Corporation, Mr. Kleber, a 58-year-old attorney with considerable corporate law experience applied for an in-house counsel position.

The position required applicants to have no more than 7 years of relevant legal experience, which effectively means that it freezes out job applicants that were over age 40. Again, on its face it may look neutral, but if you say, ``no one with more than 7 years' experience,'' that cuts out a lot of people.

Despite his significant prior experience in corporate law, Kleber was denied the opportunity to even interview for the job, since the experience limit was effectively a proxy for age.

The 7th Circuit held that because Mr. Kleber was an outside job applicant rather than an employee seeking a new position from within the company, he was barred from bringing a disparate impact claim. This turns the entire purpose of the ADEA on its head, which is to remedy age discrimination for both jobseekers and employees. Furthermore, we know generalized age discrimination is not isolated.

In 2017, researchers for the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco sent 40,000 resumes of applicants of all ages to 13,000 job openings across 12 cities. They found that older workers received substantially fewer callbacks from employers for job interviews and showed particular harm for older women applicants.

We do not need another study to tell us what we already know. Older job applicants are subjected to age discrimination when seeking employment and that an effective remedy is needed when that conduct lacks justification.

Madam Speaker, finally, this amendment would indefinitely delay implementation of this bill because there is no deadline for GAO to conduct a study and report back to Congress.

Would we even see the results of this study and when? Again, this is simply a delay tactic. We already have all the evidence we need to know that it is timely for Congress to act and to pass this legislation to protect our older job applicants.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in opposition to this package of en bloc amendments, which is bad for our environment, kills jobs, locks up more lands, and does nothing to reduce our dependence on hostile foreign nations for critical minerals.

One of the amendments in this package is a feasibility study for the Great Dismal Swamp National Heritage Area. Now, the Great Dismal Swamp may technically be located on the Virginia-North Carolina border, but House Democrats attempting to ram through dozens of amendments completely unrelated to the underlying bill, without going through regular order, sure makes it seem like the Great Dismal Swamp is actually located right here in Washington, D.C.

Much like the underlying bill, many of these amendments have not gone through regular order, are not supported by local stakeholders, and do not have the support of the Members whose districts are directly impacted.

One such amendment creates the Ice Age National Scenic Trail as a unit of the National Park Service in Wisconsin. This amendment was offered without the consultation of my colleague on the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Tiffany, and does not have his support. Unlike other trail designation bills that have passed the House by voice vote in previous Congresses, this amendment lacks basic protections to ensure these trails do not have unintended consequences for neighboring communities.

Similarly, the Casa Grande Ruins National Monument Boundary Expansion Act ignores the will and voices of local stakeholders. The Arizona State Land Department expressed concerns to the committee regarding the cooperative agreement language of this amendment and shared that they have encountered numerous problems with these types of agreements in the past. These are exactly the types of concerns that should be vetted through the committee process with testimony from local stakeholders and the affected agencies.

I would like to briefly discuss one amendment offered by my friend and colleague, Representative Panetta from California, that would simply reinforce the status quo policy of forest management in wilderness areas.

I have worked with Representative Panetta on forest management policies in the past, particularly on the wildland-urban interface. I know his heart. I know he has the right intent and wants to do the right thing. But I also know that he is greatly restricted by his own conference on forestry management issues.

While I appreciate his intent, over the past 10 years, we have had nearly seven million acres of wilderness and wilderness study areas burn up in catastrophic wildfires. Land managers and wilderness areas must rely on century-old techniques, like handsaws and shovels when millions of acres of forest are in desperate need of treatment.

Mr. Speaker, 1910 called and it wants its forest management policy back.

Clearly, the status quo isn't working and unfortunately, his amendment won't actually allow for proper forest management and won't stop this bill from hurting our environment.

Michael Jordan once wisely advised: ``If you do the work you get rewarded. There are no shortcuts in life.''

House Democrats are looking to take the shortcut with this amendment package and the underlying bill. Unfortunately, our economy and environment will have to bear the consequences of these misguided policy decisions.

I would strongly urge my colleagues to oppose these amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Tiffany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to focus on wilderness areas. I know it sounds great to have a wilderness area. I have enjoyed spending time myself in wilderness areas, and forestry and wilderness areas are very important to me. Mr. Speaker, I have a degree in forestry, and I have actually been licensed to practice forestry, taken exams to do that. I can tell you, Republicans, Democrats, and independents alike, we all, I think, can appreciate a healthy forest because we know that it provides clean air, it provides clean water, it provides wildlife habitat, and it also provides great places for us to do recreation.

There are certain places where we need wilderness areas, but there are certain places where we do not need wilderness areas. Seven million acres of wilderness area went up in wildfire in the last 10 years. I would love to be able to take my colleagues out to the forest. They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but I can promise you, actually being in the forest tells a much bigger picture, a much better story.

I would love to go to an area that has been properly managed and then go to a wilderness area that hasn't been managed and be able to make the case that although we can pass these bills and create wilderness areas right now that aren't going to affect us, because it takes a long time for a forest to grow and it takes a long time for a forest to degrade, but our children and our grandchildren are going to suffer the consequences of us locking these lands up and making them subject to catastrophic wildfire in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the sentimental value, the emotional value, in wanting to make more wilderness areas. But I wish we would have a long-term look and think about the impact that this is going to have on the future. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Colorado's love for the outdoors. I appreciate his passion to do what is right.

He mentioned the provisions in the Wilderness Act to address insects, disease, and wildfire. Mr. Speaker, that is a Band-Aid. That is what you do after the fact.

What we are proposing is proactive forest management so that you don't have the insects, the disease, and the wildfires. An ounce of prevention is definitely worth a pound of cure.

I would challenge my colleagues to enjoy those scenes and those vistas. I encourage them to take pictures so they can show their children and grandchildren what they looked like before they locked them away in a wilderness area.

Mr. Speaker, this random assortment of amendments does nothing but make a bad bill three times worse. The only difference is that instead of having a package of eight bills that haven't been through regular order that will harm our environment and that will kill jobs in rural communities, we now have a package of 23 bills that haven't been through regular order, will harm the environment, and will kill jobs in rural communities.

No amendment in this package reduces our dependence on hostile foreign nations or critical minerals, improves our supply chains, or bolsters American energy security. No amendment in this package changes how we currently treat forest and wilderness areas with century-old technology like handsaws and shovels. No amendment in this

package creates new jobs or bolsters our economic growth.

What does this package do? It just adds more wilderness, more wild and scenic river designations, and more provisions that haven't gone through regular order and do not have the support of Members of Congress directly impacted by those amendments.

Needless to say, this isn't how we should be managing our resources, and it isn't how we should be legislating in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this package of en bloc amendments, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Utah for his tireless work on doing what is right for the environment. I use that word ``environment,'' and not the word ``climate,'' because I want people to understand that those two things are different.

Climate is very narrowly focused. Climate is an issue that has made carbon, a necessary element, arch enemy number one. Republicans are about a cleaner, safer, and healthier environment. We are concerned not just about carbon in the atmosphere, but we are concerned about forest health, about air quality, about water quality, about wildlife habitat, about having great places for recreation.

Mr. Speaker, nobody wants to mine inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody is mining inside the Grand Canyon. Nobody ever will mine inside the Grand Canyon. We have already got the Grand Canyon National Park that establishes those boundaries, and these mineral withdrawals are far outside of the actual Grand Canyon.

Mr. Speaker, we want a clean environment. We want a healthy environment. We are all for cleaner technology, but that cleaner technology takes certain things. It takes minerals and elements. It takes research and development. It takes using all of the energy sources that we have.

Why can't we talk about creating more next-generation nuclear power?

It has zero carbon. If your concern is about climate, your concern is about carbon. And nuclear energy doesn't emit carbon.

Why not put hydroelectric plants on existing dams?

We don't have to build new dams. We can add 12,000 megawatts of clean, carbon-free hydropower on existing dams. We can use the natural resources that we have and develop cleaner ways to use them.

As we develop more electrical components and devices that, again, run on carbon-free energy, unless that energy is produced from carbon sources, but we have to have a stable and reliable supply of energy, and we can't have that without developing these resources.

I appreciate the gentleman's concern about not locking up these resources and doing a study to make sure that when we lock them up, we are not locking away our future, we are not taking away the ability for this country to produce our own energy supply, that we are not further relying on a foreign supply chain that is controlled by Communist parties.

Mr. Speaker, we are blessed with a resource-rich country, but we are right now at the mercy of foreign suppliers, especially China, to meet our mineral needs. Resources like lithium, cobalt, gallium, and dozens more will be needed in the billions of pounds to meet the projected growth in electric vehicles and other renewable technologies. Even commodities like copper, which have historically been produced in surplus, are now falling short of demand.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage supporting the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the en bloc amendments that would offer important improvements to the underlying bill.

Unfortunately, this en bloc is only a fraction of the amendments Republicans would have offered if Democrats had held a markup on the bill in the Natural Resources Committee.

It is egregious that House Democrats rejected every single Republican recreation and wildfire amendment offered at the Rules Committee. House Democrats also denied Representative Boebert of Colorado the chance to offer a single amendment to this legislation, despite the fact that one-third of all wilderness designations contained in the entire bill are in her district, and she has never had the chance to even debate it, as a new Member of Congress.

One amendment that I offered is included in this package, and it would rectify the fact that Democrats have arbitrarily included tens of thousands of acres of wilderness designations that have not been recommended for wilderness or do not meet the basic definition of wilderness in the Wilderness Act.

If my Democratic colleagues feel so confident that every single acre in this bill is actually worthy of a wilderness designation, they should have no problem supporting my simple amendment to reaffirm proper wilderness characteristics.

Also included in these amendments is a proposal from one of our freshmen members of the Natural Resources Committee, Representative Moore from Utah. It will protect the rights of counties to have a say in local land use by requiring county approval of wilderness designations.

Representative Stauber also offered a version of this amendment for mineral withdrawals and several amendments that would exclude congressional districts represented by Members of Congress who were not consulted on this legislation and strongly oppose it.

This should not be a difficult hurdle to overcome. In fact, it should be a desirable outcome for the sponsor of these bills. Forcing land management decisions upon local communities without their support is a bad idea.

Another one of our freshman committee members, Representative Herrell of New Mexico, offered an amendment to remove all potential wilderness designations in the bill. This bill designates an amount of area equivalent to the size of President Biden's home State of Delaware, and it includes only one wilderness study area release. We shouldn't be adding potential wilderness to this bill without releasing an equivalent amount of wilderness study area first.

Finally, this package of amendments would improve our American energy security by ensuring continued development of critical energy infrastructure, promoting the responsible utilization of domestic critical minerals, facilitating rights-of-way for utilities, and protecting jobs in the energy sector. In contrast, the underlying bill is just an extension of the Biden ban and will hurt rural jobs and our national security.

Mr. Speaker, I wish that Democrats afforded us more than 10 minutes to consider these amendments that would actually improve our environment and economy through conservation and multiple use.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge all of my colleagues to strongly support this en bloc of amendments, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would love to visit the gentleman's district, take some photos so that we could show future generations what it looked like before it was locked away in wilderness, and maybe be able to talk about some of those forest management activities and how it could help improve the area.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time both sides have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), who, again, represents one-third of the area proposed in this wilderness area, to tell the House about how the people there really feel.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from the Grand Junction Area Chamber of Commerce. It says that this bill, if passed, will negatively impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our economic recovery.

Grand Junction Area,

Chamber of Commerce,

February 24, 2021.

Congresswoman Lauren Boebert,

Washington, DC.

Dear Congresswoman Boebert: On behalf of the 900 small

businesses employing 37,000 people that the Grand Junction

Area Chamber of Commerce represents, I am writing to

encourage you to oppose H.R. 803, a bill that would lock up

public lands in Mesa County and negatively impact our local

economy. Our community's economy is still reliant in part on

the business activity generated by our legacy industries of

agriculture and energy. This bill if passed will negatively

impact our already fragile economy and jeopardize our

economic recovery.

These are lands that are literally in our backyard in Mesa

County yet Congresswoman DeGette continues to ignore us, does

not meet with us, and does not even consider the consequences

of her bill on the hardworking families of our areas.

In addition to opposing H.R. 803 our organization supports

the various amendments you are proposing be added to the bill

that include keeping the BLM Headquarters in Grand Junction

Colorado, requiring that affected counties must approve the

Wilderness Designation and protects grazing and water rights.

We appreciate your efforts to help retain jobs and the

diversity of our local economy by opposing H.R. 803 and

offering amendments to help preserve the livelihood of our

families and our water life.

Sincerely,

Diane Schwenke,

President/CEO.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues that if you want to improve our environment, if you are worried about job losses in your district, if you think we should secure our supply chains and improve American energy independence, if you think our forests need to be properly managed to avoid catastrophic wildfires, and if you enjoy recreating in our public lands, you should vote for this amendment package.

The underlying bill is a feel-good bill that hurts our economy and environment. We won't have to suffer the consequences of that. It will be our children and our grandchildren who have to live with the fact that we don't have forests because we burned them all down and we don't have jobs because we outsourced our domestic mining industry to Russia and China.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that the Democrats didn't want to put a package this disastrous for our economy and environment through regular order. They may be able to limit our ability to debate this package, but there is no hiding the truth: This legislation is a land grab that devastates the very communities and lands it claims to support and protect.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc amendments and oppose the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise to support the continuing resolution, which extends government funding at current levels until we pass a full appropriations package for the next fiscal year.

It is my strong hope that this short-term extension will be the last one and that my colleagues across the aisle will acknowledge our solemn duty to exercise the power of the purse.

A continuing resolution that lasts a full year does not serve the American people. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, I can attest that the investments in the House interior bill would benefit all of our constituents, for those of us on both sides of the aisle.

The bill makes long-overdue investments to protect human health, to fight the climate emergency, and to meet our trust obligations to Tribal nations. It provides critical resources to rebuild the Federal workforce so that these agencies can meet their missions and better serve the public.

Failing to complete a full-year bill means no additional investments in the EPA to research and develop standards for harmful pollutants like PFAS, no further investments in domestic renewable energy, and insufficient resources for the healthcare of nearly 2.2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.

Regardless of whether we pass a full-year bill, we can be certain that millions of Americans will be exposed to pollution, that healthcare costs will rise, and that our window for mitigating climate change will shrink.

To ignore these threats is not in the Nation's best interest, nor any of ours. We were sent to Congress to improve the lives and livelihoods of our constituents.

Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support this bill, but I encourage my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to finish the bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research.

The Ad Hoc Group

for Medical Research,

November 15, 2021.

Hon. Rosa DeLauro,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Kay Granger,

Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Hon. Patrick Leahy,

Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Richard Shelby,

Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman DeLauro, Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member

Granger, and Vice Chairman Shelby: Thank you for your past

leadership in championing sustained, real growth in medical

research funding. As Congress begins to draft a final fiscal

year (FY) 2022 spending package, the 314 undersigned members

of the Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research urge you to invest

robustly in agencies and programs to improve the nation's

health and well-being, including base funding for the

National Institutes of Health (NIH), as a key national

priority and to finalize the appropriations process as

expeditiously as possible. The Ad Hoc Group for Medical

Research is a coalition of patient and voluntary health

groups, medical and scientific societies, academic and

research organizations, and industry, dedicated to enhancing

the federal investment in biomedical, behavioral, social, and

population-based research supported by the NIH.

We greatly appreciate that both the House-passed (H.R.

4502) and Senate draft Labor-HHS-Education spending bills

include strong increases for the NIH base in FY 2022, which

would provide greater hope and opportunity for every patient

awaiting a cure, every researcher working toward the next

breakthrough, and every aspiring scientist considering a

career in the lab. To maximize the potential of medical

research to make rapid progress toward these goals, we urge

you to provide at least $46.4 billion for NIH's base, as

included in the House-passed bill. Continuing the momentum of

the prior six years of bipartisan support for meaningful

funding growth in the NIH's existing institutes and centers

is key to ensuring that the nation can continue to accelerate

the development of life-changing cures, pioneering treatments

and diagnostics, and innovative preventive strategies.

Additionally, we appreciate that both bills ensure that the

new investment for the proposed Advanced Research Projects

Agency for Health (ARPA-H) supplements, rather than

supplants, the NIH's base. While complementary, NIH and ARPA-

H have distinct and important missions. As such, investment

in ARPA-H must not come at the expense of the NIH base.

Instead, to fully realize the benefits of the envisioned new

entity while simultaneously allowing NIH to keep pace with

discovery, an FY 2022 appropriation of at least $46.4 billion

for NIH's base budget is needed. Prioritizing strong

investments for foundational research discoveries funded by

the NIH will be critical to the success of the visionary new

research initiative, particularly as it builds its

operational capacity in its inaugural year and beyond.

Likewise, avoiding further delays in finalizing funding

determinations will enable both ARPA-Hand NIH's planned and

existing programs to be maximally efficient and strategic in

their work in FY 2022.

To that end, our organizations strongly support an approach

to the final FY 2022 spending package that avoids additional

CRs past December. Aside from the budget implications, CRs

create inefficiencies and add uncertainty to a system that is

already

under stress with the continued reverberations of the ongoing

COVID-19 pandemic. We strongly urge you to work swiftly in

securing bipartisan, bicameral agreement on topline

discretionary spending allocations and to ensure any final

budget agreement reflects a strong commitment to the nation's

health.

Once again, we commend you for continuing to recognize the

incomparable value of the federal investment in the NIH, and

we look forward to working with you to secure $46.4 billion

for the agency's base in FY 2022, in addition to funding you

provide for ARPA-H.

Sincerely,

314 Signatories as of November 15, 2021

Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health,

Academic Pediatric Association, Academy for Eating Disorders,

Academy for Professionalism in Health Care, Academy for

Radiology & Biomedical Imaging Research, ACT for NIH,

AdventHealth, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Alliance

for Academic Internal Medicine (AAIM), Alliance for Aging

Research, ALS Association, Alzheimer's Association and

Alzheimer's Impact Movement, Alzheimer's Foundation of

America, American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry (AAAP),

American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology, American

Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, American Academy

of Neurology, American Academy of Pediatrics, American

Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation.

American Academy of Sleep Medicine, American Association

for Anatomy, American Association for Cancer Research,

American Association for Dental, Oral, and Craniofacial

Research, American Association for the Advancement of

Science, American Association for the Study of Liver

Diseases, American Association of Chairs of Departments of

Psychiatry, American Association of Colleges of Nursing,

American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine,

American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American

Association of Directors of Psychiatry Residency Training,

American Association of Immunologists, American Association

of Neurological Surgeons, American Association of

Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine, American

Association of Physicists in Medicine, American Association

of Veterinary Medical Colleges, American Brain Coalition,

American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American

College of Academic Addiction Medicine (ACAAM), American

College of Cardiology.

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists,

American College of Physicians, American College of

Radiology, American College of Surgeons, American Council on

Education, American Gastroenterological Association American

Geriatrics Society, American Headache Society, American

Institute for Cancer Research, American Institute for Medical

& Biomedical Engineering, American Institute of Ultrasound in

Medicine, American Liver Foundation, American Lung

Association, American Massage Therapy Association, American

Pediatric Society, American Physiological Society, American

Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association,

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,

American Society for Investigative Pathology.

American Society for Microbiology, American Society for

Nutrition, American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental

Therapeutics, American Society for Reproductive Medicine

(ASRM), American Society for Virology, American Society of

Anesthesiologists, American Society of Hematology, American

Society of Human Genetics, American Society of Nephrology,

American Society of Neuroradiology, American Society of

Pediatric Nephrology, American Society of Radiologic

Technologists, American Surgical Association, American

Thoracic Society, American Urogynecologic Society, American

Urological Association, Anxiety and Depression Association of

America, Associated Medical Schools of New York.

Association for Anatomy, Cell Biology and Neurobiology

Chairs (AACBNC), Association for Clinical and Translational

Science, Association for Clinical Oncology, Association for

Prevention Teaching and Research, Association for

Psychological Science, Association for Research in Vision and

Ophthalmology (ARVO), Association of Academic Health Centers

(AAHC), Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries,

Association of Academic Physiatrists.

Association of American Cancer Institutes, Association of

American Medical Colleges, Association of American

Universities, Association of Bioethics Program Directors,

Association of Chairs of Departments of Physiology,

Association of Independent Research Institutes, Association

of Medical and Graduate Departments of Biochemistry (AMGDB),

Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs,

Association of Minority Health Professions Schools,

Association of Pathology Chairs, Association of Population

Centers, Association of Psychologists in Academic Health

Centers, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities,

Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry (ASCO),

Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health,

Association of University Professors of Neurology,

Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology,

Association of University Radiologists, Atrium Health, Autism

Speaks.

AVAC (AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition), Barnes-Jewish

Hospital, Bassett Healthcare Network, Biophysical Society,

BJC HealthCare, Boston Medical Center, Boston University,

Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research, Brown

University, Carle Illinois College of Medicine, Case Western

Reserve University, CDH International, Cedars-Sinai, Child

Neurology Foundation, Children's Healthcare of Atlanta,

Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Children's Hospital of

Philadelphia, Children's Mercy Kansas City,

Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation, ChristianaCare.

Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation, Clinical Research

Forum, Coalition for Clinical and Translational Science,

Coalition for the Life Sciences, College on Problems of Drug

Dependence, Columbia University, COMBINEDBrain, Conference of

Boston Teaching Hospitals, Congress of Neurological Surgeons,

Consortium of Social Science Associations, Cooley's Anemia

Foundation, Coriell Institute for Medical Research, Cornell

University, Council of University Directors of Clinical

Psychology, Council on Social Work Education, Crohn's &

Colitis Foundation, CURE Epilepsy, Cystic Fibrosis

Foundation, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Dartmouth-Hitchcock

Health.

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance, Digestive Disease

National Coalition, Dravet Syndrome Foundation, Drexel

University, Duke Health, Duke University, Dystonia Medical

Research Foundation, East Carolina University, ECAN

Esophageal Cancer Action Network, Emory University, Endocrine

Society, Epilepsy Foundation, Federation of American

Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), Federation of

Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Fight

Colorectal Cancer, Foundation for Sarcoidosis Research, Fox

Chase Cancer Center, Friends of the National Institute on

Drug Abuse, GBSICIDP Foundation International, Global Health

Technologies Coalition.

Global Liver Institute, Harvard University, HealthyWomen,

Henry Ford Health System, HIV Medicine Association, Hope For

Stomach Cancer, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,

Indiana University, Indiana University Health, Infectious

Diseases Society of America, Initiative to End Alzheimer's

Disease Board of Visitors, International Foundation for

Gastrointestinal Disorders, International Society for Stem

Cell Research (ISSCR), Interstitial Cystitis Association,

JDRF, Jeffrey Modell Foundation, John & Amy Mewhiney Cancer

Foundation, Johns Hopkins University and Medicine, Joslin

Diabetes Center, KidneyCAN.

Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Lewy

Body Dementia Association, LGS Foundation, Lupus Foundation

of America, Lymphatic Education & Research Network, Magee-

Womens Research Institute and Foundation, March of Dimes,

Mass General Brigham, Medical College of Wisconsin, Medical

Image Perception Society, Medical Library Association,

Memorial Sloan Kettering, MemorialCare Health System,

Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, METAvivor,

Michelson Center for Public Policy, Michelson Medical

Research Foundation, Michigan State University, Moffitt

Cancer Center, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research.

National Alopecia Areata Foundation, National Association

for Biomedical Research, National Eczema Association,

National Fragile X Foundation, National Kidney Foundation,

National Pancreas Foundation, NephCure Kidney International,

New York Medical College, New York University, North American

Vascular Biology Organization, Northeastern University,

Nutrition & Medical Foods Coalition, NYU Langone Health,

Oakland University, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation,

Pancreatic Cancer Action Network, Patient Services, Inc.,

Pediatric Policy Council, Penn State University, Personalized

Medicine Coalition.

Population Association of America, Project Sleep, Prostate

Cancer Foundation, Pulmonary Fibrosis Foundation, Pulmonary

Hypertension Association, Radiological Society of North

America (RSNA), Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Association,

Research!America, RESOLVE: The National Infertility

Association, Restless Legs Syndrome Foundation, Rosalind

Franklin University of Medicine and Science, RTI

International, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey,

Sanford Burnham Prebys Medical Discovery Institute,

Scleroderma Foundation, Sjogren's Foundation, Sleep Research

Society, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM),

Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine.

Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, Society for

Neuroscience, Society for Pediatric Radiology, Society for

Pediatric Research, Society for Reproductive Endocrinology

and Infertility, Society for Reproductive Investigation,

Society for Women's Health Research, Society of Academic

Associations of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine

(SAAAPM), Society of Behavioral Medicine, Society of General

Internal Medicine, Society of Gynecologic Oncology, Society

of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, Society of

Skeletal Radiology, Society of Surgical Chairs, Society of

Toxicology (SOT), Society of University Surgeons, St. Louis

Children's Hospital, Stanford University, Stony Brook

University, Syngap1 Foundation.

Temple University, Texas A&M Health, The American College

of Rheumatology, The American Society for Transplantation and

Cellular Therapy, The Gerontological Society of America, The

Jackson Laboratory, The Maya's Wings Foundation, The Michael

J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research, The Ohio State

University Wexner Medical Center, The State University of New

York,

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, The

University of North Carolina System, The University of Texas,

Southwestern Medical Center, Triage Cancer, TSC Alliance,

Tulane University School of Medicine, UC San Diego, UCLA, UNC

Health and UNC School of Medicine, University of Arkansas for

Medical Sciences.

University of California, Irvine, University of Chicago

Medical Center, University of Cincinnati, University of

Colorado System, University of Connecticut, University of

Hawai'i System, University of Illinois College of Medicine,

University of Iowa, University of Maryland, Baltimore,

University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School, University

of Michigan, University of Nebraska Medical Center,

University of Pennsylvania, University of Pittsburgh,

University of Pittsburgh Health Sciences, University of

Rochester, University of South Carolina, University of

Southern California, University of Washington, US Hereditary

Angioedema Association (HAEA).

USF Health Morsani College of Medicine, UVA Health,

Vanderbilt University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center,

Virginia Commonwealth University, Washington State

University, Washington University in St. Louis, West Virginia

University, Yale University.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 829, I call up the bill (H.R. 6119) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise

and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the measure under consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, before I go any further, I would first like to take a moment to mourn the loss of Congresswoman Carrie Meek. She was an extraordinary force in the Congress and a pioneer who was never deterred by any challenge that came her way. I like to say that though she was unassuming and soft-spoken, she carried a big stick. That is evident in her enduring legacy today. I had the honor of serving together with Congresswoman Meek on the Appropriations Committee years ago, and I feel immensely privileged to have worked with her to help expand opportunity for all Americans. We all mourn her loss.

Madam Speaker, I will be frank. Instead of being here today discussing another continuing resolution, I wish that we were here to present a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations agreement. Continuing resolutions are not the way to govern. They are a short-term patch that leaves the American people behind. But we are here today because my colleagues across the aisle have refused time and time again to begin negotiations or even offer a proposal of their own for government funding that delivers for the American people.

House and Senate Democrats have put forward their proposals, but Republicans have not presented an offer of their own. There is not one piece of paper describing what Republicans want. It has been 30 days since I brought together a bipartisan, bicameral four-corners meeting on November 2, and to date we have not heard one word from them--not one word.

But now my Republican counterparts want more time--something that they have had since we came to this floor to pass the last funding extension 62 days ago, which means we now have no choice but to pursue a short-term extension. Make no mistake, Madam Speaker, a vote against this continuing resolution is a vote to shut the government down.

The legislation before us, the Further Extending Government Funding Act, continues government funding at current levels through February 18. It makes minimal changes to address the most urgent of needs during the period of the continuing resolution and provides $7 billion to continue supporting Afghanistan evacuees after the end of 20 years of war.

While I wish the February 18 end date were earlier--and I pursued earlier dates--I believe this agreement allows the appropriations process to move forward toward a final funding agreement that addresses the needs of the American people.

Let me be clear, working families, small businesses, veterans, and our military need the certainty that comes with passing omnibus funding legislation instead of short-term funding patches. Republicans must join us for bipartisan, bicameral negotiations to resolve our differences and keep government working for us all.

For our communities, we need an omnibus to create and sustain good- paying jobs, support small businesses, prevent future pandemics, and advance lifesaving medical research. We need an omnibus to strengthen public schools, protect our air and water, combat the opioid epidemic, and support core services such as food safety and consumer product inspections. Without an omnibus, investments in all these areas will be denied.

For our veterans, we need an omnibus to provide sufficient funding for veterans' benefits, reduce backlogs for veterans and their families, and meet the needs of the VA's healthcare system. Without an omnibus there will be a shortfall that will cause veterans not to receive their benefits in full.

For our national security, we need an omnibus to support defense readiness and modernization, secure our cyber infrastructure, and strengthen American leadership abroad. Without an omnibus, a pay raise for troops will not be funded while funds will be misdirected to a war we are no longer fighting.

As I said before, I wanted to be here today passing a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations agreement. Sadly, we are not. But as Republicans take the next 2\1/2\ months, Democrats remain ready, willing, and able to move this process forward. We are ready to go, but we need willing partners to put the American people first.

With a new deadline of February 18, it is long past time for our Republican colleagues to offer constructive proposals to address the critical issues facing the country by funding the Federal Government's important work. As the American people put their faith and trust in us, they deserve no less.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), who is the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, once again, the Republicans refuse to come to the table to negotiate, thereby jeopardizing benefits for our veterans and our national security. We can move if they come to the table.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, antiscience fearmongering about vaccines is wrong. Fears about government requirements for vaccines are flat-out silly. And the Republicans are prepared to shut down the government based on this. Incredible.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from California.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense.

Madam Speaker, once again, it has been the Republicans' refusal to come to the table to negotiate that has stopped the process and forced us to do a short-term stopgap measure. We shouldn't be doing it, but Republicans need to come to the table.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Speaker, if the Republicans wanted to do something about our defense and our security in the military, they would move to work with us to pass the defense appropriations bill and the omnibus.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans' Affairs.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Madam Speaker, I want to remind my colleague on the other side of the aisle that a continuing resolution is a cut to defense. If you come to the table, we will discuss it, then we can move forward on the defense of this Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the gentleman that antiscience fearmongering about vaccines is wrong. Science is on our side, and history is on our side. Vaccines work.

I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Cartwright), the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Let me just say to you that we have heard from a number of advocacy groups urging the Congress to move on taking up a full-year omnibus. Let me just tell you the groups that have written to us.

We are looking at the National Defense Industrial Association: On behalf of thousands of companies represented by the National Defense Industrial Association, we write to request the expedited completion of the defense appropriation bill.

We talk about the Association of American Universities: Urge you to reach a bipartisan agreement to complete the FY22 appropriations process before the end of the year.

The Aerospace Industries Association: Our essential partners are urging us to avoid a further CR beyond December 3, wanting us to come to the table in order to be able to have a full-year appropriations bill.

The Coalition for Health Funding, the same message to all of us: Relying on continuing resolutions would be a grave, missed opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans. A full-year appropriations bill.

The Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research telling us the very, very same thing: To maximize the potential of medical research, we need to move forward with a full-year bill.

The veterans organizations saying the same thing: Do not shortchange veterans and their benefits by holding back on a full-year appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record statements in support of the bill from a broad coalition of groups urging negotiations now, as well as letters from veterans' organizations and America's leading research universities.

Broad Coalition of Groups Urging Negotiations Now

A broad coalition of groups have joined Chair DeLauro and

Democratic Appropriators urging negotiations and agreement on

fiscal year 2022 appropriations bills. These organizations

include:

Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research

Our organizations strongly support an approach to the final

FY 2022 spending package that avoids additional CRs past

December. Aside from the budget implications, CRs create

inefficiencies and add uncertainty to a system that is

already under stress with the continued reverberations of the

ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. We strongly urge you to work

swiftly in securing bipartisan, bicameral agreement on

topline discretionary spending allocations and to ensure any

final budget agreement reflects a strong commitment to the

nation's health.

Aerospace Industries Association

The United States aerospace and defense industries are an

essential partner with the federal government in an array of

efforts vital to our economy and our national security. Each

fall, that partnership is tested when those programs are

slowed down or deferred by the use of multiple continuing

resolutions (CR) to keep the government running . . . If

Congress fails to once again enact full-year appropriations

bills, or continues running the government into 2022 under

continuing resolutions, it will send the wrong signal to the

government's partners, like those in our industry. We count

on stable, reliable and adequate funding to support

the critical capabilities that we provide for all Americans.

American Association for Cancer Research

As the nation continues to combat the COVID-19 pandemic,

cancer has not stopped, and remains the second leading cause

of death in the United States. To better prevent, detect, and

treat cancers, Congress must act swiftly to increase

investments in cancer research and prevention. A full-year

continuing resolution or funding lapse would threaten our

nation's research enterprise and stall medical breakthroughs

that could benefit the lives of millions of patients with

cancer and survivors. The AACR urges congressional

negotiators to come to the table and agree to Fiscal Year

2022 allocations that would support robust and sustained

funding for cancer research and prevention.

Association of American Universities

Higher education, research, and innovation play integral

roles in our nation's competitiveness, security, health, and

ability to combat and overcome the pandemic. Our nation

cannot afford continued inaction on FY22 appropriations. In

the absence of final appropriations, federal agencies

postpone research award decisions and prepare for potential

lapses in funding. Continuing resolutions (CRs) slow the pace

of scientific innovation and create funding uncertainty for

researchers and students. It is vital that Congress complete

appropriations this year and avoid serial stop-gap measures

and a yearlong CR.

Coalition on Human Needs

The nation's recovery depends on strengthening a host of

domestic programs that have been allowed to shrink for years,

not just to get to where they had been before, but to respond

to needs far greater because of the pandemic and its global

economic dislocations. A long-term continuing resolution

would be a severe failure to address these needs. We strongly

urge you to enact omnibus appropriations legislation

including all twelve bills as soon as possible.

Joint Coalition of the Campaign to Invest in American's Workforce, the

Coalition for Health Funding, the Coalition on Human Needs, and the

Committee for Education Funding

The bill passed by the House this summer and the bill

proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee this fall

provide vital increased funding for the programs and services

that have a profound impact on health and well-being, child

development, educational and skills attainment, employment,

and productivity. Failing to enact the FY 2022 bill and

relying on continuing resolutions (CRs) would be a grave

missed opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans.

National Defense Industrial Association

We cannot stress enough the importance of the defense

appropriations bill to our national security and to a healthy

defense industrial base. The limbo caused under CRs wastes

precious time and money our nation cannot recover. Delayed

new starts and initiatives place a strain on companies and

their workforce, particularly as they recalibrate operations

to a post-pandemic normal. Our nation's competitors face no

similar challenges putting us at a competitive disadvantage,

particularly with emerging technologies, and place our supply

chains at increasing risk, something we cannot afford after

the nearly two years of pandemic impacts.

Veterans Service Organizations, including the American Legion and the

Veterans of Foreign Wars

A full-year continuing resolution could result in an

estimated $7 billion shortfall in funding for mandatory

compensation and pension benefits, in large part due to an

increased number of benefit claims resulting from

congressional approval of new diseases related to Agent

Orange exposure for Vietnam veterans . . . we call on you to

reject consideration of a full-year continuing resolution

that would reduce veterans' funding below what has already

been approved in an overwhelming bipartisan vote.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the majority leader of the House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Madam Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.