Providing for budget allocations for the Committee on Appropriations, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 473 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 473, providing for consideration of H.R. 256, to repeal the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs and one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1187, the Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial Services, makes in order 10 amendments, provides en bloc authority to the chair of the Committee on Financial Services, and provides for one motion to recommit.

The rule provides that the provisions of section 202 of the National Emergencies Act shall not apply to H.J. Res. 46. The rule also deems passage of H. Res. 467.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on June 14 or June 15. This authority lasts through June 17.

Madam Speaker, there are two critically important measures contained in this rule.

H.R. 1187 will build on landmark reforms like the Dodd-Frank Act and Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It will help hold corporations accountable, help investors make informed decisions, and build a more sustainable and equitable economic recovery. These improvements are badly needed, especially at a time when we are seeing a new era of sustainable investors.

I want to discuss one bill in particular here today, Madam Speaker, a bill that was authored by the distinguished Chair, Congresswoman Barbara Lee from California, because this Congress is doing something extraordinary.

Nearly 20 years after we passed a measure to address the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and 10 years after the conflict in Iraq officially ended, we are reasserting our constitutional responsibility over matters of war and peace by finally repealing the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

This isn't an arcane legislative maneuver or simply some rhetorical exercise. This AUMF has been used over and over again to expand the mission and range of targets of U.S. military operations in Iraq never imagined when it was passed.

In fact, President Trump misused it as recently as last January to justify the strike that killed Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. The impacts of that decision dramatically escalated tensions between the United States and Iran and throughout the region, tensions that persist to this very day.

Madam Speaker, the process that we are starting here today with H.R. 256 provides a roadmap for Congress to get off the sidelines and to stop abdicating its constitutional responsibility to debate matters of war and peace.

That is what our Founders intended. They knew that decisions of such magnitude should not be made in a vacuum solely by a President. That is why the Constitution makes the President Commander in Chief but gives only Congress the power to declare war.

It is no secret that for a long time there were Members on both sides of the aisle who preferred to skirt that responsibility. They left such consequential decisions to whoever sat at 1600

Pennsylvania Avenue, Republican or Democrat.

But each of us was elected and sent here to do more than just make the easy calls. We were sent here to make tough decisions, especially when it involves sending our uniformed men and women, the people we represent, into harm's way and shoveling billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars overseas.

A growing number of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, have been working together to reclaim our Article I powers. There is now a bipartisan, bicameral consensus that we not only have to end endless wars, but we have to reexamine the shrinking congressional authority and the expanding executive powers that get us into global conflicts in the first place and, like inertia, keep us there for decades.

The Rules Committee has been working with the House Foreign Affairs Committee to do just that because everything has changed since Congress enacted the original War Powers Resolution over President Nixon's veto more than 50 years ago.

When we fight, how we fight, and why we fight, these are big issues that merit our most engaged attention and resolve. We have a responsibility to make sure that these laws and authorities work in the modern age.

I want to thank, in particular, Ranking Member Cole on the Rules Committee for working with me in this effort. He has been pushing to reclaim Congress' Article I responsibilities, no matter which party controls Congress or who sits in the White House. I know that sometimes it has been a lonely journey, but he has never stopped fighting because it is the right thing to do for this country and for this institution.

I also want to thank Chairman Meeks and Ranking Member McCaul for working with us on this bipartisan effort.

Again, I want to thank Congresswoman Barbara Lee for being consistent and never giving up in her effort not only to end endless wars but to make sure that Congress lives up to its constitutional responsibilities.

I am grateful that we also have a President in office today who supports reevaluating executive war powers. I have to be honest, Madam Speaker, I never thought I would see that day. But President Biden spent decades in the Senate grappling with the limitations of the War Powers Resolution, and he has a record of looking for ways to change it.

This opportunity is like lightning in a bottle. We have a coalition in Congress trying to get this done, and now the missing piece, a President in the Oval Office with the political will to take this on, is hopefully now falling into place.

I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in seizing this moment. Let's make the repeal of the 2002 AUMF the first step in not only repealing and reforming outdated AUMFs but reimagining the War Powers Resolution for the modern age.

President Johnson once said that it is damn easy to get into a war, but it is awfully hard to get out of one. We are here today because of the truth of that statement.

It should never be that Congress, and the people we represent, are sidelined on the life-or-death questions of when to go to war and when to come home.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a June 1 Newsweek article titled ``Congress Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers.''

[June 1, 2021]

Congress Has a Chance To Reclaim Its War Powers

(By Dan Caldwell)

In response to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, then-President

George W. Bush signed into law the 2001 Authorization for Use

of Military Force to provide the legal authority to pursue

and punish those responsible. The following year, the 2002

AUMF was passed to authorize the ill-conceived invasion of

Iraq and the overthrow of dictator Saddam Hussein.

Over the last 20 years, both laws have been used to justify

military actions disconnected from their original intent.

These laws--unmodified since their original passage--have

sanctioned combat operations in at least 19 countries.

Successive congresses have abdicated their constitutionally

prescribed role in foreign

policy, allowing four presidential administrations to exploit

the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs and stretch their Article II

authorities. Multiple military conflicts have been expanded

or initiated with minimal congressional oversight and debate.

It is past time for Congress to firmly reassert its role in

shaping U.S. foreign policy. After 20 years of endless war,

it owes its constituents--including our men and women in

uniform--a better foreign policy that prioritizes keeping

Americans safe. Rather than abdicating its solemn duties,

Congress must inquire, ``Why, at what cost, and toward what

end?'' are young American servicemembers sent to fight and

die for ill-premised objectives that are fundamentally

disconnected from vital national interests. Further evasion

of these hard questions cheapens the ``true faith and

allegiance'' they swore to uphold when elected to office.

Over 7,000 Americans have lost their lives and tens of

thousands more wounded in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and

Africa. These conflicts have cost the American taxpayer over

$6.4 trillion dollars--a number that will surely continue to

grow as wars drag on and the cost of caring for veterans of

these wars is tallied.

Congress has several ways it can help bring an end to our

endless wars while helping shape a better foreign policy.

First, in the coming months the House of Representatives

will likely have an opportunity to repeal the 2002 AUMF by

passing legislation introduced by Representative Barbara Lee

(D-Calif.)--a stalwart champion of Congress reclaiming its

powers in matters of war and peace. A similar bill has been

introduced in the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-Ind.) and

Tim Kaine (D-Va.), which has been endorsed by the Biden

administration. Additional legislation repealing the outdated

1957 and 1991 AUMFs has been introduced by Representatives

Peter Meijer (R-Mich.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.).

Passage of these bipartisan bills should be a no-brainer for

a Congress bitterly divided on other issues and an important

first step toward Congress reclaiming its most important

prerogative.

Congress should also consider revision--or outright

repeal--of the 2001 AUMF. More than the 2002 AUMF, this law

has been stretched to justify conflicts far afield from its

original intent of authorizing operations against Al-Qaeda

and the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11. It is worth

acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the 2001 AUMF

has been satisfied: Osama bin Laden is dead, Al-Qaeda has

been decimated and the Taliban severely punished. And despite

never being amended, this authorization has been cited to

account for operations against groups that didn't even exist

on 9/11 in places such as Somalia and Libya.

If Congress repeals the 2001 AUMF, the executive branch

still has the authority to authorize military operations to

repel imminent attacks and to engage in self-defense

(although Congress should take steps to ensure that this

authority isn't stretched too far, as it was by President Joe

Biden's recent airstrikes in Syria). If Congress identifies a

need to replace the 2001 AUMF, it should authorize force

against clear targets given specified objectives, geographic

boundaries and clear sunsets.

Congress should also use its power of the purse to assert

its authority in foreign policy. This is in many ways the

most effective tool Congress has and it has been used

successfully in the past to end American involvement in

conflicts, including Vietnam.

Repealing outdated AUMFs and helping end our forever wars

around the globe would enjoy broad support from the American

people. Poll after poll has shown a majority of Americans

want an end to our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, while also

supporting Congress playing a greater role in authorizing

military conflicts abroad.

I am proud to have deployed to Iraq as a U.S. Marine. Many

of those I served with are still in uniform and are still

deploying to war zones on a regular basis, even if they

harbor doubts about the necessity of those conflicts.

Congress owes it to them to step up and do its job by

reasserting itself in matters of war and peace. Failing to do

so dishonors those who have and who continue to serve

overseas in the wars that have dragged on in part due to

congressional inaction.

Madam Speaker, over the last 20 years, both the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs have been used to justify military actions disconnected from their original intent.

I want to say to my colleague from Pennsylvania that we are grateful for his service to our country. But the fact is that we are still operating under an AUMF that we passed almost 20 years ago, almost two decades ago.

When we were debating that AUMF--an AUMF that I voted against--there is no way that we would have anticipated what the realities are now. The notion that somehow we can't, as a body, come together and revisit these AUMFs on a regular basis, to me, is beyond comprehension.

We owe it to the men and women who serve our country in our Armed Forces to make sure that we are doing our due diligence.

The President has multiple authorities, by the way, to be able to respond to any threats against individual U.S. citizens almost anywhere in the world. But if people are trying to use this AUMF as a way to potentially have a war with Iran, let me just say this: If that is what anybody's goal is, you better damn well come back to Congress and have a debate, and people ought to be able to vote yes or no on it.

Many of us are concerned that these lingering AUMFs are going to be misconstrued and misinterpreted and misused.

I include in the Record a Statement of Administration Policy. President Biden supports the Lee bill. He doesn't see any need to have a continuation of the 2002 AUMF. If the President of the United States doesn't see a need to continue it, I don't know why we feel we have to continue something that is clearly outdated.

Statement of Administration Policy

h.r. 256--repeal of authorization for use of military force--against

iraq resolution of 2002--rep. lee, d-ca with 134 co-sponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 256, to

repeal the Authorization for Use of of Military Force Against

Iraq Resolution of 2002 (``2002 AUMF''). This bipartisan

legislation would terminate the October 16, 2002, statutory

authorization for the use of military force against Iraq.

The Administration supports the repeal of the 2002 AUMF, as

the United States has no ongoing military activities that

rely solely on the 2002 AUMF as a domestic legal basis, and

repeal of the 2002 AUMF would likely have minimal impact on

current military operations. Furthermore, the President is

committed to working with the Congress to ensure that

outdated authorizations for the use of military force are

replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to

ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from

terrorist threats.

In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing

other existing authorizations of military force, the

Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear

and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action

and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and

interests around the world. As the Administration works with

the Congress to reform AUMFs, it will be critical to maintain

the clear authority to address threats to the United States'

national interests with appropriately decisive and effective

military action.

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

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

Madam Speaker, what a crock. I mean, it is hard to hear anybody on the other side of the aisle talk about government shutdowns. I remember when they lost this place 3 years ago. What did they do? They left us with a government shutdown. First time ever in history, the Republican majority did that.

The gentleman is saying we are not going to vote on this stuff. Maybe he doesn't understand the legislative process. Let me remind everybody that we have to vote on every single cent that we put forward here.

We have an appropriations process. Maybe the gentleman doesn't understand that. But every cent that we spend has to be voted on by people in this Chamber. So nobody is not going to vote on anything.

Let me just put this in perspective. Yes, the President's budget was late, and given the timing of the President's budget, the Appropriations Committee needs to get started to start doing their work, unless my friends don't want the Appropriations Committee to do their work. Deeming a top-line number for appropriators is a housekeeping item that we can take care of so they can move forward, and we can then turn our attention to a budget resolution and enacting the transformational policies included in the President's American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan.

Here's the thing that really gets me when I hear people have meltdowns on the floor. This process has been used by Republicans and Democrats alike in order to allow appropriators to get started on their work. Ever since the first deeming resolution in fiscal year 1999, when Republicans were in charge, overall House Republican majorities used deemers nine times, including for fiscal years 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2019. Boy, how convenient it is to forget about all of that. But, then, again, facts don't seem to matter.

Just one other thing. When the gentleman used the term ``big lie,'' I don't want to be lectured by anybody about a big lie, especially by individuals who voted deliberately to overturn the will of the American people, to undermine our democracy. I will not be lectured to by anybody on that matter.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

I don't even know what to say. The response to the situation at our border and to the people who are fleeing their countries in Central America to try to seek refugee in the United States, the response that the Republicans just came up with basically is saying we are going to withhold any money for Vice President Harris' travel budget unless she goes to the border and does a photo op.

We are supposed to be a serious legislative body. We are supposed to be the most serious, most deliberative legislative body in the world, and my friends say we are going to withhold her travel budget unless she goes to the border and does a photo op. That is what this is.

Never mind that Vice President Harris represented California as a United States Senator, which is a border State. Never mind that she just went to Central America because people are coming to our border from places like El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. Never mind she went to some of these countries where people are fleeing so we can try to figure out how to deal with this issue.

My Republican friends have brought to the House floor a bill that basically says: You know what? Our solution is you either go and do a photo op at the border or we are going to withhold your travel budget.

I mean, really? That is a serious legislative proposal?

I don't even know how to respond to that, other than to say that, you could have come up with something better. This isn't even worth any more of my time talking about it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman can come and huff and puff all he wants on the House floor, but, again, I remind people that the solution that is being put forward by my Republican friends is to withhold the Vice President's travel budget until she does a photo op. I think this is beneath, quite frankly, the dignity of this legislative body.

I would also say to the gentleman that what the Vice President was trying to do was get at the source of migration, of people coming to our border, trying to solve the problem. She was spending her time trying to figure out how to solve the problem, not try to figure out how to overturn the last election; not trying to figure out how to reinstate the last President who lost the election not only fair and square, but by a pretty big margin, but actually trying to solve problems.

It is hard to sit here and listen to some of the things we have listened to here today and then be told: Oh, here is our proposal.

I mean, come on. Give me a break.

Let's get back to trying to figure out to solve problems rather than try to score political points. And if you are going to try to score political points, certainly you can come up with a better idea than this.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I don't know what the gentleman was talking about, about woke yuppies and all this other kind of stuff he was talking about here today, but Democrats actually believe in science. We believe that climate change is real. We believe that we ought to have some accountability, especially in the corporate world, as to what they are doing and how they are reporting their actions.

I find this so concerning that we can't even have a debate on what, in fact, the underlying legislation is. I think the bill that Congresswoman Waters has brought to the floor is a commonsense bill that I hope even some Republicans might support.

I would also say that the other piece of legislation that we were talking about here today is Barbara Lee's bill to repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Many of us have been urging that we repeal that 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force for quite a while now. It has passed the House and it has passed committee. Yet here we are again, and now we have a President of the United States that says that he no longer wants that, that he actually supports what we are trying to do here. Yet we still have people on the House floor who say, no, we need to hold onto it, an Authorization for Use of Military Force that we passed almost 20 years ago that somehow is applicable today. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

People like Congresswoman Lee; Congressman Adam Smith; the late Republican Congressman, Walter Jones; and Congressman Tom Cole have talked about the need for us to reclaim our constitutional powers when it comes to committing American forces into harm's way.

Quite frankly, many of us have been raising this issue--didn't matter who was in the White House, whether it was a Democrat or a Republican-- because we think it is the right thing to do. We think somehow it is cowardice for Congress to just keep on kicking the can down the road to ignoring these important debates.

You have those debates, and if people decide to continue the same old, same old, fine. That is what the majority of people here vote for. If people decide to end it, that ought to be fine, too. That is what we are here for.

I think this institution would be better served if we took our constitutional responsibilities with regard to war and peace more seriously.

Today, I hope we will pass this rule and we will then pass the Lee bill. But it isn't the end of our work. We are going to need to continue to review and repeal and reform outdated Authorizations for Use of Military Force, and we need to reimagine the broader issues embedded in the War Powers Resolution, because never again should we acquiesce and allow Congress to sit on the sidelines as wars are crafted and carried out by the White House, wars that never end, wars that sacrifice lives and sacrifice treasure.

Let's respect our troops. Let's respect their families. Let's respect this institution. Let's finally get back to doing our jobs, taking responsibility and voting on issues of war and peace. And let's start today by supporting this rule and the underlying measures.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 473

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3403) to limit travel by the Vice President until

after certain activities are undertaken with respect to the

southwest border, and for other purposes. All points of order

against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall

be considered as read. All points of order against provisions

in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Oversight and Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 10. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3403.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 555, I call up the bill (H.R. 4502) making appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies 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. Though, to consume time is not what I am here to do today. To consume time is a luxury that we can no longer afford.

Madam Speaker, after decades of disinvestment and the devastation of the pandemic, the time is now to reinvest in the American people. The time is now to create jobs, grow opportunity, and support our Nation's most vulnerable. The time is now to meet the moral test of government.

Vice President Hubert Humphrey defined this test by how government treats ``those who are in the dawn of life . . . , those who are in the twilight of life . . . , and those who are in the shadows of life.''

As I have led the Committee on Appropriations over the past 6 months, this idea has served as a guiding light. It has challenged us to dig deeply into the areas of greatest need and to provide every American the opportunity to contribute and succeed.

I believe the package of seven appropriations bills before us, H.R. 4502, will not only pass this moral test, it will fulfill the sacred mission we are charged with as a body to leave this Nation stronger and better than we found it.

With investments in education, nutrition assistance, and rural and underserved communities, we are providing every American the resources they need. By rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure and confronting the climate crisis, we are creating and sustaining good-paying American jobs. And with renewed urgency to protect our democracy, close racial disparities, and advance women's rights, we are building back better and fostering a brighter future. We are meeting the moment and more than meeting Hubert Humphrey's moral test.

As chair of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, I want to take a moment to turn to the investments we are making in this legislation more specifically to lift up the most vulnerable and prepare our Nation for future challenges.

The $253.8 billion we provide in the Labor-HHS bill represents a historic increase of 28 percent. It includes $7.4 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $12.2 billion for Head Start, nearly a $20 billion increase in Federal support for high-poverty schools, and record funding for students with disabilities.

It provides continued support for social and emotional learning and makes post-secondary education more affordable with a $400 increase for the maximum Pell grant. It includes $1.1 billion for programs serving historically Black colleges and universities, minority-serving institutions, community colleges, and underresourced institutions of higher education. And it provides $100 million for the Strengthening Community Colleges Training Grant program.

To give workers the skills and protections they need, this bill includes an increase of $1.6 billion for the Employment and Training Administration, including a total of $285 million for registered apprenticeships and $3.1 billion for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act State grants, and $2.1 billion for worker protection agencies.

This bill heeds the lessons of the pandemic by providing record funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, including $1 billion for public health infrastructure and capacity. It invests $6.5 billion in the National Institutes of Health, which were crucial in developing the COVID-19 vaccine in record time, including an increase of $3.5 billion for biomedical research at existing NIH institutes and centers. And it supports the President's request to establish the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, or ARPA-H, which will be indispensable in achieving breakthroughs in the treatment of diseases, such as diabetes, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, cancer, and Alzheimer's disease.

This bill further provides $100 million to help communities create a new mental health crisis response partnership pilot program in partnership with our law enforcement agencies. And it provides $50 million for gun violence prevention research at the NIH and the CDC.

Finally, this bill ensures equal treatment for women by repealing the discriminatory Hyde amendment and supports the more than 3 million men, women, and young adults who receive the full range of family planning and reproductive health services funded by Title X.

I have just scratched the surface of the historic and unprecedented investments contained in this funding package, which together meet this moment and, I believe, faithfully fulfill the moral test of government.

I thank all the subcommittee chairs, the ranking members, and all the members of the Committee on Appropriations and their staffs for their hard work on these bills.

In particular, I must note my deep appreciation for my partnership with Ranking Member Cole; my partnership with the ranking member of the full committee, Congresswoman Granger; and my gratitude for the Labor- HHS staff led by Stephen Steigleder, and including Jared Bass, Philip Tizzani, Jennifer Cama, Jackie Kilroy, Laurie Mignone, Becky Salay, and Trisha Castaneda. Thank you as well to the minority staff, Susan Ross and Kathryn Salmon. Last but not least, I must thank my personal staff, including Liz Albertine, Christian Lovell, Caitlin Peruccio, and Marie Gualtieri.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for the bill, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), the chair of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Related Agencies.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price), who is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who is the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Bishop).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the chair of the Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for Appropriations.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine (Ms. Pingree), the chair of the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Quigley), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, our country faces dire needs. Far too many people are struggling to put food on the table, to pay their rent. Many more struggle to afford childcare or the cost of education and skills training. The deck has been stacked for so long for the wealthy and the well connected, while our infrastructure crumbles and the existential threat of climate change looms. From the mountains of Appalachia to the struggling neighborhoods of our largest cities, the biggest deficit we face is one of hope.

The moral test of our government today is how we meet these challenges. It is whether we can rise to the occasion and deliver hope for the American people who have been left behind for far too long.

The bills before us meet that moral test. Their transformative investments create jobs, grow opportunity, and provide a lifeline to the vulnerable. They invest in our infrastructure and in a cleaner, safer future.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for this legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 555, I offer amendments en bloc.

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

While I have offered this en bloc amendment for the purposes of legislative efficiency, I strongly oppose it.

The amendment would cut funding for important programs and services that provide opportunities for working families. The simultaneous public health and economic crises of the last 18 months have demonstrated, once again, that these programs are underfunded. They fail to meet the existing needs across the country.

A few examples. This amendment would cut Head Start by $2.4 billion. That leads to tens of thousands of children losing access to high- quality early learning programs.

It cuts the Child Care and Development Block Grant by $1.5 billion, at a time when parents want to return to work, but there is no one available to care for their children.

It cuts the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. It is a bipartisan priority, but it cuts it by $780 million.

It cuts senior nutrition, including Meals on Wheels, resulting in 25 million fewer home-delivered or prepackaged meals for low-income seniors.

It cuts biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health. It is a reduction of 10,000 new grants for potentially lifesaving research.

It cuts $2 billion from mental health and substance use disorder. CDC data shows that 93,000 deaths in 2020 were related to drug overdoses, the highest number ever.

It cuts title I funding for low-income public schools, reducing needed resources for 25 million low-income students.

It cuts special education grants to States by more than $3 billion. It reduces support for services for 7.6 million students with disabilities.

It cuts Federal financial aid programs--the Pell grants, the FSEOG program, and work study--by $5.4 billion for students and families in need.

It cuts funding for job training programs, resulting in fewer supports for Americans who are seeking better economic opportunities for themselves and their families.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the Hyde amendment is a discriminatory policy. For more than 45 years, it has been routinely extended every year as a legislative rider, but the time has come to reckon with the status quo, a status quo that denies health to the poor, in this case, disproportionately denying people of color health services available to those who can afford this choice.

The inequities in our country's healthcare system have been exposed by COVID-19. Systemic racism makes itself felt here, and it is time we insist on equality for women, particularly women of color. However we feel about abortion, we shouldn't deny health coverage just because someone is working to make ends meet.

When Medicaid covers the cost of pregnancy-related care, including abortion, it means someone can make a decision based on what is best for their circumstances. Thirty-three States and the District of Columbia deny State funding to women seeking access to abortion. As a result, millions of economically insecure women in these States are hostage to their geography.

I work every day to advance the respect for life and dignity for every human being. I believe that government has a moral purpose, and I am committed to helping the poor and the disadvantaged, reducing the rising rates of poverty, taking seriously the decision to go to war.

We cannot pick and choose among life issues. Increased access to education is a life issue. The COVID-19 vaccine is a life issue. The Affordable Care Act is a life issue. Medicaid expansion is a life issue. Separating children from their families is a life issue. Gun violence prevention research is a life issue. Food and nutrition assistance, housing and homelessness assistance, supporting background checks, addressing climate change are all life issues.

The bills today all address these issues, all of which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle oppose. I am proud that the bill we consider today moves us forward, ensuring access to essential reproductive healthcare services. It protects women's health and empowers all women by eliminating these riders which for years have allowed certain politicians to insert themselves into a woman's most personal care decision. The decision to get an abortion should be made by a woman and her family in consultation with her doctor and in accordance with her own faith. The decision should not be made by people in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone), a member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, this amendment would cut Head Start, cut childcare, cut low-income home energy assistance, cut senior nutrition, cut biomedical research, cut mental health programs, cut title I for low-income public schools, cut special education, cut Federal financial aid programs like Pell grants and work-study programs, and cut funding for job training, and so much more.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Madam Speaker, the en bloc amendment includes a number of proposals offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. It includes amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans and several offered jointly by Members of both parties on which the vast majority of this body can agree.

Madam Speaker, I urge support for this bipartisan en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier).

Madam Speaker, I misspoke earlier. This en bloc amendment includes a number of proposals offered by my Democratic colleagues, and it reflects our shared values of investing in the American people to create good paying jobs, grow opportunity, and provide a lifeline to the vulnerable; and I urge support.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Escobar).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Manning).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Pressley).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Ms. Sherrill).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Ms. Bush).

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the en bloc, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Pursuant to House Resolution 555, I offer amendments en bloc.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.

This is an en bloc amendment and includes a number of proposals offered by Members on both sides of the aisle. It includes amendments offered by both Democrats and Republicans and several offered jointly by Members of both parties on which the vast majority of this body can agree.

I urge support for this bipartisan en bloc, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Panetta).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Gottheimer).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Garcia).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Carter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to clarify that if this amendment passes, it does not fund the specific project referred to by Mr. Pfluger in debate.

I support this general type of funding, and the text in the summary of the amendment are general, but the Committee on Appropriations has established a process for consideration of a specific community project funding request. That process is designed to ensure transparency and accountability.

The intention of this amendment, as explained by Mr. Pfluger during debate, appears to fund such a project without going through the vetting process. Accordingly, I would encourage my friend to submit the project to the Appropriations Committee under the established process next fiscal year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Virginia (Ms. Spanberger).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am ready to close. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I support this amendment and urge Members to pass it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, my thanks to the ranking member for the time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this package of appropriations bills.

As the ranking member of the Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee, I have great respect for my colleague, Chairman Mike Quigley. We work well together, and that is saying something because he is a Cubs fan, and I am a Cardinal fan.

The bill we are debating today, Madam Speaker, is packed with unjustifiable spending and ignores our unsustainable fiscal trajectory.

In light of unprecedented pandemic spending, it was my hope that this fiscal year we would prioritize making the tough choices necessary to chart a responsible fiscal path forward. Instead, the Financial Services division of the bill proposes a 20 percent increase in discretionary spending over fiscal year 2021 and numerous agencies funded receive a double-digit percentage increase over last year.

Those numbers are unconscionable, Madam Speaker, when you consider the fact that this country is well over $28 trillion in debt.

I noted with interest the comments of the overall chairwoman when she talked about the moral test of government. Madam Speaker, to me the moral test of government is for us to do our work and to take care of the urgent needs of our country, but not burden future generations in the course of doing so.

Furthermore, my colleagues on the other side continue to call for trillions in new government spending, and a new GAO report came out just recently that says more than $1 trillion of the spending that we have commissioned through the coronavirus phenomenon remains unspent. Not just that, this spending has created an inflationary spiral that is affecting every taxpayer budget in my district.

There are also several controversial policy changes included in the FSGG division, such as allowing D.C. tax dollars to fund abortions and removing the prohibition on Federal employee health benefits funding for abortions. These policy changes are no-goes and make this bill and minibus, as a whole, dead in the water.

Again, I oppose this package of appropriations, including the Financial Services division due to the radical increases in spending and these partisan policies.

But, Madam Speaker, I do look forward to working across the aisle with both my counterparts in the House and in the Senate to come up with a bill and a compromise that will actually work for America.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern), my friend from Tulsa.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), who is all the way from Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina, the ranking member on the Education and Labor Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert), a freshman from Silt, Colorado.

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) from Columbus, Indiana, and a respected member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen), my friend who serves on the Agriculture and Education and Labor Committees, from a city unlike any other, Augusta, Georgia.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Hern).

Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining on both sides.

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

Madam Speaker, you have heard from Members of Congress from all across our country, and there was a purpose in me identifying their hometowns.

These are people who represent real American lives, and they are in touch with their constituents on a daily basis, in Augusta, Georgia; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Grandfather Mountain, North Carolina; Silt, Colorado; Lincoln, Nebraska; Columbus, Indiana; and in my hometown of Rogers, Arkansas. They all understand when the Federal Government is on a spending spree because they feel it in their own pockets.

We are feeling it today with unrivaled inflation that is the result of trillions of dollars of taxpayer money flowing into this economy. The money that is going to the cities and counties, it was so much money that we had to do it in two tranches. Some of it has gone out this year, but there is so much that we have to wait until next year to send out the remaining $185 billion or so--money that these counties and cities didn't ask for and, in many cases, don't even need. In fact, they are taking suggestions on how best to spend it.

Yet, here we are today, talking about a bloated discretionary bill that is going to further burden future generations by adding to deficits and debt.

Madam Speaker, the interest on our debt this year is going to approach $350 billion. Let me say that again: $350 billion net interest on the debt, which would pay for more than half of the titles that we are debating here today of around $600 billion.

Madam Speaker, I urge support of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and rise in opposition for a number of reasons, some of which we will detail in a more articulate way here as the debate continues. But suffice it to say that we have thrown a lot of money at the economy of the United States of America. While I realize that part of our function in government is to fund the discretionary programs of the U.S. Government--and that is an important function of our Committee on Appropriations--we have seen the other side take the opportunity to capitalize on a real crisis moment in our country, that being the coronavirus phenomenon.

Trillions and trillions of dollars have gone out the door, fueling inflation and creating real problems for people at home who are experiencing rising costs in virtually everything that a consumer would purchase, from gasoline to groceries. You name it, those costs are escalating.

It is not for any reason other than the fact that we have poured trillions and trillions of dollars into the economy while at the same time these very same policies have caused a lot of people not to work. We have incentivized this notion that they could stay at home and made it more lucrative than actually going to work.

The people that we are going to ask to make things, build things, and produce things are the very people that haven't been functioning. As a result of that, the supply chain has been weakened. So, now, because of simple supply and demand, there are fewer products, and those products are going higher. As I say, simple supply and demand philosophies.

But here we are today, basically adding about 20 percent across the spectrum of these seven titles of discretionary budget. A lot of these are very, very good programs, programs that we have all supported in the past. But with the amount of money that has gone to the coronavirus phenomenon, and the fact that a lot of that money has not been spent--I think the report this week by the GAO was $1 trillion of unobligated funds out of coronavirus. Here we are, adding insult to injury by compounding the problem by adding more to the nondefense discretionary side of the budget.

Now, we will reserve the argument for a little later on what we are doing to national security by not pumping dollars into national security against the known threats that we have around the country. But as I said, we will save that argument for another day.

We are going to argue and continue to argue that this is spending way too much money. The American people know that. That is why there has to be an adult voice in the room to bring these subjects to the light of day, and that is what our purpose will be today.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), a distinguished Member--and may I say a freshman Member, although he is a returning Member from before--a respected member of Committees on Foreign Affairs and the Judiciary and the former chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform in the Congress of the United States.

Madam Speaker, as a testament to the gentleman's amendment, I am a proud cosponsor of that particular amendment and I am pleased that he has offered such.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good), who is a member of the Budget and Education and Labor Committees.

I reserve the balance of my time, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry), my friend from Dillsburg, Pennsylvania, a general, who is a very respected member of the Foreign Affairs and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

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

Madam Speaker, I will just take the remaining few seconds of my time just to say this. As an appropriator, I am not a big fan of how all of this is being choreographed and structured, but I also recognize that time is not on our side. People witnessing this event, probably are not real sure what these en blocs are all about, but it is a simple way to save a little bit of time.

Frankly, I think we ought to get back to regular order, where we can have a full-throated debate, an open rule, if you will, and just talk about each one of these very important issues one by one, and truly represent the will of the American people. That is what the Congress is here for. It was what it was built for.

However, I do recognize that given the political circumstances we are in today, and the fact that we don't have a lot of time, that this is what we are left with.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the en bloc and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I won't belabor the point that I made a few minutes ago that I am not a big fan of this process, but there does come a time in the process where we come to some agreement on things, and I guess we are at that stage of the game.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pearland, Texas (Mr. Weber).

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tipton, Michigan, Michigan's Seventh District (Mr. Walberg), a valued and respected member of the Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce Committees.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from San Angelo, Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a very distinguished member of the freshman class of this Congress, a member of the Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. I am proud of his service to our country in uniform as a pilot of that F-22.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader of our conference, all the way from Bakersfield, California.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut. As I would want her to know, I am ecstatic about the great leadership of her chairwomanship as well as all the Cardinals who have worked, and I thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, many of whom really know that this is a very, very fine response to the needs of the American people.

Might I just say to the chair of the Appropriations Committee, just very quickly, that I was here for the Hyde amendment. I was on the Judiciary Committee. I think my colleagues need to understand that for all the years of the Hyde committee, women who were poor, who were Medicaid recipients, many of them might have died in childbirth and might have had other important emergency health issues because they were subjected to decisions that they did not make for themselves. In that instance, we have discriminated against women just because of their poverty.

Again, abortion is that of the woman, her faith, and her family. I believe this eliminating of the Hyde amendment is finally saying to all women in America that we respect you and your bodies.

I am very grateful for the support of an amendment that recognizes the crisis of diabetes and the need for research professionals and patients participating in clinical trials. Diversity in medical trials is essential to ensuring that cures, especially vaccines and therapies, work for the greatest number of persons. So my amendment decreases and increases the amount for $10 million to emphasize and get more emphasis to develop that diversity pool in research professionals and patients participating in trials.

Diabetes impacts all social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds, particularly African Americans. I meet many people in my constituency who have had an amputation because they were not able to receive medical care.

Finally, I have an amendment that increases and decreases funds $10 million with the intent of supporting individuals who might not finish college because of the impact of COVID. COVID is now resurging but the delta variant is surging. People are being hospitalized, the unvaccinated.

I make a national plea for people to be vaccinated.

As well it is impacting young people. That means that we need to focus on young people getting vaccinated. They are in college. We don't know, if they are not vaccinated, how it will impact their education and their future life.

So this is to provide the targeting programs to reach out to young people to tell them: One, get vaccinated. But to give them a bridge so that their education will not be interrupted, that they will never go back again, and that they will not suffer economically.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my amendments being brought to the floor. I thank the leadership and as well I thank leadership for all the community projects that are helping the impoverished in my district.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 2 to Rules Committee Print 117-12, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair DeLauro for including them in this En Bloc Amendment.

Division A--Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and

Education, and Related Agencies

Jackson Lee Amendment #25, increases and decreases funds by $10,000,000 increase in funding to support greater diversity in the pool of diabetes research professionals and patients participating in clinical trials.

Diversity in medical trials is essential to ensuring that cures, especially vaccines, and therapies, work for the greatest number of persons impacted by an illness.

34.2 million people, or 10.5 percent of the U.S. population, have diabetes. An estimated 26.8 million people--or 10.2 percent of the population--have been diagnosed with diabetes.

Approximately 7.3 million people have diabetes but have not yet been diagnosed (2018).

Diabetes impacts all social, economic, and ethnic backgrounds, particularly African Americans.

Type 1 diabetes accounts for about 5.2 percent of all diagnosed cases of diabetes, affecting approximately 1.6 million people.

Jackson Lee Amendment #26 increases and decreases funds by $10,000,000 with the intent of supporting programs that provide outreach and support services targeting program participants at greatest risk of not completing a college degree due to COVID-19 education disruption.

I urge all Members to vote En Bloc Amendment #2.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask support for en bloc No. 3 and these important amendments. Let me emphasize my first amendment, really, with a great deal of gratitude, because this is so very important.

Human trafficking is a scourge on this Nation, and it has no boundaries; it is both domestic and international, but one of the things that is needed is for those who are trafficked, when they are found, to be able to cooperate with law enforcement. Many of those women are nondocumented immigrant women.

My amendment says none of the funds made available by this act for domestic food programs, Food and Nutrition Service, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program may be used in contravention of section 107(b) of Division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000.

The effect of this amendment will be to make clear that nothing in this bill restricts the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or any Federal agency head from providing assistance and benefits to victims of trafficking under current law so that they can engage with law enforcement and get the scourge, the person who trafficked, because they take advantage of these immigrants, and they cannot survive if they don't have subsistence. Many times they are denied it, because we have not made it clear to the States they are allowed to have it.

This amendment is going to save lives. I thank my colleagues for providing this particular amendment, and as well it is clear that it is needed, because it provides victims of trafficking access to information about their eligibility to receive SNAP benefits. It does not constitute the type of SNAP recruitment activity or advertising of the SNAP program prohibited by the bill, but more importantly, it helps those who are victims.

Trafficking in humans, and especially domestic child trafficking, has no place in civilized society. It is the most lucrative business, better than drugs, and that is why it is--over and over again.

Having held the first field hearing on human trafficking, I can tell you this is an important amendment. I ask my colleagues to support the Jackson Lee amendment and en bloc No. 3.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of En Bloc Amendment No. 3 to Rules Committee Print 117-12, which incorporates Jackson Lee Amendment No. 68.

I thank the Rules Committee for making these amendments in order and Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Bishop for including it in this En Bloc Amendment.

Jackson Lee Amendment #68 is simple and straightforward, but it makes an important contribution to the bill and to a goal that every Member of this body shares--and that is ending the scourge of human trafficking.

My amendment provides that:

None of the funds made available by this Act for ``Domestic Food Programs--Food and Nutrition Service--Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program'' may be used in contravention of section 107(b) of Division A of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(b)).

The effect of this amendment will be to make clear that nothing in this bill restricts the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture or any federal agency head from providing assistance and benefits to victims of trafficking under current law as authorized by 22 U.S.C. Sec. 7105(b) of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (114 Stat. 1464, Pub. Law 106-386).

In particular, Jackson Lee Amendment #68 is necessary to make clear that providing victims of trafficking access to information about their eligibility to receive SNAP benefits does not constitute the type of SNAP recruitment activities or ``advertising'' of the SNAP program prohibited by the bill and by Section 4018 of the Agriculture Act of 2014 (Public Law No: 113-079).

Trafficking in humans, and especially domestic child trafficking, has no place in a civilized society. Those who engage in this illicit trade should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. This House made that clear again last month when it passed H.R. 3530, the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, which contained my Sense of the Congress amendment added during the Judiciary Committee markup.

That means we need to ensure that state and local law enforcement agencies have the tools, resources, and training necessary to identify, apprehend, and prosecute criminals who ruthless traffic in children and young persons.

And one of the most effective resources in bringing criminals to justice is the cooperation and assistance of their victims.

Perpetrators of crime know that they are more likely to evade detection and punishment when their victims refuse to assist or cooperate with law enforcement. That is why they make it a point to instill fear in their victims--for their own safety or that of family and loved ones.

I urge all Members to vote En Bloc Amendment #3.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, the rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first is H.R. 256, which would repeal the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force, or the AUMF. This AUMF authorizes the President to defend the Nation against threats posed by and in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, as an Iraq war veteran, I sat literally face-to-face with bombmakers, murderers, and other terrorists who were willing to give up their lives in their quest to destroy America. The 2002 AUMF is the only current legal framework for fighting Iranian-backed militia operating in Iraq.

I agree that there are important conversations to be had about the War Powers Resolution and the future of the 2002 AUMF. However, Congress should undertake a collaborative process and work with stakeholders, like the Department of Defense and the intelligence community, and we should work with them to draft a replacement for the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs before we repeal important authorities for confronting and eliminating terrorists.

If we don't do this, we leave our Nation open to threats from Iran, which is already emboldened by President Biden's kowtowing and his capitulations, so we would be more vulnerable to Iran.

We also leave ourselves vulnerable to other terrorist organizations that are intent on destroying and taking American lives both at home and abroad.

This rule also makes in order H.R. 1187, the so-called Corporate Governance Improvement and Investor Protection Act. In reality, this measure is nothing more than House Democrats' latest attempt to force their radical, far-left agenda on the American people.

Republicans support securities regulation and disclosure regimes that are actually helpful to American investors and entrepreneurs. The bill before us today is meant to appeal to social activists and woke corporations rather than Main Street investors looking to save money for retirement, pay for their kids' college education, or simply build a better life.

H.R. 1187 will push the SEC to focus on social activism rather than investor interests and use our securities laws to push a partisan progressive agenda.

If you don't believe me, just don't take my word for it. Look at the words of Senator Elizabeth Warren. She put out a press release about provisions in this bill, which she claimed will ``accelerate the market transition from fossil fuels to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources that mitigate climate change.''

Those are her words. The activism is right there. It is written into this bill.

Clearly, H.R. 1187 is about the social justice Democrats' war on American coal, oil, and gas producers and the people who actually work in those industries. It is more about that than enhancing shareholder value.

I would just like to remind my colleagues that under the law, public companies are already required to publicly disclose any material information that investors would find important to making investment decisions. If the mandatory disclosures in H.R. 1187 were actually material, public companies would already be required to disclose them.

Rather, each of these disclosures, but particularly the climate and socially related disclosures, are intended to what I would call name and shame public companies and bully them into compliance with the House Democrats' radical, far-left progressive agenda.

Madam Speaker, at the end of the day, H.R. 1187 discourages private companies from going public; it encourages public companies to then go private; and it limits investment opportunities for hardworking Americans.

While my colleagues across the aisle continue to bow before the woke mob and continue to appease woke yuppies, House Republicans will stand and fight for everyday Americans trying to save their hard-earned money and work toward a better life for themselves and their families.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, in addition to making H.R. 256 and H.R. 1187 in order, the rule before us today includes a budget-deeming resolution that puts the House on track for a $1.5 trillion spending spree.

I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my good friend and ranking member of the Budget Committee, to discuss this reckless spending spree.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman such time as he may consume.

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

Madam Speaker, last month there were over 180,000 encounters at the southern border, almost 200,000 encounters at the southern border. That is a new 20-year record for illegal border crossings, 20-year record.

Alarmingly, CBP has seized more deadly fentanyl so far in 2021 than in all of 2020. Based on our current trends, we can expect overdose deaths in 2021 to meet, if not exceed, the 90,000 Americans who lost their lives between September 2019 and September 2020, 90,000 American deaths.

Yet Vice President Harris, who President Biden put in charge of stemming migration at our southern border, refuses to go firsthand to see the crisis in person. In Vice President Harris' own words, ``If you want to fix a problem, you have to go where the problem exists.'' That is what the Vice President said.

Alarmingly, she hasn't gone to the southern border at all.

It would be laughable if this wasn't a humanitarian crisis. It would be laughable if Americans weren't going to die of overdoses because of fentanyl crossing our southern border.

That is why, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider Congresswoman Ashley Hinson's See the Crisis Act. This legislation would restrict Vice President Harris from using taxpayer dollars to travel internationally until she actually visits our southern border.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with any extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Roy), my very good friend.

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

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1187 is House Democrats' latest attempt to force a radical progressive agenda on the American people by turning the SEC into the social policy police.

While my colleagues across the aisle continue to capitulate to the woke yuppies, continue to bow down in fear to the woke mob, House Republicans will fight for policies that help everyday Americans build better lives for themselves.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the underlying measure.

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

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