Interactive Federal Review Act

Madam Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 555 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), 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, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 555. The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 4502, the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, Agriculture, Rural Development, Energy and Water Development, Financial Services and General Government, Interior, Environment, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2022, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman DeLauro, makes in order 229 amendments, provides en bloc authority for the chairwoman or her designee, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule provides the majority leader, or his designee, the ability through July 30 to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 26 or 27.

The rule also provides that requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on July 26 or 27 may be postponed through September 22, 2021.

Finally, the rule amends H. Res. 188 to provide recess instructions, suspension authority, and same day authority through September 22, 2021.

Madam Speaker, if you care about protecting our seniors and taking care of our veterans and military families; if you care about fighting climate change and combating gun violence; if you care about closing health disparities and creating good paying jobs; and if you care about our economy not only rebounding from the COVID pandemic, but being strengthened for years to come, then the underlying measure is a lifeline. Because these seven appropriations measures provide landmark funding to deal with our Nation's most pressing issues.

It turns the page on an era where the prior administration demanded disinvestment in seemingly everything that helped all but the wealthiest of the wealthy. And now we are working with the Biden administration to stand up for our workers and to rebuild the middle class.

It is no secret that the appropriations process can seem a little arcane. But this measure is truly historic, Madam Speaker.

I want to make two points here in particular. First is what is not in here. Finally, after more than 40 years, the Hyde amendment is nowhere to be found. And let me say, it is about damn time. Because however we feel about abortion, we should not deny health coverage just because someone is working to make ends meet.

More than half of the women affected by the Hyde amendment are women of color. Nearly one-third are Black, 27 percent are Latina, and one- fifth are Asian American and Pacific Islanders, as well as indigenous women also covered by Medicaid.

That is what inequality looks like, Madam Speaker, and I am proud that we are confronting it. The decision about whether to get an abortion is a deeply personal one. We don't know the circumstances. But I do know this: we should not defer to the politicians and special interest groups who want to impose their values on others. We should trust women and families to make their own decisions about what is best for them.

It is about justice. It is about freedom. And it is about respecting women's personal autonomy.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro for leading the way on this, and I want to recognize the many Congresswomen, in particular, who have waged a sometimes lonely battle year after year after year to make this day a reality.

Second, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize language that is included here, which will help combat hunger across America. This measure expands access to healthy foods like fruits and vegetables to more than 6 million people through the WIC program. It ensures that more than 40 million people in SNAP-eligible families get benefits that they desperately need. And it also makes key investments in child nutrition programs, like school meals. This is incredibly important since we all saw the COVID crisis lay bare the truth about hunger in America.

The lines outside our food banks included some of the most affluent cars from the wealthiest neighborhoods, because no one is immune from food insecurity.

It is an epidemic in every State and every congressional district in this country. Even before the COVID pandemic hit, there were more than 35 million people who were going hungry in this country, including 10 million children.

The United States is the richest country on the face of the Earth. That anybody--anybody--goes without food is unconscionable, Madam Speaker.

I have often said that we have everything we need to end hunger in America. We have the food, the know-how, and, yes, the money. The only thing we lack is the political will. Hunger is a political condition.

I think that is finally beginning to change, Madam Speaker.

For the last several months, the Rules Committee has acted as a kind of select committee on hunger, holding hearings, roundtables, and site visits, all to develop a road map to eradicate hunger in this country by 2030, as the United Nations has called for.

I am more convinced than ever that, with a holistic approach and the full weight of the Federal Government, a hunger-free America is within our grasp.

This rule makes in order my bipartisan amendment to provide $2.5 million for a White House conference on food, nutrition, hunger, and health. The conference will bring together the heads of food banks, hospitals, government agencies, educators, farmers, the faith-based community, people with lived experiences, our business community, anybody who has anything to do

with finding a solution, not to hold an event that is essentially a press release, but to develop a real plan to tackle this, something with benchmarks that better connects the dots between all the different Federal programs and expands successful local and State initiatives.

The first and only time such a conference was held was the same year we put a man on the Moon, over 52 years ago. It developed and strengthened many programs we still rely on, like SNAP, WIC, and the National School Lunch Program.

A hunger conference for the 21st century can finish what was started so many decades ago by Senators George McGovern, Senator Bob Dole, and others.

Senator Dole wrote to Ranking Member Cole and me recently, saying: ``I remain proud of the work Senator McGovern and I did then, and I endorse your effort to secure a second White House conference to identify the next frontier of programs to finally end hunger in America.''

I believe we can do big things, and I hope that we can do them in a bipartisan way.

Madam Speaker, we can combat hunger; we can confront climate change; we can stand up for women's reproductive rights; and we can take care of the most vulnerable among us. This bill is proof of that.

I urge all of my colleagues to join with us in supporting this rule and the underlying measure so that we can build a more just and equitable future for every single American.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, before I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), I want to point out, for the record, the last time we had a government shutdown was when we had a Republican Congress and a Republican President, so I am not so much worried about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 14 Media Matters article entitled, ``FOX News' Obsession with Critical Race Theory, by the Numbers.''

[From Media Matters, July 14, 2021]

Fox News' Obsession With Critical Race Theory, by the Numbers

(By Lis Power)

Update (7/14/21): Following the publication of this study,

Media Matters continued to track mentions of ``critical race

theory'' on Fox News. In June, there were 901 mentions on the

network, the highest number of any month and an increase from

537 mentions in May. In the past 3\1/2\ months there have

been over 1,900 mentions of critical race theory on the

network.

Original Study

Critical race theory, to those who can actually define it,

is an academic and legal framework that examines the impact

of systemic racism on American society. For conservatives

however, it's the latest boogeyman they can use to scare

people into thinking America's children are being

``indoctrinated'' by ``woke'' leftist teachers. And while

that is not even remotely the case, this idea is exploding on

Fox News and in Republican-run state legislatures, leading to

legislative bans in many states and skyrocketing mentions of

critical race theory on the network.

As Media Matters has previously noted, Fox News' current

obsession with ``critical race theory'' has been a year in

making. What once was a slow trickle of monthly mentions has

developed into a full blown assault. Since February, month

over month mentions of the theory have more than doubled on

Fox News as the network has begun to spin an illusion of what

it is and where it's being taught (in reality, critical race

theory is not generally taught in K-12). Coverage of the

theory sharply increased in March, with 107 mentions on the

network according to data from Kinetiq media monitoring

service. The following month, network figures and guests

mentioned it 226 times, and by May, the number had increased

to 537 mentions. Not even halfway through June, there's

already been 408 mentions on the network.

Just last week, Fox mentioned ``critical race theory'' a

record 244 times--an increase from the previous record high

of 170 mentions the week before.

Fox has admitted its reason for this souped-up coverage:

the 2022 midterm elections. And in order to drum up outrage,

the network has repeatedly amplified a lie that critical race

theory teaches that one race is ``inherently superior to

another.'' More recently, in its continued efforts to

demonize it, Fox News has promoted a pamphlet that echoes the

white nationalist ``Great Replacement'' conspiracy theory.

Fox's obsession with what it defines as ``critical race

theory'' has frequently crossed the threshold into the absurd

and overly dramatic. Fox host Tucker Carlson called it ``a

cult,'' while host Will Cain said it is ``modern-day Jim

Crow.'' Fox contributor Miranda Devine claimed that teaching

the theory would ``warp the minds of American children'' and

``is a recipe for social upheaval and mental illness.'' Fox's

Newt Gingrich said it was being driven by ``people who want

to brainwash your child.''

By labeling everything that has to do with race ``critical

race theory,'' Fox is attempting to shut down conversations

about race and racism--which is ironic given the network's

claims that it champions free speech. And even though many

conservatives who lambast it don't have a clue what the

theory actually is, their efforts are working as 21 states

are either introducing bans or have banned what they call

``critical race theory.'' Many educators in those states have

argued that the bills and laws would essentially ``whitewash

history'' and have criticized legislators for making it

difficult to have necessary conversations about race.

Methodology

Media Matters searched transcripts in the Kinetiq video

database for all original programming on Fox News Channel for

the key phrase ``critical race theory'' from June 2020

through June 13, 2021. We counted each instance of the phrase

as a single mention.

Methodology update (7/14/21): Data now includes midnight

episodes of Fox News @ Night (which recently shifted its time

slot) and all new programming from June 14 through July 11,

2021.

Madam Speaker, apparently my Republican friends and their allies in the media need a new scare tactic because they don't want to talk about things like the economy or how we put people back to work or how we crushed the virus. But we are not going to debate on whether racism exists in America because it does.

We are not going to debate whether we should teach our kids racism is wrong. We should.

We are not going to debate whether individual States and schools can decide what their kids learn. They can.

And we sure as hell are not going to be lectured about racism by the party that is trying to dismantle the Voting Rights Act that Martin Luther King and John Lewis paid for with their blood.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Roybal-Allard), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Homeland Security.

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

Madam Speaker, think about what we are dealing with as we gather here on the House floor. We have a pandemic that we are trying to crush, we have a crumbling infrastructure, and what do my friends want to talk about? A FOX News talking point.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a July 23 ABC News article entitled: ``Martin Luther King, Jr., the KKK, and More May Soon Be Cut from Texas Education Requirements.''

[From ABC News, July 23, 2021]

Martin Luther King, Jr., the KKK, and More May Soon Be Cut From Texas

Education Requirement

(By Kiara Alfonseca)

Some lessons on the civil rights movement, white supremacy,

the women's suffrage movement and Martin Luther King Jr. may

soon be cut from Texas' public education requirements,

according to legislation being considered in the state--one

of several bills targeting critical race theory around the

country.

The Texas Senate has passed Senate Bill 3 in a continued

effort to proscribe education on racial inequality in K-12

education. It removes several Texas Education Code lesson

requirements that were proposed by Democrats in prior

education legislation to be implemented in the upcoming

school year. It also stipulates that lessons cannot teach

that ``one race or sex is inherently superior to another race

or sex'' or make students ``feel discomfort, guilt, [or]

anguish'' about privilege or systemic racism.

The concept critical race theory, an academic discipline

that analyzes how racism is perpetuated in U.S. laws and

policies, has become a lightning rod for conservatives around

the country amid the racial reckoning spurred by George

Floyd's death.

At least 26 other states have introduced or implemented

similar legislation on race education by Republican

lawmakers, echoing concerns about racial division.

Opponents say that children should not be made to feel

responsible for past injustices based solely on the color of

their skin or be forced to accept the idea that the United

States and its institutions are not only structured racially

but perpetuate that racism.

Some teachers interviewed by ABC News have said critical

race theory isn't being taught in grades K-12 and instead is

reserved for academic institutions. Some Texas educators told

ABC they believe the fight against ``critical race theory''

is a veiled attempt to turn back the clock on racial

equality.

The new legislation, SB3, would remove several staples of

U.S. history education from state requirements, according to

Ovidia Molina, the president of the Texas State Teachers

Association.

The state currently requires teaching ``the history of

white supremacy,'' ``the institution of slavery, the eugenics

movement, and the Ku Klux Klan, and the ways in which it is

morally wrong; the Chicano movement; women's suffrage and

equal rights; the civil rights movement'' and more.

However, SB3 would cut those requirements--a move that some

teachers say signals a growing effort to remove specific

lessons from classrooms.

``Specifically editing out that you can't teach that white

supremacy is morally wrong--that is deeply concerning,'' said

Jennifer Lee, a teacher in Killeen, Texas. ``I think the

angle here is just . . . preserving the ideals behind white

supremacy.''

Though the new legislation doesn't necessarily ban these

lessons from being taught, removing them from the list of

requirements means they may come under scrutiny due to the

vague, anticritical race theory language of this bill.

Gov. Greg Abbott already signed anti-critical race theory

into law in June with HB3979--stating that teachers are

banned from linking systemic racism to the ``authentic

founding principles of the United States.'' But teachers and

advocates say it is so vague that it could infringe on their

ability to have truthful dialogue about history and racism

with their students.

SB3 was added to the state legislature's special session

after Abbott signed HB3979 into law, saying said ``more must

be done'' on critical race theory in schools.

And SB3 has been called troubling by education groups

including the National Education Association for its

potential to censor teachers and students in the classroom.

`Provide guardrails' against `animosity'

Defenders of the bill, including Republican state Sen.

Bryan Hughes who sponsored the bill, say that some lessons on

racial inequality blame white students for systemic racism

and creates tension between students of different

backgrounds.

``This bill is meant only to provide guardrails against

imposing division and animosity on our students,'' Hughes

said before the July 16 Senate vote. ``Since [critical race

theory] is so prevalent in higher education and since we see

it popping up in public schools, that's why it needs to be

addressed.''

Other proponents of anti-critical race theory bills, such

as Florida Gov. Ron Desantis, have said that some lessons on

race could lead to the ``indoctrination'' of public school

students toward progressive political leanings.

Ovidia Molina, the president of the Texas State Teachers

Association, said that students have so much to gain from

education about America's racial history, including those

that would be erased by this new legislation.

``We want to keep honesty in education,'' Molina said. ``We

want to make sure that we teach our students the truth, the

whole truth, the good, the bad, the failures, the

successes.''

Molina said teachers have spoken up at hearings and called

their local legislators to denounce the new legislation--but

said lawmakers are not listening.

``They don't know what's happening in our public schools,''

Molina said. ``We still want to celebrate women's suffrage,

we still want to celebrate the Chicano movement, we still

want to celebrate people of color, so that our students see

themselves in the history and so they see themselves in the

future.''

The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to

requests for comment.

Molina said that Texas districts have yet to announce what

punishment for teaching these subjects might look like for

teachers.

Concerning shift toward `patriotic' education

Some teachers told ABC they are worried about retaliation,

termination, or other forms of punishment. But others are

more concerned about what this shift toward more

``patriotic'' education means for their students.

``One of the first things Hitler did was start to reform

education and impact the way that history is taught. One of

the first things Mussolini did was go through and incorporate

patriotic education,'' Lee said. ``Education has always been

that first line of defense in preserving a certain way of

thinking.''

Former President Donald Trump, among several other

conservatives, have become proponents of ``patriotic''

education in response to critical race theory and The New

York Times' 1619 project--which dissects the founding of the

United States of America and its legacy of slavery. Trump's

proposed ``1776 commission'' aims to envision U.S. history in

a positive light, instead of through a condemnatory, racial

lens.

A school bus is seen outside Condit Elementary School in

Bellaire, Texas, on Dec. 16, 2020. San Antonio teacher

Christopher Green said he believes that lessons on race,

inequality and oppression are vital to helping children

navigate the world and understand our society.

``Rather than adding a more diverse perspective to the

teaching of history, it's eliminating things that really need

to be in there to understand the full picture of the American

story,'' Green said.

The bill will now be headed to the state House, but it will

likely be stalled due to protests from Texas Democratic

representatives. They have fled the state in protest of new

voting restrictions, meaning there won't be enough members to

conduct business according to House rules.

Madam Speaker, many of my Republican colleagues think they can interfere with everything from what our teachers teach in school to what happens between women and their doctors.

This is from the party who pretends to be the party of local government.

One of my colleagues on the Republican side in an interview yesterday said that we should have cameras in the classroom to monitor what teachers do every single minute. So the party that claims to be the party of liberty and the party of local government wants to be the party of super-big government and control everybody's life.

Give me a break. Let me close with that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

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

Let me just say that I think that it will be a lot easier for us to be able to accommodate the gentleman if he could control members of his own party from trying to disrupt and derail everything that we try to do here.

Suspension votes, which are really pretty noncontroversial, that usually pass overwhelmingly, we have had to impose a new rule to be able to consider them in order to be able to overcome their objection to every single one of them. And now they are even objecting to that; bipartisan bills, Republican bills.

Unfortunately, there is a concerted effort on behalf of some in the minority to try to stop all of the people's business, and we are going to move forward and get the people's business done. That is what we are doing here today, and we will continue to do that.

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Trone).

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

Madam Speaker, we can talk about polls. I have a poll here that just recently came out that shows the exact opposite of that.

But rather than talk about polls, we should be talking about values, and a majority of Americans believe that women should not be denied reproductive healthcare because they can't afford it. They believe that people should not be denied healthcare because, you know, they are working hard to try to make ends meet.

So, I mean, here's a poll that just came out that shows the exact opposite of that, an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that Medicaid should, in fact, cover women's reproductive healthcare.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore).

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

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud of this process. The shameful process was when my friend's party was in control of the House and the White House, and they shut the government down. That is what people don't want to see happen ever again.

By the way, I mean, these bills do things like tackle hunger, they lift up our rural communities, they rebuild health and safety infrastructure, they invest incredibly important dollars in the National Institutes of Health and medical research to try to find cures for everything from Alzheimer's to Parkinson's disease, to get a better handle on how we can deal with future pandemics. It creates and sustains good-paying jobs, it grows opportunities through education. It advances equal treatment for women.

There are so many important, good things in here that, by the way, I think are bipartisan everywhere in the country but in this Chamber, and so this is what the American people want. This is what they voted for. I am proud of the Appropriations Committee, Chairwoman DeLauro, and all of those who put the American people front and center on our agenda.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

People always ask: Why don't you work together? How do you work with that? To come down here and to lecture us about deficits or about budgets, give me a break.

When the gentleman's party was in power, when they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they gave us a $2 trillion debt because of a tax cut that went to wealthy people, to big corporations.

When they controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House, they shut the government down. They couldn't even agree amongst themselves. It was the first time in history that we ended a Congress with a government shutdown.

When they lost power, they gave Democrats a government that was shut down. We had to clean up the mess, and we continue to do that.

In all of the years of disinvestment when they were in charge with Donald Trump, we are now trying to put the people first. That is what this is about.

I am proud of this bill. I am proud of the investments in medical research, in our families, in our children, in our senior citizens, and in our veterans. That is what this is all about. These bills are being brought to the floor.

I hate to tell the gentleman that is what we are doing; they are coming to the floor. He can vote ``no'' on them and go home and explain to his constituents why he voted against their interests, but that is what we are doing. And I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, earlier I referred to when one of my Republican colleagues came to the floor and had a meltdown. I commented: How do you work with that? Coming to the floor and yelling and screaming and scolding and distorting and trying to find the worst possible version of everything, that never accomplishes anything. It never does.

Madam Speaker, I would never characterize my colleague from Oklahoma that way. When we get to a final product, he will be part of the solution because he respects this institution, and he understands the importance of give and take. We have some very strong disagreements in the Rules Committee but I never question his integrity, and he never questions my integrity or anybody else's on the committee. I wish there were more people like him, quite frankly, in this Chamber.

Madam Speaker, to hear some of my friends on the other side today, you would think that the sky is falling.

What is so controversial about trusting women to make their own healthcare decisions, free from politicians and special interest groups trying to control them?

What is so controversial about confronting climate change, or making America the world's clean energy superpower?

Or helping our farmers in our rural communities?

Or making sure our veterans have the support and the care that they have earned when they return home?

Apparently, since Democrats proposed it, this minibus is a bridge too far for some. But I have to tell you, to most Americans, what is included here is just common sense.

I am proud that we are doing our work and keeping our government funded, and doing so in a way that respects women's autonomy and builds a more just and equitable future.

Madam Speaker, too many of these issues can't wait another day, another year, another decade for us to act, so I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and this minibus so that we can meet the scale of the challenges that we face today and put the building blocks in place to grow our economy for years to come. That is what these bills are all about.

Someone earlier described them as bills filled with hope and love. They are. This is about putting our families first. This is about respecting our kids, understanding that our children are 100 percent of our future. This is about understanding that we have a climate crisis, and we have to do something about it. This is about respecting equity and justice and things that, quite frankly, should be shared values.

Madam Speaker, I know that there are some disagreements here. We will all get through this, work it out, and get to a conclusion, but the final product will be much, much better because of what we are doing on this House floor today.

Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, and my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers H.R. 4502, a seven-bill appropriations package for fiscal year 2022, including the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, where I am the ranking member.

Though I have great affection for my good friend, Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro, and respect all of my colleagues across the aisle, I think this package is deeply misguided, and I will be opposing it today.

From the beginning, this package was structured on a flawed premise. The majority chose to use the 302(b) allocation numbers, the levels that tell each subcommittee how much money they can spend, that were totally off the mark.

The majority chose to mark their bills to spending levels that called for a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending, and an inadequate 1 percent increase in defense spending, less even than the amount the President requested in his own budget.

At a time when our national security is facing repeated threats, ranging from the Middle East to Afghanistan to the South China Sea, we can hardly afford to return to the continual underfunding of our military that was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden years.

What is worse, these seven bills account for a 21 percent increase over fiscal year 2021. Across the seven titles, the majority is asking to spend more than $100 billion more in fiscal year 2022 than we did just last year. This comes on top of massive spending earlier this year with the majority's $1.9 trillion COVID spending package, and at a time when Democrats in the House and the Senate are looking to spend another $3.5 trillion as part of a new partisan reconciliation bill. This is truly tax-and-spend politics like we have never seen before.

But the problems with this bill aren't just with the amount of money that they spend. In drafting this package, the majority has also chosen to strip out longstanding bipartisan policy provisions and, instead, has filled this package with partisan, far-left policy that simply cannot pass both Chambers and become law.

There is no better illustration of this than the majority's shocking decision to remove the Hyde and Weldon amendments.

For 45 years, through both Democratic and Republican administrations and Democratic and Republican majorities in the House, the Hyde amendment has been the law. It is a commitment that no Federal tax dollars can be used to fund abortions, except in certain rare instances, and a commitment to protect the conscience rights of the great majority of American taxpayers who are opposed to publicly funding abortions.

Since 2006, the Weldon amendment has protected the conscience rights of healthcare providers to not participate in abortions if they have a moral objection to the procedure.

The very same Democratic majority that controls the House today had no apparent issue with the Hyde and Weldon amendments just 1 year ago since they were carried on their Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill without any issue. Yet, this year, the majority has inexplicably chosen not to include these bipartisan provisions, despite receiving support from every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee only last year.

Removing language that has been included in appropriations bills for decades is not only an overreach by the far left, but it also threatens to destabilize and upend the entire appropriations process. Appropriations bills simply cannot pass both Chambers and be signed into law without this language.

Eliminating the Hyde and Weldon amendments, given all of their importance to the American people, also eliminates the opportunity for bipartisanship. Without a bipartisan deal approved by both Chambers, we cannot reach a successful conclusion to the fiscal year 2022 appropriations process.

Removing this language sends us on a collision course for a yearlong continuing resolution or, worse, a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I filed an amendment to today's package to restore the Hyde and Weldon amendments. I did not do so alone. I was joined by every single Republican Member in this body--every single one. All 213 members of the Republican Conference signed on to this important amendment. Yet, when the Rules Committee met yesterday, I was shocked that my amendment was not made in order.

Madam Speaker, I find it stunning that the majority would not back provisions that are this important to the American people. But it serves to show how deeply partisan the package before us today actually is. The majority simply prefers to ram through their own partisan policy rather than provisions that have had bipartisan support for decades.

I find that deeply disappointing, Madam Speaker. But I know that today's bill will not be the last word. Whether the majority likes it or not, at the end of the day, we will have to reach a bipartisan and bicameral deal on spending for fiscal year 2022. The alternative is too bleak to contemplate.

But if the majority fails to compromise and fails to work with Republicans, both here and across the Capitol, then they will have only themselves to blame. They will bear the responsibility for the consequences, a continuing resolution or, even worse, a government shutdown.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule and the underlying legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 4698 for immediate consideration. This bill addresses the growing problem in American schools of educators pushing their own ideology onto students by forcing them to use the pedagogy of critical race theory.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens), the author of this amendment to further explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, it should be easy to agree that schools, especially primary schools, should focus solely on facts-based education, without political overtones.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace), who will speak more about the importance of defeating the previous question because of the potential indoctrination of school children posed by schools teaching critical race theory.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Bishop), a passionate advocate on this issue, who will speak more about the previous question.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend, a distinguished member of both the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the most distinguished defender of life in the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Van Drew), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), my very good friend and the ranking member of the Budget Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 15 seconds.

Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I am prepared to close whenever he is. Madam Speaker, can I inquire how much time remains?

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

I want to begin by thanking my good friend, Mr. McGovern, the chairman of

the Rules Committee, as we always have a spirited debate and lively exchange and we don't always agree on things, but I always appreciate his faith in the institution, his willingness to engage in debate, and his friendship and decency as we work through our differences.

Madam Speaker, the bill before us today is a deeply misguided bill. I say that as someone who serves on the Appropriations Committee. The spending package covering seven different appropriations bills is marked to numbers that simply don't make sense.

Contrary to what my friend claimed, we haven't had a massive disinvestment in domestic spending over the last 4 years. Quite the opposite. There have been steady and, I think, genuinely merited increases. This is an explosion of spending tied to additional spending that is promised down the road in the form of a $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill.

Now, everything is funded except, as my good friend from Missouri said, the things that keep us safe and free. The defense budget is laughable. We have had a succession of Secretaries--on both sides of the aisle, by the way--who have told us we need a 3 to 5 percent increase beyond inflation in defense over the next several years.

We don't have a defense bill on the floor. We are not likely to see one any time soon, but the reality is, the defense bill my friends propose actually is an inflation-adjusted cut in the defense of the United States, a cut at a time that we are dealing with Russian and Chinese aggression and dangerous adventurism in other parts of the world by regional adversaries like North Korea and Iran. That is irresponsible.

We all know we have a crisis on the southern border. We won't see the Homeland Security bill either because that is flat funded and not meeting the obvious needs that we have there. But we do have an extraordinary explosion in domestic spending, one that is simply not justified and can't be sustained.

If those were my only objections, I would think at some point we could probably find some sort of reasonable compromise, because my friends know at the end of the day they have to get to 60 votes in the United States Senate. However, in addition to that, they have ripped out things like the Hyde and Weldon amendments that have been in these bills for 45 years, in the case of the Hyde amendment, 15 or 16 years in the case of the Weldon amendment. Those are deal-breaking bills to us.

Now, my friends have routinely voted for those things for decades; not for years but for decades, and Presidents of both parties have signed them. As I have mentioned to my friends yesterday in the Rules Committee, it was a Democratic Congress that passed the Hyde amendment, overwhelmingly Democrat in both Chambers.

My friends have changed their view about the life issue. That is their right. I respect it. We have not. We have not changed our views on conscience issues. My friends know that if that language in the Hyde amendment and the Weldon amendment are not restored to the appropriations bills, they are not going to have any of these grand bills or even compromise bills. They are going to end up with a continuing resolution, at best.

For those people who are watching that don't know what a continuing resolution is, it is simply last year's spending with the Weldon and Hyde amendments. In effect, a Democratic President, a Democratic House, and a Democratic Senate will have produced Donald Trump's last- negotiated budget. That is where we are headed unless my friends decide to restore that language. That is an absolute deal-breaker for us if it is not.

The other thing that I would mention to my good friends on the other side is that there is still some time to do some things. This is a long process, and I understand setting out your negotiating position. But let's not be under any illusion that what we are talking about today will ever become law. It will never be passed by the Senate. It will never reach the desk of the President of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I urge my friends to reject the rule, reject the bill, and sit down and bargain in good faith. We can get there.

As I have said on many occasions, I have had the great privilege of having been chairman and ranking member of the largest component bill in this group. On six different occasions, both as chairman and ranking member, working with my good friend, the chairwoman of the full committee, Representative DeLauro, we came to a deal. All six times, the bill was out of committee, across the floor, signed by the President. It didn't matter who was chairman or ranking member. It didn't matter which party controlled. It didn't matter who the President was.

That is six times in a row. We can do that again a seventh time in this bill. There are some good things in this bill, as my friend says, some things I certainly support. But there can be such a thing as too much of a good thing, and there is way too much of a good thing in this bill in terms of the amount of money it spends.

At the end of the day, if we are going to have an appropriations process that works, if we are going to have a deal--and we both should want a deal--then the defense number is going to have to come up. The discretionary spending number, which is embodied in this bill, is going to have to come down, and the Hyde and Weldon amendments are going to have to be restored.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to moving the previous question so we can immediately consider my bill, H.R. 4698, the Say No to Indoctrination Act, which prohibits Federal funds from advancing the hateful critical race theory concepts.

I grew up in the Deep South during the days of KKK, Jim Crow, and segregation. I have felt the pain of racism and have seen and experienced firsthand when people act unjustly toward others due to the color of their skin. And, yes, it still happens today when individuals choose hate.

Once an unknown academic theory, the increasingly pervasive CRT says that racism permanently stains the fabric of American society. The critical race theorists believe that we are defined solely by our skin color. They believe that America's institutions preserve white supremacy. Some even believe that our Nation is hopelessly racist.

To try to make this divisive theory understandable, teachers often separate students into separate groups based on intrinsic characteristics like race, color, and national origin. In doing so, students are taught to judge others based on their appearance. In the 1960s, this was called pure racism.

In the span of a few weeks, Democrats have gone from claiming that CRT was only a myth to boldly embracing it. They have gone from dismissing parental objections to endorsing indoctrination in schools across the country. The American people are right in their distrust.

Make no mistake, I want our students to learn about the hundreds of moments that shaped us into the country we are today. Students should learn about slavery and its legacy. Students should learn about the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, Juneteenth, Jim Crow, the Tulsa race massacre, and the Civil Rights Acts.

They should also be taught and be proud of a Nation that, for over 200 years, has progressed, a country that has shown its commitment to its mission statement that all men and women are created equal.

We have not always lived up to our ideals but have come closer with each passing generation in doing so.

Racism exists. I grew up with it and have zero tolerance for bigotry and hate. More can be done to create a world that teaches greater tolerance and respects the dignity of every individual, regardless of race, color, or creed. CRT is not the solution.

It is absolutely wrong and un-American to indoctrinate our children into believing that because of their skin color, they are forever part of the oppressed or oppressor class. Hate has no place in our schools, and CRT has no place in our classes.

We live in a world of imperfect people and in a country that from its inception understood this. It was, therefore, placed within our mission statement a goal to grow, to change, and to form a more perfect union.

I choose to believe in a country where we are judged not by the color of our skin but by the content of our character.

I choose to believe in a country that empowers all individuals to dream big and to live fulfilling lives.

Madam Speaker, if you share my belief in our great Nation, then you, too, will vote to defeat the previous question so we can take up and pass, on behalf of the American people, the Say No to Indoctrination Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear friend, the chair of the Rules Committee, who not only leads us every day in the committee but, I think, deserves high praise for his inspired leadership on the question of hunger.

I have been privileged to be in a number of hearings that he has held, and I know we are making a difference in the appropriations bills before us, so I thank him for his continued leadership in that regard.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule.

It is said that budgets are a statement of values. With this year's appropriations package, we are making our priorities crystal clear: uplifting working families and building a strong economic future for all Americans.

This is arguably one of the most important funding bills in many years as it comes in the midst of a historic global pandemic that has left families and businesses alike reeling from its impacts.

As we work to rebound from the devastation of the COVID-19 crisis, we must seize the opportunity before us and make transformational investments to support our Nation's recovery, both now and in the future. I am pleased to say that my colleagues and I have worked hard to craft an appropriations package that will do just that.

I am particularly proud to have helped deliver essential funding to uplift families in my community of Rochester, New York, by expanding community health services, workforce development initiatives, youth programs, and more.

We are investing in infrastructure, in better-paying jobs with benefits and apprenticeship training, and in affordable housing and daycare resources for working families.

Madam Speaker, COVID-19 has shined a stark light on the inequities that have existed within our communities for decades. We have a responsibility to take action and ensure that we don't just rebuild what was, that we truly embrace President Biden's creed and build back better.

That is why, with this appropriations package, we are also going to support equity for underserved communities with targeted economic investments, confront the climate crisis head-on, and invest in our Nation's greatest assets, its people, by empowering them with the tools they need to uplift their families and be successful.

Coming out of this pandemic has not been easy, but we have made tremendous strides. Let's keep our foot on the gas, pass this rule, and move forward with this historic investment.

I urge my colleagues to vote in support of the rule and in support of the underlying appropriations bill.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding.

Madam Speaker, we are debating a spending bill under a budget that doesn't exist. Six months into Joe Biden's Presidency and a Democrat- controlled Congress, we have still not passed a budget for fiscal year 2022. In fact, Democrats have been in the majority for over 1,000 days and they have yet to put a real budget on the floor of the House of Representatives.

In this bill before us today, the Democrats want to give Washington bureaucrats an average increase of 21 percent. Their plan will fuel a massive growth in red tape that will harm small businesses. It will hurt working Americans and families, and it gives Washington more control over their lives and livelihoods.

But notice what they have left out.

What they have left out is, where is the money to protect our homeland?

Where is the money for our men and women in uniform?

Perhaps our colleagues have not brought these bills to the floor because they are ashamed to face the American people and explain why they want to flatline spending for our men and women in uniform.

Or how, during the largest and worst immigration crisis of the southern border in years, they refuse to put in one additional dollar to secure our border.

I suppose this shouldn't surprise us. Democrats have been very, very clear about their objectives. While we are debating a raise for bureaucrats, the Senate is figuring out how to abuse the budget process to spend at least $3.5 trillion more on their socialist agenda: amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants; subsidies for wealthy environmentalists; forcing States to expand Medicaid; and tax increases for working Americans while giving tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

This is the first year in the last decade without a spending cap agreement and look what is happening. Without missing a beat, the Democrats are opening the floodgates to reckless spending. While they argue over how many trillions to spend, we are just days away from reaching our debt limit. Democrats have ignored runaway government spending this year and look what is happening: Americans are paying more at the pump and in the checkout lines than they have in years.

The debate around our Nation's debt limit provides Congress with the opportunity to seriously address runaway government spending and rising inflation.

But as we are here today, Democrats would rather bypass their budget process and talk about their liberal wish list.