Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding.

(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, it is worth asking why we are here at all right now, quite frankly. We face no emergency. The government is not about to shut down. Nothing in this bill is actually going to take effect in the immediate future. We are simply here because my friends on the other side want to create the illusion that they are doing something positive before the midterm election.

I think they also fear that the American people will actually have a chance to look at this monstrosity over a month and their own Members would then have to go home and give a full accounting of what they have done here. Sadly, we are going to rush this through without appropriate consideration.

It is worth noting, Mr. Speaker, 180 of our own Members-plus are not even here. They are not here because they have submitted a declaration because we are in a health emergency.

What health emergency?

We have vaccines, we have therapeutics, the airports are full of people. People are traveling pretty easily, but 180 Members won't be here--both parties. Again, that is a sad commentary on the manner in which we are operating this House.

This bill comes before us in a process that I can only describe as lousy. No committee of jurisdiction in either the Senate or the House has dealt with this bill as written. No House Member has had any meaningful input in this legislation. The reality is this bill was negotiated in back rooms by two Senators and rammed through the Senate on a partisan vote. My friends have picked it up without changing it, without considering it, and they are going to ram it through here today. That is a process that they ought to be embarrassed by.

There are two reasons to oppose the legislation itself, Mr. Speaker. The first is simply because of what is in it. The Democrats are repeating the mistake they made last year. They are going to try and spend their way out of inflation--a novel approach.

We see how well that worked when they rammed through the American Rescue Plan under reconciliation. It is going to work exactly the same way again.

On top of that, we are going to try and tax our way out of recession. That is a novel, new economic idea: Raise taxes while you are in a recession, something other administrations of both parties have always rejected as a bad idea. But my friends, feverishly intent upon action, are going to do it here.

We are going to do one thing, and I guess that could start immediately. We are going to hire, as my friend from Texas suggested, 87,000 new IRS employees. Only my friends on the other side think that is a good idea. Nobody thinks 87,000 new IRS agents are going to do anything to help us with inflation, or help us with the problems that we have in energy, or help us in any meaningful way improve the economy or the lives of the average American.

What is not in this bill is another reason to vote against it. It does nothing to deal with inflation. Indeed, during the Rules Committee, we submitted a letter from 280 economists that said this is going to make it worse, not better.

They can rely on Mr. Summers. I will rely on the 280 economists from both parties and every point of view who said this is not going to work when it comes to inflation. There is nothing in this bill that is going to increase energy production in the United States, nothing at all.

Finally, there is nothing meaningful, as my friend from Texas pointed out, that will actually reduce the deficit. That deficit doesn't begin to come down until 7 years from now under this legislation. That assumes everything stays the same for 7 years. That is not going to happen.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, we ought to reject this rule. We ought to submit this bill to the appropriate committees of jurisdiction in this House, allow them to do their work, and continue to negotiate with the Senate. There is no emergency. There is no hurry here. We don't need to ram this through.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the rejection of the rule and the rejection of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule to provide for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 5376, the grossly mis-named Inflation Reduction Act. Instead of actually doing something to address the current economic crisis, the bill is instead yet another partisan tax- and-spend bill. My friends on the other side of the aisle will tout the deficit reduction as good for reducing inflation--and that's true. But the bill we are considering isn't a serious attempt at deficit reduction. Eighty percent of the deficit reduction they claim in this bill doesn't even show up for seven years. And the deficit reduction they claim is laughable when you consider the one point nine trillion spending bill they put on American's credit card just last year. Americans need relief now.

I shouldn't be surprised but I am disappointed at the Majority's egregious surrender of the House's institutional prerogatives. When you have a process that is this bad, you should expect bad results. And the process on this bill was about as bad as it gets. The bill before us was written behind closed doors with just two senators negotiating its provisions. No Member of the House had any input into the package, nor did any but a few senators. Nor have we been given an opportunity to amend this package when the Majority completely rewrote the original bill at the Rules Committee, when we first considered this on the floor in November of last year, or today since every Republican amendment to this package was blocked in the rule. Instead, the House is preparing to pass exactly what the Senate produced behind closed doors. At least the Senate had the luxury of a CBO score during its consideration. The House isn't even afforded that. This is an embarrassment.

The Majority pushed through a reckless one point nine trillion dollar reconciliation bill last year, stubbornly insisting it would not lead to inflation, even though economists were warning us the exact opposite. Today, hardworking American taxpayers are suffering for their hubris.

Instead of learning their lesson, the Majority is once again pushing another foolhardy tax-and-spend package through on partisan lines. They were wrong last year and they are wrong again this year. Unfortunately, it will be the average American who again pays the price in the form of more inflation, fewer jobs, slower growth, and a lower standard of living for every family in America.

It is easy to see why when you think about the policies that are actually included in this bill. A tax hike on corporations that will inevitably pass their increased costs onto consumers. A six hundred percent increase in the budget of the IRS so they can hire an army of eighty-seven thousand new agents. Massive spending on Green New Deal priorities, including giving subsidies on luxury electric vehicles to high-earning individuals. Policies like these are bad enough in good times, but raising taxes when we are in a recession to give subsidies to the rich to buy luxury electric vehicles just doesn't make any sense.

But we should also talk about what is not in this bill. Despite the title, there's nothing in this bill that will reduce inflation. There's nothing in this bill that will address our current energy crisis, and in fact, the policies in here will make it worse. While my friends in the Majority are willing to pour tens of billions of dollars into Solyndra-style green energy programs, there is nothing in this bill that will lower the price of gasoline, nothing that will make it cheaper to heat and cool homes, and nothing that will ensure energy independence for America. The Majority could have chosen to prioritize these things but didn't.

Instead, the Majority is showing what their priorities truly are. An army of new IRS agents to harass taxpayers at all income levels. A massive and unaffordable tax increase that will make the recession worse. Massive new spending programs on the Green New Deal. Subsidies for high-income folks to buy luxury electric vehicles. It all adds up to a bad deal for taxpayers, a bad deal for the economy, and a bad deal for the nation.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, this bill will make inflation worse, not better, and will make the recession longer and deeper. We should not make the exact same error the Majority made last year in passing yet another tax and spend boondoggle. We cannot tax and spend our way out of a recession, and we cannot tax and spend our way into lower inflation. The nation has already suffered enough after last year's reconciliation bill. Doing so all over again will only make this suffering worse.

Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Morelle) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule covers several major items. The first that I will discuss, H.R. 7900, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2023, is of the greatest importance to the Nation and to the world.

For 61 years in a row the NDAA has become law. As I reminded my colleagues in the Rules Committee yesterday, this record of achievement has only been possible because of the immense cooperation from both sides of the aisle and is a testament to what we can accomplish when we focus on our shared goals as a Nation.

Working together, Democrats and Republicans on the Armed Services Committee produced a bipartisan product. I applaud Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Rogers, and all the members of the Armed Services Committee for their efforts.

Madam Speaker, it is no secret that the world has become a more dangerous place in recent years. Last year saw the Taliban--a corrupt and militant organization known for supporting and providing sanctuary to terrorists--complete its takeover of Afghanistan.

Earlier this year, the world was shocked by Vladimir Putin's brazen, unprovoked, and indeed outright criminal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's democratic neighbor to the west.

Communist China continues its history of aggression in Asia and the Pacific Rim, including increasingly aggressive acts toward Taiwan.

North Korea has continued an aggressive posturing toward the United States and our democratic allies in Asia.

Iran continues its long march toward becoming a nuclear state.

It is more important than ever that Congress speaks with one voice when it comes to setting our national defense policy and funding priorities each year so that we can ensure we counter aggressive actors and offer our allies the support they need to protect themselves.

One of the most important things accomplished in this year's NDAA is actually what it did not do. For the second year in a row, the Armed Services Committee rejected President Biden's proposed defense budget number and authorized a better, higher number to ensure that our national defense is properly funded.

Indeed, President Biden's first two budget proposals looked set to continue the chronic underfunding of the Obama-Biden years, during which time our military readiness declined and our rivals on the international stage were empowered.

The increased funding in this bill will go a long way toward ensuring that America's military is ready to confront any challenge. It will ensure that our armed services personnel receive a 4.6 percent pay raise, the largest in history, with additional pay bonuses to personnel who make the least to offset the inflation caused by this administration's policies.

On the whole, I am proud to support this legislation and I encourage the entire House to support this measure and send it on to the Senate.

Madam Speaker, our second item in the House is S. 3373, the Honoring our PACT Act. While this bill has gone through a frustratingly long process to get to this point, I believe we have failed to provide our Nation's toxic-exposed veterans with the care that they need for far too long.

I will be the first to admit that this bill is not perfect. I share the concerns of many about the use of mandatory spending in this bill. Given the importance of this issue to veterans nationwide, and to those in my district, I cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Imperfect though it is, this bill does take important strides forward, and I plan to support it on final passage.

Unfortunately, two other bills contained in this rule are partisan and stand no chance of becoming law. The Democratic majority is attempting to insert a right to an abortion into Federal law, preempting every State law that seeks to protect life.

They want to require all States to permit abortion on demand at any time up to the point of birth. They want to outlaw commonsense restrictions, like

preventing late-term abortions, preventing sex-selective abortions, and preventing abortions targeting fetuses with Down syndrome.

They want to prevent States from adopting commonsense protections for the unborn, such as banning mail-order and telemedicine abortion services. They want to limit the rights of parents by creating a cause of action for outsiders to interfere with the parent-child relationship. That would be an unconscionable state of affairs, Madam Speaker.

I remind my colleagues of the words of the Declaration of Independence: that the right to life is one of those inalienable rights endowed upon us all, including unborn children, by our Creator.

I will always stand strongly in favor of defending life, and I proudly stand in opposition to these bills today.

Madam Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, 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. Res. 11 for immediate consideration. This resolution proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to require that the Supreme Court of the United States be composed of nine Justices.

Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court has been set at nine Justices for 153 years. Fundamentally changing the composition of the Court to satisfy the demands of one political party would permanently erode the independence of the judicial branch and forever alter the separation of powers, which is the very foundation our Constitution and our Nation were built upon.

The independence of the judicial branch is too sacred to subject it to the political issue of the day. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is not a popularity contest, and the Court's decisions should not be based on polls. The Supreme Court's duty is to the Constitution and ensuring that adherence to the laws of the land.

To further explain the amendment, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), who is my very good friend and the author of the resolution.

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

Madam Speaker, as has become all too common with the Democratic majority, when the status quo doesn't lead to the outcome they want, they simply change the rules to suit their needs.

You need to only look at the last 2 years for evidence: fundamentally changing the way the House operates through the use of proxy voting; a complete lockdown of alternative ideas; fewer and fewer committees doing the work to make the law rather than score political points--all aimed at protecting their razor-thin majority at the expense of the institution and the Nation.

Democrats' current obsession with the Supreme Court is no different, but instead of accepting the independence of the judiciary, the majority is, instead, intent on fixing the rules of the game to ensure their own victory. This amendment to the Constitution would prevent that from happening and would ensure, once and for all, that the Supreme Court will be independent and free of meddling based on the political ideas of the day.

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

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Armstrong), my very good friend.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my very good friend and a distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and a member of the House Armed Services Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for the time, and frankly, for the thoughtful and wide-ranging debate. It is not a surprise that a rule that covers five very different pieces of legislation would provoke that kind of discussion.

I want to begin in the areas we agree. There are actually three areas in this bill that I will be voting for. Most importantly, quite frankly, is the National Defense Authorization Act.

There is going to be some opposition to that. It was a give-and-take bill, but I remind my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that it actually came out of committee on a 57 to 1 vote; 57 to 1. That says a lot of wonderful things about the leadership of Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers on that committee and its ability, after considering over 600 or 700 amendments itself, to find common ground and move forward.

For my colleagues that vote no, that is fine. Again, there is always something in a bill this size you can find to disagree with, but I will remind my friends on my side of the aisle that every single Republican on the committee voted for the bill. So I think it is going to pass and pass quite easily.

I also want to associate myself with my friend's support of the toxic burn pit bill. It is a bill that I have some serious problems with, such as the manner in which it was funded and some of the procedures by which it moved, but it is a much better bill than we have seen before. It is a step in the right direction.

There is no question my friend is correct when he talks about our obligation as a Congress to look after the men and women who have put their lives on the line for us and suffered egregious harm.

I hope we can do better in the future. I hope we can even revisit some of the financing measures here, but it is important that it get done and that it passes, and I look forward to working with my friend to do that.

I agree with him on the AMBER Alert bill as well, and I will be supporting it. There are some concerns on my side of the aisle about that, and I understand those concerns. Again, I think this is a commonsense measure.

The area that I will not be able to join my friend on does deal with the fundamental protection of human life and the effort of this body to pass legislation that it knows will go nowhere in the Senate simply to make a point.

We ought to be working to find common ground, not to dig down the divisions that we have even more deeply. So I will oppose the rule partly because I oppose some of the measures in the rule; also, because I certainly would like the previous question to be considered.

I thought both of my friends from North and South Dakota made some excellent points on the need to codify the number nine or at least have a discussion about that in this body, and obviously, if we defeat the previous question, we intend to do that.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 5585, the Advanced Research Projects Agency--Health Act. During my time in Congress, I have been a strong supporter of basic medical research, and I recognize the potential translational medical research holds when it builds off this prior research. The discoveries made by our scientists at NIH and at NIH-funded universities across the nation have the potential to transform the delivery of health care and the prevention, treatment, and ultimately curing of disease.

That support for research and its potential to transform the delivery of health care led me to be an initial supporter of ARPA-H. In collaboration with my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, we provided ARPA-H with some initial funding in the Fiscal Year 2022 omnibus.

However, we are appropriators, not authorizers, and many of the basic decisions about the structure and functions of the agency had to be left unmade and instead be delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As I mentioned to him when he came before my subcommittee this spring, Congress still did not know how grants would be made or funded or how ARPA-H would interface with NIH.

I am pleased that this bill from the House Energy and Commerce Committee answers these questions and provides Congress the opportunity to shape this agency in line with our original intent. I am especially pleased that the resulting bill is fiscally responsible and will ensure proper oversight of ARPA-H as it implements this new research arm. H.R. 5585 establishes ARPA-H as an independent agency within HHS--separate from NIH--and provides its director with independence from NIH. It also establishes clear agency goals and mission and provides a framework for coordination to ensure ARPA-H's efforts will not duplicate or cannibalize the research efforts of other federal agencies, particularly NIH. Importantly, it also prohibits awards being made to foreign researchers and entities operating at behest of or in concert with our adversaries.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to congratulate my good friend and Executive Director of the Oklahoma Credit Union Association, Nate Webb, on his retirement. His dedication to bettering our great state is certainly commendable. I wish him well and an enjoyable retirement, but I am sad to see him go.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered as the first sponsor of H.R. 2271, a bill originally introduced by Representative Young of Alaska, for the purpose of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I may hereafter be considered to be the first sponsor of H.R. 7648, a bill originally introduced by Representative Young of Alaska, for the purposes of adding cosponsors and requesting reprintings pursuant to clause 7 of rule XII.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 471, the PAUSE Act, to protect all Americans from Biden's border crisis.

Madam Speaker, I thank my very good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today's rule covers three items. The first item is a bill to ban imports of Russian oil into the United States and to impose additional sanctions following Russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine.

Madam Speaker, although I will be supporting this bill, I cannot help but feel that this is a half measure and a missed opportunity to exhibit unified support on immediate steps to confront Putin's evil regime.

Yesterday, Senators Wyden and Crapo introduced a much stronger bill, one that was negotiated over the weekend by Republicans and Democrats in both the House and the Senate. But rather than taking yes for an answer, the majority instead put forward a weaker bill, one that is watered down and leaves loopholes wide enough to drive a tanker through.

Banning Russian oil imports in the wake of Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine should be an obvious no-brainer, just like it ought to be a no-brainer for the President to reverse his misguided policies and unleash development of America's own energy sources. But instead of doing so, the Biden administration continues to discourage domestic oil and gas production and is asking every other oil producer in the world to make up the difference.

Instead of encouraging our own domestic sources of energy, which could meet our needs, critically supply our allies, and strengthen American energy independence, President Biden instead is taking steps like unilaterally canceling the Keystone XL pipeline, imposing a ban on new oil and gas exploration and leasing on Federal lands, and telling hardworking Americans who are struggling to buy expensive gasoline to instead go buy more expensive electric vehicles.

Failing to develop America's energy resources is a missed opportunity, Madam Speaker, just like this bill. We had a better option. I wish we had taken it.

Our second item today is an omnibus appropriations package covering the remainder of the year 2022, and the third is a short-term continuing resolution to ensure continuity of government funding while Congress processes a larger bill.

Madam Speaker, it has been a very, very long road to get to this point. But

today, the House will act on a bipartisan, bicameral appropriations package. As vice ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, I am encouraged that we are finally nearing completion of this fundamental function of Congress to provide full-year funding for the government.

We are here today in a time of great crisis. Two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked and unjust war against Ukraine, its democratic neighbor to the west. Inflation has skyrocketed to a 40-year high, and due to the administration's reckless action, gas prices have continued to soar month after month after month.

Yet despite these crises, the Members of this body have worked together and have found common ground on today's legislation.

As I have said many times, one of the most consequential duties of a Member of Congress is to fund the government and keep it open and operating. At a time of crisis, this is more important than ever.

Last year, the Appropriations Committee passed all 12 appropriations bills out of committee and succeeded in passing nine of those bills across the floor before the August recess. Unfortunately, these bills were partisan and did not receive support from any Republican Members, with good reason.

Today, we are 5 months into fiscal year 2022, and despite the long process, the path forward has always been clear. It was clear last July, just as it is clear today.

In order to reach a final bipartisan, bicameral deal on appropriations for FY 2022, four conditions needed to be met. I am greatly pleased that this bill meets all four.

The first is to ensure that the longstanding, bipartisan pro-life provisions historically included in the appropriations bills are restored. These include the Hyde amendment, which prevents Federal dollars from being used to pay for abortions, except in limited cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and the Weldon amendment, which protects American doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals from participating in and providing abortions if they have a moral objection.

The inclusion of these and other broadly popular provisions was and is an absolute necessity for this bill to have any chance of becoming law. I am personally deeply grateful that they are included in this package.

Second, partisan policy riders that were included in the bills that passed the House last summer needed to come out. These are provisions that both sides did not agree to and do not enjoy bipartisan consensus. At the end of the day, we needed to reach an agreement on these items to move forward. Fortunately, each of these provisions has been removed.

Third, the level of defense spending absolutely needed to come up. Unfortunately, last year, President Biden proposed a budget that underfunded national defense, repeating the mistake of the Obama-Biden administration of chronically underfunding our national defense. But earlier this year, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, both controlled by Democrats, worked together in a bipartisan manner to authorize an increase in defense spending of $25 billion over the fiscal year.

In today's bill, appropriators actually went beyond that, ensuring a robust increase in defense spending. This increase is necessary to ensure that our Armed Forces will have the funds needed to maintain our readiness and to procure the weapons and assets the warfighters of tomorrow will need to continue to succeed on the battlefield.

This includes increases for defense assets based in my own home State of Oklahoma. If the present crisis in Ukraine shows us nothing else, it should show us the need to continue to adequately fund our national defense.

Finally, the fourth condition that needed to be met was that the proposed levels of nondefense spending had to come down. In the initial set of bills that passed the House, my friends in the majority sought to include a 17 percent increase in nondefense spending. While that no doubt included many worthy items, Republicans generally felt that 17 percent was excessive, particularly given the substantial needs on the defense side of the ledger.

But the bill before us today increases nondefense spending by just 6.7 percent, which will allow for increased investments in key areas while also ensuring that we will continue to be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars.

Of course, this 6.7 percent ensures that there will be significant and important investments in nondefense areas across the government. I am particularly pleased that the National Institutes of Health will receive a robust $2.25 billion increase, which will help advance medical science, help address future pandemics, and continue our progress toward defeating the scourge of cancer.

We are also funding ARPA-H, one of the President's highest priorities, at $1 billion in its first year of operation. I am also encouraged that this bill provides significant increases for TRIO and GEAR UP, two programs that are close to my heart, that help first- generation students go to college. These are just a few of the programs that I could point to that are worthy of increased funding and investment, and this bill has done that.

The legislation before us today represents a negotiated compromise between the House and the Senate and obviously between Democrats and Republicans. Given that, it is a compromise. That means neither side got everything that they wanted. As I have often said, in a compromise, you have to give up more than you would like to get less than you want. Indeed, this is not the bill I would have written had I written it alone. But at the end of the day, it represents a good balance for Congress and for the Nation.

Before I finish, I want to congratulate my friends and colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, particularly Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Kay Granger, without whom we would not have gotten to where we are today.

I also want to extend my huge thank you, as the chairman did, to the Appropriations Committee staff and to the Rules staff on both sides of the aisle. These staffers are truly unsung heroes who spent many long and sleepless nights over the preceding weeks, including this past weekend. We would not be here today without them.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just quickly respond to my friend's comment about the energy industry.

I am from an energy district. I am from an energy State. My constituents and their forebearers have produced more energy than they have consumed for over a hundred years, and they have shared it all over the world, but particularly across this country.

Thank God for them because, quite frankly, what Americans would be paying at the pump now would be astronomical were it not for them. Since 2005, American oil production has doubled, and that is due to their ingenuity. Frankly, we pay almost the lowest energy prices in the world.

I am sorry, but to put all of these energy price increases off on Vladimir Putin--he is certainly responsible for those this week, but the reality is, for the entire Biden Presidency, energy prices have been going up. That is because the President, on his very first day, effectively declared war on the fossil fuel industry. He canceled the Keystone Pipeline. He changed the leasing and drilling rules on Federal lands. The hostility has simply been overwhelming.

Now, where does that put us? The United States is going to Iran to ask them to increase energy production, the largest sponsor of state tyranny.

We are sending representatives to Venezuela. Why don't we just call people in Houston and Oklahoma City and Cheyenne? We have got lots of places that know how to produce energy and have been doing it cheaply, efficiently, fairly, and cleanly for decades.

The reality is, let's not attack them. They are our salvation in a time of trial, and they are our national security moving forward. I feel very strongly about that.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend and distinguished member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will refrain from correcting my friend again and just send him something to read.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H.R. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act for immediate consideration.

Two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin shocked the world by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. In doing so, Mr. Putin revealed his true self, and that is a bully, a thug, a tyrant bent on subverting his democratic neighbor to the west. In challenging not only Ukraine, but also the rest of the civilized world, Mr. Putin's powerful weapon is not his army, potent though that may be, but the dependence of much of the rest of the world on Russian oil and gas. Already he has begun to put the squeeze on democratic states seeking to challenge his invasion of Ukraine by threatening to cut off their supplies of energy.

The American Energy Independence from Russia Act would address the challenge and would reposition the United States to be energy self- sufficient. It would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline, would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters, and would expand liquid natural gas exports at the moment Europe needs the most. In doing so, it would ensure that America remains energy independent and can act to address Russian aggression without risking economic damage.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Crenshaw), my good friend and a distinguished member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to further explain our amendment.

Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need for America to be energy independent, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and my good friend.

I yield the gentleman from Minnesota an additional 30 seconds.

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

Just to remind my friend, it was the last administration that actually began lethal aid to Ukraine. The Obama administration did not. The record there is pretty clear as to who has helped the Ukrainians.

Madam Speaker, to further discuss the need to get America out from under the thumb of Russia, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Pfluger), a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee and my good friend.

Madam Speaker, for further explanation of our energy independence bill, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice), my very good friend and fellow Oklahoman.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts, Chairman McGovern, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, our second rule of the day now covers four items. As we discussed earlier, the first item is a bill to ban imports of Russian oil into the United States and to impose additional sanctions following Russia's unprovoked and unjust invasion of Ukraine.

Although I will be supporting this bill, it is a missed opportunity to exhibit unified support for the immediate steps to confront Vladimir Putin's evil empire. A much stronger bill has been introduced in the Senate that was negotiated over the weekend by Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate. Why the majority would forgo taking yes for an answer and instead introduce a much weaker, watered-down bill is beyond me.

Our second bill is an omnibus appropriations bill covering the remainder of fiscal year 2022. Our third bill is a short-term continuing resolution to ensure the continuity of government funding while Congress finishes the larger bill. And our fourth bill is a $15 billion standalone COVID supplemental.

The omnibus appropriations bill was a long time in coming. Indeed, we are over 5 months into fiscal year 2022, and it is more than a little frustrating that it has taken us this long to get here. But we are here now, and the bill before us represents a realistic compromise between the House and the Senate and between Democrats and Republicans.

The omnibus bill is far, far better than the partisan bills the House passed last summer. This bill preserves the historic legacy of bipartisan pro-life riders like the Hyde amendment and the Weldon amendment, both of which absolutely had to be in this package in order to become law. It omits new partisan policy riders on which there is no consensus. It increases defense spending by more than $25 billion over last year, which is clearly necessary in the wake of Vladimir Putin's unprovoked aggression against Ukraine. And it provides for an appropriate, measured increase in nondefense spending, which will allow for continued investments in programs like the National Institutes of Health, ARPA-H, TRIO, and GEAR UP. The limited increase in nondefense spending allows us to make responsible investments in key programs while being good stewards of taxpayer dollars.

While it spends more than I would have preferred, it is still a very reasonable compromise.

Before I conclude, Madam Speaker, I want to, once again, congratulate Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro and Ranking Member Kay Granger of the Appropriations Committee on today's bill and thank them for their hard work.

On the new addition, the $15 billion COVID supplemental, I think there are serious concerns with this additional unpaid-for increase. According to the CBO, there is currently more than $340 billion in unobligated funds available for repurposing and appropriation. Indeed, instead of providing new resources like this bill does, we should rescind or repurpose existing COVID resources for these purposes, as the bill we considered earlier today would have done.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have more remarks.

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. 6858, the American Energy Independence from Russia Act, for immediate consideration.

Over the past few weeks, we have seen the clear consequences of President Biden's war on the oil and gas industry. Emboldened by Russia's role as the key source of energy for much of Europe, Vladimir Putin launched an unprovoked invasion of his neighbor, Ukraine. Gas prices are soaring, with the pressures of unchecked inflation and Putin's threats to cut off oil and gas exports pushing them ever higher.

Indeed, Mr. Putin has begun to deploy his most potent weapon, which is to threaten to cut off Europe's energy supply right in the dead of winter.

Madam Speaker, this was all avoidable. The United States has the capacity to be energy independent if only we choose to be. We can stand on our own two feet, confident in the knowledge that we can meet all of our domestic energy needs right here at home, and we can provide assistance to our allies to ensure their protection against Russian threats.

Unfortunately, President Biden's actions since taking office have made this impossible. On day one of his Presidency, he terminated the Keystone XL pipeline, and he subsequently froze oil and gas leasing on Federal lands. In lieu of the U.S. producing oil and gas that we need, he is instead asking every other oil producing country but the United States to step up. Many of these are hardly friends of our country or, frankly, humanity. It is simply astonishing.

The American Energy Independence from Russia Act would address this challenge and ensure American energy self-sufficiency. It would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline; it would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters; and it would expand liquid natural gas exports at the moment Europe needs them most. It would free the United States and our allies to act in opposition to Vladimir Putin's brutal and barbarous assault on his neighbor without fear.

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 urge a ``no'' on the previous question and a ``no'' on the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I advise my friend I am prepared to close.

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

Madam Speaker, before I go to my formal remarks, my friend and I will have a discussion about energy.

I am a big believer in renewables. My own State gets 42 percent of its electricity from wind power, and we are number two in the country. I would put our record up against anybody.

We really do believe in ``all of the above.'' But we are very proud of having produced energy for over 100 years for this country in abundance, far beyond our needs, and exported at reasonable prices.

I would also remind my friend, whatever the prices are--and I wish they were lower--they are cheaper here than just about anyplace else in the world, and we can thank, literally, the thousands of people I am privileged to represent.

Many of us represent over 10 million of the men and women who actually produce the energy this country needs and, frankly, the rest of the world needs right now. I don't think they ought to be demeaned. I don't think their motives ought to be questioned. They are an extraordinary group of people, and they are patriotic and step forward whenever we need them. When times are bad, nobody seems to care what happens to them. When times get tougher, everybody wants them to step forward, invest more, and do more, and they do. They will continue to do that in this time of crisis. So, I don't think we need to be divided on this.

There is no question we need more oil and gas now; Europe needs more oil and gas now; and we have been taught a serious lesson about the dangers of becoming reliant on people like Mr. Putin when they have the ability to impact world prices.

Madam Speaker, in closing, although I oppose the rule, I am greatly encouraged by the underlying appropriations measure. While it is not perfect--no bill ever is--and could always be better, it does represent a good compromise between Democrats and Republicans that will ensure full-year funding for fiscal year 2022.

The bill before us continues Congress' policy of increasing our investments in defense spending, which is of critical importance at this time of global crisis. It provides for needed investments in health, including increasing funding for combating future pandemics and research into diseases like cancer. It funds education, infrastructure, energy production, roads, and care for our Nation's veterans.

It includes also--and I want to thank my friend for doing this--his proposal for a much-needed White House conference on hunger, and it is an area we work together on. I am proud to acknowledge his leadership in that.

It is, in sum, a bill Congress can collectively be proud of, and it is a bill that does the right thing for the American people.

On the Russia oil ban, I am disappointed. The Democrats walked away from a strong bipartisan, bicameral deal that could have united us as a Congress and led to swift passage in the Senate. As it currently stands, it is unclear what fate awaits this legislation in the Senate. I am hopeful that my friends on the other side will reflect on this missed opportunity and work with Republicans to not only stand up against Russian aggression abroad but also for homegrown American energy resources that are critical to achieving our goals and checking Vladimir Putin.

On the new $15 billion unpaid-for COVID supplemental, the data is clear that there are already adequate resources available. These could be fully utilized before additional funds are provided.

Madam Speaker, while I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, I encourage all Members to support the bipartisan and bicameral omnibus appropriations bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the memory of Betty Wunder, who dedicated many of her 82 years providing unconditional care and comfort to children and adults throughout Oklahoma in her profession of diagnostic radiology, but primarily out of her unwavering view of life guided by integrity.

Betty arrived in Oklahoma City at the University of Oklahoma Children's Hospital in December of 1971, and immediately began to make revolutionary changes in her department. She rewrote protocols for pediatric x-ray to promote a safer experience for children undergoing this procedure, which are still used in radiology departments nationwide today.

Betty quickly rose through the ranks inside the Children's Hospital becoming an associate professor at OU Health Sciences Center in 1977 by a unanimous vote of the Board of Regents. As with every position she held, she took this one very seriously and assisted in the development of the curriculum for what is now the radiology technology degree.

Betty later became the administrative director of radiology in the summer of 1981. She possessed the rare quality of understanding the need for everyone involved to be successful and rarely allowed the light of honor or esteem to be shown to her. From her point of view it was always a group effort or no effort at all.

In the early 1980s, Betty was instrumental in working with others in the State to guide the purchase of the first MRI machine in Oklahoma at the Children's Hospital. She was very proud of this accomplishment and believes it put Children's on the map in terms of expanding diagnostic and treatment options for Oklahoma children.

Throughout her career she was a member of the American Society of Radiologic Technologists and the Oklahoma Society of Radiologic Technologists. She received many awards and honors during her career, including the 1983 and 1986 Radiology Technologist of the Year.

In retirement, Betty accepted a position on the advisory board of CommunityWorks, an Oklahoma behavioral and mental health continuum of care. She also reveled in her ability to effect care for children and adolescents in the Department of Human Services and the Oklahoma Juvenile Affairs care.

She was hands-on with the kids, staff, and her beloved quality assurance program. Betty was a teacher to all who were prepared and willing to learn. She brought out the best in people with great respect for their capabilities and humanity.

Mr. Speaker, she will be missed and revered.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Pennsylvania for yielding.

It is imperative that we defeat the previous question so that we can bring up the American Energy Independence from Russia Act for immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, last week, Vladimir Putin sent shock waves around the world by launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Though much of the planet has rallied to support Ukraine in their heroic defense, Putin has begun to use his most potent weapon to threaten Western democracies. That weapon is dependence of much of the world on Russian oil and gas.

Not even the United States is immune from this national security threat. In 2021, according to the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers, the United States imported an average of 209,000 barrels of crude oil per day and 500,000 barrels per day of other petroleum products from Russia. It is unconscionable that we are still this reliant on imports from authoritarian countries like Russia. This reliance on bad actors for our energy supply needs poses a clear and present

danger to the security of the United States, just as it poses a threat to the security of Western and Central Europe.

At any time, Vladimir Putin could choose to retaliate on the dozens of countries that have imposed sanctions on him and his regime by simply turning off the spigot. Gas prices in the United States would undoubtedly increase, even more than they currently are, and much of Europe will be plunged into the cold in the depths of winter. That is a potent leverage for a dictator like Putin to have. We must counter this by restoring America's energy independence and helping our friends and allies to do the same.

Unfortunately, when President Biden took office, he immediately took steps that ultimately harmed America's energy independence and made us more reliant on foreign energy imports. That included his decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline, which was expected to transport 830,000 barrels of oil every day, and his decision to impose a moratorium on new oil and gas leasing on Federal lands, including my home State of Oklahoma. President Biden's actions have made America less energy secure and more vulnerable to foreign threats.

This is why we need the American Energy Independence from Russia Act more than ever. This bill would immediately approve the Keystone XL pipeline, would restart oil and gas leasing on Federal lands and waters, and would expand liquid natural gas exports at a time when Europe needs them the most. It would ensure an all-of-the-above energy policy that paves the way for American energy independence, and it would rightly end the ongoing vilification of America's oil and gas industry.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is simply common sense. With one bill, we can open up new sources of energy and reduce or eliminate imports of foreign sources of energy. Above all, by advancing this bill, we can improve the security of the United States, and weaken Vladimir Putin's most potent weapon in one fell swoop.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 5119, legislation that would extend availability of CARES Act funds provided to tribal governments through December 30, 2022.

Currently, CARES Act funds will expire on December 31, 2021, and tribes will be unable to use these vital resources. Although $8 billion was set aside for Tribes in the CARES Act to help respond to the coronavirus pandemic, they did not receive any funds until May 5, 2020, and some are still in the process of being distributed.

It is important to note that this legislation does not increase federal spending, rather it extends the timeline to use money already allocated.

After the CARES Act was signed into law, there was minimal guidance offered on what this funding could and could not be put towards, which led to an inadequate timeframe for Tribes to prepare an effective spending plan. A one-year extension will allow them the necessary time to best allocate these resources to their members without a rushed agenda.

Coronavirus Relief Funds have been put towards many essential services such as, improvements to health care, purchasing protective equipment, and distance learning programs.

Tribes used these funds in many different ways. Whether it was turning facilities into emergency operation centers or building meatpacking warehouses to help with the food supply crisis, they stepped up to provide for their members and community during the pandemic.

With the delayed allocations and limited guidance, tribes were put at an unfair advantage to begin with. This is why a December 31, 2022, extension of availability for CARES Act funds is necessary to allow tribes the time to effectively use these resources.

As Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, I commend Vice Chair Young and Representative O'Halleran in introducing this legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 5119.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my good friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Today's rule, Mr. Speaker, covers three items. I will begin my remarks on a bipartisan note with the House amendment to S. 1605, the vehicle for the agreement between the House and the Senate for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022.

It has been a long road to get us to this point, Mr. Speaker, but with this week's action, the House and Senate are poised to enact the NDAA for the 61st consecutive year. This is quite an accomplishment, and one that could not have been possible but for the bipartisan cooperation in the House and the Senate.

It didn't always look promising. At the beginning of the process, President Biden proposed a defense budget that would deeply underfund our national defense. Chronic underfunding of defense was the hallmark of the Obama-Biden administration, a trend that was thankfully reversed by President Trump and a Republican Congress.

With his first budget, President Biden appeared poised to return to the previous sorry state of affairs. Fortunately, a bipartisan group of legislators on the Armed Services Committee rejected this approach, ensuring an increase in defense funding that would be sufficient to meet the country's needs. This increase garnered overwhelming bipartisan support in the committee, allowing the NDAA to be reported out on a 57-2 vote, and extending to final passage out of the House, with a bipartisan 316-113 vote.

At a glance, it is easy to see why. The United States and our allies face significant threats around the globe. We see this every day in trouble spots around the world, ranging from the Middle East, to Afghanistan, to the Taiwan Strait. Between Russian adventurism in Eastern Europe, Chinese development of new hypersonic missiles and saber rattling against Taiwan, and the ongoing threat posed by extremist terror organizations like al-Qaida and the Islamic State, this is not the time to underfund our national defense.

Fortunately, the 2022 NDAA will adequately fund our defense needs and set clear priorities for our Armed Forces. The bill before us funds continued acquisition of ships to ensure the United States Navy can meet its mission. It funds the procurement and development of new weapons systems, which ensures that our military will be prepared to meet new and emerging challenges in the coming years. It provides our servicemembers with a 2.7 percent pay raise.

And perhaps most important of all, it includes many provisions designed to provide much-needed oversight of President Biden's bungled withdrawal from Afghanistan. America deserves answers about decisions that were made and the resulting failures of leadership that occurred at all levels. Thanks to this bill, they can be assured that they will get them.

Our second item is the House amendment to S. 610, which addresses Medicare sequestration. While most of the Members on both sides of the aisle would agree that a resolution of this problem is necessary, I fear today's bill is a missed opportunity for bipartisanship.

Rather than pursuing a clean, bipartisan deal, we have a bill which includes provisions addressing the debt ceiling and delaying the paygo cuts from the majority's partisan reconciliation bill earlier this year.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago Democrats passed a measure to increase the debt ceiling, leading us to the deadline we face today. At that time, Republicans told Democrats two things which I think bear repeating. First, Democrats needed to step back from their massive partisan spending priorities. And second, they needed to work with the Republicans on solutions to our ever-increasing, structurally imbalanced debt.

Instead, Democrats have doubled down on their spending habits without using reconciliation to address the debt ceiling. Earlier this year, the majority passed a $1.9 trillion reconciliation bill with only Democratic votes. Last month, the House passed another partisan reconciliation bill, with only Democratic votes, which may ultimately cost us as much as $4.5 trillion.

Even if you take the Democrats at their word and accept their claim that these measures are fully paid for, all the new revenues this legislation claims to raise do nothing to address the existing $29 trillion national debt. They just go to new programs overwhelmingly designed to benefit the wealthy and liberal special interests.

Both of these measures are larded up with more spending, more taxation, and more Big Government control over the lives of everyday Americans. And these measures come on top of normal Federal spending and on top of the trillions of dollars appropriated last year and earlier this year to address the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent economic crisis.

After continuing to spend money in such a reckless and partisan manner, it is deeply disappointing that the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate waited until now to address the

debt ceiling. Waiting until this point has placed the House in an awkward position, resulting in today's unfortunate bill.

Additionally, the paygo cuts due to be implemented next month, due mostly to the Democrats' first reconciliation bill, are not addressed. Instead, they are delayed until the end of 2022, setting up an even bigger crisis at that time.

Finally, the House is also considering H.R. 5314, which the majority is calling the Protecting Our Democracy Act. This is a package of purported reforms relating to Presidential power and foreign interference in elections. But the reality is that this package is an attempt by the majority to write into law supposed solutions to every complaint they ever had about the previous President.

The best thing I can say about this package is that it is duplicative. Many of the provisions included in this package have already passed the House as part of the majority's previous purported reform packages, notably including H.R. 1.

But not content with having passed these partisan provisions previously, the majority is pushing ahead with today's package. This is such a waste of time for this institution. At a time when the American people are deeply concerned about inflation and the weak economy, and when we are seeing the consequences of President Biden's weak leadership, both domestically and abroad, the majority is once again wasting time by talking about the last administration. I can think of countless other ways we could and should be spending our time that would be more productive and would deliver better results for our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, this is a sorry state of affairs. I continue to hope that the majority will shift its focus back to where it should be. Governing in a deeply partisan manner may be satisfying to their base, but it is hardly productive for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to this rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 1995, the Protecting Our Communities From Gang Violence Act of 2021. This bill would make alien gang members inadmissible to the United States and deportable. It would also authorize revoking the citizenship of certain naturalized individuals who are members of a criminal gang, and it would ensure that individuals associated with criminal gangs are ineligible for asylum or temporary protected status.

Mr. Speaker, gang violence continues to be a scourge on American communities, threatening the lives and livelihoods of ordinary, hardworking Americans. Certain gangs, like MS-13, operate internationally, bringing violence from overseas to the United States. If enacted, H.R. 1995 would ensure the Federal Government has an appropriate response to gang members and wrongdoers who seek to enter the United States or who have taken advantage of our broken immigration system to cause chaos in our communities.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), a fellow appropriator and former sheriff, to further explain the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Stauber), my good friend, a former police officer, and a member of the Law Enforcement Caucus, to provide further information about the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler), my good friend and one of the recognized experts on defense in the Congress.

Mr. Speaker, we have at least one, I think perhaps two, if the gentleman can make it back in time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my good friend, a fellow member of the Rules Committee and distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for a speaker, but I would inquire of the gentlewoman if she is prepared to close, we will go ahead and close.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I get into my prepared remarks and close, just in response to my good friend's last remark, I want her to be aware, we don't have an appropriations bill or budget because my friends, frankly, have riddled what happened in the Appropriations Committee with poison pills, taking out the Hyde protections. We have been waiting to negotiate that. Our friends have refused to do that.

It has been extended now to February 18. I hope that we meet that deadline and that we actually do get an agreed-upon appropriations bill. If we do, I would be happy to support it, as I have so many years in the past.

Mr. Speaker, in passing a final, bipartisan, bicameral version of the NDAA, we are fulfilling our responsibility to provide for the common defense. This would mark the 61st year in a row that Congress has passed a final NDAA, and I celebrate that fact.

This year's bill increases defense spending to a level commensurate with our needs, unlike the President's budget. It ensures a needed pay raise for our troops and ensures that the warfighters of tomorrow will have the weapons and capabilities they need. It will also provide needed oversight over the President's debacle in Afghanistan and will ensure that the American people receive the answers they deserve.

I want to publicly commend Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers for working so well together in a bipartisan fashion and also commend their negotiating counterparts in the United States Senate, Chairman Reed and Ranking Member Inhofe, for cooperating and bringing this important measure before us. I certainly hope we can pass it and move forward from there.

Today's rule, unfortunately, also advances a measure to address Medicaid sequestration. This is a bill that could and should have been bipartisan but instead must be used to address the Democratic leadership's failure to resolve the debt ceiling vote. That is sad. Democratic leaders have chosen to divide us when they could have chosen a different course that would have united us in a bipartisan agreement. Hopefully, they will learn from that lesson.

Finally, this rule also advances a highly partisan and unnecessary collection of purported government reforms,

many of which are duplicative of measures that have previously passed the House. I urge the majority to rethink these measures.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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