tv U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN October 22, 2021 8:59am-2:17pm EDT
that is a local issue. there are benefits for moving to clean energy, and this will not be a stick up against the local community. host: congressman peter welch from the state of vermont, great to have you with us on "washington journal." the u.s. house coming in momentarily. we will be back tomorrow morning at seven a cocky eastern. a point of criminal -- personal privilege. i would like to say goodbye and good luck to our longtime producer at "washington journal" . for 17 years she has been with the program with the networks, staying true to its mission of being an editorial voice and real guidance to all of us who host this program. best of luck. i will not miss your license plate in the garage being a maryland grad to but we will miss you. the u.s. house is coming in next. this is live coverage on c-span.
the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., october 22, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable lauren underwood to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: will you pray with me. god, you have asked of us above all things to love our neighbor. help us to live into that difficult yet simple
commandment. the other half of that command is not easy either. that we are to love them as we love ourselves. holy god, for a variety of reasons, loving ourselves is often difficult. remind us that you first loved us. your love has forgiven us all our faults. excused our shortcomings. may we bask in that redemption with gratitude for your mercy. then, as we turn to our neighbors, those we find in our communities, in our country, in this chamber, enable us to understand that what we do to them should be a reflection that you have so mercifully done for us. if in response to your willingness to love us, allowing us to discover our worth, our value, then, we will be willing to love them and our neighbors will be encouraged and strengthened. and our relationship with them transformed. god of love, we pray that this
day we would remain faithful to your golden rule and live as examples of your merciful and gracious love. in your redefrptive -- redemptive name we pray, amen. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-a of house resolution 188, the journal of the last day's proceedings. the -- proceedings is approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson. mr. wilson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle.
for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i seek unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. garcia: last week, chicago and the nation lost a great champion for justice and civil rights, dr. timuel black. as a world war ii veteran and a leader in the black community that came to chicago during the great migration, tim always challenged the inequities he witnessed in the united states and abroad. in his 102 years, tim was a historian, educator, author, and civil rights activist. he inspired generations to fight for racial and social justice.
he fought alongside dr. martin luther king jr. and helped organize the march on washington. he registered voters and raised funds to elect harold washington, the first black mayor of chicago in 1983. he mentored the first black president of the united states, barack obama. on a personal note, i'll always be grateful for tim's support during my mayorial campaign during 2015. he said he supported me as someone that was able to communicate with everyone and transcend racial lines. tim profoundly shaped the struggle for civil rights in chicago and across the country. i will seek to honor him by following his example and fighting for the voiceless in our city. rest in power, tim black. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? mr. carter: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without
objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. carter: madam speaker, i rise today with a heavy heart to remember and honor police officer horton who sadly passed away at the age of 45. david was respected and an honored member of his community. after graduating from law enforcement training in 2014, he began his career with the long county sheriff's office. david had a heart for service and was awarded numerous accolades during his time in law enforcement. as an agency d.u.i. hero award, david was the definition of protect and serve. he was not only a dedicated law enforcement officer but also a devoted father and citizen who is loved and respected by many. i am thankful for david's lifetime of service and commitment to his community. i know his legacy will be forever treasured. my thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends, and all who knew him during this most difficult time. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? mr. hoyer: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: madam speaker and members of the house, last month on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, former president george w. bush delivered remarks commemorating the heroism of the crew and passengers of flight 93 in pennsylvania. the former president's words was a welcomed reminder, madam speaker, of what it looks like for an american leader to call us together in unity. his words were compassionate, inspiring, and patriotic. and madam speaker, he and i have had many differences over the years when it comes to policy. during his presidency, i posed much of his governing -- opposed much of his governing agenda and he did opposing many of the
democrats' plans when we came into the majority in 2007. but we respected one another. we were able to work together with one another, and we both had at the center of our philosophy the best interest of the united states of america and its people. we always approached each other with civility, with seriousness, and with a shared respect for each other's patriotism. we never questioned each other's love of our country or that we were doing what we thought was best for the safety and security of the american people. i hope that president bush's message will inspire my friends on the other side of the aisle and indeed all americans and all of us from the former president's own party to remember what the kind of leadership looks like after four years of a president who did not call us to unity, who did not encourage civility or common cause and who furthered our divides instead of bridge them.
i hope, as well, we in this house can strive to heal the divisions in our country and embrace the kind of leadership that president bush displayed last month. and that together, as democrats and republicans, we can work toward a better tomorrow for all of our fellow americans. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that president bush's full remarks be inserted into the record at this time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hoyer: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> to ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, america's experiencing an energy crisis. the price of oil, a gallon of gas, electricity, and natural gas are all topping seven-year highs. mr. keller: but what does that really mean for the american people? it means less money to buy groceries and more money at the gas pump. it means less money to take care of your kids and more money to heat your home. and it means less money for your
health care and more money for overhead to run your business. that's a terrible tradeoff for every american working hard to support their families. and it's only happening because the biden administration is intent on implementing policies that make it harder for american energy producers to develop cleaner, more affordable energy right here at home. president biden must wake up and see that there's only one way to reverse this course. embrace american energy. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. adams: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. adams: i rise to recognize the history of the overland community. founded in 1866, oberland village is one of the last surviving antebellam settlements. after reconstruction, the
community became a welcoming refuge from null freed former slaves from the nearby tameron plantation. ms. ross: it became much more than the town. the thriving municipalities became single family houses, two churches and a public school and it became a symbol of landownership for free man. the post office, locate is still named -- is still named after the plantation rather than this historic community. i urge the postal service to change the name to reflect the post office's new location and to commemorate the oberland village community and its legacy. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition mr. wilson: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute -- the
gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: thank you, madam speaker. tim measure tau, a -- murtagh quote, president biden is drowning in a sea of crises of his own creation and americans are the ones who are paying the price. there's an ongoing humanitarian and national security calamity at the southern border. 13 u.s. service members are dead. and unknown number of our citizens who remain stranded in afghanistan following biden's disastrous withdrawal. americans are not taking the millions of jobs available as many have chosen the option of being paid by the government to stay home instead of working. and energy prices continue to rise. helping to drive mounting inflation. such a callous dismissal of real world issues shows that biden is bad for the job. end of quote. god bless our troops who have successfully helped america for 20 years. our thoughts and prayers are
with south carolina senate finance chairman for his speedy recovery. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from ohio seek recognition? ms. kaptur: i rise to address the house for one minute, please. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. kaptur: i rise today to call attention to the significant mail backlogs we are experiencing in northern ohio, across the whole region, cleveland to toledo, impacting the timely and reliable delivery of mail. postal workers do remarkable work every day to execute their mission and the tens of thousands of military veterans who work for the postal service, we owe you an enormous debt of gratitude for your continued loyal service to our nation. however, the decisions by the u.s. postal service board of directors and management to implement disastrous policies to consolidate processing centers and ship local mail hundreds of miles away to be sorted elsewhere is truly illogical. while we are finally seeing
incremental process being made, our region is still in desperate need for the backups people are enduring on the ground. i'll continue to work with my colleagues across the country and across the aisle until we bring about new postal service leadership and fully restore the service our people and communities richly deserve and expect. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from wisconsin seek recognition? mr. grothman: i'd like to speak for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. grothman: last night on television i listened to jen psaki. i don't know if it was yesterday or replayed a month ago wondered why president biden should go to the border. having been down there i wanted to tell you why. we have a shortage of border patrol. over 10,000 unaccompanied minors a month are coming across the border, and they have to deal with them. they -- because they have to deal with them, they are not
able to guard the border. rather than giving free college for illegals, you could get some more border patrol agents. secondly, he'd get to know the border patrol agents are wonderful people so that in the future when agents on horses charge a group of haitians who are assaulted someone our hate-filled president doesn't hate the border patrol. and they are throwing away identification cards so we can't do background checks on the immigrants. fourth, she'd find out immigrants right now -- i always knew immigrants who tested positive for the covid are being let in. i was not aware the border patrol has a policy that we can never even force immigrants to take the checks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. grothman: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. takano: thank you for
yielding, madam speaker. i rise today to remember the life of maria valley city council woman and true public servant victoria baca as the first latina elected to the city council. victoria broke barriers and paved the way for so many to follow in her footsteps. i knew victoria during my time on the city council and knew her as someone fiercely loyal to her community. she served on the school district where she was a strong advocate for special education services and dedicated her time and office to protecting and uplifting students. she genuinely cared about others and worked tirelessly to make a lasting difference. her legacy, with respect to education, diversity and economic growth will always be admired. vick to yar's death has left a -- victoria's death has left a void in the community. i am honored to have known her. to the baca family and all those who knew, loved, and respected
her, i offer my deepest condolences. thank you and i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. it appears that the biden administration's going to do everything it can possibly to destroy our economy and hurt working class people. headlining today's "washington times," biden piles up red tape after trump's trims. long arm of regulation reaches businesses for vague objectives. i quote, president biden accelerated the regulatory state on his first day in office by ordering agencies to consider aspirational but vaguely defined goals and benefits when imposing new rules on businesses large and small. the order green lighting regulations even when the benefits are, quote, difficult or impossible to quantify, sent
shudders down the spines of c.e.o.'s. they fear business growth will be smootherred in pursuit of vague objectives such as, quote, human diggity and the interest of future generations. it's the most aggressive thing i have seen the biden administration said doug, it's one thing to put out a bunch of regulations, but this changes the way regulations is done. it allows you to jam through any regulation you want regardless of the -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. foxx: we know we are having historic increased inflation. historic -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. foxx: it's a disaster coming. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, pursuant to house resolution 716, i call up the bill h.r. 3110 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill.
the clerk: union calendar number 75, h.r. 3110, a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to expand access to breast-feeding accommodations in the workplace, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 716, an amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the committee on education and labor, printed in the bill, modified by the amendment, printed in part c of house report 117-137, is adopted and the bill as amended is considered as read. the bill as amended is debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education and labor, or their respective designees. the gentleman from virginia, mrn from north carolina, ms. foxx, each will control 30 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on h.r. 3110, the pump for nursing mothers act.
the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: today the house has an opportunity to pass h.r. 3110, providing urgent maternal protections for nursing mothers act, or the pump for mustering mothers act, a bipartisan bill that will strengthen workplace protections for nursing mothers. nursing mothers will have a clear right to break time and a clean private space to pump breast milk at work. as we have heard from health experts and worker advocates across the contory, these basic accommodations ensure that nursing mothers can balance their work, health, and health of their babies. regrettably many nursing mothers still do not have these protections. under current law, millions of workers including farm workers, transportation workers, and teachers are currently excluded from federal protections for nursing employees. the nursing mothers who are covered by existing law have limited recourse when their
rights are violated. to close these gaps, the pump for nursing mothers act expands existing protections for nursing mothers for nearly nine million employees who are currently left out. it provides nursing workers with access to meaningful remedies for an employer's failed to provide appropriate time and pumping space. importantly this bill includes an amendment to clarify that congressional employees are covered by these protections, and to address safety concerns by including airline crew members break time to pump during a flight. no working american should be forced to choose between going to work and staying healthy. so we must take this urgent step to support nursing workers and strengthen our economy. the biden administration has issued a statement of administration policy in support of this bill and ask unanimous consent that the statement of add administration policy for h.r. 3110 be admitted into the
record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i urge support of the legislation and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3110. this act puts overly burdensome one-size-fits all requirements on businesses. while i believe empowering women in the workplace is important, we must not saddle businesses with ridged policies that will open them up to legal action. we, instead, must support flexible policies that allow women to thrive in the workplace. this bill's flawed scheme and expansive mandate do more harm than good and will further bog down businesses that will already struggling to recover from the pandemic. during this difficult time, the last thing small businesses need are more sweeping mandates.
more than two million women left the labor force in 2020. now more than ever we need to advocate for flexible workplace policies that improve conditions for and empow -- empower working mothers. i fully support women who wish to enter and return to the work force and i understand the challenges that can come with this, especially for nursing mothers. yet i don't believe one-size-fits-all mandates are beneficial. not for women and not for employers. workplaces are as varied as the people they employ. putting every workplace under the same standard, despite a job creator's needs or ability to meet that standard, will ultimately be bad for the american worker. airlines are just one example of an industry that will be negatively impacted if this bill is signed into law. under this bill's ridged requirements, airlines may have to rethink plane designs or
modify aircraft to provide a private space other than a bathroom for nursing mothers to pump as required under the bill. the rigid break requirements in the bill are also inappropriate for airlines because flight crews have varying responsibilities in preparation for and throughout flight which ensure the safety and security of passengers. exposing airlines and other businesses to such inflexible requirements will hurt struggling businesses. further, not all nursing mothers have the same needs. pretending that they do might be convenient, but it also demonstrates ignorance about the diverse circumstances that mothers are in. i wholeheartedly believe that it is possible to provide women with a healthy environment in which to work and simultaneously to allow businesses flexibility in providing accommodations. when i first entered the work force, nursing accommodation
requirements for women in the workplace were not even on the horizon. countless workplaces now provide such accommodations and rightly so. current law provides accommodations for hourly workers. creating a healthy place for women to thrive is important to us all. but there is a right way to go about this and a wrong way. h.r. 3110 is the wrong way. most employers have their employees' best interest at heart, but h.r. 3110 treats our job creators as if they are out to harm the very women they depend on to keep their businesses running. again, this is the wrong way to go about empowering women in the workplace. this bill's excessive penalties expansive mandate, and lack of clarity will create a perfect storm for priflous -- frivolous lawsuits. unfounded lawsuits cost businesses billions every year
in the united states. we should do all we can to prevent opening businesses up to harmful legal action. i'd like to remind my colleagues that representative miller-meeks submitted her bill, the supporting working mothers act, to the rules committee as an amendment to provide a exphens alternate to the pum pummel p act. that is answerable amendment that meets the actual needs of nursing mothers without forcing overly burdensome regulations on our job creators. this amendment unlike the pump act expands action ses to nursing accommodations -- access to nursing accommodations in the workplace without relying on mandates that expose business owners to costly litigation. the supporting working mothers act adds nursing accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional employees. ensuring that over 80% of currently exempt women are
covered. that amendment also includes a fair and workable process to ensure accommodations are provided for nursing mothers by encouraging collaboration between workers and employers to identify and make improvements when accommodations are insufficient. representative miller-meeks' commonsense amendment serves nursing mothers in the work force without sacrificing the well-being of our job creators. this is the right way to empower women. i'm extremely disappointed that the democrat majority refused to make the amendments in order. democrats chose to stifle debate on this commonsense approach by nurse -- to nurgs accommodationg accommodations in favor of a flawed mandate. because the bill is impractical and overly punitive, i urge my colleagues to vote no on h.r. 3110. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized.
mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from new york, chair of the oversight and reform committee and the lead democratic sponsor of the bill, mrs. maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is recognized for three minutes. mrs. maloney: i thank the gentleman for yielding and his incredible leadership in this body. i rise today in strong support of h.r. 3110, the pump for nursing mothers act. a bipartisan bill i authored with representative herrera butler. a bill has also been introduced in the senate by senator merkley and murkowski. when i first came to congress working mothers would come to me often in tears and advocate for a place to safely pump breast milk. often they were fired, ridiculed, forbidden, or forced to pump milk in bathrooms. since those years i have worked for on-site lactation rooms here in government and really everywhere in our country. in 1998 i passed a provision
allowing state w.i.c. agencies to purchase breast pumps for new mothers, making it easier for low-income moms to choose breast-feeding. in 1999, congress passed my bill to guarantee the right to breast-feed on federal property. and most recently, senator merkley and i passed the break time for mustering -- nursing mothers as part of the affordable care act. this act provides employees with critical protections to provide break time for nursing mothers in a private place to pump milk. the pump for nursing mothers act we are considering today builds on the break time act by protecting the nearly nine million employees who were not originally included in these protections. those covered by the pump for nursing mothers act now include teachers, nurses, farm workers, software engineers to name a few. the pump for nursing mothers act would also ensure that nursing mothers have remedies if their
employers fire them or violate these breast-feeding protections. in addition, if an employee is fired for taking a break, the pump act ensures that workers can seek reinstatement. it also extends breast-feeding protections for two years in line with recommendations from the world health organization. over 150 organizations have submitted letters in support of this important legislation. i ask unanimous consent to place them in the record from the center from work life, the u.s. breast-feeding committee, moms rising, the american federation of state, county, and municipal employees to name a few. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. maloney: as these organizations have demonstrated, without objection these protections, nursing mothers face serious health consequences. including the risk of painful illness and the inability to continue to breast-feed. studies have shown that health benefits for infants and children are really important
from breast-feeding and prevent other diseases. these basic protections would ensure that working moms who want to breast-feed can continue to do so and prevent nursing mothers from being singled out, ridiculed, or fired. it is an important step, this bill, for work-family balance. we say we support families. today is a vote for families, work-family balance and mothers and infants. i urge a strong yes vote. a bipartisan vote. i yield back. . ms. foxx: thank you. i yield four minutes to the gentlewoman from iowa, dr. miller-meeks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from iowa is recognized for four minutes. mrs. miller-meeks: thank you. i thank dr. foxx for allowing me to speak on this important issue. as a mother and physician, i understand the tremendous value that nursing and infant brings to both the mother and the
father. as the director of the iowa department of public health, i attended conferences to encourage mothers of breast-feeding, be it the tremendous bond that occurs through breast-feeding or health. despite being a working mother who is doing a general surgery internship, i breast fed both of my children and because i was a working mother, that included expressing breath milk by pumping. and i understand and i am supportive of the collaboration between employers and nursing mothers to have a private place to do so at their place of employment. i recognize that h.r. 3110 is trying to address this issue and provide accommodations for nursing mothers, which i wholeheartedly support. however, i feel the bill needs improvement. as it stands, h.r. 3110 puts a one-size-fits-all treatment of nursing accommodations for different industries and businesses. and puts excessive penalties of the nursing accommodation requirements in the fair labor
standards act. these reasonable penalties combined with compliance challenges posed by the mandate will lead to costly and protacted -- protracted lawsuits. rather than a collaborative arrangement between an employer and a nursing mother employee, this bill is punitive in nature. to address the flaws in h.r. 3110 and build on current law protections for nursing mothers, i submitted my bill, h.r. 4297, the supporting working mothers act, to the rules committee as an amendment. my bill is based on legislation introduced in a previous congress by the sponsor of the bill we are debating today. unfortunately, the majority refused to allow my amendment to even be debated on the floor. my amendment represents a workable, feasible, and reasonable approach to the fair labor standards act nursing accommodation requirements. first, my amendment would have modified current law by providing coverage to white-collar executive,
administrative, and professional employees while also maintaining current law coverage of hourly employees. my bill also preserves the 50-employee undo hardship exemption threshold as a safeguard for small businesses. these provisions would encourage coverage for over 80% of the women who are not currently covered by the fair labor standards act nursing accommodation requirement. the bill we are debating today, h.r. 3110, significantly increases the penalties for employer violations that are required for breast-feeding accommodations, regardless of attempts at compliance. these penalties are disproportionate to the technical and unintentional fair labor standards act violations, which could occur under this bill. my amendment would have preserved the authority of the secretary of labor to say -- to provide injunctive relief to provide monetary relief for multiple violations. my amendment includes a provision establishing a collaborative process for
employees and employers to create and improve accommodations in a timely fashion without relying on time-consuming and expensive lawsuits. because workplaces are not one size fits all, it's critical legislation on nursing accommodations provide clear requirements that are adaptable to many kinds of workplaces so that employers understand their obligations and are able to comply. again, given my strong support of breast-feeding, pumping, and storing of breast milk, i am very disappointed that my amendment with a not ruled in order by the majority and that congress did not take this opportunity to address the flaws in h.r. 3110. thank you and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam chair. madam chair, i yield three minutes to the gentlelady from washington state, the co-chair of the maternity chair caucus and the lead republican sponsor on the bill, ms. herrera beutler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from washington is recognized for three minutes. ms. herrera beutler: i rise in
support of my bipartisan, our bipartisan bill, the pump for nursing mothers act. honestly, this legislation, the whole goal is to protect a nursing mother's ability to provide for her infant by pumping at work. and let me be clear. this is a business-friendly bill. this is current law. for those who are thinking we're shaking the earth and doing something brand new, it is current law. there were problems with the way the current law was written. it was put in the wrong place in code and we're fixing that. the way it is currently, you could be a mom who gets into working and you worked your way up in a career where you're salaried and make a decent amount of money but you were excluded from this legislation. you didn't have the right to expect this even though other workers did. we're simply making some of those changes to make sure folks who were not eligible for overtime like that working mom would be covered under current law. and it -- this bill gives clarity for businesses and predictability and allows small businesses to claim undo hardship exemptions in recognition of the unique
challenges they face. look, i -- making sure our economy works is a huge priority to me. but we have to also recognize that working moms make up a significant portion and should of the workforce and it's going to grow. i thank my colleagues for improving this bill and it reflects -- to reflects its original intent with regard to businesses, namely, differentlyiating between large employers -- differentiating between and small businesses. finding a place to pump while working, you know, my first was a 28-week preemie. it was imperative she had breast milk. she could not handle formula. they said it's imperative you need to do what you can to breast-feed her. i am going to write a book, o the places i pumped. i pumped in a plane, train, some pour ranking employer at the pentagon, at a codel in israel.
i say there are places clean and helpful. it doesn't need to be like the taj mahal. you don't need a place like a toilet where people are over you. this is a piece of legislation that will empower women in the workforce to continue to provide for their families. imagine a single mother and -- not having that choice, she has to work, and maybe she wants to provide breast milk for her child or maybe she has to in a circumstance like mine. making sure that mothers of infants and toddlers can continue to do this in the workforce and continue to join the workforce is absolutely vital. with women making up over half of our nation's workforce, it's crucial that moms aren't forced to choose between going to their job or breast-feeding their child. and with the u.s. chambers of commerce endorsement of this legislation, this bill seeks to help, not hinder, an employer's ability to provide a safe space for moms to pump. i'm proud to help lead this bipartisan legislation with my
colleague, congresswoman maloney, so moms across this country can feel secure. i ask unanimous consent -- mr. scott: i yield an additional minute. ms. herrera beutler: i ask unanimous consent to enter of letters in support from the united states chamber of commerce and the national retail federation. i ask my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves his time. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. good. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. good: thank you to my distinguished ranking member from north carolina. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition for the pump for nursing mothers act, i should call it for the pump for nursing persons act. at a time when we have 10 million job openings, why does the democrat majority have such
contempt and disdain for struggling businesses, job creators and employers? with businesses already suffering from endless regulations and the resulting cost passed onto consumers, not to mention to be saddled with the vaccine mandates, endless covid restrictions, why are democrats relentlessly consumed with making things worse? the fact is that democrats are economically illit rate. they don't understand that the government doesn't have any money, they can only take it from taxpayers, and businesses don't pay for taxes or pay for regulations. they have two choices, close or pass the costs onto consumers. democrats are working every day to punish them with the result being more lost jobs, greater supply shortages and higher inflation as we see around our country today. we all believe in an equal workplace for men and women, but i oppose legislation that falsely victimizes employees and is truly just another payout for
trial lawyers, otherwise known as democrat donors. they are seeking just to exploit these excessive new penalties on businesses. the fact is employers want happy and productive employees. they're working hard to attract and retain those workers. they're already making these accommodations without the heavy hand of the federal government. i encourage my colleagues across the aisle to visit a business or talk to an employer. this regulation was written by trial lawyers and i urge my colleagues to vote no. and i will be doing the same and i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from virginia is now recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from illinois, co-chair of the black maternal health caucus, ms. underwood. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. underwood: well, thank you, madam chair. every mom returning to the workforce after childbirth should be provided the time and space that they need to safely and privately pump breast milk
at work. as a nurse, i understand how critical breast-feeding is to the health of both mom and baby. without sufficient workplace protections, breast-feeding employees are at risk of serious and painful health consequences and reduced milk supply. they can also face harassment, docked pay and even job loss. yet, each year, millions of workers, including teachers, nurses, farm workers, and salaried employees are denied this basic protection due to an unintended loophole in current law. i am so grateful for chairwoman maloney for her leadership and proud to join her in leading the pump for nursing mothers act to close the coverage gap and ensure all breast-feeding moms are protected and supported as they return to work. this bill is bipartisan and has a broad coalition of support from public health, labor, and civil rights groups, as well as from the business community. it's also urgently needed,
providing commonsense, necessary protections for working moms, as well as more clarity and predictability for employers. returning to work after childbirth already poses many inherent challenges for moms and their families. and we must remove barriers for parents, making the best choices for their families and themselves. i urge my colleagues to join me and vote yes on this important legislation. madam chair, ilths ask unanimous consent -- i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record three letters in support of the pump for nursing mothers act from the national education association, the national partnership for women and families, and the march of dimes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. underwood: i'd like to thank these groups for their support of the bill and for their tireless efforts on behalf of working moms. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield three minutes to the gentlewoman from illinois, representative mary miller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized.
mrs. miller: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today in opposition to h.r. 3110, the pump act. americans want nursing mothers to have adequate provisions in the workplace. the fact is, they are already provided in the fair labor standards act. the bill before us consists of unreasonable burdens on employers and penalties that will end up disincentivizing job creation. at the same time that nursing mothers deserve protections, employers deserve allowances for flexibility in their workplace. we are in the midst of an economic supply chain and employment crisis. we don't need to put more hurdles in the way of businesses and employment. when i am in my district and i speak to business owners all around my district, the number one thing i hear is, we cannot find enough workers. why are we going to put more
strain on them? thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlelady from california, the co-chair of the maternity care caucus, ms. roybal-allard. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from california is recognized for 2 1/2 minutes. ms. roybal-allard: madam speaker, i rise in support of the pump act, to expand workplace protections for breast-feeding moms and ensure they have access to appropriate and necessary accommodations. decades of research have shown that breast-feeding is one of the most cost-effective interventions for improving maternal and child health. compared with formula-fed children, breast fed babies have a reduced risk of skin, respiratory infections, type one and two diabetes, asthma and childhood leukemia. while 84% of u.s. babies are breast fed at birth, only 25%
are still exclusively breast fed at six months of age. i commend my colleague, care lynn malone -- carolyn maloney, for improving these breast-feeding statistics. her break time for nursing mothers laws ensures mothers would have reasonable break times and a private place to pump breast milk. mothers with this access to workplace support have lower health care costs, absenteeism, and turnover and show improved job morale, satisfaction, and productivity. however, that law unintentionally excluded nine million women from these workplace protections, including teachers, software engineers, and many nurses. expanding workplace protections to include these women is important because research clearly shows that without protections, breast-feeding employees have increased risk of painful illness and infection, diminished milk supply, and are more likely to stop
breast-feeding early. as co-chair of the maternal care caucus, i am a proud support of the pump act, which will eliminate workplace barriers that interfere with successful breast-feeding. the pump for nursing mothers act is a krit -- is critical to ensuring all mothers have the opportunity to reach their personal breast-feeding goals to protect their babies. i urge my colleagues to support this bill, and i ask unanimous consent to place into the record letters of support from la leche league, the academy of nutrition and a better balance. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, h.r. 3110 leaves a whole host of unanswered questions for employers regarding their obligations under the bill as written. h.r. 3110 threatens job creators with disproportionate penalties
for technical and unintentional violations of the accommodation requirements. for example, are employers required to build a separate room to provide these accommodations? h.r. 3110 fails to answer this question or the circumstances and specifications an employer would need to know to comply with such a requirement or how such requirements would interact with other federal laws. for instance, the bill does not clarify whether the space must be client with -- come plient with americans with disabilities act, a.d.a., accessibility requirements, or how it will fit in with a.d.a. requirements such as clear path of travel. nor does the legislation give appropriate guidance as to whether the space must be permanent or temporary. in addition, the remedies in h.r. 3110 go far beyond what is recoverable with respect to
other proven wage and hour and break violations under both federal law and state laws. the expansion of remedies in the bill will increase litigation and result in a financial windfall for trial lawyers. these penalties do not address the employees' main interest in obtaining appropriate break time and space. expanded monetary damages will undoubtedly lead to more litigation and the additional delays that litigation brings in already overburdened courts. it should be vote noat the that the department of labor is better suited to enforce technical violations of the flsa quickly and effectively. litigation is no solution. they have institutional knowledge of federal labor laws, including the flsa, and is equipped to provide accurate guidance to employers. to understand the implication of h.r. 3110, one only needs to
look at the proliferation of lawsuits for gotcha technical violations throughout various federal and state wage or the a.d.a. to recognize costly litigation will follow and positive results for employees will be delayed. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentlelady from oregon, the chair of the civil rights and human resources -- services subcommittee of the ed and labor committee, ms. bonamici. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from oregon is recognized for two minutes. ms. bonamici: i rise in strong support of the bipartisan pump for nursing mothers act. since 2010, the affordable care act has required employers to provide nursing mothers with break time to express milk, as well as access to a private nonbathroom space for pumping. although this was a significant improvement for working moms,
one that i didn't have when i was breast-feeding my babies, the law still left nine million workers uncovered, including teachers, agricultural workers, engineers, and others. this coverage gap is unacceptable and it means each year millions of parents who choose to breast-feed must decide between the health of their child and maintaining employment. the coverage gap has also disproforce gnat-l -- disproportionately harmed black and brown women who represent 12% of the work force, but nearly 20% of women of childbearing age not covered by the existing break time provision. the pump for nursing mothers act will address this coverage gap by simply amending the fair labor standards act to provide protections to workers who are not currently covered. as representative herrera beutler explained, this is current law. we are just closing a gap that is leaving too many nursing moms out. it would also clarify that if a worker's not relieved of their duty during the time spent pumping, those hours must count
as hours worked. i urge all of you to support the rights of women in the workplace and to help their families by joining me in voting for the bipartisan pump act. madam speaker, i ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter in support of the bill from the united states breast-feeding committee. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. bonamici: thank you, madam speaker. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from virginia -- north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. supporters of h.r. 3110 claim the bill merely fills unintended gaps in the nursing
accommodation requirements signed into law in 2010. this description is not accurate. h.r. 3110 imposes a flawed scheme full of unreasonably expansive mandates, including overly broad coverage coupled with gratuitous and disproportionate penalties. the bill expands the fair labor standard act's coverage of break time for nursing mothers to all 143 million employees covered by the act. as a result, h.r. 3110 will require one-size-fits-all nursing accommodations and impose substantial compliance burdens on a wide variety of workplaces and industries. the manager's amendment attempts to mitigate the bill's requirements so that they are compatible with ensuring safety and security for airline passengers and flight crews. h.r. 3110 requires that airline
employees have access to an enclosed area for pumping breast milk, even though aircraft designs are regulated by the f.a.a. for safety, security, and reliability with limited ability to add additional enclosed space. remote rural airports also face unique challenges because of the smaller planes in use at those airports. it is even more challenging to provide a private space in a commercial aircraft other than a bathroom as mandated by h.r. 3110. additionally, many of these planes have small flight crews with few redundancies and duties. under the bill they would be hard-pressed to maintain appropriate staffing levels and access to services. exposing businesses to inflexibility and unworkable -- inflexibility ibl and unworkable requirement quubled with i creased penalties for violations will create new incentives for
trial lawyers. h.r. 3110 will only encourage trial lawyers to file more lawsuits of questionable validity targeting unsuspecting business owners. supporters of h.r. 3110 say the bill is about providing women with better accommodations in the workplace. but the truth is the bill fails to live up to that promise. with that, i reserve, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady yield back? ms. foxx? ms. foxx: i thought i said reserve. joip the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. and i believe we have the right to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. foxx: madam speaker,
consideration of h.r. 3110 marks the latest in a series of affronts to small businesses perpetuated by house democrats throughout the 117th congress. last month democrat members of the education and labor committee voted to increase drastically the penalties on employers, including a 512% increase in occupational safety and health act penalties and a whopping 900% increase in fair labor standards act penalties. on job creators, including small businesses. democrats also voted to authorize the national labor relations board to lef levee -- levee $50,000 and $100,000 fines on small business owners for business activities that are currently lawful. republican members offered several amendments at the committee's reconciliation
markup to exempt small business from the devastating impacts of those provisions. however, these commonsense amendments were voted down by committee democrats on party-line votes. the bill we are debating today was reported out of committee with disturbing implications for smaller employers. currently under the flsa, businesses with fewer than 50 employees may demonstrate that the flsa's nursing accommodation requirements would impose an undue hardship. the flsa's unique hardship provision is an affirmative defense to claims that small businesses must demonstrate in court. committee democrats chose to cut the undue hardship exemption in half to fewer than 25 employees. while this democrat affront to
small business was corrected in the manager's amendment, more changes are necessary to protect small businesses fully. h.r. 3110 imposes excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the flsa's nursing accommodation requirement while failing to anticipate workplace realities in providing accommodations. these excessive penalties combined with the high probability of minor or unintended infractions related to compliance with a complex mandate on hundreds of thousands of new businesses will lead to a proliferation of expensive and protracted lawsuits, resulting in delayed accommodations for workers. in contrast to the shortcomings of h.r. 3110, dr. miller-meeks submitted a responsible
substitute amendment for consideration which implements commonsense and workablele alterations to the flsa's nursing accommodation requirements. the miller-meeks amendment adds nursing accommodation coverage for white collar executive, administrative, or professional employees, while preserving the flsa treatment of unique and disparate workplaces. her amendment also preserves the secretary of labor's flsa enforcement authority to address shortcomings in workplace accommodations through injungive relief or level civil monetary penalties against repeat and willful violators. dr. miller-meeks' amendment would not only ensure the needs of small businesses are protected, but would also update flsa nursing accommodation requirements in a way that meets the needs of both mothers and
employers. it is disappointing and unfortunate that the democrat leadership prevented the miller-meeks amendment from being considered today. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam speaker, i am prepared to close. reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i now yield five minutes to the gentlewoman from texas, ms. van duyne. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. van duyne: thank you very much, madam speaker. if we adopt the motion to recommit, we will instruct the committee on education and labor to consider an amendment to exempt certain industries with unique workplace environments from the requirements in the underlying bill. i will ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the record immediately prior to the vote on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore:
without objection. ms. van duyne: thank you very much, madam speaker. h.r. 3110 imposes one-size-fits-all nursing recommendation requirements on different kinds of work environments, including those found in the airline, shipping, and agriculture industries. as a mother of two who nursed both children while working, i understand the importance of having these accommodations in the workplace. under current law the fair labor standards act provides hourly employees with access to accommodations while providing for certain industry and job specific exemptions. this approach includes special protections to include the smallest of farms which are not proportionately impacted by regulatory mandates, such as the one we are debating today. the mandate in h.r. 3110 would impose the same requirements on all 143 million employees covered under the flsa. this would impose substantial compliance challenges and
introduce safety concerns based on the nature of separations in certain settings. this would fail to account for the unique working conditions found in the aviation industry. airline employees will have access to a space for pumping breast milk. this is despite the fact that aircraft designs are regulated by the f.a.a. for safety and reliability purposes with limited ability to add additional private spaces. modification of aircraft space will be prohibitively expensive and require the removal of airline seats. this requirement is even more challenging for smaller planes with fewer passenger seats that service regional airports. additionally, pilot and flight attendant duties are heavily regulated by the f.a.a. with few redundancies in staff, further complicating aviation businesses to maintain appropriate staffing levels and access to services when faced with inflexible
government-mandated breaks. democrats acknowledge this problem in their manager's amendment to h.r. 3110 but failed to mitigate the negative impacts the bill will have on critical passenger safety, both on the ground an during flight. during workplaces are not one-size-fits-all, it's critical for shipping and farms to work, to meet individual workplace needs. sweeping requirements that do not adequately address both the workplace environment and workforce needs will not lead to the best results for working mothers. nursing mother accommodations should be encouraged, and the ongoing efforts of business owners to ensure access for their workers are to be applauded and supported. i'm offering this motion to recommit to ensure certain businesses have the flexibility to be able to develop nursing
accommodations that meet the needs of their employers while accounting for unique working environments. i urge adoption of this motion to recommit and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from north carolina reserves. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: madam speaker, i reserve, again. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. ms. foxx: i understand the gentleman is prepared to close and so am i. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. -- i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you. madam speaker, h.r. 3110 is not the right way to empower women in the workplace. i support expanding flexible nursing accommodations in the workplace for women, but not in such a way that will unnecessarily increase liability for employers without helping nursing mothers. furthermore, this bill levels excessive penalties for minor
technical violations, opening our job creators to expensive and spurious lawsuits. dr. miller-meeks' supporting working mothers amendment is a responsible alternative. it expands nursing accommodation coverage to a variety of workplaces, but also maintains exceptions for unique workplaces. that is the kind of flexible, pro-woman and pro-jobs solution we need. we've had enough of democrats' one-size-fits-all approach, and overly broad mandates that hurt the very job creators we are relying on to help our economy recover from this pandemic. it is very disappointing that the majority denied debate on a practical alternative that will meet the needs of working mothers. once again, i encourage my colleagues to vote no on h.r.
3110. this bill will do much more harm than good. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to enter into the record letters in support of the bill from the aclu and the associate of flight attendants. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scott: i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. and it is -- it has now been more than a decade since congress passed critical protections to guarantee nursing workers' break time and private space to express breast milk at work. as we've heard today from members on both sides of the aisle, these protections are essential to protecting the health of nursing workers and their families. yet, nursing workers are continuing to suffer from gaps and weaknesses in the federal
law. the need to address these gaps is even greater today as our economy recovers from covid-19. millions of workers, particularly working mothers, are looking to re-enter the workforce after being forced out of their jobs during the pandemic. the pump for nursing mothers act would provide workers with the peace of mind that they will not have to choose between returning to work and protecting themselves and their babies. madam speaker, we have an opportunity to deliver on our promise to help all workers recover from the pandemic, stay safe, and succeed in their careers. this legislation will strengthen existing law, improve the lives of nursing workers across the country, and help our economy get back on its feet. and we know this program works because of provisions in this bill are already law on the federal level and in several states. without the kinds of problems that have been suggested that might happen, those have not occurred under present law.
and without any explosion of lawsuits. these provisions are already law and they have not been those -- those lawsuits. and the substitute offered by the minority does not expand as many -- to many mothers as this bill does. and it would actually roll back some protections they already have. so i want to thank the gentlelady from new york, mrs. maloney, the gentlelady from washington state, ms. herrera beutler, for their leadership in this bipartisan legislation. i urge my colleagues to support the pump for nursing mothers act and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields. all time for debate has expired. each further amendment printed in part d of house report 117-137 shall be considered only in the order printed in the report. may be offered only by a member designated in the report. shall be considered as read. shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent. may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon. shall not be subject to amendment. and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the kwechlt it is now in order to -- it is now in order to consider amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 117-137. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. ross: madam speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 1 printed in part d of house report 117-137 offered by ms. ross of north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 716, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. ross, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from north carolina. ms. ross: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ross: madam speaker, i rise today to urge support for my amendment. my amendment to the pump act will help ensure women have
sufficient notice of the new protections afforded to them in this bill. by ensuring that eligible people are provided with sufficient informational resources, more women will be able to exercise their rights and the likelihood of employer defection will be reduced. in many places in this country, including my home state of north carolina, it's easier to take a smoke break than for a mother to take a pump break. this is simply unacceptable. by passing the pump act, we can end this discrimination against breast-feeding workers and guarantee that no mother will have to choose between earning a living and feeding her child. but a law is only as effective as its enforcement, and we have unfortunately witnessed countless occasions where businesses have failed to inform workers of their rights. in just this last year, the department of labor investigated
six businesses in north carolina for violations of breast-feeding rights under the fair labor standards act. my amendment would provide the necessary information to ensure these workplace violations do not continue. we owe it to our nursing mothers, their families, and our local communities to be vigilant about overseeing the implementation of this law. this is a gender equality issue, a labor rights issue, an economic justice issue, and it demands our attention. i also seek unanimous consent to enter into the record letters from the director of la leche and the national w.i.c. association. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ross: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition? ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam
speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, this amendment does nothing to address the shortcomings of h.r. 3110. we do not need a g.a.o. report to know that employers will face numerous challenges in complying with the sweeping requirements imposed by h.r. 3110. the fair labor standards act ensures that hourly workers have access to time and space to pump breast milk while exempting certain professions and industries with unique operating environments. working mothers deserve proper accommodations to nurse in a clean and safe environment without fear of losing their job. but failing to account for differing workplaces, as h.r. 3110 does, it does not help women. this bill imposes one-size-fits-all treatment on a wide variety of businesses and industries without providing
feasible compliance options. h.r. 3110 will also impose new and excessive penalties for minor or technical violations of the flsa's nursing accommodation requirement. these unrealistic penalties combined with compliance challenges resulting from the bill's mandate will lead to a proliferation of costly and protracted lawsuits. the result will be delayed accommodations for workers. a report, which acknowledges the complexities and liabilities inherent in h.r. 3110 and is released two years after the bill takes effect will do nothing to mitigate the bill's failures. for these reasons, i urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. ross: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentlelady
from new york, representative maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. mrs. maloney: madam speaker, i rise strongly in support of the amendment offered by representative deborah ross of north carolina, and i thank her for her leadership in north carolina and here in congress for working mothers, for infants, for families. we need more work-family balance. we need more support for working mothers. we now know with covid that many families are not going back to work. they're reassessing their values. and when you have a child and you want to breast-feed and there's no accommodation, there really is no way you can go back to work. so this is probusiness and pro-worker and pro-family. her amendment directs the u.s. government accountability office to show how employers are complying with the pump act for nursing mothers, even the best legislation must be monitored,
and i am excited about the opportunity to ensure that employers are protecting the rights of nursing mothers. it's pro-family, and when you protect our families and our mothers and our children -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. mrs. maloney: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields. the gentlelady from north carolina reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: i continue to reserve. i have the right to close, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady reserves. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. ross: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote in support of my amendment and the bill. both are essential for our working mothers, for our families, and for the health of the next generation, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields. the gentlewoman from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: madam speaker, we have a unique situation here this morning with two representatives from north carolina who have
totally different opinions of this bill and this amendment. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill. we can do better. and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment. it's a dollar -- it's a day late and a dollar short. we should know what these things are in advance and not after the fact. it's what's some of us might call a run-on amendment. we should have had the g.a.o. study earlier to get a better feel for what this bill would do to working mothers and to businesses in our country. and with that i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 176, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. ross. the question is on the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. without objection, the motion to
reconsider is laid upon the table. it is now in order to consider amendment number 2 printed in part d of house report 117-137. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? ms. strickland: madam chair, i ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a letter on behalf of a better balance. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentlelady have an amendment? ms. strickland: i do. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: printed in part d of house report number 117-137, offered by ms. strickland of washington. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 716, the gentlewoman from washington, ms. strickland, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from washington. ms. strickland: thank you, madam chair. i i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. strickland: thank you. there are several contributing factors to why nursing mothers may choose not to breast-feed and pump milk when returning to work. they include inflexible work schedules that make nursing and
pumping breast milk regularly difficult. the lack much accommodations to pump and store milk. and concerns regarding support from super advisors and colleagues to pump milk. in addition to these factors, women of color and low-income women often experience the need to return to work shortly after giving birth, in most cases earlier than 12 weeks. they face additional barriers such as racial discrimination and bias, whether intentional or not. this is why i'm proud to offer my amendment to h.r. 3110, the pump for nursing mothers act, the underlying bill that protects vulnerable workers by expanding access to breast-feeding accommodations in the workplace. this important piece of legislation advances our goals of equity in the workplace, and my amendment seeks to strengthen this bill by directing the g.a.o. to conduct a study on the racial disparities that exist in access to pumping breast milk in the workplace. this amount will also require the g.a.o. submit a report to
congress on the result of this study with recommendations to address any disparities. employers can begin to address these barriers by offering private lactation rooms or nursing rooms for both breast-feeding and pumping with proper cleaning and storage facilities such as table, sink, and small refrigerator, providing employees with adequate pump breaks, and allowing flekible work schedules and guaranteeing paid family leave. we can look to my home state of washington as a prime example of how to lead on this issue. in 2019, the state legislature passed and signed into law house bill 1930, which goes one step further than the current federal law by expanding pump break rights to flu both salary and hourly employees, and requiring employers to provide a private space for pumping that isn't a bathroom and allowing mothers to get pump breaks for up to two years after birth. washington is also one of the very few states that provides people with up to 12 weeks of paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child. despite current federal law, strong state level protections
such as the ones in washington anti-gains that have been made in this area by employers in different sectors across our nation, racial disparities in the workplace still exist for women wishing to pump. my amendment aims to close this gap and equip congress with the data it needs to fit meaningful solutions. we must ensure women and mothers everywhere and all backgrounds have the support they deserve in the workplace. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill. the pump for nursing mothers act. i yield back the balance of my time to my colleague -- i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from north carolina. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from north carolina seek recognition. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to the amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. h.r. 3110 imposes a sleeping one-size-fits-all mandate on
businesses of all size that is unworkable and unreasonable. the bill treats all nursing mothers and workplaces as if they are the same. despite known differences in employees' needs, industry specific challenges, and employers' abilities to meet the requirements. this amendment calls for a government accountability office study on racial disparities with respect to access to workplace accommodations to pump breast milk and for g.a.o. to submit recommendations to congress after the bill becomes law. madam speaker, let me be clear, crystal clear, i abhor any type of discrimination. there should be no place for discrimination in our country, in our employment, or anywhere. a study of this kind, however, should have been commissioned before the committee debated
far-reaching legislation to impose a flawed mandate on all businesses in the united states. instead, h.r. 3110 was rushed through a committee markup within two weeks of introduction democrats often put the cart before the horse, and this amendment does nothing to remedy the shortcomings of this legislation. nursing women are not a monolith. they have unique needs that this legislationing ignores -- legislation ignores. h.r. 3110 is reductive and working women deserve better. madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves. the gentlewoman from washington is recognized. ms. strickland: madam speaker, i would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter a letter into the record from a better balance. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. strickland: thank you. i yield the balance of my time to my colleague, congresswoman maloney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from new york is
recognized. mrs. maloney: i thank the lady for yielding and for her leadership on this important bill. i strongly support the amendment offered by representative strictland from washington. it is sensitive, important, and strengthens the bill. it directs the comptroller general to conduct a study on racial disparities in breast-feeding and submit recommendations to congress that address these disparities. as a member of the black maternal health caucus, we are studying disparities in this caucus on health care and the challenges that some women face. breast-feeding contains many health benefits for children and for their mothers and should be accessible to all women, no matter what their race. we should study any disparity and try to strengthen access and availability. this is an excellent amendment. i rise in supporter the lady for her property -- support the lady for her work.
and yield back to her to close. ms. strickland: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman washington is recognized. miss ms. strickland: i urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment that benefits all of us regardless of our political affiliation. this is a bipartisan bill. it deserves our support as well as the amendment. thank you, madam chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized. ms. foxx: thank you, madam speaker. let me reiterate again i have no tolerance whatsoever for any type of discrimination in the workplace or any place else. however, if we are going to do a study about potential discrimination, it should be done before a bill is drafted and introduced and voted on. we do not -- this amendment does not improve the very bad underlying bill, h.r. 3110. therefore i urge my colleagues to vote no on the amendment and vote no on the underlying bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the
gentlewoman yields. pursuant to house resolution 716, the previous question is ordered on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from washington. the question is on the amendment. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the previous question is ordered on the bill as amended. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the fair labor standards act of 1938 to expand access to breast-feeding accommodations in the workplace, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: miss van line of texas moves to recommit the bill
h.r. 3110 to the committee on education and labor. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 19, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the noes have it. the motion is not agreed to. ms. van duyne: may i please request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of house resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: as the member designated by chairwoman zoe lofgren, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that chairwoman lofgren will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by congresswoman grace meng, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that congresswoman
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. kahele: -- mr. case: as the member designated by mr. kahele, i inform the house that mr. kahele will vote no on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. tim sons of south carolina -- timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. desaulnier of -- designated by mr. desjarlais, i inform the house that mr. desjarlais will vote yea on the motion to recommit. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition?
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: as the member designated by mr. cooper, i inform the house that mr. cooper will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by ms. frankel, i inform the house that ms. frankel will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. russ fulcher of idaho, i inform the house that mr. fulcher will vote yea on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. waltz of florida, i inform the house that mr. waltz will vote yea on the house motion to recommit. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: as the member designated by ms. lee, i inform the house that ms. lee will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mrs. hartzler from missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote yes on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. huffman, i inform the house that mr. huffman will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by representative mcmorris rodgers, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative mcmorris rodgers will vote yes on the motion to recommit. mr. joyce: madam speaker, as the member designated by representative smucker of pennsylvania, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative smucker will vote yes on the motion to recommit. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. williams, i inform the house that ms. williams will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. jones, i inform the house that mr. jones will vote no on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member vela, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that congress member vela will vote no on the motion to recommit. and madam speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will also vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from washington seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that
mr. gonzalez will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by representative henry cuellar, i inform the house that mr. cuellar will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by mr. troy nehls, i inform the house that mr. nehls will be voting yea on the motion to recommit. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. soto: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz, i inform the house that ms. wasserman schultz will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek
recognition? >> madam speaker -- mr. evans: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. mfume, i inform the house that mr. mfume will vote no on the motion to recommit. madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. lawson, i inform the house that mr. lawson will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. perlmutter, i inform the house that mr. perlmutter will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition?
>> as the member designated by ms. speier, i inform the house that ms. speier will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. garbarino, pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. garbarino will vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. albio sires, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. donald payne, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote no on the motion to recommit.
what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas seek recognition? ms. escobar: madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. sylvia garcia, i inform the house that ms. garcia will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated by ms. ocasio-cortez, i inform the house that ms. ocasio-cortez will vote no on the motion to recommit. and as the member designated by mr. joaquin castro, i inform the house that mr. castro will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: madam speaker, as the member designated by the honorable steve lynch of massachusetts, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. bowman of new york, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. bowman will vote nay on the motion to
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? mrs. greene: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. jody hice of georgia, i inform the house toes -- pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. hice will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> good morning, madam speaker,
as the member designated by mr. doyle of pennsylvania, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. doyle will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition >> madam speaker, as the member designated by michelle steel of california, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that congresswoman steel will votey on the motion to recommit. vote aye on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from connecticut seek recognition? mrs. hayes: as the member designated ms. wilson, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote no on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from georgia seek recognition? for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. suozzi, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. swozy will vote no on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, madam speaker. as the member designated by ms. salazar the state of florida, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. salazar there vote yea on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition >> madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. garamendi, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. garamendi will vote no on the notion -- motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cawthorn of north carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. cawthorn will vote aye on the motion to recommit. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition?
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman virginia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by miss miss mceachin, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house in a mr. mceachin will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated ms. porter -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from virginia seek recognition? ms. wexton: madam speaker, as the member designated mr. mceachin, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote no on the motion to recommit. as the member designated miss ms. porter, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote no on the motion to recommit.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> madam speaker, as the member designated by ms. alma adams of north carolina, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that ms. adams will vote no on the motion to recommit. mr. brown: as the member designated by mr. defazio of oregon, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that mr. defazio will vote no on the motion to recommit.
in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the bill is passed. and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, on that i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 3-s of rule -- resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. pallone: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. albio sires, i inform the house that mr. sires will vote yes on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by mrs. bonnie watson coleman, i inform the house that mrs. watson coleman will vote yes on h.r.
3110. and as the member designated by mr. donald payne, i inform the house that mr. payne will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by representative mcmorris rodgers, i inform the house that representative mcmorris rodgers will vote no. mr. joyce: as the member designated by representative smucker, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that representative smucker will vote no on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. jeffries: mr. speaker, as the member designated by chairwoman nydia velazquez, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that chairwoman velazquez will vote yea on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by chairwoman zoe lofgren, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that chairwoman lofgren will
vote yea on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by congresswoman grace meng, pursuant to h.res. 8, i inform the house that congresswoman meng will vote yea on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by the honorable steve lynch, i inform the house that mr. lynch will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? mrs. cammack: as the member designated by ms. salazar of florida, i inform the house that ms. salazar will vote yea on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. suozzi, i inform the house that mr. suozzi will vote aye on h.r. 3110.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. fleischmann: madam speaker, as the member designated by mr. desjarlais of tennessee, i inform the house that mr. desjarlais will nay on h.r. 3110. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from massachusetts seek recognition? ms. clark: as the member designated by ms. lee, i inform the house that ms. lee will vote yes on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by ms. frankel, i inform the house that ms. frankel will vote yes on h.r. 3110. and as the member designated by mr. cooper, i inform the house that mr. cooper will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee seek recognition? mr. kustoff: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. harshbarger of tennessee, i
inform the house that mrs. harshbarger will vote nay on h.r. 3110. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from illinois seek recognition? ms. underwood: as the member designated by mr. rush, i inform the house that mr. rush will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mrs. hartzler of missouri, i inform the house that mrs. hartzler will vote no on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. correa: mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member napolitano, i inform the house that congress member napolitano will vote yes on h.r. 3110. mr. speaker, as the member designated by congress member vela, i inform the house that congress member vela will also vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, thank you.
as the member designated by mr. nehls, i inform the house that mr. nehls will vote nay on h.r. 3110. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. stanton: as the member designated by mrs. kirkpatrick, i inform the house that mrs. kirkpatrick will vote yes on h.r. 3110. and as the member designated by mr. huffman, i inform the house that mr. huffman will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by michele stelle, i inform the house that congresswoman steele will vote aye on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. escobar: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. sylvia garcia, i inform the house that ms. garcia will vote yes on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by ms. ocasio-cortez, i inform the
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from maine seek recognition? ms. pingree: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. cicilline from rhode island, i inform the house that mr. cicilline will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. garbarino,
pursuant to house resolution 8, i inform the house that mr. garbarino will vote yea on 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from virginia seek recognition? ms. scanlon: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. eachin -- mr. mceachin, i inform the house that mr. mceachin will vote yes on h.r. 3110. ms. wexton: as the member designated by ms. porter, i inform the house that ms. porter will vote yes on h.r. 3110. >> as the member designated by mr. stewart of utah, i inform the house that mr. stewart will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from connecticut seek recognition? mrs. hayes: as the member designated by ms. wilson, i inform the house that ms. wilson will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? mr. johnson: mr. speaker, as the
member designated by mr. russ fulcher of idaho, i inform the house that mr. fulcher will vote nay on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. soto: mr. speaker, as the member designated by ms. wasserman schultz, i inform the house that ms. wasserman schultz will vote yea on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? >> thank you, mr. speaker. as the member designated by mr. waltz of florida, i inform the house that mr. waltz will vote aye on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. garamendi of california, i inform the house that mr. garamendi will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from washington seek recognition? ms. herrera beutler:
mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. gonzalez of ohio, i inform the house that mr. gonzalez will vote yea on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from hawaii seek recognition? mr. case: mr. speaker, as the member designated by mr. kahele of hawaii, i inform the house that mr. kahele will vote aye on h.r. 3110. . mrs.greene: as the member designated by mr. h jody hice of georgia, i inform the house that mr. hice will vote no on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mr. cartwright: as the member designated by mr. doyle of pennsylvania, i inform the house that mr. doyle will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition?
>> as the member designated by mr. timmons of south carolina, i inform the house that mr. timmons will vote no on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. cuellar, i inform the house that mr. cuellar will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does north carolina seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. kaufman, i inform the house that mr. kaufman will vote no on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. brown of new york, pursuant to h. res. 8, i inform the house that mr. bowman will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from pennsylvania seek
recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. speier, i inform the house that ms. sp*eur will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. adams, i inform the house that ms. adams will vote yes on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by mr. defazio of oregon, i inform the house that mr. defazio will vote yes on h.r. 3110.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. perlmutter, i inform the house that mr. perlmutter will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> as the member designated by mr. mfume, i inform the house that mr. mfume votes yes on final passage. as the member designated by
mr. lawson, i inform the house that mr. lawson votes yes on final passage. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentlelady from california seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. williams, i inform the house that ms. williams will vote yes on h.r. 3110. as the member designated by mr. jones, i inform the house that mr. jones will vote yes on h.r. 3110. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from maryland seek recognition? >> as the member designated by ms. jayapal, i inform the house that ms. jayapal will vote yes on h.r. 3110.
the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana seek recognition? mr. scalise: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for the purpose of inquiring to the majority leader the schedule for next week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized.
mr. scalise: madam speaker, i also ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. scalise: thank you. with that i'd be happy to yield to my friend, the majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. on monday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business with votes postponed as usual until 6:30 p.m. on tuesday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for morning hour and 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday, the house will meet at 12:00 p.m. for legislative business. on thursday, the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. the house will consider, madam speaker, several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced by the close of business today. with the short-term extension of the surface transportation program through october 31, the house will aim to consider the bipartisan infrastructure, investment and jobs back and the
build back better act this work period. in addition, the house will consider h.r. 2119, the family violence prevention and services improvement act of 2021, sponsored by lucy mcbath of georgia. that bill modifies and expands and re-authorizes through fiscal year 2026 the family violence and prevention services program, which funds emergency shelters and supports related assistance for victims of domestic violence. if time allows, madam speaker, the house may also consider h.r. 3992, the protecting older jobs applicant act, which allows applicants to bring claim under the age discrimination and employment act of 1987 when they experience a discrimination while seeking a job. lastly, additionally legislative items may be possible when and if they are ready. and i thank my friend for yielding. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. and as we go through the bills that may come up next week, of
course, we just finished a week bringing some bills to the floor, but as we look around the country, clearly, the main concern we're hearing from families are all of the various crises that are facing american families. you got an inflation crises with goods of all kinds costing dramatically more. when people go to buy things at the grocery store, they try to get a new appliance, they're waiting longer, they're paying more money. you think about the energy crisis with families paying 50% more for gasoline in some cases with dramatic increases at the pump. and the pain that it causes, especially lower income families. the border crisis where every day we see stories of thousands of people coming across our border illegally. the attorney general was before the judiciary committee, and he couldn't even give a number of how many people have illegally crossed or a plan to address it.
the supply chain crisis with ships backed up almost all the way to china because that crisis is not being addressed. so when you think about all these crises that families are angry about, it's hurting hardworking families, it's costing them. it's taking money out of their paychecks. there's not been a single bill brought to this bill last week. doesn't seem like any being brought to the floor next week to address any of these crises. i'd ask the gentleman, would he be open to bringing actual legislation to the floor to address the various serious crises that families are facing today? and i'd yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for his comments and questions. let me say that i mentioned two bills that will have a very, very substantial impact on the welfare of americans, families, of their health and, yes, even of their environmental security in the build back better plan
and the bipartisan bill on the senate side. i hope to bring both of those bills to the floor next week if they're ready. unfortunately, we don't have help from your side on those -- either of those bills, so it's more difficult to get unanimity on our side of the aisle. i will tell my friend, all those problems that you mentioned would be extraordinarily worse, extraordinarily worse if we hadn't passed the american rescue plan in march of this year, which helped families extraordinarily generously to stay above water. not a single person on your side of the aisle voted for those. so when the gentleman asks me, will we bring legislation to the floor, we brought it to the floor. you all opposed it that helped families, helped health care, helped health workers, helped states all to meet the pandemic that this administration
inherited. the pandemic was not the previous administration's fault, obviously. but the failure to deal with it effectively was their fault. so i tell you that five million jobs have been created since this administration took office. some people lamented that 233,000 jobs last month, how awful that was. in the best year that donald trump had, that was his average production of jobs. in the best year he had which was from january, 2018, to january, 2019. so i will tell my friend, we hope to be able to bring these bills to the floor. we think they'll have a substantial positive effect. we inherited, of course, because of the pandemic, again, not the fault of any -- well, we don't know if it was the fault of anybody purposefully. but extraordinary amounts of people were laid off around the world.
and then, because of the rescue plan, we finally gave some people get resources they could buy things that they had needed and wanted for them and their families and now we have a supply shortage. the president acted through executive order, as the gentleman knows, to make sure that we had a 24/7 operation at the ports off long beach, off other ports in our country, to try to make sure that we, a, got goods on those ships that you say are to china. i don't know whether they are to china. you are a lot of them. you are absolutely right on that. to get them offloaded, get them on trucks, and to get them to where they can be distributed and available, both for businesses and then we, of course, have a substantial shortage of ships, as the gentleman knows, which was caused by a lockdown in the major producer, singapore, being one, of ships, and so we are dealing with that.
the executive is dealing with that as well. but i very much hope the gentleman will help us get that legislation passed, which will make a major difference. who says 14 or 17 laureates who wrote to the white house and said if these bills passed, it will not only help jobs, it will not only help climate and health, but it will help bring down inflation which is a problem. why do we have why do we have inflation? good news in terms of salaries going up for people around the country. so i tell my friend we do have some very substantial important legislation that we are trying to get done. it would be easier to get it done if we had help from your side of the aisle and your answer would be it would be helpful if you take some of our ideas. i get that.
we have something, the gentleman is concerned about all those issues. if we don't protect the full faith and credit of the united states of america, they will all get disastrously worse. and not one of you is prepared in a debt that we all created, all of us, not all on the same thing, may have been cutting revenues or increasing spending, this, that and the other, we all voted for substantial spending last year to meet the crisis of the pandemic. the cares act, the largest of those, $2 trillion was unanimously passed, voice vote. the only thing i would say to the gentleman is, we are very, very concerned about what is happening. we are very glad we created 5 million jobs.
9 million jobs were lost the year before that under mr. trump. he had a net loss of two million jobs -- two million jobs over his four years. net loss of two million jobs. this president has a net gain. and we are going to try to continue that and i hope we get some help from your side of the aisle. mr. scalise: we stand ready to help but washington spending and borrowing money solve the problem, we wouldn't have this problem because trillions have been bored and spent in this administration. in the previous administration, we worked together, the paycheck protection program, the cares act. they were very bipartisan and included addressing the debt that went along with it.
there isn't anything bipartisan on the debt. if the gentleman is concerned, then stop borrowing and spending more trillions of dollars. families know if spending trillions would solve the problem, there wouldn't be a problem. and what they know is it is the very borrowing and spending of trillions of dollars in washington that has has exacerbated. the inflation problem wouldn't have existed by borrowing and spending trillions of dollars making harder for the people to get in the work force. what was inherited? i think we know what was inherited by the biden administration. we had energy dominance the day president biden took the oath of office. gas was less than $2 across
america. we were exporting oil and natural gas to our friends around the world. instead of president biden begging opec to produce more oil, we were actually shipping oil to our friends because we could produce enough for ourselves. we created jobs here at home and low-cost energy and the technological advances we made here in this country, if there is anywhere in the world where fossil fuel production is going to be done, it will be done here. we were lowering carbon emissions here in america. and not only is relying on russia, they are paying more created by president biden's action, inherited an energy-dominant tphaeug. and now the president is begging
opec russia to produce more oil. they emit more carbon. oil is going to be needed to run an economy, any economy anywhere in the world, you want to make it here, but that's not what is being done. last night president biden was asked about this crisis that he created and his response was quote, i don't have a near-term answer for high gas prices. president biden didn't have an answer but we do. we have a number of bills and number of answers. h.r. 684, green lights the keystone pipeline. you want to create thousands of jobs, private sector money, more energy independence for america, this bill would do just that and do it today and the pipelines were a problem -- i know president biden doesn't want american pipelines but
greenlighted the russian pipelines. why don't we bring up h.r. 684. h.r. 859 would have more production in america that president biden shut down. there was production on going all across america. really good safe, environmentally sound production. our standards are the best in the world. go find a country that producees energy that does it better than america. and president biden through executive action shut production down. these bills would open that back up. these bills would lower gas prices, but president biden isn't interested in that because in his own budget he olympics the corps of engineers from doing infrastructure projects that would lower energy production. president biden. you would have thought opec or
russia would have come up with that idea and president biden said you can't do infrastructure projects if it lowers energy production. but yet that's in his budget. you go to the border crisis, self-created. president biden inherited a secure border. a wall was being built. you had tkpraoeplts with south america and central american countries. remain in america was a policy. it was an agreement between two countries and blocked it because president trump did it. it was working. he could go and reinstate that tomorrow. but we have bills that would solve the border crisis. h.r. 4828. this bill i brought to the majority leader's attention a month ago in september. this is a bill that deals with a number of problems facing our
border today and give more tools to our agents. h.r. 47 1-rbg another bill i brought to the gentleman's attention a month ago that would help secure america's border dealing with the crisis. none of these bills seem to draw the interest of the majority even though every one of them would address these real criesees. -- crises. and inherited an economy that was recovering from the worst pandemic we have seen in a lifetime and instead with all of these actions -- and on top of that there is a proposal to raise trillions more in taxes, more soviet-style spending coming out of washington that would make inflation worse. the gentleman is correct, we don't support those ideas that would make inflation worse and raise gas prices higher but we
bring a lot of good ideas that would address these crises. look at the floor schedule, last week, this week to address these crises. families are struggling. inflation is the biggest tax. president biden promised he wouldn't raise taxes on people making less than 400,000. and in the proposal that he wants to bring forward so he can fly to europe and talk about other proposals, they include among other things a natural gas tax. that would fall the hardest on lower-income families, not the millionaires and billionaires. people making less than 60,000. it is in the bill. talking about some i.r.s. agents, most people in america
have shivers running down their spine at the federal government who wants to track every transaction if they make more than $10,000 a year to track all those transactions with new i.r.s. agents. most people, it's called a nightmare right before halloween. why don't we bring bills to the floor to address these crises. let's work on other bills. all of these would address these problems and get us back to the point where we had a secure border and energy dominance and creating jobs. jobs are lower than what the projections were because there are all of these self-created crises by the administration. lowest income families that are being hit the hardest by these failed policies and all of the big government socialist
spending coming out of washington. we don't need more but we need to confront the problem that is creating a debt crisis. not going to be spending and taxing people more, but by working to address each of them starting at the root of the problem and i would yield. mr. hoyer: i don't intend to respond to each one of those asergs, but the gentleman ignored totally the facts. the presentation the gentleman made, madam speaker, was if the republican policies were in place, we would be in high cotton. let me remind the gentleman, donald trump was president -- you were in the majority, republicans were in the majority, madam speaker, and
over those four years, we lost a net 2.876 million people from jobs. the last 12 months of the trump administration, 9,416,000. the best year you had, you had 2 million jobs that is an average of 235,000 jobs a month. last month, it came down substantially from spepbgttation, it was 233,000. in other words, the wringing of the hands of the poor job performance you seem to reflect was the average of mr. trump's best year. and in fact, under this
administration, helped by a bile plan, that every republican voted against. what was the difference between the first five bills that were passed and the bill of 2021 ta every republican voted against, donald trump was president and then joe biden was president. like the debt limit. they know the debt limit has to be raised and all of the things that the gentleman just referenced are going to be hurt very badly. before you start criticizing people for doing things to help, why don't you stop hurting the ability of the united states to present a balanced fiscal posture to our own economy and to the rest of the world and have some servitude that united states is going to be
responsible and pay its bill. i don't know the answer to that question. perhaps the gentleman from louisiana knows. louisiana is -- not yet -- the gentleman from louisiana comes from a very important critical energy-producing state of our nation. i don't blame him for being concerned about energy. he ought to be. we all ought to we ought to all be concerned. we also should be very concerned about global warming which the national security apparatus of the united states of america even during the trump administration said was one of the biggest existential threats to the welfare of our people and the global community. so, yes, we are very concerned about reaching an environment which is not dangerous for life on this planet. that's a very big issue for us. you're right. and we are going to deal with
that in the build back better plan. we are dealing with it. we are dealing with it in the b.i.f. plan. the b.i.f. plan is a plan to spend $1.2 trillion on infrastructure investment over the next 10 years. which will make our country more competitive, will increase our ability to produce goods here in america, make it in america, which will make us more independence pent and self-sufficient -- independent and self- sufficient. we found in the pandemic we weren't as self-sufficient as we should be and want to be. these bills we are considering will do that. i don't expect many republicans to vote for it. even the transportation bill ought to be for, donald trump said he was going to have a $1 trillion infrastructure program during his campaign. then we went down to the white house, we had a meeting with him, he said no. a trillion is not enough. we ought to do $2 trillion. he did zero.
zero. when the republicans were in charge, zero. we are going to pass this infrastructure bill and it's going to make a real difference. it's going to make a real difference on jobs. it's going to make a real difference on inflation. it will make a real difference because we can increase the supply chain. it's going to make a real difference on the health of our global. i will tell the gentleman that he raises a lot of issues. i would hope his party would start returning to a sense of bipartisanship in dealing with legitimate problems that the gentleman raises. which we did in 2020. we did, we were in the minority, we were with president trump -- actually we were in the majority, but president trump was president, and we helped
support his and the treasury secretary's objectives and our own objectives, and we came to agreement, bipartisan agreement. very frankly it is unbelievable to me, madam speaker, that in the debt limit the minority leader of the united states senate and, very frankly, the gentleman just said, we all understand we don't want -- i presume he doesn't believe we ought to not raise our debt limit. i believe he wants us to pay our bills because he knows the catastrophic impact if we don't. but i don't understand why they won't support that. that's not an issue of democrat or republican. we all created that debt. one form or another. and certainly last year we did a big number because we thought we needed to meet the pandemic and we did, and we saved millions of
jobs in the process. my friend has these bills. we have bills. we are prepared to talk about proposals, as i told my friend in the past. but very frankly, there needs to be on some issues that ought not to be political at all, like the he debt -- the debt limit, a statement that we are loyal to our country, not to democrats. i said this the other day to the gentleman. the loyal opposition. not to democrats. not to me as the majority leader. not to any of us. but to the country. i would implore my friend to -- because we'll have to the debt limit. an omnibus. we want to do build back better. the infrastructure bill. those are four pieces of big legislation we want to do before december 3. i'm hopeful we can get some
cooperation from the republicans. i mentioned the debt limit because that is an issue that you came to us under the trump administration and asked us to help with. we knew it was critical for the interest of the country. and on three different occasions we voted with the president at the secretary of treasury under the trump administration's request and voted to make sure that america did not default on its bills. can i ask the gentleman will at least, madam speaker, the gentleman indicate that they will support making sure that america continues to pay its bills? i yield my time. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. i sure hope that the gentleman is concerned not just about making sure the credit card bill is paid, but making sure that the spending that maxed out the credit card is being done responsibly -- mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield -- mr. scalise: there are key facts
the gentleman left out in his conversation about how we got here. we got here because in january, one party, the democrat party, who is in the majority in the house, is in the majority in the senate, and has control of the white house made a decision -- i don't agree with the decision, made a decision they would go it alone on the spending side. they decided that they were going to max out the credit card. we urged them not to do it. we still to this day are urging not to go and just spend trillions and trillions more dollars if you want to work with us on what the responsible decision should be, we are right here. we have been here from the beginning. do you know to this day president biden has not met- we are in october. late october. president biden has not met with the house republican leadership. on any of these issues. any of them. the gentleman referenced a number of opportunities where, as it was described, we were there to help president trump. you weren't there just to help president trump. you were in the meetings when the decisions were being made.
paycheck protection program was not a partisan exercise. it was one of the most successful bipartisan exercises i have seen congress come together and do. everybody was in the room making those decisions. they were all very important decisions. big decisions. involved a lot of money. we all made those decisions together. we all voted for those bills together and then ultimately the spending that went along with it, the debt that went along with it, was part of that negotiation, and we voted for it together. there's not been a decision made this year where the majority has negotiated with the minority to figure out if we could come to agreement, so you did it on your own. you had the votes to do it. but when you max out the credit card on your own, don't come and chide our side and say, you need to be there to pay the bill when we weren't included in the decision to max out the credit card. and now that the credit card's maxed out, it's not like there is an effort to slow down. it seems like it's full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes, spend
trillions of dollars more on additional things like 83,000 more i.r.s. agents? do you think anybody on this side supports that? mr. hours: would the gentleman yield? mr. scalise: it will rack up more debt. we don't support it but i guess you expect we should may pay for it even if we don't support t maybe there was a negotiation where both sides were part of it. sam graves, the ranking member of the transportation committee has not been included in any of these decisions on infrastructure. yet i'm sure you would expect him to vote for whatever comes out of a partisan exercise. that's not how things work. i know the gentleman knows that. mr. hoyer: would the gentleman yield -- continue to say facts that are not true. mr. scalise: of course they are true. mr. hoyer: that's not true. mr. scalise: we all negotiated on the three debt ceilings that happened under the trump administration, cares, paycheck protection, they were very bipartisan, does the gentleman disagree with it? mr. hoyer: i do not. mr. scalise: those are facts. when you look at those facts, the gentleman talked about jobs
and could he vivmentd before covid happened we had the hottest economy. wages were up for every demographic group. those are facts. you saw small businesses up, women-owned small businesses up 20%. african-american unemployment was at its lowest level. hispanic unemployment at its lowest level. then covid came along. maybe there is a reason why the majority won't hold a hearing on the origin of covid. but if you want to say because of covid all that is donald trump's fault, clearly the economy shut down. we worked to get it back going again. it's coming back. frankly, some of the efforts to pay people not to work, it's not just enhanced unemployment, it's a whole list of things, are hurting the recovery. those things were happening before covid hit a year and a half ago. and it was because of good sound policies that got us a secure border, got us energy dominance. and was things like that that helped us get the economy going again. it was creating good jobs. keystone pipeline was moving
forward. those are good union jobs, by the way. that was ended by president biden. unilaterally. never even tried to have a meeting and conversation with us to see if we could come to agreement. and again i guess it's the prerogative of the majority. if you are in the majority you don't have to talk to the minority. but just because you didn't talk to the minority, you made decisions on your own about what you wanted to do, you didn't try to reach agreement with us, to come to us after the fact when you spent trillions of dollars, it's wreaked havoc to our economy, led to inflation we haven't seen in generations, gas prices we haven't seen in decades. then you want to come and not ask us how to fix t. we have ideas on how to fix t. you asked us to pay the bill. why don't we work together on the front end and not rack up trillions more in spending because of the things the gentleman talked about. would rack up trillions more in spending which created these problems which we were not a part of those conversations. i wish we were part of the conversations. it was done in a bipartisan way. again, president biden, 10 months into his administration,
has yet to sit down and meet with house republican leadership to talk about any of these ideas and solutions we could come up with together, which is how it should be done. i would yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the reason i said he was misstating the facts. we have a bipartisan bill. it wasn't done by the democratic leadership. frankly it wasn't done by the republican leadership. it was done by members of the united states senate on the republican side and on the democratic side. that bill was sent over here with almost half of the republicans in the united states senate voting for it. and your leadership is lobbying against that infrastructure bill which would help all the issues you raised. you are urging a no vote on that. and you are threatening members who are going to vote for it, maybe not very many, because they know it is a bipartisan bill. madam speaker, the whip is
talking about bipartisanship. there has been so little bipartisanship. when there is bipartisanship, their members are disciplined. when there is bipartisanship on saying it wasn't a protest it was an insurrection, there was no bipartisanship on that. it was a we don't care what it was, we don't care that some people were killed, we don't really care that they were trying to stop the counting of votes for president of the united states of america. it was just a protest. that's what the president -- president trump, former president said the other day. what a bunch of huey -- hooey. there clearly has been a conscious decision made by the leadership on the other side of the aisle, madam speaker, against a bill that had 69 votes in the united states senate.
we only have 50. and it's being lobbied against by -- why? to hurt joe biden. yes. they voted, madam speaker, for the five bills. why? because ultimately donald trump was for them. not everybody voted for them. but the majority. as i said, cares, $2 trillion. absolutely essential. was passed. but the gentleman refuses to answer the question except to say, weapon, the credit card was maxed out. the credit card was maxed out by date, and a couple of those votes, which we helped as the responsible opposition. as we did with john boehner and paul ryan when they couldn't get
votes to pass bills to keep government opened. or to keep the united states from defaulting. yes, we cast the responsible vote. it's not a popular vote because it's demagogued, madam speaker. it has nothing to do with the debt. the debt has when you pass spending or pass revenue cuts. that's what affects the debt. and that's what all of us do. one way or the other. so we are all responsible. and we ought to all be responsible. but the senate leader on the republican side of the aisle said he's not going to do anything. not only will he not do anything, madam speaker, he will not allow the majority to do it on their own. because he is going to filibuster. so it requires 60 votes. we don't have 60 votes. we have 51. so not overwhelm will they not
do the -- only will they not do the responsible thing on debt, which would adversely affect if we do not extend it all of the things that the minority whip lamented were wrong. would all be adversely affected if for the first time in history, madam speaker, we fail to extend the debt limit. which, by the way, very few countries have. one one or two. it's a phony issue. the debt is not phony but the limit is controlled by what budgets we pass, what tax cuts we pass, what policies we pass. and once we do that, you go in the store, as jim mcgovern, the chair of the rules committee, we go in the restaurant, we buy the steak, need to pay for the steak. and the argument, madam speaker,
of, oh, well, you're proposing a lot of spending in the future, totally unrelated. the debt limit is caused by the debt that we already incurred. two bills that we have don't affect the debt limit. we've met it now. not when we pass the billed. not when we make that commitment. we have a debt limit coming up on december 3, which was totally irrespopsable, for political purposes only, ends with the funding of government. at that point in time it didn't hurt inflation, i've been amazed over the year, the last 10 years, we haven't had more inflation.
for a number of reasons. but he didn't answer the question whether he'd help on that. that's not for us, it's not for republicans or democrats. it's for our country. frs our economy. it's for global fiscal stability. i would hope at least in this area, not for us, i'm not asking you to do it for me. i'm not asking anybody to do it for me or for my party or for the president of the united states. mitch mcconnell says it's the country and the global community that could not afford default. that's true. let me tell you, i think that's the first step to showing bipartisan responsibility together, not for one another, but for our country, madam speaker. and i hope that at some point in time we can show that kind of
good faith and also show some good faith, i included this morning, the remarks that president george w. bush made in pennsylvania, sangsville, and the kind of america he wanted to see. i would hope all my republican colleagues would read what george w. bush had to say. it is so much different if the rhetoric of the current leader of the republican party, donald trump, in term of bringing us together as a country. i yield. mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. i'd be happy to at-bats the gentleman, it may not be the answer he wants, but i would be happy to be part of a delegation to solve the country's debt. but if you look at the debt
limit, it absolutely dealt with spending not that has already happened but will happen in the future including debt laden bills. it picked a date, the date the gentleman put in the bill, is december 31 of 2022. that's not spending we've already done. that's spending the majority plans to do in a very partisan way not just through this year but through all of next year. when we're not even included in those decisions then you come and say you should just be expected to pay for whatever we want to spend. trillions more. between now and the enof a -- over a year from now. that's not a negotiation. that's not even an attempt to want to work with the other side. now again, the gentleman is in the majority, in the senate they're in the majority, and the gentleman very well knows that both sides have the ability if you want to do the spending on your own, to address the debt that would be created by all
that spending on your own. doesn't take 60 votes. the gentleman is well aware there's a legislative instrument that if all the spending wants to be done in a partisan way and i'm talking about the trillions still laying in front of us that the gentleman said may come to the floor next week, not necessarily will, might come to the floor, might come to the floor a mt. from now, might come to the floor a year from now, and we won't even be included in those go bus we ought to be expected to vote for the debt that would be wracked up by it? if the other side were being asked to do that, you know your majority wouldn't go for that. but we would at least include you in a the imoarks. if we didn't want to we would be responsible for doing it on our own if we do the spending on our own and the tools are there to do just that. threatening to default on the nation's debt when tools are included to not do that is irresponsible. that threat keeps being thrown
out there even the majority knows they could with a majority vote in the house and majority vote in the senate could deal with the debt that wants to be wracked up between now and next december. i urge that that spending doesn't all happen. that we come together and negotiate what budget limits should be like we've done in the past under republican and democrat presidents. those were bipartisan deals. there's been no bipartisan attempt to do that this year rm why is there an opposition to infrastructure? first of all if there was a desire to do bipartisan infrastructure you'd find a lot of takers over here. i know the jell made an assertion probably not realize bug there have been no threats made on our side of the aisle on a bill. i see people being followed in the bathrooms on the other side and all kinds of other things being done. no threats on this side. what we have said is, we want an infrastructure negotiation. but the day the deal was reached in the senate with the president, he turned around an
hour later and undermined that dell by tying it, linking it, to the tax and spend bill. that's when it became a problem because taxing and spending trillions more dollars would be a problem to this country. it would hurt middle class families and lower class families to have that gas tax. to have additional inflation on top of the inflation they already see. all those reasons why that package, note individual bill, becauseas the president himself has said, multiple times, as the speaker herself has said multiple times, it's not a standalone bill. it's not two standalone bill, it's a package. they're married together at the hip. that's where the opposition comes from. and there is a really good bipartisan infrastructure bill out there. s-3011. came over from the senate unanimously. $500 billion of infrastructure is authorized in this bill. i would ask the gentleman if he would bring this up for a vote,
it would probably fly overwhelmingly and it would allow for again about $500 billion immediately that could be spent on infrastructure all across this country plus an additional large sum next year, maybe $100 billion next year, on top of the $500 billion and it just passed out in the senate unanimously. every republican, every democrat supported this bill. this is real infrastructure. this is not tied to some tax and spend bill that maybe the gentleman might think is a good idea. we surely don't. we know how damaging it would be to our country and our economy and to middle and lower income families. this is a very bipartisan bill that could be bipartisan here. where we could be a part of a negotiation on something really good. where states wouldn't have to wait months. they've bot the money ready to go today. this gives them the flexibility to make their own decisions on what's best for the infrastructure in each of these states. maryland would be able to control their own destiny on over $1 billion. louisiana would be able to control their own destiny on
over $1 billion today if this bill passed. so absolutely we support real infrastructure. if it's tied together and married to something that would be devastating to the economy, of course do not and maybe if the majority would look at delinking those two and abandoning the bill that would raise taxes and even internally in the democrat conference, those discussions have been going on. that's not just republicans asking for that. there are a number of democrats asking for that too. that would be a bipartisan initiative. to say we're jettisoning this idea that we're going to raise hundreds of billions, if not multiple trillion, whatever the number, $5 trillion, it would be devastating to our my and middle class families. let's abandon that and go work on something that would be real infrastructure that we could all rally behind. it would pass overwhelmingly. president biden would get to sign it into law. we would support that. i ask the gentleman to look at
s. 3011 and not a supporter of that plan that passed with 100 senators, maybe there's another idea, but this is a good one that got every republican and every democrat in the senate to say yes and we'd say yes to it as well if given the opportunity. i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i think that bill passed the nat wednesday, we'll look at it, we haven't had a chance to look at it at this point in time. i want to get back, i know this sounds like a broken record on the debt limit but the gentleman makes the point, madam speaker, that somehow we've raised the debt to accommodate spending. that's what you always do because if you reach the debt limit, you're done. you stop social security. you stop veterans' payments. you stop any support payments. you stop paying the armed services of the united states. that's the spending you stop. when you can no longer incur
debt. why? because we spent a lot of money perk but -- we put it on the credit card, it's coming due. it comes due on a regular basis, we have to pay it op a regular basis. and the gentleman has voted for a bill that does exactly what the bill he lament and up in of his colleagues voted for, madam speaker, exactly what he asked us to do. extend it by a date. not a number. by a date. and then he hypothesizes, well, in that time frame you'll incur additional expenses. he's absolutely right. so he's lamenting and giving as a reason for his not voting for it is because there's some proposals to spend money in the future. there are. lots of them. from all sides. and then he brings up this tied together. let me tell you who tied it
together, the republican leadership has tied these together. and yes the president talked about it. he said no, they're not tied together. he said first of all tied together, then he said no, i gauched this bill, going to do it. but i will tell him as the majority leader who brings bills to the floor, the infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote and put together in a bipartisan vote republicans, democrats, and the president of the united states. now he is the president of the united states. i know the gentleman voted against certifying his election in a bipartisan move, i suppose. but madam speaker, that bill will be brought up separately. if you vote for that bill on its merits, vote against it on its merits. don't hide behind you don't like some other bill.
because donald trump said he was going to do $1 trillion on infrastructure to help our economy. he didn't do it. then he said it was going to be $2 trillion. he didn't do it. republicans were in the majority, they controlled the house and the senate. they didn't do it. we have a bill they can vote for. i would urge them to society for extending the debt limit so our country meets its full faith and credit obligations and for the infrastructure bill because i think it is a bipartisan bill, gauched by republican, by democrats, and by the president of the united states, that will help our economy and as i said, and i will reiterate, every issue the gentleman raised, madam speaker, in his opening remarks. i yield back and i'm about to yield -- mr. scalise: i thank the gentleman. there's clearly a borne bill on infrastructure we'd be happy to support. s. 3011. nobody in the house was included in any negotiations, including
the ranking member of the transportation committee who himself has been urging a large bill, $450 billion was put on the table which by the way if that were passed it would be the largest infrastructure bill in the history of the united states. and yet, he was pushed out of the negotiations. again the majority has that ability. because they're in the majority. but they surely never tried a bipartisan negotiation. as well as as the -- as well as the gentleman knows on those prior agreements, it wasn't just voted for or against because of who was in the white house. it was voted for by both parties because the negotiation on what that spending limit was, was agreed upon by the leadership of both sides. house, nat, republican, democrat, we came to agreement on these budgets. and that's why the gentleman voted for it. that's why i voted for it. it was a negotiated agreement. there were give and take on a numb of items. ultimately you agreed by a date certain but under a budget agreement. last date certain of december 31
of 2022 that has no bipartisan agreement. we know what a lot of the spending will be because trillions have already been spent that we were not included in. we opposed, strongly opposed and the gentleman knew that when he brought the bills to the floor but brought them to the floor anyway because you had the votes. that's the way majorities i get it, that's the way majority works. if you exclude one party and spend the money anyway and a list of trillions more in spending down the road and include that in a bill, don't really think anybody expects the people who are pushed to the curb to vote for the credit card limit being increased when alt spending that will continue to be racked up. not that's already been racked up. that would be racked between now and december 31 of 2022 will be done in a partisan way. that's what the record has been so far this year on the trillions that have already been added by bills passed by this majority. they weren't bipartisan.
again, that's the prerogative of the majority. we stood here ready. we have listed bill after bill that would address crises after crises. none of which have been brought to the floor. we are still ready to go to solve these problems. we talked about a bipartisan bill on infrastructure that we can support. ultimately the majority makes that decision. yield back. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, if this congress had never met this year, we would have to extend the debt limit at some point in time. this year. that is a fact. and mr. mccobble has said it is -- mr. mcconnell has said it
is inconceivable we would not extend the debt limit of the united states of america and fail our obligation under full faith and credit. as matter of fact, the constitution on the 14th amendment says it shall not be questioned. we have to take some legislative action. the issue is, what is our responsibility to the united states of america? not all this argument that pretends that somehow some bills that are proposed on spending or some that may have been passed this year, if they hadn't been passed, somehow we wouldn't have to do this. if anybody on either side of the aisle believes that to be the case, that would be defeated by their constituents because they don't know what's going on here. on either side of the aisle. and this is a very serious issue
with respect to jobs, infrastructure, inflation, health care, environment. all of those will be adversely affected. in terms -- and the global community itself if we do not extend this debt. we can argue about the other issues, but there is no argument about this issue. every republican president has asked that this be done. every republican secretary of treasury since i have been in this congress 41 years, has asked that we extend the debt limit. every one of them. without fail. and every one of them has said, preying on -- president reagan on that if we did not do it the country's economy, reputation, and well-being would be put to disastrously at risk.
i don't want bipartisanship. i want patriotism. i want people committed to their country and their country's well-being. to stand up. and say i'm not going to demagogue an issue that is so critically important to the welfare of my nation. i said to the gentleman again exactly what we passed, they passed when they were in the majority and we voted for it. setting a future date. not a number. a future date. exactly we didn't ask them to do anything more. in terms of bipartisanship i will again say, you've got a bipartisan bill negotiated in a bipartisan way that would be coming to this floor at some point in time, i hope earlier rather than later, separately.
not tied to i don't like this bill, i don't like that bill, so i won't do this, that, or the other. which will substantially grow jobs in our country. deal with the climate crisis in our country. i would ask you to support both of those propositions when they come to the floor. in a show of bipartisan support for our country, not for each other, but for our country. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: -- mr. scalise: we need to do this in a bipartisan way which hasn't happened. partisanship is not patriotism. we have seen a lot of partisanship, again, if president biden served in leadership under three different presidents now, when we had to
negotiate how to come together on the priorities of our government, how to properly fund things and deal with our debt, under president obama we had those bipartisan meetings in the white house. when president trump came in we had those bipartisan meetings in the white house. still to this day, late october, 10 months into his presidency, there's not been a single time where president biden has brought a bipartisan group of our leadership together. i understand he's met with democrat leadership many times in the white house. again, that's his prerogative. he's the president. are you in the majority. if you want to do this in a partisan way, don't suggest it's healthy or the right way. everybody president i served under in leadership has had bipartisan meetings to have these conversations to come to agreement. that has not happened under this president. he ought to go and live by the words that he promised during the campaign that he would work with both parties in a bipartisan way to not have met with house republican leadership once during his presidency, 10
months in. it's not an acceptable way to run this government. and then all of a sudden things end up partisan and everybody throws their hands up and go how did this happen? just reach out. he's the president of the united states. if he says let's go tomorrow, we'll be there tomorrow. but he won't do that. we have asked for meetings. at some point they have to happen. again, if he doesn't want them to happen, that'ses his perfect rog turf -- that's his prerogative because the same party controls all levers of government. if they control all leforts of government and wanted to toss aside either party in either chamber. even some of the senators that were mentioned are not supporting what's happening because there's been no negotiation with both parties on the debt. on the spending that gets us to the debt. so there can be proposals for trillions more in spending. and if we oppose it, we have been very clear about why we
have that opposition. it wasn't us who married those bills together. president biden came in here just two weeks ago. they said he was going to be closing the deal. he's going to be a closer. have a vote on the house floor. the speaker promised there would be a vote on the house floor. instead at that meeting it's been reported he said the two bills are tied together. since then he said i want both of them tomorrowling -- coming to me. he's tied them together. i wish he wouldn't. it's the president's prerogative. he's made it very clear. the speaker's made it very clear. it's not been our side that's done that. we want to separate those as a package, but they have been kept together as a package. until then at least we have been looking for other opportunities and we found one. that's 3011 that passed the senate unanimously. that would be $500 billion in real infrastructure today. every governor, every state would have the ability to start doing $500 billion in new
infrastructure projects. we think that would be really good for our country. we support it. we are ready to negotiate. i field -- yield. mr. hoyer: madam speaker, this needs to come to an end, obviously. will i tell you this as i stand here as somebody who sat on this floor on january 6, and the question was would the house perform its function of accepting the electoral college vote to elect this president, it wasn't that there hadn't been voices in the past who have raised questions, but there was no effort by ms. clinton who received the majority of the votes, or mr. gore who received
the majority of the votes to raise a question about the legitimacy of the election. we had an insurrection incited by, incite vieted by, and deployed by the president of the united states. so we didn't start on a very good bipartisan basis. again, not because republicans should have been happy that their candidate was not elected anymore than we were happy that our candidate was not elected in the clinton and gore campaigns. it was at least we ought to uphold the constitutional principles. vice president pens -- pence did and there were people in this capitol on that night who wanted to see him, apparently,
eliminated. that wasn't a good bipartisan start, madam speaker. the majority of republicans voted against certifying the electoral college results in state after state. but we put that behind us. that's done. what we are doing now is we are acting on behalf of the country. the two issues that i dwelt on because i think we have agreement on that, rhetorically and intellectually, but not electorally. not in terms of voting. the debt limit should never be breached and we need to invest in infrastructure. two simple propositions. senate minority leader says we should never breach a full faith and credit of the united states of america. but i won't help you do it. i don't get that, frankly. seems to me irrational.
and then an infrastructure bill passed overwhelmingly by the united states which we are putting on the floor unchanged. as it was. not coupled, as it is and was. and saying let's vote for that. i yield back. mr. scalise: we stand ready to work if there is bipartisan efforts made. we'll see if that develops. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from virginia seek
recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to speak on the house floor about summer. summer was born on the fourth of july and was named for the season. her mother said that summer was a firecracker. she was vivacious, she loved to dance, she loved to sing. she loved music. but summer died of a fentsal overdose in january of 2020. summer substance use dissard began after she was prescribed oxycodone for -- after a car accident and when the prescription ran out, she turned to heroin. this vie brandt -- vibrant yulings young woman lost her life to a substance use disorder and amid her loss her mother has turned to add voa cancy in her honor i was proud to introduce the bipartisan support
for recovery act, legislation that would create guaranteed funding stream for recovery support services and community organizations. ms. spanberger: of her daughter she said i know what she would want is to say please get help. this bill would help deliver that help to others. just as summer and so many others that we have lost to substance use disorder would have wanted. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. there comes a time to dispel the myth we must choose between women' rights and children's rights. mr. wenstrup: now is the time we can protect both. sadly abortion reveals society's inability to love, protect, and care for the most innocent and helpless among us. when we devalue life our society
suffers. when we deem some to be nonessential, we devalue their lives. i'm strongly pro-life and consistently stand up for the rights of the unborn and the born. our society is willing to and does care for the mother in need, perhaps she's scared and alone. americans across the country reach out to help mothers and the children that they are nourishing in their wombs. i must rise today to i must rise to express concern that the democrat's proposed spending bills lacks protections to ensure taxpayer spending funds are used for abortions. taxpayer funded abortions not only harm us as a society but violates the religious freedoms of millions of americans. the hyde amendment does just that, ensures taxpayer funds don't go to abortion. however the democrat's build back broke plan doesn't contain those life-saving po techs. in 1984, then-senator biden
wrote, those of us opposed to abortion shouldn't be compelled to pay for it in. god we trust, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from nevada seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. seven months ago, democrats passed a historic tax cut for middle class families and lifted millions of children out of poverty. since then, some of my conservative colleagues have had the audacity to complain we help today many children. in my district, here's what it means when 97% of families are eligible for the child tax credit. for yvette it means healthy food on the table. for sara, it means being able to afford her child's preschool tuition. this mungos straight into our local economy, helping parents get back to work and build the future their children deserve. without a clean extension of the
child tax credit, american families will lose this critical support just as the economy begins to recover. this tax credit isn't a handout. it's about putting hard-earned tax dollars back in the pockets of working families with children and for any of my colleagues who won't vote to help their constituents, let me be clear. i will vote for the families in your district and mine because our children deserve nothing less. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania seek recognition? >> madam speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to recognized the storied career of admiral craig fowler, commander of the u.s. southern command. admiral fowler is a native of freiburg, pennsylvania, in the
pennsylvania 15th congressional district. his naval career started in 1983 following his graduation from the u.s. naval academy with a degree in systems engineering. from there he went on to serve during the gulf war. during his service, admiral fowler has held a variety of posts and positions from supporting the united nations sanctions against iraq, humanitarian efforts following a devastating tsunami off indonesia, cooperating -- supporting operations new dawn and new freedom. his service took him all over the world. regardless of his location on the sea or shore, admiral fowler consistently provided leadership and guidance. he currently serves as commander of the u.s. southern command and will be retiring from the navy at the end of this month. admiral fowler, thank you for your service to the united states of america. your dedication to our clint is admirable. enjoy your retirement, you deserve. thank you, maps, i yield back me
balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas seek recognition? ms. jackson lee: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute. ms. jackson lee: it gaves me great joy when i can come to the floor and really speak directly to the moms and dads and families that right now as we stand on the floor are probably looking to gather children from schools, looking at what they're going to do over the weekend, maybe doing grocery shopping, looking at the resources they do have or do not have. so it is important that we immediately pass the build back better act and that those who have a difference of opinion realize there is always a greater good, we've gone to war, we've not gone to war to be an offender, we've gone to war to defend principles of democracy. i believe the build back better act will provide greater pricing of prescription drugs, expanding medicaid for only 12 state, the
state of texas happens to be one of them, where 733,000-plus people are uninsured. these are working people. expanding federal medicaid is going to help people in states like kansas and south dakota. if they won't speak for themselves i'll speak for america. in addition the care economy really says that we must give child care and universal kinder barten -- kindergarten to people so we can be advanced and our people can be help. finally let me say voting is important and crucial, we must pass societiing rights. i yield back. this is build back better and build back better makes america the best country in the world. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> thank you, madam speaker. i rise today to celebrate the life of corporal dwayne e. dewey
for his service, sacrifice and dedication to our country. corporal dewey's instinctive action and bravery on april 16, 1952, saved the lives of a number of his fellow soldiers and earned him the highest military decoration for valor, the medal of honor. he began his service in the marine corps in 1951 when he enlisted for the duration of the korean war. on that day in april, corporal dewey and his fellow -- april of 1952, corporal dewey and his fellow marines were engaged in a firefight where they were outnumbered more than 20-1. during this fight, corporal dewey was wounded in the legs by an enemy grenade. while being treated for this injury, another grenade was thrown within reach. at a moment's notice, corporal dewey grabbed the grenade and literally sat on it while pulling the medic who was treating him onto his body, using his body as a shield to
save those around him. amazingly, although he sustained severe injuries from both grenades and a separate, additional bullet wound to the abdomen, corporal dewey survived the fight. these actions of this great, brave, courageous man earned corporal dewey the medal of honor which i hold here today hurricanes challenge coin and it was presented by president dwight d. eisenhower himself, the first one he did personally, who notably remarked, accurately, i would say, remarked that corporal dewey must have a, quote, body of steel. well, madam speaker, corporal dewey is the epitome of an american hero and we honor his legacy and never forget his selfless actions. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise
and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, in 1886, a product was brought online, coca-cola, and it remained one of the most popular products of all time until 1985, 99 years later, when they came out with a great idea, new coke. the problem is, new coke was a terrible idea. and three months later they they brought back what they called classic coke because of the terrible, terrible idea had to be fixed. making our military be vaccinated against their will is a terrible, terrible idea that needs to be fixed. let me be clear. i've been vaccinated. i have encouraged everyone to talk to their doctors and see if the vaccine is right for them. but ultimately vaccination is a choice that shouldn't be mandated on our fighting men and women. as of yesterday, 30% of our total force remains completely unvaccinated. are we prepared to lose 30% of the total force? how do we think that's going to impact military readiness?
the pentagon when they came out with this program said it was for mill rare readiness. come on. some branches of the military offer waivers for religious reasons but what if a breastfeeding mother isn't comfortable getting the vaccine? i've heard from several breastfeeding mothers. this needs to be fixed i feel ask all my colleagues to join me in this effort. new coke is not working. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise to express my continued opposition to elizabeth warren and house democrat efforts to expand the i.r.s., to spy on everyday americans' bank accounts with transactions over $600 and i know there's been talk of raising that to $10,000. i'm opposed to all of this.
madam speaker, the banks already have mechanisms in place to catch suspicious activity. those are called sars, or suspicious activity reports. we don't need additional tools to harass everyday working americans who are struggling to pay their bills. if the intention by the democrats is to go after people who are billionaires and multimillionaires who are not paying their taxes, then spying on the average american's bank accounts with over $600 transactions is not going to do it. so we have to do things in a better way. we have to focus the i.r.s.'s time to where it is best served and that's to focus on tax cheats, not everyday, average working americans. i urge opposition to this infringement of our rights. madam chair, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i request
unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, i rise today to express once again my sincere dismay that democrats continue to ignore the wishes of the american people by removing the hyde amendment and other life-affirming protection for the unborn from their bills including their big government socialist tax and spend reconciliation bill. my constituents are righteously angry that democrats in control of this body time and time again hues chooses to violate the sanctity of life. moreover, they're furious at the thought of their tax dollars being used to violencely end the lives of millions of unborn babies, millions of precious heart beats in the womb. madam speaker, you and i both know full well that the hyde amendment has saved lives. this is not just an opinion, but a proven fact that simply cannot be ignored. i will always stand in support of the hyde amendment and
unapologetically fight for the sanctity of life and i urge my democrat colleagues to abandon their political charade and restore the hyde in the bipartisan way it has been supported for almost 45 years. again, i urge you to restore the hyde amendment. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, any trust that doctor fauci might have gained over the course of the pandemic is now completely out the window. mr. lamalfa: he must be resigned, in his case referred, for prosecution for perjury. for the past year and a half critical decisions for the whole country have hinged on dr. fauci's decrees. two presidents have used his
advice for the basis for response to covid-19. yet we have clear proof he's been lying to congress. how can any american trust his judgment or that he'll tell them the truth when we -- when he can look members of congress in the eye and lie about gain of function research. he's repeatedly testified that the national institute of health did not fund research that was gain of function and had a heated exchange over the specific claim with senator rand paul. the n.i.h. notified congresses of it was aware of 2018-2020 that equal health alliance did conduct gain of function research at wuhan. this was not allowed under the grant's rules. equal health alliance has sought a grant from the darpa in 2018 but was denied funding because they were worried it might be gain of if you think research. dr. fauci must resign and must be prosecuted. i yield back.
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee to have the minority -- designee of the minority leader. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. interesting times we're living through. i understood that that was also a curse, may you live through interesting times. we certainly are enduring that. i see an article from the new york post, october 18, 2021, it's entitled "biden secretly flying underage migrants into new york in dead of night."
now what we've come to see at the border in texas is that the administration, this administration, has learned that gee, we've got a record number of people pouring into this country illegally but if we can ship them away from the border quickly enough, people don't see them massed by the thousands and so if they don't see them, no harm, no foul. i guess they're thinking if no one is in the forest to hear a tree fall, does it really fall? the truth is, when you the trutu abandon the rule, the rule of
law won't extend beyond that. this is devastating to the country. and some would say it is compassion nature to invite people. when you hear doctors that probably 25% of the women they have seen raped along the way and sue see children separated from their parents in order to give them a better chance to stay in the united states so the parent can some day follow. you see people that become servants of the drug cartels, selling drugs, sex trafficking, human trafficking, that is not very compassion nature and seems the most compassion nature things in the united statesgovernment can do to our friends and neighbors to the south would be to secure our
southern border so nobody comes in illegally. that would keep out the drugs, the fentanyl, those things that are killing 70,000 people a year in the united states, but the big thing though for our neighbors would be that the tens of billions of dollars pouring across our border to the drug cartels that allows them to corrupt every level of mexican government, would stop and people wouldn't have to live in fear of the drug cartels controlling mexico, controlling countries to the south. that would be the compassion nature thing to do. i'm joined by my dear friend from virginia, congressman bob good and i would like to yield
such time as he yields. mr. good: thank you, madam speaker, there are so many cries sees -- crises in this country right now and this president is a hard left radical, probably most of us underestimated the speed and effect teufrness which he could ruin every situation in our country. it is hard therefore to determine or identify what is the greatest threat to the country right now, what is the greatest crisis with no hope to get better under this administration, whether it is the vaccine mandates, things we couldn't -- when this president ran for office he said he wouldn't issue a mandate and now we see it today, people being laid off, heroes are now zeros
and getting fired. the first responders, the health care workers, our military. vaccine mandate, out of control, reckless, irresponsible unprecedented spending and $28 trillion worth of debt, which is $89,000 per american and we find ourselves today with majority party trying to determine how they can come together for another $5 trillion. is it the spending, is it our education system? whether it is the product that we are not getting with how much we spend, the federal mandates and intrusion into state and local education and teaching of c.r.t. or transgender policy, whether it is masks and vaccines
on children, which i agree is child abuse with no demonstrated medical justification on children or vaccines for young adults who have almost no risk for covid. china rattling off missiles. we have the debacle in afghanistan. iran, korea have no reason to fear us. 35% rise in crime while our police are a threat of funding being reduced or undermined of being harassed, is it massive inflation, a hidden tax on every american where their savings and resources are being depleted by too many dollars, is it breakdown in the supply chain and what that is coming to mean,
is it declining war on energy and depending on foreign provisions from a hostile country? i submit to your point, congressman gohmert, immigration, immigration, illegal immigration and invasion, absolute invasion at our southern border may be the biggest crisis. article 4, section 1, it is responsible for the federal government to protect the united states from foreign invasion. never in the history of our country has our own president intentionally done more to harm the nation than this president has done with what he's done with the invasion at our southern border.
i yield become. mr. gohmert: it is not compassionate to lure people, lure children into this country away from their parents with some hope down the road that maybe they'd get back together, that is not compassionate when you lure people to the detriment. if the u.s. government were susceptible to being sued by people that have been lured into the country to their detriment and by the open border policy end of causing them to be basically totally under control of the drug cartels, then there would be attractive nuisance lawsuits against this president,
against our federal government for not securing our border and drawing people in who have been harmed, constantly people being found that are dead that try to make it in and yet the drug cartels being so heartless, they don't care if they die or not. but they do want to continue to add employees or servants all over the country and it is rather dramatic how this president, this administration is doing so much to aid and abet the drug cartels and getting their servants all over the country in cities. and of course, it is true, we have americans that are paying
for the drugs, paying for the sex trafficking, but we should be doing so much more as a federal government to prevent those things from happening. an article from politico, of all places, it's not just republicans, everyone's mad at biden over migration. you have "daily mail" from october 20, facebook admits users can share information on illegal immigration and being smuggled. arizona attorney general calls for investigation into tech giant for facilitating human and sex trafficking. so, once again, just like with our elections, you've got the
democrats in positions of power in the government working hand-in-hand with the tech giants for something that is just terrible for human beings and that is facilitating human and sex trafficking. i yield to my friend. mr. good: this is the greatest country in the world as you know. there's a reason why people from all over the world want to come to the united states. never in the history of the world has a nation been more welcoming to immigrants, to people from all corners of the globe who are seeking a better life, seeking freedom. no country has given opportunity to all backgrounds who come here legally to make us a stronger nation, a more perfect union.
people from all religions, all races, all ethnicities seeking desperately to come to the united states of america, a country that is under assault for who it is on the nation, the left, who condemn this country and change and transform this country into that from which these people are fleeing. i had a reporter say to me once, well, there is not an easy fix here to the immigration situation. i said all we have to do is go back to the policies working a year ago that largely defeated illegal immigration at our southern border. we know that walls work. i had the privilege of going to the border three times, twice to arizona and once to texas.
something that apparently our president has never done and our vice president has certainly never done as her time during her time as the quote, unquote border czar. as i went for the first time -- i had driven near the border and i could see the meager fence that was there but i never got out and walked and talked to the people who live there, the people who are subjected to this illegal invasion, the folks, some of which are very dangerous, but all are coming desperately for their very reason, invading, threatening and harming -- i met with a rancher family who had a family member killed. but meeting with ranchers, law enforcement officials, border patrol, those on the front line
living with and working best they can under this administration against this administration to try to do what they can to deal with the border crisis. and walls do work. the enforcement that we had in place a year ago was working, ending catch and release and accomplishing remain in mexico. turning people away in title 42 policies. we were on the way to fixing the broken immigration system. but this administration, with complicit help and support from this majority, of this democrat majority in this congress is just not neglecting our southern border, not just failing to fix our broken illegal immigration system, but they are part and parcel, complicit and
intentional in facilitating this invasion and as you know all too well, hiding it from the american people as they do it. and i yield back to you, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: there are so many crises that are on going right now, we have the economy being harmed even more by policies of this administration with the president and all of those working with him and for him, demanding that everyone be vaccinated and the president himself has said, we need to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated and he is saying the way to do that is make sure that all the unvaccinated are
vaccinated. so this administration's solution is we have to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated by making the unvaccinated get the vaccination that does not protect you from the unvaccinated. it makes no sense and some as some doctors have said, if somebody put out a vaccine that killed 200 people, they would immediately slam the brakes and say, whoa, whoa, whoa. let's hold up. we got to find out what the problem is here. but we know from reports that have been made that there are people that have died from having the vaccination. we're thrilled that
vaccination -- the vaccines were produced so quickly, president trump got a lot of the red tape out of the way. however, it ought to be a choice after talking with -- between a doctor and a patient, and the doctor understanding the risks inherent because the biological makeup of this person for taking the vaccination and then let the individual decide. but if the vaccination works as good as we were told originally it did, then there should be no vaccinated person really concerned about those that are unvaccinated because they would be protected. i'm glad that the administration is starting to have cracks in
their adamant position that having had covid and having antibodies is not nearly as good as having a vaccination. i'm glad they're starting to, some of them, at least, observe the science, that gee, it's probably a little better if you've had covid, had the antibodies, as far as your future in fighting it off. so i am encouraged by that. but then, i see this article from october 19, as we know, we talked about before, the president, i believe he's doing something illegal in saying you've got to have the vaccination. and then he comes out and says,
we're going to have osha put together a rule requiring everybody to have the vaccination, but the president himself does not sign an executive order which could be taken to court. it's just the general policy of blackmailing companies, private firms, that we're coming after you if you don't force your employees to have the vaccination. it's really a bit insidious the way -- didn't even give people a chance to file suit. you just state a policy you're going to follow and then have everybody follow it. it makes it much more difficult to sue. but this article says osha will not enforce 29-cfr-1904's
recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from covid-19 vaccination. the biden administration is forcing you to take the jab in order to work and simultaneously the biden administration does not want the employer to tell them about workers who are injured by the jab. simply more evidence the vaccine mandate is not about your health. so that's a little disturbing. you would think if anyone cared about science and really cared about people, you would want to know about every abnormality, every adverse consequence of taking the vaccination. because we're really concerned about individual health. but that's not this
administration. they're putting out there, we don't want to know things that are bad. and i was informed about a person that had the vaccination and immediately died after the vaccination and was full of blood clots. not one. but many. and the physician noted the cause of death was blood clots from vaccination. and then the family was told the health official will not certify a death certificate if it blames the vaccination for the death, the widow is in a real bind because you've got to have a
death certificate in order to legally move forward and get things changed after the person died, you've got to show proof. and yet health officer refusing to attribute the cause of death to what it really was, according to the doctor, you know, the vaccination. so that's pretty remarkable that the government does not want to do its job in protecting people. i would think that if someone in government really cared about people, instead of caring about being a dictator, they would say, we want to know exactly what happened after a vaccination that went wrong, and which vaccine was it so we can document which ones are safer than other vaccinations. but that's not apparently what's going on in this country right
now. so we really need people stepping up and letting this administration know, letting their members of congress, their senators know, that they expect them to speak up. we want complete transparency. what works, what doesn't work. we don't want the government hiding things from us anymore. i yield to my friend. mr. good: once again i want to say how privileged we are to be among the some 5% of the world's pop ligs that gets to live here, despite all the things we're battling through, struggling through as a nation. the crisis we're face, the tyranny of this current regime that's leading us. and our first president, who i believe was our greatest president, i believe divinely inspired, appointed by god, to be that first president to the
united states, who would not be king, refused to be king, and instead we find ourselves today with one who seemingly would be king if he could or thinks he is king, it seem, by actions. in a free country, which we still are, to some degree, to some degree, it is not the government's role to protect us from ourselves. we choose in a free society to endure or be exposed to some risks for our precious freedoms. we're a nation of the people, by the people, for the people. a nation whose founding documents proclaim our god-given right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of -- not the government provided, but the pursuit of happiness. and here we find ourselves today something we could almost not have imagined each year or two
ago. where our most precious, most basic of freedoms, have been under threat, under assault or worse. stripped away from us, in the name of a pandemic. in the name of an emergency. the american people should make no mistake that covid policy needs to be viewed through a long-term lens. there is no such thing as a one-time exception. what we will endure or accept or submit to today becomes the pattern, the model, for the future. and again our most basic freedoms we have seen are freedom are movement, where we can go. our freedom of assembly, who we can be with, our freedom to work and to provide for ourselves and our family, to open our business, to frequent a business, to worship, and then
the most basic of freedoms of all, our freedom of our person that we now have a president who, again, a year ago, because he would not have gotten elected otherwise, said he would not enforce a vaccine mandate, later said he didn't have the authority to enforce a vaccine mandate and you know better than i, constitutionally has authority to force this vaccine mandate, setting aside whether or not it's helpful or justified medically, just speaking legally and constitutionally, the federal government has no authority to do this. serply the executive does not have the authority to act like a king and do this. certainly he doesn't have the authority to compel businesses to do that which he does not have the authority to do. and yet we see a total disregard, this was a president who ran, you know, as the uniter in chief, and instead he's the divider in chief.
separating and dividing people based on vaccine status. demanding that people disclose their most basic of personal information, whether or not they have received a vaccine, and then under threat of penalty of their job and worse, not to be able to go where they want to go and do what they want to do if they don't comply with the heavy hand of the federal government. and in this terrible, terrible spending package which is not just the trillions of dollars but it's what's in it, one of many, many terrible things in it, that the american people need to know about, is making the penalty for a business that doesn't comply with this vaccine mandate up to $700,000 per occurrence. your point what a shame. what a travesty. that our own government is lying
to us about covid. and about the vaccine. here we know that medicine and science is supposed to be challenged, it's supposed to be debated. it's supposed to be learned from. we don't want the same medicine frommiester year, we want the very best from today. we don't just hold on to what was before. we get a medical diagnosis that's troubling, we get a second opinion. we consult with more than one person. we learn, we establish the evidence. but as you know this government this federal government this executive administration, with their complicit allies in the media and big tech, shuts down any dissent, to your point, on the stated narrative, the approved narrative, no matter how many times over the doctor in chief, the celebrity doctor in chief is proved wrong or contradictory, whether it's on gain of function or whatever it
might be, any dissent is shut down on the risk of the vaccine. and there are risks. and some people understandably make the decision that for them because of their health, because of their youth, because of their exposure or because they have natural immunity because they have already had covid, or their religious reasons or whatever it might be, they decide they don't want to have the vaccine and this government and their complicit ally we was already mentioned are lying to us that there are risks to the vaccine. they obviously have been lying to us about the efficacy about the vaccine because as you made the point, we're going to force the unvaccinated to get the vaccine that doesn't protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. they're lying us to about the efficacy of masks. as you know, what we're forced to wear in this chamber when we're not speaking at the lectern, pretending that a cloth mask makes a difference. there's medical documentation for that, which there's very
little conclusive evidence to that effect, as you know. yes, sir. mr. gohmert: read results of one study that indicated that if you wear a mask you are .2 of 1% less likely to get covid there is that. there's -- at least .2 of 1% that it's apparently helpful. but we don't know the results of long-term wearing of masks. the additional co-2 that may be taken in or germs that are kept in a mask that would have not been breathed in repeatedly. we don't know the results of all that. but that's fine. but that's still very different from forcing someone to have an injection which we know can have
very adverse effects. and that's why it ought to be an individual decision to make. but these -- then again, but also contribute to a crisis in enough people doing jobs that allow us to have supply chain that is intact and getting people the things they need. you may have anticipated, but there were people making jokes that the vice president said several weeks ago -- may have been in august -- that people needed to get their orders in now so they would get things by christmas. wow. apparently they saw this coming,
but to the point that's been made by my friend about the various opinions from the same people when it comes to dr. fauci, when it comes to the president, it's hard to find an issue that they haven't been for more than one side of -- fauci would say don't use a mask, yes, you should use a mask and then he says use a mask and then seen at a baseball game not wearing a mask and not socially distancing but then he has given different opinions and has reminded me of winston churchill's comment about kaines, the economist, but
if you look back and do some research on the guy, he often when he got into debate was confronted that some theory he had didn't work, he would immediately take the other position and say i was not for that but for this. winston churchill -- and i believe this is close to veer bait im-- and he said if you put two economists in a room, you would have three different opinions unless one of them was sir kap ines and i'm getting that from dr. fauci but apparently dr. fauci needs to come to tkpreups with the fact when he says u.s. never funded
any research, that, ok, the evidence is is there, had us going for a while and the evidence is in in and that is not true. so hopefully in all the myriad of opinions he has, he will come around and find the truthful opinion when it comes to his group to gain of function research that helped weapon tphaoeuz the covid virus. mr. good: this administration, this executive branch of government, as you said, is republickizing its -- weaponnizing. what greater weapon can we use
than to strip folks of their ability to earn a living? but part and parcel with this presidential regime, who believes that the greatest threat to america is americans, conservatives, patriots, those who vote the wrong way, as they see it, those who might have supported the previous president, those who show up at school board meetings, those who don't get a vaccine they say you have to receive. they are weaponnizing the i.r.s. and want to approve the trillion of dollars and hire 85,000 i.r.s. agents, can be more effective on their assault on the american people. here, we are turning the federal
government against parents who show up at school board meetings to express concern about what is being taught in their schools, which they have to fund, and you see that this administration looks with contempt upon the american people, with contempt upon our law enforcement and first responders, with contempt upon our military, has told our military, the greatest threat to the country, in addition to climate is white supremacy in the military, racism in the military and we see the c.r.t. forced upon our military while the chairman of the joint chiefs saying he wants to understand what white rage is. i would like for him to understand what china is doing,
on going in afghanistan, what is up with north korea, afghanistan, but they are focused on weaponnizing the federal government and its resources against our very citizens. mr. gohmert: the attorney general of the united states jump into issue of disagreements at school board meetings is absolutely astounding. we have record crime especially in cities controlled totally by democrats. crime is going up tremendously. and yet -- and i know that and merrick garland knows the constitution, at least he has at one time, and he knows there is
no mention in the constitution of a federal role in education and yet he sends out a memo saying basically, it's pretty intimidating, that we are going to start digging into these school board meetings and weaponnizing or using the justice department to go after people who have differences of agreement that happen to degree with dr. king that people should be judged on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. so who would have believed that 40, 50 years after it seemed we were so close to dr. king's
dream being realized, that you would have an administration totally committed to undoing drk to judging people by the color of their skin instead of the content of their character. it's just shocking. but then -- and of course the saying in washington is and has been for many years, no matter how cynical your it's never enough to catch up. well, then we find out after attorney general garland sends out the letter that he is going to go after these people that are in disagreement. turns out that his son-in-law and daughter make a tremendous amount of money selling things in support of critical race
theory, judging people by the color of their skin and not by the content of their character. and i notice it is pannarama and they sell material to school districts, according to this article by kelly patterson, and that has a nationwide focus, on quote social and emotion climate, which is interesting. i guess they are wanting that climate changed as well. but contracts in more than of the largest school districts.
they are supporting students in 23,000 schools across the 50 states. the co-founder sudan tanner is attorney general garland's son-in-law and talks about the 21 different staoeuts where they are -- states where where they are spreading this stuff. and gives justification for new curriculum in schools that parents have taken issue with such as critical race theory. but since 2017, the company has raised $76 million from investors. and just last month pannaramma struck a financing raise with general atlantic. so rather amazing, just when you
think you can't get more cynical about what this administration is doing on, we find out, gee there is gain afoot here on this issue of the attorney general weighing in to school board meetings -- of course, that's kind of flying in the face of the idea that white supremacy and climate change are the two biggest dangers to america. for those of us that had incredibly good constitutional law professors, we know those professors would say where is the federal nexus? there has to be some federal reason, something that gives the
federal government the right to come in and control school board meetings. shortly after i got here, i had a law that i was working on having family involved in schools. my mother was a school teacher and i know back then, the administrators had the teachers' backs. but now, because of so many lawsuits so easily, quickly filed, administrators would say things to teachers like, look, i realize this student is a total disruption to your class, but his mother or father or both will file lawsuits and we don't
need a lawsuit so do just do the best you can. my thought was, as a judge, i had what was called judicial immunity, you may not like my rulings, but you just can't sue. there was judicial immunity. i thought -- what if we created an educational immunity, you may not like what a school does or teacher does or principal, but unless they have committed a crime, you can't sue them, and that would allow things to get to the place where they used to be. when i was growing up, if you had a problem with a teacher or some issue in the school, then you went to the school board meetings, like the attorney general is trying to stop now. and if somebody on the school board or too many on the school
board didn't see it as a problem, then you ran for the school board, got elected and fixed it. because of lawsuits, that has totally changed the way schools have had to approach things. and what if we gave them educational immunity. and i have asked representatives from the educational folks and they came and i made the presentation and they said i'm not sure we could support that. i said it would keep your teachers from being sued at the drop of a hat. people could complain to the school board but you can't just go after a teacher. well, it turns out, they got back to me and said, they wouldn't be able to support that bill. and i was just mortified, mystified, too.
why would they not be behind that. and then one of my friends who said, do you not understand, the biggest cash cow, the biggest money maker for the teachers' union is liability insurance if you take it away, the teachers can't make money off of liability insurance. there goes that big cash cow. yes, it would make life easier for teachers, but the unions, the people who are making money from unionizing teachers, they will never support something like that. so going back to the old adage,
no matter how cynical you get around here, it's not enough to catch up, constantly being reeducated on that issue. mr. good: thank you, congressman gohmert, for allowing me to participate with you. just one final thing i'll add, we certainly have agreement, most americans do, that we have surrendered control k-12 through college of our education system to the hard radical left. it's refreshing to see parents engaged, parents standing up and saying this is not what they're paying for. this is not what they're going to stand for. that's the silver lining in the pandemic as more parents became aware of it. i'll make one more reference in my final words here to the spending package being debated by the majority, trying to bring to the floor for a vote. it would take it a step further as you know and it would take it to free, not only free community college which is a step toward free college and probably eliminating faith-based stewings that wouldn't be eligible for the free college by the way, the
marketplace would probably eliminate them as families chose the free public education, but take the preschool, and the child care, that's now proposed to be free. faith-based institutions would not be eligible for the free child care, day care, preschool. that is an assault on the choice that families make. then the requirement in this bill would be that day care workers, preschool workers would have to have a college education. and that's an assault on those home-based day care, preschool facilities because this administration and their allies in academia, are determined to get control of our children now from age 2 or 3 in preschool and beyond at your provided taxpayer expense. i thank you for allowing me to be with you and i yield back the remainder of the discussion to congressman gohmert.
mr. gohmert: thank you. i appreciate my friend from virginia more than he could ever know. and i'm glad he's here. but along the lines of rights that we've had that the constitution has assured, we're finding civil liberties, still are being trampled. article here by glen greenwald, it's just excellent summary on, well the title tells it all, civil liberties being trampled by exploiting insurrection fears. we have people in this body that are constantly referring to the insurrection on january 6. we've heard the president and others say that it was the worst attack on democracy ever.
and even a person that i don't often agree with but f.b.i. director christopher wray, even he pointed out that gee, it's kind of tough for those of us who recall 9/11 to say january 6 was a worse attack on democracy. if you were just judging by time, heard from attorney general garland and it's been in the news many, i think 200 to 300 were charged with obstructing an official session of congress. for four to six hours. but if you go back to june 22 of 1916, i'm sorry 2016, we had 26 hours of obstruction of official
session of congress. congress twice tried to go back into session was prevented each time, and it was about 26 hours before the efforts of so many to obstruct congress finally were withdrawn so we could have congress again. but i didn't realize back then that this offense was out there. i knew there were many violations of house rules that went on. but then when you see, oh my gosh, just obstructing congress carries up to 20 years in prison, i don't -- i'd be interested to know if any of those people who were obstructing an official session of congress realized that they were committing a federal felony carrying up to 20 years in prison and up to $250,000 fine. but fortunately for them, paul
ryan was speaker and chose not to really do anything. but those are the kind of things that when the american public see that people are doing things wrong who are supposed to be making the laws and following the laws and yet they're the worst violators, it is not helpful, nor healthy for the country. i know one of my constituents, and i'm not defending any crimes that have been committed, but is a guy, he was on "ellen" after rescuing dogs in a hurricane, he was arrested for his role in the capitol and what i've learned
from him, his family, these people are being so mistreated. we've heard from other people. but we had a federal judge here that said, enough is enough. and he finally held the warden in contempt and as i understand, the warden has lost his job of being warden. but there's an article from sara lynch, jail violated civil rights of capitol riot defendant. but these folks are not being allowed to, at least some of them, not to shave. not to get a haircut. and i thought we were decades past those days. because i know all the county jails with which i'm familiar, they would make sure people were
dressed out, had a haircut, shaved if they wanted to, before they came to court. that they were not going to have them forced into an appearance like the unabomber, looking like some wild, crazy person. making it easier for a jury to convict them because they looked like a neanderthal. and yet that's exactly what the d.c. jail has been doing. and it was reported that after the judge held the warden in contempt, that there was a late night effort by people at the d.c. jail that as i understand it is partially under control of the bureau of prisons, but they
sent people to start scrubbing the black holds -- black mold that was causing problems for some prisoners and painted areas that were disgusting and they let some of these folks that were arrested because of january 6 event, let them know we hold you accountable and you're going to pay for it and then some noted the terrible smell of cleaning fluid on their food that they couldn't eat. many are tired of eating baloney sandwiches for months and months in a row. i do know this. the reports we've been getting indicate that the folks here that are being held in pretrial confinement and are being punished, although that's unconstitutional to punish somebody while they're awaiting trial and not being convicted, that they're not treated nearly
as well as bloodthirsty muderers being held in gahn ton -- murderers being held in guantanamo. i've been down there more than once, seen how things go there. it is rather tragic that american citizens are being treated so much worse than individuals that want to destroy america, that have killed, participated in the killing of thousands of americans, but here's one from gateway pundit, newly released video showed january 6 political prisonerriermy brown save -- prisoner jeremy brown saving a female trump supporter who was trampled by capitol police. that's from october 20. here's an article that was this summer, six months since the january 6 attacken the capitol -- attack on the capitol, points out that works out an average of three
defendants arrested every single day including weekends since january 6. 235 defendants have been charged with corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding an official proceeding and attempting to do so. but this article from sara lynch, october 13, jail violated civil rights of capitol riot defendant, u.s. judge says, and i have a copy of that order. but a.g. garland tried to blame d.c. for conditions at the jail and treatment at the jail when actually he's in charge of what happens to pretrial prisoners that the department of justice is going after. so nice try. but we need people here facing
up to their responsibility. and i would just conclude with a comment that i never, ever thought i would hear myself say. but after seeing the partisanship, the use of official position to help a daughter and son-in-law finances, thank god mitch mcconnell didn't bring him to be confirmed to the supreme court. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to refrain from engaging in personalities toward the president.
under the speaker's announced policy of january 4, 2021, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. cloud, for 30 minutes. mr. cloud: thank you, mr. chairman. this july 4, we celebrated our 245th anniversary as a nation. and we indeed have a lot to celebrate. margaret thatcher once observed that while europe was created by history, america was created by philosophy. to thatcher's point, the united states is unique in history in that we are founded on the
principle that we are all created equal. and that our inalienable rights are in the a grant from government but endowed to us by god. and that a just form of government derives its power from the consent of the governed. these founding principles have made us a city on a hill, an example of freedom and liberty to the world. we truly hold a special place in history. like every nation in history, we have had our challenges and we've made our mistakes but we have introduced into humanity the model of a nation not defined by our government but by with the people. with each generation we have perfected our understanding of what it means to realize that truth that all of us are created equal. and that we're always working toward that more perfect union. a young nation in the scope of history, we stepped onto the world teenage with unmatched
confidence -- onto the world stage with unmatched confidence. knowing our cause was just. we pushed back on the design of those intent on marxism, communism, socialism. emerging victorious after world war ii when most nations throughout the world would have required tribute we instead offered the world the opportunity for partnership and peace. a world where trade among nations, even those nations that would oppose us, would be protected by u.s. strength. in this conflict and others since we have sought friendship, not lordship, with former foes, working often at our expense to build other nations, free of political shackles our scientists have brought the world innovation that's improved people's lives, from the availability of electricity and energy, automobiles and airplanes. our advancements in medicine have ceyed lives the world over and improved the quality of life for millions.
with america's rise, humanity has benefited. here, for example, we see that life expectancy during what we have come to know as the american century has almost doubled. actually over doubled. while there's still work to be done, we can see that global abject poverty has declined dramatically during this time. and while there's legitimate debate about our involvement in global conflicts, in the broader scope of history and humanity, we have overseen a period of relative peace. as you can see our growth in military strength has corresponded with historic lows in conflict fatalities. during what historians have
called the pax americana. indeed, for so many of us who are recipients of these blessings, it can seem these hard-earned peace and prosperity we enjoy as americans are guaranteed to us and they'll automatically endure for generations to come. to assume this would be a grave gant and -- arrogant and costly calculation. ronald reagan said freedom is never more than one jen trags from ex -- generation from extinction. we must protect it and hand it on to them to do the same. or else one day, we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like to live in the united states where men were free. we would be rise to reflect on history and take stock of this moment and see if there is indeed anything we can learn from history. it is notable that the average life span of superpowers
throughout history is just around 240 to 250 years. and as i mentioned at the outset, this july 4, the united states celebrated our 240th anniversary. history would also tell us there are fundamental reasons for the rise and fall of great nations. historian and philosopher will durant wrote in his work tiled the story of civilization saying it's not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within. according to british historian and international relations scholar paul kennedy, former great powers typically exhibit the same factors. an overextension of the military and foreign liabilities, economic decline of important manufacturing and agriculture sectors, and fiscal irresponsibility. does this sound familiar to us in this chamber? but history also reveals to us there's a cycle to the rise and fall of great nations, a pattern, if you will, that
typically the global power structure goes from a multipolar to a bipolar to a unipolar nation. most recently, we saw this coming out of world war ii. going into world war ii, the world consisted of great powers, britain, germany, japan, russia struggling with preeminence. we moved to a bipolar world with the united states and soviet union being the dominant forces. in 1991 the soviet union dissolved. and it ushered in the pax americana. now, a multipolar world is not a place to be. it has been much less stable. commerce, freedom, travel, and navigation for people are hampered. human flourishing is stifled as resources are devoted to global struggles instead of innovations and improvements and quality of life like hospitals, schools, research. in spite of this, it should not
surprise us there are powers across this globe that they take issue with america's strong influence. there are nations that would like to restructure the balance of power to push us into a multipolar world. indeed, this has been something that iran has talked about for decades. they've been vocal in their desires and efforts to diminish u.s. influence and usher in a multipolar world. in moscow, april 23, 1997, china and russia signed a joint declaration on a multipolar world and establishment of a new world order which states this, they should strive the multipolarization of the world and the establishment of a new international world order. these nations have something in common. they have sought to consolidate and maintain their power, not through the guaranteeing of freedom for their people but rather through authoritarian rule over them. as americans and certainly as policymakers, we would be
grateful mistaken to -- gravely mistaken to have governing systems that seek to promote human liberty with these authoritarian systems that survive through the contraction of these human liberties. while i may not agree us to move toward a multipolar world, i can certainly understand them. i can understand their aspirations to diminish the united states influence and supplant of their own. but what would be shocking to most americans, though, is that in addition to adversarial nations, people have been working through this multipolar objective for decades. they worked to distort the american system, to gather wealth and power from the sweat, blood, and tears of hardworking tax-paying americans. generations of freedom-loving americans both in and out of uniform have given their best under the assumption this government had their best
interests in mind. in 2008, the united states national intelligence council released this report. the global trends 2025, a transformed world. in this report, united states national council declares the unprecedented shift in relative wealth and economic power, roughly from west to east, is now under way and will continue. the united states relative strength, even in the military realm, will decline and u.s. leverage will become more constrained. they went on to explain the major causes for this. they said that in terms of size, speed, directional flow, the transfer of global wealth and economic powers now under way, roughly from west to east. it's without precedent in modern history. this shift derives from two sources. first, increases in oil and commodity prices have generated windfall profits for gulf states
and russia. second, lower costs combined with government policies have shifted the manufacturing and some service industries to asia. so they said there's two major trends causing this massive shift in wealth from the american people to authoritarian regimes overseas. shortly, to summarize, ceding our oil and gas industries overseas and shifting domestic manufacturing overseas. now, if the report were simply an honest look at trends, perhaps even a warning to us, i could appreciate that evaluation. but instead of making the necessary adjustments to counter this trend, our bureaucrats in d.c. embraced it and sought to help aid in this fleecing of american wealth and transition to a multipolar world. as a matter of fact, the report called this transition one of the world's relative certainties. the report, however, based these conclusions on assumptions that we now know are false or at best
incomplete. as a matter of fact, the trump administration showed us just how quickly these assumptions could be up-ended. the united states in a matter of months went from an energy dependent to an energy dominant nation. and policy changes were put in place that began to encourage rather than discourage companies to return to the u.s. soil, including manufacturing. yet, those in entrenched places of power in our government continue to endorse this transition as inevitable and looked down on those who don't embrace this world view of the sunset of america's greatness as being inevitable. as a matter of fact, on july 22, 2009, in a speech given in the ukraine, then-vice president joe biden said of the obama-biden administration, we are trying to build a multipolar world. we're trying to build a multipolar world. the biden administration continues that effort in earnest today. and they're doing it in a couple different ways.
they are earnestly at work to both prop up competing powers and also working to diminish american strength. and suddenly, as we consider more recent history, what has seem like a series of policy missteps and blunders begins to make sense. we can now understand the stifling of energy production here at home while encouraging that same energy production overseas. with far less environmental standards abroad. the tax and economic policies that drive american businesses and jobs overseas. the sending of billions of dollars in foreign aid to prop up corrupt powers overseas. we can think about afghanistan and the withdrawal debacle and the leaving of the thousands of dollars of our best technology overseas. and the policies that discourage the american worker and stifle economic growth seem less like a tragic miscalculation and more
like a plan. all these factors contribute toward this march toward multipolarism. that unprecedented transfer of wealth and influence from the american people to competing adversarial regimes. should we call that a fleecing of the american people? in this time of turmoil in our nation, the lurching from crisis to crisis, the american people have become disillusioned with, quote, leadership, from washington, d.c. they have watched the fruit of their best efforts squandered away. they have watched their sons and daughters sent to fight endless wars with obscure objectives. trillions have been spent by politicians with very few actual problems solved. the globalists in our government have been selling away our nation's treasure, the treasure that our parents, our grandparents and their grandparents worked hard and fought for. and this has become the real divide in our federal
government. the contrast between a multipolar globalist world view that wishes to shame us out of our nation's strength and send america into her sunset years or a world that believes that what is precious and right in america is worth preserving. and that we should aspire to be that moral beacon of liberty for the world to see. a city on a hill. here's the good news. never has a nation been so blessed with abundant natural resources, access to earth's great oceans, a river system that waters our fertile grounds and facilitates commerce both within our nation and to the world. we have a people who unshackled by the burden of an overreaching government stand ready to do their best work, to apply themselves to the next generation of innovation and invention, of scholarship and learning, ready to develop the next generation of cures, to provide affordable food, fuel for our neighbors here at home and abroad, and, yes, also stand
ready to respond when those intent on tyranny, destruction and world domination rear their ugly heads. the answer for our nation and indeed for the world is not the dismantling of the american system. it's not the embrace the socialist, progressive policies that have failed time and time again, leaving in its wake the shattered dreams and lives of millions. it's not in america ducking its head in shame and retreating from its place of leadership. rather, it is to embrace what has made america great in the first place. it's in a renewal of the american promise. it's in a return to our shared foundational values, albeit practiced more perfectly. it's an embrace in our hearts and minds as americans that we the people are what defines us as a nation, that we are one nation under god with liberty and justice for all. this is the great work that lies before us as americans, for
those of us who serve in this chamber, and for those whom we represent. may our efforts be noble and just and may god shed his grace on us. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to section 11-b of house resolution 188, the house stands adjourned until noon on monday next for morning hour
download c-span now today. >> supreme court justice clarence thomas and senate minority leader mitch mcconnell spoke at an event marking the 30th anniversary of clarence thomas' confirmation to the supreme court. from the hair stage foundation -- heritage foundation in washington, d.c., this is an hour. one hour. [applause]