[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 30, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2682-H2694]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1015
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2, INVESTING IN A NEW VISION FOR 
       THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION IN AMERICA ACT

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1028 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1028

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to 
     authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway safety 
     programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure now printed in the bill, an amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-54, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure; (2) the amendments en bloc described in 
     sections 2 through 7 of this resolution; (3) the further 
     amendments described in sections 8 and 9 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, it shall be in order for the chair of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer an amendment en bloc consisting of the 
     further amendments printed in part B of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     amendment en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 3.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in section 2 of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee to offer an 
     amendment en bloc consisting of the further amendments 
     printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The amendment en bloc offered 
     pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee to offer an 
     amendment en bloc consisting of the further amendments 
     printed in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The amendment en bloc offered 
     pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 5.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in

[[Page H2683]]

     section 4 of this resolution, it shall be in order for the 
     chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     or his designee to offer an amendment en bloc consisting of 
     the further amendments printed in part E of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     amendment en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 6.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in section 5 of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or his designee to offer an 
     amendment en bloc consisting of the further amendments 
     printed in part F of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution. The amendment en bloc offered 
     pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 7.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in section 6 of this resolution, 
     it shall be in order for the ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure or his 
     designee to offer an amendment en bloc consisting of the 
     further amendments printed in part G of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. The 
     amendment en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 30 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     or their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 8.  At the conclusion of the consideration of the 
     amendment en bloc described in section 7 of this resolution, 
     each further amendment printed in part H of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 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, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall 
     not be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 9. (a) Prior to the offering of an amendment en bloc 
     pursuant to sections 2 through 7 of this resolution, the 
     chair of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
     or his designee may designate amendments that shall not be 
     considered as part of the amendment en bloc to be offered 
     pursuant to such section.
       (b) Any amendment designated pursuant to subsection (a) 
     shall be in order at the conclusion of the consideration of 
     the further amendments pursuant to section 8 of this 
     resolution if offered by a Member designated in the report of 
     the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       (c) All points of order against amendments en bloc 
     described in sections 2 through 7 of this resolution, the 
     further amendments described in section 8 of this resolution, 
     and the further amendments described in this section are 
     waived.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be 
given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1028, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, under a structured rule.
  The rule provides 2 hours of general debate on the bill, equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule self-executes a manager's amendment offered by Chairman 
DeFazio, makes in order six en bloc amendments in total, and makes in 
order three further amendments.
  Prior to the offering of an en bloc amendment, the chair of the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may designate amendments 
that shall not be considered as part of the en bloc and shall be 
considered separately.
  And, lastly, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, the Moving Forward Act provides more than $1.5 trillion 
to rebuild American infrastructure. The state of disrepair of our roads 
cost Americans $160 billion in 2014, and 200,000 of our Nation's 
bridges are more than 50 years old.
  Our aging water system loses trillions of gallons of treated water 
each year and leaves some families without clean water to drink at all.
  Children across the Nation are trying to learn in classrooms that are 
falling apart, without climate control in extreme temperatures, and 
without reliable internet access.
  At the same time, more than 200 million Americans are facing 
unemployment during a global pandemic.
  Our Nation is facing long-term economic repercussions of our 
inability to stem the spread of COVID-19. We must do something.
  Nearly a century ago, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt lifted this 
Nation up during the height of the Great Depression by putting 
Americans back to work. By investing in good-paying jobs and public 
works to improve our communities across the Nation, we were able to 
provide direct help for working families and invest in much-needed 
infrastructure. This shaped the face of America for generations to 
come.
  The time has come again to invest in desperately needed 
infrastructure projects that can put Americans to work right now in 
their own communities.
  There has been tremendous bipartisan agreement from leaders at every 
level of government, from our village mayors to the President of the 
United States, that this country must invest in infrastructure that 
will carry the next generation. The Moving Forward Act is the first 
step in meeting that need.
  With H.R. 2, we will be investing not only in transportation, 
housing, schools, and broadband, but in families, workers, and 
communities across this country. This legislation supports American 
manufacturing and ingenuity, and together we will create millions of 
jobs right here at home. We will secure the future of our children by 
forging a path toward zero carbon emissions, making our streets and 
transit safer, and bringing a better learning environment to every 
child.
  This legislation provides more than $300 billion to repair and 
upgrade existing roads and bridges, railways, and ports. We are going 
to provide $100 billion to put zero-emission buses on American 
roadways, cutting congestion, providing new options for families and 
workers. We are working to make roads smarter and safer for all users, 
including children, pedestrians, and cyclists.
  We will also provide over $100 billion to create or preserve 1.8 
million affordable homes, reducing housing inequality, creating local 
jobs, and increasing resiliency in the face of natural disasters.
  I am proud to support provisions to triple funding for Amtrak to 
allow long-awaited upgrades and expansion of our Nation's passenger 
rail network. America has long lagged behind in accessible and 
efficient rail travel, and this funding will improve safety and assist 
local traffic congestion.
  The Moving Forward Act represents a true partnership between the 
Federal Government and American States and localities.
  The bill also permanently reinstates Build America Bonds and advance 
refunding bonds as well as increasing the issuance of private activity 
bonds, spurring private investment in community projects that our 
Nation desperately needs.
  We have $70 billion for clean energy and a plan to upgrade America's 
electrical grid to make it more efficient and more resilient.
  H.R. 2 also delivers affordable high-speed internet access to all 
parts of the country by investing $100 billion to

[[Page H2684]]

promote competition for broadband internet infrastructure to unserved 
and underserved rural, suburban, and urban communities.

                              {time}  1030

  As our Nation battles this global pandemic, and so many of our 
hospitals have been stretched to the brink, the Moving Forward Act 
invests $30 billion to upgrade hospital facilities to increase 
capacity, strengthen care, and prepare for future health emergencies.
  This bill invests $25 billion to modernize postal infrastructure and 
operations, including a zero emissions postal vehicle fleet, and puts 
Americans to work strengthening our coast with a $3 billion grant 
program for shovel-ready projects to restore Great Lakes, coastal 
habitats, and marine ecosystems.
  As we discuss the far-reaching benefits of the Moving Forward Act, I 
would like to note the significance of one particular provision that I 
was proud to advocate for along with my colleagues in the Education and 
Labor Committee, the Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act.
  Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, chronic neglect of America's 
public schools forced students and educators across the country to 
learn and work in outdated and hazardous school buildings. Now the 
pandemic is exacerbating this crisis and making abundantly clear how 
unprepared and under-resourced many of our Nation's school districts 
are.
  The Reopen and Rebuild America's Schools Act takes great strides to 
move beyond the traditional brick and mortar school infrastructure to 
support schools and designing the types of building and classrooms 
needed to serve students, especially those from low income families. 
This critical legislation is needed now more than ever.
  Today, we can work to not only help teachers and students get back to 
school, but commit serious investment in high poverty schools with 
facilities that pose health and safety risks to students and staff, 
expand access to high-speed broadband to ensure that all public schools 
have the reliable and high-speed internet access that students need for 
digital and distance learning.
  This legislation, the Moving Forward Act, represents a significant 
step we must take to invest in the future of American infrastructure 
from our highway systems to our classrooms.
  Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
support H.R. 2.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I serve on the Transportation Committee as well as the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Speaker, so I always get excited when there is a 
transportation bill that is coming to the floor. I am less excited 
today.
  My friend from New York is a wonderful leader for his constituents 
and a wonderful bipartisan leader in this institution. I look forward 
to his time when we get to question witnesses in the Rules Committee 
because invariably he asks a question that I might have asked or should 
have asked, and invariably I learn something from the gentleman and his 
line of questions that I believe is going to benefit this institution 
and benefit the Nation.
  And, candidly, as you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not always the way 
it is. Some folks are asking questions to get their next 30-second film 
clip so they can send it out on social media for purposes that perhaps 
are less valuable to the institution and to the Nation. And so I look 
forward to an opportunity to be down here and talk about a partnership 
issue, like transportation, with the gentleman from New York.
  He mentioned that this bill is designed to be a partnership between 
the Federal Government and the States and localities. Sadly, I must 
tell you that is where any suspicion of partnership ends.
  I went back and pulled the video from 2015 when we did our last 
transportation bill. As the gentleman from New York knows, we are 
assigned, so often, our Rules Committee legislation based on our other 
authorizing committee assignments, so I got to carry that bill back in 
2015. I was reminded how long it has been since I got to tell the 
Speaker that I will, by order of the Committee on Rules, call up a 
resolution. I miss that opportunity. I hope to get that back in 
January.
  But I had this big smile on my face, Mr. Speaker, because the speech 
that I got to deliver that day in 2015 was that the House was bringing 
the most open Transportation Committee bill in decades to the House 
floor. The bill I got to bring that day, Mr. Speaker, talked about how 
the bill passed out of committee on a voice vote, a voice vote, because 
Republicans and Democrats, as is so often true on the Transportation 
Committee, were arm-in-arm moving forward on an issue that is important 
to all of our constituencies.
  I had not even finished my Rules debate time, these 30 minutes, 
before I had to offer an amendment to the rule to make even more 
amendments in order than the amendments we had already made in order. 
And then we came back the next day and made even more amendments in 
order. At that time, Mr. Speaker, having had a bill that was worked 
through the process in a bipartisan way, that passed out of committee 
on a voice vote, we then brought rules to the floor that made in order 
about equal number of Republican amendments, Democratic amendments, and 
bipartisan amendments. To be precise, it was 45 Democratic amendments, 
47 Republican amendments, and 34 bipartisan amendments after the 
process had been worked in a bipartisan way already, after the bill had 
passed out of committee on a voice vote already.

  Today, that is not the kind of rule we are bringing. And I recognize 
that COVID has made our voting requirements different today. But this 
bill didn't pass out of committee, the committee on which I sit, the 
Transportation Committee, on a voice vote with everybody in agreement. 
This bill passed out of committee on a strictly party line vote, 
because this bill, unlike the bill that had been worked through in a 
bipartisan way when last we reauthorized service transportation, this 
bill had been worked in a purely partisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that at that time we made in order, roughly, 
a number of Republican amendments and Democratic amendments and 
bipartisan amendments. The rule before us today makes in order a 
roughly equal number of bipartisan amendments and Republican 
amendments, 17 bipartisan amendments and 19 Republican amendments. Less 
than half the number that we had made in order when last we worked this 
bill when we did in it in a partnership way.
  But while the bill makes in order an equal number of Republican 
amendments and bipartisan amendments, again, 19 Republican amendments, 
17 bipartisan amendments, it makes in order 134 Democratic amendments. 
Now, mind you, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that this process has been a 
partisan process from the beginning in the Transportation Committee, 
meaning, it was worked entirely through on the Democratic side of the 
aisle. So as Republicans come to the floor, those Republicans who don't 
serve on the Transportation Committee for their only opportunity to 
influence this process, and I said it, and the gentleman from New York 
knows it to be true.
  Back in 2015, I said what is wonderful about opening up the process 
is that every single one of us has something to contribute. The more 
than 700,000 people that sent each one of us here have something to 
contribute. The wonder and uniqueness of this institution comes from 
the variety of Members who come here to serve and the varied 
experiences that they bring.
  Seventeen bipartisan amendments, 19 Republican amendments, and 134 
Democratic amendments made in order by this rule. Even the Democrats 
were shut out of the partnership process, because any serious 
legislator on Capitol Hill knows the right time to get your language 
included isn't in an amendment on the House floor, it is by going to 
your chairman or your ranking member.
  If I want to get something done on the Transportation Committee, I go 
to my ranking member, Sam Graves, and I talk to him about it, and he 
talks to the chairman about it, and then we get it done together 
because that is the partnership in which the committee works, or at 
least the way that it used to work.
  It is unbelievable to me that in a time of great national distress 
that one

[[Page H2685]]

of the sole remaining vestiges of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, the 
Transportation Committee, and one of the primary vehicles for moving 
those partnership ideas, the highway transportation bill, has devolved 
into the partisan exercise that we find ourselves in today. It is not 
too late to fix that.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be urging defeat of this rule. If you listen to 
the reading clerk read it, you will know that if you have been watching 
this institution for any period of time, 2 years, 4 years, 8 years, 10 
years, 20 years, 30 years, you have never heard a reading clerk read a 
rule that looks like this. We have just never seen one that looks like 
this.
  So partisan have things become, Mr. Speaker, that the Rules Committee 
historically has offered en bloc authority to the chairman, because the 
chairman has been working in partnership with the ranking member. 
Because the way to dispose of amendments on the floor of the House in 
an expeditious manner, which we absolutely positively need in a COVID-
19 environment, is through partnership. In this case the partnership 
never started.
  I would like to tell you the partnership eroded, but that is just not 
true, the partnership never began. There was never an opportunity for 
erosion, and thus, we have the kind of en bloc authority that you see 
today, not designated to the chairman to enact, but created by the 
Rules Committee, and the chairman has an opportunity to oppose it if he 
would like.
  Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed. But for my colleagues who are also 
disappointed, this doesn't have to be the end of the conversation. My 
ranking member--I haven't talked to him in the last 2 or 3 days, but 
when last I heard him speak--said he was still committed to working in 
a partnership way. That he was absolutely available. From day one, he 
said, make me a part of this conversation, don't rule anything out. In 
fact, the chairman said exactly that last night, that the ranking 
member approached him early on in the process, and said, don't count us 
out for anything, we want to work in a partnership fashion.
  Mr. Speaker, we can defeat this rule. And defeating this rule isn't 
going to slow down surface transportation. Anybody who believes this 
bill is going anywhere is kidding themselves. This is a partisan 
messaging exercise. This is not legislating that we are doing here 
today, but we can move on to legislating. We can defeat this rule, and 
we can go back and--you know, just one crazy idea--we can make the 
Transportation Committee the partnership place it has always been.
  We can make infrastructure the partnership issue it has always been. 
We can make a difference, instead of just making a point.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am always excited to be with my friend from Georgia, 
and we do get to sit through long hours of the Rules Committee and 
question back and forth our witnesses. And he is right, I am not 
particularly media savvy, I have a face for radio, as they say. But we 
do find that time to be very informative. I struggle a little bit, I 
was not here in 2015, but I do know what has happened over the last 18 
months or so.

  First and foremost, I just note that in the midst of a pandemic, I 
think we can hardly be excused had we just done a closed rule. Put the 
bill before us for a vote without a structured rule, which is in front 
of us.
  I also note, and this is one of the challenges of trying to engage in 
bipartisanship, which I am not only a big fan of, but I engaged in in 
my previous life as a member of the New York State Assembly where we 
had a Republican Senate and a Democratic House, much as we find 
ourselves in here today, and we worked across the aisle to find common 
ground when we could.
  But I will say that I think that the difference between 2015 and now 
is the opposition of the minority, particularly as it related to a 
number of issues that dealt with climate change, and made it, as I 
understand listening to the chair of the Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure, effectively mitigated any chance of having a 
bipartisan agreement on this. But that is not to say that there aren't 
Republican amendments before us.
  I know Ms. Foxx will have an amendment here later. The ranking member 
of the Education and Labor Committee on which I serve, as well as the 
ranking member of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 
will advance an en bloc amendment. So there will be, and there 
continues to be an effort on our part to work across the aisle. But I 
do find it hard to be bipartisan, and I think if it was a voice vote, 
then I think there was general agreement. Clearly, there were 
differences of opinion here that we could not get past, and we felt the 
need very much to advance this.
  Mr. Speaker, I also will say, just to note--and I hate to keep 
hearkening back to my experience in State government, but I will, 
nonetheless, even though I hate it, I will do that, which is to say, I 
served under Republican and Democratic Governors. And something that 
would have been this important would clearly have engaged the Governor 
of either party in discussions with the members of the legislature in 
both houses.

                              {time}  1045

  And I note that while the President has indicated support for an 
infrastructure bill, I think it was over a year ago, back in May of 
2019, where the President hosted a meeting at the White House after 
having talked about a $2 trillion infrastructure package and broke up 
the meeting in anger and left, and as far as I know has not engaged 
either House in substantive discussions moving forward.
  So I don't disagree with my friend from Georgia. I know that he is 
profoundly interested in this institution and in working across the 
aisle, but there are times when, unfortunately, for various reasons 
that is not the case, and we have it in front of us today. And I feel 
compelled that we move forward on the Moving Forward Act because this 
is vital to the interests of the American public.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for H.R. 
2, the Moving Forward Act.
  America cannot remain competitive in the 21st century without modern, 
efficient infrastructure. Unfortunately, our roads, bridges, airports, 
and schools are falling behind.
  H.R. 2 makes transformational investments in our country's 
infrastructure that will revitalize America's backbone while improving 
safety, reducing pollution, and getting Americans back to work.
  To address our crumbling roads, the bill provides $300 billion for 
construction and maintenance of Federal highways and bridges. In 
Sacramento, my hometown, this will mean money for more projects like 
the new I Street Bridge that will help move people and goods safely and 
effectively.
  H.R. 2 also provides provisions to reinforce our commitment to 
fighting the climate crisis. It provides more than $70 billion to 
expand renewable energy sources and strengthen clean energy 
infrastructure.
  Additionally, the State of California and transportation authorities 
in my district will benefit from this bill's funding to increase 
walking, biking, and public transit options, all with the goal of 
cleaning up our air and limiting human contributions to climate change.
  H.R. 2 also accelerates the use of zero emission vehicles and ensures 
we keep up with demand by installing necessary charging infrastructure 
across the country.
  In addition, to keep Americans connected to the internet, this bill 
provides broadband payment support for low-income households and the 
recently unemployed. The COVID-19 pandemic has required our schools to 
fundamentally change the way they engage with students, and H.R. 2 
ensures children have access to digital equipment and affordable 
broadband options for remote learning.
  For America to remain the global center of innovation and growth, we 
must have 21st century infrastructure. This bill makes the forward-
looking investments to help get us there.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think my friend from New York is right that in the time of a 
healthcare pandemic that having a closed rule could have been a 
possibility. In fact, I

[[Page H2686]]

have no doubt that the only reason we have any amendments at all 
available on the floor of the House today is because my friend from New 
York, and particularly my chairman from Massachusetts, fought on behalf 
of having a more open process.
  I have no doubt that there are folks all across this institution who 
would have loved to have shut out all the voices altogether. And had we 
moved this bill out of committee with my ranking member's consent on a 
voice vote the way we did it last time, I would have supported the 
majority in trying to be more expeditious on the floor, because when 
you move things in a bipartisan way you get bipartisan partnership to 
get them across the finish line. But that is not the way this bill has 
moved.
  It is a valuable thing to be the chairman of a bipartisan committee, 
Mr. Speaker, and I would tell you it comes with a stewardship 
obligation to make sure it remains so.
  I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Graves), who 
will be the next chairman of the Transportation Committee, the current 
ranking member.
  Mr. GRAVES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say to my 
colleagues that we were putting our time to good use today, but we all 
know that we have an incredibly important obligation, and we have got a 
lot of work to do when it comes to infrastructure.
  We need to pass a long-term surface transportation bill to provide 
States and local communities the certainty to plan and execute highway, 
bridge, and transit projects across this country.
  If we don't do that, or if we pass short-term extensions, it throws 
their plans into chaos and it jeopardizes needed improvements.
  But that is exactly what we are going to do because the 
infrastructure bill in this entire process got highjacked by a partisan 
agenda that has more to do with pushing the Green New Deal than it does 
fixing our infrastructure.
  During all my time serving on the committee, Republicans and 
Democrats have always been able to work out their differences and find 
common ground to pass a surface transportation bill. We have always 
been able to do that.
  It is the most important legislative product that we produce on the 
committee, and members have always treated it as such.
  Time and again, that has been our committee's hallmark because that 
is the only road to actually getting something done for the good of our 
infrastructure, for transportation workers, and for the economy.
  But on this bill, that didn't happen. And I can assure you that 
wasn't my choice. This highjacked process began with a $500 billion my-
way-or-the-highway bill developed exclusively by one party.

  At a time when entire industries, workforces, and our States still 
face incredible uncertainty over the COVID pandemic, our committee 
passed a partisan bill to completely upend the functions and programs 
of the transportation system.
  Then immediately after the committee approved the majority's bill 
along party lines just over a week ago, the Speaker took the bill and 
tripled the size with so many air-dropped provisions that the only 
thing that isn't included is the kitchen sink. But, please, don't quote 
me on that, Mr. Speaker, because as far as I know the kitchen sink 
could be funded in this, as well.
  Although we do know one green thing that is not in this bill, and 
that is the money to pay for it. This $1.5 trillion climate bill, 
camouflaged as an infrastructure bill, piles another mountain of debt 
onto the backs of future generations.
  This irresponsible bill very well might pass the House, but that is 
as far as it is going to go. The Senate is never going to take up this 
unserious, progressive wish list. The Speaker may earn praise of her 
most liberal Members for this bill, but she is failing the American 
people and wasting the House's time on an issue that we all know could 
garner bipartisan support.
  We could be getting something done to improve America's 
infrastructure and provide the stability and certainty that workers and 
stakeholders need right now, if only the Speaker of the majority hadn't 
unnecessarily chosen partisanship over partnership throughout this 
entire process.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Very briefly, I do note that we certainly could have entered into a 
bipartisan agreement if we didn't care about climate change, if we 
weren't interested in the greatest impact on our carbon footprint by 
transportation and automobiles, and we create a number of provisions in 
this bill which we could not get support on, which is why we had to go 
on our own way.
  I do also note for my great friend from Georgia, 17 bipartisan 
amendments are included in this package. So there is bipartisanship, 
despite the feelings that the White House has given as it relates to 
this bill.
  Before I yield, I insert in the Record a May 8 Industry Week article 
titled, ``Crumbling Infrastructure is Hurting America's Competitive 
Edge.''

                          [From Industry Week]

     Crumbling Infrastructure Is Hurting America's Competitive Edge

                          (By Michael McGarry)

       With unemployment rates in the U.S. at historic levels due 
     to the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, it is more 
     important than ever to invest in areas that help get more 
     people back to work. Today, lawmakers should prioritize the 
     passage and implementation of a comprehensive infrastructure 
     program, as part of a future round of stimulus funding that 
     would immediately provide employment opportunities for many 
     Americans.
       Even before we started feeling the economic impacts of 
     COVID-19, our country was in dire need of these upgrades. 
     Data from the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) 
     reveals that underinvestment in U.S. infrastructure worsens 
     by the year, and infrastructure investment before the 
     pandemic was only one-third of what it was in 1960.
       Manufacturers, who today continue to provide essential 
     resources to the medical community and other front-line 
     workers, are currently relying on outdated roads, bridges, 
     waterways, ports, runways and drinking water systems, many of 
     which are more than 50 years old. More than 54,000 bridges 
     across the U.S. are rated ``structurally deficient'' 
     according to NAM. Roadways, ports and waterways are in 
     disrepair. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 
     released a report card in 2017 of infrastructure in the 
     country and gave the nation a rating of D+. According to the 
     U.S. Department of Transportation, 65% of major U.S. roads 
     are rated as ``less than good condition.''
       In addition to the challenges we will now face due to the 
     current economic environment, these deficiencies take an 
     additional toll on manufacturers' bottom lines, causing 
     unreliable delivery times and increased fleet maintenance 
     costs. Congested highway networks add $74.5 billion to 
     transportation costs for manufacturers moving goods and raw 
     materials by truck, according to the American Transportation 
     Research Institute.
       In order for America to remain globally competitive now and 
     after this pandemic, our leaders must be committed to 
     improving our infrastructure. China's infrastructure 
     investment is almost double the size of the infrastructure 
     spending in the U.S., and India's infrastructure investments 
     are growing at a rate that triples the infrastructure outlays 
     of the U.S., Canada and Mexico combined. Manufacturing 
     workers in the U.S., and all Americans, should refuse to 
     settle for infrastructure that lags behind the rest of the 
     world.
       Many have acknowledged that the current economic challenges 
     bring an opportunity to upgrade the nation's neglected 
     transportation systems. Stay-at-home orders covering nearly 
     the entire country in March and April kept Americans off the 
     road, and gas tax revenues have plummeted as a result. 
     According to the American Association of State Highway and 
     Transportation Officials, state and local governments need 
     $50 billion to ensure that they can continue existing 
     transportation construction and maintenance programs without 
     disruption. The nation's airports also need a backstop to 
     make up for lost user fees. Keeping current infrastructure 
     projects afloat is only a start.
       Our deteriorating national infrastructure is not solely a 
     state or federal issue. It is not a small or large business 
     issue. It is not a Democratic or a Republican issue. 
     Infrastructure is an American issue that directly affects our 
     ability to compete in the global marketplace and provide 
     financial security for millions of American families.
       Once it is safe to work, the U.S. government should 
     mobilize to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. It would 
     ensure that the nation emerges on the other side with a 
     stronger, competitive economy. Infrastructure projects put 
     people to work at high wages, create demand for materials and 
     equipment and generate tax revenues for governments at all 
     levels. They build systems of lasting public benefit, 
     improving the safety, convenience and efficiency of commerce, 
     communication and travel.
       Making substantial investments in America's infrastructure 
     will not only put Americans back to work, but it will improve 
     the

[[Page H2687]]

     lives of workers, while helping all manufacturers better 
     serve their customers and communities. It will bolster the 
     security of our nation, and it will strengthen the ties that 
     bind us together as a country, improving commerce and 
     communication and paving the way for the success of the next 
     generation.
       Congress must invest now. I urge our elected leaders to 
     work together to prioritize a bold vision for improving 
     infrastructure. Congress's next stimulus bill must include 
     aggressive investments in infrastructure such as highways, 
     bridges and airports. It's good for our citizens, our 
     economy, and our country to remain globally competitive. We 
     cannot afford to wait.

  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I think it is important for the American people to know that it has 
been 5 years since we have been able to put pen to paper and develop a 
massive infrastructure bill going out to desperate Americans who can't 
find good roads, who need mass transit, who need housing, need better 
schools, and, yes, even in urban areas like the one I represent that is 
a combination of urban and rural broadband.
  When we went into COVID-19, our children in our school districts did 
not have access to be able to have online classes. Yes, we need the 
Moving Forward Act and I rise to support it. As well as I rise to 
support and thank the Rules Committee for my amendment dealing with 
asking the Federal Aviation Administration to deal with all of those 
satellite aspects of aviation that have not been helped by COVID-19 
funding.
  In particular, I know for a fact that the parking companies at the 
airports have not received any COVID-19-related funding and that 
requires prioritizing of funding to those areas. My amendment would ask 
them to report on those areas that have not gotten funding, like the 
parking areas where there are a lot of employees, but then to be able 
to prioritize those areas.
  We are going to continue working, however, on some very vital issues 
that I believe are important. And those are, in particular, large 
highways that destroy minority and African American neighborhoods. For 
example, the I-45 extension in my community is about to destroy 158 
houses, 433 apartments or condos, 486 public housing, 340 businesses, 5 
churches, and 2 schools.
  There must be the implementation of the requirements under the 
environmental aspects, and that is why I also support the climate 
change aspects in this bill. But the environmental aspects must be 
looked at as well as the historic aspects to ensure that when you 
build, you build with the involvement of the community. I will ensure 
that that is going to happen.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. My amendment creates a national program to reduce 
pedestrian-motor vehicle accidents by identifying locations where 
deaths have occurred and supports local efforts to address those 
conditions. It is very important to the Nation, very important to the 
State.
  I look forward in going forward to be able to continue to work on 
these vital issues that were supported by any number of safety entities 
called under the umbrella of the road advocates. And I know that they 
will encourage us to work diligently on this.
  To my constituents in Houston, we will work together on making sure 
that I-45 is not intrusive.
  I support the Moving Forward Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this particular Houston 
Chronicle article of June 9.

               [From the Houston Chronicle, June 9, 2020]

     Interstate 45 Realignment Would Cut Through a Historic Black 
                        Neighborhood in Houston

                          (By James Brasuell)

       The construction of America's downtown highways destroyed 
     thousands of black neighborhoods during the height of the 
     urban renewal era in the 1940s and '50s--and a new impact 
     study of a controversial highway project in Houston serves as 
     a reminder that the racist policy never ended.
       The latest estimates of the human cost of the Interstate 45 
     project reveal that the highway expansion would require the 
     destruction of 158 houses, 433 apartments or condos, 486 
     public housing units, 340 businesses, five churches and two 
     schools; the Houston Chronicle reported. The buildings that 
     the Texas Department of Transportation seeks to demolish are 
     disproportionately located in low-income communities of 
     color, including many within the borders of Texas's first 
     black-formed municipality, Independence Heights, a region of 
     major historic significance.
       BIPOC activists have long cited displacement and the 
     destruction of black communities in their fight against the 
     $7 billion megaproject, which would functionally rebuild most 
     of the downtown freeway system in the process of expanding 
     and rerouting the interstate. But the scale of the estimated 
     destruction hits particularly hard after a week of civil 
     unrest and consequent police brutality in response to the 
     killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police. The Black 
     Lives Matter movement is demanding that cities across the 
     country defund their bloated law enforcement budgets and make 
     reparative investments in black communities--precisely the 
     opposite of projects like the I-45, which would raze black 
     neighborhoods and destroy black wealth.
       The relationship between highways and racial injustice 
     exemplifies the kinds of systemic issues that many protesters 
     are now seeking to challenge, Linda Poon wrote at Citylab 
     last week. Policies that on their face may have appeared to 
     be about easing transportation barriers and revitalizing 
     cities were--and still are--often rooted in longstanding 
     racial prejudice, and carried with them cascading effects 
     that worsened pre-existing inequalities.
       The highway would almost certainly result in an increase in 
     traffic violence, too--a phenomenon that disproportionately 
     impacts black communities. Black drivers are at serious risk, 
     as well; three of Houston's highways already ranked among the 
     most dangerous roads in the nation in 2018. The state of 
     Texas itself warned that the I-45 project would cause 
     disproportionate high and adverse impacts to minority or low-
     income populations; and that the project's [d]isplacement of 
     bus stops could affect people who do not have access to 
     automobiles or that are dependent on public transportation.
       And that's not even to mention how the project will 
     increase air pollution in black communities--a direct 
     contributor to fatal COVID-19 outcomes that are contributing 
     to the disproportionate death toll among black Americans--
     exacerbate flooding, and reinforce segregation, which 
     Streetsblog has explored in depth in the past.
       If the destructive potential of the I-45 project is all too 
     clear, the benefits of it are dubious at best. Decades of 
     studies of the effect of induced demand show that highway 
     expansions do not relieve congestion or stimulate meaningful 
     economic development--facts of which Houston advocates have 
     been reminding officials since the earliest days of the 
     project.
       The I-45 project has always been a massive boondoggle that 
     perpetuates structural racism--and our national conversation 
     over the last week (and the much longer-standing conversation 
     among BIPOC activists over the past decades) only underscores 
     how deeply misguided it has always been. But as activists 
     push to defund all the institutions that kill, harm, and 
     destroy black communities and black lives, there is perhaps 
     no better moment to stop it, once and for all.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of this body and an 
original cosponsor of the legislation, I rise in strong and 
enthusiastic support of the rule governing debate of H.R. 2, the Moving 
Forward Act, and the underlying bill.
  H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act, is a more than $1.5 trillion plan to 
rebuild American infrastructure--not only our roads, bridges, and 
transit systems, but also our schools, housing, broadband access, and 
so much more.
  The bill makes a bold down payment on sound investments that address 
resiliency and climate change to address the impact of extreme weather 
events on a wide range of critical infrastructure.
  By investing in families, workers, and communities across the 
country, we can support American manufacturing and ingenuity and create 
millions of jobs that cannot be exported, all while putting our country 
on a path toward zero carbon emissions, making communities and roads 
safer, and addressing long-standing disparities.
  Mr. Speaker, this transformational legislation makes robust 
investments in the infrastructure necessary to support the well-being 
of all Americans and connect them with the services and opportunities 
needed to succeed in the global economy, which will create millions of 
American jobs rebuilding our country, so desperately needed in light of 
its wreckage by the COVID-19 pandemic.
  It is way past time to act on a major effort to improve our nation's 
infrastructure.
  The World Economic Forum ranked the United States is ranked 
thirteenth among nations with a score of 87.9 percent.
  The infrastructure score is calculated based on the following 
factors: road connectivity index, quality of roads, railroad density, 
efficiency of train services, airport connectivity, efficiency of air 
transport services, linear shipping connectivity index, efficiency of 
seaport services, electrification rate, electric power transmission and 
distribution losses, and exposure to unsafe drinking water, reliability 
of water supply.

[[Page H2688]]

  It is essential that our nation make investments in infrastructure 
because it enables trade, powers businesses, connects workers to 
employment, creates opportunities for struggling communities, protects 
the nation from an increasingly unpredictable natural environment, and 
allows the country to respond to the COVID-19 Pandemic.
  Mr. Speaker, our nation's airports experienced a significant economic 
impact due to COVID-19 and the level of support to airports and 
airlines has been generous, but not enough, especially regarding what I 
have learned about airport parking service areas.
  I thank the Rules Committee and the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure for allowing the Jackson Lee amendment that requests a 
report on all areas at airports that have not received funding and asks 
that funding be prioritized for these areas, which include airport 
parking.
  There are two Jackson Lee Amendments H.R. 2 that are important to the 
constituents I serve, so I will continue to work with the Committee and 
leadership as the bill moves through Congress to have these concerns 
addressed.
  The Jackson Lee resolutions were intended to protect documented and 
locally recognized historic places in the areas planned for development 
in anticipation of the designation of a National Historic Trail that 
would travers the area of Houston where planned I-45 construction will 
occur.
  Earlier this year, H.R. 434, the Emancipation National Historic Trail 
Report Act became law and it paves the way for the establishment of 
only the second nationally, recognized historic trail that chronicles 
the experience of African Americans in their struggle for equality and 
justice.
  The law directs the National Parks Service to conduct a study of 51 
miles starting at the historic Osterman Building and Reedy Chapel in 
Galveston, Texas, the location where news spread of the Emancipation 
Proclamation finally freeing the last slaves in the United States.
  The historic trail will follow a path along Highway 3 and Interstate 
45, north to Freedmen's Town, which will include Independence Heights, 
and Emancipation Park in Houston, Texas where freed slaves settled.
  Local preservationists have labored for generations to secure 
historic sites in and around the planned route of the proposed new 
national historic trail and have lost significant buildings to past 
highway projects, specifically to those projects related to past I-45 
construction, which cuts through Independence Heights the first black 
town to receive a charter from the state of Texas.
  The project, which has not begun yet is scheduled to begin in 2021 
and is expected to cost at least $7 billion and will rebuild most of 
the downtown freeway system along I-45, Interstate 10, Interstate 69 
and Texas 288 and assorted ramps.
  These plans for I-45 construction should trigger National Historic 
Preservation Act obligations because the National Parks Service has a 
Study to conduct regarding the history of the area.
  Unfortunately, some may consider that once a historic place is 
removed, the ability of researchers, historians or preservationists to 
tell a complete history is limited-and in some essential ways they are 
correct.
  History is best experienced and not just heard or read, which is why 
we must preserve and protect the places that are left for future 
generations.
  I will continue to work with the Committee of Jurisdiction an the 
Jackson Lee Amendment that compliments the programs described in 
section 1619 Nationwide Road Safety Assessment of H.R. 2.
  Section 1619 establishes a program for states to focus on the issue 
of pedestrian and bicycle safety.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment seeks to include in this program a role for 
local governments who are foremost at the head of efforts to reduce 
pedestrian and bicycle deaths and injuries.
  On a national basis, about 25 percent of pedestrian fatalities in 
2018 occurred at intersections or were intersection-related.
  Most pedestrian fatalities occurred at non-intersection locations.
  The total number of pedestrian fatalities for the 10 largest cities 
increased by about 7 percent from 2017, with 613 fatalities to 2018 
with 655 fatalities.
  During the 10-year period 2009-2018 the number of pedestrian 
fatalities increased by 53 percent, while the number of all other 
traffic deaths increased by 2 percent.
  On average, about 17 pedestrians and two cyclists were killed each 
day in crashes. Together they accounted for one-fifth of traffic 
deaths. (NYT)
  The Jackson Lee Amendment broadens the section to address safety and 
the emerging popularity of other forms of personal transportation such 
as electric scooters.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment supports local efforts to address the 
conditions that may contribute to deaths to improve pedestrian and 
bicycle safety.
  A rough count by The Associated Press of media reports turned up at 
least 11 electric scooter rider deaths in the U.S. since the beginning 
of 2018.
  In Austin, Texas, public health officials working with the Centers 
for Disease Control counted 192 scooter-related injuries in three 
months in 2018. Nearly half were head injuries, including 15 percent 
that were traumatic brain injuries like concussions and bleeding of the 
brain. Less than 1 percent of the injured riders wore a helmet.
  According to a Consumer Reports survey conducted in March 2019, 22 
percent of people who have spent time in an area where they saw e-
scooters available for rent said they had used one at least once.
  They found that many scooter riders (27 percent) are uncertain of the 
traffic laws they should follow.
  Among people who have ridden an e-scooter, 51 percent ride on the 
sidewalk, 26 percent in a bike lane, and 18 percent in the street but 
not in a bike lane.
  The role of local government is essential to addressing the problem 
of pedestrian and bicycle injuries and deaths.
  This Jackson Lee Amendment is supported by: Advocates for Highway and 
Auto Safety, Transport Workers Union, Consumer Federation of America, 
Center for Auto Safety, Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, 
Truck Safety Coalition, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways, 
Parents Against Tired Truckers, and the Trauma Foundation.
  More generally, I support the Moving Forward Act because it provides:
  1. $100 billion for affordable housing to create or preserve 1.8 
million affordable homes;
  2. $10 billion for child care facilities, designed to generate 
additional state and private investments;
  3. $130 billion for school infrastructure targeted at high-poverty 
schools; and
  4. $30 billion for health care facilities, including hospitals, 
community health centers, and laboratories.
  Mr. Speaker, the Moving Forward Act connects all Americans to 
essential services and economic opportunity by providing:
  1. $500 billion to rebuild and reimagine the nation's transportation 
infrastructure;
  2. $100 billion for affordable high-speed broadband internet for all 
Americans;
  3. $25 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund and other 
programs to provide clean drinking water; and
  4. $25 billion for the United States Postal Service to modernize 
postal infrastructure and operations.
  All of this infrastructure funding I have fought for. Also, there are 
additional provisions in the bill that will help put us on the path to 
becoming a stronger, safer, better and more prosperous America, 
including:
  1. Ameliorating hazardous living conditions and building a more 
environmentally sustainable housing stock;
  2. Removing contaminants like PFAS from drinking water; and
  3. Modernizing our energy infrastructure with an emphasis on 
renewable energy.
  While this legislation would be necessary under any circumstances, 
the coronavirus crisis has magnified and accentuated the need for 
federal investments to put Americans back to work building a long-
lasting foundation for a stronger and more equitable America.
  I urge all Members to vote for the rule governing debate on H.R. 2 as 
well as the underlying bill.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My friend from New York is absolutely right. There are 17 bipartisan 
amendments made in order to this bill that moved through committee in a 
completely partisan fashion.
  When we did this bill last time around, the bill that passed on a 
voice vote because of its bipartisan nature coming out of committee, we 
made 34 bipartisan amendments in order to improve it further. The now 
chairman of the Transportation Committee, then the ranking member, said 
this about the rule as I was presenting it: ``Mr. Speaker, in terms of 
what the gentleman from Georgia just said, I appreciate the fact that 
we are debating so many policy amendments. This is the way the process 
should work, both sides of the aisle contribute, and this is great.'' 
Stark contrast from what you heard from our ranking member today about 
the process.
  At that time, the ranking member, now chairman, said: ``I was willing 
to stay here later last night and stay here later tonight so that 
everybody who wanted an amendment could have a chance.'' That is not 
the process we have this year as voices are shut out one right after 
another, primarily Republican voices and bipartisan voices.

[[Page H2689]]

  I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Rodgers), a great conservative leader in our 
conference who has never been afraid to reach across the aisle to get 
the work done, and she has done it successfully.
  Mrs. RODGERS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding and for his leadership on this issue before us today.
  I rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. 
Unfortunately, this is another example of the Democratic majority 
putting politics over people. It is a missed opportunity to reach an 
agreement on many solutions that have bipartisan support.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee on which I serve is historically 
the most bipartisan committee in Congress. Our record of results with 
both Chairman Walden and Chairman Upton proves it. No other committee 
sent more bills to the President's desk than Energy and Commerce during 
their tenure.
  This record of bipartisan results for the people has unfortunately 
faltered under this current majority. And the process and the politics 
of H.R. 2 are a perfect example of why.
  It is hard, it is actually impossible, for this historic results-
oriented committee to reach an agreement when there is no regular order 
and we, the minority, are left out of the process.
  It is easy to pass a partisan wish list for my friends across the 
aisle to campaign on when you don't expect that they are going to 
become law.
  Instead of using the committee process to advance solutions like 
rural broadband deployment, vehicle safety improvements, and American 
leadership in clean energy, the majority is continuing to take the easy 
way out and is more interested in scoring political points.

                              {time}  1100

  We see the continued consolidation of power and decisionmaking within 
the Speaker's office.
  Last Congress, this House unanimously passed the SELF DRIVE Act--
unanimous--which would have ensured the most important vehicle safety 
technology of our lifetime is deployed here in America.
  Autonomous vehicles have the potential to save tens of thousands of 
lives, restore independence to our seniors and people with 
disabilities, and create a cleaner environment with less road 
congestion.
  Autonomous vehicles are our future. America could lead, America 
should lead in this new era, but sadly, the majority is content to let 
other countries lead. In fact, the U.S. has fallen behind since our 
work on the SELF DRIVE Act. We will continue to fall behind because we 
lack a national strategy and a viable path to deployment.
  Other countries, like China, are not waiting for us. They are moving 
full speed ahead with testing, and it is happening in our own backyard.
  Last Congress, every single Democrat on the Energy and Commerce 
Committee agreed that we needed to modernize the SAFETEA Act, to lead 
on this transformative technology. What has changed?
  If the majority was serious about addressing the nearly 40,000 deaths 
on our roads each year, they would tell the well-funded trial bar 
enough is enough and pursue meaningful legislation to unleash American 
innovation in our auto sector, a part of a new era of American 
innovation. But, no. They are more concerned with the trial bar and 
their special interest groups.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
abandon this partisan messaging exercise and work with us for a new era 
of innovation that will help save lives.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I would just note that bipartisanship is a 
two-way street. While some may suggest that the majority is at fault, I 
would argue that there was a lack of a good-faith effort on the part of 
the minority to engage in meaningful dialogue on things like climate 
change and the importance of making sure we have infrastructure 
investments in our schools and in our healthcare systems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2, 
which reflects years of hard work with my staff, with hundreds of 
advocates, innovators, and local officials to deal with the challenges 
of a sustainable transportation future, especially in a time of 
upheaval. I appreciate the committee and staff reflecting these 
opportunities.
  It includes a national clearinghouse to research the secondary 
impacts of autonomous vehicles that my friend from Washington just 
talked about.
  It adds bikeshare as an eligible expense for CMAQ funding.
  It provides Federal funds for cities and States to establish and 
implement Vision Zero plans to protect quality of life and reduce the 
carnage on the highways.
  It increases funding for State road user charge pilot projects that 
is the vision for the future of how to fund transportation.
  It increases small starts reauthorization.
  It increases the volume cap on private activity bonds issued for 
surface transportation.
  It increases the value of the historic tax credit and makes it more 
accessible for different types of projects.
  Most critically, when we are dealing with renewable energy projects, 
it provides for direct payment in lieu of tax credits for renewable 
energy projects at a time when there is less appetite for traditional 
tax credits.
  It clarifies that energy storage projects qualify for investment tax 
credits to spur the development.
  It increases the value of section 179D energy efficient commercial 
buildings that we have worked on with them for years.
  It reinstates the bicycle commuter tax, increases the value of the 
benefits, and allows them to be used with transit funds.
  These are the nuts and bolts of often technical elements that form 
the basis for action and progress in the future.
  I look forward to working with the vast array of stakeholders that 
are counting on us to make this visionary document a reality.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I encouraged my colleagues to defeat the rule so we 
could have a bipartisan process here, but if we defeat the previous 
question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to make in order H. 
Res. 1031.
  The resolution expresses a sense of the House of Representatives 
condemning the cyberattacks perpetrated by China and other rogue states 
on American institutions in an effort to disrupt our response to COVID-
19 by stealing our economic property that could be used for treatments 
and vaccines.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment into the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote 
on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we have talked so much about 
bipartisanship. This is a chance to actually do something in a 
bipartisan way.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
McCaul), the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee and the 
current ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, to discuss the 
amendment.

  Mr. McCAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall) for yielding time.
  We have known for years that the Chinese Communist Party has been 
conducting cyberattacks on the United States aimed not only at stealing 
vital data but also at destabilizing our economy.
  Recently, the FBI and DHS discovered that the CCP has taken their 
cyberattacks to a new low by attempting to hack into U.S. research 
facilities, in an effort to steal COVID-19 vaccine research.
  In other words, Mr. Speaker, at a time when scientists around the 
world are working together in an epic race against time to develop a 
lifesaving vaccine to rescue the world from the grips of the 
coronavirus, the CCP is trying to steal that research for their own 
selfish purposes.
  This news comes when the evidence has shown that the Chinese 
Communist Party is responsible for allowing this virus to spread into a 
pandemic.
  The House Foreign Affairs Committee Republicans spent the last 
several months investigating the origins

[[Page H2690]]

of this pandemic, in the hopes of learning vital lessons that would 
help us prevent the next one. This report details how the CCP chose to 
cover up the virus and lie to the world at every turn, allowing the 
coronavirus to spread not only throughout their own country, Mr. 
Speaker, but around the world in a global pandemic.
  They silenced doctors trying to sound the alarm about the virus and 
disappeared journalists who were reporting the truth about Wuhan. They 
shut down laboratories and ordered that virus samples be destroyed. 
They repeatedly lied about the virus spreading human to human, that it 
was transmitted human to human, that it was contagious. They allowed 
mass travel throughout China and internationally despite knowing that 
the virus was spreading human to human.
  Mr. Speaker, this week has served as a bleak reminder of what the 
Chinese Communist Party really is. Last night, the CCP sham legislature 
passed its so-called national security law for Hong Kong, destroying 
their autonomy and oppressing a freedom-loving people and violating the 
Sino-U.K. treaty. Yesterday, the world was made aware that the CCP is 
using forced sterilization, forced abortion, and coercive family 
planning against ethnic minorities, including the Uighur Muslims.
  These disturbing realizations are unfolding as the world is still 
grappling with the coronavirus pandemic that the CCP helped create.
  Now that millions of people around the world have been infected and 
more than half a million have died, we learned that the CCP isn't 
helping to fix the pandemic they are responsible for creating. Instead, 
Mr. Speaker, according to the FBI and Department of Homeland Security, 
they are conducting cyberattacks on American scientific organizations 
and hospitals in an attempt to steal research being used to develop a 
vaccine for the virus.
  In other words, they are trying to steal our research to develop a 
vaccine to save the world from the very pandemic that they created. 
This is absolutely unacceptable and must be condemned.
  So, today, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in opposing the 
previous question so we can consider the Kinzinger resolution to do 
just that.
  My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should come together and 
say, in one united voice, that we condemn these attacks by the Chinese 
Communist Party and that we believe that those who are responsible 
should be held accountable.
  This is the issue of our time, so let's move forward together on 
calling out the CCP for their continued outrageous and dangerous 
misbehavior.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I do note, while this is certainly a very, very 
important issue, cyberattacks on the United States, both on government 
and our private sector, I think what is equally troubling are physical 
attacks and bounties placed by Russian leaders on U.S. soldiers in 
Afghanistan. I don't see any note of that in the resolution.
  But the bigger issue here is that we have a $1.5 trillion 
infrastructure bill in front of us. I would certainly join with my 
colleagues in any resolutions on Chinese and Russian interference in 
American activities. The work in front of us, however, is a $1.5 
trillion transportation bill desperately needed for American citizens 
throughout this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania 
(Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle for yielding to me, and 
I second his remarks regarding Russian bounty. I am proud to rise in 
support here today of H.R. 2.
  H.R. 2 will make meaningful, long-overdue investments in our roads, 
bridges, airports, ports, and transportation systems. It will invest 
billions in zero-emission, and modernize road systems to reduce 
gridlock, something we can all cheer about in my district.
  This is game-changing, economy-altering legislation. So when I hear 
my colleagues talk about the price tag on a bill like this, I have to 
wonder where exactly they think this money is going. This bill invests 
directly in American families, in workers, and in the communities in 
which we live.
  Stakeholders in my district have been crying out for a comprehensive 
infrastructure bill for years. I represent Pennsylvania's Fifth 
District, which is the gateway to the Philadelphia region. My district 
is home to the Philadelphia port and shipyard, home to one of the 
busiest airports in the country, home to the Eastern Seaboard's 
passenger and freight rail lines, plus commuter rails, streetcars, 
subways, and a network of interstate bridges and roads, all of which 
are in serious need of upkeep.
  But this bill is not just about the concrete that will be poured to 
fix potholes or the steel used to renovate a bridge. It is an 
investment in the American people at a time when it is needed most.

  H.R. 2 will provide good-paying, stable jobs that can support 
American workers and their families. At a time when we are facing 
double-digit unemployment in the United States, a massive investment in 
our people is exactly what we need.
  This bill will put people back to work, prevent further erosion of 
our environment, and give children and families the support they 
desperately need.
  In doing so, this bill lays down the important principle that when we 
invest in our infrastructure and our economy, we must do so in a way 
that builds for the 21st century and beyond rather than trying to re-
create an unsustainable or inequitable past.
  H.R. 2 also includes one of my priorities, the Reopen and Rebuild 
America's Schools Act, which will invest $130 billion into rundown, 
obsolete, and often dangerous school facilities that pose risks for 
students, teachers, and staffs.
  Many of the communities I represent are in dire need of these funds, 
and I would be willing to bet that many of your communities are as 
well.
  This isn't an urban vs. rural issue. Public schools nationwide have 
been underfunded for decades, and our children have paid the price.
  In the last 18 months and before being sworn in, in my prior career, 
I had visited far too many schools that lack basic facilities, like 
working water fountains, space for physical education, or a library. I 
have visited schools that have crumbling plaster and lead paint on the 
walls and asbestos in the insulation, schools that have exposed 
radiators and pipes in classrooms that can give a child second-degree 
burns. This legislation is critical, and I am proud to support it.

                              {time}  1115

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, to be fair, this bill is not about us investing in the 
future; it is about us borrowing money from our children to invest in 
the future.
  I will read from the current chairman of the Transportation 
Committee. These were his comments during our last reauthorization. He 
says: `` . . . the biggest and most glaring omission by the Rules 
Committee is of not allowing any attempt by this House to fund the 
bill.''
  At that time, you remember, Mr. Speaker, we only provided 3 years of 
funding for a 6-year bill. We went back and found the remaining 3 years 
later.
  He goes on to say: ``The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports an 
increase in the user fee.'' That is the gas tax. ``The American 
Trucking Association supports an increase in the user fee. We are 
virtually being begged by interest groups out there representing 
consumers and commercial users of the system to do something, vote on 
something.''
  I talked about all of the differences between the way we handled the 
process last time and the way we handled the process this time, Mr. 
Speaker. I will note that there are also differences in the way that 
the chairman wanted to handle the process last time, which is voting to 
fund this bill. When we funded half of it, he wanted to fund all of it. 
This time we are funding none of it, Mr. Speaker. That is the heavy 
lifting that needs to be done, and it can only be done in a bipartisan 
way.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I just note that in the last Congress, the 
majority invested $2 trillion in a tax cut

[[Page H2691]]

that 83 percent went to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans, and 
despite that, we see no lasting benefit of that. It has added 
substantially to the deficit of the United States, to the tune of over 
$1.3 trillion. We prefer to make these investments in American families 
and in American jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Barragan).
  Ms. BARRAGAN. Mr. Speaker, for too long, communities of color, Black 
and Brown communities, have suffered environmental injustice.
  For too long, these same communities have been on the front lines of 
environmental air pollution that has caused higher rates of cancer and 
asthma and, with COVID-19, more deaths. For too long, these communities 
have literally said: I can't breathe.
  My very own district is surrounded by three freeways and the Port of 
Los Angeles. Ports are critical jobs. They provide movement of goods. 
They are a huge economic engine. But they also are the cause of air 
pollution on the docks, not to mention the truck traffic that goes to 
and from ports.
  Today, I am proud to say that my bill, the Climate Smart Ports Act, 
is included in this infrastructure package. It will make a significant 
difference to air quality in my district and for the 40 percent of 
Americans who live near a port.
  This bill will invest billions in zero-emission technology at ports 
and clean trucks that go to and from ports. That is right, zero 
emissions.
  Bottom line is it will save lives, create jobs, and fight the climate 
crisis. Today I ask you to join me in voting for H.R. 2: to invest in 
our Nation's infrastructure, to invest in greening our ports, to invest 
in fighting the climate crisis, and to invest in improving air quality 
for the people.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 2. This vital legislation rebuilds our Nation's 
infrastructure, invests in American workers, and bolsters our Nation's 
economy, all at a critical juncture in our fight against COVID-19.
  This pandemic has cost thousands of Americans their lives and many 
more millions their jobs. It is essential that we do everything in our 
power to drive investment and boost our economy, and this bill does 
just that.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 2 includes my legislation, the 
GREEN Act, which invests over $150 billion in reducing car emissions 
and expanding clean energy technologies. That bill extends and expands 
Federal tax incentives, promoting investment in solar, wind, 
geothermal, and fuel cell technologies, all with the goal of 
decarbonizing our atmosphere.
  The bill also increases Federal support for energy efficiency, 
including in commercial buildings, and revives the energy manufacturing 
credit, a successful Recovery Act program designed to spur investment 
in renewable energy jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2 represents the kind of bold, forward-thinking 
investment our planet and our economy desperately need.
  I urge everyone to vote for this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I share with my friend from New York that I 
don't have any speakers remaining, and I am prepared to close.
  Can I ask how much time is remaining, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 5\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

  Mr. Speaker, I am a positive guy. I love coming down here and talking 
about the great things we are doing as a country, the amazing steps 
forward that we are making, the way we are exceeding the expectation of 
our constituents, and that was the speech I got to give when 
Republicans were in the majority and I got to bring the bipartisan 
package.
  At that time, Janet was sitting to my left and Caitlin would have 
been sitting right behind Mr. McGovern. A lot of things haven't changed 
much since that time. But some things have.
  One of the things that has changed is COVID-19 is ravaging the 
Nation, and I want to say to my Rules Committee friends, because we 
have got a lot of work left to do in this cycle, I recognize that there 
is an inclination among some in leadership in this House to shut down 
this process, to keep folks off the floor, to keep votes from happening 
with great frequency, all in the name of public health.
  I would tell you that may protect the health of the Members 
generally, but it undermines the health of the institution 
specifically. And I am grateful to my friends on the Rules Committee 
for fighting those urges and advocating for a more open process on the 
floor of the House.
  Again, I know I can attribute that sentiment to my friend from New 
York, and I know I can attribute that sentiment to the chairman, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  But the transportation bill, Mr. Speaker, is different from most of 
what we do. I hope we will have an opportunity to bring a bipartisan 
bill to the floor, and then we can have that bipartisan conversation 
about limiting debate so that we can move the bipartisan idea forward 
so that we can get a signature on the President's desk.
  Mr. Speaker, every good thing you heard mentioned that this bill does 
on the other side of the aisle today, every good thing you have heard 
mentioned, I want to stipulate that the bill absolutely does that. And 
I ask my friends to stipulate that the bill has absolutely no chance of 
ever becoming the law of the land, so none of those things are ever 
going to happen.
  Hear me, Mr. Speaker, it does every single one of those things if it 
becomes law, but because it is moved in a partisan process when we have 
bipartisan government, it will never become law and it will never 
happen. Not one of those things that my colleagues earnestly believe 
their constituencies need and are demanding is going to be delivered.
  Mr. Speaker, I don't want to make the point. I do want to make the 
difference. I recognize that in divided government sometimes you have 
to put out the party line. Sometimes you have to stand up and say, 
``This is where I am; now let's figure out where you are,'' and then 
the negotiation happens later.
  That happens on a lot of bills in this institution. It doesn't 
usually happen on transportation, it doesn't usually happen on 
infrastructure, because the way transportation and infrastructure 
usually happen is we partner from day one.
  In the last Congress, Mr. Speaker, last time we moved this bill, 
roughly an equal number of Republican ideas, Democratic ideas, and 
bipartisan ideas were considered to improve the bill. This time around, 
Mr. Speaker, we will consider 17 bipartisan amendments, 19 Republican 
amendments, and 134 Democratic amendments. Last time around, roughly 
one to one; this time around, seven Democratic ideas for every one 
Republican idea.
  Last time around, the bill was crafted in a partnership way so that 
more ideas and everyone was included in the beginning. This time 
around, the bill moved in a strict party-line vote.
  I understand we can't be the best version of ourselves as an 
institution every day of the week, Mr. Speaker. I recognize that. And 
it is not even our goal every day of the week. Sometimes we have a 
partisan priority, an itch that needs to be scratched. But good habits 
are hard to keep; bad habits are easy to make.
  There is a reason the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is 
special. There is a reason Mr. DeFazio stood in line so long waiting on 
his opportunity to lead. It is a special place where you can make a 
huge difference on behalf of not just your community, but your country.
  We are squandering that opportunity today. There were lots of good 
ideas that we could have moved forward in a partnership way.
  I hope that the extraordinary partisanship that represents a dramatic 
change from anything that we have ever done in this transportation 
environment before is the aberration, and that as soon as that partisan 
itch gets scratched, my colleagues will then turn their attention to 
being able to get

[[Page H2692]]

something done. Because when my friends talked about road safety and 
the needs America has, they were right. When my friends talked about 
crumbling infrastructure and the needs America has, they were right. 
When my friends talked about investing in us as a nation, my friends 
were right.

  I want to join with them to make those things happen; but today, Mr. 
Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague and friend on the 
Rules Committee (Mr. Woodall), who is really one of the thought leaders 
in this Chamber and has always committed to bipartisanship, always 
committed to what is best for our Nation and for the people blessed to 
call this Nation home. I want to thank him, as always, for his 
partnership and his hard work in his diligence to the cause.
  I take a slightly different view of what we do here today than my 
friend because this isn't, in my view, strictly a partisan issue or a 
party issue or a platform issue or a messaging issue. This is an issue 
of what we value as Americans, what we believe and what the majority 
believes is important to the citizens of this country.
  We do face, as Mr. Woodall notes, the greatest pandemic this country 
has faced in at least a century. We have 125,000 Americans who have 
lost their lives to it. So this is an extraordinary time, and it calls 
for extraordinary measures and a $1.5 trillion plan to move America 
forward to address our transportation crisis, to address our climate 
change crisis, to address our healthcare crisis, to address the 
challenges brought on by crumbling schools across this country.
  One of the learnings of this pandemic, in my view, has been the 
digital divide. Whether it is in telehealth, in telemedicine, we know 
that those communities of color that already face disparities face even 
greater disparities. So the broadband initiative included in this is so 
vitally important to all of us.
  We see that when it comes to distance learning in our schools. 
Crumbling schools, yes, but the inability of schoolchildren to get to 
online classes and distance learning because of broadband challenges is 
great, as well, and we need to do everything we can to limit those 
disparities.
  And those are the great learnings, perhaps, of this pandemic and 
things we can do about it.

                              {time}  1130

  That is why we believe so strongly in investing those dollars in 
meeting the challenge of climate change, the defining challenge of our 
time. Transportation is the leading cause of U.S. carbon pollution. So 
these are the values we embrace.
  While certainly I take as an article of faith what Mr. Woodall said, 
which is, perhaps it is not likely this bill, every word and every 
comma will become law unless, all of a sudden, there is enlightenment 
in the United States Senate, which I frankly have some doubt about. But 
make no mistake, much of what is in here will become law because it is 
important to us as a majority and it is important to the American 
people.
  We are going to continue to stand and fight for these things in the 
midst of these great crises because they are important, we need to put 
Americans back to work to build our infrastructure and to build an 
infrastructure for the next generation. This isn't about now. This 
isn't about digging a hole and filling it back up, digging another hole 
and filling it back up. These are great needs. They are needs that we 
have, frankly, ignored for decades now. The time has come to address 
them.
  So this is a question of values. It is a question of what we believe 
Americans need, what our families need, and what our communities need.
  We will get there. I have faith that we will negotiate a bill, and 
much of what is included today, hopefully, will pass, will be included 
in the final package, and will be signed by the President because it is 
too important for America not to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank all my colleagues for their words in favor of 
H.R. 2, the Moving Forward Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on 
the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1028

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 10. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 1031) condemning the cyber attacks on 
     American persons and organizations conducting research 
     related to COVID 19 and expressing the sense of the House of 
     Representatives that those responsible for perpetrating such 
     belligerent acts should face consequences. The resolution 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to 
     adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of 
     the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall 
     not apply to the consideration of House Resolution 1031.
  Mr. MORELLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 180, not voting 20, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 130]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--180

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud

[[Page H2693]]


     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Abraham
     Bishop (UT)
     Buck
     Deutch
     Emmer
     Gallagher
     Gosar
     Granger
     Guthrie
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Palazzo
     Reed
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Sensenbrenner
     Speier
     Weber (TX)

                              {time}  1215

  Messrs. LaHOOD and STIVERS changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. NEGUSE and DeFAZIO changed their vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Cleaver (Clay)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (CA) (Huffman)
     Lewis (Kildee)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     Meng (Tonko)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Roybal-Allard)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Vargas (Levin (CA))
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Quigley). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 183, not voting 25, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 131]

                               YEAS--222

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--183

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Golden
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--25

     Abraham
     Bishop (UT)
     Buck
     Cohen
     Deutch
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Emmer
     Gallagher
     Gosar
     Granger
     King (IA)
     Loudermilk
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Palazzo
     Reed
     Roby
     Rooney (FL)
     Sensenbrenner
     Speier
     Taylor
     Vela
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1255

  Ms. KAPTUR changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


                          personal explanation

  Ms. GRANGER. Mr. Speaker, I missed votes due to circumstances beyond 
my control. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 
No. 130 and ``nay'' on rollcall No. 131.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Cleaver (Clay)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Brownley (CA))
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lee (CA) (Huffman)
     Lewis (Kildee)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)

[[Page H2694]]


     Lowey (Tonko)
     Meng (Tonko)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Cicilline)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Roybal-Allard)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Vargas (Levin (CA))
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________