[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)
____________________