[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H5090-H5097]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENTS TO H.R. 925, NORTH 
              AMERICAN WETLANDS CONSERVATION EXTENSION ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1161 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1161

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 925) 
     to extend the authorization of appropriations for allocation 
     to carry out approved wetlands conservation projects under 
     the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through fiscal 
     year 2024, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to 
     consider in the House, without intervention of any point of 
     order or question of consideration, a single motion offered 
     by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her 
     designee that the House: (1) concur in the Senate amendment 
     to the title; and (2) concur in the Senate amendment to the 
     text with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-66. The Senate amendments and the motion 
     shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable 
     for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand 
     for division of the question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Carson of Indiana). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, 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.

                              {time}  1630


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. 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 Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a 
rule, House Resolution 1161, providing for consideration of the Senate 
amendments to H.R. 925, America's Conservation Enhancement Act.
  The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House: One, concur 
in the Senate amendment to the title; and, two, concur in the Senate 
amendment to the text with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules 
Committee Print 116-66, which is identical to H.R. 8406, the Heroes 
Act.
  Finally, the rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the American people are tired 
of waiting.
  It has been more than 4 months since this House passed the Heroes Act 
in response to the coronavirus pandemic to help our first responders, 
healthcare workers, struggling businesses, and local governments.
  This bill passed this House on May 15, Mr. Speaker. But what did the 
Senate do, Mr. Speaker? Nothing.
  They apparently couldn't be bothered to bring this bill up for a vote 
in over 4 months, but it took Mitch McConnell roughly 80 minutes after 
Justice Ginsburg passed away to announce a vote on a Supreme Court 
nominee.
  Now, you can't make this stuff up. Something is terribly, terribly 
wrong here.
  More than 205,000 Americans have lost their lives due to coronavirus 
and more than 7 million more have been affected.
  Millions of people are out of work, small businesses are struggling, 
and some have had to shut their doors forever. Our economy hasn't taken 
a hit like this since the Great Depression. Many families are 
struggling every day to make ends meet. Kids are going hungry.
  This pandemic isn't going to just disappear overnight, as the 
President has suggested. It is going to take a whole-of-government 
response for quite some time, and that requires Congress to act.
  The Republicans in the Senate may be able to sleep at night telling 
the American people to wait and then wait some more and then wait some 
more

[[Page H5091]]

while they rubber stamp another judge, but I cannot ask our people, our 
communities, our small businesses, our workers and their families to 
wait any longer. No one in this majority can.
  Our country is suffering, and our people are in pain. That is why we 
have tried over these past 4 months to strike a fair and commonsense 
deal with Senate Republicans, but they couldn't even come to an 
agreement on a package among themselves. Republicans are fighting with 
Republicans over there, so they just abandoned doing anything at all.
  Doing nothing is unconscionable.
  I am proud that our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has never given up. She 
has spoken with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin again and again and again 
and again trying to come up with an agreement.
  Her offer to this administration was simple: let's meet halfway. 
Let's take the $3.4 trillion in relief contained in the initial Heroes 
Act and reduce it by $1.2 trillion. We would still fund our first 
responders, our small businesses, and our State and local governments, 
but we would meet Republicans in the middle. We would come down $1 
trillion and they would come up $1 trillion.
  That is called compromise. That is what you do, and it is what you 
have to do from time to time in divided government. The bill included 
in this rule, H.R. 8406, reflects that give-and-take.
  There is funding here for State and local governments to avert 
layoffs and continue critical services; for coronavirus testing, 
tracing, and treatment; for our hospitals and for our healthcare 
providers; for continuing unemployment insurance; and for families to 
pay for necessities like food, utilities, and rent during this 
pandemic.
  This revamped Heroes Act totals $2.2 trillion. Many Democrats, 
including myself, favored the original larger bill. My friends on the 
other side wanted something much smaller. But disagreement should never 
result in inaction.
  One in four children in this country are at risk of going hungry this 
year because of this pandemic, Mr. Speaker. The lines for food banks in 
some communities already go for miles.
  People are hurting today, right now. We all know that. And if you 
don't know that, you don't go back to your district.
  We all know what it takes to truly do something about it.
  We have pleaded with the Senate to take this bill up for months, we 
have negotiated over and over again, and today we are back with a 
compromise proposal.
  The only question, Mr. Speaker, is whether my Republican colleagues 
are finally ready to take ``yes'' for an answer.
  On behalf of the most vulnerable among us, those who are out of work, 
going hungry, and struggling to get by, I pray the answer is finally 
``yes.''
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, all my colleagues, to 
support this rule and the underlying Heroes Act so we can finally, 
finally get relief to where it is so badly needed.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and 
I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

  Mr. Speaker, we are here today to consider a rule that provides for 
consideration of a single item, the Senate amendment to H.R. 925, the 
majority's second attempt to pass a partisan wish list under the guise 
of a coronavirus relief bill.
  There are two quotes that sum up how I feel about today's rule, Mr. 
Speaker. The first, widely misattributed to Albert Einstein, is that: 
``The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over 
again and expecting different results''; the second, accurately 
attributed to Yogi Berra, is that today's action feels like: ``It's 
deja vu all over again.''
  Today, the House majority is bringing up again a partisan coronavirus 
relief package, just as they did in May.
  As in May, today's bill was written with only Democratic input.
  Like in May, today's bill has a massive price tag. This sits at $2.4 
trillion.
  As in May, today's bill contains a plethora of provisions that are 
completely unrelated to coronavirus relief.
  Indeed, just like in May, today's bill is more akin to a Democratic 
policy wish list than to an actual relief bill.
  And just as in May, we all know what the end result will be: the 
Senate will not pass this bill and the President will not sign it into 
law.
  But it doesn't have to be this way, Mr. Speaker.
  For whatever reason, the majority is refusing to truly negotiate on a 
bipartisan coronavirus relief bill that would provide real relief for 
millions of Americans.
  I grant them, discussions have taken place. But when the majority 
continues to insist that it is their way or no way and refuses to meet 
Republicans halfway, one begins to understand how we got to this point.
  Mr. Speaker, I would remind both this Chamber and the American people 
that it has been the Democrats who have blocked a second coronavirus 
relief bill. Just last week, House Democrats blocked Republicans from 
bringing up a simple bill to extend the Paycheck Protection Program. In 
the Senate, Democrats blocked the majority from bringing up a clean 
extension of PPP, and later, Democrats blocked a Republican-led 
coronavirus relief bill from being considered, not because they 
disagreed with anything in the bill, but because they just thought 
other things should be in the bill.
  All of these bills are bills that the President would have signed 
into law.
  At a time when so many Americans are truly suffering, why the House 
majority insists on blocking these measures and bringing up their own 
partisan wish list instead does not make sense to me.
  But what makes even less sense is the egregious process they followed 
in considering this bill. The process, if you can even call it that, 
violated House rules and any notion of fairness.
  The bill was introduced on Monday night after being drafted in secret 
in Speaker Pelosi's office without any Republican input whatsoever. No 
committee held a hearing on it and no committee marked it up. That is 
violating the McGovern rule, which requires any bill coming before the 
Rules Committee to have a hearing and a markup in the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  The bill is 2,152 pages long, and I highly doubt that most Members 
have had time to read, review, and digest it in that short amount of 
time.
  I will say this, though: it does set a record. It spends $1 billion a 
page. That is pretty remarkable spending.
  When your process is that bad, no wonder the output is as bad as the 
bill we are considering today.
  The majority claims that today's bill is a scaled-down version of the 
Heroes Act, a bill we considered back in May. If the majority's funding 
calculations on the amount of money we are spending in this bill are 
accurate, that may be technically correct, but it still has the exact 
same policies and problems as the Heroes Act.
  This bill includes massive spending even in areas where we 
appropriated funds as part of the CARES Act in March and haven't fully 
spent them yet: funding for Democratic policy priorities at the expense 
of bipartisan ones; inclusion of provisions that are completely 
unrelated to coronavirus relief, like a complicated and controversial 
multiemployer pension bill, a provision revealing an existing provision 
of law requiring the auction of T-Band spectrum, massive student loan 
forgiveness, and the mandating of a national vote by mail.
  Some of these may deserve consideration, but what they are doing in a 
bill that is supposed to be about providing relief to Americans 
affected by the coronavirus pandemic is beyond me.
  Mr. Speaker, in any bill this size, it is inevitable that all Members 
will find at least one provision that they like, but it is the package 
as a whole that is offensive and objectionable.
  Drafted without Republican input and with nothing but Democratic 
ideas and extraneous policy priorities, it is doomed to the same result 
as happened the last time the majority tried this approach.
  With their actions today, we will not move the ball forward, we will 
not draw closer to a final deal that actually helps Americans. And what 
they will do is to continue to pass on the chance to actually work 
together as a bipartisan institution and to provide real help to the 
American people.
  Just as in May, the majority is putting up a partisan bill, when what 
we

[[Page H5092]]

need is a bipartisan deal. We did that four times before, Mr. Speaker. 
If we chose to, we could do so again.
  They are doing the same thing again and expecting a different result.
  Mr. Speaker, it didn't have to be this way. There are many areas 
where we agree: Paycheck Protection Program; additional money for 
schools to reopen; a one-time payment of $1,200 per individual, $500 
per child in households making less than $75,000 a year; 
additional money to speed the distribution of vaccines.

  Those are areas we could bring out one at a time or bundled together 
and pass. Instead, my friends have chosen to use a formula they know is 
doomed to failure.
  As to the amount, the President has actually been flexible. The 
original Senate proposal was $1 trillion, no inconsiderable sum of 
money, I might add. The President moved that up to $1.5 trillion. That 
wasn't good enough, even though many members of my friend's party 
actually supported that, the so-called Problem Solvers Caucus.
  So I don't want to belabor the point, but I know the difference 
between a serious effort to pass legislation that has a chance of 
passing in the Senate and being signed by the President and a messaging 
exercise, and that is all we are engaged in today. So it is indeed, Mr. 
Speaker, deja vu all over again.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that when my friend says this is a 
Democratic wish list of things, I mean, the fact of the matter is, we 
are trying to respond to a pandemic. We haven't had to deal with 
something like this since 1918.

                              {time}  1645

  It has basically impacted our economy in ways that have resulted in 
millions of people losing their jobs. We have schools that have not 
fully reopened because it is not safe. We have had shortages of PPE. We 
don't have adequate testing. I can go on and on and on.
  But the wish list that this bill addresses has things like we support 
small businesses. We improve the Paycheck Protection Program. That is 
hardly--I would like to think Republicans share that, too.
  Additional assistance for the airline industry workers: Is that so 
controversial?
  More funds to bolster education and childcare: Given what we are 
going through, is that controversial?
  We honor our heroes. We provide assistance to State, local, 
territorial, and Tribal governments that desperately need funds to pay 
first responders. Is that a point of contention?
  It supports testing, tracing, and treatment; provides additional 
direct payments for those who are unemployed; protects payrolls; 
ensures worker safety; preserves health coverage; restores unemployment 
benefits; bolsters housing assistance; strengthens food security at a 
time when a record number of Americans are going hungry.
  Again, just to put this in context, we passed something 4 months ago. 
Four months ago, we sent it over to the Senate. Now, they should have 
passed something, and then we could have negotiated the differences. 
That is the way it usually works.
  The Republicans are fighting with Republicans over in the Senate. 
There is a big chunk of Republicans who don't want to appropriate one 
more penny for the American people. No, they don't have the time. But 
they have the time to rush through another Supreme Court Justice, in 
record time.
  I guess what is so frustrating is that some of my friends act like 
this is not an emergency, like, you know, we can just kind of go along 
and everything will be fine. This is an emergency.
  We haven't faced a crisis like this in our lifetime, and if we don't 
have an all-out comprehensive approach, not a scalpel approach--it is 
not just about PPP. It is also about our schools, our healthcare 
workers, our first responders. It is about a whole bunch of stuff. But 
if we don't have an all-comprehensive approach, then this economy is 
going to have a very difficult time recovering.
  It is just frustrating to me. I was home in Massachusetts. I did 
tours of restaurants in my district, and people have been visiting some 
of our restaurants, eating outside. But in Massachusetts, we get 
winters. It is going to get cold soon, and pretty soon, people are not 
going to want to eat outside. They won't be able to.
  If people don't feel safe going inside because, as we are seeing now 
in a number of States that aren't following some of the recommendations 
of the CDC, we see case numbers going up. So if we had another surge, 
how are these restaurants going to survive? They are going to shut 
their doors forever.
  We have an opportunity to provide a lifeline until we get through all 
of this. I mean, there are so many aspects of our economy that have 
been impacted by this, so many people who are just struggling to get 
by.
  It is unconscionable to me that this hasn't occupied a greater sense 
of urgency in the Republican leader's mind over in the Senate. I just 
don't get it. It really is so disappointing to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I may consume 
just to quickly make a couple of points and then move to my friend from 
Arizona.
  Far be it for me, Mr. Speaker, to defend the upper body. I am a very 
proud Member of this House, as I know all of us here are.
  But it is worth noting for the Record the Senate actually had 52 
votes to pass a bill. It was my friend's party that kept them from 
considering it.
  As to the Supreme Court, thank goodness they don't have to deal with 
the House of Representatives. That is why they are able to move 
quickly. They could move pretty quickly if they had somebody they could 
deal with here as well.
  It is my friends who have chosen to craft legislation that they know 
will be unacceptable, that they know the President will not sign, and 
then rail at them for not passing it and the President for not signing 
it. That is the height of chutzpah, if you will.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. 
Lesko), my distinguished friend and fellow member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Cole for yielding me the time.
  I agree with Chairman McGovern that we need to help the American 
people. There are still people hurting out there, and they need help 
from us.
  That is why it is so frustrating to me that we have this bill in 
front of us because it is just a very similar version to the partisan 
bill that the Democrats pushed out of here just a few months ago that 
they know is not going to get anywhere.
  I remember seeing in the media how Democrats in the House in swing 
districts were asking, pleading with Speaker Pelosi, to please 
negotiate with the Republicans and the President to actually get a bill 
that will be passed and signed into law because, after all, you all 
know that if you really want to help the American people, you have to 
have a bill that is actually able to get signed into law, and this bill 
is not it.
  Unfortunately, this bill, once again, highlights a lot of the 
priorities that my Democratic colleagues have that have nothing to do 
with coronavirus, quite frankly.
  One of the things that I found very interesting in this bill is that, 
in the original Heroes Act that was passed a few months ago, they had 
$600 million in there for the COPS hiring program. That is to help 
State and local law enforcement. Curiously enough, it is not in this 
version of the bill.
  So I was wondering, is this how they are planning to save some money 
on the bill, to take away funding for police and law enforcement?

  Also in this bill, once again, is extending the extra $600 a week in 
unemployment assistance into the beginning and through spring of next 
year. Well, many businesses, multiple businesses, have told us that 
they are having trouble hiring workers back because workers are getting 
paid more to stay at home and not work. This is right here in that 
bill, in this bill, right now.
  We cannot pay people more to stay home and not work. We need to 
incentivize them to come back to work.
  This bill also allows illegal immigrants to get $1,200 stimulus 
checks

[[Page H5093]]

and their children $500 stimulus checks. That is right here in this 
language, right here in this bill. American citizens, my taxpayers in 
Arizona, do not want to subsidize illegal immigrants.
  This bill also removes safeguards in the Paycheck Protection Program.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from Arizona an 
additional 1 minute.
  Mrs. LESKO. This bill also removes any protections from using 
taxpayer dollars to fund abortions. That is right here in this bill.
  This bill, as Representative Cole also said, federalizes elections. 
In fact, it prohibits States from requiring voter ID. Arizona requires 
voter ID. This bill would take that away.
  It also legalizes ballot harvesting. Arizona opposed--the legislature 
said no ballot harvesting. This would bring it right back, right here 
in this bill.
  Again, it would also provide tax breaks to millionaires and 
billionaires in blue States that require taxpayers in low-tax States, 
like Arizona, to subsidize them.
  That is why we can't support this bill. There are too many poison 
pills. Please come up with something that we can agree on to help the 
American people.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I just want to say a 
couple of things for the Record.
  I guess the new Republican tactic--if anybody watched the debate 
yesterday--is to try to twist and turn and confuse people.
  The gentlewoman implied that this somehow defunds police. I mean, 
there is $436 billion in here to provide assistance directly to State 
and local governments to support the police.
  If my friend was so interested in supporting the police, she should 
know that the bill that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brought 
up provided no money for State and local governments. I mean nothing.
  In fact, that bill didn't provide money for a lot of the most needy 
people in this country who are suffering as a result of this virus: no 
money for nutrition to help our families who are going hungry, no money 
for a lot of the priorities that I know are priorities not only in my 
district but all over the country.
  The bottom line is, my friends can come up with excuse after excuse 
after excuse to not support this. But by not supporting it, we are not 
supporting the American people at a time of desperate need.
  Again, we have come down $1.3 trillion from what we originally put 
forward, not because we think it is necessarily the right thing to do, 
because the need is so great. We are doing it to try to find ways to 
accommodate, to move this process forward. And obviously, my friends 
make up ways to justify their voting ``no'' on this.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, the American people cannot take this anymore.
  And my good friend from Oklahoma, I know the compassion that he has. 
We have worked together, as well as my friends from Ohio and Arizona.
  But yesterday, I stood with the mayor of the city of Houston, and we 
announced a mental health hotline for people being impacted by COVID-
19. Yes, the stress of COVID-19 is taking a toll on the American 
people. They need relief.
  A very proud, brave parent got up to talk about how difficult it is 
to virtually teach her children while she works and how concerned she 
was. Why? Because the mandate comes from on high--the White House--that 
if you are not having your children in school in some form, meaning in 
the buildings, because that is the decision she was grappling with, 
then you don't get money.
  They have no money. They have no money to have expanded buildings or 
temporary buildings so that they can help parents who work have 
children safely in school. They have no money for testing. They have no 
money to be able to provide for sick employees from COVID-19.
  So I rise today to say: The American people cannot take it anymore. 
The stress is enormous. What we have done here is a very merciful 
response to the bill we already passed, that our friends, conflicted 
with each other and the White House, cannot seem to get a grip on.
  I support $225 billion for education and childcare, $436 billion in 
assistance to our State and local governments.
  I thank Mr. McGovern for making it clear. Those are our municipal 
workers. Those are police and fire, and we need it because who has 
gotten sick? Police officers, firefighters. And we need this money.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Blumenauer). The time of the gentlewoman 
has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 1 
minute.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we need the testing. We are doing 
testing on the last pennies of the money that we were granted through 
the leadership, our Speaker and others.
  They need testing. I will be in a stadium this coming week, trying to 
get people tested. That is how much we need it.
  Then, of course, $28 billion in procurement, distribution, education, 
materials for the vaccine.
  But I want to focus on the $600 for unemployment, the money for the 
$1,200, as well as the money for rental and mortgage to prevent 
mortgage foreclosure. The restaurant money, I want it for the 
independent pizza shops who hire people, for the workers who are going 
to be out of work, like airport workers or airline workers. The food 
insecurity, people are standing on line to get food.
  What don't my good friends understand? That people are desperate, and 
they are in need?
  I wish we were not discussing questions about white supremacy and 
whether or not someone believed it or not. I wish we would stay focused 
on getting this bill passed for the desperate people, no matter what 
backgrounds they are.
  I want to rise in enthusiastic support for this Heroes bill, H.R. 
8406. Let's pass it now.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to immediately bring up H.R. 8265, a bill to 
extend the Paycheck Protection Program through the end of the year and 
release $137 billion in unspent funds for that program.
  Mr. Speaker, every Member of Congress can agree we need to enact 
relief for the millions suffering from the pandemic, but we should only 
move forward on legislation that can actually be signed into law. The 
measure the majority is attempting to pass today simply doesn't fit 
that bill. Absent a comprehensive bipartisan package, we should pass 
smaller pieces where there is broad consensus, such as the Paycheck 
Protection Program.
  PPP is of great importance to our constituents. It is helping keep 
millions of Americans employed and receiving a paycheck. Members on 
both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers agree that this crucial 
program needs to be extended, and it could be extended today if the 
majority were to bring a bipartisan bill extending PPP to the floor.
  But you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. Many House 
Democrats agree we need to pass a true relief bill now rather than just 
another political messaging bill.
  A bipartisan letter recently sent to the Speaker stressed that 
``failing to reach a deal is unacceptable and is a failure of duty to 
the American people.''
  A separate letter sent to the Speaker by eight Democrats last week 
demanded ``a vote on a clean relief package that has direct assistance 
for those in need.''
  Perhaps the most telling is a third letter sent just a few days ago 
and signed by 23 Democrats. These Members correctly point out to their 
leaders that, absent a bipartisan deal, a ``discharge petition is the 
only potential option for COVID-19-related action on the House floor.''
  As my colleagues know, House Republicans have such a discharge 
petition ready to be signed, and we look forward to these Members 
joining us.

[[Page H5094]]

  However, I would point out, Madam Speaker, to my colleagues that we 
don't have to wait for a discharge petition to succeed. We can take a 
clear step right now by defeating the previous question and bringing 
H.R. 8265 up for an immediate vote.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Chabot), who is my good friend and the ranking 
member of the Small Business Committee, to explain more about this 
critical bill.
  Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP as many of us 
refer to it, has been shut down now for over 50 days. That is nearly 2 
months that small businesses have been unable to access approximately 
$137 billion that still remains in the program that was supposed to go 
for their relief.
  Small businesses and their workers need our help. Small businesses 
employ nearly half of the workers in this Nation, one out of two. Think 
of that. One out of every two people employed in this Nation works for 
one of America's small businesses. Not only do they represent millions 
of workers, but they also are the Nation's job creators. They create 
approximately two out of every three new jobs in America.
  Of course, these aren't just statistics. One example of an 
outstanding small business owner is Lacie Sims. Recently, I had the 
opportunity to visit Lacie's business, the Village Family Restaurant, 
in Waynesville, Ohio, back in my district.
  Lacie spoke with me about how she used the Paycheck Protection 
Program to keep her 25 workers employed so that they could continue to 
serve the community and, most importantly, continue to support their 
families. Lacie went on to tell me about how she quickly adapted her 
business to accommodate pickup, delivery, and safe indoor dining.
  Like Lacie, many small business owners have adapted and persevered 
through the pandemic. Unfortunately, COVID-19 continues to challenge 
their very existence.
  Now is the time for us to act, and we have an option before us here 
today. If we defeat today's previous question, we can move directly to 
my legislation to reopen the Paycheck Protection Program, the PPP 
program. H.R. 8265 would provide targeted assistance to small 
businesses that truly need the Federal Government's help.
  This legislation gives small businesses the opportunity to receive a 
second PPP if they can demonstrate a significant revenue reduction or a 
first-round loan if they didn't get one the first time. Additionally, 
it adds more flexibility in how the PPP dollars can be spent and still 
be eligible for loan forgiveness.
  Many small businesses are still struggling across this country. We 
need to act now to help these small businesses, the people that they 
employ, and the families that they, in turn, support.
  Let's defeat the previous question and restart the Paycheck 
Protection Program. The Nation's economy is at stake. We still have 
$137 billion sitting there that was intended to go to these small 
businesses. We don't have to allocate any more funding. The funding is 
there.
  Now, my Democratic colleagues have said that they are for small 
business. This is the time not just to talk the talk but to walk the 
walk. You get two opportunities, Madam Speaker, you can vote against 
this previous question or you can sign the discharge petition. Either 
one of them gives us another vote.
  Let's save these small businesses.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  The gentleman would be happy to know that, in this bill that we are 
bringing before here, we have most of what he requested but more. Our 
PPP language is more expansive, because a lot of businesses didn't 
qualify under the old formula.
  But I do have to say that it really pains me that my friends don't 
understand that it is not just about small businesses. It is about our 
cities and towns and our first responders.
  We have communities that are about to fire firefighters and police 
officers. Isn't that important to my friends?
  Or helping to pay for schools to reopen safely or to be able to help 
kids get an education remotely or in a hybrid way, doesn't that fall on 
the top list of my Republican friends?
  Healthcare coverage, the airline industry, which is about to lay off 
thousands of workers, we provide some help for them, but yet that 
doesn't make the cut.
  So, yes, we can have a scalpel approach to this. We will do a little 
bit here and maybe we will do a little bit there, but that fails to 
recognize the severity of the crisis that we are now in.
  Open your eyes and look at what is happening in this country, in 
large part, due to the mismanagement of this President, which is 
unconscionable.
  But here in Congress, we can't deal with him. We can't fix the way he 
approaches his job. But we can provide direct resources to businesses 
and to local governments that can help keep our economy afloat until we 
can get by this.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this.
  I commend our leadership, the Speaker, for again putting forward 
legislation to support working families, local government, and 
healthcare as we deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
  This updated Heroes Act provides for another round of cash payments, 
housing and food assistance, help for unemployed workers, and targeted 
relief for small businesses who need it most, like independent 
restaurants.
  I would like to speak on that for a moment because I am very proud 
that this legislation includes $120 billion from our RESTAURANTS Act 
for saving 500,000 independent restaurants and their 11 million 
employees. This sector of the economy totals $1 trillion when you deal 
with all those organizations, all their supply chains, and ancillary 
effects.
  Local, independent restaurants are the cornerstone of communities 
large and small, your community and mine. I think it is hard to imagine 
what life would be like in Oklahoma City or Cincinnati or Portland, 
Oregon, without those vital institutions. That is where communities 
come together. They provide a disproportionate avenue for economic 
success for minorities, immigrants, and women-owned enterprises. A 
restaurant for many of us was the first job, and it is an avenue for 
moving forward.
  They are, unfortunately, hurting more than any other industry. They 
are the largest contributor to unemployment. One in four job losses is 
in this industry. We have a chance to do something about it. They are 
the largest contributor of unemployment of any sector--one in four job 
losses. In fact, they were half the unemployed in April. Already one in 
six restaurants have closed their doors permanently, but this 
legislation provides relief for those who are hanging on by a thread.
  The evidence is that if we don't take action like this that is 
targeted for independent restaurants, we are going to have 85 percent 
of them close by the end of the year permanently.
  The Heroes Act targets $120 billion of our RESTAURANTS Act that would 
generate $250 billion in economic impact. It would support millions of 
restaurant workers, truck drivers, farmers, and fishermen--people who 
support this critical industry. It is not just the fruits and 
vegetables and the linens. Think about it for a moment, Madam Speaker. 
All of those are involved.
  This legislation would, by giving $120 billion of direct relief, 
provide $250 billion in economic savings by having people not filing 
bankruptcy and not adding to the unemployed ranks, but keeping them in 
business paying taxes, paying employees, and keeping those essential 
food supply chains going.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an 
additional 1 minute.

[[Page H5095]]

  

  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, independent restaurants are the true 
and quintessential embodiment of small businesses. What this 
legislation is geared for is the small, independent restaurants. That 
assistance is more important now than ever.
  It is sad that we have not had much bipartisan support in the House 
for this, although in the Senate there are 40 cosponsors including a 
number of Republicans led by Senator Wicker from Mississippi. I would 
hope that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would see fit to 
vote for this legislation, vote to save independent restaurants, and be 
able to move forward in a way that will benefit every community across 
America.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to respond quickly to my friends and point 
out something that is striking to me in listening to the debate. There 
is almost nothing that any of my friends have mentioned that we don't 
support--almost nothing. All these worthy programs for restaurants, all 
this relief for individuals, and all this help, we all agree with that. 
It is the things my friends don't mention that they have in their bill 
that we don't agree with.
  We don't agree with more money for Planned Parenthood. That has no 
place in this bill.
  We obviously have very serious objections to federalizing the 
election system of this country, which is State based. That has no 
place in this bill.
  We obviously don't want to give a tax break to millionaires and 
billionaires in blue States by getting rid of the State and local tax 
limitations that were placed in.
  Those are the things, none of which have anything to do with 
coronavirus, that we object to. Those are the things that my friends 
are insisting on that they cannot pass in the United States Senate and 
that the President will not sign.
  If they want to actually pass all these other wonderful things, we 
agree with them, and we have been very generous in terms of the amount 
of money. The President has moved up on that.
  Money is a negotiable item here. Policy positions--poison pills, as 
my good friend from Arizona said--are not, and that is what is keeping 
us from acting.
  Frankly, that is a tragedy and a travesty, in my view, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I yield myself 
the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, in closing, I urge opposition to the rule. Today's 
bill is nothing more than a Democratic wish list masquerading as a 
coronavirus relief bill, roughly the same as the partisan bill the 
majority passed back in May and it was never taken up by the Senate, 
would never be signed by the President.
  As in May, today's bill is ultimately doomed. It will not pass the 
Senate. The President has made it clear he will not sign it.
  Madam Speaker, the majority is missing a real chance here. The 
American people are suffering as a result of the coronavirus. It is 
past time for the two parties to do what we did very successfully four 
times in a row in a 10-week period and work together and actually 
provide a package that provides real relief for the American people.
  There are plenty of things we agree on, such as the extension of the 
Paycheck Protection Program, such as ensuring that more funds are 
provided for testing and tracing, such as one-time payments of $1,200 
per individual and $500 per child to every household making less than 
$75,000 a year. We disagree about the exact amount, but we agree every 
American who is unemployed, through no fault of their own, should get 
at least $400 more a week.
  Frankly, because the Democrats did not take up that offer, those 
people have gotten zero since the end of July. We absolutely agree that 
we need additional money for the opening of schools.
  Madam Speaker, so why don't we put on the floor--it is a novel 
suggestion--the things we agree on, the things we know the Senate will 
pass and we know the President would sign. The only reason we have 
failed to do that is because the Democratic leadership has made the 
decision that we have to agree on everything before we do anything. 
That is no way to legislate in a body that has a Democratic majority in 
the House, a Republican majority in the Senate, and a Republican 
President.
  The majority is not in the position to dictate to either the Senate 
or the President what is going to happen, but they are in a powerful 
position to negotiate, and negotiate in good faith, and focus on the 
areas where we agree.
  Madam Speaker, I think that would move us forward productively. I 
think that would be in the best interests of the American people. So I 
call on the majority to end this charade and engage with Republicans in 
the House, the Senate, and the administration and come to an agreement 
on a real bipartisan relief package. I know my friends can do it 
because we did it together four times in a row.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question, ``no'' on the rule, and ``no'' on the underlying bill, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I have served in this House for many years. I have 
been here through unimaginable tragedies, like September 11. Every time 
this Nation has been challenged, we came together--not as Democrats or 
Republicans, but as Americans. Never could I have imagined that after a 
shock like the coronavirus, that has taken more than 205,000 lives, 
that we would struggle to reach a compromise.
  The House did its job more than 4 months ago when we passed the 
original Heroes Act; the Senate abdicated its responsibility. But we 
have not walked away. We have not stopped trying to help protect the 
lives and livelihood of people that we represent. We are back today 
with a bill that puts on paper the compromises that we are willing to 
make, not to get a win for one side or the other, but to help the 
American people in the middle of a pandemic. That is what this is all 
about.
  Madam Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I beg, 
please don't abandon the American people. Don't throw up your hands and 
walk away because you don't like every line of this bill. Take ``yes'' 
for an answer.
  Madam Speaker, this bill doesn't Federalize elections. It provides 
safeguards for elections and provides funding to States to be able to 
carry out elections safely in the middle of a pandemic. To object over 
the fact that this bill protects Americans from losing their health 
coverage is startling to me, although it shouldn't be, because the 
President, as we speak, is in court trying to get the Affordable Care 
Act repealed outright, where millions of people would lose their 
healthcare, people with preexisting conditions would lose that 
protection, and you wouldn't be able to keep your kids on your 
insurance until they are 26.
  Think about it: In the middle of a pandemic, that is the priority of 
this White House--to rip healthcare away from people. It takes my 
breath away what a disconnect there is about what the American people 
need and what some of my friends' priorities are.
  Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us in compromising to get 
something done. I get it. This is an election year and people are used 
to running to their political corners, but this crisis demands more 
than just business as usual. It demands action. And it demands more 
than a scalpel approach: ``Well, let me do a little bit here,'' or 
``let me do a little bit there.''
  I am told that the White House doesn't want to fund nutrition 
programs to help make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. I 
can't believe anybody would take that position, but we are told that is 
one of the hot button items that people don't want to fund, that it is 
one of the Democratic priorities that is so controversial.
  Really? Even before this pandemic, we had 40 million people in this 
country who didn't know where their next meal was going to come from; 
and every year it is a battle to make sure they don't cut nutrition 
programs. But now we are in a pandemic and hunger has increased 
dramatically in this country. Every one of us should not only be 
concerned about that, but we should be ashamed that that is a reality 
in the richest country in the history of the world.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to come together. This is an

[[Page H5096]]

opportunity to meet this moment. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and on the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1161

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 8265} to amend the Small Business Act and the 
     CARES Act to establish a program for second draw loans and 
     make other modifications to the paycheck protection program, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
     Business; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 8265.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam 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. COLE. Madam 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 229, 
nays 185, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 212]

                               YEAS--229

     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, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     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)
     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
     Speier
     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--185

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     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
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     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
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Abraham
     Babin
     Buck
     Davis (CA)
     DeGette
     Diaz-Balart
     Emmer
     Graves (GA)
     Hagedorn
     Mitchell
     Mullin
     Rooney (FL)
     Simpson
     Stauber
     Weber (TX)
     Wright

                              {time}  1821

  Ms. GRANGER, Messrs. COLLINS of Georgia and CARTER of Texas changed 
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  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

     Beatty (Lawrence)
     Butterfield (Kildee)
     Chu, Judy (Takano)
     Cohen (Beyer)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Fudge (Bass)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Hayes (Courtney)
     Huffman (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kaptur (Dingell)
     Kennedy (Kuster (NH))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Clark (MA))
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Pressley (Garcia (IL))
     Richmond (Davids (KS))
     Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (CA) (Kildee)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Adams)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Madam 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 225, 
nays 188, not voting 17, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 213]

                               YEAS--225

     Adams
     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
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     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

[[Page H5097]]


     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)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     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
     Speier
     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--188

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     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
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Holding
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McAdams
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Shimkus
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spanberger
     Spano
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--17

     Abraham
     Aguilar
     Babin
     DeGette
     Demings
     Diaz-Balart
     Emmer
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Graves (GA)
     Hagedorn
     Mitchell
     Moulton
     Mullin
     Rooney (FL)
     Simpson
     Stauber
     Wright

                              {time}  1859

  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.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Beatty (Lawrence)
     Butterfield (Kildee)
     Chu, Judy (Takano)
     Cohen (Beyer)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Fudge (Bass)
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Hayes (Courtney)
     Huffman (Kildee)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kaptur (Dingell)
     Kennedy (Kuster (NH))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Clark (MA))
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Pressley (Garcia (IL))
     Richmond (Davids (KS))
     Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Thompson (CA) (Kildee)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Wilson (FL) (Adams)

                          ____________________