Congressional Record, Volume 166 Issue 170 (Wednesday, September 30, 2020)

[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

____________________