[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 197 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H5942-H5949]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1215
 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8294, NATIONAL APPRENTICESHIP ACT 
                                OF 2020

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 1224 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1224

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8294) to 
     amend the National Apprenticeship Act and expand the national 
     apprenticeship system to include apprenticeships, youth 
     apprenticeships, and pre-apprenticeship registered under such 
     Act, to promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary 
     to safeguard the welfare of apprentices, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Education and Labor now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and 
     Labor; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 of 
     this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in 
     section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit 
     with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first section of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this 
     resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn 
     by the proponent at any time before the question is put 
     thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be 
     subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the 
     chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee 
     to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. 
     Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be 
     considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and 
     shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
     question.
       Sec. 4.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  House Resolution 967, agreed to May 15, 2020 (as 
     most recently amended by House Resolution 1107, agreed to 
     September 15, 2020), is amended--
       (1) in section 4, by striking ``November 20, 2020'' and 
     inserting ``the remainder of the One Hundred Sixteenth 
     Congress'';
       (2) in section 11, by striking ``legislative day of 
     November 20, 2020'' and inserting ``remainder of the One 
     Hundred Sixteenth Congress''; and
       (3) in section 12, by striking ``legislative day of 
     November 20, 2020'' and inserting ``remainder of the One 
     Hundred Sixteenth Congress''.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1224, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 8294, the National Apprenticeship Act of 2020, under a structured 
rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor 
and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes 
in order 17 amendments, and provides en bloc authority.
  Additionally, the rule provides one motion to recommit and extends 
recess instructions, same day and suspension authority through the 
remainder of the 116th Congress.
  Before I begin my formal remarks, I would like to take a point of 
personal privilege to thank Mr. Woodall for his friendship during my 
time on the Rules Committee. We don't always agree, but even in our 
disagreements, he is never disagreeable. I admire his wit, his passion, 
his love for this institution, and his love for our country.
  I wish him the very best in the future and hope this is not the end 
of his public career. I am always delighted to spend time, not only in 
our lengthy Rules Committee discussions, but also on the floor with 
him, so I thank Mr. Woodall so much.
  Madam Speaker, the National Apprenticeship Act is critical workforce 
development legislation that will invest $3.5 billion to create nearly 
1 million new apprenticeship opportunities over the next 5 years.
  This is an historic investment in workforce training, and I am so 
pleased to support this effort. Amid this challenging and catastrophic 
pandemic, I am grateful that this body is not only addressing the needs 
of the American people as they grapple with the COVID-19 virus, but 
also looking ahead and preparing for the challenges our Nation will 
face as we recover economically.
  Skilled workers are the backbone of our economy, and apprenticeships 
provide a unique opportunity to grow and expand access to this 
workforce. The success of apprenticeship programs is

[[Page H5943]]

well-established. According to the Department of Labor, 94 percent of 
apprentices are employed after completing apprenticeship programs, 
earning an average starting wage of $70,000.
  Not only do apprenticeship programs provide pathways to meaningful 
and sustainable careers, they are critical to expanding our Nation's 
skilled workforce.
  When I meet with local business leaders in my district of Rochester, 
New York, I regularly hear that their greatest challenge is finding 
skilled labor to fill positions and keep their businesses thriving. 
Apprenticeships provide an invaluable pathway to engage workers, 
establish connections with high-demand industries, and set workers on a 
path to a rewarding and sustainable career.
  I am proud that a bill I introduced with my colleague, Congresswoman 
Trahan, H.R. 8317, has been included in the text of the National 
Apprenticeship Act. Our bill helps scale up participation among 
populations not typically engaged in apprenticeships, particularly 
small- and medium-sized businesses. Together, we can create new 
opportunities in high-demand industries.
  This critical piece of legislation will bolster our Nation's 
apprenticeship programs, build up a much-needed labor force, and open 
doors for businesses and workers alike.
  Through my position on the Education and Labor Committee, I have seen 
the months and years of bipartisanship that has led us to this day. 
While we don't agree on every aspect of the bill, I believe the 
legislation before us is the best course of action to support 
apprenticeship programs that have proven the most successful for both 
working families and employers. Now, more than ever, these programs are 
critical to grapple with the long-term economic impacts of COVID-19.
  I applaud my colleague, Congresswoman Davis, for her work on the 
National Apprenticeship Act. This comprehensive legislation is a 
testament to her leadership as chair of the Higher Education and 
Workforce Investment Subcommittee, and she will be sorely missed in the 
days and weeks and years ahead as she leaves us at the end of this 
term.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying 
bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my friend from New York, not just for 
his kind words, but for the time today.
  We always say, Madam Speaker, that time is yielded for the purpose of 
debate only, and for folks who don't follow what the Rules Committee 
does, that just prevents the shenanigans that could occur if the 
gentleman from New York wanted to give me 30 minutes unlimited and I 
could start calling measures to the floor.
  But we do need more debate, less vitriol and more debate. As my 
friend from New York pointed out, the apprenticeship program is one of 
those programs that really does bring people together.
  The track record speaks for itself when we talk about the 90 percent 
employment retention rate that these apprentices bring forward, when we 
talk about the $300,000 in lifetime earnings that apprentices generate 
compared to their nonapprentice peers.

  This really is a partnership opportunity that I am afraid the House 
is missing again today.
  Lameduck sessions, Madam Speaker, are strange things. Sometimes we 
bring the biggest bills that Congress is going to work on during 
lameduck sessions; sometimes we bring the smallest. Sometimes it 
provides that extra time to bring people together; and, candidly, on 
this bill, I thought that is what we would be doing because, exactly as 
my friend from New York points out, this is a partnership issue.
  But we find ourselves here today with a base text that passed out of 
committee on a party-line vote. I think we can do better than that. I 
know we can do better than that. And to the majority's credit, because 
this is a majoritarian institution, the majority can do absolutely 
anything they want to.
  Oftentimes, a minority substitute is excluded from the rule. In the 
wisdom of Rules Committee members like Mr. Morelle and our chairman, 
Mr. McGovern, the Republican substitute was made in order by the Rules 
Committee, so we will have an opportunity to debate different visions 
of the apprenticeship program.
  But I wonder, in this exceptional time where folks are exceptionally 
worried about the future, if maybe this isn't the time to have more of 
those Republican-alternative, Democratic-alternative debates and not 
one of those times that we should be speaking with one voice to the 
American people.
  There were amendments made in order and, candidly, more amendments 
than are traditionally made in order for a bill like this. Again, I 
can't fault my Rules Committee colleagues for trying to get out of some 
of the closed amendment process ruts that we have been in, but we were 
so close to being able to make this a truly bipartisan process; and I 
am concerned, having excluded about half of the Republican amendments 
that were offered, we are going to fall a little bit short of that 
today.
  At its core, Madam Speaker, our disagreement is about how easy should 
it be to have these apprenticeship programs certified. We absolutely 
have, through the Department of Labor, an official process for putting 
apprenticeships on the official U.S. Government list. It comes with 
lots of benefits and privileges and also comes with many burdens.
  As we sit here today, Madam Speaker, this is a process that has been 
in place for 80 years and is in need of a modernization in the 21st 
century. Many of the numbers we look at, Madam Speaker, suggest that 
there are more apprenticeships happening outside of the official 
Department of Labor program than inside the official Department of 
Labor program.
  One of the amendments we have made in order today is one from my 
friend from Washington State (Mr. Kilmer) that is going to make 
computer science programs, computer programming programs eligible for 
the first time.
  Well, of course, anybody who has been in that field--I happened to be 
in one of the first computer science classes that America had back in 
the 1980s--knows that you learn more from your friends, more from your 
colleagues, more from being in the process together than you ever 
learned from reading a book or sitting in the classroom.
  Of course, computer science ought to be on that list of programs, yet 
it has taken us well into 2020 to get to that place. I would argue we 
may be a decade or two late in that process, but better late than 
never.
  As my friend from New York referenced, I am on my way out of the 
institution; and, candidly, I am pleased that we have a process that, 
even though the result is a partisan result, has more bipartisanship in 
it than many of the bills that I have had to represent here in the 
Rules Committee minority position that I hold.
  It is my great hope that, as this institution shrinks the distance 
between the majority and minority heading into 2021, it is going to 
provide opportunities to remind us how much we need each other to get 
things done.
  The best votes I took as a young freshman Member, Madam Speaker, were 
not the ones that John Boehner jammed through with all of the 
Republicans voting ``yes'' and all of the Democrats voting ``no.''

                              {time}  1230

  The best votes that I took freshman year were the ones that John 
Boehner jammed through with Nancy Pelosi's help that had about 50 
percent of the Democrats and about 50 percent of the Republicans and 
did the big things that you just couldn't do alone, Madam Speaker, that 
required Members to stand up and get outside of their ideological 
comfort zone and get into that space of how can we really make a 
difference.
  Is this bill going to make a difference for American workers and 
young people trying to get started in their career and businesses 
trying to recruit good talent?
  Of course, it is. Of course, it is. It is a modest step in the right 
direction, but it is a step in the right direction.
  I am going to encourage my colleagues to defeat the rule so that we 
can take a larger step in the right direction. Sometimes, Madam 
Speaker,

[[Page H5944]]

you have to play small ball to get the gears of success turning at the 
appropriate speed. Sometimes you are up against crises like COVID-19 
where you don't have time for small ball, and you have got to take 
those big steps.
  I will mention just one to you, Madam Speaker. I offered an amendment 
in the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment by my friend from 
Pennsylvania, whom you saw on the floor here earlier, Mr. Thompson. His 
amendment simply said this: During the COVID-19 crisis, while we are 
seeing the economy evolve in ways that we could have never predicted 
and still cannot predict, let us give the Secretary of the Department 
of Labor the ability to be nimble in terms of designating new 
apprenticeship programs.
  Now, for the next 40 days, that Department of Labor Secretary is 
going to be a Trump appointee. After those 40 days, we are going to 
have a different scenario happening there.
  Is this an issue of our being in the rut of voting ``no'' on the 
administration that is not of our political persuasion?
  Is this an example of our starting to reclaim some Article I power 
and to stop delegating things down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and 
instead retaining those authorities here?
  We didn't get to have that debate because we didn't make that 
amendment in order, and we are not going to be able to have that 
conversation. It is a conversation that needs to be had. We need to get 
out of our habits of voting ``no'' on the other team that sits in the 
White House, and we need to get into the habit of being so nimble 
ourselves that we don't have to delegate authority to the executive in 
order to get things done, that we are able to get those things done.
  It is difficult for me, Madam Speaker, to be this close to the kind 
of legislative process that I came here to be a part of and our not 
reaching that goal. I do want to recognize success where success lives, 
and we had a more successful Rules Committee process this time than 
many times in the past, but it only reminds us of how close we are to 
that process that I believe all of our constituents expect of us, and 
that is bring all the ideas into the room, vote ``no'' on the bad 
ideas, vote ``yes'' on the good ideas, bring all 435 of our collective 
experiences to the floor, and let's put the best of it into the 
lawbooks to serve those whom we are sworn to serve.
  If my colleagues are willing to work with me to defeat the previous 
question today, I think we are going to have a chance to move in that 
direction. I look forward to talking with my friend from New York and 
the rest of my colleagues about that more to come.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  There are just a couple of points that I would make. First of all, 
with regard to amendments, I do note that there were substantial 
amendments made in order that were offered by Republicans. I do know 
that some amendments offered by Republicans where withdrawn because 
they are essentially part of the large amendment in the substitute bill 
which will be on the floor. So there will be, I think to Mr. Woodall's 
point--and I appreciate his sentiments here--I think there will be an 
opportunity, given the way we structured this rule and given the 
latitude that I think the majority gave, in making certain that there 
will be an adequate opportunity for a real debate about some of the 
distinctions between the minority's and the majority's perspective on 
this particular bill.
  So I actually think this was an opportunity and will be an 
opportunity for Chairman Scott and Mrs. Davis who is the chair of the 
subcommittee and I suspect will be debating the bill and amendments in 
just short order. So I think there will be that fullness and that 
richness of debate that my good friend from Georgia has talked about.
  I do want to just make a point, though, about the process over the 
last several years plus. I think in the last year and a half there were 
four different hearings held by the Higher Education and Workforce 
Investment Subcommittee which Mrs. Davis heads, there were months of 
intensive negotiations. There was a bipartisan Member-level roundtable, 
there were at least four hearings on the subject, and there was a real 
effort and I believe even an opportunity for us to reach bipartisan 
compromise to expand access to these high quality apprenticeship 
programs.
  Unfortunately, I think, at what I would describe as nearly the 
eleventh hour, the White House made clear it would not support the bill 
unless the Department of Labor and the White House were granted a much 
broader opportunity to approve apprenticeship programs in ways that we 
don't believe safeguard the interests of businesses or the people who 
would apply for those apprentice programs.
  It brings to mind an experience I had--I think I have shared it on 
this floor, and certainly with Mr. Woodall in Rules Committee 
meetings--my experience previous to this in the State legislature. One 
of my responsibilities during my career there was to chair the 
committee on insurance, and I often would find myself in the position--
even though I had a friendly Democratic administration--where the 
legislation would have, sort of at the end of it, sort of a blanket 
ability for at the time the superintendent of insurance to do whatever 
he or she felt was appropriate and give wide latitude. I would always 
strike that from the bills before passage saying that I thought it was 
the responsibility of the legislature to set policy to enact 
legislation.

  So what I believe we ought to be doing here--and I think Mr. Woodall 
would generally agree with me--relative to our Article I 
responsibilities of legislation being passed by both Houses of the 
Congress that giving, in my view, too wide a latitude to the Department 
of Labor, whether it is in the current outgoing administration or the 
incoming, makes little sense, that it is the rule and the 
responsibility and the duty of the Congress to make sure that those 
standards are set in law, in statute, not in rule, not in regulation, 
and not at the whim of the Department of Labor or any other agency of 
the government.
  So I think what we seek to do is not only to promote and expand 
apprenticeship opportunities, because--for all the reasons my 
distinguished colleague from Georgia and friend mentioned, the ability 
for apprentices to make more during their career, the quality of those 
programs--we believe standards need to be continued, that they need to 
be strengthened, that we can expand these programs into the kinds of 
industries that heretofore have not really availed themselves of 
apprenticeship opportunities, that we can do that, meet all of those 
goals, still set those standards and make sure that they are delineated 
in statute.
  Madam Speaker, I appreciate his comments, and I reserve the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, there are a lot of issues out there, certainly student 
loans and educating young people for 21st century skills is one of 
those, and I am glad we are taking this time out today to focus on that 
before the end of this Congress.
  There are other issues out there, though, that we all know in a 
bipartisan way need attention, whether it is COVID testing, vaccines, 
and therapeutics, that are in the newspaper every day but on which 
Congress has not acted recently, we know that needs attention; whether 
it is the Paycheck Protection Program, those programs that were 
supporting employers and employees that have expired that in a 
bipartisan way we know need attention but the Congress has not acted on 
that; whether it is on police reform, again, in the paper and in the 
media every day and we know in a bipartisan way we can do better to 
serve our citizenry, and yet we have not acted on that.
  If we defeat the previous question today, Madam Speaker, it will not 
slow down the apprenticeship conversation that we are having. What it 
will do is make sure that in the limited time we have remaining in this 
Congress that we do tackle those three issues that I mentioned: COVID, 
vaccines, therapeutics, and testing; police reform, ways that we can 
act together in a bipartisan way to serve the country; and the Paycheck 
Protection Program, helping employers and employees to survive into 
2021 as we all know they need to do.

[[Page H5945]]

  I ask unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, to include the text of my 
amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on 
the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I led talking about therapeutics as it 
relates to COVID. I am very fortunate on the Rules Committee, as is Mr. 
Morelle, to be able to serve with a gentleman who spent his lifetime in 
the service of others through medicine, Dr. Burgess.
  Dr. Burgess also sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee which has 
had jurisdiction over this issue, and which has had numerous bipartisan 
bills and opportunities to move forward. Defeating the previous 
question today would make in order the gentleman from Texas' bill.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) to talk about the real impact that could have on the American 
citizenry.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and 
truly it has been a privilege to serve with the gentleman from Georgia 
on the Rules Committee. I have learned a lot from occupying that seat 
beside him there.
  Madam Speaker, there is still a pandemic raging through our country. 
Every community in this country has been affected, and community spread 
is unfortunately going in the wrong direction as the virus rages across 
our land. My home State of Texas has had over 1 million cases of this 
novel coronavirus. We have been awaiting relief packages for months and 
passing partisan packages does not help when our Nation needs us most.
  Where has the sense of urgency been from House Democratic leadership?
  In February I called for hearings on the coronavirus at the Energy 
and Commerce Committee, and my requests were dismissed. Congress has 
since provided support in the form of funding for vaccines, testing, 
and more, but we should continue to support our Nation's pandemic 
response in these ways, especially as cases are now raging across the 
country.
  We could come together to provide our country with the resources to 
fight this invisible enemy. House Democratic leadership does not seem 
to be up to this task.
  My legislation, H.R. 8086, provides funding for the Public Health and 
Social Services Emergency Fund to develop additional medical 
countermeasures and vaccines. In fact, in the past 2 weeks we have 
received incredibly encouraging news that early data shows two of the 
coronavirus vaccine candidates to be more than 90 percent effective. A 
safe and effective vaccine is the strongest arrow we could have in our 
quiver to allow our people to return to normal. We also have new 
antibody treatments that could be used in nonhospitalized mild to 
moderate coronavirus patients.
  At this point I would give credit to the administration that 
recognized the need for these medical countermeasures, antivirals, 
antibodies, and vaccines and really put the entire strength of the 
whole of government response into Operation Warp Speed. The public 
sector and private sector are now delivering on that promise, and we 
are likely just days away from the Food and Drug Administration 
providing emergency use authorization for one or both of these new 
vaccines--again, vaccines that are over 90 percent effective--when we 
didn't even have the genetic sequence of this virus until the end of 
January. That is a phenomenal accomplishment.

  But now is not the time to take our foot off the gas. The House 
continues to waste its time on partisan bills that are going to be dead 
on arrival in the Senate instead of delivering results for Americans. 
There are commonsense, bipartisan ways to help our Nation respond to 
the coronavirus, including my bill to increase funding for the 
coronavirus response, Mr. Chabot's bill to improve the Paycheck 
Protection Program, and Mr. Stauber's bill to fund better training for 
law enforcement. But House Democrats have turned their backs on the 
needs of America.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question 
so we may take up these important measures.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I do want to note that we are here to discuss the 
National Apprenticeship Act, and that is the subject of the discussion 
in front of the House.
  But I would note, parenthetically, however, the irony in the subject 
that was brought up by my dear friend from Texas. The President of the 
United States has not met with his own coronavirus task force in 6 
months and has barely spoken in the last 2 weeks while this Nation is 
engulfed with the virus' spread throughout the Midwest. We have now 
surpassed 250,000 Americans dead of the coronavirus. One-quarter of one 
million Americans have lost their lives, and yet there is no discussion 
out of the White House.
  I would encourage perhaps my colleagues to ask the President if he 
might meet with Dr. Fauci and the leaders in this country who are on 
the front lines of fighting this illness.
  I do also note, also parenthetically, that 7 months ago this House 
passed the $3.4 trillion Heroes Act to address contact tracing, 
testing, and support for our frontline workers, hospital systems, and 
State and local governments. We had no action from the United States 
Senate.

                              {time}  1245

  We came back and, about 6 weeks ago, took up the updated Heroes Act--
$2.2 trillion--again, to try to address the suffering of millions of 
Americans. Yet, no action from the United States Senate. So I think we 
have more than stepped up to address the concerns of the American 
people as it relates to the issue not before the House right now.
  I do understand that the good people of Georgia, my dear friend, will 
go home in a few weeks, and the great folks in the State of Georgia 
will perhaps have something to say about the direction of the United 
States Senate going forward. But I do note that I think this House's 
record has been exemplary in addressing this. I now get back to the 
issue at hand.
  Madam Speaker, for the purpose of further discussion, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).
  Mr. DANNY K. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and in strong 
support of the act. As I listened to the discussion relative to the 
coronavirus, the pandemic, I am very optimistic now with the advent and 
the announcement of vaccines that may very well prove to be effective. 
It means that as we gain control of the pandemic, as we gain control of 
the virus, we are going to need a well-trained, skilled workforce ready 
and available to work if we are going to rebuild and redevelop our 
economic status. Having this workforce available, increasing 
apprenticeship training and opportunities is one of the best possible 
things that we could do.
  Madam Speaker, I commend Representative Scott and the Committee on 
Education and Labor for their work on this bill. I urge strong support 
for it and I will vote to pass it, and I can hardly wait to do so.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have worked with the gentleman from New York long 
enough to know that it is true that we sometimes measure our success by 
what the House does. But working with the gentleman from New York, I 
have seen him measure his success by what he actually gets done for 
folks. You never see him trying to take credit for getting the work 
done. He is just doing the work. And too often, I think, all of us have 
come to talk about what it was that we passed in a partisan way and how 
that absolves us of any more responsibility.
  It is true, the House jammed through a partisan COVID package 7 
months ago, and absolutely nothing has happened to it since then. That 
is what happens when you jam through partisan packages. If we jam 
through a partisan apprenticeship package, that is also what is going 
to happen to a partisan apprenticeship package.

[[Page H5946]]

  Madam Speaker, I yield to the ranking member of the Committee on 
Small Business, who crafted the last bipartisan package. And when that 
bipartisan package was crafted, it didn't just pass this House, it 
didn't just pass the Senate, it was signed into law by the President of 
the United States. And it made the difference in the life of our 
constituents that my friend from New York and I would like to make.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question today, we will have 
the chance to, again, go to that bipartisan well of support that my 
friend from Ohio has generated.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Chabot), the ranking member of the Committee on Small Business.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, the gentleman from New York suggested that 
we, on this side of the aisle, should talk to the President of the 
United States about what he has or hasn't done.
  Well, he is all the way down on Pennsylvania Avenue. I would suggest 
the gentleman from New York might want to talk to a lady, probably in 
this very building right now, and that is the Speaker, who can bring up 
a second round of PPP loans. We have got the votes.
  Republicans and Democrats both agree we ought to do this, but she 
wouldn't bring it up for a vote. So we tried to go through the 
discharge petition process. And no Democrat in this House would sign it 
and let us have a vote. So we are trying again, because a lot of small 
businesses really need this.
  Madam Speaker, an important holiday is coming up. Next Saturday is 
Small Business Saturday. It is the day when we take time to support the 
restaurants and shops and other small businesses that create two out of 
every three new jobs in America. Normally, this is an occasion to eat a 
delicious meal, get a head start on Christmas shopping, and say hello 
to friends and neighbors. Unfortunately, this year, an awful lot of 
those small businesses are struggling due to COVID-19.
  A recent NFIB survey indicated that over half of small businessowners 
expect to seek additional financial assistance over the next year. If 
they can't access that help, they may be forced to lay off employees 
again or cease operations. That is just unacceptable, because we can 
help them.
  We have a program that has already supported over 50 million jobs all 
across this country. It even has over $130 billion ready to go. We 
already have the money. We don't have to appropriate additional dollars 
at all. The money is there. That program, the PPP, or Paycheck 
Protection Program, stopped accepting applications back in August.
  Instead of quickly passing a bill to reopen the program, the 
Democratic leadership in this House used it as a political football for 
over 3 months while small businessowners had to drain the last of their 
funds to stay in existence and to continue to pay their employees, and 
they nervously continued to worry about how they are going to make 
payroll.
  Madam Speaker, today, we have a chance to do the right thing and do 
right by these small businesses. They are, after all, the heartbeat of 
each and every one of our communities.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, which is before us 
now, we can move directly to the legislative package that includes the 
bill that I just mentioned, my bill, the PPP, again, to reopen and 
improve the Paycheck Protection Program.

  Madam Speaker, let's defeat this previous question and send aid to 
those small businesses all across the country who desperately need it. 
I can think of no better way to celebrate Small Business Saturday.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, again, thinking about things that the 
American people are looking for and the opportunities we have to craft 
those in a bipartisan way, Mr. Stauber brings his lifetime of law 
enforcement experience to this Chamber, giving us an opportunity to do 
those things that we all know need to be done.
  How can we serve our constituency better?
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber) to share not just his partnership effort in trying to work 
across the aisle to get that done, but also his vast experience in that 
area.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, I am worried that, once again, we are not 
rising to the occasion as the American people continue to suffer from 
both this health crisis and the subsequent economic disaster. As the 
American people continue to call for justice for their fellow 
Americans, we are back here in D.C., for the first time in 7 weeks, and 
not one item on the Speaker's docket is to answer the American's people 
call or provide them relief. I am disappointed because I know that we 
can do better.
  Madam Speaker, 2020 has been a tough year, but we have seen some 
wonderful moments of bipartisanship. In the early months of this 
pandemic, Republicans and Democrats came together to pass the CARES 
Act, which created lifesaving programs for small businesses and helped 
provide families financial relief.
  Additionally, in response to calls for nationwide justice reform, I 
introduced the bipartisan JUSTICE Act, legislation cosponsored by both 
Republicans and Democrats that will improve our policing and 
reestablish trust between our law enforcement officers and the 
communities they serve.
  Unfortunately, despite the JUSTICE Act's bipartisan nature, Democrat 
leadership does not want to address this issue. Despite the CARES Act's 
bipartisan nature, Democrat leadership continues to walk away from 
relief package discussions. Partisanship has once again taken priority 
over the needs of the American people.
  Madam Speaker, if the previous question is defeated, we will take up 
legislation that I introduced that will provide $850 million for better 
training of police officers; $500 million to increase the number of 
body cameras; and $1.2 billion in grants to police departments to 
invest in community policing, which is the philosophy that you don't 
police your community, you police with your community.
  Madam Speaker, I said this on the House floor in August, and it is 
unfortunate that I am saying this here once again in November: It is 
time for this Congress to get back to work.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to note that I feel a little bit like 
Alice in ``Alice through the Looking Glass,'' where in is out and up is 
down. I just reiterate that this House has addressed in a significant 
way reform for policing. We have, indeed, in this House, addressed on 
two separate occasions the impact of COVID on healthcare workers and 
State and local governments and the millions of Americans who struggle 
to put food on the table and face unemployment.
  So all of the things that my friends on the other side of the aisle 
have just discussed are things that this House has done. And it is 
really the recalcitrance of the United States Senate and their 
unwillingness not only to not adopt our measures, but adopt their own 
that would allow us to then settle into a conversation or discussion 
about the differences that separate us and to try to reach that 
bipartisan/bicameral compromise that I know Mr. Woodall very much 
believes in.
  Madam Speaker, I also want to make one other point, if I might, which 
is the Apprenticeship Act that we have before us, if you had dropped in 
from somewhere and saw on our program that we were discussing the 
National Apprenticeship Program and listened to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, you would be confused why they weren't on the 
subject. But I do want to get to the subject, which is that this is, in 
part, a response--not certainly totally a response to, because we were 
working on this for some time before COVID, but this has, at its heart, 
a response to the economic fallout of the virus and is entirely on 
point because the economic impacts will be felt for years.
  Some economists are saying this country will feel the impacts of 
COVID for another 3 or 4 years. The apprenticeship programs and the 
reason we are here having this conversation is to be able to expand 
them dramatically and give people who are either in transition from 
other careers or getting into careers will give them the opportunity to 
earn not only a living wage,

[[Page H5947]]

but to advance, get career opportunities on a career ladder, 
particularly to those industries that have really not been involved in 
the apprenticeship program in the past.
  Madam Speaker, again, I reiterate what we are doing here, the 
importance of what we are doing, how critical this is. Obviously, we 
always want to seek a bipartisan compromise, because, as my dear friend 
from Georgia rightly points out, it is not about what we pass in this 
House, it is what we pass in the Congress and send to the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, hopefully, for signature.
  So it is very much the conversation here, and I hope that not only my 
colleagues here, but our friends across the floor and in the Senate 
will take up this much-needed legislation before we are done, in a 
lameduck session, the session in front of us, and that the President 
can be persuaded to act on it. That is the work before us and it is 
critical and important work, indeed.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

  Madam Speaker, when you reach the end of your service in Congress, 
you start thinking about those things that you are really, really proud 
of, and you start thinking about those things that you wish had gone 
differently.
  I have only gotten to override one of President Trump's vetoes since 
I have been here in Congress. And I will tell you--and I will tell 
President Trump--I thoroughly enjoyed that, thoroughly enjoyed it, 
because I didn't come here as a Republican, I came here as a United 
States House Member. And any time the Article 1 branch comes together 
and speaks so loudly and proudly in a single voice that it can even 
swamp the voice of the most powerful leader of the free world, the 
President of the United States, that tells me something about how our 
Republic is functioning. And I am excited about that. I don't think I 
am going to have a chance to do that in our next 3 weeks here, but I 
appreciated the opportunity to do it the one time I did.
  Madam Speaker, we have to get back into that habit of speaking with 
one voice. We are stronger not just as an institution when we speak 
with one voice, we are stronger as a nation when we speak with one 
voice. This apprenticeship bill should have been one of those things.

                              {time}  1300

  Instead of having me on the House floor saying, ``We are taking a 
small step in the right direction, and that is great, but why didn't we 
go big?'' it would have been nice if the chairman and the ranking 
member could have negotiated that middle ground first and I could have 
been down here talking about how it didn't go as far as I wanted it to 
go, but we did the best we could with what we had to work with, and so 
let's all vote ``yes.''
  We can do that, and we have had some experience doing that. Our 
initial response to COVID was exactly that.
  Candidly, this is as close as we have come in quite some time. I know 
that the ranking member, Virginia Foxx from North Carolina, wanted to 
get over the finish line there.
  We have made two Republican amendments in order in this rule, Madam 
Speaker, and we have made two bipartisan amendments in order, and we 
have made 13 Democratic amendments in order, all on a bill that passed 
on a party-line vote out of committee.
  Sometimes the process works that way. Sometimes the House needs to 
put down a marker. But late November of an election year is not the 
time for putting down markers. It is the time for putting points up on 
the scoreboard for the American people, and this bill fails in that 
regard.
  If we defeat this rule, and I ask my colleagues to join me in voting 
``no'' on it, I know--I don't think, Madam Speaker, I know--that the 
chairman and the ranking member can come back together and we can bring 
that partnership bill to the floor that I am talking about.
  My friend from New York talks about expanding the apprenticeship 
program. That is the crux of the problem: He expands it a little; we 
want to expand it a lot, because we all recognize what the needs of the 
American worker and the American economy are. Defeat this rule, and we 
will have that chance.
  Defeat the previous question, Madam Speaker, and we are going to have 
a chance to talk about these three bills. My friend from New York is 
absolutely right; they are extraneous to what we are talking about 
today. But the three gentlemen who spoke spoke truth when they said we 
have been trying to bring these up through the regular process and we 
can't.
  We know a vote to extend and reform the Paycheck Protection Program 
would pass this House with a huge bipartisan majority today, but the 
House leadership has not given us an opportunity to have that vote.
  We know that an investment in community policing, a goal championed 
by Republicans and Democrats for decades, could pass this floor in a 
bipartisan basis, but the House leadership hasn't given us that 
opportunity.
  We know, as every single one of our constituents is concerned about 
their health and their business and their children, that if we passed a 
COVID therapeutics program, a testing program, a program targeting 
vaccines, getting the rest of that job done, we know it would pass in a 
bipartisan way, but we have not had a chance to bring up such 
bipartisan legislation.
  I have served in this institution when the House and the White House 
were held by one party and the Senate was held by another party. What I 
found during that time is that the negotiation happened between 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue and Constitution Avenue, and those of us on 
Independence Avenue were largely left out of that conversation.
  For my colleagues who remain, I worry about that for you, because I 
believe that we operate differently than the Senate, and for good 
reason. I don't want to change the majoritarian nature of our 
institution. I am glad that it is passionate and it is deep and it is 
messy and sometimes the fights spill out of the committee room and onto 
the House floor. I value that. I value the Senate's go-slow approach 
and the larger voice given to the minority there.
  We don't often get opportunities to fix our bad habits. While Paul 
Ryan was Speaker of the House, we had not one open rule, not one chance 
in his entire Speakership for the House to come together and have 
everyone have a chance to contribute and have their voice heard--not 
once. And during Speaker Pelosi's second Speakership, we have had not 
one opportunity either.
  For years now, this House has gotten in the habit of deciding that 
every voice is not worthy of hearing. Certainly, there are bills and 
there are measures where that needs to be true. A partnership issue 
like the apprenticeship program, a partnership issue like serving our 
young people, a partnership issue like jump-starting our economy, this 
is one of those opportunities where the bad ideas would be rejected in 
a bipartisan way and the good ideas would be adopted in a bipartisan 
way and we would speak to America in a single voice, bipartisan way 
about the pathway that we have crafted to go forward.
  Madam Speaker, if you would surrender your gavel and allow Mr. 
Morelle and me to sort out all of the issues I have mentioned today, I 
think by the end of November, certainly the first week of December, we 
could crack all of those nuts. For whatever reason, our Framers did not 
believe that it should be given to two bipartisan folks who want to 
solve problems. They believe that all 435 voices should be heard.
  It is hard. I worry when we miss chances like the one we had today to 
demonstrate to the American people what we know to be true about the 
way that we work together. When we miss an opportunity to demonstrate 
that to folks from the floor of this House, we do some bit of damage to 
the fabric of our Republic. That damage happens under Republican 
leadership and that damage happens under Democratic leadership, and I 
fear one day that damage will be so great that neither party is going 
to be able to turn it back.
  I do want to urge defeat of this rule today, and I want to urge 
defeat of the previous question. But I want to recognize Members like 
Mr. Morelle from

[[Page H5948]]

New York and Members like our chairman, Mr. McGovern from 
Massachusetts, who have made sincere and difficult efforts to move us 
in that partnership direction.
  Defeat this rule. Defeat the previous question. Let's give them a 
chance to move us even further in that bipartisan direction going 
forward.

  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Just to take a moment to wax philosophical on bipartisanship, I think 
I agree with almost everything my distinguished friend had to say.
  If you are frustrated, Mr. Woodall, imagine our frustration that, for 
the last 7 months, we have continued to try to engage in conversations 
with the other House, only to be met with silence.
  We hear, as you do, when you go home, from thousands of constituents 
in each district, millions of Americans who struggle because they have 
lost their job, because they have lost their restaurant, as a small 
business owner that they struggle. We have heard from healthcare 
workers who continue to struggle to have personal protective equipment. 
We have talked to people who desperately need stimulus checks or some 
other support to put food on the table.
  So we hear all of that, and I wish that the conversation that could 
happen between both sides of the aisle here in this Chamber would 
answer those questions. They can't, because we do need to have support 
and engagement and a dialogue with our friends in the other House. So I 
understand and feel your frustration.
  Our frustration is even greater. I would love that we could work out 
the issues here in this Chamber, you and I and the members of the Rules 
Committee and all of the Members of the House, and have that be a 
settled question. I think we would be in a better place
  Having said that, Madam Speaker, let me just, again, note, this is 
perhaps the last time I will have the great opportunity to serve on 
this floor and have a discussion on a rule with my distinguished friend 
from Georgia. Again, I want to just indicate how much I appreciate him 
and how much admiration and affection I have for him and wish him all 
the best.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank all of the colleagues who have spoken 
in the various committees for their words in support of H.R. 8294, the 
National Apprenticeship Act. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a 
``yes'' vote on the previous question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1224

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     8086) to provide additional appropriations for the public 
     health and social services emergency fund, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. General debate shall be confined 
     to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Imediately after disposition of H.R. 8086, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration 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. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Small Business. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 8. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 8265, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     8088) to provide funding to law enforcement agencies, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 8086, H.R. 8265, and H.R. 8088.

  Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Houlahan). The question is on ordering 
the previous question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. 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 227, 
nays 169, not voting 33, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               YEAS--227

     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
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     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
     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)
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes

[[Page H5949]]


     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--169

     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     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)
     Chabot
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Cook
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Hurd (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Latta
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meuser
     Miller
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Shimkus
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spano
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoho
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--33

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Carter (TX)
     Case
     Cheney
     Collins (GA)
     Duncan
     Ferguson
     Flores
     Gianforte
     Green (TN)
     Holding
     Huizenga
     King (NY)
     Lamborn
     Lesko
     Luetkemeyer
     Marchant
     Meeks
     Mitchell
     Moulton
     Newhouse
     Olson
     Pence
     Richmond
     Riggleman
     Rogers (KY)
     Sensenbrenner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Wright
     Young

                              {time}  1405

  Messrs. TAYLOR, WALKER, and VAN DREW 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

     Barragan (Beyer)
     Beatty (Fudge)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Clark (MA))
     Boyle, Brendan F. (Jeffries)
     Brownley (CA) (Clark (MA))
     Bustos (Kuster (NH))
     Carson (IN) (Cleaver)
     Castro (TX) (Garcia (TX))
     Clay (Cleaver)
     Cohen (Beyer)
     Costa (Cooper)
     Courtney (Hayes)
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gonzalez (TX) (Gomez)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Higgins (NY) (Sanchez)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Keating (Kuster (NH))
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawrence (Kildee)
     Lawson (FL) (Demings)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Kuster (NH))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Perlmutter (Neguse)
     Peterson (McCollum)
     Pingree (Kuster (NH))
     Pocan (Raskin)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rooney (FL) (Beyer)
     Rose (NY) (Golden)
     Roybal-Allard (Bass)
     Ruiz (Dingell)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Ryan (Kildee)
     Schrier (Heck)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Vargas (Correa)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  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.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________