The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF SENATE AMENDMENT TO H.R. 1319, AMERICAN
RESCUE PLAN ACT OF 2021
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 198
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 1319) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the Committee on the Budget or his designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for two hours equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their respective designees and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means or their respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), 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. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which 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. Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 198, providing for a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Budget and Ways and Means.
Madam Speaker, a once-in-a-century pandemic brought us the need to act, and a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President have seized the moment, not as a chance to help big corporations or the already well-off, as those on the other side have done over and over again, but as an opportunity to invest in our workers, our students, our communities, and the very people who need help the most.
More than 18 million Americans are receiving unemployment benefits today. Nearly 24 million adults are going hungry. Roughly 12 million children are living in households with food insecurity. Up to 40 million people cannot afford to pay rent and fear eviction. Over 2 million women have been forced to leave the workforce. Eight of 10 minority businesses are on the brink of closure. That is what COVID has wrought in America today.
This is more than a Band-Aid; this is a lifeline, Madam Speaker. It will put more vaccines in arms, put more kids back safely in schools, put more money in people's pockets, and put more people back to work. It is hard to overstate just how important this is.
This bill, Madam Speaker, attacks inequality and poverty in ways we haven't seen in a generation. This legislation makes the biggest investments in our workers and our middle class that I have seen in my two-and-a-half decades of service here.
Make no mistake, I am disappointed to see the cut in the unemployment insurance made over in the Senate, and we are going to keep fighting to raise the minimum wage so that no one who works full time lives in poverty. We are going to keep focusing on the hunger crisis in this country until we end it once and for all. These should be fundamental priorities of the wealthiest nation on the planet.
But let's be clear. Today, we are on the doorstep of history. We are about to send the most sweeping and progressive economic investment in modern times to the President of the United States: $1,400 in direct payments, a historic child allowance, school infrastructure, an expansion of the Affordable Care Act, student loan relief, billions in rental assistance, aid that will cut child poverty in half, and I could go on and on and on.
Everything included in this final package is necessary to crush the virus and revitalize our economy.
As I have noted, I have been in Congress for more than 20 years, but this, Madam Speaker, this is among my proudest moments.
I want to thank our distinguished Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and my fellow committee chairs who worked so hard on this bill. I want to thank Budget Committee Chair Yarmuth and all of my colleagues here in the House for getting us to this point.
Democrats on both sides of the Capitol, together with the Biden administration, have crafted something historic. In 1 day, with a single vote in favor of this bill, we will change the lives of millions of Americans for the better.
For all of our important work, day in and day out, we don't get many chances like this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this rule and the underlying rescue plan.
Let us rise and meet this moment, and let's send this historic bill to the President's desk for his signature.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
First, the House considered the budget resolution setting the budget reconciliation instructions for this massive coronavirus relief bill. Then, the House considered and passed, on a partisan basis, the budget resolution authorizing a deficit increase of nearly $2 trillion. After an all-night vote-a-rama in the Senate, the House will consider this package for the third time.
Three times the House will have debated and passed a partisan package, and only 9 percent is dedicated to actually crushing the coronavirus. This isn't just disappointing; it is irresponsible, and it is unrepresentative of the American people.
Currently, Democrats only hold the majority by five Representatives. That means that the 211 Republicans, representing nearly 150 million Americans, have been shut out of this process; 150 million Americans are not represented in the package before us today.
Madam Speaker, we all want to provide the resources to successfully emerge on the other side of the pandemic. This bill does include funding for testing and vaccine deployment, as well as some economic support and aid to those who are unemployed or experiencing food shortages, but this support is not targeted toward those identified as most vulnerable.
This bill includes $1,400 in economic stimulus payments to anyone making $75,000 a year or less, including those who may not have lost their jobs or experienced reduced employment. In addition, there is no mechanism to ensure that these payments go only to American citizens.
Republicans were pleased that the infrastructure projects in California and New York, projects that had nothing to do with coronavirus relief, have been removed. We are glad of that.
My Democratic colleagues may argue that these projects would have created jobs, but why then are Democrats also providing $125 billion to schools even if they remain closed? Teachers want to teach. Teachers want to be safely in their classrooms teaching. The Centers for Disease Control has confirmed that with appropriate safety precautions, the risk of coronavirus transmission in schools is minimal. In fact, many States are prioritizing teachers for vaccines. Madam Speaker, our State of Texas is doing so. Why are we paying schools to keep them home?
This bill also provides $362 billion for State and local governments. The CARES Act, passed on March 27, already provided a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to help local entities with lost revenue during the shutdowns. However, many local authorities have chosen to keep their economies shut down, despite a drop in coronavirus cases and the effectiveness of safety measures like social distancing and mask-
wearing.
Congress should not bail out State and local governments for mismanagement that occurred prior to the pandemic. The total revenue loss of State and local governments during the pandemic is $7.6 billion. This bill provides over $219 billion, and it is available until expended.
Let me say that again: It is available until expended. That is $200 billion more than the lost revenue due to the pandemic, the crisis which this bill is meant to target.
{time} 1515
This bill also provides $400 million for an emergency food and shelter program, with $110 million set aside specifically for humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by Department of Homeland Security officials.
Since his first day in office, President Biden has worked to overturn the advances achieved by the Trump administration to limit border crossings by those undocumented, which is particularly concerning given that limited coronavirus testing is occurring along our Southern border. Just recently, over 100 individuals crossing without documentation tested positive for the coronavirus, but were subsequently released into the interior of the United States.
We cannot allow the desires of foreign nationals to come before the needs of American citizens. We should provide testing and personal protective equipment to all encountered along our Southern border so that we can protect our frontline officials and protect American communities.
These are only a few of the concerning provisions included in this so-called relief package, but the most concerning piece is that Republicans' participation in this process was extremely limited by Democrats. Bipartisanship is not unprecedented. We came together to pass prior coronavirus relief bills. Literally, 1 year ago, March of last year, we passed three bipartisan coronavirus relief packages through the House and the Senate. And we can do so again.
Why now are the Democrats deciding Republicans are not worthy, we are not worthy partners, and limiting the voices of our constituents?
Why should only half of the Congress be allowed to participate in the making of a law that will affect the entire country?
Is only half of the American population worth saving?
Those are the questions being asked today. With that, I urge opposition to the rule.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in Politico entitled, `` `Check Partisanship At the Door': Biden finds GOP allies for rescue money.''
`Check Partisanship at the Door': Biden Finds GOP Allies for Rescue
Money
(By Kellie Mejdrich)
Republicans in Congress attacking President Joe Biden's plan to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in pandemic relief aid into local governments are facing resistance--from GOP-run states and cities.
Republican mayors in Texas, Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma are among those backing Biden's state and local government funding plan as part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid bill that's before the Senate, defying GOP lawmakers in Washington, who are broadly resisting the spending.
``In a crisis and an emergency, you check partisanship at the door, and you get through the crisis,'' said John Giles, the Republican mayor of Mesa, Ariz. ``You can get back to playing politics when the crisis is over. And so this is one of those times.''
The clash between local and national Republicans is a rare public division in a party that has generally been united in opposition to policies being pushed by Biden and Democrats in control of Congress. It's a breach that Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have gone out of their way to exploit as the coronavirus legislation enters the final stretch.
Lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas have been among the most vocal national Republicans in rejecting the aid, calling it a ``bailout'' of what they say are poorly run Democratic states and arguing that state budgets fared much better than expected during the pandemic. They also say that a good chunk of the money doled out to the states by Congress last year remains unspent.
McConnell slammed the relief package in his opening remarks Friday, calling it ``an ideological spending spree packed with non-Covid-related policies'' and panning the $350 billion targeted for state governments as a ``massive cash bailout for mismanaged state and local governments.''
But Giles and other mayors say their residents are locked in a struggle to fill pantries with food as municipal reserves and other dedicated funds are running dry.
``There has been an overwhelming backlash from our Republican congressmen and senators because of how much money is in this bill,'' said Arlington, Texas, Mayor Jeff Williams. ``For us, the reality is the need is very much here for cities.''
Williams said that when he talks with his counterparts in Washington he tells them ``we have seen the great economists of our country all come together'' in support of these additional funds for state and local governments.
He also draws on comments by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. While Powell hasn't taken a specific position on state aid or the coronavirus legislation itself, he has often spoken of the drag on the economy from the loss of more than a million state government jobs during the pandemic.
Biden underlined the conflict within the party by inviting a bipartisan group of governors and mayors to the White House last month to discuss local funding issues. Pelosi late last month said Republicans in Congress were choosing to ``mock'' the aid package despite its broad support, citing a bipartisan letter signed by mayors across the country requesting more aid--including signatures from more than 30 Republicans.
Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a Republican who attended the White House meeting, told POLITICO, ``We're hoping that it doesn't become a partisan punching bag.'' He said he hoped that ``hearing from local officials that are on the ground, day in and day out, will be something that motivates elected officials from both parties'' to support the funding.
GOP lawmakers say that a surge in tax revenue for most states following last year's massive aid packages makes more help unnecessary now. But while the financial picture is brighter than many officials projected, some of the states hardest hit by the pandemic are represented by these lawmakers.
A recent report from Moody's Analytics showed that five of the 10 states with the biggest budget shortfalls are Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Kansas. They were among 19 states where Moody's identified looming budget shortfalls even after accounting for federal aid and local reserves. Ten of the 19 are represented by at least one GOP senator.
``It would be a dereliction of duty for me not to try to fight for $116 million that would allow us to restore our police, fire and other core services,'' said Oklahoma City Mayor David Holt, a Republican.
City and county leaders are amplifying calls for support because the new bill sets aside more than $100 billion for municipal and county governments--just over $120 billion in a
``local fiscal recovery fund,'' according to the latest Senate version of the bill.
So while just 38 cities got funding in the first round in March, the United States Conference of Mayors estimates the new formula expands eligibility to 19,000 cities, towns and villages. That's why more than 30 Republican mayors signed on to the letter in support of the package last month that Pelosi touted, with Giles, Holt, Suarez and Williams among them.
Giles said the city of Mesa was lucky enough to get $90 million in the first round of aid, but added, ``We could have turned in twice that much in receipts that were tied to virus relief; our expenses have gone higher.''
``Because we're in the food bank business, we're in the buying laptop computers for school business, we're in the rent, utility business. We're doing all of these things that we weren't doing a year and a half ago,'' he said.
Even some Republican governors have publicly vouched for the plan, including Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Larry Hogan of Maryland, citing the financial stakes ahead.
Meanwhile, 22 Republican governors in a statement issued at the end of February criticized Biden's funding plan--but only because their states will see a smaller share of the direct grant funding compared to what Congress sent them in March.
``The new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a state's unemployed population rather than its actual population, which punishes states that took a measured approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy state budgets and strong economies,'' read the statement, whose signatories included Republican Governors Ron Desantis of Florida, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Doug Ducey of Arizona.
Many of Florida's tourism-dependent cities have taken a financial beating, and the state faces a big shortfall for the coming budget year. Local media reported last month that the state deficit was estimated at $2 billion.
Yet the same day that Miami's Suarez traveled to Washington to discuss local funding with the president, Republican Sen. Scott slammed Biden's proposed aid package for the states in an editorial, saying the money would be used to ``bail out fiscally irresponsible governors in New York and Illinois.'' Rubio, Florida's other Republican senator, has also spoken critically of more local aid, saying that some states ``see this as the latest opportunity to get bailed out.''
But even with better outcomes for states overall, state and local government employment still hasn't recovered from the pandemic downturn. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that they are still down about 1.4 million jobs from a year ago--about 1 million of which are in education.
Teryn Zmuda, chief economist of the National Association of Counties, said states do need the help.
``Local government specifically is down 1 million of those 10 million jobs that the nation is short right now,'' Zmuda said. ``So, aid to local governments will get those 1 million workers back in the workforce.''
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I raise that because the only place where this bill isn't bipartisan is here in Washington. Republican mayors and Republican Governors all across the country want this bill. Seventy percent of the American people want this bill. But here in Washington, my Republican friends think they know better than their constituents. They have what we call Potomac fever or they have gone Washington on their constituents.
The bottom line is people back home need help. People back home are struggling, businesses back home have been devastated because of this pandemic. This is a bill designed to help the American people.
Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, we are about to be treated to a little bit of theatrics, and I understand that they want to delay the passage of this bill and bring up an alternative, a bill that they claim is going to help our schools but provides no new funding.
What we are doing here, Madam Speaker, is we are not only providing funding to help our schools reopen safely, we are also providing money to help those who are unemployed, to help those who are hungry, to help our cities and towns that are on the verge of laying off first responders.
In a moment, everybody in this House needs to stand and be counted; and on this side of the aisle--and I hope some of my Republican friends will join with us--we are going to stand with the people. We are going to stand with the people.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.
Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, after a year of battling this pandemic, our communities are on the edge, and the American Rescue Plan is here.
To the American public, help is on the way.
It will put money directly into people's pockets. The $1,400 per person payment, the expansion of unemployment benefits will help people deal with increasing debt, paying rent, buying food, and paying healthcare bills. State and local funding is necessary to prevent our State and local governments from relying on tax increases to stay afloat; to keep first responders, frontline health workers, and other providers of vital services on the job.
One of the provisions included in the American Rescue Plan that I am particularly proud of, that I have championed for nearly two decades, is the expansion and the improvement of the child tax credit. In this plan, the credit increases from $2,000 to $3,000 for children 6-17, with an additional $600 each for children under 6. Think of that. It is a new lifeline to the middle class, and it cuts child poverty nearly in half.
Franklin Roosevelt lifted seniors out of poverty--90 percent of them--with Social Security. And with the stroke of a pen, President Biden is going to lift millions and millions of children out of poverty in this country.
As families struggle to stay in their home, feed their families, purchase necessities, this plan provides for hardworking Americans. It includes $12 billion in emergency food assistance, including an extension of increased food stamps. The relief also provides $45 billion for rental and mortgage assistance.
It is time to make a bold investment in the health and the security of the American people. This is a watershed moment, an historic piece of legislation. We will vote for the American Rescue Plan with the determination to adequately meet the moment with strength, with action, and with hope.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa
(Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would advise that all time has been yielded for the purpose of debate only. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts yield for purposes of the unanimous consent request?
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I will not yield for that purpose. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts does not yield. Therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. McCARTHY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair now recognizes that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classrooms.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas
(Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. VAN DUYNE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JOHNSON of Louisiana. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. Feenstra) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FEENSTRA. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa
(Mrs. Miller-Meeks) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Fallon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FALLON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CAWTHORN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Jackson), a valuable member of the Doctors Caucus, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JACKSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MACE. Madam Speaker, as a single working mom, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
The chair would advise Members that even though a unanimous consent request is not entertained, embellishments accompanying such requests constitute debate and will become an imposition on the time of the Member who yielded for that purpose.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. OBERNOLTE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 862, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1530
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee
(Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BURCHETT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado
(Mrs. Boebert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BOEBERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri
(Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. HARTZLER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia
(Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. MILLER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. MEUSER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana
(Mr. Rosendale) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ROSENDALE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Tenney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Webster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WEBSTER of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ARRINGTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GIMENEZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana
(Mrs. Spartz) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. SMUCKER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NORMAN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. MALLIOTAKIS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Walberg), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PERRY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Dunn), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. DUNN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. NEHLS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Carter), another valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona
(Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GOSAR. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FULCHER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
{time} 1545
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. JACOBS of New York. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind the screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. FOXX. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. Hagedorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HAGEDORN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. WENSTRUP. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. C. Scott Franklin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. C. SCOTT FRANKLIN of Florida. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Griffith), another valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. GRIFFITH. I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
Mr. CLINE. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back into the classroom.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair understands that the gentleman from Massachusetts has not yielded for that purpose; therefore, the unanimous consent request cannot be entertained.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).
Mrs. SPARTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.
I am not going to talk much about the underlying bill since it will not change anyone's vote at this point. I would just summarize it as advancing a socialist agenda by putting temporary bandages on old problems without fixing them, at the expense of the middle class and the future of our children.
Madam Speaker, I mainly just wanted to express my strong disappointment with how broken our legislative process is and how dysfunctional Congress is. If we do not fix it soon and have some common sense, we are going to destroy our great Republic. We should be embarrassed to call ourselves policymakers.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we just saw a parade of Republicans come before the microphone and urge us to move on a bill, and they read the short title of the bill. But the real title of the bill, and let me read it to you, is: ``To encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools.'' That is what the bill does.
Now, let me just say to my Republican friends, I don't know if you go home and you don't talk to principals, superintendents, teachers, parents, and students, but our schools don't need encouragement. What they need are resources to be able to reopen safely.
This bill that you are talking about here doesn't provide one additional cent to help schools reopen. Nothing. No money. No resources. Nothing. Give me a break. Come on.
Madam Speaker, the bill that we are about to debate here will provide
$130 billion to help K-12 schools reopen safely. That is not encouragement. It is real resources to make it a reality.
By the way, this bill also requires States to award K-12 funds to local school districts no later than 60 days after receipt and school districts to develop plans to ensure that schools return to in-person learning.
I could have saved you a lot of time and a lot of embarrassment. That was bad theater. It was terrible theater.
Madam Speaker, people need help. We are trying to crush this virus, get this economy back on the right track, and reopen our schools, and this is what we get. Look, I hope everybody takes note of those who went before the mike to argue against this bill and for a symbolic bill that provides no resources, because, at the end of the day, people need to know who was on their side in the middle of this crisis, who stood up and fought for them and provided much-needed Federal relief to our local communities and our schools. That was pathetic.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished new member of the Committee on Rules.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Let me remind Members to direct their comments to the Chair.
Ms. ROSS. Madam Speaker, the American Rescue Plan will finally deliver needed aid to individuals, families, workers, businesses, and healthcare systems. I am proud that this Congress has taken such swift action to get this important work done.
I want to highlight one part of the bill that would be life-changing for hundreds of thousands of people in my State.
Sadly, North Carolina is one of only 12 States that has not expanded Medicaid under the ACA. This failure has left over 600,000 low-income North Carolinians without healthcare.
The American Rescue Plan provides an added incentive for States like mine to expand Medicaid. The bill offers a 5-point increase in the Federal funding match for Medicaid for 2 years to States that choose to expand the program during this pandemic. This would bring North Carolina more than $2 billion in Federal healthcare coverage for our most vulnerable people and help our hardest-hit hospitals.
Madam Speaker, our State desperately needs the relief provided in this bill.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 22\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 18 minutes remaining.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, introduced by Mrs. Hinson from Iowa, to ensure that the $54.3 billion that Congress appropriated in December in order to help schools reopen is, in fact, prioritized to meet the expenses of actually being open for in-person learning.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is here to explain the amendment.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise today to oppose the previous question and to offer an amendment to help our schools safely reopen their doors for in-person learning.
Madam Speaker, millions of children around the Nation have been out of the classroom for the better part of a year. This has taken a serious toll not only on their learning and social development but also on their working parents, who have been forced to juggle home-schooling their children and working full-time jobs.
The data is in, and it makes abundantly clear that at-home learning is not a sufficient substitute for in-person education. One recent study found that children began to fall significantly behind in math. The study concluded that it would take students in grades 5 and 6 at least 12 weeks, on average, to catch up to where they were expected to be.
Madam Speaker, the science is in, and it, too, makes abundantly clear that schools can reopen safely if the right precautions are taken. Commonsense social-distancing measures significantly reduce the spread of COVID-19 in schools and make the classroom a safe place for our students and our teachers. The CDC Director said last month that the science shows our schools can reopen safely even before every teacher is vaccinated.
Madam Speaker, this is what the science tells us. Yet, despite these facts, too many children in my district and around the country are still not in the classroom. Students are losing out on a true, sound, basic education guaranteed them by the New York State Constitution, and parents are being forced to choose between going to work to earn a paycheck or staying home to teach their children. It is an impossible decision that no parent should be forced to make.
In my home State of New York, Governor Cuomo has said one thing and done another. The result has been confusion across the State and a patchwork of incoherent and conflicting policies. Governor Cuomo claims to support the science. Yet, it is March 2021, and New York still does not have a statewide plan to reopen our schools. It is clear that he is putting special interests before our students' education.
Sadly, we New Yorkers aren't surprised. Governor Cuomo has already lost credibility due to his unconscionable coverup of nursing home deaths. He failed to put our seniors first, and now he is failing to put our students first. We can and we must do better.
Madam Speaker, under the American Rescue Plan that the House will consider again later this week, nearly $130 billion is set aside for schools. But if you read the fine print, 95 percent of that money won't be spent until after 2021 is over. If you keep reading, you realize that there is no requirement that the funding be used to reopen schools safely, something our Nation is desperately crying out for.
The rescue plan fails to prioritize our students and does not do enough to return safely to in-person learning, which our students desperately need.
{time} 1600
If we defeat the previous question, we will move to immediately consider the Reopen Schools Act, which states that schools, which accept a portion of the COVID-19 funding, must reopen. In order to receive full funding, schools are required to allow at least 50 percent of their students in the classroom, in person, at least 50 percent of the time.
This is what New York families are requesting, and it is exactly what families across the country are demanding from their leaders in Washington.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman if she could tell me how much money is in her bill.
Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Tenney) to ask how much money is in the gentlewoman's bill.
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, the money is coming from the American Rescue Act that the gentleman voted for, but what we are doing here is prioritizing the spending.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I reclaim the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, here we have a Republican colleagues coming to the floor basically advocating nothing. Their bill--read the long title again--is to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Not one new cent in money.
Schools don't need to be encouraged. They need the resources to be able to deal with issues like ventilation, to be able to make sure that the infrastructure is such that it is safe for students and teachers and others to come back to the schools.
And my Republican friends, while they are coming here and trying to find ways to delay the American Rescue Act, they are going to vote against it. They are not advocating for one additional cent for vaccines. They are not advocating for any additional help for those who are unemployed, for small businesses and restaurants that are struggling. They don't want any more resources to go to cities and towns.
So I hope that we don't see some of my Republican friends show up at announcements announcing money and resources for schools and cities and towns, for those who are struggling, trying to take credit for something that they voted against.
Madam Speaker, I would, again, urge my colleagues on both sides to look at this for what it is. This is not about trying to help people. This is about a continuing effort to delay much-needed resources to our schools, to our struggling families, and to our small businesses.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the American Rescue Plan.
Madam Speaker, I have been honored to be in public service in my State legislature, as mayor of West Palm Beach, and now here in Congress. I can unequivocally say that this is the most important, impactful piece of legislation that I have ever had the honor to vote for.
We all know that this past year has tested us like never before. The pandemic has destroyed lives and livelihoods. It has disproportionately hurt women, especially women of color, who are already at an economic disadvantage. The impacts have been devastating. Women have lost 5.3 million jobs, 2 million of which are permanent losses. And that is not all. Women also make up the majority of our frontline workforce. In fact, Madam Speaker, we are calling this a ``she'' session.
Schools close and the loss of accessible childcare have only added to the crisis, but this bill will rescue women and their families with the relief they need. It will crush COVID-19, get our children safely back to school, and rescue the childcare industry. It is going to increase the child tax credit, taking half of our children in poverty out of poverty. It is going to get the vaccines into the arms of Americans.
I will tell you this, Madam Speaker: My office is getting calls day after day, all day, from people who want these vaccines.
This rescue package will put money directly into the pockets of working people and get people back to work.
Women have shouldered so much of this pandemic. So it is time to extend the helping hand that they and their families need to get through this pandemic.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that better days are ahead with this rescue plan, and I urge my colleagues to pass it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).
Ms. TENNEY. Madam Speaker, I would just like to address the question that the gentleman from Massachusetts posed.
What is allocated for this bill?
$54.3 billion is going to be appropriated immediately.
Madam Speaker, at this point, the bill that he is talking about has no money--only 5 percent until after 2021.
We have students and parents and everyone coming to us, and they want to open their schools because the children are falling far behind. This is particularly difficult in New York, where we have no plan in place and the Governor has failed to give us a plan, and our students are failing and we need to have our students back on track.
That is all that we are asking for, is that this money be allocated now and not wait for only 5 percent to be allocated until after 2021.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, let me just state for the record and respond to the gentlewoman. The bill she is talking about is not an appropriations bill. Let's be clear. Let's make sure we are clear about what we are talking about here. This is not an appropriations bill.
She is talking about money that was previously allocated in previous bills. The bill that my Republican friends are bringing forward allocates zero. It encourages schools to open up.
Again, our schools don't need encouragement. What they need are resources. And if my friends would go home and listen to their superintendents, to the principals, to the teachers, to the parents, to the students, they would understand how desperate the situation is.
Now is the time for action, not more empty rhetoric, not more political theater, not more words. People need resources and they need it now.
Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and underlying act, the American Rescue Plan Act.
The COVID-19 pandemic has taken the lives of over 525,000 Americans. Our communities are struggling and our constituents are desperate for relief. Millions remain out of work, and as many as 12 million children are living in households where they don't get enough to eat.
We are grateful to have new leadership in the White House and in the Senate. I look forward to passing legislation that will end the pandemic and open our economy and let America get back to work. The American Rescue Plan puts money directly in the hands of American people.
The direct cash infusion will help millions of Americans pay their rent and keep the lights on at home. In addition to $1,400 worth of direct stimulus payments for a large chunk of Americans, support for small businesses and restaurants, and an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, the American Rescue Plan Act expands the child tax credit and the earned income tax credit to give families the support they so desperately need. The child tax credit expansion alone will cut childhood poverty in half.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to passage of this act because, unlike the political charade that our colleagues just treated us to and wasting the time of the House and the American people, the American Rescue Plan Act will, number one, crush the virus; number two, get Americans back to work; and number three, actually help children get out from behind their screens and back in the classroom.
Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and this rule.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my Democrat colleagues across the aisle that I am from the State of Georgia, where, proudly, we are open. My son has been going in person to school this entire school year. As a matter of fact, he played football, where they had practices and games and parents got to attend and sit in the stadium.
Children being kept home from school is about the worst thing that you can possibly do. If you really want to do anything to help Americans, reopen the schools, reopen America, and stop wasting more American tax dollars.
It is a complete lie to the American taxpayers that you are going to save the day with your $1.9 trillion spending bill, and you think you are going to save children. If you want to save children, reopen the schools.
The Biden administration is fine with having 100 percent open schools at the border for children who are coming into our country.
Why are our children being forced to stay home in blue States and, many places, for no reason when their parents pay the taxes?
The best way to save America is reopen.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Members are reminded to direct their remarks to the Chair.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, we all want schools to reopen, but we want them to reopen safely. There is such a thing called science that we need to respect, and we need to make sure that our schools are reopened safely.
This is a deadly disease that has invaded our country. We have all lost friends and loved ones to COVID-19. We lost a congressman-elect and a sitting Member of Congress on the Republican side to COVID. So to get up here and to talk like this is much ado about nothing? Come on. What are my friends thinking? This is serious.
Communities after communities all throughout this country are trying to find ways to reopen schools safely. Some of them are trying to invest in infrastructure for better ventilation to make sure that it is safe. Some are talking about additional school buses to be able to transport kids to and from school safely. They need resources, not encouragement.
Give me a break. How insulting to somebody watching this debate in any of our districts to hear Members of Congress get up and say, you know, you don't need any help, you don't need any resources, you don't need any money to be able to help institute these changes so we can get kids back to school safely, but we are going to give you encouragement instead.
Come on. We can do better than that.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).
Ms. HERRELL. Madam Speaker, I just rise in opposition to this.
Madam Speaker, I would say it is more disingenuous for this body to pretend to tell the American people that we are doing something good for their children when, in fact, more money in this bill is going to help one Democratic district in California than is going to help all of the COVID relief efforts.
We have got our priorities very wrong. Our children are the future.
And thank God that the Senate took the $15-an-hour minimum wage out of this because that was another nail in the coffin for our small business owners. But to sit here and think we are doing something special for our constituents, that is not really truthful. We are doing something special for Speaker Pelosi and a lot of others who want big bailouts for the Democratic cities.
We can do better. We can do better for our students and for our families because those are the people in the trenches. Our future depends on it. Our students depend on it. We need to put our children back in school and we need to open our economy.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the bill, to look at what is in this bill, and to look at the people who it will help. To claim somehow that this is not going to help with reopening of schools or helping our small businesses or helping children struggling in poverty or helping people who are hungry shows that people are not reading the bill.
This is a big, bold, appropriate response to a horrific pandemic that has struck our country and struck the world. So we are acting, and it is the right thing to do.
{time} 1615
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Hayes).
=========================== NOTE ===========================
March 9, 2021, on page H1172, the following appeared: 1615 Mr. MCGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).
The online version has been corrected to read: 1615 Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut
(Mrs. Hayes).
========================= END NOTE =========================
Mrs. HAYES. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the American Rescue Plan.
I was sitting in my office listening to debate, and I was thrilled to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak up about reopening schools. These are words I have been waiting a year to hear. I immediately looked up H.R. 682 to read it, and I was so disappointed that this bill offers no support, no assistance, and no funding for school reopenings.
The American Rescue Plan, on the other hand, invests in helping K-12 schools reopen safely and addresses learning loss in the classroom.
The bill provides nearly $130 billion to help schools take the steps recommended by the CDC to ensure students and educators can return to the classroom safely.
This includes repairing ventilation systems, reducing class sizes, implementing social distancing guidelines, purchasing PPE, and hiring support staff to address students' well-being.
Madam Speaker, as someone who has spent over a decade in the classroom, I can tell you that this is what every teacher in America is looking for, this is what every parent is looking for, and this is what is necessary to reopen schools safely--not just in communities that are largely Democrat but also in Republican communities. All of our children will benefit from the provisions of this bill.
The bill also sets aside 20 percent for long-term learning loss to get our kids from behind screens and back into the classroom by providing comprehensive after-school programs, summer learning programs, extended schooldays, reengaging students who have been absent from remote learning, and hiring counselors and nurses to care for students' emotional and physical well-being.
I am thrilled to see part of my own legislation included in this bill, the Save Education Jobs Act, which will not only make sure that we are not laying off support staff and personnel to meet our students, but to make sure that there are not budget cuts in light of the catastrophic shortfalls that are expected as a result of this pandemic.
I am so proud to be a part of a body that came up with this legislation that gives America's schools exactly what they need, gives America's children the support that is necessary, and reopens our economy by investing $130 billion.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, here are the facts: This bill is not going to reopen our economy. It is not going to reopen our schools or provide targeted relief to those who need it most. This is the most expensive bill in the history of the United States House of Representatives, and it does not even prioritize the immediate needs of the American people. Rather than work for the American people, Democrats are fine working for their own future 2 years from now. That is really not the way it is supposed to be. We are supposed to be focused on the next generation, not the next election. I find this unacceptable.
This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the deficit $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive this pandemic. With $1 trillion of unspent funding--cash already in the till from previous bills--why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now without the representation of literally one-half of the country?
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, we can talk and talk and talk and talk, and it might make us feel better, but it doesn't do any good for the people we represent who are in desperate need. They are crying out for help. People are struggling, people are hungry, and businesses are shutting down.
My friends talk about reopening schools. They offer a measure that would encourage our schools to be reopened but don't offer one additional penny in resources to help them reopen, which is so tone deaf and so disconnected from reality. People need help, and they need it now.
Madam Speaker, let's be really honest here. My Republican friends do not have a problem spending $2 trillion. They spent that with their tax cut bill that benefited mostly people who are well-off and well-
connected, and they were willing to spend that on COVID when Donald Trump was President.
What they have a problem with is where this is going: to our workers, not the wealthy; and to our communities, not corporations. That is the fundamental difference in how we govern. Democrats govern for the people.
Right now people are hurting, Madam Speaker. An overwhelming majority of the American people across all party lines and divisions support the American Rescue Plan. We have seen that in poll after poll after poll. My Republican friends just say that they are uninformed, including their Republican mayors and Republican Governors. How insulting.
This bill will put more vaccines in arms. It will put our kids back to school safely. It will put food on dinner tables and put workers back in jobs.
This pandemic is an all-hands-on-deck moment. After weeks and weeks of work, Congress doesn't have a moment to spare.
I urge all of my colleagues to support these historic investments in our Nation. We have told our neighbors and communities that help is on the way. Let's deliver on that promise.
I am proud to be on the House floor today. I am proud to speak in favor of the American Rescue Plan. And I am proud to vote in favor of this important piece of legislation. This will help save lives and will help save our economy.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 198
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. 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. 682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in- person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, 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 Education and Labor. 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. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 682.
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 on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, nays 206, not voting 9, as follows:
YEAS--216
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Golden Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--206
Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brooks Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Katko Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kinzinger Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Timmons Turner Upton Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
NOT VOTING--9
Bishop (GA) Brady Fudge Mooney Neal Tiffany Valadao Webster (FL) Williams (GA)
{time} 1708
Messrs. MULLIN and GONZALEZ of Ohio changed their votes from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. VALADAO. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 65.
Mr. BRADY. Madam Speaker, I apologize for missing this vote. I was unable to be present. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 65.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Allred (Davids (KS)) Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Babin (Norman) Baird (Walorski) Barragan (Beyer) Cardenas (Gomez) Carter (TX) (Calvert) Cohen (Beyer) DeFazio (Davids (KS)) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Haaland (Davids (KS)) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Langevin (Lynch) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lee (NV) (Kuster) Lieu (Beyer) Lofgren (Jeffries) Lowenthal (Beyer) McEachin (Wexton) McHenry (Banks) McNerney (Raskin) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moore (WI) (Beyer) Morelle (Tonko) Moulton (Rice (NY)) Napolitano (Correa) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Pingree (Kuster) Porter (Wexton) Roybal-Allard (Leger Fernandez) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Steube (Franklin, C. Scott) Strickland (DelBene) Thompson (MS) (Butterfield) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Beatty). The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219, nays 210, not voting 2, as follows:
YEAS--219
Adams Aguilar Allred Auchincloss Axne Barragan Bass Beatty Bera Beyer Bishop (GA) Blumenauer Blunt Rochester Bonamici Bourdeaux Bowman Boyle, Brendan F. Brown Brownley Bush Bustos Butterfield Carbajal Cardenas Carson Cartwright Case Casten Castor (FL) Castro (TX) Chu Cicilline Clark (MA) Clarke (NY) Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly Cooper Correa Costa Courtney Craig Crist Crow Cuellar Davids (KS) Davis, Danny K. Dean DeFazio DeGette DeLauro DelBene Delgado Demings DeSaulnier Deutch Dingell Doggett Doyle, Michael F. Escobar Eshoo Espaillat Evans Fletcher Foster Frankel, Lois Fudge Gallego Garamendi Garcia (IL) Garcia (TX) Gomez Gonzalez, Vicente Gottheimer Green, Al (TX) Grijalva Haaland Harder (CA) Hastings Hayes Higgins (NY) Himes Horsford Houlahan Hoyer Huffman Jackson Lee Jacobs (CA) Jayapal Jeffries Johnson (GA) Johnson (TX) Jones Kahele Kaptur Keating Kelly (IL) Khanna Kildee Kilmer Kim (NJ) Kind Kirkpatrick Krishnamoorthi Kuster Lamb Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lawrence Lawson (FL) Lee (CA) Lee (NV) Leger Fernandez Levin (CA) Levin (MI) Lieu Lofgren Lowenthal Luria Lynch Malinowski Maloney, Carolyn B. Maloney, Sean Manning Matsui McBath McCollum McEachin McGovern McNerney Meeks Meng Mfume Moore (WI) Morelle Moulton Mrvan Murphy (FL) Nadler Napolitano Neal Neguse Newman Norcross O'Halleran Ocasio-Cortez Omar Pallone Panetta Pappas Pascrell Payne Perlmutter Peters Phillips Pingree Pocan Porter Pressley Price (NC) Quigley Raskin Rice (NY) Ross Roybal-Allard Ruiz Ruppersberger Rush Ryan Sanchez Sarbanes Scanlon Schakowsky Schiff Schneider Schrader Schrier Scott (VA) Scott, David Sewell Sherman Sherrill Sires Slotkin Smith (WA) Soto Spanberger Speier Stanton Stevens Strickland Suozzi Swalwell Takano Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Titus Tlaib Tonko Torres (CA) Torres (NY) Trahan Trone Underwood Vargas Veasey Vela Velazquez Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Coleman Welch Wexton Wild Williams (GA) Wilson (FL) Yarmuth
NAYS--210
Aderholt Allen Amodei Armstrong Arrington Babin Bacon Baird Balderson Banks Barr Bentz Bergman Bice (OK) Biggs Bilirakis Bishop (NC) Boebert Bost Brady Brooks Buchanan Buck Bucshon Budd Burchett Burgess Calvert Cammack Carl Carter (GA) Carter (TX) Cawthorn Chabot Cheney Cline Cloud Clyde Cole Comer Crawford Crenshaw Curtis Davidson Davis, Rodney DesJarlais Diaz-Balart Donalds Duncan Dunn Emmer Estes Fallon Feenstra Ferguson Fischbach Fitzgerald Fitzpatrick Fleischmann Fortenberry Foxx Franklin, C. Scott Fulcher Gaetz Gallagher Garbarino Garcia (CA) Gibbs Gimenez Gohmert Golden Gonzales, Tony Gonzalez (OH) Good (VA) Gooden (TX) Gosar Granger Graves (LA) Graves (MO) Green (TN) Greene (GA) Griffith Grothman Guest Guthrie Hagedorn Harris Harshbarger Hartzler Hern Herrell Herrera Beutler Hice (GA) Higgins (LA) Hill Hinson Hollingsworth Hudson Huizenga Issa Jackson Jacobs (NY) Johnson (LA) Johnson (OH) Johnson (SD) Jordan Joyce (OH) Joyce (PA) Keller Kelly (MS) Kelly (PA) Kim (CA) Kinzinger Kustoff LaHood LaMalfa Lamborn Latta LaTurner Lesko Long Loudermilk Lucas Luetkemeyer Mace Malliotakis Mann Massie Mast McCarthy McCaul McClain McClintock McHenry McKinley Meijer Meuser Miller (IL) Miller (WV) Miller-Meeks Moolenaar Mooney Moore (AL) Moore (UT) Mullin Murphy (NC) Nehls Newhouse Norman Nunes Obernolte Owens Palazzo Palmer Pence Perry Pfluger Posey Reed Reschenthaler Rice (SC) Rodgers (WA) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rose Rosendale Rouzer Roy Rutherford Salazar Scalise Schweikert Scott, Austin Sessions Simpson Smith (MO) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smucker Spartz Stauber Steel Stefanik Steil Steube Stewart Stivers Taylor Tenney Thompson (PA) Timmons Turner Upton Valadao Van Drew Van Duyne Wagner Walberg Walorski Waltz Weber (TX) Webster (FL) Wenstrup Westerman Williams (TX) Wilson (SC) Wittman Womack Young Zeldin
NOT VOTING--2
Katko Tiffany
{time} 1754
Ms. SEWELL, Messrs. THOMPSON of California and SMITH of Washington changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated against:
Mr. KATKO. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 66.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS
Allred (Davids (KS)) Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Babin (Norman) Baird (Walorski) Barragan (Beyer) Cardenas (Gomez) Carter (TX) (Calvert) Cohen (Beyer) DeFazio (Davids (KS)) Fudge (Kaptur) Grijalva (Garcia (IL)) Haaland (Davids (KS)) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Johnson (TX) (Jeffries) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Langevin (Lynch) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lee (NV) (Kuster) Lieu (Beyer) Lofgren (Jeffries) Lowenthal (Beyer) McEachin (Wexton) McHenry (Banks) McNerney (Raskin) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moore (WI) (Beyer) Morelle (Tonko) Moulton (Rice (NY)) Napolitano (Correa) Palazzo (Fleischmann) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Pingree (Kuster) Porter (Wexton) Roybal-Allard (Leger Fernandez) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Steube (Franklin, C. Scott) Strickland (DelBene) Thompson (MS) (Butterfield) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 44
The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
House Representatives' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
Alerts Sign-up