[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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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.
____________________