Providing for Consideration of Senate Amendments to H.R. North American Wetlands Conservation Extension Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1161 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 1161
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 925) to extend the authorization of appropriations for allocation to carry out approved wetlands conservation projects under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act through fiscal year 2024, with the Senate amendments thereto, and to consider in the House, without intervention of any point of order or question of consideration, a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House: (1) concur in the Senate amendment to the title; and (2) concur in the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-66. The Senate amendments and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion shall be debatable for two hours equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the ranking member of the Rules Committee, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1161, providing for consideration of the Senate amendments to H.R. 925, America's Conservation Enhancement Act.
The rule makes in order a single motion offered by the chair of the Committee on Appropriations or her designee that the House: One, concur in the Senate amendment to the title; and, two, concur in the Senate amendment to the text with an amendment consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 116-66, which is identical to H.R. 8406, the Heroes Act.
Finally, the rule provides for 2 hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. Speaker, we are here today because the American people are tired of waiting.
It has been more than 4 months since this House passed the Heroes Act in response to the coronavirus pandemic to help our first responders, healthcare workers, struggling businesses, and local governments.
This bill passed this House on May 15, Mr. Speaker. But what did the Senate do, Mr. Speaker? Nothing.
They apparently couldn't be bothered to bring this bill up for a vote in over 4 months, but it took Mitch McConnell roughly 80 minutes after Justice Ginsburg passed away to announce a vote on a Supreme Court nominee.
Now, you can't make this stuff up. Something is terribly, terribly wrong here.
More than 205,000 Americans have lost their lives due to coronavirus and more than 7 million more have been affected.
Millions of people are out of work, small businesses are struggling, and some have had to shut their doors forever. Our economy hasn't taken a hit like this since the Great Depression. Many families are struggling every day to make ends meet. Kids are going hungry.
This pandemic isn't going to just disappear overnight, as the President has suggested. It is going to take a whole-of-government response for quite some time, and that requires Congress to act.
The Republicans in the Senate may be able to sleep at night telling the American people to wait and then wait some more and then wait some more while they rubber stamp another judge, but I cannot ask our people, our communities, our small businesses, our workers and their families to wait any longer. No one in this majority can.
Our country is suffering, and our people are in pain. That is why we have tried over these past 4 months to strike a fair and commonsense deal with Senate Republicans, but they couldn't even come to an agreement on a package among themselves. Republicans are fighting with Republicans over there, so they just abandoned doing anything at all.
Doing nothing is unconscionable.
I am proud that our Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has never given up. She has spoken with Treasury Secretary Mnuchin again and again and again and again trying to come up with an agreement.
Her offer to this administration was simple: let's meet halfway. Let's take the $3.4 trillion in relief contained in the initial Heroes Act and reduce it by $1.2 trillion. We would still fund our first responders, our small businesses, and our State and local governments, but we would meet Republicans in the middle. We would come down $1 trillion and they would come up $1 trillion.
That is called compromise. That is what you do, and it is what you have to do from time to time in divided government. The bill included in this rule, H.R. 8406, reflects that give-and-take.
There is funding here for State and local governments to avert layoffs and continue critical services; for coronavirus testing, tracing, and treatment; for our hospitals and for our healthcare providers; for continuing unemployment insurance; and for families to pay for necessities like food, utilities, and rent during this pandemic.
This revamped Heroes Act totals $2.2 trillion. Many Democrats, including myself, favored the original larger bill. My friends on the other side wanted something much smaller. But disagreement should never result in inaction.
One in four children in this country are at risk of going hungry this year because of this pandemic, Mr. Speaker. The lines for food banks in some communities already go for miles.
People are hurting today, right now. We all know that. And if you don't know that, you don't go back to your district.
We all know what it takes to truly do something about it.
We have pleaded with the Senate to take this bill up for months, we have negotiated over and over again, and today we are back with a compromise proposal.
The only question, Mr. Speaker, is whether my Republican colleagues are finally ready to take ``yes'' for an answer.
On behalf of the most vulnerable among us, those who are out of work, going hungry, and struggling to get by, I pray the answer is finally ``yes.''
Once again, Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues, all my colleagues, to support this rule and the underlying Heroes Act so we can finally, finally get relief to where it is so badly needed.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that when my friend says this is a Democratic wish list of things, I mean, the fact of the matter is, we are trying to respond to a pandemic. We haven't had to deal with something like this since 1918.
It has basically impacted our economy in ways that have resulted in millions of people losing their jobs. We have schools that have not fully reopened because it is not safe. We have had shortages of PPE. We don't have adequate testing. I can go on and on and on.
But the wish list that this bill addresses has things like we support small businesses. We improve the Paycheck Protection Program. That is hardly--I would like to think Republicans share that, too.
Additional assistance for the airline industry workers: Is that so controversial?
More funds to bolster education and childcare: Given what we are going through, is that controversial?
We honor our heroes. We provide assistance to State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments that desperately need funds to pay first responders. Is that a point of contention?
It supports testing, tracing, and treatment; provides additional direct payments for those who are unemployed; protects payrolls; ensures worker safety; preserves health coverage; restores unemployment benefits; bolsters housing assistance; strengthens food security at a time when a record number of Americans are going hungry.
Again, just to put this in context, we passed something 4 months ago. Four months ago, we sent it over to the Senate. Now, they should have passed something, and then we could have negotiated the differences. That is the way it usually works.
The Republicans are fighting with Republicans over in the Senate. There is a big chunk of Republicans who don't want to appropriate one more penny for the American people. No, they don't have the time. But they have the time to rush through another Supreme Court Justice, in record time.
I guess what is so frustrating is that some of my friends act like this is not an emergency, like, you know, we can just kind of go along and everything will be fine. This is an emergency.
We haven't faced a crisis like this in our lifetime, and if we don't have an all-out comprehensive approach, not a scalpel approach--it is not just about PPP. It is also about our schools, our healthcare workers, our first responders. It is about a whole bunch of stuff. But if we don't have an all-comprehensive approach, then this economy is going to have a very difficult time recovering.
It is just frustrating to me. I was home in Massachusetts. I did tours of restaurants in my district, and people have been visiting some of our restaurants, eating outside. But in Massachusetts, we get winters. It is going to get cold soon, and pretty soon, people are not going to want to eat outside. They won't be able to.
If people don't feel safe going inside because, as we are seeing now in a number of States that aren't following some of the recommendations of the CDC, we see case numbers going up. So if we had another surge, how are these restaurants going to survive? They are going to shut their doors forever.
We have an opportunity to provide a lifeline until we get through all of this. I mean, there are so many aspects of our economy that have been impacted by this, so many people who are just struggling to get by.
It is unconscionable to me that this hasn't occupied a greater sense of urgency in the Republican leader's mind over in the Senate. I just don't get it. It really is so disappointing to me.
Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, I just want to say a couple of things for the Record.
I guess the new Republican tactic--if anybody watched the debate yesterday--is to try to twist and turn and confuse people.
The gentlewoman implied that this somehow defunds police. I mean, there is $436 billion in here to provide assistance directly to State and local governments to support the police.
If my friend was so interested in supporting the police, she should know that the bill that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell brought up provided no money for State and local governments. I mean nothing.
In fact, that bill didn't provide money for a lot of the most needy people in this country who are suffering as a result of this virus: no money for nutrition to help our families who are going hungry, no money for a lot of the priorities that I know are priorities not only in my district but all over the country.
The bottom line is, my friends can come up with excuse after excuse after excuse to not support this. But by not supporting it, we are not supporting the American people at a time of desperate need.
Again, we have come down $1.3 trillion from what we originally put forward, not because we think it is necessarily the right thing to do, because the need is so great. We are doing it to try to find ways to accommodate, to move this process forward. And obviously, my friends make up ways to justify their voting ``no'' on this.
Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the American people cannot take this anymore.
And my good friend from Oklahoma, I know the compassion that he has. We have worked together, as well as my friends from Ohio and Arizona.
But yesterday, I stood with the mayor of the city of Houston, and we announced a mental health hotline for people being impacted by COVID- 19. Yes, the stress of COVID-19 is taking a toll on the American people. They need relief.
A very proud, brave parent got up to talk about how difficult it is to virtually teach her children while she works and how concerned she was. Why? Because the mandate comes from on high--the White House--that if you are not having your children in school in some form, meaning in the buildings, because that is the decision she was grappling with, then you don't get money.
They have no money. They have no money to have expanded buildings or temporary buildings so that they can help parents who work have children safely in school. They have no money for testing. They have no money to be able to provide for sick employees from COVID-19.
So I rise today to say: The American people cannot take it anymore. The stress is enormous. What we have done here is a very merciful response to the bill we already passed, that our friends, conflicted with each other and the White House, cannot seem to get a grip on.
I support $225 billion for education and childcare, $436 billion in assistance to our State and local governments.
I thank Mr. McGovern for making it clear. Those are our municipal workers. Those are police and fire, and we need it because who has gotten sick? Police officers, firefighters. And we need this money.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 1 minute.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, we need the testing. We are doing testing on the last pennies of the money that we were granted through the leadership, our Speaker and others.
They need testing. I will be in a stadium this coming week, trying to get people tested. That is how much we need it.
Then, of course, $28 billion in procurement, distribution, education, materials for the vaccine.
But I want to focus on the $600 for unemployment, the money for the $1,200, as well as the money for rental and mortgage to prevent mortgage foreclosure. The restaurant money, I want it for the independent pizza shops who hire people, for the workers who are going to be out of work, like airport workers or airline workers. The food insecurity, people are standing on line to get food.
What don't my good friends understand? That people are desperate, and they are in need?
I wish we were not discussing questions about white supremacy and whether or not someone believed it or not. I wish we would stay focused on getting this bill passed for the desperate people, no matter what backgrounds they are.
I want to rise in enthusiastic support for this Heroes bill, H.R. 8406. Let's pass it now.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman would be happy to know that, in this bill that we are bringing before here, we have most of what he requested but more. Our PPP language is more expansive, because a lot of businesses didn't qualify under the old formula.
But I do have to say that it really pains me that my friends don't understand that it is not just about small businesses. It is about our cities and towns and our first responders.
We have communities that are about to fire firefighters and police officers. Isn't that important to my friends?
Or helping to pay for schools to reopen safely or to be able to help kids get an education remotely or in a hybrid way, doesn't that fall on the top list of my Republican friends?
Healthcare coverage, the airline industry, which is about to lay off thousands of workers, we provide some help for them, but yet that doesn't make the cut.
So, yes, we can have a scalpel approach to this. We will do a little bit here and maybe we will do a little bit there, but that fails to recognize the severity of the crisis that we are now in.
Open your eyes and look at what is happening in this country, in large part, due to the mismanagement of this President, which is unconscionable.
But here in Congress, we can't deal with him. We can't fix the way he approaches his job. But we can provide direct resources to businesses and to local governments that can help keep our economy afloat until we can get by this.
Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I have served in this House for many years. I have been here through unimaginable tragedies, like September 11. Every time this Nation has been challenged, we came together--not as Democrats or Republicans, but as Americans. Never could I have imagined that after a shock like the coronavirus, that has taken more than 205,000 lives, that we would struggle to reach a compromise.
The House did its job more than 4 months ago when we passed the original Heroes Act; the Senate abdicated its responsibility. But we have not walked away. We have not stopped trying to help protect the lives and livelihood of people that we represent. We are back today with a bill that puts on paper the compromises that we are willing to make, not to get a win for one side or the other, but to help the American people in the middle of a pandemic. That is what this is all about.
Madam Speaker, to my friends on the other side of the aisle, I beg, please don't abandon the American people. Don't throw up your hands and walk away because you don't like every line of this bill. Take ``yes'' for an answer.
Madam Speaker, this bill doesn't Federalize elections. It provides safeguards for elections and provides funding to States to be able to carry out elections safely in the middle of a pandemic. To object over the fact that this bill protects Americans from losing their health coverage is startling to me, although it shouldn't be, because the President, as we speak, is in court trying to get the Affordable Care Act repealed outright, where millions of people would lose their healthcare, people with preexisting conditions would lose that protection, and you wouldn't be able to keep your kids on your insurance until they are 26.
Think about it: In the middle of a pandemic, that is the priority of this White House--to rip healthcare away from people. It takes my breath away what a disconnect there is about what the American people need and what some of my friends' priorities are.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us in compromising to get something done. I get it. This is an election year and people are used to running to their political corners, but this crisis demands more than just business as usual. It demands action. And it demands more than a scalpel approach: ``Well, let me do a little bit here,'' or ``let me do a little bit there.''
I am told that the White House doesn't want to fund nutrition programs to help make sure that no one in this country goes hungry. I can't believe anybody would take that position, but we are told that is one of the hot button items that people don't want to fund, that it is one of the Democratic priorities that is so controversial.
Really? Even before this pandemic, we had 40 million people in this country who didn't know where their next meal was going to come from; and every year it is a battle to make sure they don't cut nutrition programs. But now we are in a pandemic and hunger has increased dramatically in this country. Every one of us should not only be concerned about that, but we should be ashamed that that is a reality in the richest country in the history of the world.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to come together. This is an opportunity to meet this moment. Vote ``yes'' on this rule and on the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Cole is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 1161
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 8265} to amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act to establish a program for second draw loans and make other modifications to the paycheck protection program, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small Business; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 8265.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source