The publication is reproduced in full below:
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF S. CON. RES. 5, CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON
THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 101 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 101
Resolved, That Senate Concurrent Resolution 5 is hereby adopted.
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 distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my colleague from the Committee on Rules, 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 be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 101, providing for adoption of S. Con. Res. 5, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2021 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2022 through 2030.
Madam Speaker, I am, once again, on the floor today to urge my colleagues to adopt the rule and to support passage of this budget resolution.
Across our Nation, Americans are facing a dire crisis. Many have lost loved ones. Even more have lost livelihoods. Small businesses are shuttering their doors, hospitals are being pushed to their limits, and students are falling behind.
In the past year alone, Congress has taken steps to respond to the needs of struggling Americans, but I know that each and every one of my colleagues can agree that we have a long road yet to travel.
Passing this budget resolution is a necessary step to fast-track essential COVID relief, the American Rescue Plan.
I know the gentleman from Texas and many of his colleagues on the other side of the aisle have aired complaints about the process begun earlier this week. If these were normal times and if we were dealing with more mundane issues, I would share their concerns. I am a strong believer in bipartisanship, in compromise, and in regular order in the House and Senate. But these are certainly not normal times, and we are not dealing with mundane issues. We face the greatest crisis in our lifetime. Americans are counting on us, relying on us, and we have a moral imperative to save lives and families from destitution.
As of yesterday afternoon, 454,272 Americans have died from this tragic disease, a disease which has ripped a hole in millions of hearts that can never be repaired.
The victims of this disease have left spouses, children, grandchildren, parents, friends, neighbors, and people who needed them, who relied on them, and who loved them. Nothing we can do now will fix that. But we face the prospect of losing thousands more, and we can and must fix that.
This isn't just appropriate, this isn't just wise; this is a moral imperative.
Even families who have not lost a loved one have faced the disastrous consequences of the pandemic. Nearly 11 million Americans are unemployed, more than double the number before the spread of COVID-19. As a result, one in three American families have faced difficulty covering their regular household expenses, an estimated one in five adults are behind on rent, and 10.3 million homeowners are behind on their mortgages.
This isn't just desirable, this isn't just sensible; this is a moral imperative.
Parents in my district and in so many communities are struggling to put food on the table for their family. Nearly 24 million people, or nearly 11 percent of all adults in this country, have reported that their households sometimes, or often, didn't have enough to eat in the past 7 days. Before the pandemic, the Department of Agriculture found that number was fewer than 3.5 percent over the full 12 months of 2019.
This isn't just advisable, this isn't just constructive; this is a moral imperative.
So let's talk about what we are going to do to rise to this challenge. We are moving forward with the budget reconciliation process to ensure that Congress can pass meaningful coronavirus relief without delay or partisan gridlock. The budget resolution before us provides a framework for reconciliation with a target of up to $1.9 trillion. It is designed solely to respond to the ongoing crisis and to deliver critical relief as quickly as possible.
This will enable us to finally beat this virus and continue on the path of a national economic recovery. We will mount a national vaccination program, setting up vaccination sites in communities across the country. We will invest in reopening schools and provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families in need.
The American Rescue Plan will also provide direct assistance to Americans, stimulus payments, including assistance for dependents. We will also provide crucial support for the hardest hit small businesses, as well as first responders and frontline workers, who have done so much to turn back the tide of this virus.
But without the reconciliation directives in this resolution, any bold action could languish indefinitely in the Senate, putting the health and well-being of millions of American families at risk.
For those concerned about the national debt or possibility of future inflation, I urge them to heed the advice from Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, a Republican appointed by President Trump to the Federal Reserve chairmanship, when he warned us to be more worried about falling short of a complete recovery and losing people's careers and lives and the damage that will do to our economic future.
Moving forward with budget reconciliation does not preclude a strong bipartisan agreement on a relief package that can gain wide support in both the House and the Senate. In fact, there is no need for partisanship on this issue.
While it seems we may be divided today in this Chamber, the American people clearly are not. The overwhelming majority, including a majority of Republicans across this country, support passage of emergency legislation, including stimulus payments, vaccine funding, and other pandemic responses in this plan.
This is not a partisan issue because it is not only red or blue families, but families of all political persuasions that are struggling, and I am certain my colleagues in the minority know that all too well.
I urge Members of this House to support this budget resolution so we can immediately get to work on this desperately needed American Rescue Plan. It is our moral imperative.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, today's rule deems the Senate version of the budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 5, as passed. Last night, the Senate considered this measure, along with hundreds of amendments. The House passed its version, H. Con. Res. 11, on Wednesday. The two measures are largely the same, but because the Senate version has minor changes, we find ourselves once again considering a measure that the House has already passed.
Even though we are once again considering a rule for the budget resolution, we will not actually debate and pass because this rule deems the resolution as passed. I think it is important for Members to recognize: This is your only vote on adding nearly $2 trillion to the deficit.
{time} 1200
If this is the way we are going to achieve the passage of a budget resolution, why don't we take more time to negotiate a better product for the American people? Instead, we spent hours on what has amounted to procedural votes. The House has had little to say in the resolution outlining the reconciliation instructions by simply deeming the Senate version in this rule.
As I mentioned on Tuesday, budget reconciliation is a fast-track tool used to implement policy changes into law requiring only 51 votes in the Senate to pass.
Senator Sanders has stated the budget reconciliation does not have to be a partisan process. I actually agree with that. But that is exactly what this resolution sets up. Democrats control the House and the Senate and the White House, so we don't need to work with the Republicans on a resolution to benefit Americans.
Democrats previously promised $2,000 stimulus checks, billions for State and local governments, expansion of Medicaid, pension bailouts, added unemployment benefits, implementation of a Green New Deal, passed the citizenship for illegal aliens, lowering Medicaid-age eligibility, providing universal basic income, increasing the minimum wage, and canceling student loan debt.
But as we have seen in previous relief packages, many stimulus checks went to individuals who had actually kept their jobs or had no decrease in their pay. These checks could have been sent to those most in need, those who lost their jobs or are struggling to find work.
In addition, many State and local governments are in the red due to mismanagement of their budgets. This actually occurred before the pandemic began and now taxpayers are being asked to bail them out for that fiscal mismanagement that actually was decades in the making.
While Americans should be able to compete for a livable wage, raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour really does put some people at a disadvantage. Fast-food workers are now paid at the same level as paramedics though the training for those two jobs is clearly different.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, raising the minimum wage without considering market conditions could result in the loss of well over a million jobs. Student loan repayments are currently paused, but canceling that debt altogether harms individuals who have already paid back their loans and places that burden on the taxpayer. It also sends a message that you do not have to be responsible for the debt that you accumulate.
These policies are part of President Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus relief package that could ultimately increase the deficit between $2- and $3 trillion. But it does not address the immediate needs of the Americans who are trying to survive the pandemic. So now is not the time to push through partisan priorities.
Barely a month ago, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law a $900 billion coronavirus relief package. Combined with previous relief packages--and there have been several: three in March, one in April, one in December--and there remains $1 trillion in unspent funding.
As I pointed out on Tuesday, there have been few efforts to conduct oversight on this massive amount of funding.
In addition, yesterday, Larry Summers, President Clinton's Treasury Secretary and an economic adviser to President Obama, published an opinion piece outlining the risk of President Biden's massive $1.9 trillion package. Secretary Summers points out that the 2009 stimulus was about half as large as the estimated economic output shortfall.
In contrast, the already enacted $900 billion stimulus Congress passed in December will fill the gap three times over. To make this even more clear, the output shortfall due to the pandemic is estimated between $20- and $50 billion a month. The $900 billion stimulus will total $150 billion a month.
So you have to ask again: Why is it suddenly so urgent that we pass another $2 trillion bill?
I am pleased that on a few amendments considered last night in the Senate, the Senate came together. It appears to support not increasing the minimum wage during the pandemic; not moving the United States Embassy in Israel from Jerusalem; and not providing economic stimulus payments to undocumented or illegal aliens.
I am disappointed that the Senate Democrats defeated an amendment that would have prohibited a carbon tax, meaning a large tax increase is likely coming.
Despite the largely partisan nature of these budget resolution proceedings, there exists examples of bipartisanship. Now is the time to simply focus on policy and determine the best way forward for our country.
Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats. Last March, last April there was considerable agreement on the way forward. But while Republicans do stand ready to work with Democrats to provide these resources for the American people, we must ensure that all proposals are thoroughly examined and will be implemented in a way that helps rather than harms our recovery.
Despite calling for unity, the first move by President Biden and the Democrats is to employ a partisan process and jam through a wish list of policy priorities. I sincerely hope that the committees tasked with complying with the budget reconciliation instructions will engage in a more bipartisan manner.
With that, I urge opposition to the rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just a couple of brief points. First, as it relates to the amount of discussion about this, we debated this resolution with few changes earlier this week on Wednesday. We had a lengthy conversation. We are discussing it again now.
If we are successful in passing this resolution, it will go to the appropriate standing committees for their markup on the various allocations in this resolution, and then it will come back here for passage again.
So I think it is fair to say from a process point of view that we will have plenty of opportunities to make our arguments in front of the American public and let them decide on the appropriateness of our actions.
But I would hardly say that there isn't going to be ample time to have these conversations and make these distinctions if that is what we choose to do.
Just a brief word on the minimum wage. I hope we come back to it. I had the privilege of leading the debate on the rule when we increased the minimum wage in this House last year. If you make the minimum wage in the United States--the Federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. So if you work an entire 40-hour week you will make $290 gross. If you work 52 weeks out of the year at that level, you will make $15,080 for a year gross income.
So do we think Americans who work 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year should make more than $15,000 a year? Yes, we do. Guilty as charged. And we can have that conversation either in reconciliation, should that be the desire of the committees and the Senate, but we will certainly have it again on this floor because it is part of what we believe and the values that we hold dear as the majority in this House.
As it relates to the bipartisanship, we have said before, I said it earlier, Chairman Yarmuth said it repeatedly, we are happy and want to have a conversation about a bipartisan agreement. But whether we have a bipartisan agreement or not, we are going to move forward.
President Biden met with the 10 members of the United States Senate just earlier this week to talk about compromise. He has signaled repeatedly his willingness to do it. But we are going to do it with or without a bipartisan agreement because leadership is what this moment requires.
I dare say, I imagine there are not many families in America who really at the end of the day care more about how we put this deal together than they care about getting a stimulus check to pay their rent; that they care about their children being safe when they go back to school; that they care about unemployment benefits, if they happen to be one of the nearly 11 million Americans who was out of work through no fault of their own but because of a deadly virus which doesn't care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican.
So we are going to provide leadership and, frankly, I think it is probably surprising to some to see a President engaged in the daily activities in the life of his government and the life of our country, someone who cares deeply about the future of America, who cares about the families who are in need, who cares about those who are sick, those who are dying.
So that may be surprising. It is a little out of the norm in recent years, but we have a President who is fully engaged. Bipartisanship is what he has asked for. Bipartisanship is what he has talked about. It is what we seek here. But absent it, we will lead because too many Americans are suffering and in crisis.
With that, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy as I appreciate his words.
This is a step in a long process. There are ample opportunities for bipartisanship. I am hopeful that after years of talking about infrastructure, for instance, and having Lucy pull the football away--
President Trump said he would like to do it, but we were incapable of moving forward even though there was a broad consensus, actually, on both sides of the aisle--I think President Biden is prepared to roll up his sleeves and do that with us. And the contrast between what we saw with President Biden opening up, talking to Republicans, leveling with the American people; and yet, at the beginning a year ago, we had documented evidence that Trump refused to acknowledge the urgency of the coronavirus.
He soft-pedaled it along with a bumbling result where tens of thousands of people have died--maybe hundreds of thousands of people--
who didn't need to die. We have seen it in other countries.
We are moving forward and I look forward to having opportunities with our Republican friends to join us. The reconciliation process is one step forward.
I can't help contrasting it with how we have seen Republicans use reconciliation. I was on the Ways and Means Committee while they were literally writing the bill as we were meeting late into the morning, changing it as it went on. They didn't know what was in it. And that produced almost $2 trillion worth of deficit from people who are now fiscally conservative.
The contrast is stunning. We are going into meetings with the Ways and Means Committee during the day next week, not 1 day, not 2 days. We are prepared to be there 3 days or on into the weekend.
But I wanted to just take a moment to talk about one area of bipartisan cooperation that really lifts my spirits. I have been working for a year to try and rescue America's independent restaurants, the people who have been hit hardest by the coronavirus of any employment group. 500,000 restaurants--there are 11 million employees--
have suffered more than any other area.
I am pleased that the Senate, last night, by a 90-10 vote approved the framework of our restaurants bill, providing space in the reconciliation process, 90-10. And I am pleased that the restaurants bill that we have reintroduced that last session had over 200 cosponsors, we picked up on H.R. 793 44 cosponsors in less than 24 hours. I commend our friends in the Senate who have helped us out. I commend the bipartisan work on this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
I am excited that this is one area that there was an opportunity to have that bipartisan cooperation. The Biden administration supports it. We have Republican and Democratic support in the Senate. My good friend, Senator Wicker, and Senator Sinema have led the charge there. This is a bright spot for a very troubled part of our economy, independent restaurants, which are the cornerstone of all of our communities.
I hope we can come together to support this on a bipartisan basis as we move forward with the reconciliation. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I appreciate the time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do need to say one thing. A year ago, the gentleman had the opportunity to be in the same briefings that all of us were in. These were bipartisan briefings over in the Capitol Visitor Center. All of the experts in public health came and talked to us about the dangerous waters ahead because of this plague coming out of China.
And there could be no mistaking the difficulties that were ahead, but this was information that was available to all of us. It was not information that was secret or waived by the previous administration, not shared. It was here that we were given that same information.
Unfortunately, I sit on one of the authorizing committees that is responsible for pandemic preparedness. Did we do a single thing on a hearing basis during the month of February? The answer is no. We added on 1 hour to the end of a budget hearing at the end of February and by the middle of March, we had to suspend all activity in the Congress because of the pandemic.
We squandered the weeks that were available to us. The President bought us some time by cutting off foreign travel from China. The problem is that we, as the House of Representatives and Democratic leadership in my committee, did not use that time effectively.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Mrs. Cammack), a valuable new freshman Member.
{time} 1215
Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, I rise before you today in opposition to this rule. Since we began this new Congress in January--and I realize that I am new here--I have yet to see a single action by this House that could be interpreted as bipartisan; unifying; or, if we are being honest, a good use of our collective time.
Our Nation is experiencing one of the worst crises in our history. Last Congress, this body passed legislation that was quadruple the size of all New Deal programs combined, and that is adjusted for inflation. We are talking about $4 trillion. Today's solutions cannot be tomorrow's problems.
Madam Speaker, I am in favor of relief for our struggling businesses, our constituents, and our hardworking families. However, what we are considering here today is not relief. Rather, we are garnishing the wages of future generations. While the left is focused on charging Members of Congress thousands of dollars for their masks falling below their nose, mom-and-pop shops back home are having their local, State, and now Federal Government stand in the way of them opening their doors and getting this economy up and running.
And what of the $1.3 trillion that this body recently passed and that this administration has yet to spend? Where is that money going?
History shows us that the most successful actions by government have been bipartisan. It is time to let everyone, including Republicans, have a seat at the table. Until we prioritize all--all--of our people instead of just some coastal elites, I will not and I cannot support the actions of this majority.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I first welcome the gentlewoman from Florida to the House, and I look forward to many opportunities to work together in a bipartisan fashion. I would note that one of the very first things we did in this House was the bipartisan passage of Public Law 117-1, which was paving the way for an historic appointment of Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. So we have worked together, and I think we will find common purpose on so many things facing the American public. And I certainly hope we find commonality and purpose in this work that we will do over the next several days to work on support, in the most difficult of times, for American families.
Because I have heard this now said so many times in the last few days about a trillion dollars that the Biden administration has not spent, I would say, first of all, if anyone in a period of 2 weeks could spend a trillion dollars, I would find that remarkable.
The second is, this is in the pipeline. And we don't wait for every dollar to be spent and then think about having another debate about further support.
There is nothing about this that I find extraordinary. What I do find extraordinary is that you point out that money that has been appropriated, is earmarked, and is moving out the door in appropriate ways and going through the proper channels, and that would be a point of debate and argument.
This is necessary. We have heard it from so many leading economists around this country. We have heard it from the American public. So I think the case is clear, and I look forward to further discussion on this.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the great State of New Mexico (Ms. Leger Fernandez).
Ms. LEGER FERNANDEZ. Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the budget rule and resolution because Americans cannot wait any longer for us to rescue our economy and our health.
We are the Congress of the United States. Our job is to solve problems. We can't neglect our duty. This pandemic has devastated everything we love--everything each of us loves. If we don't do this, millions of Americans--especially people of color, in my State, Tribal communities, the Navajo, the Pueblos, the Apaches, and women--will continue to suffer and die.
New Mexicans are waiting for our help so they can afford to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, so they can go to eat at the restaurants, and have their kids in school where they feel safe. They are waiting for more COVID vaccines.
New Mexico is one of the best States in getting the vaccine out, but we don't have enough, and this will help us get enough vaccines. They are waiting for certainty that this year will be better than the last. Lives are on the line and all Americans' voices are loud and clear. They need us to act and to act boldly.
I am listening to American voices from the rural areas, from suburban areas, from conservative areas. I represent an incredibly diverse district, and they are all asking us to act. So let's listen. Whether you are a Democrat or Republican, let's listen to their voices, to their pleas. Let's take action. Let's stop the pain.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record the text of my amendment, 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 California (Mrs. Steel), who is here to explain the amendment. I welcome her to the floor.
Mrs. STEEL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, Republicans will amend this rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act.
This bill was introduced by Congresswoman Ashley Hinson, and it would condition State COVID relief grants for education on schools reopening so that students can get back in the classroom safely.
In December, Congress sent States $54 billion for K-12 education. Congresswoman Hinson's bill would ensure this money is used to get students back in the classroom safely and soon.
In-person learning can be done safely with the right precautions and safety measures. In Orange County, California, when I was chair of the Board of Supervisors, we safely allowed schools to reopen in early September. Children have been able to go to school in person safely, and the science shows that it has not contributed to significant COVID-
19 outbreaks in our communities.
Congress should be clear that we expect schools to use this funding to reopen, while keeping students and teachers safe. The science says students should return to the classroom. The CDC has confirmed that K-
12 schools are not a high-transmission environment. Young kids have an extremely low infection rate, low transmission rate, and a low rate of serious illness from COVID-19.
Unfortunately, only one-third of K-12 schools across the country currently have an in-person learning option available for students. As a result, kids' mental health is hurting. Students should be socializing with their peers and in a classroom environment. Child depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues are rising. Both parents and children across this Nation continue to suffer because of the challenges from this long-term lockdown.
While virtual learning can play an important role in offering parents and students additional education options, it should not be forced on families by schools unable to offer it effectively. It is unfortunate this legislation won't even be considered, because doing the right thing for students should not be a partisan issue. This is a disservice to students and families across the country who are suffering because of this pandemic lockdown. Congress should be working in a bipartisan way to provide targeted help.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. To the new Member, I also welcome her to the Chambers and I look forward to working with her on important issues, such as education.
It should not need to be said, but I will say it: This package has billions of dollars that will support education and schools. So pass this resolution. There is no need to substitute it.
I would look just to my home State of New York, which has lost $15 billion in revenue as a result of this pandemic. And I know a little bit about this. I served in that State legislature for many years. The State of New York provides the highest level of support per capita of a State to its local school districts of any State in the Union. So not helping local school districts, not helping our States provide lost revenue in support, damages, irreparably, the children in our K-12 across our country.
So pass this resolution. Work with us to make sure that we can provide support for our local school districts.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of California (Mr. Bera).
Mr. BERA. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this budget resolution, and I speak as a doctor. This virus doesn't know whether you are Democrat or Republican. This virus doesn't know the color of your skin, the religion that you worship towards.
I commend the Biden administration for wanting to go big and wanting to go fast, because we have to get ahead of the virus, defeat the virus. But then we have to do the efforts to vaccinate the population that are out, to address the food insecurity that we see all across this country.
Madam Speaker, I am particularly pleased that this package will have funding in it, as we put it together to address vaccine hesitancy and misinformation, particularly in hard-hit communities of color--Black and Brown communities. We have to get into those communities, work with community health centers, work with folks in those communities to make sure they get vaccinated. And I am pleased that we have been working with the Biden administration to get this done.
Madam Speaker, I fully support going big and fully support this budget resolution.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Budd).
Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.
Madam Speaker, lifesaving COVID vaccines are going to waste. Seniors and frontline workers in my State, the State of North Carolina, have had their vaccine appointments, which they depended on, forcibly canceled. We have got to do better.
Madam Speaker, I have two amendments to this budget resolution that would address these issues, but the majority has blocked a vote. Instead, we are passing a budget resolution to set up a trillion--with a ``T''--a trillion-dollar spending bill.
My first amendment, the Vaccinate More Americans Act, would prevent leftover COVID vaccines from being wasted by allowing vaccine providers to administer shots to the next allocation group automatically.
My second amendment addresses an issue that affected over 10,000 North Carolinians who had their vaccine appointments forcibly canceled. This is unacceptable and something has to be done about it.
My amendment says that any State health department that receives vaccines must distribute them in an equitable way without forcibly canceling appointments. We should be addressing these issues as a body instead of stuffing trillion-dollar spending bills into a rules package.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Morelle, the gentleman from New York and distinguished member of the Committee on Rules, among other committees of the House, for bringing this important rule to the floor.
Madam Speaker, we just left a meeting with President Biden where we had a discussion about how this legislation meets the needs of the American people. As our colleagues may be aware, early this morning, before 6 a.m., the Senate passed a budget bill, which is identical in instruction to the bill that we sent there.
We had the debate on that bill on Wednesday. It passed with a strong vote in the House, and then went to the Senate. It comes back to us now and we are addressing it. So that is what brings us to the floor now.
{time} 1230
What brings us to the floor now is the opportunity to crush the virus, to put vaccines in the arms of the American people, money in the pockets of the American people, children safely in school, people back in their jobs.
We can do that following science and good governance to make it happen. We must do that in a way that addresses the disparities. It is almost sinful to see the disparity in access to some of the vaccines and everything that happened up until now.
As I mentioned the other day in the debate on the budget bill, the GAO has put out a report that at least 90 percent of their recommendations to the Trump administration on how to address the COVID crisis were ignored. Twenty-seven out of 31 were ignored.
This legislation, again, based on science and knowledge, and respect for all the people in our society and in our country, addresses many of those concerns in a more current way as now we have more access to vaccines and people more willing to participate because they have hope. That is what this legislation does. It gives us hope.
It is a reconciliation bill, which means we can just pass it with 51 votes in the Senate. It would be my hope that we don't have to use it as a reconciliation bill, that we will be able to have bipartisanship with the facing of the facts of what is needed to meet the needs of the American people, both in this body and in the United States Senate. But in order to have a guarantee that the people's needs will be met, we are passing this legislation today.
I hope that we will have a very strong vote in favor of crushing the virus, money in the pockets, people back to work, and children, children, children safely in schools.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Smith), the lead Republican on our House Budget Committee.
Mr. SMITH of Missouri. Madam Speaker, in Missouri, we have this phrase that says: You are all hat and no cattle. That is what this legislation is. It is all hat and no cattle.
We just had the Speaker speak right before me and said this piece of legislation is all about getting vaccines and shots in people's arms. Let me tell you, less than 10 percent of the money that is appropriated in this piece of legislation actually goes to vaccines and shots. It is 9 percent.
That is all hat and no cattle, what we say in Missouri. If you are actually wanting to make sure that Americans have shots and vaccinations, do your job, not the lip service. If we really want to help American people, we should focus on lifting the burden of government influence and interference on the lives and off of the backs of working-class Americans.
At a time of great division in this country, we ought to be conscious of the fact that how we govern in this body can serve to unite us, or it can divide us further.
The only thing that has been bipartisan this week is bipartisan opposition to the bill. Not one Republican voted for it, but Democrats voted against it.
One piece of this debate that is increasingly obvious and concerning to me is how our Democrat colleagues are pushing legislation that will rescue or reward their political allies in blue State capitals across this country. How else does one explain the billions in bailouts they have proposed for State governments that have locked down their local economies? They have told Main Street to board up and left families struggling even more to make ends meet.
We should be looking to help working-class families by reopening schools, ending small business lock-downs, and allowing Americans to get back to work.
Hardworking American families would also appreciate a White House that focuses more on job creation and economic opportunity instead of continuously issuing executive orders, firing American workers, and increasing the cost of living in this country.
One truly disturbing part of the resolution before us today is that this resolution repeals the supermajority waiver requirement for unfunded mandates, making it easier for the Senate to impose mandates on our States and local communities on a partisan basis, now with only a simple majority waiver required.
This paves the way for Democrats to enact sweeping policies that will make the cost of living more expensive, and it will give Washington bureaucrats power over the American people and harm the working class.
Under this resolution, Democrats with a mere 51 votes could force States to provide healthcare to illegal immigrants under Medicaid. They could also take away States' ability to ensure Federal carbon mandates don't kill jobs and devastate local economies.
Ironically, the same folks who want to bail out State governments today to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars will be able under the new rules to stick States with costly massive unfunded mandates for the long term. It makes zero sense.
House Democrats are driving full speed ahead toward radical policies that will kill jobs and hurt the working class. It is past time to put politics aside and focus on the real needs of all Americans.
Madam Speaker, I stand ready to work with my colleagues on policies that will support the American working class.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I would note, and I am sure the gentleman knows this, he mentioned appropriations in this bill. Obviously, there are no appropriations in this bill.
This sets up a reconciliation process, and we would certainly welcome his input and welcome the support and partnership of Members on his side of the aisle.
But I do want to make clear this is a process resolution. It begins the process. We will come back and have conversations in the standing committees and, certainly, again on the floor as we move forward.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, to recover from the pandemic, really, it is not a good idea to push through policies that don't address the immediate needs of the American people. The budget reconciliation resolution provided for in this rule will drastically increase the deficit and seek to implement nonessential partisan policies without first conducting hearings and oversight to ensure that current funding is spent effectively and efficiently.
It is disappointing, after calling for unity just a little over 2 weeks ago in the front of this Capitol Building by the President, that the first move is to employ this partisan process.
It is now up to the committees crafting the reconciliation legislation to work in a bipartisan manner. I sincerely hope that they do, but it has been disappointing so far. And if the past is prelude, I don't think we will look forward to this being a bipartisan process.
Madam Speaker, I do want to remind Members that this will be a vote on the rule, but you will not get a vote on the resolution. Bear that in mind. The vote on the rule expands the deficit by $1.9 to $2.9 trillion.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a
``no'' vote on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. MORELLE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. Though from time to time we may disagree on questions before the House, I always find him very thoughtful, committed American. I am pleased to serve with him on the Rules Committee and pleased that we have had an opportunity to have this conversation this morning.
Madam Speaker, budgets are not exclusively about numbers or process. They are, most importantly, a statement of our priorities and our values.
Our priorities are clear. Stop this virus. Help our families. Our values are to respond to the critical needs of the American people, and that is what we do today.
We will continue to work through this over the next several weeks, and I very much appreciate all of my colleagues for their words in support of the rule before us today.
Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a ``yes'' vote on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as follows:
Amendment to House Resolution 101
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 l(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 682.
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. 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. 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 220, nays 210, not voting 1, as follows:
YEAS--220
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) 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 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 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 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 Thompson (PA) Tiffany 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--1
Wright
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee)(during the vote). Members are reminded to put on their masks.
{time} 1333
Mr. JACOBS of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. DELGADO changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Axne (Stevens) Barragan (Beyer) Bishop (GA) (Butterfield) Bowman (Clark (MA)) Buchanan (Arrington) Cardenas (Gomez) Carson (Butterfield) Castor (FL) (Demings) Cohen (Beyer) Cooper (Clark (MA)) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Doggett (Beyer) Donalds (Cammack) Fallon (Nehls) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Gallego (Gomez) Garcia (IL) (Pressley) Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez) Gosar (Wagner) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Higgins (NY) (Kildee) Jayapal (Clark (MA)) Kahele (Case) Kind (Beyer) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Krishnamoorthi (Brown) Langevin (Courtney) Larson (CT) (Courtney) Lawrence (Kildee) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lieu (Beyer) Lofgren (Jeffries) Long (Wagner) Lowenthal (Beyer) Lynch (Clark (MA)) Maloney, Carolyn B. (Jeffries) McEachin (Wexton) McHenry (Banks) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moulton (Beyer) Napolitano (Correa) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Porter (Wexton) Price (NC) (Butterfield) Roybal-Allard (Correa) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Speier (Scanlon) Titus (Connolly) Trahan (McGovern) Vela (Gomez) Waltz (Cammack) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Adams)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. 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 209, not voting 3, 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--209
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) 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 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 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 Thompson (PA) Tiffany 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--3
McCaul Posey Wright
{time} 1420
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. McCaul. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 27.
members recorded pursuant to house resolution 8, 117th congress
Amodei (Kelly (PA)) Axne (Stevens) Barragan (Beyer) Bishop (GA) (Butterfield) Blumenauer (Beyer) Bowman (Clark (MA)) Buchanan (Arrington) Cardenas (Gomez) Carson (Butterfield) Castor (FL) (Demings) Cohen (Beyer) Cooper (Clark (MA)) DeSaulnier (Matsui) Doggett (Beyer) Donalds (Cammack) Fallon (Nehls) Frankel, Lois (Clark (MA)) Gallego (Gomez) Garcia (IL) (Pressley) Gonzalez, Vicente (Gomez) Gosar (Wagner) Hastings (Wasserman Schultz) Higgins (NY) (Kildee) Jayapal (Clark (MA)) Kahele (Case) Kind (Beyer) Kirkpatrick (Stanton) Krishnamoorthi (Brown) Langevin (Courtney) Larson (CT) (Courtney) Lawrence (Kildee) Lawson (FL) (Evans) Lieu (Beyer) Lofgren (Jeffries) Long (Wagner) Lowenthal (Beyer) Lynch (Clark (MA)) Maloney, Carolyn B. (Jeffries) McEachin (Wexton) McHenry (Banks) Meng (Clark (MA)) Moulton (Beyer) Napolitano (Correa) Panetta (Kildee) Payne (Wasserman Schultz) Porter (Wexton) Price (NC) (Butterfield) Roybal-Allard (Correa) Ruiz (Aguilar) Rush (Underwood) Speier (Scanlon) Titus (Connolly) Trahan (McGovern) Vela (Gomez) Waltz (Cammack) Watson Coleman (Pallone) Wilson (FL) (Adams)
____________________
SOURCE: Congressional Record Vol. 167, No. 22
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