Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I feel I need to respond to the meltdown that occurred right before the vote on the Republican side. As the distinguished minority leader knows, House Democrats have sent two major coronavirus relief bills over to the Senate. Sadly, those bills have been gathering dust on Mitch McConnell's desk. He has refused to schedule a vote and a debate on those bills. But the good news is that today, at 12:45, we find out that Leader McConnell and Speaker Pelosi have spoken about their shared commitment to completing an omnibus and COVID relief package as soon as possible. I take that as good news. We can walk and chew gum at the same time in this Democratic- controlled House of Representatives. That means we need to deal with not only passing an omnibus bill and a COVID relief bill, but we have other work that needs to be done as well. I find it curious, Mr. Speaker, that the bill the minority leader objected to is a bill that deals with the unequal enforcement of our drug laws where people are treated differently and more negatively because of the color of their skin. Really? My distinguished Republican friend did not object to any of the bills we are bringing up today sponsored by Republicans--five different bills--but he chose to object to a bill that is addressing the issue of racial justice. Now, I guess I shouldn't be surprised because it is consistent with the attitudes that come out of this White House, but it also makes clear to me that the Republican Party is no longer the party of Lincoln. It is the party of some of the most intolerant voices on the rightwing and those who dabble in conspiracy theories. It really is sad. The Republicans made a motion that the House do now adjourn to highlight the fact that we are able to vote remotely in this Chamber in the midst of a pandemic. The leader said that nearly one-third of the Democratic Caucus didn't vote yesterday, which, by the way, they did because we do have responsible voting rules in place in the middle of this pandemic. Now, get this, Mr. Speaker. But then, right after saying that, 95 percent of the Republican Conference didn't even show up to vote. You can't make this stuff up, Mr. Speaker. They didn't vote in person, and they didn't vote remotely--nothing. Maybe I am missing something here, but I don't think the strategy was very well thought through. The distinguished minority leader is puzzled why we have passed rules that allow people to vote remotely during this pandemic. I have a news flash for him: Close to 275,000 people are dead. We have colleagues, both Democratic colleagues and Republican colleagues, who have been infected by this virus. While many Republicans are rushing to attend maskless superspreader Christmas parties at the White House, we in the Democratic majority are following the guidelines by the Attending Physician in the Capitol, by the CDC, by Dr. Fauci, and by every reputable medical expert in the world. Operating remotely during a pandemic, I want to tell my friend, is not radical, it is not unique, and it is not unprecedented or lazy. It is responsible. It is constitutional. The Supreme Court is working remotely, as are legislators around the country and around the world. We aren't doing this because it is convenient, Mr. Speaker. We are doing it because it is necessary, and we are doing it because we want to save lives. So, we invite our Republican colleagues to join us, to be responsible, and to understand why these rules are so incredibly important and maybe set an example for others in this country, especially those who operate in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 1244, providing for the consideration of H.R. 3884, the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary. It self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Nadler, and it provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, we are here today to continue our effort to reform our Nation's failed approach to the war on drugs, to put racial justice at the heart of our Nation's Federal cannabis policy, and to make restorative justice a reality for so many Americans. This is what the public has demanded for so long, that Congress address the broken status quo that allows the color of someone's skin to dictate the repercussions of their actions. This is not hyperbole, Mr. Speaker. Cannabis accounts for almost half of all drug arrests in our country--half. Most are arrested for possessing small amounts, not for selling or manufacturing anything. That is bad enough. But today in America, Mr. Speaker, you are nearly four times more likely to be arrested for cannabis if you are Black. Communities of color use cannabis at roughly the same rate as their White counterparts, but if you look like me, Mr. Speaker, you are far less likely to face the same penalties. I am not okay with that, and nobody should be. I am not okay with a system that treats those who have been convicted of minor cannabis offenses like they are some kind of drug kingpin. And I am not okay with a system that sends people to prison for cannabis-related offenses even in States where recreational cannabis use has been legalized. To do nothing about this is intolerable, and to pretend like this is a problem for communities of color to solve alone is inexcusable. America's failed war on drugs helped create this problem. It will take a national, holistic approach to resolve it. H.R. 3884 represents a major step forward. It complements other bipartisan criminal justice reform bills passed in this Congress and in the 115th Congress. This underlying bill removes cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, decriminalizing it at the Federal level so States can set their own laws. It also puts a process in place to expunge prior convictions made in Federal courts and establishes services to help those convicted of cannabis-related crimes whose lives have been harmed by the war on drugs, because no lives should be destroyed by this failed policy. Finally, this bill also makes Small Business Administration funding available for legitimate cannabis-related businesses while helping ensure people of color can participate in this thriving industry. This is what beginning to reverse the failed war on drugs looks like, Mr. Speaker. It is a testament to all of those who have fought for a fresh and more effective approach year after year after year. Now, I have worked side by side with many of them in this effort since I was first elected to Congress back in 1996. For so long, we were told the same thing. We were told to wait, to wait, to wait. Well, cannabis-related amendments couldn't even get a fair fight on this floor under the prior Republican Congresses. Not a single one was ever made in order in the 112th, 113th, or 114th Congresses--not one. We could bring no bill to the floor related to cannabis. The only one made in order last Congress was an amendment to eradicate illegal grow operations on National Forest System land. Congress has stood idly by for too long as communities of color, in particular, were being torn apart. This majority, Mr. Speaker, is committed to doing something about it. The House has debated more amendments on cannabis policy last year than it did during my entire 20 years in Congress, and now we are moving forward with the most sweeping reforms in generations. This is what a more responsive Congress looks like. Now, some, particularly on the other side, have wondered why we are moving forward with these reforms now. We must soon fund the government for the next fiscal year and pass the annual defense bill. We are also trying to prod the Senate to get serious about a true COVID relief bill. Again, as I said earlier, we have a little bit of hopeful news, based on the conversation between the Speaker and the Senate majority leader. We have a lot to do in the waning days of this Congress, and I get that. But the answer is simple. This is not an either-or proposition. Congress, as I said before, can walk and chew gum at the same time. A recent survey found that nearly 60 percent of Americans support this underlying bill. That includes a majority of both Democrats and Republicans. The facts are clear, and the public wants Congress to act. The question is, what are we going to do about it? I think it is time for us to take a stand, to stand for restorative justice, to stand for racial justice, to stand for criminal justice reform, and to stand with the majority of Americans demanding reforms to our Nation's cannabis policy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with the remarks of the distinguished ranking member, Mr. Cole. We are going to miss you, Rob, and this may be my final opportunity to be able to yield to you during a rules debate. The end of Congress is obviously rapidly approaching, and you have decided to retire from Congress after a very distinguished career. We have spent countless hours not only up in the Committee on Rules, but together on this floor debating many contentious issues. My distinguished friend from Georgia is always very focused, and he is always right on message and he is really quite impressive. Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, my mother watches these proceedings, and she will always say: You know, that Woodall guy, he is a very good debater. And I always say: Well, what about me? I mean, do you have anything nice to say about your son? But the bottom line is I have had some of my best fights with you, and we have disagreed on a lot of issues, but we have disagreed without being disagreeable. The Committee on Rules has to deal with a lot of contentious issues. We have dealt with our share of contentious issues in this last Congress, but I have really taken great comfort and great inspiration by the example of you, Mr. Woodall and Mr. Cole and others who understand the incredible nature and the incredible majesty of this institution that we get to serve in. So even among these contentious debates, you have never, ever drawn us down. It has always been in a way that is respectful and that honors your convictions and your beliefs. We have been together early in the morning; we have been together in the middle of the afternoon, late at night. We meet a lot in the Committee on Rules, but Mr. Woodall's good nature and his sense of humor, whether it is intentional or unintentional, makes it a little more interesting and, I dare say, makes it a lot more fun. So I want to take this opportunity to thank you for the many years of distinguished service, both your near decade of service as a Member of Congress and before that, as Mr. Cole pointed out, your service working for Congressman John Linder, who was also on the Committee on Rules. You have brought with you some incredible people as well. I see your longtime Committee on Rules staffer Janet Rossi on the floor here today. She is here to honor your service, as well as the others who are here today. And I just want to thank her for all of her work in the Committee on Rules as well over these years. I always think it is really hard to be a staff member and work for us on the Committee on Rules because you have to listen to all of us go on forever and ever and ever. Mr. Speaker, let me just close with this, and that is I think you and I come from different parts of the country and we have very different points of view on our politics, but to me, politics should be about conviction, not about political opportunism or flip-flopping with whatever way the prevailing winds are going. What I have always admired about you is that you feel strongly about what you believe in. You know what you believe in and you fight for your convictions, whether it is popular or not popular. And I agree with Mr. Cole when he said that this institution would be better served if we had more Members like you. Mr. Speaker, I want to say thank you, and I hope you come by the Committee on Rules next time you come back to Washington, and maybe if I get lost and I am in Georgia, I will stop by your firm and we can reminisce. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend from Arizona. I am not sure she was on the floor earlier when I announced that, finally, Mitch McConnell seems willing to want to negotiate a deal, not only on an omnibus bill, but he seems to be interested in talking about how we can get a COVID relief bill. This notwithstanding the fact that for the last over six months, he has held everything up. We have actually sent two major COVID relief bills over to the Senate. So I am hopeful. I am going to try to be hopeful that, in fact, this is for real. I would also say that the focus of this bill is on unfair, unequal, and racist drug laws. I mean, as I said in my opening statement, if people want to know what systemic racism is, look at how our drug laws are enforced in this country. If you look like me and you were caught with a small amount of cannabis, you would probably get off with a very, very light sentence, if anything. But if the color of your skin were black or brown, it is a whole different story. I mean, our system of drug laws is what systemic racism is in this country. No matter what you think about, you know, States legalizing marijuana or not legalizing marijuana, or whatever, I think we all ought to be committed to making sure there is equal justice under our laws. People's lives were ruined because of the color of their skin and how our drug laws were enforced. It is wrong. The time has long since passed for us to do something. That is what this is all about. So we will work on the COVID relief bill, and I hope that Mitch McConnell is sincere in what he said to Speaker Pelosi. I believe we will come together on an omnibus bill to keep our Government running, but we also need to address issues like this. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Ohio, I think we all know what needs to happen, and that is that the Senate majority leader needs to be willing to come to the table and sit down and work out a deal. We heard today that the Speaker has had a constructive conversation with him. Hopefully we will end up with something that, quite frankly, is going to help a lot more people than what the gentleman is suggesting here. What we do know is that nobody has been working harder than the Speaker of the House to try to get a COVID relief bill. She met around the clock with Secretary Mnuchin, with anybody in this administration who would be willing to come to the table. Our problem has been the Senate. Now, that may be changing today. I hope it is. But I would also say that we have sent over two major COVID relief bills, which, unfortunately, the gentleman voted against, which would help not just small businesses, but help our schools, help our first responders; help with PPE for people who, quite frankly, are running short right now as we see another surge; help support our cities and towns that are struggling; and help support our restaurants. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kind words. I almost feel like I want to yield him more time to have the compliments keep coming. The bottom line is that even though we disagree on a lot of issues, and sometimes in our debates you make me want to pull the remaining last two strands of hair out of my head, the reason why I sometimes feel that way is because you are passionate, you are smart, and you are effective. You have served your constituency incredibly well, and you have served this institution incredibly well. Mr. Speaker, going back to what Mr. Cole said at the very beginning, I think this place would benefit from more people of your caliber. And even though you would like to demote me to ranking member instead of chairman, I am still going to miss you, and I thank you for your friendship. You are a good man, and we are going to miss you a lot. Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill deserves to be considered and passed. As I said earlier, nearly 60 percent of the American public supports this bill. A majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans throughout the Nation want this bill passed. Prior Republican Congresses were apparently fine with turning a deaf ear to the will of the people. They blocked virtually all cannabis- related measures from getting a vote on the floor year after year. But this majority is not. We believe in listening to the people we represent. We believe in actually doing something about the war on drugs. Its failures have been staring us in the face for a very long time. Americans came together in record numbers following George Floyd's death to fight against systemic racism. Combating that means, among other things, reforming our policies toward cannabis. These laws have been used to disproportionately lock up people of color for decades. It is past time we showed the moral courage to do something about it. This is a historic moment. Let us seize this chance. Let us pass this bill. I urge everyone to vote ``yes'' on the previous question, and I urge a vote of ``yes'' on the rule.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from New York for his leadership and for yielding to me. I also want to thank my colleague from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) for all of his commitment, not only on issues of human rights regarding Russia, but human rights in general. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 1145, condemning the poisoning of Russian anti-corruption and opposition leader Alexei Navalny. Since Vladimir Putin took power in 1999, human rights defenders, journalists, and opposition politicians have suffered relentless persecution. Some have been killed, like Anna Politkovskaya, in 2006, and Boris Nemtsov in 2015. Others, like Alexei Navalny, have been targeted but survived. Navalny was attacked twice with a chemical substance in 2017, likely poisoned in 2019 while in prison, and seriously poisoned in August 2020. I am thankful that Navalny is recovering from the latest attack, but I regret that the Trump administration's response has been so feeble. Secretary Pompeo issued one statement, days late, and after German experts confirmed the poisoning, in which he merely called for an investigation. Today, with this resolution, Congress is stepping forward to make clear that the United States is appalled by the attack on Alexei Navalny and supports a robust response. This resolution: Condemns the poisoning; Thanks Germany for facilitating Navalny's transfer to ensure high quality medical care; Welcomes his recovery; Calls on the OSCE and human rights bodies to treat his case as a human rights violation; Calls on the U.S. Government to raise Navalny's poisoning with Russian authorities and to support independent, impartial, and thorough investigations by competent authorities; Calls for the imposition of Magnitsky sanctions on those responsible for the attack; And supports a review of whether the poisoning constitutes use of a chemical weapon, with sanctions to follow as appropriate. This resolution does not punish Germany by calling for the suspension of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Germany is an ally. It is the Russian Government that is at fault here. So I want to thank all the cosponsors in the Foreign Affairs Committee for supporting this initiative. I hope and I pray that the incoming Biden administration will make human rights the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy going forward. Brave individuals like Alexei Navalny deserve far more than a passing reference from our government's leaders. Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Scanlon, for yielding me the time. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying resolutions. We must pass the resolution from Congresswoman Jayapal. Medical procedures being done on immigrants without their consent harkens back to a dark time in our Nation's history when medical abuse against the poor and people of color happened again and again and again. I rise today, though, to discuss the bipartisan resolution condemning the collective delusion known as QAnon. I don't say that description lightly, Madam Speaker, but we all must call it what it is: a sick cult. We are not talking about a group of people with just some differing political views. Americans respect political disagreement. But what we do not respect and what this House should not tolerate are people using conspiracy theories from the darkest corners of the internet to spread hate and lies. QAnon isn't some harmless distraction. It is an extremist ideology that exploits children and opens the door to real-life violence. That is what we are talking about here: reality versus delusion; political discussion versus political violence. Just ask the sponsor of this resolution, Congressman Malinowski. In an interview that was published yesterday, he talked about the death threats and hundreds of hate-filled attacks sent to him from QAnon supporters after introducing this bill. He is not the only Member of Congress who has been targeted. Sadly, there are candidates across the country running to serve in Congress who peddle this trash. It is sick; it is wrong; and it is dangerous. It is frustrating that the President wouldn't condemn QAnon. He says they like him. But, then again, I never thought I would see the day when a President of the United States would tell a white supremacist group to stand down and stand by in a national debate. He didn't use a dog whistle; he used a blow horn. Extreme views like these are dangerous. Are we really going to stand by and do nothing, Madam Speaker? That is not who we are as a nation. All of us, especially my Republican colleagues, must condemn QAnon or risk being complicit in their dangerous hate peddling. So let's make it crystal clear: This is a sick and a twisted ideology.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1161 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

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 reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 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. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman from Texas an additional 1 minute.

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).

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Oregon an additional 1 minute.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1129 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. General Leave

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.