Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 1319) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 198 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Madam Speaker, today, the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, House Resolution 198, providing for a motion to concur with the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

The rule provides 2 hours of debate on the motion, equally divided and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Budget and Ways and Means.

Madam Speaker, a once-in-a-century pandemic brought us the need to act, and a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President have seized the moment, not as a chance to help big corporations or the already well-off, as those on the other side have done over and over again, but as an opportunity to invest in our workers, our students, our communities, and the very people who need help the most.

More than 18 million Americans are receiving unemployment benefits today. Nearly 24 million adults are going hungry. Roughly 12 million children are living in households with food insecurity. Up to 40 million people cannot afford to pay rent and fear eviction. Over 2 million women have been forced to leave the workforce. Eight of 10 minority businesses are on the brink of closure. That is what COVID has wrought in America today.

This is more than a Band-Aid; this is a lifeline, Madam Speaker. It will put more vaccines in arms, put more kids back safely in schools, put more money in people's pockets, and put more people back to work. It is hard to overstate just how important this is.

This bill, Madam Speaker, attacks inequality and poverty in ways we haven't seen in a generation. This legislation makes the biggest investments in our workers and our middle class that I have seen in my two-and-a-half decades of service here.

Make no mistake, I am disappointed to see the cut in the unemployment insurance made over in the Senate, and we are going to keep fighting to raise the minimum wage so that no one who works full time lives in poverty. We are going to keep focusing on the hunger crisis in this country until we end it once and for all. These should be fundamental priorities of the wealthiest nation on the planet.

But let's be clear. Today, we are on the doorstep of history. We are about to send the most sweeping and progressive economic investment in modern times to the President of the United States: $1,400 in direct payments, a historic child allowance, school infrastructure, an expansion of the Affordable Care Act, student loan relief, billions in rental assistance, aid that will cut child poverty in half, and I could go on and on and on.

Everything included in this final package is necessary to crush the virus and revitalize our economy.

As I have noted, I have been in Congress for more than 20 years, but this, Madam Speaker, this is among my proudest moments.

I want to thank our distinguished Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and my fellow committee chairs who worked so hard on this bill. I want to thank Budget Committee Chair Yarmuth and all of my colleagues here in the House for getting us to this point.

Democrats on both sides of the Capitol, together with the Biden administration, have crafted something historic. In 1 day, with a single vote in favor of this bill, we will change the lives of millions of Americans for the better.

For all of our important work, day in and day out, we don't get many chances like this. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this rule and the underlying rescue plan.

Let us rise and meet this moment, and let's send this historic bill to the President's desk for his signature.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article that appeared in Politico entitled, `` `Check Partisanship At the Door': Biden finds GOP allies for rescue money.''

[From Politico, Mar. 5, 2021]

`Check Partisanship at the Door': Biden Finds GOP Allies for Rescue

Money

(By Kellie Mejdrich)

Republicans in Congress attacking President Joe Biden's

plan to pour hundreds of billions of dollars in pandemic

relief aid into local governments are facing resistance--from

GOP-run states and cities.

Republican mayors in Texas, Arizona, Florida and Oklahoma

are among those backing Biden's state and local government

funding plan as part of the $1.9 trillion coronavirus aid

bill that's before the Senate, defying GOP lawmakers in

Washington, who are broadly resisting the spending.

``In a crisis and an emergency, you check partisanship at

the door, and you get through the crisis,'' said John Giles,

the Republican mayor of Mesa, Ariz. ``You can get back to

playing politics when the crisis is over. And so this is one

of those times.''

The clash between local and national Republicans is a rare

public division in a party that has generally been united in

opposition to policies being pushed by Biden and Democrats in

control of Congress. It's a breach that Biden and House

Speaker Nancy Pelosi have gone out of their way to exploit as

the coronavirus legislation enters the final stretch.

Lawmakers including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

of Kentucky, Sens. Rick Scott and Marco Rubio of Florida, and

Ted Cruz of Texas have been among the most vocal national

Republicans in rejecting the aid, calling it a ``bailout'' of

what they say are poorly run Democratic states and arguing

that state budgets fared much better than expected during the

pandemic. They also say that a good chunk of the money doled

out to the states by Congress last year remains unspent.

McConnell slammed the relief package in his opening remarks

Friday, calling it ``an ideological spending spree packed

with non-Covid-related policies'' and panning the $350

billion targeted for state governments as a ``massive cash

bailout for mismanaged state and local governments.''

But Giles and other mayors say their residents are locked

in a struggle to fill pantries with food as municipal

reserves and other dedicated funds are running dry.

``There has been an overwhelming backlash from our

Republican congressmen and senators because of how much money

is in this bill,'' said Arlington, Texas, Mayor Jeff

Williams. ``For us, the reality is the need is very much here

for cities.''

Williams said that when he talks with his counterparts in

Washington he tells them ``we have seen the great economists

of our country all come together'' in support of these

additional funds for state and local governments.

He also draws on comments by Federal Reserve Chair Jerome

Powell. While Powell hasn't taken a specific position on

state aid or the coronavirus legislation itself, he has often

spoken of the drag on the economy from the loss of more than

a million state government jobs during the pandemic.

Biden underlined the conflict within the party by inviting

a bipartisan group of governors and mayors to the White House

last month to discuss local funding issues. Pelosi late last

month said Republicans in Congress were choosing to ``mock''

the aid package despite its broad support, citing a

bipartisan letter signed by mayors across the country

requesting more aid--including signatures from more than 30

Republicans.

Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, a Republican who attended the

White House meeting, told POLITICO, ``We're hoping that it

doesn't become a partisan punching bag.'' He said he hoped

that ``hearing from local officials that are on the ground,

day in and day out, will be something that motivates elected

officials from both parties'' to support the funding.

GOP lawmakers say that a surge in tax revenue for most

states following last year's massive aid packages makes more

help unnecessary now. But while the financial picture is

brighter than many officials projected, some of the states

hardest hit by the pandemic are represented by these

lawmakers.

A recent report from Moody's Analytics showed that five of

the 10 states with the biggest budget shortfalls are

Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Florida and Kansas. They were

among 19 states where Moody's identified looming budget

shortfalls even after accounting for federal aid and local

reserves. Ten of the 19 are represented by at least one GOP

senator.

``It would be a dereliction of duty for me not to try to

fight for $116 million that would allow us to restore our

police, fire and other core services,'' said Oklahoma City

Mayor David Holt, a Republican.

City and county leaders are amplifying calls for support

because the new bill sets aside more than $100 billion for

municipal and county governments--just over $120 billion in a

``local fiscal recovery fund,'' according to the latest

Senate version of the bill.

So while just 38 cities got funding in the first round in

March, the United States Conference of Mayors estimates the

new formula expands eligibility to 19,000 cities, towns and

villages. That's why more than 30 Republican mayors signed on

to the letter in support of the package last month that

Pelosi touted, with Giles, Holt, Suarez and Williams among

them.

Giles said the city of Mesa was lucky enough to get $90

million in the first round of aid, but added, ``We could have

turned in twice that much in receipts that were tied to virus

relief; our expenses have gone higher.''

``Because we're in the food bank business, we're in the

buying laptop computers for school business, we're in the

rent, utility business. We're doing all of these things that

we weren't doing a year and a half ago,'' he said.

Even some Republican governors have publicly vouched for

the plan, including Asa Hutchinson of Arkansas and Larry

Hogan of Maryland, citing the financial stakes ahead.

Meanwhile, 22 Republican governors in a statement issued at

the end of February criticized Biden's funding plan--but only

because their states will see a smaller share of the direct

grant funding compared to what Congress sent them in March.

``The new stimulus proposal allocates aid based on a

state's unemployed population rather than its actual

population, which punishes states that took a measured

approach to the pandemic and entered the crisis with healthy

state budgets and strong economies,'' read the statement,

whose signatories included Republican Governors Ron Desantis

of Florida, Kevin Stitt of Oklahoma and Doug Ducey of

Arizona.

Many of Florida's tourism-dependent cities have taken a

financial beating, and the state faces a big shortfall for

the coming budget year. Local media reported last month that

the state deficit was estimated at $2 billion.

Yet the same day that Miami's Suarez traveled to Washington

to discuss local funding with the president, Republican Sen.

Scott slammed Biden's proposed aid package for the states in

an editorial, saying the money would be used to ``bail out

fiscally irresponsible governors in New York and Illinois.''

Rubio, Florida's other Republican senator, has also spoken

critically of more local aid, saying that some states ``see

this as the latest opportunity to get bailed out.''

But even with better outcomes for states overall, state and

local government employment still hasn't recovered from the

pandemic downturn. The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data

show that they are still down about 1.4 million jobs from a

year ago--about 1 million of which are in education.

Teryn Zmuda, chief economist of the National Association of

Counties, said states do need the help.

``Local government specifically is down 1 million of those

10 million jobs that the nation is short right now,'' Zmuda

said. ``So, aid to local governments will get those 1 million

workers back in the workforce.''

Madam Speaker, I raise that because the only place where this bill isn't bipartisan is here in Washington. Republican mayors and Republican Governors all across the country want this bill. Seventy percent of the American people want this bill. But here in Washington, my Republican friends think they know better than their constituents. They have what we call Potomac fever or they have gone Washington on their constituents.

The bottom line is people back home need help. People back home are struggling, businesses back home have been devastated because of this pandemic. This is a bill designed to help the American people.

Before I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut, we are about to be treated to a little bit of theatrics, and I understand that they want to delay the passage of this bill and bring up an alternative, a bill that they claim is going to help our schools but provides no new funding.

What we are doing here, Madam Speaker, is we are not only providing funding to help our schools reopen safely, we are also providing money to help those who are unemployed, to help those who are hungry, to help our cities and towns that are on the verge of laying off first responders.

In a moment, everybody in this House needs to stand and be counted; and on this side of the aisle--and I hope some of my Republican friends will join with us--we are going to stand with the people. We are going to stand with the people.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Madam Speaker, I will not yield for that purpose. All time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that we just saw a parade of Republicans come before the microphone and urge us to move on a bill, and they read the short title of the bill. But the real title of the bill, and let me read it to you, is: ``To encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools.'' That is what the bill does.

Now, let me just say to my Republican friends, I don't know if you go home and you don't talk to principals, superintendents, teachers, parents, and students, but our schools don't need encouragement. What they need are resources to be able to reopen safely.

This bill that you are talking about here doesn't provide one additional cent to help schools reopen. Nothing. No money. No resources. Nothing. Give me a break. Come on.

Madam Speaker, the bill that we are about to debate here will provide $130 billion to help K-12 schools reopen safely. That is not encouragement. It is real resources to make it a reality.

By the way, this bill also requires States to award K-12 funds to local school districts no later than 60 days after receipt and school districts to develop plans to ensure that schools return to in-person learning.

I could have saved you a lot of time and a lot of embarrassment. That was bad theater. It was terrible theater.

Madam Speaker, people need help. We are trying to crush this virus, get this economy back on the right track, and reopen our schools, and this is what we get. Look, I hope everybody takes note of those who went before the mike to argue against this bill and for a symbolic bill that provides no resources, because, at the end of the day, people need to know who was on their side in the middle of this crisis, who stood up and fought for them and provided much-needed Federal relief to our local communities and our schools. That was pathetic.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a distinguished new member of the Committee on Rules.

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield to the gentlewoman if she could tell me how much money is in her bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) to ask how much money is in the gentlewoman's bill.

Madam Speaker, I reclaim the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, here we have a Republican colleagues coming to the floor basically advocating nothing. Their bill--read the long title again--is to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-person instruction at elementary and secondary schools. Not one new cent in money.

Schools don't need to be encouraged. They need the resources to be able to deal with issues like ventilation, to be able to make sure that the infrastructure is such that it is safe for students and teachers and others to come back to the schools.

And my Republican friends, while they are coming here and trying to find ways to delay the American Rescue Act, they are going to vote against it. They are not advocating for one additional cent for vaccines. They are not advocating for any additional help for those who are unemployed, for small businesses and restaurants that are struggling. They don't want any more resources to go to cities and towns.

So I hope that we don't see some of my Republican friends show up at announcements announcing money and resources for schools and cities and towns, for those who are struggling, trying to take credit for something that they voted against.

Madam Speaker, I would, again, urge my colleagues on both sides to look at this for what it is. This is not about trying to help people. This is about a continuing effort to delay much-needed resources to our schools, to our struggling families, and to our small businesses.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, let me just state for the record and respond to the gentlewoman. The bill she is talking about is not an appropriations bill. Let's be clear. Let's make sure we are clear about what we are talking about here. This is not an appropriations bill.

She is talking about money that was previously allocated in previous bills. The bill that my Republican friends are bringing forward allocates zero. It encourages schools to open up.

Again, our schools don't need encouragement. What they need are resources. And if my friends would go home and listen to their superintendents, to the principals, to the teachers, to the parents, to the students, they would understand how desperate the situation is.

Now is the time for action, not more empty rhetoric, not more political theater, not more words. People need resources and they need it now.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, we all want schools to reopen, but we want them to reopen safely. There is such a thing called science that we need to respect, and we need to make sure that our schools are reopened safely.

This is a deadly disease that has invaded our country. We have all lost friends and loved ones to COVID-19. We lost a congressman-elect and a sitting Member of Congress on the Republican side to COVID. So to get up here and to talk like this is much ado about nothing? Come on. What are my friends thinking? This is serious.

Communities after communities all throughout this country are trying to find ways to reopen schools safely. Some of them are trying to invest in infrastructure for better ventilation to make sure that it is safe. Some are talking about additional school buses to be able to transport kids to and from school safely. They need resources, not encouragement.

Give me a break. How insulting to somebody watching this debate in any of our districts to hear Members of Congress get up and say, you know, you don't need any help, you don't need any resources, you don't need any money to be able to help institute these changes so we can get kids back to school safely, but we are going to give you encouragement instead.

Come on. We can do better than that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I would encourage all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to read the bill, to look at what is in this bill, and to look at the people who it will help. To claim somehow that this is not going to help with reopening of schools or helping our small businesses or helping children struggling in poverty or helping people who are hungry shows that people are not reading the bill.

This is a big, bold, appropriate response to a horrific pandemic that has struck our country and struck the world. So we are acting, and it is the right thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Hayes).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, we can talk and talk and talk and talk, and it might make us feel better, but it doesn't do any good for the people we represent who are in desperate need. They are crying out for help. People are struggling, people are hungry, and businesses are shutting down.

My friends talk about reopening schools. They offer a measure that

would encourage our schools to be reopened but don't offer one additional penny in resources to help them reopen, which is so tone deaf and so disconnected from reality. People need help, and they need it now.

Madam Speaker, let's be really honest here. My Republican friends do not have a problem spending $2 trillion. They spent that with their tax cut bill that benefited mostly people who are well-off and well- connected, and they were willing to spend that on COVID when Donald Trump was President.

What they have a problem with is where this is going: to our workers, not the wealthy; and to our communities, not corporations. That is the fundamental difference in how we govern. Democrats govern for the people.

Right now people are hurting, Madam Speaker. An overwhelming majority of the American people across all party lines and divisions support the American Rescue Plan. We have seen that in poll after poll after poll. My Republican friends just say that they are uninformed, including their Republican mayors and Republican Governors. How insulting.

This bill will put more vaccines in arms. It will put our kids back to school safely. It will put food on dinner tables and put workers back in jobs.

This pandemic is an all-hands-on-deck moment. After weeks and weeks of work, Congress doesn't have a moment to spare.

I urge all of my colleagues to support these historic investments in our Nation. We have told our neighbors and communities that help is on the way. Let's deliver on that promise.

I am proud to be on the House floor today. I am proud to speak in favor of the American Rescue Plan. And I am proud to vote in favor of this important piece of legislation. This will help save lives and will help save our economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, the January 6 insurrectionists did not win. The American Government, the people of the United States, won with a Democratic government that has come to the rescue with the American Rescue Plan.

The long lines will stop. $20 billion for vaccines. Cash-strapped Americans will get $1,400 and extended unemployment. We will recognize that our children will get back to school with $130 billion. They will be able to stay in school. They will be able to regain lost learning. They will be safely in school.

And, yes, a working family, who my friends do not know, a single- parent working full time and making minimum wage of $15,000 will get $9,525, with children under 6, and a child tax credit of $3,600.

Houston will get $650 million; Harris County, $914 million.

This is a rescue. The insurrectionists did not win, but democracy did. The Democrats are on the way to give you help.

Mr. Speaker, as a senior member of the Committees on the Judiciary, on Homeland Security, on the Budget, and as the Member of Congress for a congressional district that has experienced the worst of COVID-19 as a public health emergency and economic catastrophe, I rise in strong support of the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1319, the ``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,'' which provides $1.9 trillion to take immediate and decisive action to crush the virus and vaccinate our people, build the economy back better, reopen schools, and provide needed support and assistance to state and local governments that have been asked to do too much with too little for far too long.

To be clear, I would have preferred the version of the American Rescue Plan passed on February 26, 2021 by the House, without a single Republican vote, but the amended version of the legislation is infinitely better than the feeble and disinterested efforts, and callous disregard of the previous Administration to this deadly pandemic.

Mr Speaker, I support the legislation before us because it will put money directly in the pockets of hard-pressed and weary Americans, vaccination shots in their arms, and help put them back to work and their children back in school.

The key differences between the bills passed by the House and Senate are:

1. The Senate-passed bill does not include the $15 an hour minimum wage provisions that were included in the bill passed by the House.

2. The Senate-passed bill reduces to $80,000 the phase-out range for qualification of an individual to receive direct payments under the legislation.

3. The Senate-passed bill extends the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) only through September 6, but it retains the weekly benefit at the current $300 per week, and it also exempts up to $10,200 in unemployment benefits received in 2020 from federal income taxes for households making less than $150,000.

Like the House bill, the Senate-passed bill finishes the job on the President's promise to provide $2,000 per person in direct assistance to households across America with checks of $1,400 per person, following the $600 down payment enacted in December.

The bill will also provide direct housing assistance and nutrition assistance for 40 million Americans, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend unemployment insurance so that 18 million American workers can pay their bills and support 27 million children with an expanded Child Tax Credit and more than 17 million low-wage childless workers through an improved Earned Income Tax Credit.

The bill supports communities struggling with the economic fallout by providing, like the House bill, crucial support for the hardest-hit small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that have experienced systemic discrimination, with economic injury disaster loans (EIDL) grants, expanded PPP eligibility and more.

This legislation provides crucial resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, and other essential workers.

Finally, and very important, the American Rescue Plan Act establishes the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and provides $45.570 billion in direct funding to major metropolitan cities and local governments.

With our vote today in support of the American Rescue Plan, congressional Democrats and President Biden are making good on our commitment to the American people that help is on the way to crush the virus, open our schools safely, and build back better.

Mr. Speaker, by an overwhelming margin (72 percent), the public wants and is demanding that we act to provide more economic relief to address the damage caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents believe an additional relief package is necessary, while more than nine in ten (92 percent) Democrats and Democratic leaders say more coronavirus aid will be needed.

Even the most conservative Republicans favor more relief by a 56 percent-44 percent margin.

Nearly nine-in-ten of all adults (88 percent) in lower-income households say an additional package is necessary, while 81 percent of Republicans in lower-income households (81 percent) say additional aid is needed now.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put food on the table, by expanding the SNAP program and respecting Black family farmers.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put people back to work by prioritizing funding for transit, airlines and airports, and the disaster relief fund.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put a priority on protecting renters and homeowners, preventing homelessness, and providing $10 billion for the Defense Production Act to procure essential medical supplies and equipment.

The American Rescue Plan Act will put money in people's pockets with direct payments, Unemployment Insurance, Child Tax Credit, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and includes pension security and expanded Affordable Care Act coverage.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provide $17 billion in critical funding to help the VA meet the health and economic security of veterans, especially as relates to the benefits claims and appeals backlog caused by COVID-19.

The American Rescue Plan Act will produce and distribute the vaccine and test, treat and protect all Americans, including communities of color.

The American Rescue Plan Act will provides desperately needed funding for our heroes--health care workers, first responders, sanitation, transportation and food workers, and teachers--in states, localities, tribes, and territories.

Let me speak briefly about another crucially important feature of the legislation we will pass today.

The American Rescue Plan Act establishes the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Fund and provides $45.570 billion in direct funding to major metropolitan cities and local governments.

In my home state of Texas, metropolitan cities are estimated to receive $10.327 billion in direct coronavirus relief funding, while the state of Texas is slated to receive $16.824 billion, for an estimated $27.152 billion total to the state of Texas.

During the Budget Committee markup, I proposed, and the Committee agreed that any effort to strip or reduce this vital funding is to be rejected so major metropolitan cities, like Houston, receive the direct COVID-19 relief funding desperately needed to battle the coronavirus, restore critical services to struggling families, and help save the jobs of essential public servants like teachers, firefighters, and other first responders.

Let me discuss briefly why direct funding to major metropolitan cities and counties is so critical.

The purpose of providing for direct payment to major metropolitan cities like Houston and counties like Harris County, as opposed to the County having to receive an allocation from the State, is so that the local governments, who are in the best position to identify and respond, will be able to tailor the funding to meet the urgent needs of their communities.

For example, under the direct payment provisions in the CARES Act, Harris County received more federal funding relative to the amount that would have been received through the State program and had the flexibility needed for more efficient use of this funding, which was a concern voiced even by State leaders over the restrictive way that the State of Texas distributed CARES Act funding.

By directly allocating funding to metropolitan cities and areas like Houston and Harris County, local authorities can work with the community to determine the specific needs of Harris County residents.

As a result, Harris County Commissioners Court approved, for example, the following

programs to directly address community needs, and to get money into the hands of residents quickly:

1. Commissioners Court funded Community Programs

2. Census Services

3. Childcare Assistance Program

4. Court Evictions Services

5. COVID 19 Workforce Development Program

6. Direct Assistance Programs

7. Domestic Violence Assistance Fund

8. Rental Assistance Programs

9. Small Business Loan Program (LEAP)

10. Small Business Relief Fund

11. Small Cities Support

12. Student Digital Services

13. UT Health Community Spread Survey Program

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments--as we saw here in Texas--would not have permitted CARES Act funding to be used to create or support any of these programs.

In addition, without direct payments to major metropolitan cities and government units, states invariably will succumb to the temptation to place onerous conditions on funding over and above those required by the Federal government.

For example, in Texas, only $55 per capita was allocated to nondirect allocation entities, instead of the $174.49 per capita that was allocated to them by Congress.

Additionally, only 20% of the allocation was made available immediately to local entities instead of making 100 percent of the allocation available immediately.

Third, direct funding is necessary to prevent state governments from creating specific categories limiting eligibility for medical expenses, public health expenses, payroll expenses for employees in the fields of public safety, public health, health care, human services, or whose services are substantially dedicated to mitigating or responding to the COVID-19 public health emergency.

Without direct payments to major metropolitan cities, state governments, again as we have seen in Texas, will limit recovery for expenditures to support actions to facilitate compliance with COVID-19 related public health measures or associated with the provision of economic support in connection with the COVID-19, or other COVID-19 related expenses reasonably necessary to the function of government that satisfy the fund's eligibility criteria.

I would urge my Republican colleagues to heed the words of Republican Governor Jim Justice of West Virginia who said colorfully just a few days ago, ``At this point in time in this nation, we need to go big. We need to quit counting the egg-sucking legs on the cows and count the cows and just move. And move forward and move right now.''

The same sentiment was expressed more eloquently by Abraham Lincoln in 1862 when he memorably wrote:

``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.''

Mr. Speaker, the bipartisan action we took last December was a step in the right direction but only a long-delayed down payment; we cannot afford any more delays, especially since Republican stalling already caused a painful lapse in critical unemployment assistance last year, and additional unemployment assistance is set to expire on March 14, 2021.

That is why the American Rescue Plan Act is absolutely crucial and the right thing to do and to do right now.

The American Rescue Plan Act proposed by President Biden takes a multiprong approach to tackling the public health and economic crises stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic.

No one is better prepared or more experienced to lead the American rescue than President Biden, who as Vice-President oversaw the implementation of the Recovery Act, which saved millions of jobs and rescued our economy from the Great Recession the Obama Administration and the nation inherited from a previous Republican administration.

And let us not forget that President Obama also placed his confidence in his vice-president to oversee the rescue of the automotive industry, which he did so well that the American car industry fully recovered its status as the world leader.

Mr. Speaker, to crush the virus and safely reopen schools, the American Rescue Plan Act will mount a national vaccination program that includes setting up community vaccination sites nationwide and makes the investments necessary to safely reopen schools.

It will also take complementary measures to combat the virus, including scaling up testing and tracing, addressing shortages of personal protective equipment and other critical supplies, investing in high-quality treatments, and addressing health care disparities.

The American Rescue Plan Act delivers immediate relief to working families bearing the brunt of the crisis by providing $1,400 per person in direct cash assistance to households across America, bringing the total (including the $600 down payment enacted in December) to $2,000.

Additionally, the plan will also provide direct housing and nutrition assistance to families struggling to get by, expand access to safe and reliable child care and affordable health care, extend and expand unemployment insurance so American workers can pay their bills, and give families with children as well as childless workers a boost through enhanced tax credits.

Mr. Speaker, the American Rescue Plan Act provides much needed support for communities struggling with the economic fallout, including hard-hit small businesses, especially those owned by entrepreneurs from racial and ethnic backgrounds that have experienced systemic discrimination.

Finally, the plan also provides crucial resources to protect the jobs of first responders, frontline public health workers, teachers, transit workers, and other essential workers that all Americans depend on.

Mr. Speaker, the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the videos of the unjustified killings of George Floyd, Breanna Taylor, Ahmed Arbrey, and so many others, laid bare for the nation to see the stark racial and ethnic inequalities exacerbated by the virus.

In my home state of Texas, as of the end of September 2020, there have been more than 760,000 cases of COVID-19 and 16,000 deaths.

According to the Texas Department of State Health Care Services, 70 percent of the confirmed fatalities were people of color.

In Texas, COVID-19 mortality rates are 30 percent higher for African Americans and 80 percent higher for Hispanics overall.

The differences become much larger when accounting for age; for example, in the 25 to 44-year-old age group, African American mortality rates are more than four times higher than White rates, and the Hispanic rates are more than seven times higher.

One factor in Hispanic and African American populations being more likely to contract COVID-19 is employment in occupations associated with public contact and that cannot be done remotely.

The sad fact is that most workers in these occupations are less able to be absent from their job or to have paid time off.

In Texas, people of color make up more than 40 percent of cashiers, retail salespersons, child care workers, licensed practical nurses, more than 50 percent of bus drivers and transit workers, medical and nursing assistants, personal care aides, and home health aides, and more than 60 percent of building cleaners and housekeepers.

In addition, Hispanic and African American populations in Texas are less likely to have health insurance and to have a regular health care provider, so less likely to seek or receive early care for symptoms, especially in the first months of the epidemic.

And African American and Hispanic populations are also more likely to have an underlying health condition that makes them more vulnerable to the effects of COVID-19.

To respond and mitigate the devastation wrought by COVID-19 on Americans, and especially marginal and vulnerable communities of color, I have introduced H.R. 330, the ``Delivering Covid-19 Vaccinations to All Regions and Vulnerable Communities Act'' or ``COVID-19 Delivery Act,'' which I invite all Members to join as sponsors.

Under the COVID-19 Delivery Act, FEMA will be authorized and directed to lead the effort for vaccine delivery from the receipt from manufacturing facilities to delivery to designated inoculation sites (hospital, clinic, doctors' offices, school, places of worship, community centers, parks, or neighborhood gathering locations).

The legislation directs FEMA to develop and deploy a fully staffed and resourced 24-7 advanced real-time tracking system that allows FEMA to monitor shipments of vaccine units that can provide end-to-end transparency on the temperature, real-time location, origin, and destination data, anticipated time of arrival, and report on changes and update recipients on the progress of their delivery and report on changes that may impact expected delivery or the viability of the vaccine while in transit.

FEMA will provide an advanced communication system that allows public health departments to communicate their vaccine readiness, capability of receiving vaccines, delivery locations, details of facility capability of storing, securing, personnel authorized to receive deliveries, logistics for delivering vaccines to patients, report on vaccine receipts, condition of vaccines, patient reactions, feedback on how to improve the process.

H.R. 330 authorizes FEMA to secure transportation for delivery or use of vaccines, and, when requested, security for the vaccine delivery sites or inoculation locations to ensure the life and safety of personnel and patients who seek to provide or receive vaccinations are free of interference or threat.

Finally, the COVID-19 Delivery Act directs FEMA to conduct public education and patient engagement through the provision of inoculations of persons in areas and locations where vulnerable populations are under performing in getting vaccinations.

Mr. Speaker, I see the disparities in the lives of so many of my constituents who suffer disproportionately from medical conditions that make COVID-19 deadly.

They work low wage or no wage jobs to make ends meet, and they have no health insurance and rely on community health centers or public health services for routine care.

I call them friends and neighbors because they are that to me.

No one is benefiting from the COVID-19 economy.

The U.S. poverty rate has grown at a historic rate over the past five months, with 7.8 million Americans falling into poverty after the expanded $600 a week in unemployment assistance expired at the end of July.

This represents the greatest increase since the government began tracking poverty sixty years ago.

In the city of Houston, nine key service sectors, accounting for 70 percent of all jobs, hemorrhaged more 1,343,600 jobs, which to average folks is another way of saying that more than 1.34 million persons lost their livelihoods.

Houston workers lost jobs in the following areas:

Healthcare: 391,000;

Retail: 303,600;

Food services: 267,000;

Finance: 166,000;

Private Education: 63,400;

Arts and Entertainment: 37,400;

Accommodations: 28,700;

Air Transportation: 20,200;

Other Services: 115,800.

In addition to these positions, jobs were also lost in other areas, the largest of which was the construction industry, which shut down 30,700 jobs.

Professional and business services followed, with 25,300 jobs lost, although 13,900 were in temporary and provisional jobs in employment services; upstream oil lost 12,300 in March/April; and non-oil manufacturing lost 7,700 jobs.

Americans out of work due to COVID-19 have generated 86 million jobless claims, with new claims being filed in recent weeks topping 800,000.

Millions of Americans who lost their jobs during the pandemic have fallen thousands of dollars behind on rent and utility bills, a clear warning sign that people are running out of money for basic needs.

If this is not enough evidence of what is happening just look at the miles of vehicles lined up outside of food distribution centers for assistance, as we see nightly on our television screens and in our communities.

Moody's Analytics warned in November 2020 that 9 million renters said they were behind on rent, according to a Census Bureau survey.

The Bureau of the Census reports that twenty-one percent of all renters are behind on their rent, of which twenty-nine percent are African American families and seventeen percent are Hispanic households.

According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's analysis of persons who were employed prior to the pandemic, 1.3 million of these households are now, on average of $5,400 in debt on rent and utilities, after the family breadwinners lost their jobs.

The new COVID-19 relief legislation passed last week by Congress and reluctantly but finally signed by the Senate restores unemployment assistance, but cuts that assistance from $600 a week to $300 a week without consideration of the facts on the ground, which are that millions of Americans remain out of work due to COVID-19 public health policy, and have been without sufficient income since August 1, 2020.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that as of February 23, 2021, 28.3 million cases of COVID-19, resulting in more than 503,000 deaths, had been reported in the United States.

What the costs will be to our nation from this destruction of lives and livelihoods have yet to be fully calculated.

It is a tragedy that too many households who have lost a member to COVID-19 are struggling to accept these deaths, but it is also the friends, co-workers, business owners, professionals, students, teachers, wives, husbands, brothers, sisters, aunts, cousins, and grandparents who also are feeling these losses because someone that mattered to them is no longer here.

Each of these lives impacted dozens of other lives, too many of whom were not allowed to be present with them during their final moments on this earth, but whose suffering is too often overlooked because we unduly preoccupy ourselves with only the immediate family.

I strongly support the Senate Amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and urge all Members to join me in voting for its passage and to send the message to the American people that their voices have been heard, their request for assistance answered, and that help is on the way.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.

First, the House considered the budget resolution setting the budget reconciliation instructions for this massive coronavirus relief bill. Then, the House considered and passed, on a partisan basis, the budget resolution authorizing a deficit increase of nearly $2 trillion. After an all-night vote-a-rama in the Senate, the House will consider this package for the third time.

Three times the House will have debated and passed a partisan package, and only 9 percent is dedicated to actually crushing the coronavirus. This isn't just disappointing; it is irresponsible, and it is unrepresentative of the American people.

Currently, Democrats only hold the majority by five Representatives. That means that the 211 Republicans, representing nearly 150 million Americans, have been shut out of this process; 150 million Americans are not represented in the package before us today.

Madam Speaker, we all want to provide the resources to successfully emerge on the other side of the pandemic. This bill does include funding for testing and vaccine deployment, as well as some economic support and aid to those who are unemployed or experiencing food shortages, but this support is not targeted toward those identified as most vulnerable.

This bill includes $1,400 in economic stimulus payments to anyone making $75,000 a year or less, including those who may not have lost their jobs or experienced reduced employment. In addition, there is no mechanism to ensure that these payments go only to American citizens.

Republicans were pleased that the infrastructure projects in California and New York, projects that had nothing to do with coronavirus relief, have been removed. We are glad of that.

My Democratic colleagues may argue that these projects would have created jobs, but why then are Democrats also providing $125 billion to schools even if they remain closed? Teachers want to teach. Teachers want to be safely in their classrooms teaching. The Centers for Disease Control has confirmed that with appropriate safety precautions, the risk of coronavirus transmission in schools is minimal. In fact, many States are prioritizing teachers for vaccines. Madam Speaker, our State of Texas is doing so. Why are we paying schools to keep them home?

This bill also provides $362 billion for State and local governments. The CARES Act, passed on March 27, already provided a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund to help local entities with lost revenue during the shutdowns. However, many local authorities have chosen to keep their economies shut down, despite a drop in coronavirus cases and the effectiveness of safety measures like social distancing and mask- wearing.

Congress should not bail out State and local governments for mismanagement that occurred prior to the pandemic. The total revenue loss of State and local governments during the pandemic is $7.6 billion. This bill provides over $219 billion, and it is available until expended.

Let me say that again: It is available until expended. That is $200 billion more than the lost revenue due to the pandemic, the crisis which this bill is meant to target.

This bill also provides $400 million for an emergency food and shelter program, with $110 million set aside specifically for humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by Department of Homeland Security officials.

Since his first day in office, President Biden has worked to overturn the advances achieved by the Trump administration to limit border crossings by those undocumented, which is particularly concerning given that limited coronavirus testing is occurring along our Southern border. Just recently, over 100 individuals crossing without documentation tested positive for the coronavirus, but were subsequently released into the interior of the United States.

We cannot allow the desires of foreign nationals to come before the needs of American citizens. We should provide testing and personal protective equipment to all encountered along our Southern border so that we can protect our frontline officials and protect American communities.

These are only a few of the concerning provisions included in this so-called relief package, but the most concerning piece is that Republicans' participation in this process was extremely limited by Democrats. Bipartisanship is not unprecedented. We came together to pass prior coronavirus relief bills. Literally, 1 year ago, March of last year, we passed three bipartisan coronavirus relief packages through the House and the Senate. And we can do so again.

Why now are the Democrats deciding Republicans are not worthy, we are not worthy partners, and limiting the voices of our constituents?

Why should only half of the Congress be allowed to participate in the making of a law that will affect the entire country?

Is only half of the American population worth saving?

Those are the questions being asked today. With that, I urge opposition to the rule.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the distinguished Republican leader, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Hice) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Van Duyne) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Johnson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from Iowa (Mrs. Miller-Meeks) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Fallon) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, at this time I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Cawthorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Jackson), a valuable member of the Doctors Caucus, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentlewoman from South Carolina (Ms. Mace) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Fitzgerald) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Obernolte) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Burchett) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Boebert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Hartzler) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Miller) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rosendale) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Clyde) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Williams) for the purposes of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Webster) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Gimenez) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Carl) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Owens) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Allen) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Malliotakis) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Moore) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg), a valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Dunn), another member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter), another valuable member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Fulcher) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jacobs) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Hagedorn) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Wenstrup) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. C. Scott Franklin) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith), another valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cline) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Spartz).

Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, introduced by Mrs. Hinson from Iowa, to ensure that the $54.3 billion that Congress appropriated in December in order to help schools reopen is, in fact, prioritized to meet the expenses of actually being open for in-person learning.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney), who is here to explain the amendment.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Tenney).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Herrell).

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, here are the facts: This bill is not going to reopen our economy. It is not going to reopen our schools or provide targeted relief to those who need it most. This is the most expensive bill in the history of the United States House of Representatives, and it does not even prioritize the immediate needs of the American people. Rather than work for the American people, Democrats are fine working for their own future 2 years from now. That is really not the way it is supposed to be. We are supposed to be focused on the next generation, not the next election. I find this unacceptable.

This is a $1.9 trillion partisan wish list that could ultimately increase the deficit $3 trillion without addressing the immediate needs of Americans who are trying to survive this pandemic. With $1 trillion of unspent funding--cash already in the till from previous bills--why is it so urgent to pass another $2 trillion now without the representation of literally one-half of the country?

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question, ``no'' on the rule, ``no'' on the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, rewards the political class, not the working class; that should be the name of this bailout plan.

When our Democrat colleagues got together to describe how to proceed on additional COVID-19 spending, they could have done a number of things.

They should have followed the bipartisan precedent set over the past year and worked across the aisle. Instead, they chose a purely partisan process to jam through a radical agenda, putting the political class ahead of America's working class.

They could have looked at the data coming out of the Congressional Budget Office. Had they done so, they would have seen that, absent any new funding, the economy is projected to reach prepandemic levels of real GDP growth by the middle of this year. Further, they would have seen that without this bailout, America is already projected to see its largest GDP growth in 15 years. Instead, they ignored the data, just like they have ignored the science. And they now hope that their bailout plan gets credit for an economic recovery that CBO tells us is already underway.

They could have accounted for the approximately $1 trillion in COVID- 19 money Congress already appropriated in a bipartisan approach but which has not been spent yet. Instead, they ignored calls to provide an accurate and thorough accounting of unspent funds. Now, they are charging American taxpayers another $2 trillion.

They could have focused on timely and targeted relief to support those

that are most in need, to reopen schools in our communities and storefronts on Main Street, and to crush the virus and put shots in Americans' arms. Instead, less than 9 percent of this bailout goes to crushing the virus and dispensing vaccines. Only 5 percent of the K-12 education funding will be spent this year, even as Americans are told this money is needed to reopen their children's schools.

Of course, Democrat leaders are more than willing to spend hundreds of billions to bail out States, sending a disproportionate share of that money to those States run by their political buddies that will reward and incentivize further lockdowns.

Just look at how they changed the State funding formula. California, where revenues are, in fact, up, and they are sitting on a surplus of $10-plus billion, will now get billions more than they otherwise would have, a direct reward to the Speaker and Vice President's home State.

It was all so predictable, really. From the very beginning of this process, Republicans have been saying that this bailout was never about COVID relief but, rather, about Democrats trying to notch some wins for their political base, to appease their allies rather than help Americans.

Amazingly, Democrats are not even shy now about admitting that fact. The White House Chief of Staff has called this bill the ``most progressive domestic legislation in a generation.''

Leader Schumer, in the Senate, called it ``one of the most progressive pieces of legislation . . . in decades.''

We are here today, Mr. Speaker, because Democrats made a choice, a choice to put their own partisan political ambitions ahead of the needs of the working class, ahead of the needs of the American people. When our Democrat colleagues speak of unity, they mean keeping their party together, not pulling this country together.

That is why we have before us this wrong plan at the wrong time for so many wrong reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from California. I will remind her that if this bill were enacted, her State's 6 million seniors would see a cut of Medicare of over $44 billion in the next 10 years.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McClintock).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Nevada. I will remind him that with this bill, if it is signed into law, his 500,000 seniors will face a $3 billion cut to Medicare. So his vote today will cost a $3 billion cut to the seniors of Nevada.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Meuser).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from South Carolina, and I will remind him that if this bill becomes law, the 1 million seniors in his State will face a $7 billion cut over the next 10 years to Medicare.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Carter).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California, and I will remind him that his State has 27 percent of the homeless population in the United States. But under this bill, the CBO projects that precisely zero dollars of the $5 billion will be spent this year. Wrong plan at the wrong time for so many wrong reasons.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Good).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that, under President Trump, we had the lowest poverty rate since 1959 in 2019. The lowest poverty rate since 1959 came under President Trump. Thank you to President Trump.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Feenstra).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from Texas, and I will remind her that, while this legislation provides her State government with another $40 billion, it fails to include any language to ensure that the 5 million K-12 students in her State are back in open schools anytime soon, does nothing to open schools.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from New York, and I will remind him that, with passage of this bill, his State's 3 million seniors could see a cut to Medicare of $27 billion over the next 10 years.

I would also like to remind Mr. Jeffries that the CBO says that, without any additional stimulus, our economy later on in this year will be the highest GDP growth that we have seen in 15 years. So that help of extra government spending is not necessary to bail out your friends and allies who are in the Governor's mansion in New York or California.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Smucker).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York, and I would like to remind her that, in her home State, she has 16 percent--16 percent--of the country's homeless population in the United States; but under this bailout, the CBO projects that precisely zero dollars--zero dollars--of the $5 billion that is in this bill will go to help the homeless population this coming year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy), the leader of the working class party.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 198, I call up the bill (H.R. 1319) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of S. Con. Res. 5, with the Senate amendment thereto, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion at the desk.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on the Senate amendment to H.R. 1319.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as the sponsor of this legislation, I am immensely proud that we will soon send this bill to President Biden's desk to be signed into law. We have acted with the urgency this pandemic demands, while following every House rule and proper procedure required for a budget reconciliation package.

The American Rescue Plan is aggressive--no doubt about it. But researchers and health professionals have told us this is what is needed to scale up testing and tracing, to address PPE shortages, and to speed up equitable vaccine distribution. They have told us these investments are needed if we want to save lives and defeat this pandemic once and for all.

Economists have also made clear what is needed to generate a strong, inclusive economic recovery. And again, we listened. This bill provides direct financial relief to more than 80 percent of American families. It helps feed hungry Americans and provides financial support so families can afford health coverage during the greatest health crisis of our lifetimes. It prevents more than 10 million workers from losing lifeline unemployment benefits--while also making the first $10,200 of these payments tax free. It helps families facing eviction stay in their homes. And it expands the earned income tax credit, putting more money in the pockets of hardworking Americans.

The American Rescue Plan will provide the resources needed to open schools safely and make up for lost time in the classroom. It will cut the child poverty rate in half--in half. Just think about what that will mean for those children and their futures--and the future of our country.

The legislation has been called one of the most consequential pieces of legislation in modern history. Well, I guess that depends--if you are measuring in terms of relief for nearly every American family and hardworking individual; if your yardstick is lifting millions of children out of poverty and giving parents the help they desperately need; if your metrics are a strong and inclusive economic future both in the short term and long term, then it is easy to agree.

And the American people do. They get what we are doing. They know all too well the challenges facing our Nation, and that is why the vast majority of them--Democrats, Republicans, and independents--support the American Rescue Plan.

Look, this is it. Congress' work on the bill is almost done. In just a short time, we will pass this legislation. We will send it to President Biden's desk, and he will sign it into law. We promised relief. The President promised relief, and now help is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Horsford), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), the majority whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I suspect we will listen to this throughout this debate. The ranking member of the Budget Committee, Mr. Smith, persists in trying to scare the American people because he doesn't have a valid argument against this incredible popular bill.

Let me make this very clear: The statutory PAYGO requirements, which would cause a cut in Medicare, has never happened, won't happen, and will never happen. In 2017, when Republicans cut taxes for the wealthy and big corporations, we faced the same problem. We cured that. Democrats helped Republicans solve that issue. The only way any Medicare dollars get cut because of this bill is if Republicans don't help us correct it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Levin), a distinguished member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Ms. Plaskett), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Jeffries), the Democratic Caucus chairman and a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman that the push to give $2,000 to every citizen under a certain income level was former President Donald Trump's idea. He campaigned on that. I guess the Republicans have had a change of heart now that it is a different President.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the distinguished chair of the Oversight and Reform Committee.