August 22, 2020 - Issue: Vol. 166, No. 149 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 2nd Session

[Pages H4256-H4270]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DELIVERING FOR AMERICA ACT

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 1092 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1092

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House without intervention of any 
     question of consideration the bill (H.R. 8015) to maintain 
     prompt and reliable postal services during the COVID-19 
     health emergency, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against

[[Page H4257]]

     consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules 
     Committee Print 116-61, modified by the amendment printed in 
     the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as 
     amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) two hours of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and 
     Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

                              {time}  1030

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, on Friday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 1092, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 8015, the Delivering for America Act, under a closed rule.
  The rule itself executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman 
Maloney, provides 2 hours of general debate on the bill, equally 
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Oversight and Reform, and provides one motion to recommit, 
with or without instructions.
  Madam Speaker, we are here today because our democracy is being 
eroded by this administration. It is under siege on all fronts.
  I read the report released this week by the Senate Intelligence 
Committee, a Republican-led committee. It was truly shocking. It found 
that some in the President's campaign created ``notable 
counterintelligence vulnerabilities.''
  Make no mistake, they welcomed help from Russia, and they knowingly 
used intelligence from Putin's regime.
  While this report was released, the President continued to attack his 
political enemies. He continued all of the lies. This week, he even 
floated the idea that America should hold a do-over of the upcoming 
election in November if he doesn't like the outcome.
  Are you kidding me?
  On top of this, this administration has moved to dismantle the United 
States Postal Service. We have all seen the images of mailboxes 
uprooted. Others have been chained shut. Sorting machines have 
disappeared. Mail service has slowed to a crawl for some Americans, 
threatening the delivery of everything from medications to Social 
Security checks.
  Did you know, Madam Speaker, that 80 percent of our veterans' 
prescription medications are delivered by mail? Why would anyone want 
to place their health in harm's way?
  Why, Madam Speaker? Because this administration knows that more 
Americans than ever are likely to vote by mail in November. The U.S. 
Postal Service expects 10 times the normal amount of election mail 
because of the coronavirus pandemic. This President fears that if more 
people vote, the less likely he is to win a second term.
  Now, we all recently mourned the passing of our dear friend, the 
great John Lewis. Not too long ago, he stood right here on this floor 
and he said: ``When you see something that is not right, not fair, not 
just, you have to speak up; you have to say something; you have to do 
something.''
  Madam Speaker, what we are seeing today cannot be dismissed as Donald 
being Donald or the President just continuing to be provocative. This 
is scary stuff. It is frightening, and we have to do something.
  In the face of extraordinary public pressure and action by this 
majority, the Postmaster General promised to halt further changes until 
after election day. But I have to tell you, I wouldn't trust this 
administration to tell me the correct time. Not only was there nothing 
in his statement about reversing the damage that has been already done, 
there was nothing about reinstalling boxes or sorting machines and 
nothing about treating election material as first-class mail.
  But the Postmaster General made clear, since, that he has no 
intention of undoing what he has done. He doesn't plan on lifting a 
finger. He said as much in the Senate hearing yesterday. He made clear 
that he didn't even study the impact of these changes on our seniors 
before they were implemented. He didn't study the impact on our 
veterans first. Apparently, he just made them, Madam Speaker, 
struggling Americans be damned.
  This administration isn't going to do a single thing about it, and 
this is why Congress must act.
  Now, my friends on the other side have tried to claim there is no 
problem here. They have waved around charts that are weeks and weeks 
old to try to pretend that everything is just fine, that everything is 
just beautiful.
  Well, I don't need some outdated statistics to tell me what is going 
on today, Madam Speaker. I don't need empty rhetoric from the occupant 
of the White House or Mr. DeJoy. My constituents are my evidence. They 
have flooded my office with calls. They have stopped me on the street. 
Something is happening here, whether this administration or its allies 
want to admit it or not.
  Before my friends on the other side try to paint this issue as some 
kind of liberal conspiracy, let me remind them: There is no money for 
hungry families here, although they badly need it; there is no funding 
for State and local governments here, though they are pleading with all 
of us for relief. We have already acted on all that. It is Mitch 
McConnell over in the Senate who is determined to do absolutely 
nothing.
  All this bill does is get the Postal Service back to where it was at 
the start of the year and provide them with the resources they need, 
not just to process an influx of ballots, but to continue delivering 
mail, including Americans' Social Security checks and medications. It 
ensures that they are able to continue delivering to places in rural 
America that their competitors just don't go, and it supports the 
Postal Service's more than 630,000 hardworking employees. And we all 
owe them a debt of gratitude for their service, especially during this 
pandemic.
  Madam Speaker, if we don't undermine and tear apart the Postal 
Service, then they can handle the increase in mail-in ballots. They 
handled two to three times the volume of mail and packages at 
Christmastime, and they are determined to handle the volume of 
election-related mail. But they need their equipment; they need to pay 
their workers; they need confidence that management won't try to 
undercut them on the job; and they need support from this Congress, 
Democrats and Republicans.

  That is it. This is all pretty bare bones, Madam Speaker. I don't see 
why in the world that Republicans won't join us on this. It shouldn't 
be a radical concept to suggest that, in the United States of America, 
every vote should count, whether it is for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, or 
someone else.
  It shouldn't be a tough call to support the United States Postal 
Service. More than 90 percent of Americans view this agency favorably 
because it is their lifeline in so many ways.
  Madam Speaker, this is a five-alarm fire on our democracy. I think 
our country is worth fighting for. I hope all my colleagues join 
together to help us save it.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding, but 
that is probably where our agreement is going to end today.
  We are not here because democracy is under siege. We are here because 
the Democratic House leadership is underperforming. We haven't gotten 
appropriations bills negotiated to the White House. We haven't gotten 
transportation bills negotiated to the White House. We haven't gotten 
water infrastructure bills negotiated to the White

[[Page H4258]]

House. I can go on and on and on. And we are here today with yet 
another bill that there is absolutely no effort to negotiate and send 
to the White House.
  Madam Speaker, you are going to hear more about Donald Trump today 
than you are going to hear about the Postal Service today, and that is 
because we are not here about the Postal Service. We are here for 
another round of attacks on President Trump.
  I get it. Folks don't like President Trump on this side of the aisle. 
I get it. Folks have concerns about President Trump's rhetoric on all 
sides of the aisle.
  But the Postal Service has $10 billion. I asked the question 
yesterday, Madam Speaker: For the $25 billion bailout package we are 
here about today, how much of that money are we going to spend this 
year? How much do we need to protect the election infrastructure my 
friend from Massachusetts just described? I couldn't get an answer. 
Folks didn't know an answer.
  Conveniently, we are going to have the Postmaster General called 
before the House for a hearing for these answers in about 48 hours. 
About 2 days after we have passed this bill, we are going to get all 
the answers about why this bill may or may not be necessary.
  What my friend from Massachusetts said--I have gotten pessimistic, in 
light of our 6-hour Rules Committee hearing yesterday. I actually agree 
with my friend from Massachusetts on much more. He is right that we owe 
a thank-you to our men and women of the Postal Service for the work 
that they are doing.
  The previous Postmaster General came to Congress in the spring, 
worried that mail volume was going to collapse and the Postal Service 
was going to enter a period of financial instability. The truth, Madam 
Speaker, is just the opposite. Postal office deliveries have exploded. 
Folks are doing e-commerce like never before. Our men and women of the 
Postal Service are working harder than ever before, delivering more 
packages today than they were 6 months ago. And we owe them a big, big 
thank-you for their work during these times. My friend from 
Massachusetts is right: It is a lifeline for so many families.
  Madam Speaker, it is an election year. Who believes that serving 
their constituents comes from denying veterans access to prescription 
drugs? Nobody. If that is what this was about, we would have gotten 
together, Republicans and Democrats, House and Senate, Congress and the 
White House, and we would be moving legislation in a cooperative way.
  We heard from the ranking Republican yesterday on the committee. He 
wasn't consulted in these conversations. He wasn't brought in to these 
conversations. There are no Republican amendments here. There is no 
conversation going on with the Senate. This is another wasteful 
partisan exercise in a time when--my friend from Massachusetts is 
absolutely right--there are real crises that need to be addressed.
  I had hoped when we were called back on a Saturday, Madam Speaker, it 
would have been to address one of those crises. But the truth is, it is 
just the punctuation mark at the end of the Democratic National 
Convention week. And to the leadership's credit, they scheduled it so 
that it wouldn't interfere with the Republican National Convention next 
week.
  How convenient that our scheduling was dictated by two political 
conventions, because that is the only reason that we are here today, 
Madam Speaker: politics.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am just getting a little sick and tired of all of the excuses as to 
why my Republican friends don't want to join us in helping the American 
people.
  My friend mentioned the appropriations bills. Well, with all due 
respect, we passed almost all of them here in the House. My friend, the 
Republican leader in the Senate, hasn't done a damn thing, hasn't 
passed one.
  We passed the HEROES Act, which would have helped the Postal Service, 
which would have provided relief to cities and towns, which would have 
provided assistance to those in this country who are going hungry. The 
Senate majority leader hasn't done a damn thing, not anything, hasn't 
lifted a finger for anybody. And we have even agreed to meet him 
halfway. He still won't negotiate.
  On an infrastructure bill, we passed an infrastructure bill here. 
Negotiate with the Senate? They haven't passed a damn thing. It is 
malpractice. If politicians could be sued for malpractice, then 
the Senate majority leader would be sued. This is ridiculous.

  And here we are with a crisis in the Postal Service. Mail has slowed 
down all across the country. Members are getting calls, including 
Republican Members. And what is the response? Oh, well, we will just 
let it go. You know, we will say we need to do better. We will deal 
with this another day.
  This is ridiculous, it is unconscionable, and I am tired of the 
excuses.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Madam Speaker, this President is on a warpath to destroy 
the Postal Service and, through that, our elections.
  After months of hearing this President, and now Republican Members of 
Congress, spread conspiracy theories and misinformation about voting by 
mail, he has made GOP megadonor Louis DeJoy his new chief of chaos in 
voter suppression.
  In an attack on the Postal Service, DeJoy has removed mail processing 
equipment, collection boxes, and cut back on overtime. Ninety 
Democrats, led by Congresswoman Katherine Clark and me, already 
demanded his immediate removal.
  Because, on top of this blatant voter suppression, Trump and DeJoy 
are hurting millions who depend on the Postal Service every day: 
seniors and veterans waiting for lifesaving medications, families 
waiting for paychecks, small businesses with delayed packages whose 
very survival is already threatened by COVID-19.
  On Thursday, the Progressive Caucus held a hearing and heard from 
David Williams, the former vice president of the Postal Service Board 
of Directors, who resigned in protest to Trump's actions. What he told 
us, unfortunately, shocked no one: that the Postal Service was fully 
prepared for mail voting until this administration manufactured an 
intentional crisis; that DeJoy wasn't selected by the firm that was 
hired to find a new Postmaster General, but he was the only candidate 
interviewed and was unqualified to lead the Postal Service; and that 
Steve Mnuchin sought intrusive control over core Postal Service 
operations and wanted to impose a pricing practice that would ruin the 
Postal Service.
  This chaos is not the result of a pandemic. This chaos was 
manufactured by the administration and is intentional.
  That is why Congress is acting today.
  We are reversing Louis DeJoy's disastrous actions and providing the 
Postal Service with the funding it so desperately needs. We won't let 
anyone dismantle our Postal Service. The Postal Service belongs to the 
people.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Ordinarily, I am concerned that I only have 30 minutes for Rule 
Committee debate, but the lunacy that we are hearing down here today 
makes me glad that we are going to be done with this in 30 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, you know when Elijah Cummings chaired the committee 
and Mark Meadows was the ranking member, now President Trump's chief of 
staff, we came together to do Postal Service reforms because we all 
know the Postal Service needs to be reformed. We all know this. We 
could do it today, if it was about Postal Service reform, if it was 
about Postal Service improvement, but it is not.
  What is the solution today? Throw more money at a problem. We don't 
trust the Postmaster General, the other side says. We don't trust the 
President, the other side says. So what is the solution to the 
manufactured crisis? Give $25 billion to the Postmaster General and the 
President of the United States.
  In response to my assertion that this House is a do-nothing Congress 
because it fails to negotiate with the Senate and the White House, my 
friend from Massachusetts lists half a dozen bills

[[Page H4259]]

that this House passed unilaterally with no effort to negotiate with 
the Senate or negotiate with the White House.
  Madam Speaker, if what we want to do is come and talk, we have a 
wonderful Chamber in which to do it. If what we want to do is come in 
and get something done, it can only get done together. This is yet 
another example of the House leadership's failure to operate in a 
partnership fashion.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole), one of the greatest negotiators in the House, a gentleman who 
has a long history of bipartisanship, and thus, legislative success, 
the ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend for yielding 
and very much appreciate his leadership on our committee.
  Madam Speaker, I want to rise to oppose both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Before I do, though, I include in the Record four newspaper articles 
discussing the majority's concern about the Postal Service. The first 
is a Wall Street Journal editorial; a column by Rich Lowry appearing in 
the New York Post; a column by Byron York, appearing in the Washington 
Examiner; and a column by Ruth Goldway, a former commissioner of the 
Postal Service, appearing in the New York Times.
  All four articles make it clear that the majority's reasons for 
bringing this legislation, frankly, are ludicrous, and that what they 
are proposing actually will make it more difficult to reform.

             [From the Wall Street Journal, Aug. 17, 2020]

                  Nancy Pelosi Goes Politically Postal

                        (By the Editorial Board)

       Speaker Nancy Pelosi is calling the House back into session 
     this week to address fears that the U.S. Postal Service is 
     being infiltrated by alien lizard people posing as letter 
     carriers. OK, it isn't quite that bad. The actual conspiracy 
     theory holds that President Trump is strangling the USPS to 
     hack the November election.
       But talk about ``unsubstantiated,'' as the press likes to 
     call Donald Trump's Twitter emissions. Democrats should be 
     deeply embarrassed that their leadership has embraced such 
     claims. Two Congressmen, including Democratic Caucus Chairman 
     Hakeem Jeffries, wrote to the FBI on Monday to urge, if you 
     can believe it, a criminal investigation of Postmaster 
     General Louis DeJoy.
       ``This conspiracy theory is the most far-flung thing I 
     think I've ever heard,'' says Stephen Kearney, who worked at 
     the USPS for 33 years, including as treasurer and a senior 
     vice president. ``DeJoy was not appointed by President 
     Trump,'' but by the USPS's bipartisan governors. (Who, as it 
     happens, selected him unanimously.)
       ``You can find valid operational reasons for the actions 
     taken by the Postal Service so far,'' says Mike Plunkett, 
     another longtime USPS executive who now leads the Association 
     for Postal Commerce. ``In no way do I detect any criminality 
     behind them, and I'm at a loss as to how one would reach that 
     conclusion.''
       The Democratic letter to the FBI cites news reports that 
     the USPS is decommissioning hundreds of mail-sorting 
     machines. But the context is that overall mail volume has 
     fallen 33% since 2006. ``They've been taking machines out of 
     service for years now, and I've been encouraging them to do 
     it more aggressively,'' says Hamilton Davison, the president 
     of the American Catalog Mailers Association. ``I think that's 
     a good thing for America, because we don't want to pay for 
     stuff that we don't need.''
       Mr. Kearney, who now runs the Alliance of Nonprofit 
     Mailers, concurs. ``It's obvious, to be efficient and not 
     waste money, you need to take out some of that capacity,'' he 
     says. His group has similarly been urging productivity 
     improvements, ``because if they don't do that, our postage 
     rates are going to go way up.'' A leaked USPS document 
     floating in the online ether is titled ``Equipment 
     Reduction.'' But it's dated May 15, and Mr. DeJoy took over 
     June 15.
       Another claim is that the USPS is pulling blue collection 
     bins off the street en masse. ``They're going around 
     literally with tractor trailers picking up mailboxes,'' Joe 
     Biden said last week. ``I mean, it's bizarre!'' The USPS says 
     it has nearly 142,000 boxes across the country, which are 
     adjusted as volume and costs dictate. In August 2016, the 
     USPS's Inspector General said that ``the number of collection 
     boxes declined by more than 12,000 in the past 5 years.'' 
     Voter suppression by the Obama Administration?
       Alarmed Twitter users last week posted a photo of mailboxes 
     on a flatbed truck in New Jersey. Oops: ``Morristown Mayor 
     Tim Dougherty said the mailboxes were being replaced with new 
     anti-fishing boxes,'' the local newspaper explained. On 
     Monday the USPS said it would postpone this security upgrade 
     for 90 days ``while we evaluate our customers' concerns''--in 
     other words, to keep jittery partisans on the internet from 
     losing their minds before Nov. 3.
       Mr. DeJoy is being knocked for trying to cut overtime 
     costs. But is it any wonder? The day he was sworn in, the 
     Inspector General reported that in 2019 the post office 
     ``spent $1.1 billion in mail processing overtime and penalty 
     overtime, $280 million in late and extra transportation, and 
     $2.9 billion in delivery overtime and penalty overtime 
     costs.'' For context, the USPS's overall loss that year was 
     $8.8 billion.
       Mrs. Pelosi is trying to put on a political show, starring 
     Democrats as the saviors of the post office. She says she 
     wants to pass a bill that ``prohibits the Postal Service from 
     implementing any changes to operations or level of service it 
     had in place on January 1.'' Also in the mix may be a $25 
     billion cash infusion. Then Chuck Schumer will demand that 
     the Senate come back to town for the same vote. By the way 
     the letter-carriers union endorsed Joe Biden on the weekend.
       This is a made-for-TV phony political crisis. The USPS has 
     long-term challenges, but enough money to last into 2021. Mr. 
     DeJoy says there's ``ample capacity to deliver all election 
     mail.'' Some states have startlingly lax ballot deadlines, 
     but nobody can pretend with a straight face that it's the 
     post office's fault. Democrats have also scheduled a hearing 
     for next Monday so they can yell at Mr. DeJoy in person. How 
     long before Rep. Adam Schiff says it's another Russia-Donald 
     Trump conspiracy to steal the election?
                                  ____


                            [Aug. 17, 2020]

             The Left's Lunatic `Postal' Conspiracy Theory

                            (By Rich Lowry)

       At this rate, Postmaster General Louis DeJoy will be lucky 
     if he isn't arrested and tried for treason before a people's 
     tribunal.
       DeJoy has quickly replaced Vladimir Putin as the man that 
     progressive opinion will hold responsible if Trump wins a 
     second term in November.
       According to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, DeJoy is a 
     ``complicit crony'' aiding Trump's effort to sabotage 
     American democracy. She believes the two have hatched a plot 
     to delay mail-in voting and disenfranchise countless 
     Americans prior to the election.
       Protesters over the weekend showed up at DeJoy's Washington 
     apartment and North Carolina home. Two Democratic congressmen 
     have called for a criminal inquiry into his changes at the 
     postal service, and he will testify at a House hearing next 
     week.
       In tried and true fashion, President Trump has stoked 
     suspicions by saying that he opposes a $25 billion postal-
     service bailout in the latest Democratic COVID-relief bill. 
     According to Trump, blocking this measure--and $3 billion in 
     election aid to the states--will prevent universal mail-in 
     voting.
       But the bailout doesn't have anything to do with mail-in 
     voting, and given the billions of pieces of mail handled by 
     the post office every week, it surely can handle the 
     increased volume from mail-in voting.
       It is true that Postmaster General DeJoy is a major Trump 
     donor. He made his fortune in shipping and logistics, though, 
     and he was selected by the postal service's board of 
     governors.
       Little did he know when he took over the agency in June 
     that he'd soon have a starring role in the country's latest 
     psychodrama. Every change at the postal service is now seen 
     through the prism of a belief that the agency is a tool of 
     creeping authoritarianism.
       Letter collection boxes are being removed--never mind that 
     this has been an ongoing process for years. Underused boxes 
     are decommissioned or moved to higher-traffic areas. In 2009, 
     The Washington Post reported that 200,000 boxes had been 
     shelved over the prior two decades. In 2016, the inspector 
     general noted that another 12,000 collection boxes had been 
     cut over the previous five years.
       Letter collection boxes all of the sudden have big red 
     locks on them--well, yeah, as an off-hours device to prevent 
     the theft of mail, something the service has also done for 
     years.
       The postal service is deactivating mail-sorting machines--
     right, and there was a plan for this prior to DeJoy becoming 
     postmaster general, and it has been long discussed in 
     response to the declining volume of mail.
       DeJoy is cutting back on overtime--indeed he is, because 
     artificially swollen overtime is an enormous expense that he 
     hopes to eliminate with a more rational delivery system.
       Democrats and much of the media make it sound as though the 
     post office was an efficient, smooth-running agency before 
     DeJoy took charge and then, at Trump's behest, transformed it 
     into place struggling to keep up with broadbased changes in 
     how we communicate.
       In reality, the post office has lost nearly $80 billion 
     since 2007, and it lost more than $2 billion last quarter. 
     Unless the service finds a way to innovate, it is headed for 
     bankruptcy.
       This is the impetus for DeJoy's reforms, which should be 
     welcomed by all the people now caterwauling about how 
     essential the post office is to the American way of life.
       DeJoy has been adamant that the postal service will do its 
     job regarding mail-in ballots. The post office's recent 
     warnings to states that they should be mindful of how quickly 
     ballots can be delivered were played up as yet another 
     assault on mail-in balloting. To the contrary, they were 
     intended to avoid unrealistically late deadlines for mail-in 
     voting that could create a train-wreck in November.
       But in their inflamed state, Democrats want a villain--if 
     not a foreign potentate,

[[Page H4260]]

     then the guy in charge of delivering the mail.
                                  ____


                     [From the Washington Examiner]

           A Reality-Based Look at Trump and the Post Office

                            (By Byron York)

       The news is filled with reports of President Trump's 
     ``assault'' on the U.S. Postal Service. The president, 
     Democrats and some in the media say, is deliberately slowing 
     mail delivery and crippling the Postal Service so that it 
     cannot handle an anticipated flood of voting by mail in the 
     presidential election. Former President Barack Obama said 
     Trump is trying to ``actively kneecap'' the Postal Service to 
     suppress the vote. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has called the House 
     back into session this week and has set an ``urgent hearing'' 
     for Aug. 24, demanding Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the 
     head of the Postal Service Board of Governors testify ``to 
     address the sabotage of the Postal Service.''
       Some of the accusations have grown so frantic that they 
     resemble the frenzy of a couple of years ago over the 
     allegation, from many of the same people, that Trump had 
     conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 election. Now, it's the 
     Postal Service. But what actually is going on? Here is a 
     brief look at some of the issues involved.


                      142.5 billion pieces of mail

       The idea that the Postal Service will not be able to handle 
     the volume of mail in the election, or not be able to handle 
     it within normal Postal Service time guidelines, does not 
     make much sense. According to its most recent annual report, 
     last year, in fiscal year 2019, the Postal Service handled 
     142.5 billion pieces of mail. ``On a typical day, our 633,000 
     employees physically process and deliver 471 million 
     mailpieces to nearly 160 million delivery points,'' the 
     report says. This year, that number is higher, given the 
     Postal Service's delivery of census forms and stimulus 
     checks. Those alone added about 450 million additional pieces 
     of mail.
       In 2016, about 136 million Americans voted in the 
     presidential election. The number will probably be a bit 
     higher this year. If officials sent ballots to every single 
     American registered to vote, about 158 million people, and 
     then 140 million people returned ballots, the roughly 298 
     million pieces of mail handled over the course of several 
     weeks would be well within the Postal Service's ability to 
     handle. Of course, officials will not send a ballot to every 
     American registered to vote, and not every voter will vote by 
     mail. Whatever the final number is, the ballots that are cast 
     by mail will not cripple a system that delivers 471 million 
     pieces of mail every day.
       There are, of course, compelling examples of election 
     dysfunction, most notably the mess New York made of some of 
     its congressional primaries this summer. But rather than 
     representing a Postal Service problem, that was because some 
     states are unprepared for a dramatic increase of voting by 
     mail. The states have to prepare the ballots, address them, 
     and process and count them when the Postal Service delivers 
     them. That is the focus of the entirely legitimate fears of a 
     possible vote-counting disaster this year. But it's not the 
     Postal Service.


                         $25 billion for what?

       Some news reports have left the impression that the Postal 
     Service will not be able to handle mail-in ballots without an 
     immediate infusion of money from Congress. That is not the 
     case.
       The Postal Service is not funded by a regular 
     appropriation. It is, instead, an ``independent agency'' and 
     is expected to support itself, beyond a yearly appropriation 
     of about $55 million to cover the costs of mail for the blind 
     and overseas balloting in elections.
       The Postal Service has lost money for a very long time. In 
     fiscal year 2019, it had operating revenues of $71.1 billion 
     and operating expenses of $79.9 billion, leaving it with a 
     deficit of $8.8 billion. At the moment, Postal Service 
     officials have told Congress, it has about $14 billion in 
     cash on hand, putting it on the road to fiscal insolvency 
     (without further aid) in late 2021.
       In the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 
     or CARES Act, the $2 trillion relief measure passed in March, 
     Congress gave the Postal Service a $10 billion borrowing 
     authority. After the bill became law, there were negotiations 
     between the Postal Service and the Treasury Department on the 
     terms of the borrowing; a deal was announced in July. The 
     ability to borrow $10 billion, the postmaster general said, 
     would ``delay the approaching liquidity crisis.''
       That was all the aid for the Postal Service in the CARES 
     Act. Completely separately, the bill also gave $400 million 
     to something called the Election Assistance Commission for 
     distribution to states to ``prevent, prepare for, and respond 
     to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, for the 2020 
     federal election cycle.''
       The next mega-relief package, a $3 trillion bill known as 
     the Health and Economic Recover Omnibus Emergency Solutions 
     Act, or HEROES Act, was passed by the House in May by a vote 
     of 208 to 199. The winning total of 208 votes was comprised 
     of 207 Democrats and one Republican. Fourteen Democrats and 
     one independent voted against the measure. The bill has so 
     far gone nowhere in the Republican-controlled Senate.
       The House HEROES Act would give $25 billion to the Postal 
     Service in what is essentially a bailout. The bill mentions 
     nothing about helping the Postal Service handle the upcoming 
     election or any other election. Indeed, the only stipulation 
     at all placed on the $25 billion is that the Postal Service, 
     ``during the coronavirus emergency, shall prioritize the 
     purchase of, and make available to all Postal Service 
     employees and facilities, personal protective equipment, 
     including gloves, masks, and sanitizers, and shall conduct 
     additional cleaning and sanitizing of Postal Service 
     facilities and delivery vehicles.'' If the House Democrats 
     who wrote and passed the bill intended the money to be spent 
     specifically for elections, they did not say so in the text 
     of the legislation.
       Separate from the Postal Service provisions, the bill would 
     give $3.6 billion to the Election Assistance Commission for 
     distribution to states ``for contingency planning, 
     preparation, and resilience of elections for federal 
     office.'' There has been some confusion about that; some 
     discussion of the current controversy has left the impression 
     that Democrats want $3.6 billion for the Postal Service for 
     the election. In fact, the $3.6 billion would be for the 
     states' election use. In neither the CARES Act, which is now 
     law, nor the HEROES Act, which has been passed by the House 
     but not the Senate, is there any money given to the Postal 
     Service specifically for the election. In any event, the 
     Postal Service has the capacity to handle the election and 
     does not need any additional money specifically to do the 
     job.


                       The latest reform proposal

       Whatever its other concerns at the moment, the Postal 
     Service does have chronic financial problems. This year, 
     Trump chose DeJoy, who made a fortune in shipping and 
     logistics and whose former company was a contractor of the 
     Postal Service for many years, as the new postmaster general. 
     (DeJoy is also a major donor to Republicans and the Trump 
     campaign.) DeJoy has attempted to deal with some of the 
     Postal Service's systemic problems with a pilot program to 
     make deliveries more efficient while reducing the Postal 
     Service's crippling overtime costs, which added up to more 
     than $1 billion in fiscal year 2018.
       In the past, postal delivery worked this way: A worker 
     would arrive in the morning and work on various things in the 
     office--sorting mail, handling holds on mail, waiting for 
     incoming mail to arrive to prepare for delivery. That often 
     involved waiting around for hours and then starting an actual 
     delivery route later in the day. Once started, a route has to 
     be finished, and that involved workers going into overtime as 
     they delivered through their route as evening approached.
       DeJoy's plan, now being implemented in a pilot program in 
     about 200 cities, is called Expedited to Street/Afternoon 
     Sortation, or ESAS. Under it, a worker would arrive in the 
     morning, collect all the mail that was ready to go out, and 
     head out for delivery--``retrieve, load, and go.'' Then, 
     after finishing the delivery route, the carrier would return 
     to the office and do in the afternoon the office work that 
     used to be done in the morning. That way, when the end of his 
     or her shift arrived, that would be the end of the workday, 
     with no overtime incurred. Mail that arrived to the office in 
     the afternoon, while the carrier was doing office work, would 
     be delivered in the next morning's route. It would be ready 
     and waiting when the carrier arrived for ``retrieve, load, 
     and go.''
       The effect to customers would be that mail that was 
     delivered to the office in the afternoon would be delivered 
     the next morning, instead of that evening. The effect to the 
     Postal Service would be to save an enormous amount of money 
     in overtime.
       In addition, there have been reports of the Postal Service 
     removing collection boxes and sorting machines. While some 
     Democrats and journalists have portrayed that as another 
     effort toward voter suppression, the fact is the number of 
     letters the Postal Service handles each year has declined for 
     20 years since the arrival of email. In those last two 
     decades, the Postal Service has downsized its capabilities as 
     the number of letters handled has decreased. Here is how the 
     Washington Post described the situation, specifically 
     concerning sorting machines: ``Purchased when letters not 
     packages made up a greater share of postal work, the bulky 
     and aging machines can be expensive to maintain and take up 
     floor space postal leaders say would be better devoted to 
     boxes. Removing underused machines would make the overall 
     system more efficient, postal leaders say. The Postal Service 
     has cut back on mail-sorting equipment for years since mail 
     volume began to decline in the 2000s.''
       Some Democrats have characterized the current reform 
     efforts, much needed in an agency losing so much money, as 
     part of the president's master plan to steal the election. 
     But together, the Expedited to Street/Afternoon Sortation 
     program and the cutback in sorting capacity would seem to be 
     reasonable measures of the type the Postal Service needs to 
     implement, and indeed has been implementing over the years. 
     Yet this is what Democrats, and some of their allies in the 
     press, have labeled as an ``assault'' on the Postal Service.


                          Nightmare scenarios

       Many news accounts have included stories of Americans 
     suffering from interruptions in Postal Service deliveries. 
     For example, a story in the New York Times headlined ``Postal 
     Crisis Ripples Across Nation As Election Looms'' included the 
     story of Victoria Brownworth, a freelance journalist in

[[Page H4261]]

     Philadelphia. ``For Ms. Brownworth, who was paralyzed four 
     years ago, the mail is her lifeline,'' the New York Times 
     said, ``delivering prescriptions and checks and mail-in 
     ballots to her Philadelphia home. But that lifeline has 
     snapped. She said she had received mail just twice in the 
     past three weeks, and she dreaded November's election, 
     worried that her ballot would suffer the same fate as the 
     oxygen tube that she ordered three weeks ago--and that had 
     still not arrived.''
       Other news reports have included many other examples. They 
     are largely, if not entirely, anecdotal. While each is 
     serious for the person involved, at the moment, it is 
     impossible to tell how much of a national problem they 
     represent. People who keep track of the Postal Service 
     suspect that many of the stories are rooted in workforce 
     availability problems related to the coronavirus pandemic, 
     plus the changes in operations (for example, closing a 
     facility to clean it during an outbreak) that have become 
     part of life during the pandemic. The Postal Service would 
     not be the only large organization that has found it 
     impossible to operate as usual during the crisis.
       There is also the fact that the Postal Service does, on 
     occasion, fail to deliver the mail. In its annual reports, it 
     includes data on ``performance outcomes.'' For example, for 
     first-class mail, which is the type of mail that would be 
     most employed for election purposes, the goal in fiscal year 
     2019 was to deliver 96% of letters in one to three business 
     days. Its actual performance was 92%. So 8% of first-class 
     letters were not delivered on time. Now, consider that the 
     Postal Service handled 54.9 billion pieces of first-class 
     mail in fiscal year 2019. That is more than 4 billion pieces 
     of first-class mail that were not delivered on time. And 
     that, in a fraught political situation, could be the basis 
     for a lot of anecdotes in news articles.
       Many of those anecdotes, by the way, appear to have made it 
     to the media with the help of the Postal Service unions. 
     There are two major unions representing Postal Service 
     workers. On Friday, the largest postal union, the National 
     Association of Letter Carriers, endorsed Democratic candidate 
     Joe Biden for president. In June, another union, the American 
     Postal Workers Union, endorsed Biden as well. In 2016, both 
     unions endorsed Hillary Clinton. In 2008 and 2012, both 
     unions endorsed Barack Obama. In 2004, they endorsed John 
     Kerry. And so on.
       One more note about delivery times. A few days ago, the 
     Washington Post published a story headlined ``Postal Service 
     warns 46 states their voters could be disenfranchised by 
     delayed mail-in ballots.'' The paper obtained letters from 
     Postal Service leadership to various states informing them 
     that some of their election deadlines are ``incongruous with 
     the Postal Service's delivery standards.'' The resulting 
     ``mismatch,'' the Postal Service said, ``creates a risk that 
     ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not 
     be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as 
     we understand them.'' In other words, several states are not 
     giving the Postal Service long enough to deliver a ballot to 
     a voter and then deliver the filled-in ballot to the state 
     election board. For example, if a state's law allows a voter 
     to request a ballot seven days before the general election 
     but also requires that votes must be received by election day 
     to be counted--that would be a recipe for a lot of votes not 
     being counted. It was an entirely reasonable concern on the 
     part of the Postal Service, and it is a problem more for the 
     states than the Postal Service. Yet media discussion of the 
     story suggested it was just another chapter in what one 
     source in the Washington Post account called ``the 
     weaponization of the U.S. Postal Service for the president's 
     electoral purposes.''


                       Trump confuses everything

       Despite the heated rhetoric, many of the Postal Service's 
     problems are relatively clear, if extremely difficult to 
     solve. In the context of the upcoming election, Trump has 
     repeatedly added confusion to the situation, most recently 
     with extended discussions in a television interview on 
     Thursday and a press conference on Friday.
       In the press conference, Trump was asked, ``If the 
     Democrats were to give you some of what you want . . . would 
     you be willing to accept the $25 billion for the Postal 
     Service, including the three and a half billion dollars to 
     handle mail-in voting?'' As has happened many times in this 
     controversy, the question conflated the Democrats' proposal 
     for $25 billion for the Postal Service and the request for 
     $3.6 billion for the Election Assistance Commission. In any 
     event, Trump answered, ``Sure, if they give us what we 
     want.'' He then began to elaborate on other policy 
     priorities.
       ``So, if they were to give you that, you would sign off for 
     the money for the Postal Service?''
       ``Yeah, but they're not giving it to me,'' Trump said. 
     ``They're giving it to the American people.''
       ``But if they were to agree to that--``
       ``Yeah, I would,'' Trump said. ``I would certainly do that. 
     Sure, I would do that. Yeah.''
       The next day, Friday, Trump spoke to Fox News's Maria 
     Bartiromo. ``They [Democrats] want $3.5 billion for the mail-
     in votes, OK, universal mail-in ballots, $3.5 billion,'' 
     Trump said. ``They want $25 billion for the post office. Now, 
     they need that money in order to have the post office work so 
     it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots. 
     Now in the meantime, they aren't getting there. By the way, 
     those are just two items. But if they don't get those two 
     items, that means you can't have universal mail-in voting 
     because they're not equipped to have it.''
       In fact, while the $3.5 billion proposal for the Election 
     Assistance Commission (it is actually $3.6 billion) is 
     specifically for the purpose of facilitating mail-in voting, 
     the $25 billion for the Postal Service is basically a 
     bailout. In April, the previous postmaster general, Megan 
     Brennan, citing a ``steep drop'' in mail volume during the 
     coronavirus crisis, had asked for far more--$75 billion. The 
     Postal Service didn't get anywhere near that much money in 
     the first relief bill, the CARES Act--just $10 billion in 
     borrowing authority. So when the second relief mega-bill came 
     up, Democrats threw in $25 billion for the Postal Service. It 
     was not about mail-in voting. (On Sunday morning, White House 
     chief of staff Mark Meadows, who as a congressman followed 
     postal issues closely, said the administration offered House 
     Democrats $10 billion for the Postal Service.)
       Nevertheless, the president connected the two and suggested 
     that the Postal Service needed the $25 billion, and the 
     Election Assistance Commission needed $3.5 billion, to handle 
     ballots in the election, and that he would not give it to 
     them for that very reason.
       ``How would you like to have $3.5 billion, billion, for 
     mail-in voting?'' Trump asked. ``So, if you don't have it--do 
     you know how much money that is? Nobody has any idea . . . 
     Oh, $3.5 billion. They want $25 billion for the Post Office 
     because the Post Office is going to have to go to town to get 
     these ridiculous ballots in . . . Now, if we don't make a 
     deal, that means they don't get the money. That means they 
     can't have universal mail-in voting. They just can't have 
     it.''
       The bottom line was that Trump made a mess of the issue. He 
     didn't make a case against universal mail-in voting, which 
     does not exist in the United States. He didn't make clear why 
     Democrats wanted $25 billion for the post office. He 
     suggested that not agreeing to the $25 billion was a way to 
     stop universal mail-in voting, which it is not. He didn't 
     address the serious problems at the Postal Service which need 
     attention and do not have anything to do with voting. In all, 
     he left the issue more confused than it had been beforehand--
     and that was saying something.


                        Democrats smell victory

       On Friday, the Washington Post published a story headlined 
     ``Trump's assault on the U.S. Postal Service gives Democrats 
     a new campaign message.'' Put aside the casual use of the 
     word ``assault.'' The fact is, Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader 
     Chuck Schumer, and other top Democrats are jumping on the 
     Postal Service controversy with both feet. ``Democrats are 
     already blanketing the airwaves, latching on to the 
     opportunity to highlight support [for the Postal Service],'' 
     the paper reported. Obama has joined in, tweeting that 
     seniors and veterans and small businesses ``can't be 
     collateral damage for an administration more concerned with 
     suppressing the vote than suppressing a virus.''
       The Democratic commentariat cheered and signaled it is 
     ready to press the issue until election day. ``Trump donor & 
     Postmaster General Louis DeJoy should be in the crosshairs of 
     every relevant congressional committee, inspector general, 
     prosecutor, investigative journalist, whistleblower, class 
     action lawyer, editorial board, etc. etc. etc.,'' tweeted 
     former U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara. No doubt that is 
     precisely what will happen in the Democratic world and some 
     major media outlets between now and Nov. 3. But shouldn't 
     someone, sometime take a look at what is actually happening?
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Aug. 18, 2020]

      I Was a Postal Service Regulator for 18 Years. Don't Panic.

                          (By Ruth Y. Goldway)

       President Trump has threatened to withhold funds from the 
     United States Postal Service. The new postmaster general, 
     Louis DeJoy, has embarked on cost-cutting measures to 
     eliminate overtime and remove sorting machines. These actions 
     have created worries that Americans, reluctant to walk into 
     voting booths because of Covid-19, will be unable to vote by 
     mail this year.
       I served as a regulator of the Postal Service for nearly 18 
     years under three presidents and I urge everyone to be calm. 
     Don't fall prey to the alarmists on both sides of this 
     debate. The Postal Service is not incapacitated. It is still 
     fully capable of delivering the mail. The focus of our 
     collective concerns should be on how the Postal Service can 
     improve the speed of delivery for election mail.
       First, the president is wrong about the Postal Service's 
     finances. While the agency indeed has financial problems, as 
     a result of a huge increase in packages being sent through 
     the system and a credit line through the CARES Act, it has 
     access to about $25 billion in cash. Its own forecasts 
     predict that it will have enough money to operate into 2021.
       The Postal Service's shaky financial situation has to do in 
     large part with the drop in first-class mail (typically used 
     for letters), about 30 percent less than a decade ago. But 
     the service's expensive, overbuilt infrastructure can absorb 
     the addition of more mail in 2020--including election mail 
     that is mailed to and sent back by every voter in every 
     state.

[[Page H4262]]

       The new postmaster general's management team still includes 
     many knowledgeable and seasoned executives. And the Postal 
     Service has over 500,000 employees who are remarkably honest, 
     dedicated and used to working through emergencies: 
     hurricanes, snow storms, social unrest and pandemics.
       While the Postal Service has contemplated many different 
     approaches to modernizing and improving efficiency, there has 
     not been a consensus on how much the service should reduce 
     costs. It is not at all surprising that Mr. DeJoy's choice of 
     particularly visible cuts has raised alarms.
       The Office of the Inspector General of the Postal Service 
     has agreed to a review of the changes. And Congress has been 
     called back to conduct its own review next week, restore 
     trust in the institution and ensure that voting by mail 
     proceeds smoothly.
       Given that there is enough money and perhaps more if the 
     president agrees to additional bailout funds; that there is 
     plenty of capacity in the system; and that voting by mail can 
     alleviate a health threat to the nation, the Postal Service 
     should be made to handle all election mail as if it were 
     first-class mail. This is where the policy discussions 
     surrounding the Postal Service should settle.
       Most election-related mail is sent at nonprofit rates. The 
     1993 National Voter Registration Act requires the Postal 
     Service to charge state and local election offices the same 
     price for postage as nonprofit mailers. The Postal Service 
     has a history of providing extra care and attention to 
     election-related mail, on the level of first-class mail: 
     usually two to four days for delivery. A special logo and bar 
     code identifiers were created so that mail sorters were able 
     to pull election mail out from the routine mail stream to be 
     sure it was delivered as soon as possible.
       But a recent letter sent by Thomas J. Marshall, the general 
     counsel for the Postal Service, to election officials around 
     the country seems to suggest that election mail will now be 
     treated like regular nonprofit mail (typically three to 10 
     days for delivery) and may take as long as 15 days. This is 
     not acceptable.
       The Postal Service has the capacity to ensure that ballots 
     sent to voters arrive on time and that ballots dropped into 
     the system by voters are postmarked and delivered in times 
     that accord with state and local guidelines. In their meeting 
     with Congress next week, the leaders of the Postal Service 
     should guarantee that election mail will continue to be 
     treated as first-class mail. The Congress should agree that 
     there will be no additional financial support for the Postal 
     Service without this promise.
       But state and local election officials must also recognize 
     the possibilities of delays and plan for earlier mailings so 
     there will be more days for ballots to be returned. Voters 
     must be reminded to send in requests for ballots, change of 
     address, voter registration forms and especially filled-out 
     ballots as early as possible.
       The Postal Service does indeed need a bailout from Congress 
     so that it can be counted on to deliver the mail, medicines 
     and other vital products for years to come. It needs funds to 
     rebuild its more than 30,000 post offices and aging vehicle 
     fleet to reduce its reliance on temporary workers and to 
     broaden the range of services it provides. But these problems 
     do not affect this year's election.
       Americans must continue to support the Postal Service, 
     whose existence is enshrined in our Constitution, by using 
     its vote-by-mail services to save lives now and to protect 
     our democracy in the future.

  Mr. COLE. Madam Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule for a very simple 
reason. It is a silly rule. It actually violates the rules that my 
friends passed at the beginning of this Congress. The legislation 
before us has not gone through any committee, has not been marked up, 
has not been debated, has not been amended.
  My friend said at the beginning of the Congress they wouldn't bring 
legislation like that to the floor, they conveniently waived that rule 
yesterday. So here it comes with no committee procedure or markup. We 
had a number of amendments, Madam Speaker, that were presented to the 
committee, none of them were made in order.
  I offered an amendment for what is called an open rule, where any 
Member could come down here and put forward what they thought would be 
a better idea since we had no opportunity to do that in committee. That 
too was rejected.
  So this rule is a take-it-or-leave-it ultimatum from the majority, 
and it means you can pass it in the House, but it is not going anywhere 
else.
  Now, let's turn to the bill itself. My friends say that--we are going 
to hear a lot of bad things about the Postmaster General in the course 
of the morning. I have never met him. I don't know him. The people that 
do know him say that he is a really good guy, but I don't know. We are 
going to hear a lot of terrible things about him. But at the end of the 
day my friends are going to vote to give him $25 billion, and they are 
going to do it in a bill that has no reforms in it, just says you can't 
change anything. Now, how smart is that?
  You can't change anything in an institution that is losing $8 to $9 
billion every single year. We don't trust the person who heads this, 
but we are going to give him $25 billion. Do we need that money? 
Absolutely not. The post office tells us they have $15 billion on hand, 
they have access to a $10 billion line of credit that will more than 
take them for a year from now. So we don't need to be spending this 
money right now. It is a silly, silly bill.
  But I want to give my friends some free political advice. They want 
to pass this bill. They want to get it through the Senate. They want to 
get it to the President's desk. They want to get it signed. I believe 
that. If that is true, make it bigger. Do exactly what my friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee said, let's put some stuff in 
it that we agree on.
  The President of the United States says, I think every family in 
America that makes less than $75,000 a year needs help right now, they 
need $1,200 per adult, $500 per kid, that would be $3,400, a one-time 
payment for a family of four. Attach that to this, it would pass the 
floor unanimously in a bipartisan fashion and be picked up by the 
Senate. And the President said, through his chief of staff, I will sign 
something like that.
  You could do something a little bit different. We are all having our 
schools open right now all across the country. My friends passed $100 
billion in the HEROES Act for it. The President said, actually, we 
think it would take about $105 billion. Put that on this and help every 
school district in America. But my friends chose not to do that, but if 
you do, it will pass here, it will pass the Senate, and the President 
would sign it.
  Let's talk about unemployment. The President said, hey, we think the 
$600 extra is a little high, but while we are negotiating, by the way, 
we will keep paying it. My friends on the other side said, no, they can 
do without the $600. And then the President said, well, we think $200 
is the right number, but we can go to $400. Put that on here. Every 
unemployed person in America would get $400 a week. Right now, thanks 
to the Speaker and the minority leader in the United States Senate, 
they are getting zero. The only help they are getting is from the 
President who is using Herculean executive orders to try and get them 
some additional relief.
  So this is a joke. This is, as my friend the distinguished Member 
from Georgia said, a theatrical moment punctuating the two conventions, 
the Democratic Convention and leading into ours. No legislation is 
going to happen because my friends aren't serious about legislation.
  No money is going to get to the post office because it can't pass the 
Senate, and the post office doesn't need it anyway. So we are going to 
have an entertaining couple of hours. Fortunately, it is on a Saturday 
morning, so I don't think very many Americans are going to waste their 
time listening to this.
  When my friends want to get serious, when they want to negotiate, 
when they want to move something to the floor, we will be ready.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge rejection to the rule and rejection 
of the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I would love to spend weeks and weeks discussing this 
in committee, but the truth is that is what the Trump administration 
wants, to run out the clock before the November elections. So trust in 
our democracy is undermined, and they can act like there is some 
conspiracy if he loses.
  I have heard my friends on the other side of the aisle talk about 
process, but I really question their judgment here. They thought that 
dealing with cheese was such a national emergency last Congress that 
they used emergency powers to bring a bill on that topic to the floor 
during a government shutdown no less.
  But today, as seniors can't get lifesaving medications and our 
veterans can't get social security checks, they want to hit pause. Our 
Postal Service is in chaos. Give me a break.
  You know, my friends say they don't know who the Postmaster General 
is.

[[Page H4263]]

Let me tell you who he is. He is like the least qualified candidate for 
the job. He is a big, mega donor to Donald Trump. And my Republican 
friends are believing everything Mr. DeJoy says, like claiming there is 
no mail shutdown.
  Well, let me remind them what the Postmaster General wrote in a 
recent memo that these changes have had: ``Unintended consequences that 
have impacted our overall service levels.'' Those are his words, Madam 
Speaker.
  He is transforming the Postal Service all right. Transforming it from 
reliable to chaotic right before an election. So even if you trust Mr. 
DeJoy, which I do not, even he acknowledges that there is something 
happening here.

  Those on the other side of the aisle cannot have it both ways here. 
This administration apparently won't lift a finger to fix this problem, 
but this Congress is acting. And I would respectfully urge my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join us. Help the American 
people. They should be your priority, not the guy in the White House.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas 
(Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise with a sense of urgency. I 
rise because the Postal Service is near collapse. I rise in the name of 
Army Sergeant Retired Boudreau, stage 4 cancer, and Katy, stage 4 
breast cancer. These are the desperate people that are feeling the 
brunt of a collapsed Postal Service. The voices I listen to are the 
letter carriers who are denied the ability to deliver mail, or the 
postal workers who have no machines to deliver mail.
  H.R. 8015 is an emergency SOS act, Delivering for America. It is 
crucial that we meet today, not because we are political, because we 
had to get here as fast as we could to be able to acknowledge that the 
Postal Service is a crucial lifeline for Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I submitted an amendment. I am glad that the Rules 
Committee moved on a closed rule. This is an emergency. Later on today, 
I will introduce Protecting Democracy by Securing the Right to Vote, 
that will allow you to request ballots online, by phone, or mail, and 
most importantly, setting a 10-business-day mail return time for 
ballots sent by mail and are postmarked on election day.
  Why?
  Because as we are working today to ensure that mail ballots are safe 
and secure under H.R. 8015, we have seniors who are listening to the 
scare tactics that are being said from the highest office in the land. 
They are frightened.
  Yesterday, I was at the house of a blind senior citizen, she can't 
get out to vote, she will have to do a mail ballot.
  So I rise enthusiastically to support the H.R. 8015 rule because we 
are in a collapse of the postal system. It is urgent. We need $25 
billion, and we need to do it now. I ask my colleagues to support it, 
and let it be bipartisan.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on the Rule for H.R. 8015, the 
Delivering For America Act.
  I thank Chairman McGovern for the work of the Rules Committee to 
bring this important measure to the Floor of the House for 
consideration.
  I also thank Chairwoman Maloney for her leadership in drafting H.R. 
8015, which is being debated under the Rule.
  I offered an Amendment to improve this very good bill, but it was not 
included in the Rule for H.R. 8015.
  The Jackson Lee Amendment, if it had been included would have ensured 
that ballots postmarked on or before Election Day would have ten 
business days following that date to be delivered by the Postal Service 
to local elections officials to have it counted for the election.
  I offered this amendment out of consideration for the nearness of the 
election and the likelihood that the U.S. Postmaster will not change 
the policies that have led to the decommissioning of mail sorters and 
mailboxes, which is slowing down the U.S. Mail.
  The job of the United States Postal Service is to receive, process, 
and deliver the mail without favor or special consideration to anyone.
  I applaud the work done in the underlying bill to provide relief to 
the Postal Service, and I appreciate the desire to narrowly focus the 
bill only on addressing the issues arising out of intentional efforts 
to disrupt mail service.
  I believe that we must be more aggressive in our approach to protect 
the election and make sure that Election Day does not become a victim 
of COVID-19.
  I will work with my colleagues to ensure that all available means are 
provided to ensure that every voter, no matter their party or 
preference has access to cast a vote that will be counted in the 
November election.
  I support the Rule for this bill because it provides much-needed 
protection to postal workers and relief for those who are dependent on 
the mail service for sustaining life and health as well as commercial 
needs and business.
  In 2019, the Postal Service:
  Delivered 142.6 billion pieces of mail to 260 million addresses in 
America;
  Delivered 1.2 billion prescriptions, including most of the 
medications ordered by the VA;
  Employed 633,108 of our friends and neighbors, including more than 
100,000 veterans;
  Served 70 percent of businesses with fewer than ten employees;
  Had a 90 percent favorabilty rating, making it the most popular 
federal agency.
  The Postal Service:
  Is often the only delivery option for rural America where service is 
not profitable;
  Delivers 48 percent of the world's mail with one of the world's 
largest civilian vehicle fleets;
  Is a vital service for the more than 18 million seniors who do not 
use the Internet.
  The Postal Service has become a pharmacy of choice for millions of 
Americans who live in pharmacy deserts--locations where there are no 
pharmacies to serve communities.
  The Postal Service is an essential component to Veterans' health 
because they deliver medicines to our veterans.
  The VA has now confirmed to us that the United States Postal Service 
(USPS), which is responsible for delivering about 90 percent of all VA 
mail order prescriptions, has indeed been delayed in delivering these 
critical medications by an average of almost 25 percent over the past 
year, with many locations experiencing much more significant delays.
  Under the urgent need to fix the postal service, we must not forget 
that the Postal Service employees are essential workers in COVID-19, 
and if they are essential it means that the work they do is essential.
  In addition to delivering prescriptions and business mail, they are 
also delivering democracy to millions of voters who will need to cast 
their ballot by mail this election year to reduce their risk of 
contracting COVID-19.
  The U.S. mail service has provided essential mail service for 
absentee voting for well over 100 years by enabling Union troops to 
vote during the Civil War, World War I, World War II, Korean War, 
Vietnam War, Iraqi Freedom, and to this day.
  Since that time, absentee or not, in-person voting has grown in 
popularity across the United States and is now a welcomed and valued 
component for assuring citizen participation in public elections.
  In 2016, 20.9 percent of all votes cast in that federal election were 
done so by absentee ballots and this year that number is expected to be 
much higher due to COVID-19.
  The attack on the viability and value of absentee voting should be 
viewed as just one component of many assaults on our elections system 
that may make this a very difficult election year.
  This view is shaped by the decades of elections filled with 
disinformation and misinformation tactics designed to suppress or 
repress black, LatinX, and young voters from voting or having their 
votes counted.
  For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in 
support of the Rule for H.R. 8015.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Rules Committee and the Energy and 
Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, this bill, H.R. 8015, does seem to be 
rushed. And here is the biggest thing, it is not going to address the 
core problem that exists in the United States Postal Service.
  This bill appropriates a $25 billion bailout using emergency 
supplemental funding, removing it from the previously agreed to 
bipartisan budget agreement numbers, and prohibits the Postal Service 
from making any reforms until next year at the earliest.
  So if this bill is intended to improve efficiency or effectiveness of 
the Postal Service, I would just simply ask: How in the world is it 
supposed to do that if it is prohibited from making any changes?
  The Postal Service is in trouble, every Member of this Chamber, 
Republican or Democrat, understands this. We should be deeply concerned 
about the precarious position of the Postal Service. But despite the 
narratives, this problem has been decades in the making.
  The Postal Service's operational pains have been festering literally 
for

[[Page H4264]]

decades. Since 2007 mail volumes have fallen year after year as 
American consumers and businesses have chosen digital communication 
over letters and mailed advertising. Over the same period, the number 
of addresses requiring delivery and retirement obligations for retired 
Postal Service employees have continued to grow. So in very simple 
terms, revenues have fallen, and costs have risen for over a decade.

                              {time}  1100

  This novel coronavirus' impact on the economy is only exacerbating 
this situation. The Postal Service lost $2.2 billion in the second 
quarter of this year. H.R. 8015 kicks the can down the road and forces 
the Postal Service to continue to sustain financial losses. No reforms 
to modernize the Postal Service, so we should expect its fiscal health 
to worsen.
  Now, in spite of all the heated rhetoric today, the Postal Service 
will not collapse tonight. The Postal Service has informed Congress 
that it has enough cash on hand to remain solvent through August 2021. 
That is a year from now if you are doing the math at home. And Congress 
has already provided an additional lifeline by raising the Postal 
Service's loan authority by $10 billion.
  Instead of voting on this rushed and partisan bill, Members of this 
Chamber could work together to solve the problem. Congress has time to 
work through the proper committees, provide the proper oversight, 
provide the proper reforms, and preserve this essential service.
  Let's vote against this bill today, a dictatorial bill brought to us 
by the Speaker of the House, H.R. 8015, and work together in finding a 
meaningful and lasting fix for the United States Postal Service.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I have heard some of the Republicans 
clamor last night in the Rules Committee all about statistics.
  Well, let's look at some. This is from the Postal Service's most 
recent quarterly report. It compares on-time delivery for single-piece 
first-class mail this fiscal year so far as compared to last fiscal 
year. Do you see the red line? It is going in the wrong direction. Mail 
is slowing. People aren't getting deliveries that they need on time. 
This is just through the end of June. We don't know what truly happened 
in July or so far in August.
  Our constituents are not lying to us. Their mail is delayed. Their 
medications are delayed.
  Yesterday, we were told: You know, people who are on Social Security 
don't have to worry because they get all their Social Security checks 
electronically. We know that is not true. We know that close to 1 
million people get Social Security and SSI through the mail.
  So, this is real. This is happening. And we need to do something 
about it.
  The fact that this is happening in the middle of a pandemic right 
before an election, I mean, I don't believe in coincidences. This is 
deliberate, and it is shocking. As I said before, this is a five-alarm 
fire on our democracy.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), a distinguished member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article, ``Quit Interfering 
and Save the Postal Service,'' by the former chair of the Board of 
Governors of the Postal Service, David Fineman.

                             [Aug. 5, 2020]

              Quit Interfering and Save the Postal Service

                         (By S. David Fineman)

       The U.S. Postal Service is in trouble and needs help just 
     like the airlines, large and small corporations, and 
     consumers. There are ways to save it if Congress takes action 
     very soon.
       Where to start with its problems? The USPS is losing 
     billions because of the pandemic. Its leadership has said 
     running out of money is a question of when, not if. Its board 
     of governors temporarily lost its quorum this year and is now 
     made up only of Trump administration appointees. The 
     president of the United States called the Postal Service a 
     ``joke.'' And now state election officials are warning that 
     reduced mail service could interfere with mail-in ballots in 
     November.
       I served as a governor of the United States Postal Service 
     from 1995 through 2005. I was nominated by President Bill 
     Clinton, and served as chairman during the administration of 
     President George W. Bush. By law, the USPS should have nine 
     members on its board, five of one party and four of another. 
     During my tenure, there was never any interference by the 
     president in the business of the USPS, like there is 
     currently.
       What is happening now is unprecedented, and we wonder why. 
     Let us hope it is not to disturb the election process and 
     mail-in ballots.
       During my first year on the board, it became clear the 
     rate-making process, which decides how much one pays to mail 
     a letter or a package, made no sense. Not until 2004 was 
     there movement on any legislation in Congress. Eventually the 
     chairman of the committee overseeing the Postal Service, Dan 
     Burton (R-Ind.), and the ranking member, Henry Waxman (D-
     Calif.), agreed on the outline of a bill. The blll, with a 
     few changes, passed the House of Representatives, the Senate, 
     and then was signed into law by Bush in 2006.
       One section of that legislation called for the USPS to 
     prefund its pension obligations for 75 years. I remember 
     meeting with the then-postmaster general, and after a 
     thorough briefing, we both concluded the USPS would never 
     have the necessary funds to and maybe naivety, I believed 
     congress would amend the law in due time to eliminate that 
     burden.
       So here we are in 2020, in the middle of a pandemic. 
     Congress and the administration cannot agree on how to fix 
     the USPS. Everyone in the so-called postal community, 
     ihcluding its unions, agree the prefunding requirement is not 
     needed. Let us get legislation to eliminate the prefundlng 
     requirement passed.
       What else can be done? First, let us stop the parochial 
     mindset of Congress. The USPS has needed to right-size for 
     some time, and not just close post offices. Because of 
     population shifts, it can consolidate large processing 
     plants, so they can process mail from various states and 
     municipalities.
       Last week, Treasury released $10 billion already allocated 
     to the USPS, with conditions that are at best questionable. 
     It was required to share with Treasury details of contracts 
     it negotiated with Amazon and others. Congress should 
     allocate without any conditions, just like it has bailed out 
     multinational corporations as a result of the pandemic.
       If we believe what we hear from the administration and the 
     postmaster general they seem to have two solutions: First, 
     raise the price of packages, although the rate-making process 
     has confirmed the prices set were fair, and within the 
     confines of the law. Second, cut the pay of the unionized 
     workforce, which has already suffered thousands of 
     coronavirus illnesses and, at last count, at least 60 deaths.
       If the price of packages is raised, who pays? The consumer 
     and small businesses, not just on packages sent by USPS, but 
     by every private delivery service. That is the reality of how 
     business works, and to deny it is not dealing with reality.
       As USPS raises its prices, you can be assured that the 
     private delivery services will raise their prices. 
     Considering the present composition of Congress, the 
     provisions of the law regarding how union contracts are 
     negotiated ls not about to change.
       With the pandemic, the USPS is needed more than ever 
     before. Small businesses and the average American rely on 
     delivery of mail six days a week. They need to get their 
     checks, their letters, and packages, on time.
       The USPS needs help! There is a way to fix it!
       The administration must stop holding the USPS hostage to 
     its own private agenda. Rural America and the inner city 
     population would suffer more than anyone else. The solutions 
     are clear. Let us just get it done.

  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, ``I'm writing to you today after having 
skipped a day of my high blood pressure medication for the first 
time.''
  ``I have not seen a Postal Service carrier in my neighborhood for a 
week or more, not received mail for 10 days. The last couple pieces of 
mail were 30 days late.''
  ``I am a small business owner. I am in a real bind. I usually ship 
packages to customers. Switching to UPS or FedEx would be too 
expensive. I would likely lose customers.''
  These are just a few of the thousands of messages that my office has 
received from constituents who have been caught in the crosshairs of 
this administration's war on the U.S. Postal Service.
  We are here today to deliver a message to this administration: Don't 
mess with the USPS.
  This vital public service is essential in our everyday lives. In a 
pandemic, it is a lifeline.
  These are the real consequences of this administration's ill-
conceived efficiency measures, which have disrupted postal service 
across the country. Those consequences have made their way to the 
doorsteps of seniors, veterans, people with disabilities, and countless 
families and businesses, large and small.
  As millions of Americans are expected to vote by mail, many for the 
first time, we need to give Americans the peace of mind that their mail 
will be processed swiftly. That is why I am

[[Page H4265]]

proud to support the Delivering for America Act.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I 
want to solve every single one of those problems that she just laid 
out. Those are absolutely bipartisan concerns. This bill solves none of 
them.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Arizona 
(Mrs. Lesko), another member of the Rules Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  ``Nancy Pelosi Goes Politically Postal.'' That's the catchy title of 
a recent op-ed written by The Wall Street Journal editorial board, and 
that is the reason we are here today, for phony political theater to 
once again bash President Trump just in time for the Sunday talk shows 
and the Republican National Convention. And just like all the other 
times, the media will lap it right up.
  Wouldn't it be nice if we were here today on a Saturday voting on a 
negotiated COVID relief package to help the American people that could 
actually be signed into law? But sadly, instead, we are here talking 
about a postal bill, one The Wall Street Journal editorial board called 
a ``made-for-TV phony political crisis.'' Boy, did they get that right.
  Let's review the facts.
  A task force recommends that the U.S. Postal Service overhaul their 
business model in order to return it to sustainability because expenses 
have outpaced revenue for 13 straight years, and they lost $8.8 billion 
in 2019 alone.
  The new Postmaster General is unanimously selected by a bipartisan 
Board of Governors, not President Trump. The Postmaster General starts 
making some changes in an attempt to make the post office more 
sustainable, as recommended by the task force--you know, similar to the 
types of changes that were made under the Obama administration in the 
past.
  The Postmaster General worries that some States allow voters to 
request mail-in ballots too close to the election day and is afraid 
that there is not enough turnaround time for those ballots to get back 
in time, so he sends a courtesy letter to those States, recommending 
they tell voters to mail in their ballots early so they can get them in 
time.
  Guess what? Democrats freak out, blame Trump, say he is trying to 
influence the election, even though Trump doesn't have control over the 
Postmaster General, and run to the ever-so-willing media to spread a 
new Trump conspiracy theory.
  Seems insane but all too typical for the Trump-hating Democrats to 
me.
  But don't take my word for it, let's see what Stephen Kearney, a 33-
year veteran employee, former Treasurer, and Senior Vice President of 
the U.S. Postal Service said: ``This conspiracy theory is the most far-
flung thing I think I have ever heard.''
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, let me just say again for the Record 
because we hear this on the other side: Wouldn't it be nice if we were 
here negotiating a larger package on a whole range of things. Well, we 
actually passed something in the House called the HEROES Act. The 
Senate has passed nothing. The reason why is because Republicans are 
fighting with Republicans. They can't agree on what to do, so they have 
done nothing. So, we are negotiating with an empty chair.
  If my friends really want to help, they ought to pick up the phone, 
and they ought to call Mitch McConnell and tell him to do something, to 
actually do something.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, mail is an essential government service 
and a critical lifeline for many, especially during this pandemic.
  What have operational changes made to the postal system accomplished? 
Parts of the country are having their mail delayed by up to a week or 
more. This is harming veterans, seniors, and our rural communities.
  What has the Postmaster General already done? Curtailed overtime; 
restricted deliveries; eliminated sorting machines; in Hartford, 
Connecticut, in the parking lot there is a dismantled machine; removed 
mailboxes; prohibiting employees from making late mail deliveries, 
directing them to leave mail undelivered at distribution centers 
overnight; warned 46 States and the District of Columbia that it could 
not guarantee all ballots cast by mail for the November election will 
arrive in time to be counted.
  Yes, this is about our democracy, as well. This administration is 
undermining a pillar of our democracy, voting for a partisan purpose. 
Obstructing the Postal Service for political purposes is illegal. It is 
illegal to interfere with the mail.

  During this unprecedented time, we must be streamlining, not 
sabotaging, voting by mail.
  The administration wants to destroy the public's faith and trust in 
the public service. No, the American people are not going to let you do 
it. I might add, the Postal Service has a 90 percent favorability 
rating. It is the most popular Federal agency. Would that we had a 90 
percent favorability rating.
  We must fight for this essential component of our democracy and of 
people's lives. We will, through rain, shine, or sleet, or President 
Donald Trump.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the ranking member of one of the committees that 
is near and dear to my heart, the ranking member of the Budget 
Committee, a good friend, and a member of the freshman class of 2010.
  Mr. WOMACK. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend Rob Woodall for 
yielding.
  When I was a kid, I couldn't wait for Saturday morning. Saturday 
morning in our house, my brothers and sisters, we would get up, and we 
couldn't wait to watch our favorite cartoons.
  Now, decades later, here I am again, on the floor of the House of 
Representatives, watching a cartoon about the only outcome this debate 
is going to have today: one of entertainment value, nothing 
substantive.
  The chairman of the Rules Committee called this a five-alarm fire. 
Now that the Democratic Convention has concluded and the Republican 
Convention is about to begin, we have a catastrophe.
  It is not going to build infrastructure. It is not going to give aid 
to people suffering from the pandemic. It is not going to fund the 
government by October 1. It is not going to become law.
  Just like the previous attempts, my friends on the other side of the 
aisle have had to derail a duly-elected President. This, too, will 
fail. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am sad that the gentleman thinks this 
is entertaining. We have veterans who are calling our offices whose 
medications have been delayed getting to them. We have some people on 
Social Security and on SSI who are worried that their checks are not 
going to get to them. We have small businesses that are calling to 
complain.
  This is a crisis that this administration produced all on its own. 
And whether it is designed, as some of us fear, to try to create more 
chaos around the election--and by the way, this is what Donald Trump 
said about the money that we have in this bill: ``They need that money 
in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these 
millions and millions of ballots.''
  Did anybody ever think that they would see a President of the United 
States who would publicly say that he doesn't want every vote to count? 
This is outrageous, and I cannot believe that my friends on the other 
side of the aisle, who I know are getting the same calls we are, are 
totally fine with doing nothing.

                              {time}  1115

  Well, maybe if some of my Republican friends would join with us, it 
might send a message to the White House that they have to respond, they 
have to do the right thing.
  It is the complicity; it is the indifference that I just can't 
understand given what is going on in this country right now.
  So we have been complaining about this for weeks--this didn't just 
happen this week, but for weeks--but it is now out of control, and we 
have to do something.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

[[Page H4266]]

  

  Ms. MATSUI. Madam Speaker, over the past few weeks, we have seen the 
reports of decommissioned sorting machines, removal of postboxes, and 
the cutting back of hours for the U.S. Postal Service employees.
  In my district of Sacramento, I have never seen such an outcry, an 
outrage amongst my neighbors and constituents.
  This is serious business. We are feeling the effects of delayed mail 
delivery and seeing the real-life consequences of these operational 
changes: Financial documents are late; prescriptions are stuck in 
transit; and we worry about our future ballots being counted.
  That is why this administration's attacks have alarmed so many 
Americans. We recognize it is about more than just getting letters from 
A to B. It is about the fabric of our democracy.
  The Postmaster General has made his political preferences and 
business interests no secret. The U.S. Postal Service should not be 
manipulated as a political or business tool.
  Hundreds of millions of Americans across this country rely on the 
Postal Service for lifesaving medications, Social Security benefits, 
paychecks, and mail-in ballots. The Delivering for America Act will 
help ensure that those services continue as needed.
  This bill takes critical steps to halt the damage being done, while 
providing $25 billion to put the Postal Service back on track.
  While the Postmaster has recently claimed that he will halt 
operational changes until after the election, he has also stated he has 
no intention of recommissioning sorting machines and postboxes that 
have already been shuttered. The damage has already been done, and it 
is unacceptable.
  We must pass the Delivering for America Act to provide emergency 
funding and put protections in place to support reliable mail delivery 
for all Americans.
  As I said, this is serious business. The post office is important for 
the fabric of America.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, though this bill is going nowhere, if we 
defeat the previous question this morning, I will offer an amendment to 
take up three bills that are partnership bills that can go through the 
Senate to the President's desk and make a real difference for the 
American people, dealing with important issues like healthcare, like 
relief for folks suffering from the COVID economic crisis, and our law 
enforcement reform activities.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess) to speak on one of those provisions.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  There is a sudden sense of urgency to address the financial stability 
of the Postal Service, but I would simply ask the body: Where was the 
sense of urgency from our House Democratic leadership at the start of 
the pandemic?
  Look, I recognized in January this deal over in China was a bad deal, 
a novel virus, biological behavior not known, not worked out.
  The Postal Service's problems did not surface this week. They have 
been going on for years. But the Postal Service will not go bankrupt 
tomorrow, and yet we have been called back here to vote on an issue 
that, quite frankly, is not going to get solved from today's 
activities.
  But I called on the Committee on Energy and Commerce last February to 
do hearings on this novel coronavirus. My requests were ignored and 
then subsequently dismissed because we had other important work to do: 
horse racing, flavored tobacco, ticket stubs--any number of things--
other than work on the novel coronavirus.
  But we could have provided support in the form of funding for 
vaccines and testing and more. We have done some of that in the short-
term sense, but we could continue to support our Nation's pandemic 
response in additional ways, which is why I have introduced legislation 
that aligns with the legislation already existing in the Senate, where 
we could come together and provide our country with some of the 
critical resources necessary to fight this novel coronavirus.
  Unfortunately, the House Democratic leadership does not acknowledge 
or seem even to be curious as to whether or not they are up to the 
task.
  So this legislation provides $29 billion for the Public Health and 
Social Services Emergency Fund to develop additional medical 
countermeasures and vaccines. A safe and effective vaccine is the 
strongest arrow in our quiver to help society return to normal.
  Importantly, the bill would provide $2 billion for the Strategic 
National Stockpile and $2 billion for the Biomedical Advanced Research 
and Development Authority for use in developing medical 
countermeasures.
  But you have to ask yourself: The business plan as promulgated by the 
Speaker of this body, why is it antithetical to that development? Could 
it be because the nominee of their party this week in a very important 
speech promised the American people ``no miracle is coming''? Is that 
because you are going to cut off the funding for BARDA? for the 
Strategic National Stockpile? for research on vaccines?

  Look, there are commonsense, bipartisan ways to help our Nation and 
help our Nation respond to the coronavirus, but House Democratic 
leadership has turned their backs on the needs of America.
  Madam Speaker, I urge Members to vote against the previous question. 
Allow us to debate and pass this measure. It is of critical urgency. 
Indeed, a miracle could be coming.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I insert in the Record a CNBC article, 
entitled, ``Patients Say Post Office Slowdown Is Delaying Delivery of 
Lifesaving Medications.''

 Patients Say Post Office Slowdown is Delaying Delivery of Life-Saving 
                              Medications

                          (By Christina Farr)

       The U.S. Postal Service has become a political 
     battleground, and has experienced delays after Postmaster 
     General Louis DeJoy slashed overtime.
       Many patients are experiencing delays receiving life-saving 
     medications and are sharing their experiences online via 
     hashtags like #USPSMeds.
       Experts say the situation could escalate, despite 
     Postmaster General Louis DeJoy's promise to suspend changes 
     to the Postal Service.
       Nathan Geissel, who lives in rural Oregon, has been waiting 
     more than nine days for a lifesaving medication to arrive in 
     the mail. As far as he knows, it's stuck in a fulfillment 
     center.
       Geissel's doctor prescribed the medicine two years ago to 
     prevent blood clots. He's never experienced delays before.
       The U.S. Postal Service has become a political battleground 
     after President Trump said he opposes additional funding 
     because he doesn't support universal mail-in voting. 
     Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a Trump supporter, reportedly 
     ordered recent cost-cutting measures, slashing overtime and 
     curbing late delivery. It has created significant delays in 
     mail deliveries, according to mail worker advocates and 
     others.
       Americans are sharing stories about medication delays with 
     the hashtag #USPSMeds. Many are veterans who have reported 
     weeks-long delays. Some are seniors who instead have to visit 
     a pharmacy, putting them at higher risk of exposure to Covid-
     19.
       Geissel chose mail-order for the convenience--the nearest 
     pharmacy is 20 minutes away--and the affordability. His 
     insurance company covers more of the cost of the medication 
     when it's delivered by the U.S. postal service. Geissel has 
     to pay a $135 copay for a months supply if he instead picks 
     it up at a retail pharmacy.
       ``Thankfully, a local pharmacist approved two more weeks of 
     medication with my health plan that I could pick up as an 
     emergency,'' said Geissel. ``I work in health care, so I know 
     the system, but I can't imagine what it must be like for an 
     elderly patient who doesn't have that same access.''
       ``I'm worried,'' said Liz Austin by phone. Her mother, 
     Barbara, is sick with cystic fibrosis, a progressive disease 
     that causes lung infections and limits her ability to 
     breathe. ``Covid-19 is primarily a respiratory disease, so my 
     mother relies on the mail to get her prescriptions as safely 
     as possible.''
       Her medicine was so late that her husband had to risk 
     visiting a pharmacy.
       After lawsuits from more than 20 state attorneys general 
     and a call to testify before Congress, DeJoy on Tuesday said 
     he's suspending operational changes until after the November 
     election.
       Some experts are concerned that the delays will snowball.
       ``There's an exponential factor to this,'' said John 
     McHugh, a former congressman who heads up the Package 
     Coalition, an alliance that aims to preserve affordable 
     postal package delivery services. Members of the

[[Page H4267]]

     Package Coalition include Amazon, eBay, and Cigna's Express 
     Scripts. ``Once you are behind, what happens next is you get 
     further behind and then further behind.''
       The pandemic has strained the mail-order medication system 
     as more people are opt to receive prescriptions at home. 
     Those with pre-existing conditions are at greater risk for 
     hospitalization if they get Covid-19.
       ``Data show an increase in prescription drugs dispensed 
     through mail-service pharmacy during the pandemic,'' said a 
     spokesperson from PCMA, a national association representing 
     pharmacy benefits managers, which negotiate prescription drug 
     costs on behalf of insurers.
       Online pharmacy Honeybee Health said about 20% of patients 
     who order delivery via first-class mail have experienced 
     delays so far.
       ``The situation is fluid but it's clear from our customer 
     service team that an usually high number of patients are 
     receiving their medication far later than expected--and in 
     some cases, not receiving it at all. These delays are 
     troubling for everyone, but for patients who rely on 
     medication to live, it's especially dangerous,'' said Dr. 
     Jessica Nouhavandi, co-founder and lead pharmacist for 
     Honeybee Health, which delivers generic medications via USPS.
       Umar Afridi, founder of TruePill, a company that provides 
     pharmacy services to telemedicine companies, said he 
     ``estimates that about 90 percent'' of prescription drugs his 
     company delivers via mail run through the postal service.
       ``We tend to use UPS and FedEx more for time-sensitive and 
     expensive drugs,'' he said. ``USPS is often the lowest cost 
     and they have the biggest reach.''
       Afridi said he hasn't yet heard about delays but knows 
     there are service-level disruptions, including pickups not 
     happening on time.
       Pharmacy benefits managers are more optimistic. Express 
     Scripts, a major pharmacy benefit manager, said it was ``not 
     experiencing unusual delays.'' OptumRX (owned by UnitedHealth 
     Group) declined to discuss delays. It said it's working with 
     all major carriers ``to help ensure timely shipments of home 
     delivery prescriptions.''
       Some doctors are concerned for their low-income and elderly 
     patients. Dr. Lakshman Swamy, a Boston-based pulmonologist 
     and critical care doctor, says the situation could be 
     disastrous for asthma patients who rely on Medicaid or don't 
     have insurance. These patients might not be able to negotiate 
     an emergency supply.
       Swamy, who also has asthma, said it's common for patients 
     with chronic respiratory conditions to rely on mail-order 
     medications. ``You can do rescue therapies for a while, but 
     the strong medications will wear off,'' he said. ``Once you 
     don't get the medications you need, you can quickly fall off 
     the wagon and end up hospitalized.''
       ``Any additional strain will have an impact on patients,'' 
     he said. ``It's inevitable.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know for certain that the Senate will take 
this bill up, but I fervently hope that they will, because I sure as 
hell know that we are doing the right thing here in the House.
  Madam Speaker, I would also like to just point out, because I have 
heard these questions raised about the $25 billion in this bill for the 
Postal Service: Why are we providing that amount?
  Madam Speaker, because that is what the USPS Board of Governors 
recommended, and this Board is made up of 100 percent of Donald Trump's 
appointees. So, you know, this is not a number that Democrats made up. 
It is what his Republican Board of the USPS came up with. So that is 
why that number is there.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Chabot), the ranking member of the Small Business Committee 
that has made such a difference for so many Americans, in support of 
the previous question and legislation that we could bring to the floor 
that would make a difference to the American people.
  Mr. CHABOT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that the Paycheck Protection Program 
has produced impressive results. All across America, PPP loans have 
supported over 50 million jobs. That is 50 million people who can 
continue to support themselves and their loved ones. In Ohio's First 
Congressional District, for example, which I have the honor of 
representing, the program helped over 200,000 people to stay on the 
payroll and support their families.
  Despite this success, there are small businesses that still need our 
help. According to a July 27 NFIB survey, almost half of small business 
borrowers predict that they will need additional capital within the 
next 6 months.
  As ranking member of the House Small Business Committee, I have 
pushed for targeted bipartisan solutions to make sure that our Nation's 
smallest firms have a chance to survive, and this Congress has acted. 
Now it needs to do so again to help those small businesses and their 
employees.
  Unfortunately, the top leadership on the other side of the aisle 
apparently doesn't feel the urgency to do so and allow a vote on 
additional help for those small businesses that need it so much.
  Let me be clear: Every day that goes by without action jeopardizes 
America's 30 million small businesses and their employees.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support reopening the Paycheck 
Protection Program through December 31 and allow businesses that have 
suffered revenue declines to apply for a second loan.
  Madam Speaker, we owe it to America's small businesses to work 
together for a solution. We ought to be voting on that today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear my friend talk about the 
extension of PPP when he voted against that in the HEROES Act when it 
came before the full House. Luckily, it passed and it is over in the 
Senate. We are waiting for Mitch McConnell to do something.
  But I love my friends on the other side of the aisle who come up with 
all these ideas right now. Most of them were in the HEROES Act.
  But if these are so important, where is Mitch McConnell? Where is the 
United States Senate? They went on vacation. They are gone.
  We are here because we have a crisis. We have people who can't get 
their medications, who can't get their benefit checks. We have a crisis 
where we have a President who is trying to undermine our elections. So 
we are here doing our work.
  Where is Mitch McConnell? Where is the Senate? How about picking up 
the phone and calling them to come back and do something for the 
American people?
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, again, if we defeat the previous 
question, we will bring much-needed legislation to the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. 
Stauber), a rising star here in the Republican Conference, to talk 
about that.
  Mr. STAUBER. Madam Speaker, it has been 22 days since the last time 
this body has met, and in those 22 days that the Speaker has refused to 
work on real relief packages, people have lost their jobs, small 
businesses have closed, and Main Streets have suffered. The American 
people were left with the question: Where are our leaders?
  I have begged, the President has begged, and the Senate has begged: 
Please call the House back into session to work on a bill to help 
suffering Americans.

  Now we are back in Washington for less than 12 hours. It is 
embarrassing that, while we could be working on vaccine funding, saving 
small businesses, and justice reform, the Speaker will gavel us out and 
Americans will once again be wondering: Where are our leaders?
  I introduced legislation that will fund better training for police 
officers, increase the number of body cameras, and fund important 
grants to police departments that help with community policing, which 
builds trust and lasting relationships in the communities they serve.
  It has been 89 days since George Floyd's tragic death, and in those 
89 days, Senator Tim Scott and I have put forth legislation to fix and 
improve our policing. We have begged Democrat leadership to come to the 
table and address this issue that Americans and our communities have 
asked for.
  Yet, what do we get? Twelve hours in Washington, D.C., and no action 
on vaccine funding, no action on small business relief, and no action 
on police reform.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so we can 
consider

[[Page H4268]]

this important bill and get Congress back to work, because a Congress 
at work is America at work.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, the gentleman asked: Where are the leaders? We are 
here. We are doing our job. We are responding to a crisis.
  Where is Mitch McConnell? On vacation.
  Where is the President? Tweeting more insults.
  But we are here doing our job to help deal with this postal crisis, 
and we also did our job when we passed the HEROES Act.
  Where is Mitch McConnell? On vacation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would like to share with my friend, the 
chairman, that I have no further speakers remaining, and I am prepared 
to close when he is.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I don't know how many more times I will be on the 
House floor between now and the end of the year. It is a great honor I 
have to serve with the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. McGovern of 
Massachusetts. I think all the time about all the things we could do 
together; and, candidly, we have done a lot of great things together. 
This body, when it acts together, does amazing things.
  But an unfortunate thing has happened in politics these days, Madam 
Speaker. We talk more about the bills that we pass than the changes 
that we make. My friend from Massachusetts has talked time and time 
again about a unilaterally drafted bill passed by this House in the 
spring that purports to address families in need, but that included no 
Republican input, no partnership, had a veto message from the 
President, and had no chance of getting through the Senate.
  We are here on exactly that same exercise today with this 
manufactured Postal Service bill. The Postal Service has the money that 
it needs. I will just tell my friends that President Trump won the 
mail-in vote in the great State of Georgia. That year I won the mail-in 
vote 2-1. There is absolutely no effort at voter suppression here. As 
my friend from Connecticut pointed out earlier, that is illegal. That 
is off the table.
  We are talking about, Is there enough money to fund the Postal 
Service or not?
  My friend from Massachusetts references a supervisor's report from 
the spring when they thought mail delivery was going to go down in 
volume. In fact, it has gone up in volume. Revenues are higher than 
they expected. If the Postal Service faces a revenue shortfall, I 
commit to my colleagues we will be there together arm in arm to make 
that happen. But today, when the Postal Service is sitting on $15 
billion in cash and an unused $10 billion line of credit, a blank check 
of another $25 billion does not solve any of the challenges that you 
and I know exist or solve any of the problems that all of our 
constituents have.
  Madam Speaker, the frustration you hear from my colleagues on this 
side of the aisle is that we are back in an emergency session working 
on language that is going nowhere, that will help no one. We can pound 
on our chests all we like about all the wonderful things that we 
think--unilaterally by themselves, without any bipartisan input--
Democrats crafted and put in this bill. But we all know from year upon 
year upon year of painful experience, the only things that get done in 
this town get done together. In a divided government you cannot bully 
your way to success, Madam Speaker, you have to partner your way to 
success.
  I know my friend from Massachusetts believes that. That is the kind 
of leadership style he brings to the committee on which I have the 
honor of serving. I understand my friends have a job to do today. They 
need to pass this bill. They are going to do it. It is not going to go 
anywhere, but they are going to do it.
  Madam Speaker, defeat the previous question with me today. Let's move 
PPP extension, let's move vaccine funding, let's move law enforcement 
reform, and let's do the political exercise that you brought us here to 
do. But let's do these things that matter as well.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question, and if not 
that, defeat of the rule.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle which makes me especially sad to hear some of the 
comments that we heard here today.
  This is a crisis that we are currently facing. We are getting calls 
from veterans whose medications are being delayed in the mail. We are 
getting calls from others whose essential benefits are being delayed in 
the mail. People rely on this stuff. It is important.
  Madam Speaker, you have heard the testimonies that have been 
recounted here on our side of the aisle.
  This is an emergency, and on top of that, we have a President who 
does not want every vote counted in the upcoming election because he 
believes that if we do count every vote, he will lose.
  We are in the middle of a pandemic. More and more people are going to 
be voting by mail, and this President, rather than trying to make it 
easier for people to vote and to have their voices be counted, is 
trying to make it more difficult.
  The current Postmaster General is not interested in reforming the 
Post Office. He is interested in dismantling it. That is what he has 
been doing.
  The bill that is before us is about more than money, I would say to 
my colleague from Georgia. It is about undoing all the damage that the 
current Postmaster has put into place that is resulting in all these 
delays, all this confusion, and all this chaos. Come on. This is 
serious business.
  I am going to close with this. History is not going to look well on 
those who just went along to get along with this President while he has 
done some things that would have been unthinkable in any other 
administration, Democrat or Republican. The complicity and the 
indifference are shocking to me. I can't believe it sometimes when I 
hear people defend the indefensible.
  What the President is doing with the Postal Service is indefensible, 
and everybody needs to be counted on this issue. I ask my Democratic 
colleagues and I ask my Republican colleagues to support this bill. It 
is the right thing to do for your constituents. Even if the man in the 
White House doesn't want it, it is the right thing to do. It is about 
time people started doing what is right for the people of this country.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Woodall is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 1092

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     8086) to provide additional appropriations for the public 
     health and social services emergency fund, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. Clause 2(e) of rule XXI shall not apply during 
     consideration of the bill. General debate shall be confined 
     to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Who further consideration 
     of the bill.
       Sec. 3. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 8086, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     8087) to amend the Small Business Act and the CARES Act to 
     establish a program for second draw loans and make other 
     modifications to the paycheck protection program, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the

[[Page H4269]]

     bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill 
     and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled 
     by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Small Business. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the 
     House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 8087, the 
     House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     8088} to provide funding to law enforcement agencies, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to 
     the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 8086, H.R. 8087, and H.R. 8088.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 171, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 179]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--171

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Banks
     Brooks (IN)
     Collins (GA)
     Cook
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Flores
     Gabbard
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Holding
     Johnson (LA)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Olson
     Roy
     Shimkus
     Spano
     Steube
     Stewart
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Walden

                              {time}  1235

  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Axne (Raskin)
     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bera (Aguilar)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Raskin)
     Brownley (CA) (Clark (MA))
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Davids (KS))
     Costa (Cooper)
     Davis (CA) (Wild)
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DelBene (Heck)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Engel (Pallone)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Foster (Beyer)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gonzalez (TX) (Gomez)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Huffman (Kildee)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kennedy (Deutch)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Clark (MA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     McNerney (Raskin)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Omar (Pressley)
     Panetta (Kildee)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Peters (Rice (NY))
     Peterson (Vela)
     Pingree (Clark (MA))
     Porter (Wexton)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rooney (FL) (Beyer)
     Roybal-Allard (McCollum)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Aguilar)
     Schakowsky (Kelly (IL))
     Schneider (Houlahan)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Thompson (CA) (Kildee)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Visclosky (Raskin)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cuellar). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.

[[Page H4270]]

  MR. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution 
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 171, not voting 29, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 180]

                               YEAS--230

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brindisi
     Brown (MD)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten (IL)
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Cisneros
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Cox (CA)
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Cunningham
     Davids (KS)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Engel
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Finkenauer
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horn, Kendra S.
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     McAdams
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mucarsel-Powell
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Richmond
     Rose (NY)
     Rouda
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shalala
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres Small (NM)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--171

     Abraham
     Allen
     Amash
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Barr
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Bishop (UT)
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks (AL)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Cole
     Comer
     Conaway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson (OH)
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx (NC)
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garcia (CA)
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Gooden
     Gosar
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hern, Kevin
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Hill (AR)
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Hurd (TX)
     Jacobs
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     King (NY)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff (TN)
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Marshall
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McKinley
     Miller
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Riggleman
     Roby
     Rodgers (WA)
     Roe, David P.
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rooney (FL)
     Rose, John W.
     Rouzer
     Rutherford
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Stauber
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Van Drew
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walker
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Watkins
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Wright
     Yoho
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--29

     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Banks
     Brooks (IN)
     Collins (GA)
     Cook
     Diaz-Balart
     Flores
     Gabbard
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Holding
     Johnson (LA)
     Joyce (OH)
     Kelly (PA)
     King (IA)
     Marchant
     McHenry
     Meuser
     Olson
     Roy
     Shimkus
     Spano
     Steube
     Stewart
     Thornberry
     Timmons
     Walden

                              {time}  1317

  Mrs. MILLER and Mr. VAN DREW changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Axne (Raskin)
     Barragan (Beyer)
     Bera (Aguilar)
     Blumenauer (Beyer)
     Bonamici (Raskin)
     Brownley (CA) (Clark (MA))
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     Case (Cartwright)
     Clay (Davids (KS))
     Costa (Cooper)
     Davis (CA) (Wild)
     DeGette (Blunt Rochester)
     DelBene (Heck)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Doggett (Raskin)
     Engel (Pallone)
     Escobar (Garcia (TX))
     Foster (Beyer)
     Frankel (Clark (MA))
     Garamendi (Sherman)
     Gonzalez (TX) (Gomez)
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
     Horsford (Kildee)
     Huffman (Kildee)
     Jayapal (Raskin)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kennedy (Deutch)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Kuster (NH) (Clark (MA))
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Tonko)
     McNerney (Raskin)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Moore (Beyer)
     Mucarsel-Powell (Wasserman Schultz)
     Nadler (Jeffries)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Omar (Pressley)
     Panetta (Kildee)
     Pascrell (Pallone)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Peters (Rice (NY))
     Peterson (Vela)
     Pingree (Clark (MA))
     Porter (Wexton)
     Price (NC) (Butterfield)
     Rooney (FL) (Beyer)
     Roybal-Allard (McCollum)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Aguilar)
     Schakowsky (Kelly (IL))
     Schneider (Houlahan)
     Serrano (Jeffries)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Speier (Scanlon)
     Thompson (CA) (Kildee)
     Titus (Connolly)
     Visclosky (Raskin)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________