[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 186 (Wednesday, November 20, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H9068-H9072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1309, WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION 
     FOR HEALTH CARE AND SOCIAL SERVICE WORKERS ACT; PROVIDING FOR 
PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 22, 2019, THROUGH DECEMBER 
  2, 2019; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE 
                                 RULES

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 713 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 713

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 1309) to direct the Secretary of Labor to 
     issue an occupational safety and health standard that 
     requires covered employers within the health care and social 
     service industries to develop and implement a comprehensive 
     workplace violence prevention plan, and for other purposes. 
     The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All 
     points of order against

[[Page H9069]]

     consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be 
     confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute recommended by the Committee on Education and 
     Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     116-37, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and 
     in the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, 
     as amended, are waived. No further amendment to the bill, as 
     amended, shall be in order except those printed in part B of 
     the report of the Committee on Rules. Each such further 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such further 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. 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 one motion to recommit with or 
     without instructions.
       Sec. 2.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     November 22, 2019, through December 2, 2019--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 3.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 2 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 4.  Each day during the period addressed by section 2 
     of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of November 21, 2019, for the Speaker to 
     entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though 
     under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. 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 California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and 
reported a structured rule, House Resolution 713, providing for 
consideration of H.R. 1309, the Workplace Violence Prevention for 
Health Care and Social Service Workers Act. The rule provides 1 hour of 
debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor, makes in order all 10 
amendments submitted, and provides for a motion to recommit. It also 
provides standard recess instructions for next week's district work 
period.
  Madam Speaker, there is an epidemic of violence against healthcare 
and social workers in the United States. Last year, Department of Labor 
statistics showed they were nearly five times as likely to suffer a 
serious workplace violence injury than workers in other industries.
  The Government Accountability Office found that rates of violence 
against healthcare workers in hospitals, nursing homes, and residential 
care facilities are 5 to 12 times higher than the estimated rates for 
workers overall. Between 2011 and 2016, 58 hospital workers died as a 
result of workplace violence.
  For me, this matter strikes close to home. In 2010, a Napa State 
Hospital technician in California, Donna Kay Gross, a constituent, was 
killed outside the State hospital by a patient under psychiatric care. 
Donna entered the profession to honor her mother, who battled mental 
illness and was a patient at that very hospital. She was the mother of 
three grown children and was raising her granddaughter. Her colleagues 
described her by saying: First and foremost, Donna was a human service-
type person and loved being with people and working with people.
  Donna's life was cut short when a patient brutally murdered her to 
steal jewelry and cash from her.
  This story is just one of thousands of incidents that are on the 
rise. Sadly, violence has become so commonplace for healthcare workers 
that they think it is part of their job, resulting in only 30 percent 
of violent incidents being reported.
  Some States have stepped up to enact laws to require employers to 
establish a plan to protect against workplace violence. Donna's story, 
for example, inspired action in California that I was proud to be a 
part of when I was chair of the senate labor committee. That action in 
California served as the basis for the bill before us today in the rule 
and tomorrow on the floor.
  These workers deserve national action, and they deserve it now. At 
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, these workers are 
not receiving the urgent attention they need. OSHA takes at least 7 
years to put out a standard, but in some instances can take up to 20 
years.
  People like Donna Kay Gross cannot wait that long. To protect the 
people who dedicate their lives to caring for us, we need to move now. 
The longer we wait, the more people will suffer.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding the 
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, today, we are considering a bill that requires the 
Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on workplace violence prevention in 
the healthcare and social service sectors.
  According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 
workplace violence is any act or threat of physical violence, 
harassment, intimidation, or other threatening disruptive behavior that 
occurs at the worksite. It may be surprising to hear that acts of 
violence are the third leading cause of fatal occupational injuries. Of 
these incidences, approximately 8 percent were intentionally caused by 
another person.
  When Americans go to work each and every day, they do not expect to 
face violence or other harm. The risk is especially high for healthcare 
providers and social workers. These caregivers can be subject to 
patients who may not be in control when under the influence of 
medications, or they may have a mental disorder, upset family members, 
ongoing domestic disputes, and even gang violence.

  The rate of workplace violence resulting in days away from work for 
healthcare providers is, on average, four times higher than other 
professions. In addition, healthcare providers and social workers are 
less likely to report incidents. This may partly be due to the pledge 
to do no harm and the inclination to forgive patient-caused injuries as 
accidental. Regardless of the situation, all workers deserve a safe 
workplace.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is responsible for 
setting the standards to ensure the safety of American workers. Under 
the general duty clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970, employers must provide employees with a safe work environment. 
Currently, there is no mandatory standard on workplace violence 
prevention. However, in calendar year 2015, OSHA published ``Guidelines 
for Preventing Workplace Violence for Healthcare and Social Service 
Workers'' and is currently working on a workplace violence prevention 
rule.
  H.R. 1309 would require the Secretary of Labor to issue a rule on 
workplace

[[Page H9070]]

violence prevention based on OSHA's 2015 guidelines. An interim 
standard is required within 1 year of the passage of this legislation, 
and a final rule must be issued within 2 years.
  While the goal of this legislation is laudable and important, the 
timeframe imposed on the Department of Labor and OSHA does exceed the 
norm. Between 1981 and 2010, the time it took OSHA to develop and issue 
safety and health standards ranged from 15 months to 19 years, but the 
average was more than 7 years. While no one believes we should continue 
to delay worker protections, OSHA has already begun the rulemaking 
process and is gathering stakeholder input.
  According to the OSHA rulemaking process, a rule should take 10 years 
to complete. There are 7 stages comprised of 48 different steps. For 
example, one step is listed as ``continue discussion with 
stakeholders.'' The penultimate stage requires OSHA to send the final 
rule to the Small Business Administration before submitting the rule to 
Congress.

                              {time}  1245

  This last stage involves developing a small entity compliance guide 
responding to legal action.
  This is bureaucracy at its finest. While it is important to ensure 
that any rulemaking does not adversely affect the people and industries 
it is meant to assist, the length of this process far exceeds other 
administrative rulemakings. Perhaps, rather than pass a bill to require 
the issuance of a single rule, we should be considering reforms to the 
entire OSHA rulemaking process. It seems like that may be overdue.
  Despite the lengthy process of OSHA rulemaking, as written, this bill 
truncates established rulemaking procedures. But that is up to us. 
Until Congress changes this process, OSHA will follow the established 
framework to develop its workplace violence protection rule.
  H.R. 1309 requires covered employees, including hospitals, outpatient 
facilities, residential treatment facilities--which includes nursing 
homes--and any other medical treatment or social service clinic at 
correctional facilities to develop and implement a written workplace 
violence plan within 6 months of the issuance of a rule. The plan must 
include identification of violence risks and prevention practices and 
incorporate reporting and emergency response procedures. In addition, 
the plan must delineate violent incident investigation procedures and 
training programs for employees.
  Again, the importance of such a plan is undeniable. Six months may be 
a short timeframe within which to determine all of the required 
components. In order to produce the most effective plan to ensure 
employee safety, employers really should be granted adequate time to 
fully evaluate their workplace, gather input from employees, and 
identify the best procedures to ensure a safe environment. It is 
possible that, given the short timeline, workplace violence prevention 
plans could be hasty and, therefore, incorrectly assembled.
  Here is the good news. There is middle ground. While OSHA's 
rulemaking process is lengthy, this bill's timeline is short. OSHA is 
currently gathering feedback from stakeholders and requiring an 
expedited rulemaking that will limit their input.
  While OSHA rulemaking would ensure enforcement of workplace violence 
prevention policies, according to a 2018 American Hospital Association 
survey, 97 percent of respondents reported already having a workplace 
violence prevention policy in place. In 2009, the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention stated that additional research was required to 
identify effective strategies to prevent violence, particularly in 
healthcare settings.
  In addition, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost 
to private entities will be well over $2.5 billion the first 2 years of 
implementation and almost $1.5 billion annually thereafter. The rule 
self-executes a manager's amendment that will bring this cost down to 
$1.3 billion for the first 2 years and $700 million annually 
thereafter.
  This mandate may make it difficult for rural hospitals and healthcare 
providers to continue effectively serving patients in their more rural 
locations.
  Extending the implementation timeline of this bill may help reduce 
some of these concerns. We had an opportunity to work on a bipartisan 
basis--this is not a partisan issue--to solve a problem that we all 
agree needs to be solved. We are, instead, considering a bill that 
circumvents the established rulemaking process in favor of a swift 
outcome.
  We can all agree that there is a need for OSHA to issue proper 
workplace violence prevention regulations to protect healthcare 
providers and social workers. I hope we are able to accomplish this 
goal, but we should recognize that we are placing burdens on entities 
through an expedited process that may require modification in the 
future to ensure a safe and effective workplace for all Americans.
  Madam Speaker, for these and other reasons, I urge opposition to the 
rule, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Courtney), who has put so much work into this 
effort.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule.
  I would just note for the Record that Mr. DeSaulnier and Chairman 
McGovern deserve great credit because this is basically an open rule. 
There were eight amendments which were offered to the Rules Committee, 
and all eight amendments were made in order, including a Republican 
amendment, which is somewhat in line with Dr. Burgess' comments from 
Mr. Byrne from Alabama, who is on the committee.
  Again, I would just say this shows that the Rules Committee was 
serious last January when they said we are going to have a new era of 
bringing down the number of closed rules as much as possible. This is a 
perfect example of it.
  In fact, Politico this morning wrote a story saying that this is 
actually the first bill to come to the floor that was a completely open 
rule that accepted every amendment that was offered by Members. I don't 
know if that is true, but certainly it is true that all amendments were 
made in order with the rule that is presented. I guess sometimes you 
sort of wonder: When do people take ``yes'' for an answer in this 
Chamber?
  Again, Mr. Byrne can have ample opportunity to make his arguments. I 
look forward to opposing it on the floor as I did in committee. And 
again, to me, it seems like a rule that all Members should really 
support.
  So again, just to begin with Mr. DeSaulnier's description of the 
problem--and, again, Dr. Burgess certainly did not quibble about the 
fact that this is a real problem that we are talking about. In 2013, 
former Congressman George Miller and I asked GAO to look at this 
problem. They took 3 years to study it. They used Bureau of Labor 
statistics, Justice Department statistics, they did surveys, and they 
found, in fact, that we have a really very scary problem in terms of 
the 15 million healthcare workers who go to work every single day: They 
are five times more likely to be the victims of intentional assault 
than any other sector in the U.S. economy.

  And what is most alarming is the trajectory is going up. This is not 
a problem which is sort of level normal operations. It is something 
that is actually getting worse.
  There is no secret why it is getting worse. The heroin-opioid 
epidemic and the behavioral health problems that exist out there in 
society make every ambulance call that EMTs are going out for an 
overdose, every emergency room patient who is coming through the door, 
every rehab patient who is going into a facility for treatment, all of 
these now are high-risk situations.
  And, yes, there are some hospitals that have taken proactive steps. 
They have used the OSHA voluntary guidelines; they have looked at the 
Joint Commission on Hospitals, which has endorsed those guidelines and 
has, again, written strong advocacy in favor of having a national 
standard for this problem out there for many workers. And that is why 
we need to act.
  Again, just so we are clear, OSHA, in 2017, as the Obama 
administration was leaving, put it on their regulatory agenda. They 
took too long.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H9071]]

  

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, I would be happy to stipulate they took 
too long.
  Since the Trump administration has taken over, in 34 months, they 
have not held one hearing in terms of stakeholder input. Yes, they 
scheduled two small business reg review hearings, canceled both, and 
they have not rescheduled. So, 34 months into this administration, 
there is nothing happening.
  This bill, fundamentally, is about Congress, as it did with 
bloodborne pathogens, which addressed a crisis in hospitals back in the 
1990s and early 2000s--which a Republican Congress, by the way, 
supported--put a deadline on OSHA to get a rule in place. We are a 
safer country because Congress took that action. That is what this bill 
does.
  It is 42 months, by the way, in terms of the deadline for the rule 
and it is 1 year for the interim rule.
  We accommodated Republican objections in the committee, made sure 
everybody gets a comment period on the interim rule, and we also carved 
out doctors offices, dentists offices, anybody who is not part of the 
healthcare facility. We shrunk the scope of this bill to healthcare 
facilities 200,000, which is going to reduce the mandate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  Mr. COURTNEY. Madam Speaker, the cost per facility, which Dr. Burgess 
referred to, which was reduced because of the reducing of the scope of 
the bill, is $9,000 per facility per year.
  So when we talk about the healthcare sector and how much money gets 
spent in it, how many patients come through the door--and these are not 
the small independent practice doctors offices. These are healthcare 
facilities. The fact of the matter is it is $9,000 a year for 2 years, 
then it goes down to $3,000 a year in terms of cost and expense.
  What is the benefit? Lower workers' comp cost, less absenteeism, and 
trying to improve the morale of the people who are doing the right 
thing in this country in terms of providing care for those who need to 
be healed, consoled, and cured.
  We need to pass this bill.
  Again, we made Mr. Byrne's amendment in order, but we need to reject 
that amendment which throws it back to OSHA, whose batting average is 
really a disgrace in terms of getting rules through the process.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, just so that we are technically accurate, the 
resolution in front of us today, point number one, it is a structured 
rule for H.R. 1309. This is not an open rule. I have served in the 
United States House of Representatives when we had open rules, and it 
is a different environment.
  Mr. Cole last night in the Rules Committee did make a motion for an 
open rule on this, saying: If you are going to accept all these 
amendments, maybe we should open the floor up to all Members. This is 
an important topic. Let's get their input.
  But the request for an open rule was voted down in the Rules 
Committee. It wasn't really a suspenseful vote. The Republican side 
lost 4-9, which is generally the way that works out in that committee.
  I am grateful that so many amendments were made in order. I think 
that is important. But I also feel obligated to point out that under no 
circumstances should this be regarded as an open rule. It is anything 
but.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Nevada (Mrs. Lee).
  Mrs. LEE of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, healthcare and social workers are some of the most 
dedicated, least appreciated workers in this country. They are the 
workers caring for the sick, the elderly, and the most vulnerable 
Americans, while usually making just barely enough to get by.
  A tough job is made even tougher by the fact that these workers who 
are treating workers in stress, often in private settings, are five 
times as likely to be the victims of workplace violence.
  What does it say about our country that we can't protect those 
workers who have dedicated their lives to protecting our most 
vulnerable citizens? It is unfair, and the bottom line is this: No 
person should feel unsafe in their place of work.
  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, or OSHA, has the 
authority to protect American caregivers and healthcare workers from 
workplace violence, but the reality is that there is no nationwide OSHA 
standard for how employers are supposed to protect their employees from 
workplace violence. Not just that, but in 24 States, nearly half the 
country, public-sector health and social service workers are not 
covered by OSHA protections.
  We have the responsibility and we have the authority to protect 
America's workers, but we have not given our government or our 
businesses the tools they need to protect hardworking Americans from 
workplace violence. The underlying bill of this rule will change that.
  The Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service 
Workers Act would require OSHA to implement a standard for workplace 
protections for healthcare and social workers. It provides protections 
for public-sector workers where none existed before, and it identifies 
risks, solutions, training, and, importantly, protections from 
retaliation for those workers who report violence in the workplace.
  Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to support this underlying bill and uphold our duty to keep every 
American safe.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, Republicans will 
amend the rule to immediately consider H.R. 1869, the Restoring 
Investment in Improvements Act. This bill, which has 271 bipartisan 
cosponsors, would fix a technical error in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to 
allow qualified improvement property to depreciate over 15 years and be 
eligible for immediate expenses.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of this 
amendment into the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Indiana (Mrs. Walorski) to further explain the bill.
  Mrs. WALORSKI. Madam Speaker, I rise to vote down the previous 
question.
  If we defeat the previous question, Republicans will amend the rule 
to include the restoration of the 15-year schedule for qualified 
improvement property, or QIP, as part of H.R. 1309, the Workplace 
Violence Prevention for Healthcare and Social Service Workers Act.
  Madam Speaker, there is strong bipartisan support to fix QIP, which 
affects restaurants, retailers, and other leaseholders in every 
congressional district in this country. There are 271 bipartisan 
cosponsors split nearly evenly between Republicans and Democrats on 
H.R. 1869, which I helped introduce to resolve this issue.
  Fixing QIP is a commonsense solution that would unleash investment, 
create jobs, and help small businesses grow. However, it also requires 
urgency, and Congress must do everything in our power to address this 
issue as soon as possible.
  I hope that we defeat the previous question to ensure that 
restaurants, retailers, and other small businesses are able to unlock 
the full benefits of tax reform and continue driving our Nation's 
economic growth forward.
  Failing that, I sincerely hope that all sides can come together 
before the end of the year to enact this bipartisan, commonsense piece 
of legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote against the previous 
question.

[[Page H9072]]

  

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just a couple of points to my friend from Texas. He is correct on the 
open process. However, we did allow for all 10 amendments that were 
submitted to be accepted, and the final vote was 2-9, understanding 
that that was a foregone conclusion to many of us.
  I would just say that this is such an important issue in the urgency, 
and I would like to join with my colleague to fix the standard and the 
practice, and to add funding so that the Department can do it.
  There is an urgency for problems like this to be solved. We can save 
money in the long run. When I was in local government, I was on the 
governing board of our county hospital. Two of our five floors were 
psych wards. We spent hours and hours in closed sessions dealing with 
liability issues on those wards.
  So when I read this bill, I think that so much of what is in this 
bill, many of us have already done, at least from California at the 
local level and at the State level, and it is good business practice.
  As somebody who is a former small business owner that had high 
workers' compensation in the restaurant business, cost avoidance is a 
good thing. My workers' compensation carrier came out at least once a 
year to inspect our facilities and see where we could avoid these 
incidents. So it is just a good business practice.
  When I look at this, it makes so much sense. There is a cost to start 
this, but there is, clearly, in my mind, a fiscal savings and an 
emotional savings when you think of the lives lost. This is not new, 
but the demand in the changing trend lines say to me that this is 
urgent.
  So I would like to agree with my friend from Texas and I would be 
happy to work with him, but with incidents like this, this Department 
really needs to be ramped up. It is a national embarrassment that it 
takes 20 years, or 7 years for the Department to do these rules, 
understanding that you have to work with stakeholders.
  So I think there is an element of opportunity here for us. I do think 
that it is unfortunate, as we talked about in the Rules Committee last 
night, and Mr. Byrne talked about, that we couldn't get across the 
finish line and come together completely as a bipartisan bill.
  Having said that, as my friend from Texas alluded to, this is a 
bipartisan bill. We do have supporters, including Mr. Cole.
  Madam Speaker, I have no other speakers, and I understand that the 
gentleman has no additional speakers, so I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for his 
comments, and I would agree that the efficient functioning of any 
Federal agency should always be our highest priority. The efficient use 
of the taxpayer funding that goes into those agencies or branches of 
agencies should require our constant attention. We should always be 
looking to improve the service and the protection that those agencies 
provide.
  I will also predict that this bill is likely to pass with a large 
margin and it will be bipartisan and will raise the question of why we 
are not considering it under a suspension of the rules. Nevertheless, 
that is what the majority has chosen to use their time doing this week, 
so we have the bill in front of us today.
  Workplace violence is a threat that no American should have to face. 
The threat is particularly high for healthcare providers and for social 
service workers. These workers dedicate their lives to taking care of 
others, and they deserve to be taken care of in return.
  I support the goal of this legislation. I believe it would benefit 
from further discussion to ensure that the timeline for issuing a rule 
and developing a workplace violence prevention plan will produce the 
most effective and safe outcome for American workers.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and a 
``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Texas for his 
comments.
  Democratic and Republican administrations have sat idly by while 
healthcare and social service workers are being beaten, abused, and 
killed. The problem is not going away. It is getting worse.
  In the words of the ranking member of the Rules Committee, the 
distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma, he will be voting for the bill 
because it is better than what we have got. I certainly agree.
  This bill does far better for our frontline workers who we ask to 
care for us every day. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the 
previous question.
  The text of the material previously referred to by Mr. Burgess is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 713

        At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 6. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to consideration in the House of the bill 
     (H.R. 1869) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to 
     restore incentives for investments in qualified improvement 
     property. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without 
     intervening motion except:
       (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and the ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Ways and Means; and
       (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1869.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________