[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 117 (Thursday, June 25, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H2430-H2439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              H. Res. 1017

       Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 51) to 
     provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. 
     into the Union; providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1425) to amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 
     to provide for a Improve Health Insurance Affordability Fund 
     to provide for certain reinsurance payments to lower premiums 
     in the individual health insurance market; providing for 
     consideration of the bill (H.R. 5332) to amend the Fair 
     Credit Reporting Act to ensure that consumer reporting 
     agencies are providing fair and accurate information 
     reporting in consumer reports, and for other purposes; 
     providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 7120) to hold 
     law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve 
     transparency through data collection, and reform police 
     training and policies; providing for consideration of the 
     bill (H.R. 7301) to prevent evictions, foreclosures, and 
     unsafe housing conditions resulting from the COVID-19 
     pandemic, and for other purposes; providing for consideration 
     of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 90) providing for 
     congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 
     States Code, of the rule submitted by the Office of the 
     Comptroller of the Currency relating to ``Community 
     Reinvestment Act Regulations''; and for other purposes.
       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 51) to 
     provide for the admission of the State of Washington, D.C. 
     into the Union. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     116-55, modified by the amendment printed in part A of 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) one hour 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.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1425) to amend 
     the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to provide for 
     a Improve Health Insurance Affordability Fund to provide for 
     certain reinsurance payments to lower premiums in the 
     individual health insurance market. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 116-56, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part B of 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) three hours of debate equally 
     divided among and controlled by the respective chairs and 
     ranking minority members of the Committees on Education and 
     Labor, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means; and (2) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

[[Page H2431]]

       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5332) to amend 
     the Fair Credit Reporting Act to ensure that consumer 
     reporting agencies are providing fair and accurate 
     information reporting in consumer reports, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     bill are waived. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part C of 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) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Financial 
     Services; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7120) to hold 
     law enforcement accountable for misconduct in court, improve 
     transparency through data collection, and reform police 
     training and policies. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the 
     Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified by the amendment 
     printed in part D of 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) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 7301) to 
     prevent evictions, foreclosures, and unsafe housing 
     conditions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, and for 
     other purposes. 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 ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Financial Services; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 90) providing for congressional disapproval under 
     chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule 
     submitted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency 
     relating to ``Community Reinvestment Act Regulations''. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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 ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 7.  The provisions of section 125(c) of the Uruguay 
     Round Agreements Act shall not apply during the remainder of 
     the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress.
       Sec. 8.  House Resolution 967, agreed to May 15, 2020, is 
     amended--
       (1) in section 4, by striking ``July 21, 2020'' and 
     inserting ``July 31, 2020'';
       (2) in section 11, by striking ``calendar day of July 19, 
     2020'' and inserting ``legislative day of July 31, 2020''; 
     and
       (3) in section 12, by striking ``July 21, 2020'' and 
     inserting ``July 31, 2020''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), 
my friend, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, none of us know what the future holds, but my friend 
from Georgia has indicated that he is not going to return after this 
session. He and I serve actively on the Rules Committee and have gotten 
to know each other and share moments of frivolity, as well as serious 
debate. I am going to miss him. I don't know whether he and I will be 
in debate on another rule because we have a rotational system up there, 
but just in case, I wish him well in his endeavors in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, during consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, the Rules Committee met for 
7\1/2\ hours and reported a rule, House Resolution 1017, providing for 
consideration of six measures, each under a closed rule.
  For H.R. 51, the rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Oversight and Reform and self-executes a manager's amendment.
  For H.R. 1425, the rule provides 3 hours of debate equally divided 
among and controlled by the chairs and ranking minority members of the 
Committee on Education and Labor, Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 
Committee on Ways and Means, and self-executes a manager's amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, for H.R. 5332, the rule provides 1 hour of debate 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Financial Services, and self-executes a manager's 
amendment.
  For H.R. 7120, the rule provides 4 hours of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary and self-executes a manager's amendment.
  For H.R. 7301, the rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Financial Services.
  For H.J. Res. 90, the rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided 
and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Financial Services. The rule provides one motion to 
recommit for each measure.
  Lastly, the rule provides that the provisions of section 125(c) of 
the Uruguay Round Agreements Act shall not apply for the remainder of 
the Congress, and extends recess instructions, suspension authority, 
and same-day authority all through the legislative day of July 31, 
2020.
  Mr. Speaker, we come together today still struggling in the long 
shadow of a pandemic that has taken the lives of over 121,000 
Americans. With no end in sight, and--even in my judgment--less 
leadership from the White House than the last time we were together, we 
again see cases of COVID-19 spiking across the country and in my 
beloved State of Florida. If ever there was a time when an occupant of 
the White House has so abjectly failed to meet the moment to lead us to 
a safer, healthier, and better future, this is it.
  We must never forget one simple truth: It never had to be this way. 
Countless Americans never had to lose a father, a mother, brothers, 
sisters, grandparents, or dear friends--or even young ones.
  In the long shadow cast by the ongoing devastation wrought by a 
pandemic that has so overwhelmingly affected communities of color, we 
are witnessing again and again, day in and day out, the images of Black 
people being brutalized by officers who have taken an oath to serve and 
protect. Let me make it very clear: I have friends that are police 
officers. All police officers are not brutal. All police officers do 
not conduct themselves the way that we have seen some conduct 
themselves.
  My friends, the question is a fair one:
  How much of this do you expect us to take?
  How much of this would you take?
  How much would you allow your children and grandchildren to take?
  Reflect on that, please.
  Now, I imagine many of my friends on the other side of the aisle--I 
heard some of it yesterday--are going to say that the George Floyd 
Justice in Policing bill ``doesn't do this'' and ``it could do that.'' 
Simply because this bill may not be the reflection of the perfect 
vision of all Members of this body, does not mean it is therefore 
unworthy of the support of Members of this body. Currently, in this 
place, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is worthy of every 
Member's support.
  Mr. Speaker, there is another issue at the heart of achieving racial 
justice in this country. At the heart of ensuring that all American 
citizens know the liberty the Founders wrote of, and that is the cause 
of D.C. statehood.

[[Page H2432]]

  The District is overwhelmingly one of people of color, and the 
residents have, for years, vociferously, with over 80 percent voting in 
the affirmative, called for D.C. statehood.
  Over 700,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C. They pay Federal 
taxes, but do not have a say in this Chamber or the upper Chamber on 
how those dollars are spent. Residents of the District register for, 
and are subject to, the draft but have no voice in this Chamber as to 
whether we should declare war.
  Indeed, the District has sent 200,000 brave men and women to fight 
for the ideals and benefits of a democracy they are denied here at 
home--2,000 of those gave the ultimate sacrifice, and we will never 
forget them.

                              {time}  1030

  It really is a tribute to Eleanor Holmes Norton that she has 
continued this fight on behalf of her constituents.
  The Supreme Court and the Federal bench in general render judgment 
after judgment that limit or expand the rights of D.C. residents, yet 
they are denied the right to elect the Senators who will confirm all 
these judges. Others will make the argument more fully today. They will 
note the constitutional, legal, and moral evidence that clearly and 
convincingly makes the case for statehood.
  But I would be remiss to let go unsaid the following, having gone to 
school in the District of Columbia at Howard University, from being the 
birthplace of Duke Ellington, the hotspot of jazz innovation for 
decades, Chuck Brown and go-go music, to the District's role in the 
civil rights movement, going way back with some to Cecilia's and Faces, 
to Ben's Chili Bowl and the Florida Avenue Grill, let us mute D.C. no 
more. Let us be about the business of expanding liberty today and pass 
H.R. 51.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
I want to thank the gentleman from Florida, not just for yielding the 
time, but for his friendship over these 10 years that I have had the 
honor of serving here.
  Mr. Speaker, he may not remember because he is just the kind of man 
that he is, but when I was assigned to the Rules Committee back in 
2011, there were four Democrats on the Rules Committee and four 
freshman Republicans on Rules Committee. And Mr. Hastings came over to 
the four of us who were sitting on the Republican side of the aisle, 
introduced himself, and offered his advice and his counsel. He told us 
we were in for quite a treat, being on the Rules Committee, and he, of 
course, was absolutely right about that.
  I have made a lot of bad decisions in Congress, and I have made a lot 
of good decisions in Congress. Accepting Mr. Hastings' hand of 
friendship early on in this tenure and having been the beneficiary of 
his mentorship over these 10 years in Congress has been one of the best 
decisions that I have made. I am grateful to him for doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, we have six bills wrapped up in this rule today. I have 
the 30 minutes that the gentleman from Florida yielded me. That gives 
me 5 minutes to talk about racial justice, 5 minutes to talk about 
adding a new State to the Union, 5 minutes to talk about reassigning a 
half a trillion dollars in healthcare spending from one pot to another, 
and on and on.
  We are not going to be able to have that conversation today, and I 
understand that, because this is our first day back in the month of 
June. This is the first voting day the United States Congress has had 
in the month of June. So, we have a lot of things to do.
  By separating these bills up into different rules, the Members all 
know that means having to come back down here for another round of 
votes. So I don't fault the Rules Committee, as I sometimes might, for 
stuffing so many things into this provision.
  But I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I am surprised that we are back, in 
all the crises and concerns that the gentleman from Florida reflected 
on, for our first voting day in June. The bills we have before us are 
bills that, if they moved through committee at all, moved through with 
absolutely no Republican amendments accepted, and then the Rules 
Committee made absolutely no Republican amendments even available for 
consideration here on the floor.
  The crises the gentleman from Florida recognized are real. The 
solutions to those crises are generally found in partnership and 
consensus, and we find none of that in the underlying rule today.
  For that reason, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the rule. 
It is not a reflection on the merits of the underlying issues. The 
merits of the issues are real. But the opportunity to solve those 
issues comes with passing legislation, not just in the House, but also 
through the Senate, having the President's signature put on that, or 
overriding a veto here in the House.
  We don't have the process that allows us to build that consensus 
before us today. It is a shame because I know how hard all of my 
colleagues have been working remotely on legislation over these past 
weeks. I would have expected partnership and consensus bills to be the 
order of business today, instead of the take-it-or-leave-it bills we 
have before us.
  Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that there are six bills before us. That 
half-a-trillion-dollar healthcare bill I mentioned is actually a 
compilation of 24 separate bills that have all been rolled together 
into one.
  We are not going to put these bills on the President's desk. We are 
not going to have these bills considered in the Senate. We will most 
certainly pass these bills out of the House today. All of us who ran 
seeking solutions, as opposed to seeking statements, are going to be 
disappointed by this process.
  Mr. Speaker, my friend from Florida talked about things that were 
worthy of this institution. I recognize the efforts that have gone into 
crafting this legislation. From the Delegate from the District of 
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and the work she has done on D.C. 
statehood over the years, to the leadership of Karen Bass and the 
Congressional Black Caucus on putting together a criminal justice 
police reform bill, the effort that has gone into here is unquestioned. 
It has been done with all the best of intentions.
  It is the partnership that has been lacking, and it is my great 
hope--because I know what we do today is not going to be the end of any 
of these processes; it is only going to be the beginning. We cannot 
reach the President's desk and a signature and the law of the land that 
we all seek by ignoring one another. We can only do it by engaging one 
another.
  I do believe that this process is not worthy of the institution 
because, by definition, it leaves out hundreds of Members and millions 
of Americans who want to participate in this.
  I am encouraged, as we talked through this in the Rules Committee, 
certainly, as we talked about our differences, we learned a whole lot 
about things that we have in common, not just on criminal justice 
reform, not just on D.C. statehood, not just on healthcare, but across 
the board, places where we can come together and make a difference for 
those constituents that we serve.
  I tell my colleagues, please vote ``no'' on the rule today because we 
have a chance to go back and do these in partnership right now. But 
should these bills pass the House today, we will still have a 
partnership opportunity coming forward.
  I hope that folks will not harden their positions today, having gone 
through a partisan beginning. We all seek successful conclusions. Those 
will only be done together.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee 
and my friend.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule for the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. I stand with those across the 
country who have lifted their voices, shared their pain, and called on 
us to enact meaningful change.
  With the comprehensive reforms of this legislation, we seek to 
fundamentally shift our Nation's failed approach of policing, an 
approach that, for especially Black and Brown communities and other 
communities of color, assumes guilt and normalizes racial profiling.

[[Page H2433]]

  We cannot remain complicit in a system that systematically oppresses 
people of color. We must acknowledge our repeated failures and 
proactively reinvest in community-based training programs.
  There has been plenty of time for discussion. Today, we finally take 
a step forward.
  My district of Sacramento is all too familiar with this pain. We are 
still mourning the death of Stephon Clark. There are others we have 
mourned whose families still seek justice. Yet, the resounding response 
of our community is wonderful. People of all races, ages, and 
backgrounds have marched side-by-side with a united voice to tell the 
Nation that we can and must do better.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act is a step toward building 
trust between law enforcement and our communities.
  Through this legislation, we will ban the use of deadly techniques 
like the chokehold and no-knock warrants.
  We will end the Pentagon's program of giving local police departments 
military-grade weapons. The contrasting images of MRAP military 
vehicles overpowering civilian protestors have no place in America.
  We will create new thresholds of transparency, and we will require 
accountability. We will end qualified immunity that has prevented 
change in police departments throughout this Nation, and we will 
streamline Federal law to prosecute excessive force.
  America continues to find ways to right our historical wrongs. 
Together, we must fight for a more equitable future. This legislation 
is a positive step toward a safer, more equal, and more just America.
  I look forward to supporting this bill and others provided by this 
rule.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess), who serves on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, let me just say, to start, I don't often 
agree with my colleague from Florida, Mr. Hastings, but I find myself 
in agreement with him on two points this morning. One was his eloquent 
praise for the gentleman from Georgia, and we will indeed miss his 
eloquence here on the floor. It is always hard to follow the gentleman 
from Georgia, which I frequently do in the Rules Committee, because he 
is able to speak so clearly on an issue.
  Another point I would agree with the gentleman from Florida on is 
that we did spend a long time in the Rules Committee yesterday. It was 
a marathon hearing, but it was important because so many of these 
things had had no hearing and no chance for debate in the so-called 
regular order.
  About 60 or 70 percent of the bill, H.R. 1425, the Patient Protection 
and Affordable Care Enhancement Act, which, as the gentleman from 
Georgia points out, allocates a significant sum of money to the 
Affordable Care Act in order to save the Affordable Care Act, something 
that is now over a decade old. It is a sign that the law has failed and 
failed to provide for Americans as it was originally described.
  The House of Representatives should be leading at a time of crisis. 
We shouldn't be making a halfhearted attempt to fix a broken law as a 
present for its 10th birthday, and we certainly shouldn't do that 
without the proper work from the authorization committee; in this case, 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Last fall, before we could have ever predicted the emergence of this 
novel coronavirus, we debated a proposal here on this House floor. It 
was called H.R. 3. It was a Speaker's proposal that would require the 
government to set drug prices. In the consequence, if American 
innovation was a casualty of that, then that was judged to be 
acceptable collateral damage toward their political goal. But it was a 
bad bill; it was the wrong time.
  Unfortunately, some of those very same policies have found their way 
and have been intruded into this bill. In fact, I very much regret that 
such policies would receive any consideration during this pandemic.
  Let's be very clear: American biomedical innovation in the form of 
new treatments and cures is going to lead us to victory over this novel 
coronavirus. We will beat this virus. We always do. We will emerge on 
the other side victorious. But one of the paths to that victory is 
American innovation, American biomedical innovation, American 
pharmaceutical innovation.
  A vote for this bill today is a vote against a cure for the novel 
coronavirus. A vote for this bill today is a vote against a vaccine to 
prevent this or future illnesses.
  If this body wants to make an impact on drug prices, there are ways 
to do that. We could sit down--in fact, our ranking member of the full 
committee, Mr. Walden, has a bill, H.R. 19, which has a number of 
bipartisan proposals, which means they have both a Republican and a 
Democratic cosponsor, and it does so in a way that doesn't harm 
innovation.
  So what does this bill do to States? Well, it really hurts States 
when they are already down. State Medicaid budgets are really, really 
out of control right now. In fact, we should be helping, not hurting, 
the States.
  The Foundation for Government Accountability published a report in 
June of this year titled ``States are about to be hit by a Medicaid 
tidal wave,'' saying that this coronavirus is putting extra budget 
pressure on States at the same time their general revenues, because of 
demand destruction by the virus, are expected--State tax collections 
are expected to decrease by 20 percent.
  The bill before us today would reduce State's administrative FMAP if 
they do not expand Medicaid. Punishing States in this way would further 
hurt State budgets that are already being pushed to the limits.

                              {time}  1045

  So many of us remember the Supreme Court case in 2012, the case 
titled National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. The 
Court ruled that threatening States' Medicaid funding for not expanding 
that program is, in fact, unconstitutional.
  Sections 204 and 205 of this bill would violate the same principles 
and coerce States, rather than incentivize States, into expanding 
Medicaid. This bill will actively damage State Medicaid programs like 
those in Texas.
  H.R. 1425 also wastes taxpayer dollars on Affordable Care Act 
outreach and enrollment and navigators that have already been proven to 
not have a high return on investment.
  It is one thing if they want to improve policies, but let's not go 
back to bringing policies back from the dead that, in fact, are not 
working.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Lastly, this bill fails to protect life. The bill 
establishes a Federal reinsurance fund, and this reinsurance fund is 
for individuals in ACA exchange plans. The fund is fiscally 
irresponsible. It is $10 billion a year forever, so we don't even know 
what the final CBO score is. But it also does not include longstanding 
Hyde protections and, therefore, fails to ensure that Federal dollars 
would never be used to pay for abortions.
  The Energy and Commerce Committee has worked in a bipartisan way this 
Congress on numerous policies that would make a real difference in 
American healthcare. It is disappointing that the Democratic leadership 
is pushing this partisan proposal ahead of providing Americans with 
real support.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his kindness.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Pocan).
  Mr. POCAN. Mr. Speaker, look, I can't tell you specifically what it 
must be like to have the police called on you at your home or a 
friend's house or a business simply because of the color of your skin.
  I can't tell you personally what it must feel like to know that just 
because of your race, you are significantly more likely to get killed 
by police simply by encountering them.
  But all of these mere facts should bring rage to all of us. We must 
rethink public safety in America.
  Police shouldn't respond with violence just because they can. And 
unfortunately, impunity has empowered a militarized police force.

[[Page H2434]]

  The ugly reality is, we have a criminal justice and policing system 
that disproportionally targets and kills Black people. And when a 
system isn't performing for the people it is supposed to serve, it is 
time to fix it. In fact, it is way overdue for that change.
  Today, we can do more than just give lip service to the words ``Black 
Lives Matter.'' We can give those words meaning. We do that by passing 
the Justice in Policing Act today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arizona (Mrs. Lesko), a Rules Committee member and a distinguished 
leader on the Judiciary Committee.
  Mrs. LESKO. Mr. Speaker, all of us--all of us--believe what happened 
to George Floyd was horrible, and justice must be served.
  Bad cops that do bad things must be held accountable. I have listened 
to Blacks who have been discriminated against, and I believe 
discrimination is real.
  Congressman Hastings yesterday, in the Rules Committee, shared with 
us things that had happened to him, things that happened to people he 
knew, and it was horrible. We can't let those types of things continue 
in our society.
  But I also know that the vast majority of law enforcement officers 
are good people, good people doing good things, helping people in the 
community, and protecting our communities.
  That is why I think it is really important that we address the 
problems we are having in our Nation in a bipartisan fashion, because 
this is so important. America needs to heal.
  Unfortunately, the bill before us today, part of the rule and the 
policing bill, was not negotiated with Republicans. So there are 
portions of the bill that I support, that other Republicans support, 
and that I believe President Trump would support and sign into law. But 
there are other portions of the bill that I cannot vote for, nor can 
other Republicans.
  The reason is because I have spoken to a wide variety of law 
enforcement officers and police chiefs. They have all said that there 
are portions of this bill that would undermine their ability to do 
their job in protecting our communities.
  I would like to read a portion of a letter that we received from the 
National Association of Police Organizations that oppose the underlying 
bill, H.R. 7120, in this rule. It says:

       Our most significant concerns include amending section 242 
     of title 18, United States Code, to lower the standard for 
     mens rea, and the practical elimination of qualified immunity 
     for law enforcement officers. Combined, these two provisions 
     take away any legal protections for officers while making it 
     easier to prosecute them for mistakes on the job, not just 
     criminal acts. With the change to qualified immunity, an 
     officer can go to prison for an unintentional act that 
     unknowingly broke an unknown law. We believe in holding 
     officers accountable for their actions, but the consequence 
     of this would be making criminals out of decent cops 
     enforcing the laws in good faith.

  This organization represents 241,000 sworn law enforcement officers.
  The other law enforcement officers I have spoken to, and chiefs, said 
they have problems with other portions of the bill. Specifically, the 
banning, outright banning, on chokeholds and carotid holds.

  In Arizona, it is used as a last resort, a lethal force, and that is 
what is in the Senate bill. But in this bill, it outright bans it. The 
police officers have said: Don't take that option off the table because 
if you take that option off the table, we will be forced to shoot 
someone, which I believe is the opposite of what we want to do.
  Also, eliminating no-knock warrants, the officers want you to know 
that no-knock warrants have to go through a court, that they have to go 
through a judge, and that, often, they are used when going after drug 
cartels that are heavily armed and you need the element of surprise. So 
banning them would possibly hurt law enforcement officers, and the 
drugs would be taken away.
  They also were concerned about the outright banning in this bill of 
law enforcement agencies getting surplus military equipment at little 
or no cost. They say they don't use this equipment to ride down the 
roads, you know, like showing military force. In Arizona, they often 
use this equipment when there are flash floods, and they need to rescue 
people or need to clear roads.
  So, it is disappointing that we can't have a bipartisan bill in front 
of us today. I hope we can. They didn't talk to Republicans on the 
bill, that I am aware of, and the Democrats in the Judiciary Committee 
voted down all of our amendments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Arizona (Mrs. Lesko).
  Mrs. LESKO. Particularly, I had an amendment that said if a city 
allows an autonomous zone, like what is happening in Seattle, they 
can't get law enforcement grants from the Federal Government. It seems 
common sense. They voted it down.
  I had another amendment that said if a city wants to defund, 
dismantle, disband police, they shouldn't get Federal law enforcement 
grants. That is just wrong.
  So I call on all Members, all Members on both sides, to speak out 
against the violence that is happening in our streets, the violence, 
the tearing down of statues, statues of Ulysses Grant, who was with the 
Union, statues of religious figures. This is wrong. Stop the 
dismantling, defunding calls for police. Stop the looting. It is not 
peaceful protest when that happens.
  Let's work on a bipartisan bill and get something real done.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chair of the Committee 
on Rules and my friend.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, there are many timely measures in this 
bill to: strengthen our healthcare system; help people stay in their 
homes; modernize our credit reporting system during this COVID-19 
pandemic; protect our civil right laws; and, finally, give full 
representation to Washington, D.C., so that no President can ever again 
send in Federal troops to crack down on peaceful, constitutional 
speech. Each one responds to the urgent needs of the American people 
during this unprecedented time.
  But there is one measure in particular here that I want to focus on 
that is a direct result of public pressure, the George Floyd Justice in 
Policing Act. Americans of all backgrounds have been taking to the 
streets in unprecedented numbers with a single refrain: Black Lives 
Matter.
  People are demanding an end to police brutality, not encouraging an 
end to it, not recommending an end to it, but, finally, demanding an 
end to it once and for all.
  That is what H.R. 7120 is all about, fixing the broken status quo 
that has allowed racial injustice and police brutality to continue year 
after year after year. It is about damn time.
  I would never presume to know what it is like to be Black in America 
today, but I have seen injustice in my own State. I have held grieving 
community members. I have marched with those calling for change. I have 
heard their pain.
  True allies do more than listen, Mr. Speaker. They take action.
  Now, no one at all is suggesting that all police officers are racist 
and break the law. But the sad reality is that if you are Black in 
America today, you are three times more likely to be killed by the 
police compared to a White person. Yet, it is the exception, not the 
norm, when officers who commit a crime are brought to justice.
  There are systemic problems here that require systematic solutions.
  Now, I am not naive, Mr. Speaker. This bill alone will not end racism 
in America. We have so many issues that must be addressed for that to 
happen. So many communities in Black America aren't getting the 
investments that they need today. But this bill is an important step 
forward, and I encourage all of my colleagues to listen to the voices 
of those demanding change right now.
  This is what we were sent here to do, Mr. Speaker, to act on behalf 
of the people we represent.
  While our Constitution begins with the words ``We the People,'' that 
didn't include all the people when those words were written. It 
included people who looked like me. But by expanding the reach of our 
democracy and looking toward a more just and fair country for everyone, 
we have gotten one step closer to achieving the promise of America for 
all people.

[[Page H2435]]

  That is what this bill is about. I urge all of my colleagues to 
support it.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will amend the rule to provide for consideration of H. Res. 1023, a 
resolution by Mr. Steube.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Jordan), the ranking member and one of the great advocates on our side 
of the aisle.

                              {time}  1100

  Mr. JORDAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  I, too, want to urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can 
address Mr. Steube's resolution and hopefully pass Mr. Steube's 
resolution, a resolution which is very basic, has four basic components 
to it:
  Justice for George Floyd's family. What happened in Minneapolis we 
all know was a tragedy and never should have happened, wrong as wrong 
could be, and George Floyd's family deserves justice, and our 
resolution calls for that.
  It also calls for justice for police officers and others who have 
suffered violence, police officers like Patrick Underwood, who, along 
with George Floyd's brother, Patrick Underwood's sister came and 
testified just 2 weeks ago in front of the Judiciary Committee, serving 
his community as a law enforcement officer, attacked and killed.
  The resolution that would happen if we vote ``no'' on the previous 
question also condemns all violence and the creation of autonomous 
zones. There is a big difference between peaceful protest, exercising 
our First Amendment liberties guaranteed to us under our great 
Constitution, the greatest constitution ever, there is a big difference 
between peaceful protest and rioting. There is a big difference between 
peaceful protest and violence. There is a big difference between 
peaceful protest and attacking police officers. And there is certainly 
a big difference between peaceful protest and forming CHAZ or CHOP or 
any type of autonomous zones separating from our great country. This 
resolution condemns that kind of practice, as well.
  And, finally, our resolution strongly opposes what I think is one of 
the craziest public policy proposals I have ever seen, this idea that 
we are going to defund the police. You know, it is funny because I hear 
some Democrats say defund the police doesn't mean defund the police. 
Well, change the sentence. It is three words. That is exactly what it 
means.
  Our biggest cities, the mayor of New York, de Blasio, has already 
said he is going to defund the police a billion dollars. He got rid of 
the plainclothes unit in their department.
  Garcetti, the mayor of our second largest city, said he is going to 
defund the police $150 million.
  Baltimore, Hartford, Minneapolis, they went a step further. 
Minneapolis, the supermajority of their city council--it is interesting 
to point out, 13 people on the city council, guess how many of them are 
Republicans? Twelve Democrats--well, excuse me, 12 on the city council, 
I think. No, 13, that is right. Twelve Democrats, and one Green Party. 
They have already decided they are going to abolish the police 
department.
  This is crazy. Let's vote ``no'' on this previous question. Let's 
bring up a resolution that I think is consistent, where American values 
are consistent with the problems we face, consistent with the serious 
situation we are in. Let's vote ``no'' on the previous question.
  I will finish with this, Madam Speaker.
  We had a witness the last couple weeks in two different hearings, a 
Judiciary hearing and then an Oversight hearing. Dan Bongino, former 
NYPD, Secret Service, protected Presidents Clinton, Bush, Obama, worked 
in the NYPD, worked in the neighborhood in Brooklyn, he talked about if 
you do this, if we allow this concept, this defund the police concept 
to happen, to take root and to actually take place, it will not only be 
tough for police officers--we all know that--but the communities they 
serve. What will happen there is frightening.
  So I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question. Let's take up the 
Steube resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I take notice that the Speaker pro 
tempore has changed, and I am very pleased that one of the leaders of 
the legislation that we are taking up today is now serving as Speaker 
pro tempore.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton), whom I have known all of my career and 
consider a friend and mentor.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
didn't know until he indicated he had gone to Howard University here; 
that is just another plus mark because he has already got a lot of 
pluses as far as I am concerned.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us for the D.C. statehood bill is no 
ordinary rule. It is the prelude to the passage of a historic bill, and 
I use those words advisedly. For the 219 years since the District of 
Columbia first became the capital of these United States, countless 
bills that have deeply affected D.C. residents have been enacted not 
only without their consent, but without their participation.
  Indeed, for the greater part of the existence of the Nation's 
capital, there was neither representation in either the House or the 
Senate nor even the right of District residents to govern themselves 
locally. Local home rule.
  In other words, the residents of our Nation's capital were excluded 
entirely from American democracy for most of its existence as the 
capital. Nevertheless, D.C. residents have always paid the same Federal 
taxes as other Americans, today ranked number one in Federal taxes 
paid, and have fought in all of the Nation's wars, including the war 
that created the United States of America.
  Throughout its existence, the country has flattered itself by 
saluting itself as a democracy. With the passage of this rule and then 
the D.C. statehood bill, that flattery at least will be deserved.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Bass). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I speak of the flattery we give ourselves 
of democracy here and around the world. With the passage of this rule 
and of the D.C. statehood bill, that flattery at least and at last will 
be deserved.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would say to my friend from Florida, I 
don't believe we have any further speakers coming to the floor, so I 
will reserve the balance of my time and wait to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, would you be good enough to tell both 
sides how much time we have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 11\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 8\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Torres), my good friend and 
distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
  Mrs. TORRES of California. Madam Speaker, with one word--one word--
George Floyd spoke to the conscience of this Nation in a way that 
countless cries for justice were met with deaf ears before.
  When George Floyd called out, ``Mama, Mama,'' he activated every 
mother who saw that horrible video. We saw our own child with a police 
officer's knee on their neck. We saw our own child being murdered 
slowly, painfully.
  As someone who spent 17\1/2\ years as a 911 dispatcher for LAPD 
telling people, ``Don't worry. It will be okay. The police are on their 
way,'' as someone with that background, my disgust is palpable for any 
police officer who would harm the very same people they have sworn to 
protect.
  This was not an isolated incident. We don't have just a few bad 
apples. We know the names of Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery, Philando 
Castile, and Michael Brown because George Floyd was far from the first. 
And we know Rayshard Brooks' name because George Floyd is far from 
being last.
  So the Justice in Policing Act is long overdue and urgently needed. 
It reforms qualified immunity so everyone who faces discriminatory 
policing or

[[Page H2436]]

excessive force has an avenue for recourse. It creates a national 
police misconduct registry to track officer misconduct. It improves 
training and practices to make sure that officers are properly prepared 
for the situations that we ask them to address, and much more.
  I commend my colleagues for delivering this bill, and I thank 
Chairman Nadler for working with me to strengthen the misconduct 
registry included in it.
  We have a long way to go as a country to heal the wounds that cut 
back for generations. The Justice in Policing Act is an important first 
step. I look forward to seeing it passed today and to the many steps 
that will follow in the march for justice.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I am proud to stand with Members of the 
House and Senate leadership and members of the Congressional Black 
Caucus to introduce the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of the legislation.
  This legislation is a timely, critical, bold, and transformative 
start to addressing the issues millions of Americans have been 
protesting about. I believe we also need to reorganize funding 
activities for law enforcement in a way that works to bring police and 
communities closer together, not further apart.
  We must also change our laws to enable swift action to prosecute 
misconduct by police officers, improve training and transparency, and 
create a national use of force standard for police who are charged to 
protect and serve our communities, all of which are included in the 
George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. We owe it to those who have died 
and those who have honored them.
  So let us vote ``yes,'' and let us vote to continue working on these 
critical issues.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, yesterday, before we began our 
proceedings in the Rules Committee, I asked one of my good friends if 
he would speak on this rule. It is for the reason that I consider him 
one of the preeminent constitutional scholars in this institution that 
I made that request.
  I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin), a 
distinguished member of the Rules Committee and my good friend.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In ``Leaves of Grass,'' Walt Whitman wrote that ``the United States 
themselves are essentially the greatest poem.'' So each of our States 
is like a stanza, a line in the remarkable and always unfinished 
American poem, a lyrical whole far greater than the sum of its parts.
  Four years ago, the more than 700,000 of our countrymen and women 
living in Washington, D.C. exercised their rights and their powers 
under the Ninth Amendment and the Tenth Amendment to vote to form a new 
State and to petition us for admission to the Union. That vote carried 
by a 6-1 margin.

  Washingtonians ask us today to pierce the sound barrier of propaganda 
in 2020 to hear once again, and to recall in our hearts, the poetry 
that is America.
  We began as 13 States, but Congress has exercised our powers under 
Article IV, Section 3, 37 different times, to admit 37 new States, all 
of them by simple legislative acts, none of them by constitutional 
amendment. Each one was controversial in its own way:
  They said Texas couldn't be admitted because it was a separate 
republic; West Virginia used to be part of Virginia; Utah was too 
Mormon; New Mexico was too Catholic; and, of course, everyone knew it 
was unconstitutional to admit Hawaii and Alaska in 1959 because they 
weren't contiguous.
  Washingtonians do not ask us to convert the Federal district into a 
State. They ask us, rather, to redraw the boundaries of the Federal 
district, to shrink it to the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme 
Court, and The Mall, to effectuate an exodus of the people from direct 
Federal control, from the condition of being ruled in ``all cases 
whatsoever'' by other people's elected representatives without equal 
rights of self-government and representative participation.
  If you have ever met any Washingtonians, you will know they are sick 
and tired of being governed by other people's representatives. And who 
wouldn't be?
  That is how you get cheated out of $750 million in the CARES Act.
  That is how your State militia gets turned against you with pepper 
spray and tear gas and rubber bullets.
  That is how the choices you make locally about reproductive freedom, 
adoption, and public safety get trampled and rewritten by politicians 
from other places who know nothing of the community whose decisions 
they insist on controlling. This is called virtual representation, and 
we fought a revolution to destroy that principle.

                              {time}  1115

  Those who are taxed, those who are governed, must be represented 
directly in government by their own voting representatives.
  Washington asks us to do something that is not only perfectly 
constitutional, but time-honored. Congress has drawn and redrawn the 
boundaries of the Federal District several times before. The passage of 
the Organic Act in 1801 did not freeze the boundaries of the Federal 
District, which by its own terms may be ``no more than 10 miles 
square'' but has no minimum size set in the Constitution.
  That is why Congress was able to redraw the Federal District in 1847 
to shrink it and return Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County to 
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
  It is true this was done to placate the slave masters who foresaw the 
coming abolition of the slave traffic in the Federal city. That is what 
Abraham Lincoln argued for.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, when I asked the gentleman to speak, I 
didn't mean for him to take my time. I yield an additional 15 seconds 
to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Raskin) for closing purposes.
  Mr. RASKIN. Madam Speaker, if Congress can redraw the boundaries of 
the Federal District to protect the property rights of a few hundred 
slave masters in the 19th century, surely we can redraw the boundaries 
of the Federal District to protect the democratic rights of hundreds of 
thousands of Americans of all races and ethnicities living in the 
Capital City in the 21st century.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, while I don't always agree with what my 
friend from Maryland has to say, I do agree with my friend from Florida 
about his scholarly expertise. We don't talk about the Ninth and Tenth 
Amendments enough down here on the floor of the House. I suspect this 
will be the only time in the second quarter that we mention the Ninth 
and Tenth Amendments, and I am grateful to my friend for his words.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon), my friend and a distinguished member 
of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SCANLON. Madam Speaker, on this busy legislative day, I would 
like to focus my attention on both the George Floyd Justice in Policing 
Act and the Emergency Housing and Relief Act.
  The sickening police murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, 
Rayshard Brooks, Ahmaud Arbery, Elijah McClain, and so many other Black 
Americans have rightfully brought our country to a place of moral 
reckoning that is long overdue. We must confront the harsh truths about 
racism in our country.
  Black lives do matter and changing our systems will take each and 
every one of us. This bill is a start.
  The George Floyd Justice in Policing Act will end no-knock warrants, 
ban chokeholds, it will limit the transfer of military-grade machinery 
in local police forces, it will create a national registry to prevent 
the worst police officers from simply transferring to another police 
force when they have been found guilty of misconduct.
  The Justice in Policing Act is the reform that Americans are 
demanding to

[[Page H2437]]

enact real change. This bill must be the starting point for 
negotiations with the Senate, not empty gestures from Senate 
Republicans or the White House.
  We are a country in desperate need of leadership, both to make the 
change needed for a civil society and to navigate the economic and 
health challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle may choose to deny that 
we are in the middle of a pandemic, but we have seen in recent days 
that we are far from out of the woods.
  Our constituents are struggling, in no small part due to the White 
House's single-minded focus on the stock market rather than American 
families, but while the White House and congressional Republicans are 
denying science and peddling in conspiracy theories, House Democrats 
are working to help American families.
  The Emergency Housing and Relief Act will help those families by 
providing rental assistance, helping landlords, homeowners, and those 
experiencing homelessness by providing billions in grants to help cover 
rent and other fees, as well as expanding the moratorium on evictions 
and foreclosure.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, 
because it is vital to the health and well-being of American families.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am prepared to close if there are no 
further speakers remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I would advise the gentleman that I have 
no further speakers, and I too am prepared to close.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 8 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I told you at the beginning all of the things that 
this rule did not include. It did not include partnership at the 
committee level or any Republican input whatsoever. It did not include 
any partnership in the Rules Committee, or any Republican amendments 
made in order.
  We have got as many bills as I have ever seen jammed into a single 
rule, and, again, not done in any way that creates any consensus, that 
provides any opportunity for being able to move a bill to the Senate 
and on to the President's desk.
  That is disappointing, because as I have heard from colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, the American people want action on all of 
these issues, and we are not going to be able to provide that in this 
way. That is what is not in here.

  But, Madam Speaker, it is particularly important to me that we find 
you in the chair today, as my friend from Florida recognized. What this 
might be is one of those moments we look back on as when something got 
started.
  You don't ever know how things get started. You know how they finish, 
but it is sometimes hard to understand how they got started.
  I am absolutely certain that the bill we have before us today isn't 
going to the President's desk on police reform, I absolutely am, as are 
my Democratic colleagues.
  One of my friends on the Judiciary Committee, Sheila Jackson Lee, was 
quoted in the Hill today saying:

       Ultimately there will probably be a conference, but I don't 
     want to take any issue with Democrats saying, You know we 
     have the stronger bill.

  Of course, that is true. Folks have the opportunity to start the 
process where they want to start the process.
  The House majority whip, James Clyburn, went on to state further:

       A cleaner road to compromise would have been to have the 
     Senate negotiators smooth out the wrinkles between Senator 
     Scott's bill and the one championed by Democrats Corey Booker 
     and Kamala Harris. It could very well have been that they 
     could have come to some kind of a compromise that will fly in 
     the House. Why worry about going to conference between the 
     two bodies if you can work it out together.

  Well, of course that is true. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn) has been a successful legislator on this floor for decades. 
You work it out together, you find that consensus, you find that 
compromise.
  It is not lost on me that my Democratic friends in the House have 
come today to say, ``Please accept this police reform bill, even though 
you have gotten no Republican amendments whatsoever.''
  My friend from Florida asked us not to make the perfect the enemy of 
the good in that way. I understand those words.
  But my friend from South Carolina, Tim Scott, offered the very same 
proposal to Senate Democrats. In fact, he offered them 20 amendments to 
his bill, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate said, ``No, that 
is not good enough. We are going to walk away.''
  Well, 20 amendments aren't good enough. Certainly, no amendments 
aren't good enough. It frustrates me, because we all know we want to 
move forward.
  My friend from Florida recognized yesterday, Madam Speaker, that he 
is the oldest member of the Rules Committee. I won't name names here--
83--but he is the eldest member of the Rules Committee. I think I am 
the youngest member of the Rules Committee.
  I don't believe the gentleman from Florida has spent one second 
thinking about what this bill will mean to him in his life. I think he 
has spent all this time thinking about what the bill that you have 
championed is going to mean to that child born in a Washington area 
hospital today and what will it mean to him or her in their life.
  I was born 2 years after Martin Luther King was murdered. His work 
and his impact on the country I was the beneficiary of, but I was not 
around during that. I know that is where folks' hearts and minds are 
focused.
  While I am certain this bill is not starting the way I would have 
wanted it to start, I am hopeful that I am going to look back one day 
and say, Karen Bass and Alcee Hastings and I were on the floor of the 
House on that very first day that legislation was moving across the 
House floor that made this difference in the country that 330 million 
Americans want to see made.
  I don't have to like the way that it starts. I like even less that it 
hasn't started already.
  All the comments you will hear today from our side of the aisle are 
based not on an opposition to our goals, but a great hope that we will 
get to our goals faster.
  Madam Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question and defeat of 
the rule, for an opportunity for partnership, and I yield the balance 
of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time, 
and I thank my good friend from Georgia for yielding me time. I believe 
I will be able to wrap up in a shorter period of time if I stick to the 
script.
  Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle, some of them like to act 
as though they have no hesitancy in saying ``Black Lives Matter.''
  The problem is there is always a ``but'' after ``Matter,'' and the 
sentence typically ends with ``All Lives Matter.''
  I want to be clear about something: The only way ``All Lives Matter'' 
is if ``Black Lives Matter.''
  The last thing I will say about this is that we better doggone well 
agree that ``Matter'' is a bare minimum.
  Madam Speaker, it strikes me that this is the first time we can 
gather here and note the recent celebration of Juneteenth, a 
celebration and a time for reflection in these trying days, to be sure.
  Indeed, we ought to take stock of and celebrate all that we have 
accomplished since that June day in Galveston, Texas, when General 
Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3 informing all who listened to 
carry forth that all slaves were now emancipated.
  The abomination of slavery ended, my ancestors moved forward with the 
hope of a better future and, I am sure, the knowledge that new and dire 
challenges would be waiting for them and their progeny, and that has 
indeed been the case.
  Whether it has been the harsh consequences of a reconstruction 
abandoned too easily and too quickly, Jim Crow, the violent resistance 
of the civil rights movement, the war on drugs, or the relentless 
police brutality conducted by some police officers directed

[[Page H2438]]

at Black people, we have stood strong, we have stood together, and 
through prayer and perseverance, we have endeavored to ensure that 
access to the American Dream, that is rightly ours to attain, is ever 
growing for our children and grandchildren.
  As I have always done, I welcome all colors, creeds, and religions to 
this righteous march.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), all 
of the persons who have spoken, the distinguished staff on both sides 
for putting together this matter, and you, Madam Speaker, along with 
our colleagues in the various caucuses and, particularly, the 
Congressional Black Caucus, and the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives for moving this matter forward.
  Like my friend from Georgia, I don't see this today as the end, but 
it is a privilege for me to be on the floor with him and you, Madam 
Speaker. And I am sure down the road, it will reflect in this 
historical record that we were here to make a difference.
  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 1017

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 9 Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     resolution (H. Res. 1023) calling for justice for George 
     Floyd and others, and condemning violence and rioting. The 
     resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble 
     to adoption without intervening motion or demand for division 
     of the question except one hour of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not 
     apply to the consideration of House Resolution 1023.
  Mr. HASTINGS. 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 231, 
nays 176, not voting 23, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 116]

                               YEAS--231

     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
     Gabbard
     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)
     Lewis
     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
     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--176

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

                             NOT VOTING--23

     Arrington
     Babin
     Barr
     Bishop (UT)
     Carter (TX)
     Curtis
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Gallagher
     Holding
     Joyce (OH)
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Loudermilk
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Mullin
     Palazzo
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney (FL)
     Ryan
     Sensenbrenner
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1217

  Ms. SPEIER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall No. 116.


   MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS

     Axne (Raskin)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Engel (Nadler)
     Frankel (Kuster (NH))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lewis (Kildee)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Meng)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster (NH))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Roybal-Allard)
     Serrano (Meng)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Jackson Lee). The question is on the 
resolution.
  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 180, not voting 20, as follows:

[[Page H2439]]

  


                             [Roll No. 117]

                               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
     Gabbard
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Haaland
     Harder (CA)
     Hastings
     Hayes
     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)
     Lewis
     Lieu, Ted
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Matsui
     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--180

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

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Arrington
     Babin
     Barr
     Bishop (UT)
     Carter (TX)
     Curtis
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Gallagher
     Heck
     Joyce (OH)
     King (IA)
     LaHood
     Marchant
     Mullin
     Palazzo
     Rogers (AL)
     Rooney (FL)
     Sensenbrenner
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1311

  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)
     Cardenas (Gomez)
     DeSaulnier (Matsui)
     Deutch (Rice (NY))
     Engel (Nadler)
     Frankel (Kuster (NH))
     Garamendi (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Khanna (Gomez)
     Kind (Beyer)
     Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
     Langevin (Lynch)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lewis (Kildee)
     Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
     Lipinski (Cooper)
     Lofgren (Boyle, Brendan F.)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     Lowey (Meng)
     Moore (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
     Pingree (Kuster (NH))
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sanchez (Roybal-Allard)
     Serrano (Meng)
     Watson Coleman (Pallone)
     Welch (McGovern)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________