[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)
____________________