[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 159 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[House]
[Pages H4391-H4399]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2574, EQUITY AND INCLUSION
ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2639,
STRENGTH IN DIVERSITY ACT OF 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R.
2694, PREGNANT WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.
RES. 908, CONDEMNING ALL FORMS OF ANTI-ASIAN SENTIMENT AS RELATED TO
COVID-19; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 1107 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 1107
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2574) to
amend title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to restore the
right to individual civil actions in cases involving
disparate impact, 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
Education and Labor, 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 Education and
Labor; 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. 2639) to
establish the Strength in Diversity Program, and for other
purposes. 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 Education and
Labor now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of
a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print
116-62 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 Education and
Labor; (2) the further amendments described in section 3 of
this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in
section 4 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
Sec. 3. After debate pursuant to the second section of
this resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of
the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered
as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 4 of this
resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in
the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn
by the proponent at any time before the question is put
thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be
subject to a demand for division of the question.
Sec. 4. It shall be in order at any time after debate
pursuant to the second section of this resolution for the
chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee
to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of.
Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their
respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and
shall not be subject to a demand for division of the
question.
Sec. 5. All points of order against the further amendments
printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or
amendments en bloc described in section 4 of this resolution
are waived.
Sec. 6. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2694) to
eliminate discrimination
[[Page H4392]]
and promote women's health and economic security by ensuring
reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability
to perform the functions of a job are limited by pregnancy,
childbirth, or a related medical condition. All points of
order against consideration of the bill are waived. The
amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Education and Labor now printed in the bill
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 Education and Labor; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order without intervention of any point of order to consider
in the House the resolution (H. Res. 908) condemning all
forms of anti-Asian sentiment as related to COVID-19. 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.
Sec. 8. House Resolution 967, agreed to May 15, 2020 (as
most recently amended by House Resolution 1053, agreed to
July 20, 2020), is amended--
(1) in section 4, by striking ``September 21, 2020'' and
inserting ``November 20, 2020'';
(2) in section 11, by striking ``calendar day of September
20, 2020'' and inserting ``legislative day of November 20,
2020''; and
(3) in section 12, by striking ``September 21, 2020'' and
inserting ``November 20, 2020''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Levin of Michigan). The gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania is recognized for 1 hour.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall), my
distinguished colleague from the Rules Committee, pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Ms. SCANLON. 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
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 1107, providing for consideration of
H.R. 2574, the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, and H.R. 2694, the
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, under closed rules.
The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for each of the two bills,
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the
Committee on Education and Labor. The rule also self-executes a
manager's amendment to H.R. 2574.
Additionally, the rule provides for consideration of H.R. 2639, the
Strength in Diversity Act, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
member of the Committee on Education and Labor and makes in order 12
amendments. The rule provides that the chair of the Committee on
Education and Labor may offer amendments en bloc, debatable for 20
minutes.
The rule also provides for consideration of H. Res. 908, Condemning
All Forms of Anti-Asian Sentiment As Related to COVID-19, under a
closed rule.
Finally, the rule extends recess instructions, suspension and same-
day authority through November 20, 2020.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud to begin debate on four bills today that will
protect workers, encourage diversity and inclusion in the workforce,
and demonstrate Congress' support for our Asian-American communities in
the face of anti-Asian rhetoric by the administration and right with
respect to COVID-19.
COVID-19 has infected over 27 million people worldwide and claimed
the lives of over 900,000, including almost 200,000 of our fellow
Americans. This pandemic brought the world to a standstill economically
and socially. Virtually everything in our daily lives has been affected
in some form.
There was no coherent national strategy to deal with this deadly
pandemic when it started, and now, 6-plus months in, Americans are
still being left behind by an executive branch more focused on
downplaying the virus' severity than getting it under control and our
economy and way of life back on track.
In Congress, we find ourselves having to deal with a Senate majority
that has even less interest in controlling the virus and helping
American families than the President. The House has passed numerous
pieces of legislation that would directly help American workers, small
businesses, families, and children; but, in the midst of a pandemic,
Leader McConnell is more interested in packing the judiciary than he is
in passing legislation to help the American people. The HEROES Act has
sat on Leader McConnell's desk collecting dust for exactly 4 months to
the day.
In the absence of leadership by the White House and Senate, our
cities and States are desperate for resources to combat the pandemic.
The American people are calling out for relief, but Republicans are
willfully ignoring them. Instead, they are trying to divert attention
from their abject failure to take prompt or effective action earlier
this year when tens of thousands of lives could have been saved.
Instead, this administration is using the playbook of fear-mongering
autocrats through the ages by demonizing a marginalized group.
In recent months, we have seen a marked rise in anti-Asian sentiment
and rhetoric. Racist and xenophobic names for COVID-19 have been
spouted by elected officials, and these terms have had damaging, far-
reaching impact on Asians and Asian Americans.
As we have seen over the past 4 years, the endorsement of racist
language by national leaders has led to well-documented increases in
racist speech and hate crimes across the country. This harmful rhetoric
has resulted in physical attacks, verbal assaults, workplace
discrimination, and online harassment against our fellow citizens.
These are our friends and neighbors, essential workers, nurses, law
enforcement officers, and teachers.
The vitriol against our fellow Americans must be forcefully and
overwhelmingly condemned, Mr. Speaker.
In the midst of this pandemic, reaffirming American values is more
necessary than ever, whether it is condemning hate speech or making
sure that our government is working for all Americans and not just Wall
Street tycoons or real estate developers. Therefore, I would recommend
to my colleagues that they encourage Senator McConnell to quickly take
up the HEROES Act or come to the table with good-faith negotiations to
address COVID-19 in a thoughtful and people-focused way.
I thank my colleague, Congresswoman Grace Meng from New York, for
introducing this necessary resolution and the House Judiciary Committee
for quickly getting this before the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, it has been more than 65 years since the Supreme Court
made racial segregation in public education illegal, but over the past
several decades, racial and socioeconomic segregation in our schools
has dramatically increased. This didn't happen by accident.
In many counties across the U.S., children are assigned to schools
based on where their home is located. If your parents can afford to
live in a more affluent area and pay higher property taxes, the school
you attend will reflect this.
{time} 1030
The opposite, of course, is true for students in poorer areas, and
centuries of systemic racism have relegated far too many students of
color to poorer neighborhoods and school districts.
School districts that predominantly serve students of color receive
$23 billion less in funding than predominantly White school districts.
The result of this undeniable gap in educational funding is that
students of color have fewer resources, older equipment, and aging--if
not crumbling--facilities that make learning more challenging compared
to their peers in higher-income areas.
In a 2001 Supreme Court decision, Alexander v. Sandoval, a
conservative majority stripped away four decades of
[[Page H4393]]
statutory protection against discrimination by disallowing victims of
these unjust policies from bringing disparate impact claims under title
VI of the Civil Rights Act. Fortunately, the bill we are considering
this week will restore the rights of students, parents, and communities
to address this systemic harm by allowing those impacted to seek
enforcement in our courts.
The Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act is critical to reforming how
education is accessed in the United States. It is long past time for
Congress to step in and ensure that the law can address discriminatory
policies and practices, and that is exactly what this bill will do.
Similar to the Equity and Inclusion Enforcement Act, the Strength in
Diversity Act addresses the importance of increasing diversity in
education and eliminating socioeconomic and racial segregation. Once
again, educational opportunities for our children largely depend on
their home ZIP code.
Unsurprisingly, segregation has a detrimental impact on learning and
educational outcomes. Research shows that students educated in
integrated schools have higher test scores, are more likely to enroll
in college and are less likely to drop out. Moreover, integrated
classrooms have been found to encourage critical thinking, problem
solving, and creativity.
Consistent with the primacy of local control of education, many
school districts around the country have implemented innovative
strategies to address school segregation. Strategies to support more
diverse and inclusive learning include the development of state-of-the-
art magnet schools, open enrollment policies, and changes in feeder
patterns to promote diversity. Research suggests that diverse settings
reduce stereotypes and promote cross-racial understanding which is
especially important as our country moves towards a more ethnically and
culturally diverse society.
The Strength in Diversity Act supports communities in developing,
implementing, and expanding diversity initiatives to promote higher
levels of social cohesion and reduce racial prejudice. There is no one
solution to make education more equitable for our students, but
different data clearly shows that increased diversity in classrooms is
one of the best ways for all students to receive a quality education.
This bill will promote those solutions.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
COVID-19 has exposed and exacerbated the hurdles women continue to
face in the workplace, so let's start out by stating one obvious fact:
women shouldn't be forced to choose between financial security and a
healthy pregnancy.
It has been illegal to discriminate against pregnant women for
decades, but we know that this damaging practice remains widespread.
Women make up nearly half of the labor force in this country, yet
pregnancy discrimination persists, including losing a job, being denied
reasonable accommodation, or not being hired in the first place. In
fact, the number of pregnancy discrimination claims filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been steadily rising for
two decades and is hovering near an all-time high. These practices
aren't new, and they must end.
This is an issue that spans the political spectrum and affects women
in every corner of this country. Estimates indicate that over 20
percent of pregnant workers are employed in jobs that are both low wage
and physically demanding. Women of color are heavily overrepresented in
these estimates, with nearly one in three employed Black and Latina
women working in low-wage jobs.
Though the Pregnancy Discrimination Act has been law since the
seventies and despite a 2015 Supreme Court decision allowing for
reasonable accommodation claims, an unreasonably high standard of proof
is still allowing discrimination against many pregnant workers.
The bipartisan Pregnant Workers Fairness Act helps change this
practice by strengthening Federal workplace protections and promoting
the health and well-being of pregnant women and their families. This
important legislation requires public-sector employers and private-
sector employers with more than 15 employees to make reasonable
accommodations for pregnant employees and individuals with known
limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical
conditions.
It is 2020. We should not have to have this debate or lay out an
entire argument as to why we should protect pregnant workers. But here
we are. It is past time that pregnant workers have fair and equal
opportunity in employment. It is past time that the protections of the
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act become law.
When more women work, the better the economy performs. Women are not
asking for special treatment or handouts, just the workplace
protections they deserve so that they can do the jobs they need to do.
Mr. Speaker, I thank all of my colleagues who helped craft these
superb pieces of legislation. I look forward to supporting this rule, I
urge my colleagues to do the same, and I reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I want to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for yielding me the
time.
She and I have the pleasure of serving on the Congressional
Modernization Committee together--a bipartisan committee--and it is not
infrequent that we will have identified a problem and she will have
identified a solution, and I will think: Why haven't we come up with
that before. And we will move forward in partnership together.
I think that is the way the American people expect this House to run,
and doggone it, we are close to getting there today, Mr. Speaker.
But I listened to my colleague as she laid the mantle of blame at the
feet of our friends in the Senate and our friends in the White House,
for why can't they get more things done?
The truth is we have opportunities here to get things done, and I
will tell you, Mr. Speaker, the mantle of responsibility sits with us,
and we are missing some of those opportunities today to come together
and do things in a partnership way.
Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, I was with our colleague, Denny Heck
from Washington State. We were in a forum on polarization in Congress,
and we were talking about what that has meant, how that has come to be,
and how legislation is affected by that. Mr. Heck said something that I
thought was very profound and not really understood outside of the
Halls of Congress. Folks often talk about their partisan achievements,
but, he said that--and I will paraphrase him--there is really a special
sense of pride that Members take in sorting out those really thorny
issues, those issues that you had to come together and work on, those
issues where you had to give a little to get a little, and those issues
that not just anybody could have solved but that we came together with
a unique mix of people at a unique time and that Members take special
pride in cracking those hardest of nuts.
I think that is exactly right. The media doesn't cover those
successes, I think, with the same glee that partisan bickering is
covered, but, absolutely, men and women of conscience in this body take
special pride in solving particularly hard problems.
We have an opportunity today, Mr. Speaker, to solve some problems,
and I am not sure that we are taking full advantage of that. Principled
compromise, Mr. Speaker, does not mean finding the lowest common
denominator. It means finding those things that all of our constituents
are asking us to do and figuring out how in 435 different districts and
different sets of ideas we can meld those things together.
We have in this rule today, Mr. Speaker, a whole host of bills. I
miss the days where we did one rule and one bill. I recognize the
pandemic has caused some time crunch problems, but I hope that when
these masks come off--as I am absolutely certain one day they will--we
will return to being a body that can handle one idea at a time and have
a full-throated debate on each idea, but this bill makes in order a
number of bills.
I will start with H.R. 2639, the Strength in Diversity Act, Mr.
Speaker. It must have been said by every Member who spoke yesterday
that discrimination is wrong, that it is immoral, that it is unlawful,
and that we
[[Page H4394]]
have to do absolutely everything we can to ensure that American school
children are treated equally in our schools. H.R. 2639 purports to do
that.
Again, this is an idea that has great bipartisan support. It has
moral right on its side. Separate is not equal, and learning from
diversity is part of the strength that our Nation provides. I am glad,
even though we offered a motion for an open rule so that all Members
could have their voices heard, my friends in the majority on the Rules
Committee saw fit to make 12 separate amendments in order, including
one from my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Allen) that I believe will make
this bill better.
The Allen amendment is an opportunity for us to work together and
move forward, not just on something that goes to the Senate, Mr.
Speaker, but something that goes to the Senate and moves beyond. I have
been there, and so I understand the need to say: I have sent my idea to
the Senate and the Senate isn't moving it, and shame on the Senate.
Mr. Speaker, if you talk to your friends in this Senate, whether it
is a Democratic-led Senate or a Republican-led Senate, they will tell
you that if you send them bad ideas they are not going to move them.
We can send good ideas to the United States Senate, Mr. Speaker, good
ideas that will move across the floor, ideas that will move to the
President's desk and thus ideas that will make a difference. We all
grow weary on this floor of talking about things we would like to do,
and we often mistake passing something using a very partisan majority
in the House as getting something done. It is not. It is absolutely
making a statement, but it is getting absolutely nothing done. Only
when the Senate acts and only when the President acts are we able to
get something done. We have that opportunity with the Allen amendment
today, Mr. Speaker, and I hope folks will take advantage of that.
Mr. Speaker, another bill that the rule makes in order is the
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, H.R. 2694.
Again, there is not a single Member in this body who believes that
discrimination is appropriate. This is another opportunity that we had
to work in a partnership way to move a bill forward. We all believe it
is important for employers to provide reasonable accommodations to
pregnant workers. We all want what is best for these workers; and, in
fact, we heard from the ranking member of the Education and Labor
Committee yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that Chairman Scott, the chairman of
that committee, had worked to try to make this bill better. The bill is
different today than it was when it was introduced because of that
partnership effort. Again, any good thing that comes out of this
institution comes out in a partnership way.
One more step that, of course, the minority was hoping we could make
would be one to protect religious freedoms in this bill, the rights of
religious institutions, Mr. Speaker. This is not a radical idea. This
is something we have been doing for 50 years when we have talked about
nondiscrimination statutes. It is my hope that Chairman Scott, having
heard the arguments yesterday in the Rules Committee and having heard
from our ranking member, the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Dr. Foxx,
that he will take yes for an answer. There is still time to come back
and improve this bill and get it across the floor in a very bipartisan,
again, partnership way that not just makes it to the Senate but makes
it through the Senate on to the President's desk to effect the law as
we all desire. I think the American people will thank us if we seize
this opportunity to find common ground.
Mr. Speaker, we see this, again, in H. Res. 908 that this rule makes
in order today. It condemns all forms of anti-Asian sentiment and bias
as it relates to COVID-19. Mr. Speaker, I would encourage you to go and
read this resolution. As you know from House resolutions, you have a
series of ``and whereases'', and then you have what it is that we want
to do.
If you read this series of whereases, you will find it to be as
stridently partisan as you often find House resolutions to be, and it
is not necessary that it be that way. We all condemn and denounce anti-
Asian sentiment, Mr. Speaker, all manifestations of racism, of
xenophobia, of scapegoating, and of intolerance. We all condemn those
ideas, and we all want Federal law enforcement to play a strong role in
ensuring that Asian-American communities across this country are
protected and that crimes against them are investigated and properly
prosecuted.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in July of this year I joined, again, in a
partnership, bipartisan way Mr. Lieu and Ms. Chu on the Democratic side
of the aisle and Mr. Olson and myself on the Republican side of the
aisle. We led a letter to Attorney General Barr that included
signatories like my friend from Pennsylvania (Ms. Scanlon) asking that
the Justice Department bolster its work in this area and to send an
unambiguous message to the American people that anti-Asian bias and
discrimination will not be tolerated at any level of our government.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, because I do want to highlight those things
that we do together not in a partisan way but in a ``let's-get-
something-done-together way'', I include in the Record the letter.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, July 20, 2020.
Hon. William P. Barr,
Attorney General, Department of Justice,
Washington, DC.
Dear Attorney General Barr: Thank you for featuring the
quote ``Coronavirus is no excuse for hate'' on the Department
of Justice's hate crimes website. The COVID-19 pandemic
affects all Americans and has wrought enormous pain in the
United States. Some Americans are facing increased
discrimination as a result of the pandemic. We write to draw
particular attention to an increase in verbal and physical
attacks as well as discrimination towards Asian Americans who
have been wrongly blamed for the virus' spread. We
respectfully request that you publicly condemn acts of anti-
Asian bias, and provide us with regular status updates
regarding the steps the Department of Justice is taking and
will take going forward to combat this behavior.
Asian Americans are not responsible for the spread of
coronavirus in the United States; yet, since the start of the
pandemic they have experienced continued harassment,
violence, and discrimination. As of June 3, the Asian Pacific
Policy and Planning Council reported 2,066 incidents of
coronavirus-related discrimination. These and numerous news
reports have documented cases ranging from the denial of
services at stores to verbal harassment on the subway to
physical assaults.
In one particularly egregious instance, an individual in
Texas stabbed three Asian Americans, two of whom were
children, because he thought they were infecting others with
COVID-19. In March, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
Houston field office acknowledged the likelihood of a surge
in hate crime incidents against Asian Americans. And most
recently, a new Ipsos survey conducted for the Center for
Public Integrity found that more than 30 percent of Americans
have witnessed someone blaming Asian people for the
coronavirus pandemic.
We appreciate the op-ed the Department placed in the
Washington Examiner generally stating that hate crimes will
be investigated and prosecuted. However, the dangers faced by
the Asian American community today are very real and deserve
a strong and specific response by our government. In fact, on
May 8, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights acknowledged its
concerns ``over the increase in xenophobic animosity toward
Asian Americans (and perceived Asian Americans) as a result
of the COVID-19 pandemic'' and unanimously issued
recommendations urging federal agencies reduce this
sentiment.
We note that in the early 2000s during the severe acute
respiratory syndrome outbreak, the Bush Administration
immediately took steps to prevent discrimination against
Asian Americans by creating a community outreach team to
monitor and document acts of anti-Asian bias and engage with
the community.
Two years earlier following the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Administration had similarly sought to prevent
attacks against Arab, Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian American
communities by engaging with community leaders, conducting
coordinated civil rights enforcement, and speaking out
forcefully. While these prior responses were not perfect,
they represented an important effort to acknowledge and
address the specific discrimination.
Despite the fear present within the community, each and
every day Asian Americans help to combat COVID-19. While
Asian Americans comprise 7 percent of the U.S. population,
17.1 percent of active medical physicians are Asian American.
Similarly, Asian Americans are serving our country by working
as nurses, health aides, and in many other essential
occupations. Asian Americans are just as American as any
other group of people in our country.
We respectfully request that you, as head of the Department
of Justice, forcefully condemn anti-Asian bias to send an
unambiguous message to all Americans that discrimination
against this community is un-American and will not be
tolerated. Further, we
[[Page H4395]]
would ask that you update us regularly as to what steps the
Department has taken to address our concerns. Thank you for
your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Ted W. Lieu, Member of Congress; Rob Woodall, Member of
Congress; Judy Chu, Member of Congress; Pete Olson, Member of
Congress.
Jerrold Nadler, Ted S. Yoho, Adam Smith, Derek Kilmer,
Frank Pallone, Jr., John Yarmuth, Nydia M. Velazquez, Karen
Bass, Adam B. Schiff, Dan Crenshaw, Eddie Bernice Johnson,
James P. McGovern, Kathy Castor, Peter A. DeFazio, Joaquin
Castro, Brian Fitzpatrick, Carolyn B. Maloney, Eliot L.
Engel, Zoe Lofgren, Mark Takano, Ted Deutch,
Abigail D. Spanberger, Alan Lowenthal, Alma S. Adams,
Ph.D., Andy Kim, Ann McLane Kuster, Ayanna Pressley, Bill
Foster, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Brenda L. Lawrence, Chellie
Pingree, Danny K. Davis, Adriano Espaillat, Alcee L.
Hastings, Ami Bera, M.D., Andy Levin, Anna G. Eshoo, Barbara
Lee, Bill Pascrell, Jr., Brad Sherman, Brendan F. Boyle,
Cheri Bustos, Darren Soto, Al Green, Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, Andre Carson, Angie Craig, Anthony G. Brown, Betty
McCollum, Bobby L. Rush, Bradley S. Schneider, Cedric L.
Richmond, Colin Z. Allred, David N. Cicilline.
David Trone, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donald M. Payne,
Jr., Doris Matsui, Ed Case, Eric Swalwell, Grace F.
Napolitano, Gwen Moore, Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.,
Jackie Speier, Jan Schakowsky, Dean Phillips, Denny Heck,
Donald S. Beyer Jr., Dwight Evans, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Gerald E. Connolly, Grace Meng, Hakeem Jeffries, Ilhan Omar,
Jahana Hayes, Jared Huffman, Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, Dina
Titus, Donna E. Shalala, Earl Blumenauer, Emanuel Cleaver,
II, Gilbert R. Cisneros, Jr., Gregory W. Meeks, Harley Rouda,
J. Luis Correa, Jamie Raskin, Jason Crow.
Jennifer Wexton, Jimmy Gomez, John B. Larson, Juan Vargas,
Kim Schrier, M.D., Lisa Blunt Rochester, Madeleine Dean, Mark
DeSaulnier, Max Rose, Pramila Jayapal, Ro Khanna, Jerry
McNerney, Jimmy Panetta, Joseph P. Kennedy, III, Katherine M.
Clark, Lauren Underwood, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Marc Veasey,
Mark Pocan, Mike Thompson, Raja Krishnamoorthi, Ron Kind,
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia, Joe Neguse, Josh Gottheimer, Katie
Porter, Linda T. Sanchez, Lucy McBath, Marcia L. Fudge, Mary
Gay Scanlon, Peter Welch, Rick Larsen, Rosa L. DeLauro.
Ruben Gallego, Scott H. Peters, Seth Moulton, Stephanie
Murphy, Susan A. Davis, Suzanne Bonamici, TJ Cox, Veronica
Escobar, Yvette D. Clarke, Salud O. Carbajal, Sean Casten,
Sharice L. Davids, Steve Cohen, Susie Lee, Sylvia R. Garcia,
Tony Cardenas, Vicente Gonzalez, Nanette Diaz Barragan,
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr., Sean Patrick Maloney, Sheila Jackson
Lee, Steven Horsford, Suzan K. DelBene, Thomas R. Suozzi,
Tulsi Gabbard, William R. Keating, Members of Congress.
{time} 1045
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General, I have no doubt,
feels exactly the same way about this as Ms. Scanlon and I do, as Mr.
Lieu and Ms. Chu do. And that is why I am saddened that we have a
resolution before us today that includes these ``whereases'' that make
it difficult to take ``yes'' for an answer.
Mr. Speaker, I want you to remember that we had a very similar
conversation with H. Res. 576 last year. That was the resolution asking
that the whistleblower's complaint be provided to Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I went up to the Rules Committee on that afternoon last
spring, and the conversation was the Trump administration is derelict,
it is full of scoundrels, all of these bad things are going on, and we
demand the whistleblower's report.
Mr. Speaker, well, what are we supposed to do with that? As Article I
says, we are entitled to the whistleblower's report, and we made a
recommendation to the chairman of the Rules Committee at that time and
to the House leadership to give us an opportunity to speak with one
Article I voice on whether or not the House is entitled to see a
whistleblower's report.
We said, ``Please, take out these partisan jabs and let's just get to
the heart of the matter and get access to those documents that we want.
In the chairman's wisdom, and in the Speaker's wisdom, they took that
advice. A resolution that had been on its way to being whipped ``no''
from the Republican side of the aisle, came back and passed with
absolutely no dissent when we decided to spend less time poking one
another and more time trying to make progress together.
Mr. Speaker, we have that opportunity again today, and I hope we will
take ``yes'' for an answer. This is obviously an election year, an
opportunity to get off the rails on partisan rhetoric from time to
time, but we all know that we speak with a stronger voice when we speak
with one voice here in this institution, and we have that opportunity
to find that space in H. Res. 908.
Mr. Speaker, finally, the last bill in this very long rule, is H.R.
2574, a measure that purports to strengthen Federal civil rights laws
in educational settings, creating a private right of action on the
theory of disparate impact.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I hope it surprises you, as it surprises me, that
we are talking about a fundamental change in American civil
jurisprudence, and this bill didn't go through the Committee on the
Judiciary at all. Now, again, it purports to change the laws it relates
to educational settings, but, of course, in fact, changes the law
across the entire spectrum of civil litigation and not one opportunity
for the Committee on the Judiciary to be heard.
Now, I talked about principle compromise and not seeking the lowest
common denominator. I don't want to pretend that it will be an easy
thing to find that common ground on disparate impact litigation.
Litigation is something that divides this House time and time again,
and it takes serious people, which is why serious men and women, like
my friend from Pennsylvania, find themselves on the Committee on the
Judiciary. It is not an easy path to find. But for not one
opportunity--and we asked the Judiciary chairman about that yesterday,
Mr. Speaker--and he said he looked at the Committee on Education's work
product and he thought it was appropriate. Well, I am glad that he does
not feel undermined by being completely left out of changes in judicial
procedure in the United States of America. I would feel that way if I
were chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary. But even if he doesn't
feel left out, even if he thinks that is good enough, I have got dozens
and dozens of Members who are on the Committee on the Judiciary who
were placed on that committee because of their expertise in that area,
who have been placed on the Committee on the Judiciary because of their
thoughtfulness in this area. And I think America would benefit, not be
burdened, by having an opportunity for those voices to be heard.
Again, if your position is ``let's pass bills in the House and thank
ourselves, congratulate ourselves for passing something in the House,''
we have got exactly the right bill before us today.
If our position is, we want to make a difference for the men and
women that we serve--and I say, ``if our position is''--Mr. Speaker, I
take that back. I shouldn't have even said that, because I am certain,
knowing each one of my colleagues as I do, that it is their position
that they didn't come here to make a statement, that they did come here
to make a difference. I want it to come to fruition that we can make
that partnership progress together.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat this rule, we are going to have that
opportunity. I am not talking about an opportunity to quash any of
these bills. I am talking about an opportunity to perfect these bills
in those ways that I have mentioned, not so that they go to the Senate
and die, not so that they receive a veto threat from the White House,
but so that they go to the Senate and pass, so that they receive the
President's signature, and so that they make the difference that each
one of the men and women in this Chamber were sent here to do.
Mr. Speaker, we are close to that today, and I believe if we defeat
the rule, we can get that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my learned colleague for his input.
It certainly would be refreshing to see anything pass the Senate these
days.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the distinguished chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the
Rules Committee, Ms. Scanlon, for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good things included in this rule. I
want to discuss one in particular today: H. Res. 908--condemning all
forms of anti-Asian sentiment as related to COVID-19.
[[Page H4396]]
This resolution is about our values; not our Democratic values, not
our Republican values, it is about our American values.
Look, I understand that politics can be contentious. The rhetoric can
get heated. But what we are talking about here is something else
altogether. Anti-Asian rhetoric crosses a line that should never be
crossed.
The Asian-American community is an integral part of our society. It
is an important part of my community in Massachusetts. These are our
neighbors, our friends, and our family. And the hateful rhetoric that
we are hearing directed towards them during this pandemic is
unacceptable. It has led to an uptick in physical attacks, verbal
assaults, and online harassment. Hate crimes against Asian Americans
are on the rise.
Mr. Speaker, this is the antithesis of what the United States of
America stands for. During difficult times, our Nation comes together.
We don't allow offensive rhetoric to tear us apart, no matter who says
it. We are nearing 200,000 lives lost in this country because of the
coronavirus. Countless more are sick. Businesses have closed, our
economy is struggling.
Mr. Speaker, the world has changed. But one thing that is not and
will not change is our obligation to be there for each other, to treat
others as we would want to be treated. To show those around us the
dignity and respect and the basic human decency that we would want them
to show us--pandemic or no pandemic.
To pretend that these hateful words about Asian Americans don't
matter is to kid yourself. Just ask those who have been on the
receiving end. Or ask the groups that monitor hate-inspired
discrimination. They tell us that there were more than 2,100 anti-
Asian-American hate incidents in this country related to this pandemic
between March and June. I shudder to think what the number has grown to
today.
No one should be forced to endure such hate and violence. Asian
Americans are struggling under the weight of this pandemic, just like
everyone else. They are doctors and nurses and first responders--just
like everyone else. I know that in politics our values don't always
align, but on this, Democrats and Republicans should agree. Some things
go beyond partisanship. They speak to who we are as a Nation and what
we are willing to tolerate.
Mr. Speaker, I am hoping for a strong bipartisan vote on this
resolution because this country should always stand as an inclusive and
just society. And as elected officials, that starts with us. We must
lead by example.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues on both sides to support this
rule and the underlying measures.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I don't disagree with a word my friend from
Massachusetts had to say, and, in fact, I want to thank him for joining
the letter that we led on this very topic in a bipartisan way earlier
this year. And I do not believe I am speaking out of turn. If the
gentleman will partner with me for stripping out the political
``whereases'' in this resolution, I am certain not only will we get a
bipartisan vote, we will get a huge bipartisan vote in the same way
that we did when you followed that same good advice that I gave about
this time last year.
Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will amend the
rule to make in order H.R. 1325, the Protect and Serve Act, and H.R.
8251.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my
amendment in the Congressional Record immediately prior to the vote on
the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, these measures before us today are
critically important.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Rutherford), a gentleman who can speak to these critically important
issues with not just his words, but with a lifetime of service.
Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and neighbor from
Georgia for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to stand up for the lives of our Nation's
law enforcement officers. I spent over 40 years of my life in law
enforcement, including 12 as sheriff. I dedicated my life to protecting
minorities in Florida communities and doing my absolute best to ensure
that all of my officers went home safely to their families.
Sadly, we still lost good men and women in the line of duty. And
there is no doubt that law enforcement is a dangerous profession, and
every officer that puts on that badge knows the risk that they take.
But one thing is certain, these risks are growing significantly--
increased, thanks to the growing anti-police rhetoric we are seeing
across the country, making their jobs more dangerous now than ever
before.
Mr. Speaker, I urge defeat of the previous question so that we can
consider H.R. 1325, the Protect and Serve Act. The lead cosponsor of my
legislation is Congresswoman Val Demings, a career police officer and
former Orlando police chief. It is not a controversial bill, and it is
one that many, many, of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
support. In fact, last Congress, this bill overwhelming passed the
House by a vote of 382-35.
Like Congresswoman Demings, I know what officers go through every day
when they put on their uniform, say goodbye to their families, and head
out to do the important work of protecting our communities.
Recently, we have seen an undeniable increase in violent attacks
against police officers, especially using ambush-style attacks. Just
this weekend, we saw two Los Angeles police officers shot in cold blood
while simply sitting in their vehicle. But then, when being transported
to the hospital for lifesaving treatment, the doors to that hospital
were blocked--blocked by protesters chanting, ``We hope they die. We
hope they die.''
Mr. Speaker, 2 years ago, in Gilchrist County, Florida, two deputies
were assassinated while simply eating lunch. This year, 24 police
officers have been ambushed, and 7 of them died because of the attacks.
This is why we must defeat the previous question and consider the
Protect and Serve Act. This is bipartisan legislation that will enact
the strongest penalties for anyone who decides to target and harm not
only Federal officers, but also, in some cases, State and local
officers.
Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have
expressed shock over the recent police shootings. I now ask that you
translate those statements of shock into action and show America that
attacks on law enforcement will not be tolerated.
Please stand with Congresswoman Demings and I in supporting the
Protect and Serve Act.
{time} 1100
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about shared American values.
Certainly, one of our strongest shared American values is that we
condemn violence, particularly violence against our law enforcement
officers. That is not open to question. What happened in California
this past week is horrific, and we all condemn that.
But that is not what we are talking about here. What we are talking
about is an attempt to hijack the rule that we are here to debate.
I mean, I have just listened to a very eloquent argument by the
gentleman from Georgia about the need for bills to go through regular
order and to follow the process. If these are the noncontroversial
items, as warranted by my colleagues, then they can go through the
suspension process.
We just voted on two suspension bills last night. We can do more. We
can be here longer than anticipated if the news I am reading is
correct. So, let them go through the suspension process. Let them be
marked up.
Let's get back to the business of why we are here today and the four
bills that are under consideration as part of this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Matsui), another distinguished member of the Rules Committee.
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a rule providing
for consideration of several bills that will support pregnant women in
the workplace and reaffirm our shared commitment to equity and
diversity.
[[Page H4397]]
Of these important bills, one stands out as personal to me: the
resolution condemning all forms of anti-Asian sentiment related to
COVID-19.
For many Asian Americans across this country, the harmful rhetoric
from the highest officials of our land is a painful reminder of our yet
unrealized potential as a Nation. This pain is informed by our lived
experiences.
For me, having been born in a Japanese-American internment camp, I
learned from my parents and grandparents the dangers of governing with
fear and hatred, not acceptance and unity.
If our country is to successfully contain the spread of this deadly
virus, the Federal Government must demonstrate that every single
American is valued and that their stories and lives matter. Americans
of all backgrounds deserve to know that their government holds a
fundamental dedication to their well-being.
However, when our leaders use language that undermines our collective
resolve, it diminishes public trust, undercuts public health, and harms
families. This rhetoric does not align with the values we work to
instill in our children, and it has no place in America today.
This is an important statement for this Chamber to make, and I look
forward to a vote on the House floor soon.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words of my friend from California.
What makes this institution strong is so many of those experiences that
each one of us brings from our lives.
Again, we have an opportunity to speak with exactly the one voice
that my friend asks us to if we can simply remove the partisanship from
this resolution and make it the condemning resolution that it should
absolutely be.
Along those lines, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to my
friend from Missouri to talk about, again, not hijacking the rule by
defeating the previous question, but simply adding to what is already a
very long rule, two additional bipartisan measures that won't just be
statements, Mr. Speaker. They will be opportunities to move through the
Senate and on to the President's desk.
I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Wagner).
Mrs. WAGNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, a ranking member of
the Rules Committee, for his support and his friendship for so very
many years and for his fight for this cause in this Chamber and for his
constituents in Georgia.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call on my colleagues to defeat the
previous question and bring up my legislation, H.R. 8251, which would
ensure that all Americans can access hospitals and urgent medical care
without fear of life-threatening delays due to violence and extremism.
My legislation would prohibit intentionally blocking hospital entries
or exits by force, threat of force, or physical obstruction in order to
injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person who is trying to
obtain and provide lifesaving medical procedures or treatment.
Mr. Speaker, I am outraged that the irrational and unconscionable
hatred directed at the brave men and women of our Nation's law
enforcement resulted in the attempted assassination of two innocent
deputies and the reckless endangerment of those in need of urgent
medical care.
On September 12, a gunman attempted to execute two Los Angeles
Sheriff's deputies, Claudia Apolinar, a 31-year-old single mother, and
her 24-year-old partner, simply because they wore the uniform, simply
because they were called to serve and to protect American
neighborhoods.
This was a chilling and senseless act of brutality that we are seeing
all over our country. Instead of turning to healing, protestors chose
to endanger the lives of those in need of immediate medical care by
actually blocking the entrance to the hospital where the deputies were
receiving critical care and chanting, ``We hope they die,'' and,
``Death to police.''
``We hope they die,'' and, ``Death to police.''
The courageous men and women of our law enforcement are selfless
public servants, Mr. Speaker. Every day, they choose to risk their
lives to protect us. It is unconscionable that their sacrifices are
being repaid with targeted violence and hatred. It is equally
unconscionable that protestors would prevent innocent Americans from
receiving lifesaving care by blocking hospital entrances.
I call on my colleagues--I implore my colleagues--for us to come
together to defeat the previous question. Stand with our men and women
in blue. Stand for what is right and just in our country. Stand for
humanity and support my legislation.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to close if the gentleman
from Georgia has no further speakers.
Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers. I am prepared
to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I can't say it any better than my friends from Missouri and Florida
have just said it.
My colleague from Pennsylvania is absolutely right, Mr. Speaker. We
have a regular order process. Here we are, halfway through September.
We are back for our first day of session this month. I wish we were
here more. I wish there was more work going on. I wish there was less
campaigning and more working together, but there simply isn't.
The previous question is an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to add things
to the rule. You can use it to hijack the rule. You can use it to take
down the rule. That is not what we are doing today. What we are asking,
Mr. Speaker, is to add two commonsense, bipartisan bills.
Mr. Speaker, you heard the arguments from the gentleman from Florida
and the gentlewoman from Missouri. Did you object to a single word that
they had to say? Did you find one bit of partisanship or disagreement
in their words? You did not.
The question isn't are we going to get some Democratic votes to
defeat the previous question and add these two bills. We are. We
absolutely are because these are bipartisan ideas. The question isn't
if we are going to get them. The question is: Are we going to get
enough?
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the question isn't if their words ring
true with you. The question is, knowing that their words rang true with
you, will you add your vote to theirs? I am asking you to do that. I am
asking my friend from Pennsylvania to do that. I am asking my friends
from Massachusetts and California to do that.
I opened the debate today, Mr. Speaker, telling you we were so close
to what I believe every man and woman in this Chamber come here to do,
and that is work together, not to pick a fight, not to make an
argument, but to make a difference. With some minor, minor tweaks, we
can do that with every single piece of legislation that my friends in
the majority want to bring forward today.
With just one vote to defeat the previous question, Mr. Speaker, and
no tweaks at all, we can do that with the two measures that the
gentlewoman from Missouri and the gentleman from Florida have put
before us here today.
Mr. Speaker, vote with me. Defeat the previous question. Let's move
forward to speak with one voice, not just to condemn anti-American
sentiment, not just to protect pregnant women in the workplace, but to
stand behind the public safety officers, the men and women in this
country who show up every day of the week for us.
I ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. In the absence
of that, let's defeat the rule and follow exactly the advice my friend
from Pennsylvania suggested, take all of these bills back to committee
and bring them back out one more time. It doesn't have to be that way.
We can move forward today.
Mr. Speaker, I do encourage my colleagues to defeat the previous
question, and I yield back the balance of my time.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
We are in the midst of some of our country's most challenging times.
Millions of Americans are facing eviction. They are food insecure. They
don't know where their next paycheck is going to come from. 200,000
Americans have died, and that number is likely to double by the end of
this year. We have a President wholly indifferent to the pandemic,
other than its impact on his
[[Page H4398]]
political future, and Senate leaders aiding him every step of the way.
Months ago, the House passed the HEROES Act, which would be a
lifeline to the people we serve. However, that bill remains untouched
on Senator McConnell's desk, with hundreds of others.
Included in that bill are lifelines for small business and working
Americans, critical aid to State and local governments just trying to
keep the lights on and to defend our citizens against the pandemic when
national leadership is so lacking, and much-needed money that would go
a long way to developing a vaccine for COVID-19.
The HEROES Act is money for our healthcare providers, our schools,
our caretakers, and essential workers. It is a dereliction of duty for
the Senate to refuse to engage in good faith on this critical
legislation, and the American people will remember.
But while this bill remains in Senator McConnell's legislative
graveyard, we will continue to push for the protections that Americans
need, deserve, and are calling out for. Each of the four pieces of
legislation in our rule today will help our country and Americans all
over.
From the beginning of the 116th Congress, this House has shown that
it is up to the task of legislating for the people while exercising
oversight and other critical constitutional duties.
While we have passed critical COVID-19-related legislation, we will
not stop passing the legislation necessary to make this country a more
equitable place for all Americans. We won't stop working for the
American people, despite attacks by those who would prefer to posture.
There is no place for violence against law enforcement. There is no
place for violence against our fellow citizens, whether that violence
comes from the left or the right. There is no place for discrimination.
Most of all, there is no place for stoking division between Americans,
and we will beat that back at every opportunity.
Mr. 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 1107
At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 9. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the
House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1325) to amend title 18, United States Code, to punish
criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers, and for
other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 10. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 1325, the
House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
8251) to amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit
preventing access to lifesaving medical procedures and
treatments, and for other purposes. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally
divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority
member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After general
debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the
five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in
the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the
bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do
pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and
reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then
on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately
after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of
rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1325 and H.R. 8251.
Ms. SCANLON. Mr. 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 170, not voting 41, as follows:
[Roll No. 185]
YEAS--219
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)
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
DeGette
DeLauro
DelBene
Delgado
Demings
DeSaulnier
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Escobar
Eshoo
Espaillat
Evans
Finkenauer
Fletcher
Foster
Frankel
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Garcia (IL)
Garcia (TX)
Gomez
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)
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kildee
Kilmer
Kim
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Lamb
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee (CA)
Lee (NV)
Levin (CA)
Levin (MI)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan
Luria
Lynch
Malinowski
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McAdams
McBath
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Mfume
Moore
Morelle
Moulton
Mucarsel-Powell
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)
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rose (NY)
Rouda
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Scanlon
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schrier
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shalala
Sherman
Sherrill
Sires
Slotkin
Smith (WA)
Spanberger
Speier
Stanton
Stevens
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tlaib
Tonko
Torres (CA)
Torres Small (NM)
Trahan
Underwood
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wexton
Wild
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NAYS--170
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Armstrong
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Baird
Balderson
Barr
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (NC)
Bishop (UT)
Bost
Brady
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Cheney
Cline
Cloud
Cole
Collins (GA)
Comer
Conaway
Crawford
Crenshaw
Curtis
Davidson (OH)
Davis, Rodney
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Duncan
Dunn
Emmer
Estes
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx (NC)
Fulcher
Gallagher
Garcia (CA)
Gianforte
Gibbs
Gohmert
Golden
Gonzalez (OH)
Gooden
Gosar
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Hagedorn
Harris
Hartzler
Hern, Kevin
Herrera Beutler
Hice (GA)
Higgins (LA)
Hill (AR)
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hurd (TX)
Jacobs
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson (SD)
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Joyce (PA)
Katko
Keller
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
LaHood
LaMalfa
Latta
Lesko
Long
Loudermilk
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Marchant
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McKinley
Meuser
Miller
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (NC)
Newhouse
Norman
Olson
Palmer
Perry
Posey
[[Page H4399]]
Reed
Reschenthaler
Rice (SC)
Roby
Rodgers (WA)
Roe, David P.
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rooney (FL)
Rose, John W.
Rouzer
Roy
Rutherford
Scalise
Schweikert
Shimkus
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smucker
Spano
Stauber
Stefanik
Steil
Steube
Stewart
Stivers
Taylor
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiffany
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Van Drew
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Waltz
Watkins
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Westerman
Williams
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Young
Zeldin
NOT VOTING--41
Abraham
Aderholt
Banks
Bergman
Burchett
Byrne
Castro (TX)
Cook
DeFazio
Deutch
Engel
Gaetz
Gonzalez (TX)
Granger
Graves (GA)
Green (TN)
Guest
Kaptur
Kelly (MS)
Kustoff (TN)
Lamborn
McClintock
McHenry
Murphy (FL)
Nunes
Palazzo
Pence
Quigley
Riggleman
Schneider
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Soto
Timmons
Trone
Wenstrup
Wilson (SC)
Wright
Yoho
{time} 1210
Mr. SHIMKUS changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 965, 116TH CONGRESS
Barragan (Beyer)
Blumenauer (Beyer)
Butterfield (Kildee)
Chu, Judy (Takano)
Clay (Davids (KS))
Cohen (Beyer)
Davis, Danny K. (Underwood)
DeSaulnier (Matsui)
Frankel (Clark (MA))
Garcia (IL) (Raskin)
Grijalva (Raskin)
Hastings (Wasserman Schultz)
Jayapal (Raskin)
Khanna (Gomez)
Kirkpatrick (Gallego)
Langevin (Lynch)
Lawrence (Kildee)
Lawson (FL) (Evans)
Lieu, Ted (Beyer)
Lipinski (Cooper)
Lofgren (Jeffries)
Lowenthal (Beyer)
Lowey (Tonko)
=========================== NOTE ===========================
September 15, 2020, on page H4399, the following appeared: Lowey
(Tonka)
The online version has been corrected to read: Lowey (Tonko)
========================= END NOTE =========================
Meng (Clark (MA))
Moore (Beyer)
Napolitano (Correa)
Pascrell (Pallone)
Payne (Wasserman Schultz)
Pingree (Clark (MA))
Pocan (Raskin)
Porter (Wexton)
Rooney (FL) (Beyer)
Roybal-Allard (Aguilar)
Rush (Underwood)
Serrano (Jeffries)
Sewell (AL) (Del Bene)
Thompson (MS) (Fudge)
Trahan (McGovern)
Watson Coleman (Pallone)
Welch (McGovern)
Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3 of House Resolution
965, the yeas and nays are ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question
will be postponed.
____________________