[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.

                          ____________________