[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H1086-H1093]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 842, PROTECTING THE RIGHT TO 
ORGANIZE ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 8, BIPARTISAN 
  BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
  1446, ENHANCED BACKGROUND CHECKS ACT OF 2021; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 188

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 842) to 
     amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management 
     Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and 
     Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. 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 or their 
     respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in 
     section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc 
     described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  After debate pursuant to the first 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 3 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. 3.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to the first 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. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to require a 
     background check for every firearm sale. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. All points of order against provisions 
     in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 5 of this resolution; (3) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 6 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5.  After debate pursuant to section 4 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 6 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. 6.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 4 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part C of the report of the

[[Page H1087]]

     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 the Judiciary or 
     their respective designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question.
       Sec. 7.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1446) to amend 
     chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the 
     background check procedures to be followed before a Federal 
     firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is 
     not such a licensee. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendments described in section 8 of this resolution; (3) the 
     amendments en bloc described in section 9 of this resolution; 
     and (4) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 8.  After debate pursuant to section 7 of this 
     resolution, each further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as 
     part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 9 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. 9.  It shall be in order at any time after debate 
     pursuant to section 7 of this resolution for the chair of the 
     Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed 
     in part D 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 the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not 
     be subject to a demand for division of the question.
       Sec. 10.  All points of order against the further 
     amendments printed in parts B, C, and D of the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution or amendments 
     en bloc described in sections 3, 6, and 9 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 11.  On any legislative day during the period from 
     March 13, 2021, through April 22, 2021--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 12.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 11 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 13.  Each day during the period addressed by section 
     11 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for 
     purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 
     1546).
       Sec. 14.  Each day during the period addressed by section 
     11 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day 
     for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.
       Sec. 15.  Each day during the period addressed by section 
     11 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or 
     legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.
       Sec. 16.  It shall be in order at any time through the 
     calendar day of April 22, 2021, for the Speaker to entertain 
     motions that the House suspend the rules as though under 
     clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall 
     consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the 
     designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this 
     section.
       Sec. 17.  The requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
     two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on 
     Rules on the same day it is presented to the House is waived 
     with respect to any resolution reported through the 
     legislative day of April 22, 2021.
       Sec. 18.  Section 4(d) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred 
     Seventeenth Congress, is amended by--
        (a) in paragraph (3), striking ``and'';
       (b) in paragraph (4), striking the period and inserting ``; 
     and''; and
       (c) adding at the end the following:
       ``(5) the Select Committee shall be composed of 16 Members, 
     Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the 
     Speaker, of whom 7 shall be appointed on the recommendation 
     of the Minority Leader.''.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, 
pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose 
of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, today, the Committee on Rules met and 
reported House Resolution 188, providing structured rules for 
consideration of H.R. 842, H.R. 8, and H.R. 1446.
  For H.R. 842, the rule self-executes a manager's amendment by 
Chairman Scott, makes in order 19 amendments, and provides for 1 hour 
of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking 
member of the Committee on Education and Labor.
  For H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, the rule makes in order eight and four 
amendments, respectively, and provides 1 hour of debate for each bill 
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  The rule further provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit 
for each bill.
  The rule also adds an additional minority member to the Select 
Committee on the Climate Crisis.
  Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension 
authority, and same-day authority from March 13 through April 22, and 
activates the Consensus Calendar.
  Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to be on the 
floor and present in almost a year. A year ago, as some of you know, I 
had an accident and proceeded to spend 6 weeks in the George Washington 
University Hospital intensive care unit, 4 of those weeks on a 
ventilator.
  My sons came from California to be told by the doctors in a 
windowless room at George Washington that I had about a 10 percent 
chance of survival. The next day, they got a phone call, expecting to 
hear that their dad had died. Instead, the doctor told them that I was 
doing better.
  Madam Speaker, I know that you know how grateful we are to have the 
wonderful gift of life, to share it with our children, and to be here 
in this sanctum sanctorum of American democracy. I am grateful. I am 
grateful to my staff, to the providence of our creator, and to my 
family.
  Madam Speaker, our Nation is struggling, and not only because of the 
coronavirus pandemic. Our Nation needs bold, meaningful changes to make 
a real difference for average Americans. That is what the three bills 
before us today do. Each addresses its own epidemic: gun violence; 
inequality; and, unfortunately, an ugly part of human nature, greed.
  Madam Speaker, nearly 40,000 people died from firearm injuries in the 
United States in 2019. History would show that enacting smart, 
evidence-based policies based on public health premises reduces this 
sad phenomenon.
  Madam Speaker, 22 percent of U.S. gun owners acquired their most 
recent firearm without a background check. That means that millions of 
Americans got millions of guns with no questions asked. Approximately 
80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained 
through private party transfers, which currently do not require 
background checks.

                              {time}  1615

  Ninety-six percent of the inmates surveyed, who were prohibited from 
possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime, had 
obtained their firearm from an unlicensed private seller, avoiding the 
background check altogether.
  In California, where I am proud to live and serve, all private gun 
sales must be completed through a licensed firearms dealer, requiring a 
background check--a universal background check and a mandatory waiting 
period. Not coincidentally--and the public health experts will let us 
know through their evidence-based research--California has the ninth-
lowest rate of gun violence across the United States. Gun killings in 
Connecticut, similarly, fell by 40 percent after it required a 
mandatory background check and a gun safety course before the purchase 
of a gun.

[[Page H1088]]

  We know what we need to do to help protect millions of Americans. 
Universal background checks are supported by decades of evidence. The 
Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 8, institutes universal 
background checks.
  Additionally, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, H.R. 1446, ends the 
arbitrary rule that if a background check hasn't been completed in 3 
days, the gun can be sold regardless.
  I proudly support these bills because the evidence is clear that they 
will make our communities safer and save lives.
  Madam Speaker, next, the rule will allow us to consider the 
Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act. The rise in 
inequality in this country has coincided with a decline in union 
membership. By most estimates, declining unionization accounted for 
about one-third of the increase in inequality--one-third--from 1980 
through the 1990s through today.
  If you watch the data over the years, as States move as a group 
toward less union coverage, those same States have much worse income 
inequality. You cannot address inequality without increasing access for 
working people to representation. Unions do not only raise wages for 
the workers they represent, but they have also been shown to moderate 
the compensation of executives.
  On top of the obvious benefits you think of that are associated with 
the labor unions, like higher wages, safer workplaces, some of the 
others that come along with union membership also help address the 
inequities in our society.
  Union workers are more likely to receive paid leave, are up to 28 
percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and 
are up to 54 percent more likely to be enrolled in employer-sponsored 
pensions. Not only do workers have better access to pensions, but their 
employers contribute an average of 28 percent more toward those 
pensions, retirement security for Americans, than nonunion employers.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I know that the 
PRO Act simply updates labor law to ensure that workers in today's 
economy are able to create and join labor unions to receive the same 
kinds of protections they see in other sectors. Nothing more.
  As President Eisenhower once said during the largest expansion of the 
American economy in history, when labor unions had one-third of the 
workforce: ``Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of 
the right to join the union of their choice.''
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I am also happy to see 
him back doing well. I appreciate that, and that we are here in the 
Chamber together.
  Madam Speaker, we are here considering the rule for three 
controversial, divisive bills being moved forward by the majority with 
very little input from Republicans or the millions of Americans these 
bills will affect. Two of these bills are highly controversial gun 
control bills that undermine the constitutional right to bear arms.
  H.R. 8, the so-called universal background check bill, would 
criminalize the private transfer of firearms. Combined with the 
restrictions already placed on private transfers during the pandemic, 
this makes it impossible for law-abiding gun owners to acquire or even 
borrow or lend firearms.
  Universal background checks do not stop criminals. In fact, the 
majority of the criminals in State and Federal prisons who used a 
firearm during their offense got that firearm by stealing it, taking it 
from a family member or friend, or just an underground market. In 2013, 
the Department of Justice's National Institute of Justice researched 
universal background checks and determined that they would not be 
effective without additional restrictions on firearms.
  The other gun control bill, the Charleston loophole bill, would 
permit the Federal Government to delay a firearm transfer indefinitely 
without any proof that the person is ineligible to possess a firearm. 
This bill undermines the ability for Americans to legally purchase a 
firearm, as it subjects firearm dealers to the mercy of the Federal 
bureaucracy.
  Before we jump straight to this kind of constitutional overreach, it 
is important to remember that gun control legislation isn't going to 
stop criminals from gaining access to guns.
  In the rural district I represent, many of my constituents are 
hunters, sportsmen, and law-abiding gun owners who utilize their Second 
Amendment rights. These bills undermine their ability to do so, and 
flies in the face of unity that has been promised by the President and 
Democrats.
  Lastly, we are considering a bill that amounts to a union boss wish 
list that the majority is pushing, circumventing regular order and 
without input from the minority.
  Madam Speaker, labor law must strike a balance--a careful balance 
between labor unions' rights to organize and employers' abilities to 
respond to these efforts. However, the PRO Act, a monumental rewrite of 
Federal labor law, will massively tip the scales in favor of unions, 
leaving employers and small businesses with massive costs and 
burdensome or vague legal standards.

  Among the most egregious, a section of this bill is applying a one-
size-fits-all standard for union contracts, rendering the franchise 
industry completely unviable by imposing a burdensome joint-employer 
Obama rule and requiring the disclosure of private information of 
employees to union organizers without their consent.
  My great home State has a proud history of supporting organized 
labor, and I support employees' right to collective bargaining. 
However, this legislation before us today represents a misguided and 
unbalanced approached to labor law.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to think twice before 
supporting these bills that could permanently alter our job market and 
threaten our constitutional rights. I urge opposition to this rule, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the 
Committee on Appropriations.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I 
am so glad he is back.
  Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Protecting the Right 
to Organize Act, or the PRO Act.
  I am the daughter of a garment worker. So the fight for workers' 
rights has always had a special place in my heart. My mother toiled and 
worked every single day in the sweatshops in New Haven, Connecticut, 
sewing shirt collars and dresses. She was piecework, which meant she 
got pennies on the dollar.
  As chair of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, 
Education, and Related Agencies, I work every day to ensure that her 
early struggles were not in vain.
  I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the PRO Act, introduced by 
the chair of the Committee, Congressman  Bobby Scott. It strengthens 
the right of working people to come together in unions to secure better 
wages and better working conditions.
  The COVID-19 pandemic has further exposed the single biggest economic 
challenge of our times, which is that people's pay does not keep up 
with the rising costs of healthcare, education, and childcare.
  And from 1980 to 2017, average incomes for the bottom 90 percent of 
households stagnated to a 1.1 percent increase, while skyrocketing more 
than 180 percent for the wealthiest 1 percent in this country. It is no 
coincidence that at the same time, union membership fell for a record 
low to 10 percent.
  Economists at Princeton found that the alarming rise of income 
inequality since the 1970s can be at least partially attributed to the 
decline in union membership.
  The PRO Act is about leveling the playing field for working people. 
It would directly address the issues facing workers across the entire 
economy and give equal access to the collective bargaining process. In 
sum, it would ensure workers' rights keep pace with the new economy.
  As Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has said: 
``Inequality is not inevitable. It is about the public policy choices 
we make, not globalization, not technology.''

[[Page H1089]]

  Madam Speaker, we have the opportunity today to choose a public 
policy that, in fact, will defend and protect working people in this 
country. Pass the PRO Act.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), my good friend and colleague 
from the Rules Committee.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Madam Speaker, I thank Representative Fischbach 
for yielding to me.
  Madam Speaker, the rule before us today makes in order two pieces of 
legislation that this Chamber already considered last Congress. I am 
incredibly disappointed, yet once again, that we are considering 
legislation that makes it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise 
their Second Amendment rights, but does nothing, nothing at all, to 
address the root cause of gun violence.
  Despite what the majority claims, these bills would not have 
prevented any recent, high-profile mass shootings. These bills would 
not have prevented criminals from obtaining firearms. The overwhelming 
majority of criminals who commit crimes or are in possession of a 
firearm, they commit those crimes with firearms that were acquired 
through theft, the underground market, or straw purchases; and these 
are already illegal. Nothing in these bills would stop criminals from 
continuing to break the law.
  Instead, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446 would make it harder for domestic 
violence victims to protect themselves. It would give unelected 
bureaucrats the power to indefinitely delay legal gun purchases. It 
could even be used to create a national gun registry.
  If you don't believe me, the Obama administration even said that 
universal background checks are unworkable unless you have a national 
registry. But let's just get back to the text.
  As we pointed out last Congress, H.R. 8 is so poorly drafted that a 
transfer of a firearm to another person during a life-threatening 
emergency could land somebody in jail. That is how poorly this is 
drafted. So, again, these bills do nothing except penalize law-abiding 
citizens.
  You know, I learned to shoot from my grandfather. I was very young 
and learned how to shoot in Westmoreland County, Pennsylvania. Guns and 
firearms are very important to me and to a lot of my constituents. I 
can attest and I can assure you that the vast majority of gun owners 
are hardworking, law-abiding citizens looking to protect their 
families, looking to hunt and shoot with their friends.

                              {time}  1630

  But my colleagues on the left would be wise to just stop their 
grandstanding and focus on solutions that have been proven to work, 
like improving law enforcement coordination, increasing information 
sharing, and giving authorities more resources to actually prevent, 
deter, and prosecute firearm violence.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule, vote 
``no'' on H.R. 8, and vote ``no'' on H.R. 1446.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article 
published in the March 3 USA Today titled: ``Congress renews gun safety 
push with background check bills.''

                     [From USA TODAY, Mar. 3, 2021]

      Congress Renews Gun Safety Push With Background Check Bills

                           (By Amanda Becker)

       Congressional lawmakers this week revived an effort to 
     enact significant gun safety laws for the first time in more 
     than 25 years by introducing bills to establish a universal 
     background check system that has broad support from the 
     public.
       The bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would 
     extend current federal background check requirements to 
     transactions conducted by unlicensed and private sellers.
       Legislation was reintroduced in Congress to extend 
     background checks to transactions conducted by private and 
     unlicensed gun sellers.
       The gun safety group Giffords estimates that 22% of U.S. 
     gun owners purchased their last firearm without completing a 
     background check. Polling shows that more than 90% of 
     Americans support a universal background check system.
       The measures are what gun safety advocates predicted would 
     be a first step in pursuing new gun laws now that Democrats 
     control the White House and both chambers of Congress. In 
     recent years, gun safety bills stalled even when they had 
     bipartisan public support, in part because Republican 
     Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not bring them up for 
     votes when he led the Senate from 2015 to 2021.
       Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who chairs a 
     congressional gun violence prevention task force, on Tuesday 
     reintroduced bipartisan House legislation that would require 
     background checks for all firearm sales. The House first 
     passed the bill in 2019, one year after a mass shooting at 
     Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, 
     left 17 dead.
       ``Time and time again, we have seen that the American 
     people want universal background checks, in fact public 
     polling shows that the majority of people, Democrats, 
     Republicans and independents, support this,'' Thompson said 
     in a statement.
       The Senate is evenly split between Democrats and 
     Republicans, and the measure would have to pick up bipartisan 
     support to pass that chamber given that most legislation must 
     clear a 60-vote threshold.
       ``This Congress we will finally bring common sense gun 
     reforms up for a vote in the House and the Senate, and the 
     single most popular and effective proposal we can consider is 
     universal background checks,'' Murphy said in a video about 
     the effort.
       When the House passed background checks legislation in 
     2019, the bill ran aground in the then Republican-controlled 
     Senate, where McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, did not bring 
     it up for a vote.
       ``Now, with Senate Democrats in the Majority, we have the 
     opportunity to act on this overwhelmingly popular, lifesaving 
     legislation to protect American communities,'' Senate 
     Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on the 
     bill's introduction.
       Advocates for new gun safety laws have hoped that with 
     President Joe Biden in the White House and Democrats 
     controlling the House and Senate, there is an opportunity for 
     action. The NRA is also grappling with multiple crises: New 
     York's attorney general is investigating whether its leaders 
     misappropriated more than $60 million for personal use, and 
     the NRA filed for bankruptcy in January. Its remaining 
     officials insist the organization remains solvent, and it 
     plans to reincorporate in Texas.
       ``This is the moment,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of 
     Moms Demand Action, a grassroots organization started in late 
     2012 that now has nearly 6 million supporters.
       ``We have a trifecta and they have a mandate to act on 
     this. We have a grassroots army to support them and the NRA 
     is weaker than they've ever been,'' she added.
       Already this week, Rep. Jim Clyburn, a key Biden ally from 
     South Carolina, reintroduced a bill that would close the so-
     called ``Charleston loophole'' that allows firearm purchases 
     to move forward after three business days, even if a 
     background check has not been completed. It is named for the 
     2015 mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal 
     Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine died after 
     the gunman was able to purchase a firearm when the three-day 
     window expired.
       Last month, to mark the third anniversary of the Parkland 
     shooting, Biden called for the passage of ``common sense'' 
     gun safety laws. He cited a background checks bill among his 
     top priorities.
       The last major law passed to curb gun violence was the 
     Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by Democratic President 
     Bill Clinton in 1994. But even that had a 10-year sunset 
     provision that has since expired. Several attempts to renew 
     it, including by President Barack Obama in 2013 after Sandy 
     Hook, all derailed in a Republican-controlled Senate.
       Groups pushing for gun safety measures told The 19th 
     earlier this year that a background check bill would probably 
     be the starting point early in the Biden administration 
     because it has broader bipartisan support than other 
     measures. President Donald Trump acknowledged in 2019 that 
     there was a ``great appetite'' for such a proposal after mass 
     shootings in Ohio and Texas, as did McConnell, though he did 
     not go on to bring it up for a vote.
       A ``red flag'' bill giving courts the power to temporarily 
     confiscate firearms from individuals deemed at risk or anti-
     gun trafficking legislation could be taken up next, the 
     advocates said.
       Biden advisers Susan Rice and Cedric Richmond met last 
     month with gun safety groups that included Everytown for Gun 
     Safety, Moms Demand Action, Giffords and Brady to discuss 
     background checks, the proliferation of so-called ``ghost'' 
     guns (homemade firearms or those with serial numbers removed) 
     and violence intervention programs, the White House said.
       Biden has also pledged to work with Congress to reauthorize 
     the Violence Against Women Act, which he worked on as a 
     senator in the 1990s. In 2019, the House approved a VAWA 
     provision to close the so-called ``boyfriend loophole'' that 
     allows current and former unmarried partners convicted of 
     abuse and stalking to continue to purchase firearms. That 
     effort also stalled in the Senate. Democratic House leaders 
     said this week they will be taking up VAWA reauthorization 
     later this month.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, more than 90 percent of Americans 
support a universal background check system. Passing this legislation 
is simply common sense, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from

[[Page H1090]]

the 26th District of Texas (Mr. Burgess), who is another one of my 
colleagues on the Rules Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, I am concerned about H.R. 1446, the Enhanced 
Background Checks Act, that is part of this rule. This bill would 
eliminate the 3-day waiting period for a National Instant Criminal 
Background Check system determination. Under current law, if no 
determination is made within 3 days, a firearms sale may proceed. This 
bill that will be before Congress this week would expand the 3 days to 
require a 10-business-day waiting period with an additional 10 days 
allowed for the Attorney General to process any petitions.
  But rather than eliminate the 3-day waiting period, we should be 
removing from commerce those firearms that are sold to individuals who 
are later found to be ineligible.
  In 2016 the Department of Justice Inspector General audit found that 
less than 1 percent of those who were sold a firearm and then found 
later to be ineligible through the delayed background check were 
investigated and prosecuted.
  According to a 2018 Government Accountability Office report, the FBI 
conducted just over 25 million firearm background checks through the 
NICS system that year. One percent of attempted purchases were denied, 
or about 181,000. If only 1 percent of those denials were investigated, 
that still leaves 179,000 NICS denials where an individual may have 
been inappropriately sold a firearm, but, in fact, were never 
investigated. Even one firearm illegally in commerce, unfortunately, 
can lead to tragedy.
  Rather than place further burdens on law-abiding gun owners, we 
should be investigating and prosecuting those who have obtained a 
firearm illegally. Enforcement of our existing laws would be the first 
step to preventing gun violence.
  During rules consideration, I submitted an amendment to H.R. 1446 to 
require the Department of Justice Inspector General to report to 
Congress on the number of NICS denials referred for investigation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield the gentleman from Texas an 
additional 15 seconds.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for the time.
  Madam Speaker, this will provide an accurate accounting of the 
inefficiencies in the NICS system and provide a starting point to 
ensure full enforcement of our laws.
  I was pleased that this amendment was made in order, and I hope all 
Members will support it when it comes to the floor for a vote.
  But the underlying bill, H.R. 1446, should not pass this House.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague and friend on the Rules 
Committee that we should enforce existing laws. In States like 
California where we have universal background checks, we have seen that 
gun violence has gone down, as I said in my earlier remarks. We have 
also seen that 30 percent of the guns used in criminal activity are 
actually imported into the State from other States.
  To the previous comments that we need a national standard, that is 
why we need a national standard. It doesn't mean that States like 
California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts can't do these things, and 
it is a good laboratory, as Justice Brandeis said, that States should 
be the laboratory for innovation. We know these things work. So I would 
agree that we should enforce and get the revenue, the existing law.
  But clearly, eliminating the background checks loophole would help 
make Americans safe.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the Fifth District of Oklahoma (Mrs. Bice).
  Mrs. BICE of Oklahoma. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
Minnesota for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the combined rule and to 
the underlying measures, including H.R. 842, the PRO Act.
  We find ourselves today, Madam Speaker, at a time when businesses are 
struggling just to stay afloat, and in many States, unemployment 
numbers remain high. The last thing Congress should be doing at a time 
like this is making it harder for workers to find good employment.
  But that is just what the PRO Act would do. It cuts the opportunity 
for employers to make decisions based on what is right for their 
businesses, takes away the freedom of choice for workers who want to 
keep more of their paychecks, and makes it impossible for entrepreneurs 
to operate as independent contractors.
  Proponents of this bill don't want you to know that the so-called ABC 
test, based off a flawed California State law and used in this bill to 
define employment, would essentially abolish independent contracting 
and upend the gig economy.
  There is a reason that in the last few decades 27 States, including 
my home State of Oklahoma, have passed right-to-work laws. We the 
people want freedom in the marketplace, not a bill that does the 
bidding for union bosses. I implore my colleagues to oppose this bill 
and instead focus on solutions that make it easier for Americans to 
find good jobs in the economy.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Good).
  Mr. GOOD of Virginia. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is this rule 
would advance unconstitutional legislation that undermines the Second 
Amendment for law-abiding citizens. It is amazing that lawful gun 
ownership has been so politicized by the left that it is now common to 
ask someone their position on the Second Amendment, as if our 
constitutional rights are subject to opinion.

  The question before us is not: Do we believe in gun rights? It is 
rather: Do we believe in the Constitution?
  Currently, any firearm purchase from a federally licensed dealer is 
subject to a background check. But this legislation would expand this 
system--along with the fees and bureaucracy that comes with it--to 
private transfers.
  For what other constitutional rights will we now assign a fee or a 
tax?
  Our First Amendment rights?
  Our Fifth Amendment rights?
  This bill creates a de facto gun registry by involving the Federal 
Government in every gun transfer, including private transfers and 
gifts.
  How else would we enforce these requirements?
  For my Democrat friends who suggest that Conservatives and gun owners 
are paranoid about a national registry, Madam Speaker, you bet we are. 
We know our history, and we know what has happened in other countries.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this rule and all three of these bills.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Grothman).
  Mr. GROTHMAN. Madam Speaker, I was hoping when I flew back last night 
that the fence would be gone from around the Capitol. Unfortunately, it 
is still there. But given the bills we have before us today, maybe it 
is only fitting when you look at the Capitol you see a fence around it. 
It makes the Capitol appear as if it is a capital of a more 
totalitarian state looking at the bills we have before us today.
  The first bill is H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act. They 
call this an assault on the Second Amendment, something our forefathers 
put in the Constitution because they knew that the power in this 
country has to rest with the people. Instead, we have a bill here 
making it much more difficult to transfer a firearm and putting one in 
a position where they could face prison or a $100,000 fine if they do 
something wrong.
  It is just beyond belief. It is hard to believe when you look at this 
bill, Madam Speaker, that until 4 years ago when they began a war on 
the police, the murder rate in this country had fallen over 20 years in 
a row. Unfortunately, the majority is going to try to make it much more 
difficult to transfer a firearm as well as create a situation when you 
are waiting for your NICS check, if the FBI doesn't get back to you, 
you are delayed in getting a firearm.

[[Page H1091]]

  Madam Speaker, I urge rejection of the rule.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have one comment. The idea of opinions in the 
interpretation of the Second Amendment, there are 13 States, as I 
understand it, right now, who have universal background checks. All of 
them are working consistent with upholding the Second Amendment. 
Californians who have a universal background check can go out and 
legally buy a gun. It just decreases the number of deaths and injuries 
when you have this kind of law, Madam Speaker.
  So I agree with the gentleman who spoke and said it shouldn't be 
about opinion. Neither of us decides what is constitutional in this 
instance. The courts do, and the courts have allowed local and State 
governments to implement these commonsense laws.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the First District of Iowa (Mrs. Hinson).
  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule. I think we can 
all agree that guns should not be allowed to fall into the wrong hands. 
But these bills do nothing to stop the bad guys from illegally 
purchasing guns or reduce gun violence meaningfully. Instead, they 
punish law-abiding gun owners and arbitrarily deny Iowans their Second 
Amendment rights.
  H.R. 1446 allows the government to delay the sale of a firearm for an 
indefinite amount of time. H.R. 8 infringes on the rights of law-
abiding gun owners, criminalizing everyday transfers of guns between 
friends, family, and neighbors, including lending of weapons that were 
obtained lawfully.
  Madam Speaker, these bills trample on the constitutional rights of 
Iowans, and I strongly oppose them.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, a correction. The bill doesn't say 
indefinitely for the background checks. It says 10 days with the 
availability of an additional 10 days for a maximum of 20 days. So it 
is not indefinite.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from the Third District of Florida (Mrs. Cammack).
  Mrs. CAMMACK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule 
as well as H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, a/k/a the legislation to deny 
Americans their Second Amendment rights.
  Common sense and data tell us that these bills will do nothing to 
prevent criminals from obtaining firearms or stop mass shootings in the 
United States. Instead, these bills will make it more difficult for 
law-abiding citizens to exercise their constitutionally 
protected rights.

  H.R. 8 would lead to a national gun registry which every American 
should be concerned about. Even former Obama officials acknowledge that 
universal background checks are only effective with a national registry 
in place. H.R. 1446 would lead to unnecessary and potentially 
indefinite delays in law-abiding citizens purchasing the tools 
necessary to defend their families and their homes.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that H.R. 1446 
would close a loophole, but we know the truth. The only loophole will 
be that the criminals will continue to get guns on the black market 
while lawful citizens are denied their rights.
  As Members of Congress we swore an oath to defend the Constitution, 
and that includes the Second Amendment; and it reads plainly: shall not 
be infringed.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to stand up for all Americans' 
rights to bear arms, uphold their constitutional oath, and reject this 
rule and these horrendous bills.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I would just like to point out that having a gun in your home 
actually makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.
  Of the over 40,000 Americans who lost their lives from gun violence 
in 2018--the last year we have up-to-date statistics--two-thirds of 
those were by suicide. This is one of the big contributing factors to 
what are the so-called diseases of despair which happen everywhere in 
this country right now in these difficult times, and it has gotten 
worse under COVID. But the proximity to the guns actually leads to more 
of an opportunity for people to be the victim of gun violence.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 18 Washington Post 
editorial titled: ``Maryland just closed a gun loophole. The state is 
safer for it.''

               [From The Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2021]

    Maryland Just Closed a Gun Loophole. The State is Safer for it.

                          (By Editorial Board)

       Given America's lurid history of gun violence, it is 
     confounding that buyers can purchase firearms in some places 
     without background checks. It's even more astonishing that it 
     remains the case in a liberal stronghold such as Maryland, 
     which suffered its own recent trauma owing to a deranged 
     gunman bent on mass murder.
       Lawmakers in Annapolis last week finally closed a loophole 
     in state law that waived background checks for buyers who 
     make private purchases of shotguns and rifles. Sales of 
     handguns as well as shotguns and rifles from licensed dealers 
     in Maryland have long been subject to mandatory checks 
     through a federal database, but long guns were exempted when 
     the transaction took place through private dealers, including 
     those at gun shows.
       The Democratic-controlled legislature pushed through the 
     change this month by overriding a gratuitous veto cast last 
     year by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, who made no public 
     argument to defend the loophole beyond the fact that he had 
     not proposed closing it. The change takes effect next month.
       Gun rights advocates and their Republican allies in the 
     legislature characterized the legislation as an assault on 
     rural Maryland's way of life and a burden for hunters. In 
     fact, whatever (probably slight) inconvenience some sportsmen 
     might undergo because of the new law is outweighed by the 
     obstacle it may pose for buyers who have no business owning 
     firearms.
       It does not take a feat of imagination to foresee an act of 
     gun violence carried out by someone who, stymied by a 
     background check conducted by a licensed dealer, turns to a 
     private seller instead. Less than three years ago, a gunman 
     nursing a grievance massacred five people and injured two 
     others on a rampage through the newsroom of the Capital 
     Gazette newspaper, in Annapolis. He used a shotgun. As it 
     happens, he passed a background check when he purchased it; a 
     previous conviction, in 2011, for criminal harassment, was a 
     misdemeanor, not serious enough to forbid the sale. Yet even 
     if he had been convicted of a felony, he might still have 
     obtained a weapon easily by seeking out a private dealer--
     through an online inquiry, for instance. The chances that 
     such a gunman would now succeed are diminished in Maryland.
       No legislative measure is foolproof, and none will reliably 
     defeat a determined gunman. The idea of gun control, rather, 
     is to build a matrix of laws that deter and detect 
     individuals who, were they to obtain a firearm, would pose a 
     threat to themselves or others. Maryland's new law advances 
     that cause.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, this isn't about taking away the 
rights of law-abiding Americans. Those claims are nonsense. This is 
about protecting the lives of all Americans.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from the Ninth District of Georgia (Mr. Clyde).
  Mr. CLYDE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule 
providing combined consideration for H.R. 8, H.R. 1446, and H.R. 842.
  I want to focus on the first two. That is where Democrats are 
peddling their dangerous gun control agenda under the guise of working 
to stem the tide of firearms used in crime and under the guise of 
helping make our communities safer. These Democratic efforts are part 
of their larger radical and shameful ploy to slowly chip away at the 
Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
  As a Federal firearms dealer by trade, I remain staunchly opposed to 
any effort that abridges our God-given Second Amendment right to keep 
and bear arms--those inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution.

                              {time}  1645

  If enacted, H.R. 8 will criminalize many common and often necessary 
firearm transfers between law-abiding citizens while not reducing 
criminals' access to guns at all. I predict we will see more moms and 
pops get busted for

[[Page H1092]]

illegal possession or transfer of a firearm than we will violent gang 
members or criminals.
  How on Earth will criminalizing moms and pops curtail firearms used 
in a crime? The answer is that it won't. My Democrat colleagues are 
naive to think that criminals are suddenly going to rush to the closest 
firearms dealer to buy a gun. I know.
  Even more egregious than H.R. 8 is H.R. 1446, as it not only sets up 
a process by which American citizens would have to petition the 
government to exercise their right to bear arms, but it also extends 
the amount of time before a dealer can legally transfer a purchased 
firearm.
  Current law provides a 3-business-day safety valve to ensure the 
government doesn't further infringe on the customer's constitutional 
rights, and that must not be extended.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule and 
``no'' on the underlying bills.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my 
friends and colleagues that, again, even Justice Scalia, in the Heller 
majority decision, said that local and State governments could enact 
reasonable gun violence protection laws.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama's Second District (Mr. Moore).
  Mr. MOORE of Alabama. Madam Speaker, if enacted, H.R. 8 would turn 
law-abiding citizens into criminals in the name of preventing crime.
  H.R. 8 would establish universal background checks that aren't 
universal at all, nor would we have prevented any of the recent crimes 
involving firearms. The criminals involved either passed a Federal 
background check or stole the firearms they used. This should prove 
that background checks aren't the problem.
  This bill doesn't stop at the transfer of firearms, but it also 
requires background checks for temporary transfers of possession. Under 
this bill, simply handing a gun to someone could result in a penalty of 
up to 1 year in prison and a $100,000 fine.
  For example, this weekend, my son brought some of his friends over to 
the house to shoot skeet, and one of the young men borrowed my gun. So 
now, are we criminals when we loan a young man a gun for learning to 
shoot skeet?
  I don't understand how in the world we are going to start to 
criminalize everyday activities in this country.
  We are talking about a waiting period. Remember, when we got this 
mask, they told us 2 weeks to flatten the curve? We are a little over a 
year now.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Harshbarger).
  Mrs. HARSHBARGER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the 
attempts to take away our Second Amendment rights.
  As a gun owner myself, I am a strong supporter of the Second 
Amendment, and for me, this support is personal.
  Years ago, myself and my employees were held at gunpoint in my own 
pharmacy. Fortunately, we all made it out safe. Do you want to know why 
we made it out safe? Because we had a gun as well.
  But I know we were more fortunate than most who have a similar 
experience. I have utilized my gun carry permit ever since.
  I believe Americans should have the right to defend themselves like I 
did. This experience is just one reason why I oppose attempts to weaken 
our right to carry.
  Without our Second Amendment rights, we undermine our own rights to 
self-defense for ourselves, our businesses, and our families. This 
would be a terrible mistake, to try to take away our inalienable right 
to self-defense.
  Madam Speaker, I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing any 
legislation that threatens our Second Amendment rights, including H.R. 
8 and H.R. 1446.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Just a brief comment. In that same decision of Justice Scalia that I 
mentioned earlier, he said that Second Amendment protections are not 
unlimited, and that is the point of this bill. They have been done. 
They have been done constitutionally, as I said, by 13 States. And they 
statistically work.
  I, too, have been robbed at gunpoint, but I didn't have to have a gun 
to survive. That was providence and the San Francisco Police 
Department.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide for consideration of 
Congresswoman Hinson's bill, H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous materials, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Minnesota?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, 
provides a safe and responsible path forward to reopen our schools and 
to get our students back in the classroom.
  To speak further on the bill, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Iowa (Mrs. Hinson), my colleague.
  Mrs. HINSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Minnesota 
for yielding the time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today as a voice for the thousands of students 
across this country who have not stepped foot in a classroom or on a 
playground for over a year.
  In Iowa, our Governor has put students' education, their mental 
health, and their safety first. Our schools have reopened safely in 
Iowa.
  My kids got on a school bus this morning and went to a classroom, and 
they rode that same school bus home. They got to play with their 
friends. They got to learn in a classroom.
  Schools nationwide have to have a plan to reopen before it is too 
late for our students. The mental health toll of long-term school 
closures on our students is staggering. Recent data shows that mental 
healthcare claims for children ages 13-18--these are our teenagers, our 
next generation--have doubled over the past year, according to that 
data.
  Emergency room doctors are saying that they are treating more and 
more young people in crisis than ever before. Now, it is being reported 
that students across the country have fallen off the grid. That is 
right. We don't know where they are. School districts can't find them.
  As weeks out of school have turned into months, and months have 
turned into a year, our kids are the ones who are falling through the 
cracks, academically, emotionally, and physically.
  Thousands of our youngest, most vulnerable Americans are unaccounted 
for. Enrollment is dropping, especially in rural areas in States like 
Iowa. So now, 1 year out of the classroom is turning into 2, at least. 
Who knows?
  We must act. We must act today. We must act quickly. That is why I 
introduced the Reopen Schools Act. This legislation would ensure that 
our school districts are using money that was appropriated from this 
body, $54 billion of it, on proven safety measures that will allow them 
to reopen safely as soon as possible and have a plan to do so.
  Throwing more and more money at this problem, and then letting it go 
unused, is truly a disservice to taxpayers, and it is an injustice to 
our students.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in standing with our 
kids by defeating the previous question. It is an important issue for 
our next generation.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  On the last point, I would just say that in California, in 
particular, in my district, having had multiple conversations with 
teachers, their labor representatives, and superintendents, we are 
getting schools back open, but we are doing it in a way to make sure 
that it is done efficiently and safely for everyone, the students, most 
particularly, their families, and their teachers.
  We have come so far in this country, those of us who have listened to 
the science and the Centers for Disease

[[Page H1093]]

Control. We just want to make sure it is done right, in the most 
efficient, effective way for the kids.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, the Centers for Disease Control has indicated schools 
can operate safely with students in the classroom, yet many schools 
across the country remain closed.
  President Biden has chosen to side with political allies and big 
labor groups over scientists, and our students are being denied their 
right to a good education as a result.
  Kids need to be in school, and we should follow the science and 
reopen the schools for in-person instruction now.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on 
the underlying measure, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Nicely done.
  First, on the gun bills, of course, we are all respectful of the 
Speaker pro tempore's courage and the experience that she has had. For 
those of us who have had family members who have lost their lives 
because of gun violence--my dad is buried over at Arlington. He is a 
combat veteran from World War II who, a little over 30 years ago, took 
his own life.
  As we know, the tragedies of homicide, as the Speaker pro tempore 
knows personally, and losing a loved one, as I know from losing a loved 
one to suicide--suicide is two-thirds of the total of people who die--
both are awful.
  All we are trying to do, at least in my mind, is listen to the 
research, listen to the examples of other developed countries and other 
States, and implement public health policy. It informs us that if we do 
it, we will save lives and injuries, and we will save billions of 
dollars that all of us pay for.
  All of us respect the Constitution. We took an oath to it. All of us 
respect the Second Amendment. We might not have all agreed if we were 
there, but it is the law. The courts have allowed us to implement these 
laws, and they work.
  I really don't understand, and maybe it is because of my own personal 
belief and also from my experience as a city council member, a mayor, a 
member of the California Legislature, and now in Congress, why we don't 
follow the research and the evidence that it saves lives, out of 
respect for all those people who have lost their lives to gun violence.
  Then, on the PRO Act, as a former member of a Teamsters union, that 
job helped me to get through college when my dad had lost his job. I 
loaded trucks. It was that union that provided me protection and enough 
for myself and my coworkers.
  When I moved to San Francisco, I didn't have any money. I got a job 
in a hotel restaurant business, and I was in that local. Then, I was 
able to save enough money to go open my own businesses.
  There have been some comments that somehow this bill would hurt small 
businesses. The reality is that people organize in environments where 
their employer is not treating their employees appropriately.
  We know the inequality that Ms. DeLauro talked about, this historic 
inequality that is strangling our country and hurting so many working 
Americans, destroying the middle income that we have all benefited 
from, that opportunity to move up and to give to our kids something 
better than we had. That is the legacy of this country, and labor 
unions are a big part of that, and entrepreneurs and individual 
business owners are a big part of that. But it is the balance between 
these two.

  As John Kenneth Galbraith said a long time ago, and he wrote a boring 
book about this, but it is interesting: Wages and capital have to have 
countervailing institutions. They have to balance each other.
  As my friend from Minnesota said, it is a balance. Right now, after 
50 years of attacks, starting with President Reagan, the working people 
in this country don't have the voice they once had. That not only hurts 
them and their kids; it hurts all of us.
  When you have a robust middle class, and you have workers represented 
appropriately and proportionately, the country grows; there is more 
money to spend in businesses like mine; and there is a camaraderie, 
having teamwork. A good employer knows that, whether they have a 
unionized workforce or a nonunionized workforce.
  Your employees are what make your business work. That is what gives 
you goodwill. That is what Americans took so much pride in, in the 
1950s and 1960s, after World War II, after we had come to the great 
country we were after World War II, with a middle class that no one has 
ever seen on this planet. Since then, we have eroded that middle class.
  The one most important thing to improve our economy is to give 
working Americans a voice. Let them join together. Let it be fair. A 
good employer will respect that and work with that.
  As Eisenhower said, as I quoted in my opening, only a fool would try 
to keep a working American from organizing into a union.
  Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 188

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 19. 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. 
     682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in-
     person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, 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 Education and Labor. 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. 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. 20. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 682.

  Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 3(s) of House Resolution 
8, the yeas and nays are ordered.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
are postponed.

                          ____________________