[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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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.
____________________