[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 12, 2021)]
[House]
[Pages H2226-H2235]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2547, COMPREHENSIVE DEBT COLLECTION 
  IMPROVEMENT ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1065, PREGNANT 
              WORKERS FAIRNESS ACT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 380

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2547) to 
     expand and enhance consumer, student, servicemember, and 
     small business protections with respect to debt collection 
     practices, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Financial Services now printed in the bill, modified by the 
     amendment printed in part 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 Financial Services 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 Financial Services or her 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 Financial Services 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.  All points of order against the further amendments 
     printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules or 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution 
     are waived.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1065) to 
     eliminate discrimination and promote women's health and 
     economic security by ensuring reasonable workplace 
     accommodations for workers whose ability to perform the 
     functions of a job are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, or a 
     related medical condition. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on 
     Education and Labor now printed in the bill shall be 
     considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any 
     further amendment thereto, to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their 
     respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, May 14, 2021, the Speaker may entertain motions 
     offered by the Majority Leader or a designee that the House 
     suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV with 
     respect to multiple measures described in subsection (b), and 
     the Chair shall put the question on any such motion without 
     debate or intervening motion.
       (b) A measure referred to in subsection (a) includes any 
     measure that was the object of a motion to suspend the rules 
     on the legislative day of May 11, 2021, or May 12, 2021, in 
     the form as so offered, on which the yeas and nays were 
     ordered and further proceedings postponed pursuant to clause 
     8 of rule XX.
       (c) Upon the offering of a motion pursuant to subsection 
     (a) concerning multiple measures, the ordering of the yeas 
     and nays on postponed motions to suspend the rules with 
     respect to such measures is vacated to the end that all such 
     motions are considered as withdrawn.
       Sec. 7.  House Resolution 379 is hereby adopted.

                              {time}  1415

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized 
for 1 hour.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purposes of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. 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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and 
reported a rule, House Resolution 380, providing for consideration of 
H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, under a 
structured rule.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or 
their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from 
Chairwoman Waters, makes in order 14 amendments, provides en bloc 
authority for Chairwoman Waters or her designee and provides one motion 
to recommit.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act, under a closed rule, which provides 1 hour of 
debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member 
of the Committee

[[Page H2227]]

on Education and Labor or their designees, and provides one motion to 
recommit.
  The rule deems as passed H. Res. 379, a resolution to dismiss the 
election contest in Illinois' 14th Congressional District.
  Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the 
ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills 
considered on May 11 or May 12. This authority lasts through May 14.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide consideration 
of two important bills to protect and support our constituents. First 
is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, which will create 
protections for servicemembers, small businesses, students, and other 
consumers against mistreatment by debt collectors. Debt collection is 
consistently one of the top complaints made to the Consumer Financial 
Protection Bureau, and the pandemic has further exposed weaknesses in 
current consumer protection laws.
  In March, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial 
Institutions, which I chair, held a hearing on protecting consumers 
during the pandemic. We heard expert witnesses discuss how many debt 
collectors have seen record profits in the pandemic, despite many 
families and individuals continuing to struggle.
  H.R. 2547 is comprehensive legislation to update consumer protections 
in debt collection across many different issues. For example, the bill 
codifies and expands protections for small and minority-owned 
businesses and prohibits debt collectors from threatening a 
servicemember with reduction in rank or other military disciplinary 
actions. Additionally, it protects private student loan borrowers with 
disabilities, would prohibit entities from collecting medical debt or 
reporting it to a credit reporting agency without giving the consumer 
notice about his or her rights, and clarifies that entities in 
nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are covered by the Fair Debt 
Collection Practices Act.
  This legislation is sponsored by Financial Services Committee 
Chairwoman Maxine Waters and incorporates bills from committee members, 
Representatives Nydia Velazquez, Madeleine Dean, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna 
Pressley, Emanuel Cleaver,  Greg Meeks, and Jake Auchincloss. The bill 
is supported by many consumer and civil rights organizations, including 
Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Color 
of Change, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law 
Center, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and others.
  This legislation will update and improve debt collection consumer 
protection laws, and make sure that small businesses, families, and 
individuals are treated fairly as we all work to come out of this 
pandemic stronger.
  The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act. Claims of pregnancy discrimination have been on 
the rise for two decades and affect all industries and regions across 
the country. This bipartisan bill will strengthen workplace protections 
and promote the well-being of pregnant workers by creating a new right 
to pregnancy accommodation in the workplace.
  Temporary modifications at work, like regular breaks, a stool to sit 
on, or an exemption from heavy lifting, can be the difference between a 
healthy pregnancy and pregnancy complications. When pregnant workers 
are denied reasonable workplace accommodations, they are often left to 
choose between their financial stability and a healthy pregnancy.
  Currently, only 30 States require employers to provide reasonable 
accommodations for pregnant workers, including, thankfully, my home 
State of Colorado. But this has created a confusing patchwork of local, 
State, and Federal laws, leaving many pregnant workers with few 
protections.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act enjoys support from both worker 
advocates and business groups because it is good for families, it is 
good for business, and it is good for the economy. The House passed 
this bill last Congress in a broad, bipartisan vote of 329-73, and I 
hope more of my colleagues join us in passing the bill this year.
  I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
bills. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend 
from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of 
legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law 
requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations 
related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

  Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, 
including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers 
should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is 
disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse 
to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision 
protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment 
decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving 
forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with 
Republicans and help protect religious liberty.
  The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt 
Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services 
bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the 
problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is 
just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our 
country's financial system.
  Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already 
protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim 
H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several 
of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the 
pandemic.
  It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using 
the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system 
and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people.
  Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase 
healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, 
under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out 
of the system entirely.
  Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of 
which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for 
those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered.
  Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, 
intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the 
result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for 
both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications.
  During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry 
offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the 
current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included 
provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, 
provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent 
disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by 
consumer reporting agencies.
  The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal 
is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the 
highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for 
bipartisan solutions.
  House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide 
Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our 
financial system remains safe and sound.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I include in the Record a letter dated May 10, 2021, from about 85 
different public interest and financial organizations supporting H.R. 
2547.

[[Page H2228]]

                                                     May 10, 2021.
     Re H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement 
         Act'' (Waters), which includes:
     HR 2540, the ``Small Business Fairness Lending Act'' 
         (Velazquez).
     HR 1491, the ``Fair Debt Collection Practices for 
         Servicemembers Act'' (Dean).
     HR 2498, the ``Private Loan Disability Discharge Act'' 
         (Dean).
     HR 2537, the ``Consumer Protection for Medical Debt 
         Collections Act'' (Tlaib).
     HR 1657, the ``Ending Debt Collection Harassment Act'' 
         (Pressley).
     HR 2572, the ``Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act'' (Cleaver).
     HR 2628, the ``Debt Collection Practices Harmonization Act'' 
         (Meeks).
     HR 2458, the ``Non-Judicial Foreclosure Debt Collection 
         Clarification Act'' (Auchincloss).

     Representative Nancy Pelosi,
     Speaker of the House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
     Representative Kevin McCarthy,
     Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Speaker Pelosi and Minority Leader McCarthy: The 85 
     undersigned public interest, legal services, consumer, labor, 
     and civil rights organizations write in support of HR 2547 
     and urge you to support this legislation when it comes up for 
     a vote on May 13th.
       Prior to the pandemic, the Urban Institute reported that 
     more than 68 million adults in the U.S. had one or more debts 
     in collection on their credit report, and consumer debt has 
     continued to grow during the pandemic, reaching $14.56 
     trillion at the end of 2020.
       Debt in collection can wreak havoc on consumers, subjecting 
     them to harassing debt collection calls and potential 
     lawsuits. Despite the enactment of the federal Fair Debt 
     Collection Practices Act (``FDCPA'') in 1977, debt collection 
     remains a frequent source of complaints to the Consumer 
     Financial Protection Bureau, Federal Trade Commission, and 
     other state and federal agencies.
       Data from the Urban Institute also show racial disparities 
     in debt collection, with 39 percent of residents in 
     communities of color with debt in collection compared to 24 
     percent of residents in white communities. These statistics 
     highlight the fact that consumer protections for consumers 
     with alleged debts in collection are also a racial justice 
     issue.
       Additionally, other groups may be particularly vulnerable 
     to abusive debt collection practices including 
     servicemembers, older consumers, and consumers with limited 
     English proficiency.
       To better protect vulnerable consumers, this bill would 
     enact a wide variety of critical reforms, including:
       Prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment as an unfair 
     credit practice that eliminate notice and the right to be 
     heard;
       Prohibiting certain abusive collection practices directed 
     at servicemembers, including threats to reduce rank or revoke 
     security clearance;
       Requiring discharge of private student loans due to total 
     and permanent disability;
       Prohibiting collection of medical debt for the first two 
     years and credit reporting of debt arising from any medically 
     necessary procedures;
       Requiring debt collectors to obtain consent before using 
     electronic communications and provide written validation 
     notices;
       Amending the FDCPA to expand and clarify coverage, 
     including extending coverage for all federal, state, and 
     local debts collected by debt collectors;
       Adjusting statutory damages in the FDCPA for inflation and 
     indexing them to index for inflation in the future; and
       Clarifying FDCPA coverage for non-judicial foreclosures.
       Enactment of H.R. 2547 will protect vulnerable consumers 
     from abusive debt collection practices, and we thank the 
     House of Representatives for considering legislation to 
     address these important issues.
       Please feel free to contact April Kuehnhoff at the National 
     Consumer Law Center, regarding this legislation.
       Very truly yours,
       Alaska PIRG; Americans for Financial Reform; Arizona PIRG; 
     California Low-Income Consumer Coalition (CLICC); CALPIRG; 
     Center for Economic Integrity; Center for Responsible 
     Lending; Color of Change; Communities United for Restorative 
     Youth Justice; ConnPIRG; Consumer Action; Consumer Federation 
     of America; Consumer Reports; CoPIRG.
       Demos; Equal Justice Under Law; Every Texan; Fines and Fees 
     Justice Center; Florida PIRG; Friendship of Women, Inc.; 
     Georgia PIRG; Georgia Watch; GLOBAL GREEN INITIATIVE; Housing 
     and Family Services of Greater New York; HPPCARES; Illinois 
     PIRG; Insight Center for Community Economic Development; 
     Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection; Iowa 
     PIRG; Kentucky Resources Council; Lawyers' Committee for 
     Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Legal Action 
     Chicago; Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.; Legal Aid 
     Justice Center; Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc.; 
     Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School; Long Island 
     Housing Services, Inc.; Maryland Consumer Rights Coalition; 
     Maryland PIRG; MASSPIRG.
       Michigan League for Public Policy; Mississippi Center for 
     Justice; Missouri Faith Voices; MontPIRG; MoPIRG; Mountain 
     State Justice; National Association of Consumer Advocates; 
     National Center for Access to Justice; National Center for 
     Law and Economic Justice; National Consumer Law Center (on 
     behalf of its low-income clients); National Fair Housing 
     Alliance; NCPIRG; New Jersey Citizen Action; New York Taxi 
     Workers Alliance; NHPIRG; NJPIRG; NMPIRG; Ohio PIRG; Ohio 
     Poverty Law Center; Oregon PIRG (OSPIRG).
       PennPIRG; Pennsylvania Council of Churches; PIRG in 
     Michigan (PIRGIM); Public Citizen; Public Counsel; Public 
     Good Law Center; Public Justice; Public Justice Center; 
     Public Law Center; RIPIRG; South Carolina Appleseed Legal 
     Justice Center; Student Borrower Protection Center; Texas 
     Appleseed; TexPIRG; The Leadership Conference on Civil and 
     Human Rights; Tzedek DC; U.S. PIRG; United Way of 
     Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley; Virginia Citizens 
     Consumer Council; Washoe Legal Services; WASHPIRG; Western 
     Center on Law and Poverty; WISPIRG; Woodstock Institute; WV 
     Citizen Action.

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments, 
but, apparently, consumer protection is not high on the list of 
priorities for the other side of the aisle.
  I would just say, this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2547, 
has many good aspects, a number of which are bipartisan in nature:
  It codifies the protections that currently exist under the FTC 
regulation for consumer loans prohibiting the use of confessions of 
judgment that waive due process protections, and extends those 
protections to commercial loans to protect small and minority-owned 
businesses.
  It prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with 
reduction in their rank and revoking their security clearance or 
prosecuting them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 
requires a GAO study on the impact of debt collection on 
servicemembers.
  It requires discharge of private student loans for both the borrower 
and cosigner in the case of permanent disability of the borrower, 
extending protections that currently exist for Federal student loans. 
So it assists people with serious disabilities.
  It requires private lenders who are notified the Federal Government 
has discharged the Federal student loans of a borrower to discharge the 
private student loans of that same borrower.
  It bars entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a 
consumer reporting agency without giving the consumer a notice about 
their rights.
  These are so simple, and you would expect that there would be 
universal acceptance of this, but apparently not.
  It provides a minimum 1-year delay from adverse information reported 
and a 2-year delay before collection attempts are made on these medical 
bills.

                              {time}  1430

  We heard last night in committee even Dr. Burgess talking about the 
normal practices of medical professionals allowing people to have time 
to pay their bills, especially when we are in the middle of a pandemic 
or as we are coming out of a pandemic.
  It bans the reporting of medical debts arising from medically 
necessary procedures. This was something that Ralph Hall, a Republican, 
championed for years.
  It prohibits a debt collector from contacting a consumer by email or 
text message without a consumer's consent to be contacted 
electronically.
  It requires the CFPB to analyze and annually report on the impact of 
electronic communications utilized by debt collectors.
  The provisions of this bill are simple, consumer-oriented efforts to 
provide information to the consumer debtor and to take into 
consideration that we are in a pandemic and medical bills have piled up 
for so many people.
  This is a very simple bill. It has bipartisan provisions in it. It 
should be passed, as should the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).
  Mrs. GREENE of Georgia. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, I rise in 
opposition to H.R. 1065.
  There is language that I find many Democrats use in a lot of 
Democrats' bills. It is called pregnancy rights. Pregnancy rights means 
abortion to them, and I really don't understand that because that is 
not pregnancy. Abortion is killing a baby in the womb. That is not 
pregnancy rights. That is one issue we have there.

[[Page H2229]]

  Democrats are once again using identity politics--this identity is a 
pregnant woman--to overregulate businesses. Rather than giving mothers 
greater access to paid family leave or making healthcare affordable, 
Democrats want to double down on a government mandate that punishes 
businesses and religious organizations and provides more access to 
abortion. That is killing the baby in the womb. That is not pregnancy 
rights.
  Passing this bill means a small business or religious organization 
could be forced to provide paid time off to an employee to have an 
abortion even if that violates the religious beliefs of the 
organization. On top of that, these groups can be sued for damages for 
not taking every step to accommodate pregnant workers. That means 
churches and small businesses, the backbone of America, will be tied up 
in court for years seeking to comply with a one-size-fits-all 
government agenda from Washington.
  The solution to this problem is to reopen America, reduce government 
regulations on small businesses, and keep Trump tax cuts that allow 
companies to keep more of their money to pass on to employees.
  I cannot support a bill that allows more abortion.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, as to H.R. 1065, there are at least 20, 
if not more, Republican cosponsors of that piece of legislation. I want 
the Record to reflect that.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina 
(Ms. Ross), a member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. ROSS. Mr. Speaker, debt collectors often operate with impunity, 
threatening servicepeople, denying small business owners due process, 
and harassing customers and homeowners with repeated calls, texts, and 
emails.
  Harassment by debt collectors negatively affects students' career 
decisions, small business growth, homeownership, and families' 
financial stability. It hurts the economy and amplifies racial, gender, 
and socioeconomic inequities across the Nation.
  For example, rates of student loan distress are especially 
concentrated among low-income borrowers, borrowers in rural areas, and 
borrowers of color. Debt collectors incessantly contacting borrowers 
without consent adds another layer of loan distress, particularly 
during this pandemic.
  This is why I introduced an amendment to this bill that requires a 
GAO investigation of communications by debt collectors, including 
specific recommendations for Congress to reduce the harassment and 
abuse of individuals with debt.
  The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is critical to 
protecting students, servicemembers, small business owners, and 
consumers with debt from predatory practices.
  I urge my colleagues to support this entire legislation. It is 
important for the dignity of the average borrower in this country.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, 
but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week.
  In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating 
May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date 
falls as Police Week.
  Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law 
enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our 
country and our communities safe.
  When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving 
legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our 
communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority 
is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this 
year's Police Week.
  Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 
2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; 
even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a 
father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we 
stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed 
in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019.

  I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly 
attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, 
dismantling, and abolishing the police.
  Don't believe me? Just take their word for it.
  Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is 
inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on 
and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.''
  Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 
million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks 
a new future for our city.''
  Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial 
Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: 
``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, 
and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.''
  Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their 
lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is 
actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run 
cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. 
Let's look at some of the numbers.
  Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In 
return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides.
  Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, 
experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides.
  Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 
billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 
percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let 
me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent 
increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides.
  Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and 
want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and 
professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman   Don Bacon's 
Back the Blue Act, Congressman   John Rutherford's Protect and Serve 
Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and 
Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about 
each one of those bills.
  The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it 
a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer.
  The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone 
who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them.
  The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection 
Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who 
harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving 
abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United 
States.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Nehls). He is here to explain this amendment. He is my 
good friend and a former law enforcement officer.
  Mr. NEHLS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Back the Blue Act, 
the Serve and Protect Act, and the Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila 
Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Mr. Speaker, all of these are 
necessary and commonsense protections for our brave law enforcement 
officers.
  The hateful anti-law-enforcement rhetoric over the past 12 months has 
led to violence and division in Democrat-controlled cities across our 
country. We saw it in Seattle, Minneapolis, and Portland, city blocks 
burned, businesses destroyed, lives ruined.
  Our local, State, and Federal law enforcement officers have been 
subjected to violence like we have never seen in this country, ambush 
shootings taking officers' lives, violent riots, police precincts 
burned to the ground--yes, burned to the ground.

[[Page H2230]]

  Now more than ever, we need to send a loud and clear message to 
would-be criminals targeting our brave law enforcement officers: If you 
attack or harm law enforcement in any way, you will pay. We back the 
blue in this country.
  To the radicals chanting to defund and abolish law enforcement, who 
are you going to call if an armed criminal breaks into your home? It is 
certainly not going to be a social worker.
  We are a nation of laws and law and order. Without law enforcement, 
our country would cease to exist. Keep that in mind when you hear anti-
law-enforcement zealots chanting to abolish police. What they are 
really advocating for is abolishing the United States of America.

  The hatred, vitriol, and violence against law enforcement have to 
stop. We need to stand and support our law enforcement officers. That 
is why I urge my colleagues to support the Back the Blue Act, the Serve 
and Protect Act, and the Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law 
Enforcement Protection Act.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. I want to remind my friends on the Republican side of the 
aisle that we passed a bill about 2 months ago called the American 
Rescue Plan. Not one Republican voted for that. That had money to 
support law enforcement and local governments and cities and States 
that saw their tax revenues fall off a cliff.
  Mr. Speaker, when my friend, Mr. Reschenthaler, says, oh, a billion 
dollars was cut from the funding here, or $150 million cut from there, 
he forgot to talk about the fact that tax revenues across the country 
for local governments and State governments were cut to the bone 
because of the pandemic.
  If my friends really wanted to put their money where their mouths 
are, then they would have supported the American Rescue Plan because it 
provided $350 billion to State and local governments so that they could 
increase funding to the police, to law enforcement, to social services, 
to a whole variety of agencies and needs. But, apparently, they chose 
not to. Instead, they choose to bring claims that Democrats want to 
defund the police, which couldn't be further from the truth.
  We put our money where our mouths are, and we said we support law 
enforcement. We support local government employees. We support State 
government employees. We provided in the American Rescue Plan, which 
not a single Republican voted for, hazard pay because it has been so 
difficult for law enforcement and for so many others to conduct their 
services, to be out in the community during this particular pandemic.
  Mr. Speaker, I just would suggest to my friends, next time they get 
an opportunity to actually provide funding to law enforcement, they 
vote for it and not just say they are supportive of it. Let's put their 
moneys where their mouths are.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Lois Frankel).

                              {time}  1445

  Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Since when is having babies a liberal 
activity?
  In fact, I believe that police women have babies, too. And let me 
tell you about a couple of other women.
  Erica was working at a warehouse lifting heavy boxes. She had been 
working there for years. And when she was denied her request to pick up 
lighter boxes, she lost her pregnancy.
  Hannah gave 5 years of her life to a healthcare company, was 
consistently promoted; but when she disclosed her pregnancy to her 
employer, she was fired.
  And Sara, who spent 7 years building a tech startup from the ground 
up and truly loved her job and had been promised a promotion when she 
came back from maternity leave, had it revoked.
  These are all true stories of women who have faced the real-world 
consequence of discrimination against pregnant workers in America. So 
right now, if a woman becomes pregnant, she can be denied, for example, 
an extra bathroom break, a place to sit, a lighter lifting, or fired 
for asking for simple accommodations or even just disclosing that she 
is pregnant.
  This leaves many women having to choose between the health of their 
pregnancy and putting foods on their family's table. We are putting 
women in danger every single day while we hold off on this action. They 
are real-world implications for women like Erica and Sara and Hannah, 
especially in light of how women have really suffered the brunt of the 
job loss during the pandemic and as we see a rise in maternal mortality 
rates for women of color.
  Mr. Speaker, so these stories are not unique. Pregnancy should not 
prevent a woman from putting food on the table, for paying her bills.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to pass this good and needed bill, 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in 
the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is 
being used. Let's be clear about something.
  California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that 
didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan 
and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants.
  And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to 
defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do 
want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for 
it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats.
  Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill 
de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department 
budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my 
colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't 
mean budget tricks or funny math.''
  Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, 
not mine.
  Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their 
police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous 
cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's 
decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is 
historic. It marks a new future for our city.''
  Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It 
did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you 
have crime rates rising to historic levels.
  My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we 
remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police 
funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, 
put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, 
putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying 
because that is what is going to make our communities safer.''
  So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund 
the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, 
and their policies have proven it in many cities.
  And what do the American people get?
  Increased crime rates.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.
  Mr. RUTHERFORD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that 
we can immediately consider the Protect and Serve Act, my bipartisan 
bill to increase penalties for individuals who deliberately target law 
enforcement officers with violence.
  Throughout my 40 years of law enforcement, including 12 as sheriff, I 
have seen firsthand the dangerous situations our men and women in law 
enforcement face every day. In Jacksonville, in fact, our memorial wall 
is filled with the names of many good police officers who laid down 
their lives in service to their community.
  This Police Week, we are honoring the memory of the 394 officers our 
Nation lost last year. We pause to remember their sacrifice and pledge 
to support policies that keep our officers

[[Page H2231]]

safe. These policies should include harsh penalties for violence 
targeted against our men and women in blue.
  When I first introduced the Protect and Serve Act in 2018, it was 
overwhelmingly passed by the House 382-35.
  Police Week has always been a unifying time to honor those lost, but 
now, now the majority will barely acknowledge it.

  What is going on?
  I think the answer is simple. Supporting our police has become 
unpopular in the Democratic Party. Pressure from online radicals, 
political pundits who have never worn a badge, never been on a ride-
along, they are dictating what policies the House majority will 
support.
  To make matters worse, House Democrats are pushing a police reform 
bill right now that eliminates qualified immunity, the lifeblood of law 
enforcement. Mr. Speaker, without qualified immunity, the entire 
profession would end as we know it today.
  It makes you wonder if that is their goal: End local law enforcement 
and replace it with a national police force similar to almost every 
socialist country in the world.
  Regardless, the growing antipolice rhetoric and widespread efforts to 
defund police departments are leaving officers increasingly at risk to 
attacks in communities less safe.
  As mentioned earlier, we are not even halfway through 2021 and we 
have already seen more police officers shot this year than all of last 
year. Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, American cities are experiencing 
a spike in violent crime. The U.S. surpassed 20,000 murders last year 
for the first time since 1995. And just this year, shootings in 
Chicago, up 43 percent; New York City, Los Angeles, up 36 percent; 
Washington, D.C., homicide up 63 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, it turns out if you demoralize, defund, and delegitimize 
the police, crime goes up. I know many of my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle do support law enforcement. I know that. In fact, I 
know that a particular few even have backgrounds in law enforcement.
  Mr. Speaker, so this is what I would like to impart to my Democrat 
colleagues: Here is your chance to say during Police Week that you 
support our law enforcement officers. Vote for my bill, the Protect and 
Serve Act, just like you did in 2018, and show your constituent police 
officers that you have their backs.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two Statements of Administration 
Policy. One on H.R. 2547, and the other one on H.R. 1065, both in 
support of the bills that are under consideration.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


H.R. 2547--Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act--Rep. Waters, 
                       D-CA, and seven cosponsors

       The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2547, the 
     Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. This 
     legislation would expand necessary safeguards to ensure 
     working families and small businesses are protected from 
     predatory debt collection practices.
       As our Nation works to recover from the worst economic and 
     public health crises of our lifetimes, many families and 
     small businesses are dealing with outstanding debts. In 
     addition to providing robust relief, the government must also 
     protect Americans from abusive and predatory practices.
       H.R. 2547 would extend existing consumer protections 
     against predatory lending arrangements to small businesses, 
     prohibit debt collectors from threatening service members 
     with a reduction in rank, prosecution or loss of security 
     clearance, and restrict contact to consumers by email or text 
     messages. The legislation would require discharge of private 
     student loans for both the borrower and cosigners in the case 
     of permanent disability for the borrower, establishing 
     greater parity in protections for private and Federal student 
     loan borrowers. The bill also clarifies protections for 
     consumers in the case of non-judicial foreclosure 
     proceedings.
       The Administration applauds these steps to strengthen 
     consumer protections for hardworking Americans and their 
     families, and we look forward to working with the Congress 
     further on the details of this legislation.

                   Statement of Administration Policy


 H.R. 1065--Pregnant Workers Fairness Act--Rep. Nadler, D-NY, and 228 
                               cosponsors

       The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 
     1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Pregnant workers are 
     too often unable to access simple changes to their working 
     conditions that would allow them to keep doing their jobs and 
     do so safely. This can create risks to their health as well 
     as economic consequences. No worker should be forced to 
     choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy.
       The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide basic, long 
     overdue protections to ensure that pregnant workers and job 
     applicants are not fired or otherwise discriminated against, 
     or denied reasonable accommodations that allow them to work. 
     Such protections promote family economic security by helping 
     women stay in the workforce, including for those, often women 
     of color, who are the sole or primary breadwinners in their 
     families. Approximately two million women have left the 
     workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding more than 30 
     years of progress in women's labor force participation, and 
     this Administration is committed to ensuring that women can 
     both care for and support themselves and their families.
       H.R. 1065 is a bipartisan bill that requires certain 
     employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified 
     employees and job applicants with known limitations related 
     to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition. 
     These accommodations might include simple modifications, such 
     as modifying a no-food-or-drink policy, providing additional 
     break time to use the bathroom, or helping avoid the lifting 
     of heavy objects, depending on the circumstances. The bill 
     would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations 
     for qualified pregnant workers unless doing so would pose an 
     undue hardship to the employer. It would also provide for an 
     interactive process, where necessary, between employers and 
     pregnant workers to determine appropriate and effective 
     reasonable accommodations, and would protect pregnant workers 
     from being denied employment opportunities, or from 
     retaliation or interference, because they request or use an 
     accommodation.
       The Administration encourages the House to pass this 
     bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to 
     working with the Congress to protect pregnant workers across 
     the country.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friends on the other 
side of the aisle trying to find a subject to talk about, since 
apparently they don't really have too many objections to either of the 
bills that are being discussed in the rule today.
  Obviously, it doesn't seem like there is much conversation about H.R. 
1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. And there isn't much 
discussion about the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. 
Because those things are commonsense. They should be passed by this 
House. We thank so many Republicans for being cosponsors of the 
Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, a number of the 
provisions in the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act are 
really bipartisan, including the one Mr. Hall used to champion when he 
was a Member here in the Congress.
  So you want to go off and talk about something else. I wonder where 
the outrage for brutality against our police was when a rightwing mob 
stormed this Capitol. And the only one of the people that really is 
speaking of the truth today in the Republican Caucus--Ms. Cheney from 
Wyoming--was ousted from her leadership position because she talked 
about the truth and the fact there was a mob, and our police were 
beaten by a rightwing mob.
  Mr. Speaker, so I would just say to my friends on the other side of 
the aisle: Take a look in the mirror, and let's support our police 
across the board. Because I certainly support the law enforcement in 
Colorado. I support our Capitol Police, our FBI--particularly, the FBI.
  President Trump would always undercut the FBI.
  So I would suggest to my friends: Take a look in the mirror. Let's 
all support our law enforcement because they are important members of 
our community.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking 
about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking 
about police themselves--lots of talking about police.
  Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police 
Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't 
really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''
  So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We 
have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat 
colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout 
the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police.

[[Page H2232]]

  Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard 
Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an 
attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid 
of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. 
Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, 
too.''
  The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of 
Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired 
their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative 
Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and 
intentionally racist.''

                              {time}  1500

  Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, 
incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.''
  Again, this is what Democrats say about police.
  And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in 
response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George 
Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative 
Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial 
profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an 
important step, in affecting change and working to end these 
injustices.''
  That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at 
the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the 
resolution said.
  ``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and 
use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly 
Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow 
laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.''
  So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern 
police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely 
unacceptable.
  Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week 
Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with 
the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who 
have died defending our communities and our country.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bacon), my good friend the former general.
  Mr. BACON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous 
question so that we can immediately consider my bill to ensure that 
those who risk their lives to protect all of us are afforded greater 
protections as well.
  I introduced the Back the Blue Act of 2021 with Senator Cornyn in the 
Senate and my two original cosponsors in the House, Representatives 
Stivers and Johnson, during Police Week because this bill is needed now 
more than ever.
  There have been more officers shot and killed in the last 4\1/2\ 
months of 2021 than all of 2020 and all of 2019. In 4\1/2\ months, we 
have had more fatalities, more murders of policemen than in the whole 
year of 2020 and the whole year of 2019. It is clear that we need to 
enforce greater protections for those who protect us, and that is why 
my colleagues and I introduced the Back the Blue Act.
  The numbers are alarming. In 2018, 83 police officers were shot and 
26 were killed. In 2019, 86 were shot and 18 were killed. And 2020, 89 
were shot and 18 killed. This year, in 2021, as of April 30th, there 
have been 91 officers shot so far, and 19 of them killed by gunfire.
  Our police are being targeted. We need to defend our law enforcement 
and public safety officers, and our bill does just that.
  Specifically, the Back the Blue Act creates new criminal provisions 
to Federal law enforcement officers; U.S. judges; and federally funded 
public safety officers, such as firefighters, chaplains, and members of 
a rescue squad or ambulance crew.
  The Back the Blue Act creates a new Federal crime for killing, 
attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a Federal judge, Federal law 
enforcement officer or a federally funded public safety officer. The 
offender would be subject to the death penalty and a mandatory minimum 
sentence of 30 years if death results. The offender would otherwise 
face a minimum sentence of 10 years.
  The bill creates a new Federal crime for assaulting a federally 
funded law enforcement officer with escalating penalties, including 
mandatory minimums based on the extent of any injury and the use of a 
dangerous weapon. However, no prosecution can be commenced absent 
certification by the Attorney General that prosecution is appropriate.
  Now, I want to respond to my friend, who I respect, from Colorado. I 
condemned the behavior and the riot that occurred on January 6. Over 
one hundred of our policemen were injured. This bill provides extra 
protections for Capitol Hill law enforcement. Those who injured our 
Capitol Police on January 6 would be under greater punishment or 
penalties, if convicted.
  Our bill also creates a new Federal crime for interstate flight from 
justice to avoid prosecution for killing, attempting to kill or 
conspiring to kill a Federal judge, Federal law enforcement officer or 
federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject 
to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for this offense.
  Lastly, the Back the Blue Act creates a specific aggravating factor 
for the Federal death penalty prosecutions. It expands self-defense and 
Second Amendment rights for law enforcement officers. It opens up grant 
funding to strengthen relationships between police and their 
communities.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our law enforcement personally. I was a 
victim of crime twice, and both times I was deployed when I was 
assigned to the Air Force. My house was robbed once when I was a 
captain deployed to Bahrain. Another time, someone assumed a false 
identity when I was a lieutenant colonel during the invasion of Iraq 
when I was flying combat operations. Thankfully, one of the times the 
police captured one of the perpetrators and arrested him and he was 
charged for a crime.
  I deployed to go to the battle. Every day our police walk out their 
front door, after kissing their spouse good-bye, wondering if they are 
going to encounter a violent criminal. We cannot thank our police 
officers enough.
  During Police Week, I urge my colleagues to support our first 
responders by immediately considering and supporting the Back the Blue 
Act.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Nebraska for condemning--
finally, somebody condemning the riot and the attack that occurred 
against all of us and against our police, the Capitol Police, on 
January 6. I would also like to see more members of the Republican 
Party stand up and do exactly that same thing.

  Mr. Speaker, I would also like to see them do what Ms. Cheney did, 
and condemn the ex-President, Donald Trump, for his role in inciting 
that whole mob action on January 6, and then we could start getting 
things back together.
  Instead, my friend from Pennsylvania, reading a resolution that 
condemns racist policing that may have existed for a very long time, 
and I can't believe that he supports policing that is delivered in some 
kind of racist fashion. We have had too many people killed across this 
country. I know that is not what he meant.
  So I just would urge us to focus on the bills that are at hand, which 
is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Pregnant 
Workers Fairness Act, because those are important pieces of legislation 
that should be considered immediately by this House. And when we pass 
this rule, they will be considered.
  So I oppose the gentleman's suggestions that we move to a different 
previous question. I appreciate Mr. Bacon's comments about his bill. 
There are provisions in there that are really outstanding, but we are 
here to deal with debt collections and we are here to deal with 
pregnant workers' fairness.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time each side 
has remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 2\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Colorado has 10\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I 
said

[[Page H2233]]

when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth 
the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually 
honor our police officers.
  Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that 
during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is 
why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues 
refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to 
help the police.
  Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. 
After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police 
Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling 
down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were 
caught inside the vehicle.
  When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer 
Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't 
do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making 
a difference and helping people.''
  That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law 
enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that 
is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their 
three bills through an amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police 
Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities 
safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that 
do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers.
  Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our 
country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our 
Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote 
``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying 
measure.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, during this week, applaud our law enforcement 
and our first responders, but particularly law enforcement right now 
for their valor, for their protection of our communities. I appreciate 
the gentleman for bringing up that subject at this time.
  But we are here on a rule dealing with the Comprehensive Debt 
Collection Improvement Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The 
treatment of consumers in the collection of debts and businesses and 
military personnel is a very important subject, especially during this 
time of COVID when so many families are struggling.
  We have thousands and thousands of people who were laid off. In fact, 
where millions of people are still out of work a year and a half after 
COVID started. And, as a consequence, a lot of folks need assistance 
and need help, and they don't need to be hounded in improper ways as 
they go through this struggle.
  So the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is very 
important for the financial health of our consumers and people across 
the country. The provisions in the bill are bipartisan ideas to protect 
consumers from abusive debt collection practices. They also ensure 
pregnant women can receive reasonable workplace accommodations to 
ensure that they can stay in the workforce.
  According to the CFPB 2021 Annual Report, more than one in four 
Americans have a third-party debt collection item attached to their 
credit report. And, last year, the CFPB received 82,700 consumer 
complaints about debt collection. It is time for Congress to act.
  And based on the gentleman from Pennsylvania's argument, which has 
nothing to do with that particular bill or the facts as we have seen 
them develop during this pandemic, that should be an easy vote for 
everybody, whether they are Democrat or Republican.
  The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act provides important 
consumer protections to stop abusive debt collection practices, and it 
ensures that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated 
fairly.
  The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary to support the more 
than 80 percent of women who will give birth to a child at some point 
during their working years. These women deserve to have reasonable 
accommodations, which oftentimes cost businesses little to no money to 
implement. So we can help pregnant women stay in the workforce. This 
bill passed on broad bipartisan vote last Congress, and I hope it 
passes with even more support again this week.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous 
question.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as 
follows:

                   Amendment to House Resolution 380

       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 3079) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
        Sec. 9. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3079, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 3080) to protect law enforcement officers, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2) 
     one motion to recommit.
       Sec 10. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3080, the 
     House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the 
     bill (H.R. 2137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to 
     further protect officers and employees of the United States, 
     and for other purposes. All points of order against 
     consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the bill are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 3079, H.R. 3080, and H.R. 2137.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 212, 
nays 206, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               YEAS--212

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davidson
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Deutch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton

[[Page H2234]]


     Mrvan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--206

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Auchincloss
     Dunn
     Golden
     Greene (GA)
     Johnson (GA)
     Kaptur
     Kinzinger
     LaMalfa
     Murphy (FL)
     Omar
     Sherrill
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1548

  Messrs. KATKO, VALADAO, FEENSTRA, and PERRY changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. SPEIER changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Allred (Stevens)
     Cardenas (Gallego)
     Crenshaw (Pfluger)
     Eshoo (Thompson (CA))
     Fallon (Joyce (OH))
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Mfume (Connolly)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Owens (Stewart)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Ruppersberger (Raskin)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Strickland (DelBene)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RESCHENTHALER. Mr. 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 214, 
nays 210, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               YEAS--214

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crist
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Delgado
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Gomez
     Gonzalez, Vicente
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al (TX)
     Grijalva
     Harder (CA)
     Hayes
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Horsford
     Houlahan
     Hoyer
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jacobs (CA)
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (TX)
     Jones
     Kahele
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Khanna
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kim (NJ)
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster
     Lamb
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Lowenthal
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--210

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bergman
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Emmer
     Estes
     Fallon
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gibbs
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Green (TN)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Hagedorn
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice (GA)
     Higgins (LA)
     Hill
     Hinson
     Hollingsworth
     Hudson
     Huizenga
     Issa
     Jackson
     Jacobs (NY)
     Johnson (LA)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson (SD)
     Jordan
     Joyce (OH)
     Joyce (PA)
     Katko
     Keller
     Kelly (MS)
     Kelly (PA)
     Kim (CA)
     Kinzinger
     Kustoff
     LaHood
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     LaTurner
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Nunes
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reed
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Stivers
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne

[[Page H2235]]


     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walorski
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Young
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Deutch
     Dunn
     Golden
     Murphy (FL)
     Sherrill
     Webster (FL)

                              {time}  1619

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Allred (Stevens)
     Cardenas (Gallego)
     Crenshaw (Pfluger)
     Eshoo (Thompson (CA))
     Fallon (Joyce (OH))
     Grijalva (Garcia (IL))
     Johnson (TX) (Jeffries)
     Kirkpatrick (Stanton)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Lieu (Beyer)
     Lofgren (Jeffries)
     Lowenthal (Beyer)
     McEachin (Wexton)
     Meng (Clark (MA))
     Mfume (Connolly)
     Moore (WI) (Beyer)
     Napolitano (Correa)
     Owens (Stewart)
     Payne (Pallone)
     Porter (Wexton)
     Ruiz (Aguilar)
     Ruppersberger (Raskin)
     Rush (Underwood)
     Sewell (DelBene)
     Strickland (DelBene)
     Wilson (FL) (Hayes)

                          ____________________