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controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn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