[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 184 (Wednesday, November 30, 2022)]
[House]
[Pages H8652-H8660]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3372, ONE STOP SHOP COMMUNITY 
REENTRY PROGRAM ACT OF 2021; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6878, 
  PREGNANT WOMEN IN CUSTODY ACT; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 
8876, JACKIE WALORSKI MATERNAL AND CHILD HOME VISITING REAUTHORIZATION 
 ACT OF 2022; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 100, PROVIDING 
   FOR A RESOLUTION WITH RESPECT TO THE UNRESOLVED DISPUTES BETWEEN 
  CERTAIN RAILROADS REPRESENTED BY THE NATIONAL CARRIERS' CONFERENCE 
COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL RAILWAY LABOR CONFERENCE AND CERTAIN OF THEIR 
                   EMPLOYEES; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, 
I

[[Page H8653]]

call up House Resolution 1499 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 1499

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3372) to 
     authorize implementation grants to community-based nonprofits 
     to operate one-stop reentry centers. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment 
     printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules 
     accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. 
     The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points 
     of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
     thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
     chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the 
     Judiciary or their respective designees; (2) the further 
     amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on 
     Rules accompanying this resolution, if offered by the Member 
     designated in the report, which shall be in order without 
     intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as 
     read, shall be separately debatable for the time specified in 
     the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent 
     and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
     division of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 6878) to 
     address the health needs of incarcerated women related to 
     pregnancy and childbirth, 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 the Judiciary now printed in the bill, modified 
     by the amendment printed in part C 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 the Judiciary or their respective 
     designees; (2) the further amendment printed in part D of the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by the Member designated in the 
     report, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order, shall be considered as read, shall be 
     separately debatable for the time specified in the report 
     equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
     opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question; and (3) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 3.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8876) to 
     reauthorize the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home 
     Visiting program, and for other purposes. All points of order 
     against consideration of the bill are waived. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, an amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     117-69 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 Ways and Means or 
     their respective designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 100) to provide for a resolution with respect to the 
     unresolved disputes between certain railroads represented by 
     the National Carriers' Conference Committee of the National 
     Railway Labor Conference and certain of their employees. All 
     points of order against consideration of the joint resolution 
     are waived. The joint resolution shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the joint 
     resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the joint resolution 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 
     Transportation and Infrastructure or their respective 
     designees; (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 5. (a) At any time through the legislative day of 
     Friday, December 2, 2022, 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 November 29, 2022, November 30, 
     2022, December 1, 2022, or December 2, 2022, 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. 6.  Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on a vote by the yeas and nays on the question of 
     adoption of a motion that the House suspend the rules offered 
     on the legislative day of November 29, 2022 may be postponed 
     through the legislative day of December 2, 2022.
       Sec. 7.  House Resolution 1495 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 8.  House Concurrent Resolution 118 is hereby adopted.
       Sec. 9.  During the remainder of the One Hundred 
     Seventeenth Congress, it shall not be in order to offer a 
     motion under clause 7(c) of rule XXII with respect to H.R. 
     4521.
       Sec. 10.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the concurrent resolution (H. 
     Con. Res. 119) providing for a correction in the enrollment 
     of H.J. Res. 100. All points of order against consideration 
     of the concurrent resolution are waived. The concurrent 
     resolution shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the concurrent resolution are waived. 
     The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     concurrent resolution to adoption without intervening motion 
     or demand for division of the question except 10 minutes of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure or their respective designees.

                              {time}  0915

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota (Mrs. 
Fischbach) pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their 
remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, yesterday the Rules Committee met and reported a rule, 
House Resolution 1499, providing for consideration of five measures: 
H.R. 3372, H.R. 6878, H.R. 8876, H.J. Res. 100, and H. Con. Res. 119.
  The rule provides for consideration of both H.R. 3372 and H.R. 6878 
under structured rules, with 1 hour of debate each equally divided and 
controlled by the chair and the ranking minority member of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, self-executes a manager's amendment from 
Chairman Nadler for each bill, makes in order one amendment for each 
bill, and provides one motion to recommit for each measure.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.R. 8876 under a closed rule 
with 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means and provides 
a motion to recommit.
  The rule provides for consideration of H.J. Res. 100 under a closed 
rule with 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and provides one motion to recommit.
  The rule provides for consideration of H. Con. Res. 119 under a 
closed rule, with 10 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled 
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure.
  The rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability 
this week to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspensions. The rule 
also provides roll call votes on suspension bills considered on 
November 29 may be postponed through December 2.
  Additionally, the rule deems as passed House Resolution 1495 and H. 
Con. Res. 118, and provides that during the remainder of the 117th 
Congress it shall not be in order to offer a motion to instruct with 
respect to H.R. 4521.

[[Page H8654]]

  Madam Speaker, before we begin, I just want to take a moment to honor 
the life and service of our colleague, Congressman Donald McEachin, who 
passed away earlier this week. I have known Don for many, many years. 
We were both in the College Democrats when we were at American 
University many years ago.
  He was an exceptional public servant fighting for the people of 
Virginia's Fourth Congressional District since 2017, and having served 
on Virginia's General Assembly before that. Don was a fierce champion 
for social justice and a protector of the environment.
  He will be missed, and our prayers go out to his family, his friends, 
and his staff during this difficult time.
  Madam Speaker, before us today are three bills: one to improve the 
current support system for formerly incarcerated individuals; one to 
ensure pregnant women in custody get the care that they need; and one 
to reauthorize a critical program that provides American families life-
changing aid.
  We are also here to consider two resolutions that will help us avoid 
a catastrophic shutdown of our national railroad system.
  Let's talk specifics. First, we have H.R. 3372, the One Stop Shop 
Community Reentry Program Act. Getting folks back on their feet after 
incarceration should involve more than a $10 bus ticket and the hope 
that they won't re-offend. But critical reentry programs and other 
lifelines for formerly incarcerated individuals are often located in 
different places, making it challenging to obtain comprehensive 
services. Studies show that these kinds of barriers to reentry support 
put individuals returning to their communities at risk of returning to 
the criminal justice system.
  The One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act authorizes grants for 
community organizations to create centralized reentry intake and 
coordination centers. These centers would provide resources for 
housing, employment, education, and medical and mental health services 
all under one roof. This commonsense bill will better support those who 
were formerly incarcerated and reduce re-offense rates.
  Second, we have H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act. Roughly 
58,000 pregnant women are admitted into prison every year. 
Unfortunately, many facilities fail to provide pregnant women with the 
necessary care, including an appropriate diet and medical care. They 
may even be shackled or put in restrictive housing for extended 
periods, which could threaten their ability to have a healthy and safe 
pregnancy.
  Incarcerated women deserve access to prenatal and postpartum care 
that can help prevent maternal health complications and ensure that 
newborns have a healthy start in life. The Pregnant Women in Custody 
Act establishes care standards for how Federal facilities treat 
pregnant and postpartum women in custody, including requiring Federal 
facilities to provide pregnant inmates access to medical and mental 
health services.
  We also have H.R. 8876, The Jackie Walorski Maternal and Child Home 
Visiting Reauthorization Act. This bill reauthorizes the transformative 
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program that 
provides in-home services to improve maternal and child health, family 
safety and stability, child development and school readiness. The 
program will be reauthorized for 5 more years and will receive a 
significant increase in funding so that the services the program 
provides can be made available to more mothers, families, and children.

  In my mind, there is no better way to honor the memory of our dear 
colleague, Congresswoman Jackie Walorski. She was an incredible friend 
of mine who worked tirelessly to improve the lives of children.
  Then we have H.J. Res. 100, legislation to provide for a resolution 
with respect to the unresolved disputes between certain railroads 
represented by the National Carriers' Conference Committee of the 
National Railway Labor Conference and certain of their employees.
  H.J. Res. 100 adopts the tentative agreement that unions and 
railroads negotiated in September to avoid a rail shutdown. I am proud 
that our pro-union and pro-worker President and Labor Secretary, Joe 
Biden and Marty Walsh, fought hard to get a fair deal for railroad 
employees. This agreement secures significant advances for workers, 
including a 24 percent raise, no changes in copays, deductibles, or 
coinsurance costs, and increased safety protections.
  I want to be clear that this agreement is not perfect, which is why 
we will also bring to the floor H. Con. Res. 119, a separate resolution 
that we will debate and vote on today right after we consider the rail 
shutdown bill. This resolution would amend the rail shutdown bill to 
add paid sick leave for workers, an important policy that should be a 
fundamental right for all working Americans and that many of us have 
advocated for.
  Quite frankly, the fact that paid leave is not part of the final 
agreement between railroads and labor is, in my opinion, obscene. It 
should be there, and I hope it will be there at the end of this 
process.
  Democrats are putting people over politics to fight for workers. 
Every worker ought to have the security of fair wages. Every worker 
ought to be able to take a sick day if they need to. We saw that during 
the pandemic. This is an issue of basic fairness, but it is also an 
issue of public health. I mean, this is basic commonsense stuff.
  The labor movement built America. After decades of stagnant wages and 
declining benefits, I am proud that the workers of this country are 
once again standing up for their rights and demanding changes. Their 
management ought to listen, and this Congress ought to listen, too.
  By sending it as a separate resolution, we are giving the Senate the 
ability to take it up in addition to the main bill. If they don't have 
the votes to pass it, they can still send the bill averting a rail 
strike straight to the President. But the Senate ought to do the right 
thing and adopt this amendment.
  Democrats are going to continue to fight like hell, just like we have 
been doing for all of our workers so they can have good wages, safe 
jobs, and paid sick leave, but we also need to listen to our labor 
leaders and rank-and-file. This underlying agreement was approved by 
labor and management negotiators in September, and since then the 
majority of the unions in the industry have voted to approve the deal.
  While I and others are reluctant to override standard ratification 
procedures, President Biden has called on Congress to act without delay 
to avoid what would be a catastrophic shutdown, and that is exactly 
what we are doing here today. The passage of H.J. Res. 100 and H. Con. 
Res. 119 would be a win for workers across the country, and I strongly, 
strongly, strongly urge the Senate to approve both resolutions so we 
can swiftly get them to the President's desk.
  I further urge all my colleagues to support this rule, and I reserve 
the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. First, I would like to share the thoughts of sympathy for the 
family and friends of our colleague Mr. McEachin that my colleague from 
Massachusetts did express.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the Representative from Massachusetts for 
yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Today we are here to consider a rule providing for a number of bills 
and resolutions.
  H.R. 3372, the One Stop Shop Community Reentry Program Act, will 
improve public safety and help individuals reentering society after 
incarceration by reauthorizing two types of grants: One for nonprofits 
to create community reentry centers; and one for States, Tribes, and 
local governments to operate reentry assistance hotlines.
  Republicans are committed to improving public safety and cutting down 
on repeat offenses. Providing pathways for successful transitions from 
incarceration back to the community is crucial to that. Need-based 
programs like these provide valuable tools for these individuals that 
in turn benefit the broader community.
  At a time when industries across the board are facing labor 
shortages, I appreciate the effort by my colleagues to move this 
legislation forward to improving incarcerated individuals' transitions 
to society.

[[Page H8655]]

  H.R. 6878, the Pregnant Women in Custody Act requires the Director of 
Bureau of Prisons to provide appropriate services, education, and 
programs to incarcerated pregnant women. While thoughtful Republican 
amendments were rejected in Judiciary Committee, this is a bill that 
will protect the lives of mothers and their unborn babies.

                              {time}  0930

  H.R. 8876, the Jackie Walorski Maternal and Child Home Visiting 
Reauthorization Act, honors the late Congresswoman, and my mentor, by 
reintroducing her bill to reauthorize the maternal, infant, and early 
childhood home visiting program and increase its Federal investment 
over the years.
  I am honored to cosponsor this bill, which will increase the annual 
funding level and provide increased investment in home visiting in 
every State and territory.
  Funding for this bill is fully offset and tied to proven results, 
sending real help to the neediest communities.
  Overall, I am pleased to see that these bills have gone through the 
appropriate processes and that this body will consider truly bipartisan 
legislation, an unfortunate rarity in this Congress.
  We are also here to discuss H.J. Res. 100, which would prevent a rail 
strike that would cripple our already burdened supply chain in the 
middle of the holiday season.
  Our economy can't handle that kind of hit, and we are running out of 
time for the parties to come to an agreement on their own. The fact is, 
the Biden administration overpromised and underdelivered, and now 
Congress again needs to step in to fix the mess.
  Our country's economy can't handle a strike that reports say would 
cost $2 billion a day. A rail strike would mean halting transportation 
of raw materials and food and beverages, not to mention passengers 
trying to visit their families. It would mean farmers in my district 
and across the country would be cut off from fertilizer for their 
crops, their crops for global markets.
  The resolution under this rule would codify the President's emergency 
board recommendations, a deeply unfortunate but necessary action 
Congress must take to avoid an economic disaster.
  Again, it is unfortunate that the situation has come to Congress 
stepping into collective bargaining negotiations, but the consequences 
of a strike are far too severe.
  However, we are not debating these bills today. We are debating the 
rule. Madam Speaker, I would point out before I reserve that multiple 
items were added to this just hours before and during Rules Committee 
yesterday. Also included, the rule deems and provides for consideration 
multiple pieces of legislation that Republicans were not informed would 
be included until just minutes before voting on reporting the rule.
  One of these provides H. Con. Res. 119, an enrollment correction to 
H.J. Res. 100, that goes well beyond the bounds of the President's own 
request in a pointed recommendation, to the point where Congress is not 
only stepping into collective bargaining but now effectively 
negotiating on behalf of one of the parties.
  Another last-minute addition, and by last minute, I mean literally 
during committee, was the deeming of a bill to rename a room on the 
Capitol campus after the current Speaker of the House.
  Madam Speaker, I started the day yesterday hoping to strike a more 
positive tone than I typically do regarding rules, but unfortunately, 
this rule has morphed into a Christmas tree of the ugliest kind, adding 
all kinds of limbs and ornaments with virtually zero notice or 
agreement from our side of the aisle.
  Madam Speaker, it is for this reason that I oppose the rule, and I 
ask Members to do the same. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article from the AP titled: 
``Railroads reject sick time demands, raising chance of strike.''

                     [From AP News, Nov. 22, 2022]

      Railroads Reject Sick Time Demands, Raising Chance of Strike

                             (By Josh Funk)

       Omaha, Neb. (AP)--American consumers and nearly every 
     industry will be affected if freight trains grind to a halt 
     next month.
       One of the biggest rail unions rejected its deal Monday, 
     joining three others that have failed to approve contracts 
     over concerns about demanding schedules and the lack of paid 
     sick time. That raises the risk of a strike, which could 
     start as soon as Dec. 9 under a deadline that was pushed back 
     Tuesday.
       It wouldn't take long for the effects of a rail strike to 
     trickle through the economy. Many businesses only have a few 
     days' worth of raw materials and space for finished goods. 
     Makers of food, fuel, cars and chemicals would all feel the 
     squeeze, as would their customers.
       That's not to mention the commuters who would be left 
     stranded because many passenger railroads use tracks owned by 
     the freight railroads.
       The stakes are so high for the economy that Congress is 
     expected to intervene and impose contract terms on railroad 
     workers. The last time U.S. railroads went on strike was in 
     1992. That strike lasted two days before Congress intervened. 
     An extended rail shutdown has not happened for a century, 
     partly because a law passed in 1926 that governs rail 
     negotiations made it much harder for workers to strike.
       Here are some of the expected impacts of a rail strike:


                            $2 billion a day

       Railroads haul about 40% of the nation's freight each year. 
     The railroads estimated that a rail strike would cost the 
     economy $2 billion a day in a report issued earlier this 
     fall. Another recent report put together by a chemical 
     industry trade group projected that if a strike drags on for 
     a month some 700,000 jobs would be lost as manufacturers who 
     rely on railroads shut down, prices of nearly everything 
     increase even more and the economy is potentially thrust into 
     a recession.
       And although some businesses would try to shift shipments 
     over to trucks, there aren't nearly enough of them available. 
     The Association of American Railroads trade group estimated 
     that 467,000 additional trucks a day would be needed to 
     handle everything railroads deliver.


                           chemicals run dry

       Chemical manufacturers and refineries will be some of the 
     first businesses affected, because railroads will stop 
     shipping hazardous chemicals about a week before the strike 
     deadline to ensure that no tank cars filled with dangerous 
     liquids wind up stranded.
       Jeff Sloan with the American Chemistry Council trade group 
     said chemical plants could be close to shutting down by the 
     time a rail strike actually begins because of that.
       That means the chlorine that water treatment plants rely on 
     to purify water, which they might only have about a week's 
     supply of on hand, would become hard to get. It would be hard 
     for manufacturers to make anything out of plastic without the 
     chemicals that are part of the formula. Consumers will also 
     pay more for gasoline if refineries shut down, either because 
     they can't get the ingredients they need to make fuel or 
     because railroads aren't available to haul away byproducts 
     like sulfur.
       Chemical plants also produce carbon dioxide as a byproduct, 
     so the supply of carbon dioxide that beverage makers use to 
     carbonate soda and beer would also be restricted, even though 
     the gas typically moves via pipelines.


                           passenger problems

       Roughly half of all commuter rail systems rely at least in 
     part on tracks that are owned by freight railroads, and 
     nearly all of Amtrak's long-distance trains run over the 
     freight network.
       Back in September, Amtrak canceled all of its long-distance 
     trains days ahead of the strike deadline to ensure passengers 
     wouldn't be left stranded in remote parts of the country 
     while still en route to their destination.
       And major commuter rail services in Chicago, Minneapolis, 
     Maryland and Washington state all warned then that some of 
     their operations would be suspended in the event of a rail 
     strike.


                               food fears

       It would take about a week for customers to notice 
     shortages of things like cereal, peanut butter and beer at 
     the grocery store, said Tom Madrecki, vice president of 
     supply chain for the Consumer Brands Association.
       About 30% of all packaged food in the U.S. is moved by 
     rail, he said. That percentage is much higher for denser, 
     heavier items like cans of soup.
       Some products, like cereal, cooking oils and beer, have 
     entire operations built around rail deliveries of raw 
     ingredients like grain, barley and peanuts, along with 
     shipments of finished products.
       Those companies typically keep only two to four days' worth 
     of raw ingredients on hand because it's expensive to store 
     them, Madrecki said, and grocers also keep a limited supply 
     of products on hand.
       Madrecki said big food companies don't like to discuss the 
     threat of a rail strike because of worries about product 
     shortages can lead to panic buying.


                              hungry herds

       Any disruption in rail service could threaten the health of 
     chickens and pigs, which depend on trains to deliver their 
     feed, and contribute to higher meat prices.

[[Page H8656]]

       ``Our members rely on about 27 million bushels of corn and 
     11 million bushels of soybean meal every week to feed their 
     chickens. Much of that is moved by rail,'' said Tom Super, a 
     spokesman for the National Chicken Council, a trade group for 
     the industry raising chickens for meat.
       The National Grain and Feed Association said a rail strike 
     now would hit pork and chicken producers in the southern U.S. 
     hardest, because their local supply of corn and soybeans from 
     this year's harvest is likely exhausted and they'd have to 
     ship feed by truck, dramatically increasing costs.
       ``They only have so much storage. They can't go without 
     rail service for too long before they'd have to shut down the 
     feed mills and they run into problems,'' said Max Fisher, the 
     NGFA's chief economist.


                              retail risks

       Jess Dankert, the vice president for supply chain at the 
     Retail Industry Leaders Association, said retailers' 
     inventory is largely in place for the holidays. But the 
     industry is developing contingency plans.
       ``We don't see, you know, canceling Christmas and that kind 
     of narrative,'' Dankert said. ``But I think we will see the 
     generalized disruption of really anything that moves by 
     rail.''
       David Garfield, a managing director with the consulting 
     firm AlixPartners, said a rail strike could still impact 
     holiday items shipped to stores later in December, and would 
     definitely hamper stocking of next season's goods.
       Retailers are also concerned about online orders. Shippers 
     like FedEx and UPS use rail cars that hold roughly 2,000 
     packages in each car.


                            automobile angst

       Drivers are already paying record prices and often waiting 
     months for new vehicles because of the production problems in 
     the auto industry related to the shortage of computer chips 
     in recent years.
       That would only get worse if there is a rail strike, 
     because roughly 75% of all new vehicles begin their journey 
     from factories to dealerships on the railroad. Trains deliver 
     some 2,000 carloads a day filled with vehicles.
       And automakers may have a hard time keeping their plants 
     running during a strike because some larger parts and raw 
     materials are transported by rail.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, a railroad shutdown would cost the 
economy $2 billion and would wreak havoc on so many fundamental goods 
and services Americans rely on.
  Chemicals that purify water and provide safe drinking water across 
the country will become scarce. Gas prices will go up. Commuter rails 
that carry tens of thousands of people to work each day would no longer 
run.
  There will be shortages of nearly every kind of food in our grocery 
stores, as well as shortages of all kinds of products in retail stores. 
Packages and online orders will come to a halt just before the 
holidays.
  So, there is no question that something needs to be done to avert the 
shutdown, but we have to do something that is actually respectful of 
the workers.
  I include in the Record an article from The Guardian titled: ``U.S. 
railroad workers prepare for strike as rail companies see record 
profits.''

                   [From the Guardian, Sep. 14, 2022]

  US Railroad Workers Prepare for Strike as Rail Companies See Record 
                                Profits

                          (By Michael Sainato)

       US freight railroad workers are close to striking over 
     claims that grueling schedules and poor working conditions 
     have been driving employees out of the industry over the past 
     several years.
       Heated negotiations over a new union contract between 
     railroad corporations and 150,000-member-strong labor unions 
     have been ongoing for nearly three years. A ``cooling off'' 
     period imposed by the Biden administration after it issued 
     recommendations to settle the dispute ends on Friday. If no 
     deal is reached, unions are threatening industrial action--
     the first since 1992--and workers say they will quit an 
     industry already facing staff shortages.
       The consequences of a strike would be severe. Rail moves 
     close to 40% of the US's long-distance trade and a strike 
     could cost the US economy $2bn a day, according to a recently 
     issued Association of American Railroads report, disrupting 
     travel, commutes and the shipment of commodities and other 
     goods across the country.
       But workers argue the industry is in crisis. Between 
     November 2018 and December 2020, the railroad industry lost 
     40,000 jobs in the US, according to data from the Bureau of 
     Labor Statistics. The US railroad industry's workforce 
     dropped from more than 1 million workers in the 1950s to 
     fewer than 150,000 in 2022.
       The cost-cutting has contributed to big windfalls at BNSF 
     and Union Pacific, the two largest railroad corporations in 
     North America, which reported record profits in 2021. BNSF is 
     owned by billionaire investor Warren Buffett's Berkshire 
     Hathaway conglomerate. US railroads have paid out $196bn in 
     stock buybacks and dividends to shareholders since 2010.
       ``The job is just really becoming fewer people doing more 
     work faster,'' said Ross Grooters, a locomotive engineer for 
     Union Pacific in Iowa and co-chair of Railroad Workers 
     United. ``We've seen in this country all workers getting more 
     and more squeezed.''
       ``These railroads are making billions of dollars. In the 
     past, we've been well compensated for being on call 24/7, 365 
     days a year. That's been eroded over the course of my career 
     in the last two decades to where it's just not appealing 
     enough to attract people into the workplace,'' said Grooters.
       Labor cuts, lack of paid days off, precision scheduling 
     systems to reduce headcounts, disciplinary attendance 
     policies that issue points against workers for any time taken 
     off and unfair and punishing on-call schedules have made it 
     more difficult to continue working in the railroad industry, 
     said Grooters, and workers claim these issues aren't being 
     addressed in proposed new union contract agreements.
       ``When I first was hired out on the railroad my paychecks 
     seemed to stretch a lot further than it does today. I don't 
     think that's a unique experience for railroad workers. We 
     really need to stop that trend. And hopefully, we railroad 
     workers can help fight back against profiteering from the 
     richest people in this country,'' said Grooters.
       With talks stalling, the Biden administration convened a 
     presidential emergency board (PEB) earlier this year that 
     issued recommendations for a settlement on 16 August.
       Ten of the 12 labor unions currently negotiating new 
     contracts have reached tentative agreements for workers to 
     vote on, but the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and 
     Trainmen (BLET) and the International Association of Sheet 
     Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (Smart), which 
     represent half of railroad union workers, have said workers 
     will strike if attendance and scheduling issues aren't 
     resolved.
       Workers still have to vote on the tentative agreements 
     reached so far, and some have expressed criticisms that the 
     recommendations don't adequately address staffing and 
     scheduling issues.
       ``The PEB punted on just about every single issue, and left 
     people feeling kind of betrayed and kind of vacant, because 
     of the discontent on the railroad right now,'' said Ron 
     Kaminkow, general secretary of Railroad Workers United who 
     currently works as an Amtrak engineer in Reno, Nevada, and 
     serves as vice-president of BLET Local 51.
       Kaminkow said many railroad workers don't have any paid 
     time off at all, with the PEB recommending just one added day 
     of paid time off. Workers are currently on call consistently 
     throughout the year, making a life-work balance near 
     impossible and contributing to fatigue issues, illnesses, job 
     safety and discontent among the workforce.
       ``It's our speculation that if this contract is approved 
     and the PEB recommendations form the basis for a tentative 
     agreement, and this is what we end up with, you will probably 
     see thousands of workers in train engine service who will 
     wait to get the best paid lump sum settlement and then 
     they'll quit. So it doesn't solve any of the problems that 
     the industry is facing,'' Kaminkow added. ``I've worked in 
     the industry 26 years, and it's--I never thought I'd see it 
     like this.''
       BLET members voted 99.5% in favor of authorizing a strike 
     in July 2022, representing around 23,000 workers under the 
     new contract negotiations.
       BLET and Smart issued a joint statement on 11 September 
     criticizing railroad corporations for warning shippers of 
     embargoes on certain shipments ahead of the end of the 
     federally mandated cooling off period, claiming the railroad 
     industry is using supply chain and economic concerns to try 
     to impose a bad contract on the unions that doesn't address 
     the attendance and scheduling concerns of workers.
       A survey conducted by Railroad Workers United on the PEB 
     recommendations received responses from 3,162 railroad 
     workers, with over 90% of respondents saying they would vote 
     against tentative agreements based on the recommendations and 
     would approve of a strike after the federally mandated 
     cooling off period.
       Railroad workers have emphasized their grueling schedules, 
     a disciplinary attendance system and lack of paid days off, 
     and workers constantly having to be on call to report to work 
     within two hours or less as major points of criticism of the 
     PEB recommendations that failed to address these issues.
       Under the Railway Labor Act, railroad corporations and 
     labor unions have to adhere to federally mandated cooling off 
     periods to try to resolve labor disputes. Once the cooling 
     off period ends, on 16 September, a variety of scenarios 
     could result, either through strikes or lockouts of workers 
     by railroad corporations--or Congress could act to impose its 
     own settlement or extend the cooling off period to continue 
     negotiations and avoid any disruptions to interstate 
     commerce.
       ``If Congress imposes the results of the PEB, or imposes a 
     bad contract down our throat without addressing the 
     attendance policy, or quality of life issues, or our taxable 
     meal issues, without addressing any of that, then people are 
     just going to leave. They already are, but people are just 
     going to continue leaving the industry,'' said Michael Paul 
     Lindsey, a locomotive engineer for Union Pacific in Idaho for 
     17 years.
       ``They can try to force us out of a strike, but they can't 
     force us to not quit, and that

[[Page H8657]]

     could result in an even bigger effect on the economy. 
     Congress needs to think long and hard before they force it 
     within the strike, because if they do, it will have a much 
     bigger strike as people resign and leave the industry,'' he 
     said.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, our railroad workers work tirelessly to 
keep our country running. They face grueling schedules with next to no 
vacation days and no paid medical leave if they get sick or injured. 
They are made to endure greater safety risks as the industry pushes to 
reduce crew sizes.
  Simply put, these workers are overworked, understaffed, and 
underpaid, and they have been operating without a contract for more 
than 2 years. So, H.J. Res. 100 and H. Con. Res. 119 together provide 
these workers with the rights they both need and the rights that they 
deserve.
  Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an AP article titled: 
``Pelosi, dominant figure for the ages, leaves lasting imprint.''

                     [From AP News, Nov. 18, 2022]

      Pelosi, Dominant Figure for the Ages, Leaves Lasting Imprint

                  (By Calvin Woodward and Nancy Benac)

       Washington (AP).--There are two searing scenes of Nancy 
     Pelosi confronting the violent extremism that spilled into 
     the open late in her storied political career. In one, she's 
     uncharacteristically shaken in a TV interview as she recounts 
     the brutal attack on her husband.
       In the other, the House speaker rips open a package of beef 
     jerky with her teeth during the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol 
     insurrection, while on the phone with Mike Pence, firmly 
     instructing the Republican vice president how to stay safe 
     from the mob that came for them both. ``Don't let anybody 
     know where you are,'' she said.
       That Pelosi, composed and in command at a time of chaos, 
     tart but parochial-school proper at every turn, is the one 
     whom lawmakers have obeyed, tangled with, respected and 
     feared for two decades.
       She is the most powerful woman in American politics and one 
     of the nation's most consequential legislative leaders--
     through times of war, financial turmoil, a pandemic and an 
     assault on democracy.
       Now, at 82, in the face of political loss and personal 
     trauma, she decided her era was ending.
       Pelosi stood in the well of a rapt House on Thursday and 
     announced she would not seek a Democratic leadership position 
     in the Congress that convenes in January, when Republicans 
     take control of the chamber. Pelosi, who will remain a member 
     of the House, took her time revealing the news, looking back 
     over an improbable career and recalling her first visit to 
     the Capitol at age 6 with her congressman father.
       ``Neverwould I have thought that I would go from homemaker 
     to House speaker,'' she allowed. On her future, she told 
     reporters: ``I like to dance, I like to sing. There's a life 
     out there, right?''
       Polarizing and combative, Pelosi nevertheless forged 
     compromises with Republicans on historic legislation.
       Across the policy spectrum, whether you liked the results 
     or not, she delivered votes that touched ordinary lives in 
     many ways. Among them: how millions get health care, the 
     state of the roads, the lightened burden of student debt, the 
     minimum wage, progress on climate change that took over a 
     decade to bear fruit.
       Even former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich, a self-
     described ``partisan conservative who thinks that most of her 
     positions are insane,'' said Pelosi had a ``remarkable'' run. 
     This, from a fellow ``troublemaker with a gavel,'' as she 
     called herself. He flamed out; she didn't.
       ``Totally dominant,'' Gingrich said of her in an interview. 
     ``She's clearly one of the strongest speakers in history. She 
     has shown enormous perseverance and discipline.''
       Those qualities are essential if you don't want to be run 
     out of town, as was a succession of modern Republican 
     speakers, back to Gingrich. It's one thing to herd sheep. 
     It's another thing altogether to herd Democrats and all their 
     messy factions.
       Pelosi dealt with conservative Blue Dog Democrats, the 
     liberal women of the Squad, the Out of Iraq Caucus--not to 
     mention old-guard legislators who treated their committees 
     like fiefdoms.
       Many of the above, at one point or another, earned her look 
     of icy disapproval, well practiced and not always reserved 
     just for the other side.
       ``Politics is tough,'' she said in 2015, ``but intraparty? 
     Oh, brother.''
       Squad member llhan Omar of Minnesota, not always Pelosi's 
     biggest fan, spoke Thursday of how Pelosi had ``served as a 
     beacon of hope'' to her and her family when they migrated 
     from Somalia.
       Omar, at times the subject of ``send her back'' chants 
     during Donald Trump's rallies, recalled that Pelosi had 
     invited her to join her on a 2019 trip to Africa ``to 
     represent how far we have come as a country.''
       Princeton political scientist Frances Lee said there's no 
     doubt Pelosi was a ``truly great legislative leader, among a 
     handful truly in command. She's really had her party in the 
     House of Representatives in hand. The difficulty of managing 
     them should not be underrated. It didn't always look pretty 
     but she held the party together.''
       Pelosi prevailed--for nearly 20 years as House Democratic 
     leader including nearly eight as speaker in two separate 
     stints--with hard-nosed sentiments like these:
       ``Whoever votes against the speaker will pay a price.''--to 
     Democrats who resisted her push for a select committee on 
     climate change early in her speakership.
       ``Nobody's walking out of here saying anything, if they 
     want to keep an intact neck.''--to negotiators trying to work 
     out a 2007 House-Senate compromise to restrain pork, 
     according to the notes of John A. Lawrence, her then-chief of 
     staff and author of a new insider book on her speakership, 
     ``Arc of Power.''
       Sometimes, she could snap her lawmakers into line without a 
     word.
       A flick of her hand was all it took to silence Democrats 
     who cheered when the House first passed articles of 
     impeachment against Trump. It was an occasion for sobriety 
     and Pelosi was a stickler for institutional decorum. But not 
     always.
       She ripped up her copy of Trump's 2020 State of the Union 
     speech, on the dais behind him, on camera. The theatrical 
     protest at one of American democracy's prime rituals raised 
     questions about whether Pelosi, in that moment, had become 
     what she despised in Trump.
       Afterward, she said she had extended her ``hand of 
     friendship'' to him when he arrived but he did not take it. 
     ``He looked a little sedated,'' she added. As she read 
     quickly through her copy of the speech while Trump delivered 
     it, she stewed over the lines and decided to take action.
       ``He has shredded the truth in his speech, shredded the 
     Constitution in his conduct--I shredded the address,'' she 
     said crisply. ``Thank you all very much.''


                           the villainization

       In 2007, Republican President George W. Bush opened his 
     speech as the ``first president to begin his State of the 
     Union with these words: Madam Speaker.'' He grinned, she 
     beamed, an ovation followed.
       Although she maintained a genial relationship with the Bush 
     family--especially the elder George Bush--Republican 
     campaigns seized on her as the perfect foil early on and 
     never let go. She was pilloried as ``Darth Nancy'' in the 
     2006 campaign and the villainization got much uglier, 
     complete with gun imagery, as the years passed and politics 
     became more toxic.
       ``She was, she is, the personification of the San Francisco 
     liberal,'' Lawrence said in an interview. ``It was made to 
     order for them.''
       But ``with her there was a viciousness. The fact that she 
     fit that bill so perfectly--a smart, attractive, effective 
     woman . . . they knew they could caricature and stigmatize 
     things about her, her appearance and style, in a way that was 
     a very effective dog whistle of misogyny.''
       Republicans often did it simply to raise money, and it 
     worked. Then they used her in ads to attack Democratic 
     congressional candidates. Some of those worked, too,
       At least publicly, she would never attribute the attacks to 
     the fact she's a woman, Lawrence said. ``She would say, `They 
     did it because I'm effective.''' Then ``pretend to flick 
     dust'' off her immaculate jacket.
       ``Darth Nancy'' was a quaint, faraway insult by the time 
     the pro-Trump mob came looking for her that Jan. 6. Their 
     sign at the Capitol said ``Pelosi is Satan.''
       Rifling through her desk in the abandoned speaker's office, 
     they found a pair of boxing gloves.
       Pink ones.


                          the do-lots congress

       Over the years, Pelosi honed the art of aiming high, then 
     disappointing one faction of her party or another without 
     losing her core of support. Rare is the major achievement 
     that was as far left as the party's left wing wanted it to 
     be.
       But many are the major achievements. She settled for an 
     ``Obamacare'' bill that did not give everyone the option of 
     government health insurance, but did, over time, 
     fundamentally expand access to health care.
       As financial institutions and large segments of the economy 
     sank into the Great Recession, with the 2008 election 
     looming, she settled for a Bush-era stimulus package that 
     essentially bailed out Wall Street--when liberal Occupy Wall 
     Street activists had very different ideas.
       She delivered Democratic votes to help even some Trump 
     initiatives get over the line, like early COVID-19 pandemic 
     relief, before swinging behind President Joe Biden on some of 
     the most far-reaching legislation since Lyndon Johnson's 
     Great Society push in the 1960s.
       And Bono, who worked with Pelosi over the years on 
     combating AIDS, said in a statement to the AP after a 
     performance Thursday night in Scotland: ``When the story of 
     the end of AIDS is written, Nancy Pelosi's name will stand 
     out in boldface.''
       ``I am honored to have learned so much from her grit and 
     grace, and to call her a friend,'' he added.
       For all the accolades, Pelosi crushed a multitude of toes 
     along the way.
       ``Her instincts are to find a path and if you happen to be 
     standing in the hole, she's going to treat you like a running 
     back,'' said political scientist Cal Jillson at Southern 
     Methodist University. ``If she can go through you, fine. If 
     not, you're headed to the medicine tent.''

[[Page H8658]]

       Some of the toes squashed by Pelosi belong to Jane Harman, 
     a fellow Californian who long ran in the same circles as the 
     speaker. She returned to Congress in 2001 after a two-year 
     gap, armed with a written promise from Democratic leaders 
     that she could reclaim her seniority and become chair of the 
     sought-after Intelligence Committee if the party took control 
     of the chamber.
       When Democrats did so in 2007 and Pelosi became speaker, 
     she bumped Harman from the committee, citing term limits that 
     had not always been evenly applied. Harman believes the real 
     reason was that Pelosi was under pressure from liberals not 
     to give the job to someone who had supported the war in Iraq.
       ``I think, looking back, that she was under pressure from 
     the left not to promote somebody who had voted for the war.''
       Still, Harman, who left Congress in 2011 to lead the Wilson 
     Center think tank, allows that Pelosi has ``a very good 
     political radar and she has kept the caucus together.''
       When Pelosi entered Congress in 1987, men chaired all the 
     House committees and no women had led one since the 1970s, by 
     the reckoning of House historians. In the 1970s, the most 
     popular committee chair appointment for women in the House 
     was to lead the Select Committee on the House Beauty Shop 
     before that panel vanished at the end of that decade.
       Under Pelosi, women took over more panels and gained 
     weightier assignments while the speaker worked to advance 
     authority for minorities in her ranks as well as their 
     numbers.
       ``She led in a way that did set the stage for other women 
     and open the doors for their potential,'' said Debbie Walsh, 
     director of the Center for American Woman and Politics, at 
     Rutgers University. ``Things have moved. And she is a big 
     part of that.''


                           the pelosi ceiling

       Because of the speaker's longevity, however, many other up-
     and-comers in the party besides Harman have discovered they 
     could only rise so far before hitting the Pelosi ceiling. The 
     top job simply hadn't been available.
       Pelosi faced none of the questions about sharpness or 
     stamina that dog Biden, 80 on Sunday. She still races around 
     Congress, in high heels, at a pace that people half her age 
     can find hard to match.
       But even before the elections, concern had grown in the 
     ranks about the crowd of older Democratic leaders from the 
     same era still in charge. ``No brewing rebellion,'' said Lee 
     at Princeton, but ``a sense that maybe it is time.''
       Leon Panetta, former CIA and Defense chief and chief of 
     staff to President Bill Clinton, had nothing but praise for 
     Pelosi's leadership and skill but said she ``probably could 
     have spent more time building a stronger bench in terms of 
     leadership in the House and trying to make sure that others 
     could follow in her path. That becomes a question mark now as 
     to just exactly who's going to be able to replace her.''
       Panetta met her in the 1980s when he was a congressman from 
     California and she was getting started as a Democratic fund-
     raiser extraordinaire after her family had moved to that 
     state. She had already learned lessons about transactional 
     politics as the politically engaged daughter of Thomas J. 
     D'Alesandro Jr., a three-term Baltimore mayor and five-term 
     member of Congress from Maryland.
       Her prowess in persuading people to open their wallets on 
     behalf of Democratic candidates was one of the keys to her 
     success. Harman calls those dollars crucial to the ``big 
     tent'' that Pelosi erected for her caucus and to her ability 
     to hold sway over it--``a $1.25 billion tent.''
       Michigan Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican who was in the same 
     freshman class with Pelosi and is retiring from Congress, 
     said of her: ``This is why the Democrats had more money than 
     God. She was magic, and I don't think she lost a vote.''
       Gingrich tacks on other elements of her power: ``Her fund 
     raising, her ability to inspire intense loyalty, her 
     willingness to punish people who don't do what she wants.''
       ``As a professional, you have to have great respect for her 
     ability to acquire and wield power and her ability to build 
     what was an effective machine,'' he said.
       Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said in a 
     statement that despite their many disagreements, ``I have 
     seen firsthand the depth and intensity of her commitment to 
     public service. There is no question that the impact of 
     Speaker Pelosi's consequential and path-breaking career will 
     long endure.''
       In Pelosi's reign, nothing was left to chance--even her 
     clothing was curated to send a message: She paired a black 
     dress worn during the Trump impeachments with a gold pin 
     depicting the mace of the House, a symbol of her power. When 
     she swooshed out the doors of the White House after one 
     particularly pointed encounter with Trump, her sunglasses and 
     burnt-orange winter coat were quickly the stuff of social 
     media memes.
       On Thursday, for the big reveal of her plans, Pelosi wore 
     suffragette white and her mace brooch.
       Pelosi told reporters the attack on her husband, Paul, also 
     82, last month made her inclined to stay in leadership, so as 
     not to give extremists the satisfaction of seeing her leave. 
     She might have hung in, she indicated, if Democrats had won a 
     majority.
       The attacker, who police say had come looking for the 
     speaker, fractured her husband's skull with a hammer. Pelosi 
     said she is working through ``survivor's guilt.''
       Could there be a third-generation Pelosi headed to Congress 
     after the speaker and her father? It's long been thought that 
     Nancy's daughter, Christine, would be at the front of the 
     line for the congressional seat whenever Pelosi decided to 
     retire.
       In her time, Pelosi went beyond domestic politics to stake 
     a claim to congressional influence in foreign policy on 
     behalf of the House as an institution, pointing her gavel 
     outward in a way speakers had rarely done.
       Well beyond her annual Mother's Day visits to women in 
     combat overseas, Pelosi traveled to foreign leaders with a 
     mission to project U.S. stability, particularly during the 
     unpredictable Trump years but also before and after.
       She traveled secretly to Kiev early in the Russia-Ukraine 
     war and caused some grief in the Biden administration with 
     her diplomatically dicey visit to Taiwan this year.
       Pelosi had a history of standing up to China. In her first 
     foreign trip after being elected to Congress in 1987, she 
     joined other U.S. lawmakers in 1991 in unfurling a banner at 
     Tiananmen Square after Chinese authorities crushed 
     prodemocracy demonstrations there in 1989. Her recent Taiwan 
     visit was another slap at Beijing.
       For all her clout in government, Pelosi was an unpopular 
     figure in the country overall. In a Pew Research Center poll 
     conducted in late June and early July, only about a third of 
     respondents had a favorable opinion of Pelosi, while 6 in 10 
     were unfavorable toward her.
       Most Democrats and Democratic leaners--about 6 in 10--were 
     thumbs up about her, though she lagged Biden and Vice 
     President Kamala Harris, both rated favorably by three-
     quarters of Democrats. About 9 in 10 Republicans viewed her 
     unfavorably.
       Through it all, she went at practically everything as if it 
     had a best-before date. After all, she would say, ``Power is 
     perishable.'' Washington is ``the perishable city.''

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, Speaker Pelosi's election was a historic 
moment for the women of this country, a moment for which they had been 
waiting for over 200 years.
  When she took the gavel, Speaker Pelosi noted: ``Never losing faith, 
we waited through the many years of struggle to achieve our rights. But 
women weren't just waiting; women were working. Never losing faith, we 
worked to redeem the promise of America, that all men and women are 
created equal.''
  I am so proud of the example that Speaker Pelosi has set for young 
women across the country, young women like my daughter, Molly, who 
looks up to her as a role model.
  Naming the caucus room in the Cannon House Office Building after 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi will serve as a reminder to all of our daughters 
and granddaughters that the sky is the limit and that no position in 
this democracy is out of reach for anyone who works hard and dreams 
big.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. As I said, it is refreshing that we are looking at truly 
bipartisan legislation today, and I am glad to see that we are taking 
up important issues that affect so many people across the country. 
However, because the rule provides no real opportunity to improve or 
amend the underlying bills and has morphed into the Christmas tree of 
last-minute additions, I must oppose the rule, and I ask Members to do 
the same.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, most of these bills that are included in this rule 
should have passed on suspension. Unfortunately, many of my friends on 
the other side of the aisle have turned the Republican Party into the 
party of no: no plans, no ideas, just blame--blame Biden, blame the 
Democrats, blame everybody else.
  I mean, look at the bills that we are considering here. These should 
have all been suspension bills, and why aren't they? I don't know. You 
have to ask my Republican friends.
  H.R. 3372, H.R. 6878, and H.R. 8876 all passed out of committee with 
an overwhelming majority of votes from both Democrats and Republicans. 
They are noncontroversial. They are bipartisan solutions to fix issues 
Americans across the country experience every day.
  Similarly, H.J. Res. 100 and H. Con. Res. 119 will deliver a historic 
victory on securing critical rights for railroad workers while also 
helping us avoid a catastrophic shutdown.

[[Page H8659]]

  The gentlewoman talks about a Christmas tree. We had to include in 
this rule a provision allowing us to hold a ceremony in the rotunda 
honoring Capitol Police for their heroism on January 6. We couldn't 
even get the Republicans to agree to unanimous consent to honor the 
Capitol Police in the rotunda.
  That is why it is in this rule. It is awful. I mean, they talk about 
how they support the police. We can't even get them to honor the police 
in this Capitol who protected our lives on January 6. So, it is 
included in this rule because we couldn't get unanimous consent from 
the other side of the aisle.
  I remember when we used to be able to pass bipartisan bills like this 
without coming to the floor with a rule.
  Look, by a margin of just over 3,000 votes in the five closest seats, 
you are going to be in the majority in January. I hope all of you 
figure out what you are doing before then because I haven't seen 
anything to date that shows that that party is serious about putting 
people over politics and actually legislating. I think today is kind of 
an example of that, why we have had to include these noncontroversial 
items in a rule.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this 
rule, ``yes'' on the previous question, and ``yes'' on the underlying 
legislation.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H. Res 
1499, the rule for consideration of H.J. Res. 100 and H. Con. Res. 119, 
two resolutions that would address unresolved disputes between certain 
railroads and their employees (as well as three other bills on other 
matters).
  The resolutions before us today would avert a debilitating 
catastrophic rail strike on December 9th. The two resolutions are the 
result of the Biden Administration's negotiations with railroad 
companies and railroad worker unions to craft an agreement that would 
treat rail employees fairly in light of longstanding workforce issues.
  President Biden has called upon Congress to pass this legislation in 
accordance with our authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause to 
ensure the uninterrupted operation of our nation's critical 
transportation systems that impact every American and our entire 
economy.
  Congress has the responsibility to prevent a disruption of rail 
service that would cripple our economy and impose severe hardships on 
every American that would have a very tangible effect, especially as we 
head into the holiday season.
  H.J. Res. 100 would adopt the Tentative Agreement that was reached in 
September between railroads represented by the National Carriers' 
Conference Committee of the National Railway Labor Conference and the 
railroad workers represented by twelve unions and related 
organizations.
  The key provisions of the Tentative Agreement that makes great 
strides toward protecting the rights and advancing the basic needs of 
rail employees for the next 2 years include:
  a 24 percent pay raise and a $5,000 bonus;
  no changes in copays, deductibles or coinsurance costs for health 
care services; and
  some allowance of time off for routine, preventative and emergency 
medical care.
  These are very substantial advances that justify our support of this 
resolution, both because they improve conditions for rail employees and 
because passage of this resolution is absolutely essential to avert a 
strike and disruption of rail service that would be catastrophic for 
our entire country.
  However, the progress made by negotiations is not enough. It does not 
sufficiently safeguard rail workers' rights and dignity in ways that 
are recognized as essential in America.
  It is absolutely essential that workers be given seven days annually 
of paid time off when they are sick.
  I applaud the four rail worker unions that have objected to the 
Tentative Agreement because of its failure to provide seven days of 
paid time off for sick leave.
  That is why this rule also allows for consideration of H. Con. Res. 
119 that would supplement the Tentative Agreement by directing the 
railroads and the unions to negotiate within 30 days a means to provide 
seven days of paid time off annually for sick leave without any adverse 
impact on a worker's employment status.
  Seven days of paid time off annually when a rail worker becomes sick 
is essential for a number of reasons.
  First, it is the right thing to do, as it is morally repugnant that 
rail employees are expected to be immune to sickness and should be 
economically hampered when they become ill.
  Second, because railroads have decreased their workforce by almost 
one-third in recent years compared to previous levels, the workplace 
demands on rail workers have increased. That increased work 
precipitates sickness. It is unconscionable and illogical for railroads 
to elevate their employees' health risks, and then fail to stand by 
them when they get sick.
  Third, railroads have been raking in extraordinary profits in recent 
years, in part by reducing their workforce and placing higher burdens 
on their remaining employees. As a result, the railroads cannot claim 
that they are unable to financially afford seven days of paid time off 
annually for their employees who enable the companies to be so 
profitable.
  Paid sick leave for employees is a bare necessity, which I believe 
should be extended to paid time off for family medical leave, such as 
when a rail worker needs to care for their sick child or take them to a 
doctor. I will continue to fight for employees to gain this basic 
benefit, even though that effort will have to be resumed at another 
time.
  Paid time off for sick leave is a top priority for rail workers, 
especially because their jobs expose them to risks that can manifest in 
health problems. It also carries an additional consequence, as paid 
time off requires railroads to be more flexible in establishing work 
schedules that are responsive to employees' health and family needs.
  It is ironic that railroads resist providing flexibility to their 
workers' schedule needs while, at the same time, those railroads 
routinely plead for the public's patience and understanding when it 
comes to the railroads' schedules of transport and delivery.
  My Congressional District in Houston is regularly affected by 
railroad delays that impair mobility, timeliness, and delivery of 
materials in Houston. The problem is so pervasive that the railroads 
have gained a reputation in Houston and Harris County for their 
constant delays.
  The railroads' resistance to provide essential protections for their 
employees is, unfortunately, emblematic of their prioritization of 
their own interests over the public interest.
  The railroads repeatedly demonstrate this, for example, in my 
Congressional District, by their lassitude in cleaning up the toxic 
contamination and Superfund consequences imposed by creosote.
  This is a long-festering problem for which I have been advocating 
resolution for years. But even so, the creosote problem in Houston 
continues, and the railroads still have not taken sufficient action to 
remediate the problem.
  Madam Speaker, it is imperative that we pass this rule and the two 
resolutions addressing the needs of railroad employees that it allows 
to be brought to the floor today.
  If we do not pass these resolutions, rail service will be interrupted 
nationwide, causing severe hardships to families and all aspects of the 
American economy. The effects of a stoppage in service would include:
  as many as 765,000 workers, including many union members, would lose 
their jobs in just the first two weeks of a strike;
  millions of families wouldn't be able to get groceries, medications, 
and other goods;
  many communities wouldn't be able to acquire the essential materials 
to keep their water supply clean; businesses wouldn't be able to get 
their products to market; and perishable goods would spoil before 
reaching consumers.
  Madam Speaker, in light of the harsh consequences that our country 
would suffer if we do not pass these two resolutions, I strongly 
support passage of both resolutions and urge all of my colleagues to 
join me in voting to pass them.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and 
I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mrs. FISCHBACH. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 15-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 202, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 489]

                               YEAS--216

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Allred
     Auchincloss
     Axne
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Bourdeaux
     Bowman
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brown (MD)
     Brown (OH)
     Brownley
     Bush
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson
     Carter (LA)
     Cartwright
     Case
     Casten
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)

[[Page H8660]]


     Cherfilus-McCormick
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Craig
     Crow
     Cuellar
     Davids (KS)
     Davis, Danny K.
     Dean
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Escobar
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Evans
     Fletcher
     Foster
     Frankel, Lois
     Gallego
     Garamendi
     Garcia (IL)
     Garcia (TX)
     Golden
     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
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lawrence
     Lawson (FL)
     Lee (CA)
     Lee (NV)
     Leger Fernandez
     Levin (CA)
     Levin (MI)
     Lieu
     Lofgren
     Luria
     Lynch
     Malinowski
     Maloney, Carolyn B.
     Maloney, Sean
     Manning
     Matsui
     McBath
     McCollum
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Mfume
     Moore (WI)
     Morelle
     Moulton
     Mrvan
     Murphy (FL)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Neguse
     Newman
     Norcross
     O'Halleran
     Ocasio-Cortez
     Omar
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pappas
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Peltola
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Phillips
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Porter
     Pressley
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     Ross
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruiz
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (NY)
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez
     Sarbanes
     Scanlon
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schneider
     Schrader
     Schrier
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Sherrill
     Sires
     Slotkin
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Spanberger
     Speier
     Stansbury
     Stanton
     Stevens
     Strickland
     Suozzi
     Swalwell
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tlaib
     Tonko
     Torres (CA)
     Torres (NY)
     Trahan
     Trone
     Underwood
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wexton
     Wild
     Williams (GA)
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--202

     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amodei
     Armstrong
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Baird
     Balderson
     Banks
     Barr
     Bentz
     Bice (OK)
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NC)
     Boebert
     Bost
     Brady
     Brooks
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burchett
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Cammack
     Carey
     Carl
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Cawthorn
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Cline
     Cloud
     Clyde
     Cole
     Comer
     Conway
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     DesJarlais
     Donalds
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ellzey
     Emmer
     Estes
     Feenstra
     Ferguson
     Finstad
     Fischbach
     Fitzgerald
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flood
     Flores
     Foxx
     Franklin, C. Scott
     Fulcher
     Gaetz
     Gallagher
     Garbarino
     Garcia (CA)
     Gimenez
     Gohmert
     Gonzales, Tony
     Gonzalez (OH)
     Good (VA)
     Gooden (TX)
     Gosar
     Granger
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Greene (GA)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guest
     Guthrie
     Harris
     Harshbarger
     Hartzler
     Hern
     Herrell
     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
     LaMalfa
     Lamborn
     Latta
     Lesko
     Letlow
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Mace
     Malliotakis
     Mann
     Massie
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClain
     McClintock
     McHenry
     Meijer
     Meuser
     Miller (IL)
     Miller (WV)
     Miller-Meeks
     Moolenaar
     Mooney
     Moore (AL)
     Moore (UT)
     Mullin
     Murphy (NC)
     Nehls
     Newhouse
     Norman
     Obernolte
     Owens
     Palmer
     Pence
     Perry
     Pfluger
     Posey
     Reschenthaler
     Rice (SC)
     Rodgers (WA)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rose
     Rosendale
     Rouzer
     Roy
     Rutherford
     Salazar
     Scalise
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sempolinski
     Sessions
     Simpson
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smucker
     Spartz
     Stauber
     Steel
     Stefanik
     Steil
     Steube
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Tiffany
     Timmons
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Van Drew
     Van Duyne
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Waltz
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams (TX)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Yakym
     Zeldin

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Bergman
     Diaz-Balart
     Fallon
     Gibbs
     Green (TN)
     Herrera Beutler
     Kinzinger
     LaHood
     Langevin
     LaTurner
     Lowenthal
     McKinley
     Palazzo

                              {time}  1022

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ changed her vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  Ms. GRANGER changed her vote from ``present'' to ``nay.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably detained on roll call 
vote #489. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BERGMAN. Madam Speaker, please accept this personal explanation 
as I was unexpectedly detained during vote proceedings. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall number 489.


    MEMBERS RECORDED PURSUANT TO HOUSE RESOLUTION 8, 117TH CONGRESS

     Axne (Wild)
     Bass (Cicilline)
     Brooks (Moore (AL))
     Brown (MD) (Evans)
     Cardenas (Correa)
     Clyburn (Butterfield)
     Conway (Valadao)
     Craig (Stevens)
     DeFazio (Pallone)
     DeSaulnier (Beyer)
     Doyle, Michael F. (Pallone)
     Gaetz (Bishop (NC))
     Garbarino (Miller-Meeks)
     Gonzalez, Vicente (Correa)
     Gooden (TX) (Miller-Meeks)
     Gosar (Weber (TX))
     Johnson (GA) (Pallone)
     Johnson (TX) (Pallone)
     Keating (Neguse)
     Kind (Schneider)
     Kirkpatrick (Pallone)
     Lawson (FL) (Evans)
     Long (Fleischmann)
     Luria (Wexton)
     Newman (Correa)
     O'Halleran (Stanton)
     Pressley (Neguse)
     Roybal-Allard (Correa)
     Rush (Beyer)
     Ryan (OH) (Correa)
     Simpson (Fulcher)
     Sires (Pallone)
     Strickland (Butterfield)
     Swalwell (Correa)
     Titus (Pallone)
     Van Drew
     (Reschenthaler)
     Welch (Pallone)
     Williams (GA) (McBath)

                          ____________________