Providing for Consideration of H.R. Protecting the Right to Organize Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Bipartisan Background Checks Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Enhanced Background Checks Act of and for Other Purposes

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 188

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 842) to amend the National Labor Relations Act, the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 2 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 2. After debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 3 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to the first section of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on Education and Labor or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 8) to require a background check for every firearm sale. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 5 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 6 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 5. After debate pursuant to section 4 of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 6 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to section 4 of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part C of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 7. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1446) to amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to strengthen the background check procedures to be followed before a Federal firearms licensee may transfer a firearm to a person who is not such a licensee. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees; (2) the further amendments described in section 8 of this resolution; (3) the amendments en bloc described in section 9 of this resolution; and (4) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 8. After debate pursuant to section 7 of this resolution, each further amendment printed in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules not earlier considered as part of amendments en bloc pursuant to section 9 of this resolution shall be considered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, may be withdrawn by the proponent at any time before the question is put thereon, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 9. It shall be in order at any time after debate pursuant to section 7 of this resolution for the chair of the Committee on the Judiciary or his designee to offer amendments en bloc consisting of further amendments printed in part D of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant to this section shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective designees, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question.

Sec. 10. All points of order against the further amendments printed in parts B, C, and D of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution or amendments en bloc described in sections 3, 6, and 9 of this resolution are waived.

Sec. 11. On any legislative day during the period from March 13, 2021, through April 22, 2021-- (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; and

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.

Sec. 12. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 11 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

Sec. 13. Each day during the period addressed by section 11 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar day for purposes of section 7 of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1546).

Sec. 14. Each day during the period addressed by section 11 of this resolution shall not constitute a legislative day for purposes of clause 7 of rule XIII.

Sec. 15. Each day during the period addressed by section 11 of this resolution shall not constitute a calendar or legislative day for purposes of clause 7(c)(1) of rule XXII.

Sec. 16. It shall be in order at any time through the calendar day of April 22, 2021, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this section.

Sec. 17.

Sec. 18. Section 4(d) of House Resolution 8, One Hundred Seventeenth Congress, is amended by-- (a) in paragraph (3), striking ``and'';

(b) in paragraph (4), striking the period and inserting ``; and''; and

(c) adding at the end the following:

``(5) the Select Committee shall be composed of 16 Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner appointed by the Speaker, of whom 7 shall be appointed on the recommendation of the Minority Leader.''.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from Minnesota, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, today, the Committee on Rules met and reported House Resolution 188, providing structured rules for consideration of H.R. 842, H.R. 8, and H.R. 1446.

For H.R. 842, the rule self-executes a manager's amendment by Chairman Scott, makes in order 19 amendments, and provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor.

For H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, the rule makes in order eight and four amendments, respectively, and provides 1 hour of debate for each bill equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

The rule further provides en bloc authority and a motion to recommit for each bill.

The rule also adds an additional minority member to the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis.

Finally, the rule provides for recess instructions, suspension authority, and same-day authority from March 13 through April 22, and activates the Consensus Calendar.

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have been able to be on the floor and present in almost a year. A year ago, as some of you know, I had an accident and proceeded to spend 6 weeks in the George Washington University Hospital intensive care unit, 4 of those weeks on a ventilator.

My sons came from California to be told by the doctors in a windowless room at George Washington that I had about a 10 percent chance of survival. The next day, they got a phone call, expecting to hear that their dad had died. Instead, the doctor told them that I was doing better.

Madam Speaker, I know that you know how grateful we are to have the wonderful gift of life, to share it with our children, and to be here in this sanctum sanctorum of American democracy. I am grateful. I am grateful to my staff, to the providence of our creator, and to my family.

Madam Speaker, our Nation is struggling, and not only because of the coronavirus pandemic. Our Nation needs bold, meaningful changes to make a real difference for average Americans. That is what the three bills before us today do. Each addresses its own epidemic: gun violence; inequality; and, unfortunately, an ugly part of human nature, greed.

Madam Speaker, nearly 40,000 people died from firearm injuries in the United States in 2019. History would show that enacting smart, evidence-based policies based on public health premises reduces this sad phenomenon.

Madam Speaker, 22 percent of U.S. gun owners acquired their most recent firearm without a background check. That means that millions of Americans got millions of guns with no questions asked. Approximately 80 percent of all firearms acquired for criminal purposes are obtained through private party transfers, which currently do not require background checks.

Ninety-six percent of the inmates surveyed, who were prohibited from possessing a firearm at the time they committed their crime, had obtained their firearm from an unlicensed private seller, avoiding the background check altogether.

In California, where I am proud to live and serve, all private gun sales must be completed through a licensed firearms dealer, requiring a background check--a universal background check and a mandatory waiting period. Not coincidentally--and the public health experts will let us know through their evidence-based research--California has the ninth- lowest rate of gun violence across the United States. Gun killings in Connecticut, similarly, fell by 40 percent after it required a mandatory background check and a gun safety course before the purchase of a gun.

We know what we need to do to help protect millions of Americans. Universal background checks are supported by decades of evidence. The Bipartisan Background Checks Act, H.R. 8, institutes universal background checks.

Additionally, the Enhanced Background Checks Act, H.R. 1446, ends the arbitrary rule that if a background check hasn't been completed in 3 days, the gun can be sold regardless.

I proudly support these bills because the evidence is clear that they will make our communities safer and save lives.

Madam Speaker, next, the rule will allow us to consider the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, or the PRO Act. The rise in inequality in this country has coincided with a decline in union membership. By most estimates, declining unionization accounted for about one-third of the increase in inequality--one-third--from 1980 through the 1990s through today.

If you watch the data over the years, as States move as a group toward less union coverage, those same States have much worse income inequality. You cannot address inequality without increasing access for working people to representation. Unions do not only raise wages for the workers they represent, but they have also been shown to moderate the compensation of executives.

On top of the obvious benefits you think of that are associated with the labor unions, like higher wages, safer workplaces, some of the others that come along with union membership also help address the inequities in our society.

Union workers are more likely to receive paid leave, are up to 28 percent more likely to have employer-sponsored health insurance, and are up to 54 percent more likely to be enrolled in employer-sponsored pensions. Not only do workers have better access to pensions, but their employers contribute an average of 28 percent more toward those pensions, retirement security for Americans, than nonunion employers.

As the chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction, I know that the PRO Act simply updates labor law to ensure that workers in today's economy are able to create and join labor unions to receive the same kinds of protections they see in other sectors. Nothing more.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Appropriations.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I include in the Record an article published in the March 3 USA Today titled: ``Congress renews gun safety push with background check bills.''
[From USA TODAY, Mar. 3, 2021]

Congress Renews Gun Safety Push With Background Check Bills (By Amanda Becker)

Congressional lawmakers this week revived an effort to enact significant gun safety laws for the first time in more than 25 years by introducing bills to establish a universal background check system that has broad support from the public.

The bills introduced Tuesday in the House and Senate would extend current federal background check requirements to transactions conducted by unlicensed and private sellers.

Legislation was reintroduced in Congress to extend background checks to transactions conducted by private and unlicensed gun sellers.

The gun safety group Giffords estimates that 22% of U.S. gun owners purchased their last firearm without completing a background check. Polling shows that more than 90% of Americans support a universal background check system.

The measures are what gun safety advocates predicted would be a first step in pursuing new gun laws now that Democrats control the White House and both chambers of Congress. In recent years, gun safety bills stalled even when they had bipartisan public support, in part because Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did not bring them up for votes when he led the Senate from 2015 to 2021.

Rep. Mike Thompson, a California Democrat who chairs a congressional gun violence prevention task force, on Tuesday reintroduced bipartisan House legislation that would require background checks for all firearm sales. The House first passed the bill in 2019, one year after a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, left 17 dead.

``Time and time again, we have seen that the American people want universal background checks, in fact public polling shows that the majority of people, Democrats, Republicans and independents, support this,'' Thompson said in a statement.

The Senate is evenly split between Democrats and Republicans, and the measure would have to pick up bipartisan support to pass that chamber given that most legislation must clear a 60-vote threshold.

``This Congress we will finally bring common sense gun reforms up for a vote in the House and the Senate, and the single most popular and effective proposal we can consider is universal background checks,'' Murphy said in a video about the effort.

When the House passed background checks legislation in 2019, the bill ran aground in the then Republican-controlled Senate, where McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, did not bring it up for a vote.

``Now, with Senate Democrats in the Majority, we have the opportunity to act on this overwhelmingly popular, lifesaving legislation to protect American communities,'' Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on the bill's introduction.

Advocates for new gun safety laws have hoped that with President Joe Biden in the White House and Democrats controlling the House and Senate, there is an opportunity for action. The NRA is also grappling with multiple crises: New York's attorney general is investigating whether its leaders misappropriated more than $60 million for personal use, and the NRA filed for bankruptcy in January. Its remaining officials insist the organization remains solvent, and it plans to reincorporate in Texas.

``This is the moment,'' said Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand Action, a grassroots organization started in late 2012 that now has nearly 6 million supporters.

``We have a trifecta and they have a mandate to act on this. We have a grassroots army to support them and the NRA is weaker than they've ever been,'' she added.

Already this week, Rep. Jim Clyburn, a key Biden ally from South Carolina, reintroduced a bill that would close the so- called ``Charleston loophole'' that allows firearm purchases to move forward after three business days, even if a background check has not been completed. It is named for the 2015 mass shooting at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina, where nine died after the gunman was able to purchase a firearm when the three-day window expired.

Last month, to mark the third anniversary of the Parkland shooting, Biden called for the passage of ``common sense'' gun safety laws. He cited a background checks bill among his top priorities.

The last major law passed to curb gun violence was the Federal Assault Weapons Ban enacted by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1994. But even that had a 10-year sunset provision that has since expired. Several attempts to renew it, including by President Barack Obama in 2013 after Sandy Hook, all derailed in a Republican-controlled Senate.

Groups pushing for gun safety measures told The 19th earlier this year that a background check bill would probably be the starting point early in the Biden administration because it has broader bipartisan support than other measures. President Donald Trump acknowledged in 2019 that there was a ``great appetite'' for such a proposal after mass shootings in Ohio and Texas, as did McConnell, though he did not go on to bring it up for a vote.

A ``red flag'' bill giving courts the power to temporarily confiscate firearms from individuals deemed at risk or anti- gun trafficking legislation could be taken up next, the advocates said.

Biden advisers Susan Rice and Cedric Richmond met last month with gun safety groups that included Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action, Giffords and Brady to discuss background checks, the proliferation of so-called ``ghost'' guns (homemade firearms or those with serial numbers removed) and violence intervention programs, the White House said.

Biden has also pledged to work with Congress to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, which he worked on as a senator in the 1990s. In 2019, the House approved a VAWA provision to close the so-called ``boyfriend loophole'' that allows current and former unmarried partners convicted of abuse and stalking to continue to purchase firearms. That effort also stalled in the Senate. Democratic House leaders said this week they will be taking up VAWA reauthorization later this month.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, more than 90 percent of Americans support a universal background check system.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague and friend on the Rules Committee that we should enforce existing laws. In States like California where we have universal background checks, we have seen that gun violence has gone down, as I said in my earlier remarks. We have also seen that 30 percent of the guns used in criminal activity are actually imported into the State from other States.

To the previous comments that we need a national standard, that is why we need a national standard. It doesn't mean that States like California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts can't do these things, and it is a good laboratory, as Justice Brandeis said, that States should be the laboratory for innovation. We know these things work. So I would agree that we should enforce and get the revenue, the existing law.

But clearly, eliminating the background checks loophole would help make Americans safe.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I have one comment. The idea of opinions in the interpretation of the Second Amendment, there are 13 States, as I understand it, right now, who have universal background checks. All of them are working consistent with upholding the Second Amendment. Californians who have a universal background check can go out and legally buy a gun. It just decreases the number of deaths and injuries when you have this kind of law, Madam Speaker.

So I agree with the gentleman who spoke and said it shouldn't be about opinion. Neither of us decides what is constitutional in this instance. The courts do, and the courts have allowed local and State governments to implement these commonsense laws.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, a correction. The bill doesn't say indefinitely for the background checks. It says 10 days with the availability of an additional 10 days for a maximum of 20 days. So it is not indefinite.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just like to point out that having a gun in your home actually makes you more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Of the over 40,000 Americans who lost their lives from gun violence in 2018--the last year we have up-to-date statistics--two-thirds of those were by suicide. This is one of the big contributing factors to what are the so-called diseases of despair which happen everywhere in this country right now in these difficult times, and it has gotten worse under COVID. But the proximity to the guns actually leads to more of an opportunity for people to be the victim of gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I include in the Record a February 18 Washington Post editorial titled: ``Maryland just closed a gun loophole. The state is safer for it.''
[From The Washington Post, Feb. 18, 2021] Maryland Just Closed a Gun Loophole. The State is Safer for it. (By Editorial Board)

Given America's lurid history of gun violence, it is confounding that buyers can purchase firearms in some places without background checks. It's even more astonishing that it remains the case in a liberal stronghold such as Maryland, which suffered its own recent trauma owing to a deranged gunman bent on mass murder.

Lawmakers in Annapolis last week finally closed a loophole in state law that waived background checks for buyers who make private purchases of shotguns and rifles. Sales of handguns as well as shotguns and rifles from licensed dealers in Maryland have long been subject to mandatory checks through a federal database, but long guns were exempted when the transaction took place through private dealers, including those at gun shows.

The Democratic-controlled legislature pushed through the change this month by overriding a gratuitous veto cast last year by Gov. Larry Hogan, a Republican, who made no public argument to defend the loophole beyond the fact that he had not proposed closing it. The change takes effect next month.

Gun rights advocates and their Republican allies in the legislature characterized the legislation as an assault on rural Maryland's way of life and a burden for hunters. In fact, whatever (probably slight) inconvenience some sportsmen might undergo because of the new law is outweighed by the obstacle it may pose for buyers who have no business owning firearms.

It does not take a feat of imagination to foresee an act of gun violence carried out by someone who, stymied by a background check conducted by a licensed dealer, turns to a private seller instead. Less than three years ago, a gunman nursing a grievance massacred five people and injured two others on a rampage through the newsroom of the Capital Gazette newspaper, in Annapolis. He used a shotgun. As it happens, he passed a background check when he purchased it; a previous conviction, in 2011, for criminal harassment, was a misdemeanor, not serious enough to forbid the sale. Yet even if he had been convicted of a felony, he might still have obtained a weapon easily by seeking out a private dealer-- through an online inquiry, for instance. The chances that such a gunman would now succeed are diminished in Maryland.

No legislative measure is foolproof, and none will reliably defeat a determined gunman. The idea of gun control, rather, is to build a matrix of laws that deter and detect individuals who, were they to obtain a firearm, would pose a threat to themselves or others. Maryland's new law advances that cause.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, this isn't about taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans. Those claims are nonsense. This is about protecting the lives of all Americans.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to my friends and colleagues that, again, even Justice Scalia, in the Heller majority decision, said that local and State governments could enact reasonable gun violence protection laws.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Just a brief comment. In that same decision of Justice Scalia that I mentioned earlier, he said that Second Amendment protections are not unlimited, and that is the point of this bill. They have been done. They have been done constitutionally, as I said, by 13 States. And they statistically work.

I, too, have been robbed at gunpoint, but I didn't have to have a gun to survive. That was providence and the San Francisco Police Department.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

On the last point, I would just say that in California, in particular, in my district, having had multiple conversations with teachers, their labor representatives, and superintendents, we are getting schools back open, but we are doing it in a way to make sure that it is done efficiently and safely for everyone, the students, most particularly, their families, and their teachers.

We have come so far in this country, those of us who have listened to the science and the Centers for Disease Control. We just want to make sure it is done right, in the most efficient, effective way for the kids.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. Nicely done.

First, on the gun bills, of course, we are all respectful of the Speaker pro tempore's courage and the experience that she has had. For those of us who have had family members who have lost their lives because of gun violence--my dad is buried over at Arlington. He is a combat veteran from World War II who, a little over 30 years ago, took his own life.

As we know, the tragedies of homicide, as the Speaker pro tempore knows personally, and losing a loved one, as I know from losing a loved one to suicide--suicide is two-thirds of the total of people who die-- both are awful.

All we are trying to do, at least in my mind, is listen to the research, listen to the examples of other developed countries and other States, and implement public health policy. It informs us that if we do it, we will save lives and injuries, and we will save billions of dollars that all of us pay for.

All of us respect the Constitution. We took an oath to it. All of us respect the Second Amendment. We might not have all agreed if we were there, but it is the law. The courts have allowed us to implement these laws, and they work.

I really don't understand, and maybe it is because of my own personal belief and also from my experience as a city council member, a mayor, a member of the California Legislature, and now in Congress, why we don't follow the research and the evidence that it saves lives, out of respect for all those people who have lost their lives to gun violence.

Then, on the PRO Act, as a former member of a Teamsters union, that job helped me to get through college when my dad had lost his job. I loaded trucks. It was that union that provided me protection and enough for myself and my coworkers.

When I moved to San Francisco, I didn't have any money. I got a job in a hotel restaurant business, and I was in that local. Then, I was able to save enough money to go open my own businesses.

There have been some comments that somehow this bill would hurt small businesses. The reality is that people organize in environments where their employer is not treating their employees appropriately.

We know the inequality that Ms. DeLauro talked about, this historic inequality that is strangling our country and hurting so many working Americans, destroying the middle income that we have all benefited from, that opportunity to move up and to give to our kids something better than we had. That is the legacy of this country, and labor unions are a big part of that, and entrepreneurs and individual business owners are a big part of that. But it is the balance between these two.

As John Kenneth Galbraith said a long time ago, and he wrote a boring book about this, but it is interesting: Wages and capital have to have countervailing institutions. They have to balance each other.

As my friend from Minnesota said, it is a balance. Right now, after 50 years of attacks, starting with President Reagan, the working people in this country don't have the voice they once had. That not only hurts them and their kids; it hurts all of us.

When you have a robust middle class, and you have workers represented appropriately and proportionately, the country grows; there is more money to spend in businesses like mine; and there is a camaraderie, having teamwork. A good employer knows that, whether they have a unionized workforce or a nonunionized workforce.

Your employees are what make your business work. That is what gives you goodwill. That is what Americans took so much pride in, in the 1950s and 1960s, after World War II, after we had come to the great country we were after World War II, with a middle class that no one has ever seen on this planet. Since then, we have eroded that middle class.

The one most important thing to improve our economy is to give working Americans a voice. Let them join together. Let it be fair. A good employer will respect that and work with that.

As Eisenhower said, as I quoted in my opening, only a fool would try to keep a working American from organizing into a union.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mrs. Fischbach is as follows: Amendment to House Resolution 188

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 19. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the House shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 682) to encourage local educational agencies to resume in- person instruction at elementary and secondary schools, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Education and Labor. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. When the committee rises and reports the bill back to the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 20. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 682.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeSAULNIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source