Consumer Protection for Medical Debt Collections Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 380 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Reschenthaler), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.

During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee met yesterday and reported a rule, House Resolution 380, providing for consideration of H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services or their designees. The rule self-executes a manager's amendment from Chairwoman Waters, makes in order 14 amendments, provides en bloc authority for Chairwoman Waters or her designee and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, under a closed rule, which provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the Committee

on Education and Labor or their designees, and provides one motion to recommit.

The rule deems as passed H. Res. 379, a resolution to dismiss the election contest in Illinois' 14th Congressional District.

Finally, the rule provides the majority leader or his designee the ability to en bloc requested roll call votes on suspension bills considered on May 11 or May 12. This authority lasts through May 14.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased we are here today to provide consideration of two important bills to protect and support our constituents. First is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, which will create protections for servicemembers, small businesses, students, and other consumers against mistreatment by debt collectors. Debt collection is consistently one of the top complaints made to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and the pandemic has further exposed weaknesses in current consumer protection laws.

In March, the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection and Financial Institutions, which I chair, held a hearing on protecting consumers during the pandemic. We heard expert witnesses discuss how many debt collectors have seen record profits in the pandemic, despite many families and individuals continuing to struggle.

H.R. 2547 is comprehensive legislation to update consumer protections in debt collection across many different issues. For example, the bill codifies and expands protections for small and minority-owned businesses and prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in rank or other military disciplinary actions. Additionally, it protects private student loan borrowers with disabilities, would prohibit entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a credit reporting agency without giving the consumer notice about his or her rights, and clarifies that entities in nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings are covered by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This legislation is sponsored by Financial Services Committee Chairwoman Maxine Waters and incorporates bills from committee members, Representatives Nydia Velazquez, Madeleine Dean, Rashida Tlaib, Ayanna Pressley, Emanuel Cleaver, Greg Meeks, and Jake Auchincloss. The bill is supported by many consumer and civil rights organizations, including Americans for Financial Reform, Center for Responsible Lending, Color of Change, Consumer Federation of America, National Consumer Law Center, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and others.

This legislation will update and improve debt collection consumer protection laws, and make sure that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly as we all work to come out of this pandemic stronger.

The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Claims of pregnancy discrimination have been on the rise for two decades and affect all industries and regions across the country. This bipartisan bill will strengthen workplace protections and promote the well-being of pregnant workers by creating a new right to pregnancy accommodation in the workplace.

Temporary modifications at work, like regular breaks, a stool to sit on, or an exemption from heavy lifting, can be the difference between a healthy pregnancy and pregnancy complications. When pregnant workers are denied reasonable workplace accommodations, they are often left to choose between their financial stability and a healthy pregnancy.

Currently, only 30 States require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers, including, thankfully, my home State of Colorado. But this has created a confusing patchwork of local, State, and Federal laws, leaving many pregnant workers with few protections.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act enjoys support from both worker advocates and business groups because it is good for families, it is good for business, and it is good for the economy. The House passed this bill last Congress in a broad, bipartisan vote of 329-73, and I hope more of my colleagues join us in passing the bill this year.

I urge all my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bills. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I include in the Record a letter dated May 10, 2021, from about 85 different public interest and financial organizations supporting H.R. 2547.

May 10, 2021.

Re H.R. 2547, the ``Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement

Act'' (Waters), which includes:

HR 2540, the ``Small Business Fairness Lending Act''

(Velazquez).

HR 1491, the ``Fair Debt Collection Practices for

Servicemembers Act'' (Dean).

HR 2498, the ``Private Loan Disability Discharge Act''

(Dean).

HR 2537, the ``Consumer Protection for Medical Debt

Collections Act'' (Tlaib).

HR 1657, the ``Ending Debt Collection Harassment Act''

(Pressley).

HR 2572, the ``Stop Debt Collection Abuse Act'' (Cleaver).

HR 2628, the ``Debt Collection Practices Harmonization Act''

(Meeks).

HR 2458, the ``Non-Judicial Foreclosure Debt Collection

Clarification Act'' (Auchincloss).

Representative Nancy Pelosi,

Speaker of the House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Representative Kevin McCarthy,

Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Washington,

I appreciate my friend from Pennsylvania's comments, but, apparently, consumer protection is not high on the list of priorities for the other side of the aisle.

I would just say, this particular piece of legislation, H.R. 2547, has many good aspects, a number of which are bipartisan in nature:

It codifies the protections that currently exist under the FTC regulation for consumer loans prohibiting the use of confessions of judgment that waive due process protections, and extends those protections to commercial loans to protect small and minority-owned businesses.

It prohibits debt collectors from threatening a servicemember with reduction in their rank and revoking their security clearance or prosecuting them under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and requires a GAO study on the impact of debt collection on servicemembers.

It requires discharge of private student loans for both the borrower and cosigner in the case of permanent disability of the borrower, extending protections that currently exist for Federal student loans. So it assists people with serious disabilities.

It requires private lenders who are notified the Federal Government has discharged the Federal student loans of a borrower to discharge the private student loans of that same borrower.

It bars entities from collecting medical debt or reporting it to a consumer reporting agency without giving the consumer a notice about their rights.

These are so simple, and you would expect that there would be universal acceptance of this, but apparently not.

It provides a minimum 1-year delay from adverse information reported and a 2-year delay before collection attempts are made on these medical bills.

We heard last night in committee even Dr. Burgess talking about the normal practices of medical professionals allowing people to have time to pay their bills, especially when we are in the middle of a pandemic or as we are coming out of a pandemic.

It bans the reporting of medical debts arising from medically necessary procedures. This was something that Ralph Hall, a Republican, championed for years.

It prohibits a debt collector from contacting a consumer by email or text message without a consumer's consent to be contacted electronically.

It requires the CFPB to analyze and annually report on the impact of electronic communications utilized by debt collectors.

The provisions of this bill are simple, consumer-oriented efforts to provide information to the consumer debtor and to take into consideration that we are in a pandemic and medical bills have piled up for so many people.

This is a very simple bill. It has bipartisan provisions in it. It should be passed, as should the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, as to H.R. 1065, there are at least 20, if not more, Republican cosponsors of that piece of legislation. I want the Record to reflect that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Ross), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to remind my friends on the Republican side of the aisle that we passed a bill about 2 months ago called the American Rescue Plan. Not one Republican voted for that. That had money to support law enforcement and local governments and cities and States that saw their tax revenues fall off a cliff.

Mr. Speaker, when my friend, Mr. Reschenthaler, says, oh, a billion dollars was cut from the funding here, or $150 million cut from there, he forgot to talk about the fact that tax revenues across the country for local governments and State governments were cut to the bone because of the pandemic.

If my friends really wanted to put their money where their mouths are, then they would have supported the American Rescue Plan because it provided $350 billion to State and local governments so that they could increase funding to the police, to law enforcement, to social services, to a whole variety of agencies and needs. But, apparently, they chose not to. Instead, they choose to bring claims that Democrats want to defund the police, which couldn't be further from the truth.

We put our money where our mouths are, and we said we support law enforcement. We support local government employees. We support State government employees. We provided in the American Rescue Plan, which not a single Republican voted for, hazard pay because it has been so difficult for law enforcement and for so many others to conduct their services, to be out in the community during this particular pandemic.

Mr. Speaker, I just would suggest to my friends, next time they get an opportunity to actually provide funding to law enforcement, they vote for it and not just say they are supportive of it. Let's put their moneys where their mouths are.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel).

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

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record two Statements of Administration Policy. One on H.R. 2547, and the other one on H.R. 1065, both in support of the bills that are under consideration.

Statement of Administration Policy

H.R. 2547--Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act--Rep. Waters,

D-CA, and seven cosponsors

The Administration supports House passage of H.R. 2547, the

Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. This

legislation would expand necessary safeguards to ensure

working families and small businesses are protected from

predatory debt collection practices.

As our Nation works to recover from the worst economic and

public health crises of our lifetimes, many families and

small businesses are dealing with outstanding debts. In

addition to providing robust relief, the government must also

protect Americans from abusive and predatory practices.

H.R. 2547 would extend existing consumer protections

against predatory lending arrangements to small businesses,

prohibit debt collectors from threatening service members

with a reduction in rank, prosecution or loss of security

clearance, and restrict contact to consumers by email or text

messages. The legislation would require discharge of private

student loans for both the borrower and cosigners in the case

of permanent disability for the borrower, establishing

greater parity in protections for private and Federal student

loan borrowers. The bill also clarifies protections for

consumers in the case of non-judicial foreclosure

proceedings.

The Administration applauds these steps to strengthen

consumer protections for hardworking Americans and their

families, and we look forward to working with the Congress

further on the details of this legislation.

Statement of Administration Policy

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

cosponsors

The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R.

1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Pregnant workers are

too often unable to access simple changes to their working

conditions that would allow them to keep doing their jobs and

do so safely. This can create risks to their health as well

as economic consequences. No worker should be forced to

choose between a paycheck and a healthy pregnancy.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act would provide basic, long

overdue protections to ensure that pregnant workers and job

applicants are not fired or otherwise discriminated against,

or denied reasonable accommodations that allow them to work.

Such protections promote family economic security by helping

women stay in the workforce, including for those, often women

of color, who are the sole or primary breadwinners in their

families. Approximately two million women have left the

workforce due to the COVID-19 pandemic, eroding more than 30

years of progress in women's labor force participation, and

this Administration is committed to ensuring that women can

both care for and support themselves and their families.

H.R. 1065 is a bipartisan bill that requires certain

employers to make reasonable accommodations for qualified

employees and job applicants with known limitations related

to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

These accommodations might include simple modifications, such

as modifying a no-food-or-drink policy, providing additional

break time to use the bathroom, or helping avoid the lifting

of heavy objects, depending on the circumstances. The bill

would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations

for qualified pregnant workers unless doing so would pose an

undue hardship to the employer. It would also provide for an

interactive process, where necessary, between employers and

pregnant workers to determine appropriate and effective

reasonable accommodations, and would protect pregnant workers

from being denied employment opportunities, or from

retaliation or interference, because they request or use an

accommodation.

The Administration encourages the House to pass this

bipartisan, commonsense legislation and looks forward to

working with the Congress to protect pregnant workers across

the country.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friends on the other side of the aisle trying to find a subject to talk about, since apparently they don't really have too many objections to either of the bills that are being discussed in the rule today.

Obviously, it doesn't seem like there is much conversation about H.R. 1065, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. And there isn't much discussion about the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act. Because those things are commonsense. They should be passed by this House. We thank so many Republicans for being cosponsors of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.

Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, a number of the provisions in the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act are really bipartisan, including the one Mr. Hall used to champion when he was a Member here in the Congress.

So you want to go off and talk about something else. I wonder where the outrage for brutality against our police was when a rightwing mob stormed this Capitol. And the only one of the people that really is speaking of the truth today in the Republican Caucus--Ms. Cheney from Wyoming--was ousted from her leadership position because she talked about the truth and the fact there was a mob, and our police were beaten by a rightwing mob.

Mr. Speaker, so I would just say to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Take a look in the mirror, and let's support our police across the board. Because I certainly support the law enforcement in Colorado. I support our Capitol Police, our FBI--particularly, the FBI.

President Trump would always undercut the FBI.

So I would suggest to my friends: Take a look in the mirror. Let's all support our law enforcement because they are important members of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I commend my friend from Nebraska for condemning-- finally, somebody condemning the riot and the attack that occurred against all of us and against our police, the Capitol Police, on January 6. I would also like to see more members of the Republican Party stand up and do exactly that same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to see them do what Ms. Cheney did, and condemn the ex-President, Donald Trump, for his role in inciting that whole mob action on January 6, and then we could start getting things back together.

Instead, my friend from Pennsylvania, reading a resolution that condemns racist policing that may have existed for a very long time, and I can't believe that he supports policing that is delivered in some kind of racist fashion. We have had too many people killed across this country. I know that is not what he meant.

So I just would urge us to focus on the bills that are at hand, which is the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, because those are important pieces of legislation that should be considered immediately by this House. And when we pass this rule, they will be considered.

So I oppose the gentleman's suggestions that we move to a different previous question. I appreciate Mr. Bacon's comments about his bill. There are provisions in there that are really outstanding, but we are here to deal with debt collections and we are here to deal with pregnant workers' fairness.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I, too, during this week, applaud our law enforcement and our first responders, but particularly law enforcement right now for their valor, for their protection of our communities. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing up that subject at this time.

But we are here on a rule dealing with the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act and Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The treatment of consumers in the collection of debts and businesses and military personnel is a very important subject, especially during this time of COVID when so many families are struggling.

We have thousands and thousands of people who were laid off. In fact, where millions of people are still out of work a year and a half after COVID started. And, as a consequence, a lot of folks need assistance and need help, and they don't need to be hounded in improper ways as they go through this struggle.

So the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act is very important for the financial health of our consumers and people across the country. The provisions in the bill are bipartisan ideas to protect consumers from abusive debt collection practices. They also ensure pregnant women can receive reasonable workplace accommodations to ensure that they can stay in the workforce.

According to the CFPB 2021 Annual Report, more than one in four Americans have a third-party debt collection item attached to their credit report. And, last year, the CFPB received 82,700 consumer complaints about debt collection. It is time for Congress to act.

And based on the gentleman from Pennsylvania's argument, which has nothing to do with that particular bill or the facts as we have seen them develop during this pandemic, that should be an easy vote for everybody, whether they are Democrat or Republican.

The Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act provides important consumer protections to stop abusive debt collection practices, and it ensures that small businesses, families, and individuals are treated fairly.

The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act is necessary to support the more than 80 percent of women who will give birth to a child at some point during their working years. These women deserve to have reasonable accommodations, which oftentimes cost businesses little to no money to implement. So we can help pregnant women stay in the workforce. This bill passed on broad bipartisan vote last Congress, and I hope it passes with even more support again this week.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage a ``yes'' vote on the rule and the previous question.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Reschenthaler is as follows:

Amendment to House Resolution 380

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3079) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

punish criminal offenses targeting law enforcement officers,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 9. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3079, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 3080) to protect law enforcement officers, and for

other purposes. All points of order against consideration of

the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read.

All points of order against provisions in the bill are

waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered

on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate

equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking

minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary; and (2)

one motion to recommit.

Sec 10. Immediately after disposition of H.R. 3080, the

House shall proceed to the consideration in the House of the

bill (H.R. 2137) to amend title 18, United States Code, to

further protect officers and employees of the United States,

and for other purposes. All points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be

considered as read. All points of order against provisions in

the bill are waived. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment

thereto to final passage without intervening motion except:

(1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the

chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the

Judiciary; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 11. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the

consideration of H.R. 3079, H.R. 3080, and H.R. 2137.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank the distinguished gentleman, my good friend from Colorado, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

The rule before us today provides for consideration of two pieces of legislation. The first bill, H.R. 1065, would create a stand-alone law requiring employers to provide accommodations to known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.

Republicans have long supported antidiscrimination legislation, including protections for pregnant workers. We agree pregnant workers should be protected and accommodated in the workplace. However, it is disappointing that the Education and Labor Democrats absolutely refuse to work with committee Republicans to include a longstanding provision protecting religious organizations from being forced to make employment decisions that conflict with their faith. I really hope that moving forward, my colleagues across the aisle will actually work with Republicans and help protect religious liberty.

The rule also makes in order H.R. 2547, the Comprehensive Debt Collection Improvement Act, a collection of eight Financial Services bills that claim to address the debt collection practices and the problems thereof in the U.S. economy. But in reality, this measure is just the latest step in House Democrats' socialist takeover of our country's financial system.

Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, consumers are already protected from harmful debt collection practices. While Democrats claim H.R. 2547 is necessary due to the economic effects of COVID-19, several of these partisan bills were introduced last Congress prior to the pandemic.

It is absolutely clear that my colleagues across the aisle are using the COVID-19 pandemic as an excuse to dismantle our free market system and force their radical, progressive agenda on the American people.

Instead of actually helping consumers, H.R. 2547 will increase healthcare costs and make credit more expensive for borrowers. In fact, under this legislation, the lowest income borrowers may be pushed out of the system entirely.

Further, H.R. 2547 will make it harder for small businesses, many of which have been devastated by this pandemic. It will make it harder for those small businesses to receive payments for services rendered.

Finally, H.R. 2547 undermines the CFPB's October 2020 final rule, intended to modernize debt collection practices. This rule was the result of more than 7 years of research and set forth guidelines for both consumers and debt collectors on acceptable communications.

During committee consideration of this bill, Ranking Member McHenry offered a substitute amendment to address bipartisan concerns with the current financial framework. This commonsense proposal included provisions to prevent debt collection harassment of servicemembers, provide protection for cosigners in cases of death or permanent disability, and prohibited the use of Social Security numbers by consumer reporting agencies.

The majority, however, refused to work with Republicans. This refusal is just the latest in the Democrats' disturbing ``my way or the highway'' approach on issues where there is actually room for bipartisan solutions.

House Republicans will continue to support policies that provide Americans with access to affordable credit, while ensuring that our financial system remains safe and sound.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Georgia (Mrs. Greene).

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

Mr. Speaker, you wouldn't know it from the Democrats' floor schedule, but Sunday marked the beginning of National Police Week.

In 1962, President John F. Kennedy signed a proclamation designating May 15 as Peace Officers Memorial Day, and the week in which that date falls as Police Week.

Throughout this week, our Nation honors and pays tribute to law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our country and our communities safe.

When Republicans controlled the House, we marked this week by moving legislation to support our police officers and help them keep our communities safe. In stark contrast, this liberal, progressive majority is not moving a single bill to support law enforcement during this year's Police Week.

Instead, Democrats are choosing to ignore Police Week, even though 2020 was the deadliest year on record for police officers in 50 years; even though, barely 1 month ago, Capitol Police Officer Billy Evans, a father of two, was killed defending this very building in which we stand; and even though more police officers have been shot and killed in the first 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than in all of 2020 and 2019.

I guess that is not surprising coming from the party that has openly attacked our law enforcement officers and called for defunding, dismantling, and abolishing the police.

Don't believe me? Just take their word for it.

Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib tweeted: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.'' The Congresswoman then went on and said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization.''

Congresswoman Cori Bush called St. Louis' decision to eliminate $4 million from the city's police budget a ``historic'' move that ``marks a new future for our city.''

Then there is Chairwoman Maxine Waters, chairwoman of the Financial Services Committee, who tweeted, and I read the tweet verbatim: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial, racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out.''

Not only is this disrespectful to the men and women who put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, but it is actually dangerous. The stats speak for themselves. In Democrat-run cities that defunded the police, they have seen increases in crime. Let's look at some of the numbers.

Austin, Texas: They cut funding for police by $150 million. In return, they saw a 50 percent spike in homicides.

Los Angeles: L.A. defunded the police by $175 million. They, too, experienced an increase in crime, an 11.6 percent rise in homicides.

Then, there is New York City. New York City cut police funding by $1 billion, that is billion with a B. In return, New York City saw a 97 percent rise in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides. Let me repeat that for you because the stats are so alarming: a 97 percent increase in shootings and a 45 percent increase in homicides.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans support law enforcement officers and want to help them do their jobs safely, effectively, and professionally. That is why if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to consider Congressman Don Bacon's Back the Blue Act, Congressman John Rutherford's Protect and Serve Act, and Congressmen McCaul, Cuellar, and Chabot's Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act. Let's talk about each one of those bills.

The Back the Blue Act would protect our police officers by making it a Federal crime to kill or assault a Federal law enforcement officer.

The Protect and Serve Act would create enhanced penalties for anyone who targets law enforcement officers and purposefully harms them.

The Jaime Zapata and Victor Avila Federal Law Enforcement Protection Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation, would ensure individuals who harm or attempt to harm U.S. Federal officers or employees serving abroad can be brought to justice and prosecuted here in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Nehls). He is here to explain this amendment. He is my good friend and a former law enforcement officer.

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

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Colorado was talking about money in the American Rescue Plan and money going to States and how that is being used. Let's be clear about something.

California was actually running a surplus in their budget, yet that didn't stop them from taking the money from the American Rescue Plan and giving that not to the police, but to illegal immigrants.

And there is this myth out there that Democrats really don't want to defund the police. I would say that it is not a myth. They actually do want to defund and dismantle the police. But don't take my words for it. We can take the words of my liberal colleagues, the Democrats.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, when reacting to Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to cut one-sixth of New York City's Police Department budget, she actually deemed that as insufficient. And I will quote my colleague: ``Defunding the police means defunding police. It doesn't mean budget tricks or funny math.''

Again, that was my colleague from New York, a Democrat. Her words, not mine.

Representative Cori Bush, when celebrating St. Louis defunding their police force, despite consistently ranking as one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, to that my colleague said: ``Today's decision to defund the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department is historic. It marks a new future for our city.''

Well, my colleague might be half correct because it was historic. It did usher in a new future for that city, and that is the fact that you have crime rates rising to historic levels.

My colleague from Missouri continued and she also said: ``If we remove that''--meaning the funding from the police, if we cut police funding--``and take that money and put it into our education system, put it into making sure our unhoused community members are sheltered, putting it into mental health resources, that is what we are saying because that is what is going to make our communities safer.''

So please stop the myth that Democrats actually don't want to defund the police. They absolutely do. They have said it over and over again, and their policies have proven it in many cities.

And what do the American people get?

Increased crime rates.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Rutherford), my good friend and a former sheriff.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Colorado is asking why we are talking about the police. Well, the Democrats have been doing a lot of talking about police themselves--lots of talking about police.

Representative Ilhan Omar, in talking about the Minneapolis Police Department following the death of George Floyd, said: ``You can't really reform a department that is rotten to the root.''

So, again, we are talking about police because police are heroes. We have always stood with the police, as Republicans. I wish my Democrat colleagues could say the same. But they have said repeatedly throughout the summer, in the past, atrocious things about the police.

Chairwoman Maxine Waters, in response to the death of Rayshard Brooks, who tried to shoot officers with their own tasers during an attempted DUI arrest, said: ``Police reform is not enough. Getting rid of serial racist, ignorant, and stupid cops must be a top priority. Let's call them out. Police protective unions, you have got to go, too.''

The attacks go on and on, on our law enforcement. After the death of Daunte Wright, following a physical struggle where an officer fired their service weapon instead of the intended taser, Representative Rashida Tlaib said: ``Policing in our country is inherently and intentionally racist.''

Representative Tlaib has also said: ``No more policing, incarceration, and militarization. It can't be reformed.''

Again, this is what Democrats say about police.

And I know my colleague from Colorado said he supports police, but in response to riots across the country surrounding the death of George Floyd, my good friend from Colorado said: ``Supporting Representative Pressley's resolution to condemn all acts of police brutality, racial profiling, and excessive use of force is the first step, but an important step, in affecting change and working to end these injustices.''

That sounds very benign, and understandably so. But if you look at the support for what the resolution actually said, let's read what the resolution said.

``The system of policing in America and its systemic targeting of and use of deadly and brutal force against people of color, particularly Black people, stems from the long legacy of slavery, lynching, Jim Crow laws, and the war on drugs in the United States.''

So, in essence, supporting that resolution is really linking modern police to the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow. It is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, it was a Democrat, it was JFK in 1962, who declared this week Police Week. I just wish the current Democratic Party could stand with the Republicans and honor police, especially memorialize police who have died defending our communities and our country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bacon), my good friend the former general.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask how much time each side has remaining.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is relevant, these three police bills, because, as I said

when I opened, if we defeat this previous question, I will bring forth the amendment personally to bring up these three bills that actually honor our police officers.

Again, it is a historical norm in this body, in this Chamber, that during Police Week we focus on bills to help police officers. That is why this is relevant today. And the fact that my Democrat colleagues refuse to talk about the police raises a lot of questions. We need to help the police.

Let me just give you one example of the heroic acts of the police. After a suicidal man drove off a bridge into an ocean, San Diego Police Department K-9 officer, Jonathan Wiese, sprung into action, scaling down the side of a cliff to rescue twin 2-year-old sisters who were caught inside the vehicle.

When asked about this decision to throw himself over a cliff, Officer Wiese explained: ``I didn't do this job to be liked every day. I didn't do it to become rich. I did it because I wanted to be out there making a difference and helping people.''

That is the mentality of the men and women who are in our law enforcement. That is why this week they deserve our attention, and that is why my colleagues should be afforded the right to bring up their three bills through an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, while the rest of the Nation recognizes National Police Week and shows gratitude for the men and women keeping our communities safe, House Democrats are prioritizing two pieces of legislation that do absolutely nothing, nothing to help law enforcement officers.

Instead, they are jamming through a socialist takeover of our country's financial system that will actually hurt consumers and our Nation's small businesses. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question, and I urge ``no'' on the underlying measure.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that we can immediately consider my bill to ensure that those who risk their lives to protect all of us are afforded greater protections as well.

I introduced the Back the Blue Act of 2021 with Senator Cornyn in the Senate and my two original cosponsors in the House, Representatives Stivers and Johnson, during Police Week because this bill is needed now more than ever.

There have been more officers shot and killed in the last 4\1/2\ months of 2021 than all of 2020 and all of 2019. In 4\1/2\ months, we have had more fatalities, more murders of policemen than in the whole year of 2020 and the whole year of 2019. It is clear that we need to enforce greater protections for those who protect us, and that is why my colleagues and I introduced the Back the Blue Act.

The numbers are alarming. In 2018, 83 police officers were shot and 26 were killed. In 2019, 86 were shot and 18 were killed. And 2020, 89 were shot and 18 killed. This year, in 2021, as of April 30th, there have been 91 officers shot so far, and 19 of them killed by gunfire.

Our police are being targeted. We need to defend our law enforcement and public safety officers, and our bill does just that.

Specifically, the Back the Blue Act creates new criminal provisions to Federal law enforcement officers; U.S. judges; and federally funded public safety officers, such as firefighters, chaplains, and members of a rescue squad or ambulance crew.

The Back the Blue Act creates a new Federal crime for killing, attempting to kill, or conspiring to kill a Federal judge, Federal law enforcement officer or a federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to the death penalty and a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years if death results. The offender would otherwise face a minimum sentence of 10 years.

The bill creates a new Federal crime for assaulting a federally funded law enforcement officer with escalating penalties, including mandatory minimums based on the extent of any injury and the use of a dangerous weapon. However, no prosecution can be commenced absent certification by the Attorney General that prosecution is appropriate.

Now, I want to respond to my friend, who I respect, from Colorado. I condemned the behavior and the riot that occurred on January 6. Over one hundred of our policemen were injured. This bill provides extra protections for Capitol Hill law enforcement. Those who injured our Capitol Police on January 6 would be under greater punishment or penalties, if convicted.

Our bill also creates a new Federal crime for interstate flight from justice to avoid prosecution for killing, attempting to kill or conspiring to kill a Federal judge, Federal law enforcement officer or federally funded public safety officer. The offender would be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for this offense.

Lastly, the Back the Blue Act creates a specific aggravating factor for the Federal death penalty prosecutions. It expands self-defense and Second Amendment rights for law enforcement officers. It opens up grant funding to strengthen relationships between police and their communities.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our law enforcement personally. I was a victim of crime twice, and both times I was deployed when I was assigned to the Air Force. My house was robbed once when I was a captain deployed to Bahrain. Another time, someone assumed a false identity when I was a lieutenant colonel during the invasion of Iraq when I was flying combat operations. Thankfully, one of the times the police captured one of the perpetrators and arrested him and he was charged for a crime.

I deployed to go to the battle. Every day our police walk out their front door, after kissing their spouse good-bye, wondering if they are going to encounter a violent criminal. We cannot thank our police officers enough.

During Police Week, I urge my colleagues to support our first responders by immediately considering and supporting the Back the Blue Act.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge defeat of the previous question so that we can immediately consider the Protect and Serve Act, my bipartisan bill to increase penalties for individuals who deliberately target law enforcement officers with violence.

Throughout my 40 years of law enforcement, including 12 as sheriff, I have seen firsthand the dangerous situations our men and women in law enforcement face every day. In Jacksonville, in fact, our memorial wall is filled with the names of many good police officers who laid down their lives in service to their community.

This Police Week, we are honoring the memory of the 394 officers our Nation lost last year. We pause to remember their sacrifice and pledge to support policies that keep our officers

safe. These policies should include harsh penalties for violence targeted against our men and women in blue.

When I first introduced the Protect and Serve Act in 2018, it was overwhelmingly passed by the House 382-35.

Police Week has always been a unifying time to honor those lost, but now, now the majority will barely acknowledge it.

What is going on?

I think the answer is simple. Supporting our police has become unpopular in the Democratic Party. Pressure from online radicals, political pundits who have never worn a badge, never been on a ride- along, they are dictating what policies the House majority will support.

To make matters worse, House Democrats are pushing a police reform bill right now that eliminates qualified immunity, the lifeblood of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, without qualified immunity, the entire profession would end as we know it today.

It makes you wonder if that is their goal: End local law enforcement and replace it with a national police force similar to almost every socialist country in the world.

Regardless, the growing antipolice rhetoric and widespread efforts to defund police departments are leaving officers increasingly at risk to attacks in communities less safe.

As mentioned earlier, we are not even halfway through 2021 and we have already seen more police officers shot this year than all of last year. Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, American cities are experiencing a spike in violent crime. The U.S. surpassed 20,000 murders last year for the first time since 1995. And just this year, shootings in Chicago, up 43 percent; New York City, Los Angeles, up 36 percent; Washington, D.C., homicide up 63 percent.

Mr. Speaker, it turns out if you demoralize, defund, and delegitimize the police, crime goes up. I know many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do support law enforcement. I know that. In fact, I know that a particular few even have backgrounds in law enforcement.

Mr. Speaker, so this is what I would like to impart to my Democrat colleagues: Here is your chance to say during Police Week that you support our law enforcement officers. Vote for my bill, the Protect and Serve Act, just like you did in 2018, and show your constituent police officers that you have their backs.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, give me a break. Since when is having babies a liberal activity?

In fact, I believe that police women have babies, too. And let me tell you about a couple of other women.

Erica was working at a warehouse lifting heavy boxes. She had been working there for years. And when she was denied her request to pick up lighter boxes, she lost her pregnancy.

Hannah gave 5 years of her life to a healthcare company, was consistently promoted; but when she disclosed her pregnancy to her employer, she was fired.

And Sara, who spent 7 years building a tech startup from the ground up and truly loved her job and had been promised a promotion when she came back from maternity leave, had it revoked.

These are all true stories of women who have faced the real-world consequence of discrimination against pregnant workers in America. So right now, if a woman becomes pregnant, she can be denied, for example, an extra bathroom break, a place to sit, a lighter lifting, or fired for asking for simple accommodations or even just disclosing that she is pregnant.

This leaves many women having to choose between the health of their pregnancy and putting foods on their family's table. We are putting women in danger every single day while we hold off on this action. They are real-world implications for women like Erica and Sara and Hannah, especially in light of how women have really suffered the brunt of the job loss during the pandemic and as we see a rise in maternal mortality rates for women of color.

Mr. Speaker, so these stories are not unique. Pregnancy should not prevent a woman from putting food on the table, for paying her bills.

Mr. Speaker, I urge everybody to pass this good and needed bill, Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.