Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise to recognize the incredible lifesaving care provided by pregnancy resource centers across the country.

Thanks to the 2,700 pregnancy resource centers in the United States, mothers looking for help, hope, and healing have a safe place they can turn to.

In my own district, Virginia's Fifth Congressional District, we have 10 outstanding centers where lives are saved and mothers are given new hope.

To recognize the exceptional work they do, I have introduced a resolution designating the week of November 8 as

National Pregnancy Center Week, highlighting the vital role that pregnancy resource centers play in helping mothers and families.

As a result of their work, young lives will be given the opportunity to live, grow up, and work in our great Nation.

Despite there being over three times as many pregnancy resource centers as abortion centers in the United States, sadly, most Americans are more familiar with the anti-life groups like Planned Parenthood because my colleagues on the other side of the aisle stumble over each other to throw taxpayer money in their direction.

Without pregnancy resource centers, millions more babies would be murdered by the scourge of radical anti-life groups under the guise of family planning.

To all those who selflessly serve in pregnancy resource centers, I thank you for your lifesaving work.

Mr. Speaker, no more fundamental right than the right to life exists in our country and in our world today, and there is no more fundamental responsibility of government than the responsibility to defend the most vulnerable among us, and that includes innocent, precious life in the womb.

Everyone knows abortion is wrong. The clear science shows us that it is the taking of innocent life in the womb. The only question is what priority we will give that unborn, precious life in the womb.

Thankfully, our country has an admirable history of correcting civil and social injustice. The glaring exception is the ultimate injustice of abortion.

I pray that we will soon correct this injustice, and I believe that history will rightly condemn those who stood on the wrong side on this issue. I pray that we will correct the injustice of abortion, which has tragically taken the lives of some 70 million unborn children.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this latest attempt by the Democrats to increase their power at the expense of longstanding American traditions and the Constitution.

Sadly, this is not at all surprising. Democrats have made it clear that American institutions don't stand in their way of advancing their political agenda at all costs. They want to pack the Supreme Court, eliminate election integrity, defund our police, keep our borders open, and prohibit debate in this very House. And D.C. statehood is just the next step.

This legislation is an unconstitutional power grab designed to give Democrats more votes to pass their radical socialist agenda.

As the majority leader just said, this is about two Senators. It is not about principle.

The District of Columbia has served as the Federal district for over 200 years. The Framers understood the importance of Federal and State governments having separate authority and recognized that States would be ill-suited to house a Federal Government. And this was long before the Democrats started making everything about race.

Now, Democrats want to disregard the Founders' vision, again, in order to grab two more votes in the Senate. Political advantage is no justification for policy that disregards precedent and the Constitution. Therefore, I oppose this bill.

Madam Speaker, we must establish an America- first immigration policy. However, the Democrats are doing the opposite, with illegal aliens first, foreign nations first, and future Democrat voters first. Law-abiding American citizens are clearly last on the list of priorities, if they even make the list at all.

They are giving illegal aliens free healthcare, free education, free social services, free transportation, and even free lodging. Today, it is more of the same, with the continued effort to enable and facilitate illegal entry into our country. Now they want to provide attorneys for illegal aliens and further restrict our ability to refuse entry to those who wish us harm. Come one, come all.

Is it confusion and incompetence on the part of Democrats?

Do they not know the threat to our country? Do they not understand?

Or is it worse and they know exactly what they are doing and they don't care about the consequences?

Why else would they let organized crime profit off the suffering of those trying to illegally cross our border?

Why else would they stop building the Trump wall?

Why else would they reinstate catch-and-release and offer amnesty to illegal aliens?

Why else would they stop MPP and Title 42 restrictions?

The Democrats are destroying our country, and you need to look no further than our own border.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1996, the marijuana banking bill. This legislation is about legitimizing and bankrolling the marijuana industry and making legalization inevitable.

It is sad that the House is voting on this bill during a time when our country is seeing increases in addiction, depression, and suicide. Rather than helping victims of despair, we are enhancing the financial benefits for those peddling and profiting off the sale of marijuana.

We are not even directly debating our drug laws. No. We are cowardly debating if we should reward States for undermining the rule of law.

Despite what the swamp says, we don't need recreational marijuana. As

recently as 2016, the DEA determined that marijuana should remain a schedule I substance.

I don't care what the lobbyists or talking heads for the marijuana industry like John Boehner say, I care about keeping dangerous substances away from our children and standing for the values I was elected to fight for.

The last thing our country needs is our help facilitating the profitability of addictive, behavior-altering, recreational drug use.

I oppose the bill, and I urge every Member to do the same.

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

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

Madam Speaker, memo to my friends across the aisle: violence, including workplace violence, is already illegal; and it should always be prosecuted, regardless of whether it happens in the name of Antifa or BLM, or even if it is directed at those police officers working to keep us safe.

Again, violence in the workplace is already illegal, and you certainly won't decrease it, Madam Speaker, with calls to defund or even eliminate law enforcement and correctional facilities.

Talk about increasing workplace violence, Madam Speaker, and you wonder why more Americans are purchasing firearms to protect themselves with the anarchy you seem to be promoting.

Speaking of law enforcement, do we actually want to protect police from workplace violence, too?

Or do we want to continue to increase it with a dishonest narrative that makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs and keep us all safe?

But here we find ourselves again today with our daily portion of proposed unnecessary workplace regulations intended to punish law- abiding American employers, making their lives more costly and more difficult.

Specific to those who would be most negatively impacted by this bill, in a 2018 American Hospital Association survey, 97 percent reported that they already have workplace violence prevention policies in place.

In addition, OSHA, of course, is already enforcing workplace violence prevention policies.

So why are we trying to saddle employers with new regulations estimated by the CBO to cost private entities at least $1.8 billion-- that is $1,800 million, for my friends across the aisle--in just the first 2 years of mandated implementation, and then $750 million annually going forward?

Where does this money come from for these unnecessary mandates?

From consumers in higher prices. You might call this hidden tax increases. This is how all regulations are paid for, unless they actually force the organization to go out of business because they can't deal with the cost.

The CBO estimates that the cost to public healthcare facilities will be $100 million in the first 2 years. The last thing that financially struggling rural hospitals, like those in my district, need are more unfunded mandates from Washington.

While we seem to be far off course today, Congress, in the past, has actually passed statutes that make regulations more accountable, requiring that bureaucrats give public notice regarding new rules and mandates, and solicit feedback before implementation.

But, today, House Democrats want to make it easier for OSHA to issue one-size-fits-all regulations without having to receive any feedback from the public.

Article I of the Constitution mandates that Congress make our Federal laws, not Federal agencies and their unelected bureaucrats.

Congress should make the regulatory process more accountable to the taxpayer. That is why I introduced a bill called Article I Regulatory Budget Act that would require agencies to account for the cost of regulation.

In that spirit, Madam Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for her leadership on regulatory reform with her Unfunded

Mandates Accountability and Transparency Act. I am proud to stand with her as we try to shrink the size of the Federal Government and its negative impact on those we represent. So I oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Foxx for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, everyone supports equal pay for equal performance, and everyone is against gender-based wage discrimination. This has been the law for nearly 60 years.

When I entered the workforce 30 years ago after college, wage discrimination was basically nonexistent, thanks to the law and a simple recognition of the value of a diverse workforce. Companies then, as now, simply assigned a starting salary based upon the position, and paid that wage to everyone they hired; thereafter providing merit increases based upon performance, unlike what happens in union shops and with government positions.

But do my Democrat friends across the aisle base their staff salaries on gender? Or do they pay women less than men? Or do they set salaries based on market conditions, qualifications, and experience?

Why do they assume less of private employers?

We already have laws and protections that ensure fair pay, and companies must maintain documentation demonstrating nondiscrimination in wages, performance evaluations, and merit increases.

In fact, we are in a much stronger position today than we were 30, let alone 60 years ago.

This legislation from the Democrat Party is just another attempt to insert themselves further into the workplace with a purported cure for a disease that doesn't exist. Democrats are dependent upon the perception of discrimination and victimhood to expand their base of power as they continue to divide us as a Nation.

Democrats also view employers, businesses, and job creators with disdain, believing that, left to their own devices, they would seek to harm and exploit their employees. Not to worry, Big Government to the rescue; or, more accurately, big Democrat government laying on more control, more regulations, more mandates, all designed to enrich their trial lawyer friends and increase liability for employers.

The Democrats will disingenuously cite statistics that indicate that there are discrepancies in income based on gender, but they won't specify discrepancies in pay for the same positions in the same industries because they don't exist.

This bill adds more layers of burdensome and costly reporting requirements for businesses, estimated to cost about $600 million a year, costs which will be passed on to consumers in higher prices with no real benefit.

The bill doesn't do anything to help women in the workplace, but it hurts employers, exposing them to greater liability, and enriches the trial lawyer donors to the Democrat Party. It allows the lawyers to litigate every decision an employer makes, and to bankrupt small businesses by seeking unlimited monetary damages.

It makes it impossible for employers to defend charges of gender- based discrimination when experience, qualifications, or performance warrants higher pay. They would now need to prove that the determination is a business necessity.

Leave it to politicians in Washington to think that they have the right to determine for employers what is a business necessity.

Left to themselves, businesses and employers tend to get it right. But Big Government almost never gets it right, and this bill is no exception. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member from Missouri for yielding this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1868, the Democrats' attempt to put a Band-Aid on their out-of-control spending, and this bill tries to remove, as the others speakers have said, the tough consequences of their continued reckless and irresponsible spending.

Last week, the Democrats passed their massive $2 trillion blue State bailout package with the intent to burden future generations of Americans with yet another layer of crippling debt and inevitably higher taxes for years to come.

This was yet another effort to further use the COVID virus as an opportunity to fund their leftist expansion of government, climate extremism, woke social justice, and radical progressive agenda. At $2 trillion, the Pelosi bailout bill would spend another $6,000 per American citizen. This $6,000 in debt, per citizen, with the chance for some to receive a $1,400 check, is a raw deal for Americans. Everybody gets an IOU for $6,000; some people get a $1,400 check in return.

Only 9 percent of the $2 trillion is even related to COVID relief, with the bulk of the spending going to fund these Democrat pet projects. There is no pressure at all on the teachers' unions to even reopen the schools in return for the additional $130 billion in the bill, the Democrats rejected those commonsense amendments to require the schools to reopen. Only 5 percent of that $130 billion for schools will even be spent this year in 2021, that is how essential it is for COVID relief.

Now Democrats are finally acknowledging today that their spending is out of control and unsustainable, but instead of seeking a true remedy for their problem, they are once again trying to kick the can down the road and exempt their spending from longstanding paygo rules.

This new legislation would prevent sequestration for mandatory spending, which was only triggered in response to the reckless spending bill they passed last week. Their ill-conceived bill failed to cut funding for the unnecessary projects prioritized by Democrats, but not by the American people.

The imminent future sequester cuts this new bill is intended to address came about as a result of the blatantly partisan and irresponsible bill the Democrats rammed through last week. Our national debt is now nearing $30 trillion, an inconceivable number. It equates to about $90,000 per citizen. This amounts to an economic crisis, a national security crisis, and we can't afford to ignore it any longer. A day of reckoning is coming.

But the majority is ignoring it. Any semblance of fiscal discipline would have resulted in a COVID bill that was maybe 10 to 20 percent of the $2 trillion that was in H.R. 1319, the Pelosi blue State bailout. But instead, they unilaterally, on a hyperpartisan basis, rammed through the $2 trillion to satisfy their left wing, and appease poorly run blue States and Democratic governors.

Our country cannot continue to afford to race toward fiscal insolvency, and this bill allows the Democrats to put the pedal to the metal without consequence, as we speed faster toward a fiscal catastrophe. Rather than truly helping the country, the bill enables Democrats' fiscal irresponsibility. Actions like this are why Congress has such a low, abysmal approval rating.

I will continue to tell my folks back home that I am fighting for them and their hard-earned tax dollars, while the other side wants to continue to steal those dollars to fund their future pet projects.

Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves today truly in March madness, and the Democrats are throwing up another air ball with this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.

Madam Speaker, Democrats are using domestic violence, which is a serious issue, as a front for just their latest gun control bill. This legislation contains red flag gun confiscation language and expands the grounds for lifetime bans of firearm possession.

Red flag gun confiscation laws upend due process. Under this legislation, an individual could have their guns removed from them without having the chance to face their accuser in court. That means a complaint and a judicial order could suspend a constitutionally guaranteed right, with no chance for the accused to respond under the law.

This legislation makes it clear that Democrats consider gun ownership a second-class right, if it is a right at all,

and view the Constitution as a negotiable suggestion.

This bill would expand the number of nonviolent misdemeanor offenses that produce a lifetime ban on firearm ownership, which is already applied to felons.

It is ironic that in the same week that Democrats are voting in support of amnesty for illegal aliens who have committed up to two misdemeanors, they are voting to permanently suspend the constitutional rights of Americans who have committed one nonviolent misdemeanor.

I oppose this attempt to undermine due process, further restrict the Second Amendment, and expand the left's radical and relentless gun control agenda.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and fellow Member from Texas for yielding.

Our country's future will forever be changed based on how we manage or refuse to manage Biden's border crisis. And, yes, it is a crisis.

Steady merit-based legal immigration is stabilizing. It provides a talented pool of workers, effectively permits patriotic assimilation, and enriches our culture. We can debate how best to achieve those objectives and what immigration levels or numbers are in the best interests of our Nation and our citizens, but what is not open for honest debate, or at least debate that honestly places the interests, safety, and security of American citizens first, is the need to secure our border and eliminate illegal immigration.

President Biden's open border policies threaten our security, overtax our resources, jeopardize public health, and turn every town into a border community.

As others have said, without a border, we don't have a country; we have a landmass, one that is currently under invasion. That is an invasion that is with complicit approval from the President's policies and the support of the Democratic Party, and this is especially egregious and inexcusable.

The fact is that, in the 56 days since President Biden was sworn in on January 20, illegal immigration has surged and our southern border has been overrun.

We are not stopping illegal immigrants based on their inability to provide for themselves and not be a burden on our economy, our social services,

our education system, our healthcare system.

We are not stopping illegal immigrants based on whether or not they test positive for COVID.

We are not stopping illegal immigrants based on whether or not they have a criminal record.

We are not stopping illegal immigrants based on whether or not they intend to do us harm.

The bottom line is that we don't even know who is coming, and we don't even know why they are coming.

Meanwhile, the President sends FEMA to the border, not to help prevent the emergency crisis of illegal crossing, but actually to help illegal aliens get into our country.

And how does a Democrat majority respond?

With two new amnesty bills that will incentivize and reward lawless, illegal behavior with amnesty and citizenship.

Memo to the President and Democrat majority: You get more of what you incentivize.

We can only conclude this is what they want.

Mr. Speaker, these two bills combined will provide amnesty to some 5 million illegal aliens, including some with criminal backgrounds. These two bills make it more difficult for law enforcement to detain or deport illegal aliens. These bills will facilitate chain migration, leading to more non-merit-based immigration. And these two bills inexcusably provide no provisions to address the Biden border crisis.

Just today, in apparent recognition that the crisis is not playing well with the American people--you know, the forgotten citizens of the country--NBC news--not exactly a conservative news outlet--is reporting that the Biden administration is telling Border Patrol that they can no longer talk to the media or do ride-alongs that enable the media to see firsthand what is happening at the border. Instead, Border Patrol is supposed to let all communication come from Washington.

The American people are not stupid. They know what is going on, and they don't want America to be turned into a sanctuary nation.

Mr. Speaker, we, on the Republican side, are going to fight for them. We are going to fight to protect the country we have today, and we are going to fight to protect the country we want to have tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, I thank the esteemed congressman from Texas, who has been quite a champion on this issue.

Madam Speaker, no nation in the history of the world has been more welcoming to immigrants than the United States. And no nation in the history of the world is more diverse or has provided more opportunity for people of all races and ethnic backgrounds than the United States.

That is why millions of immigrants of all races and ethnicities are seeking to come to America. In fact, billions of the world's 7 billion non-U.S. population would come here, undoubtedly, if they could.

I sincerely believe that most Americans, if not most elected officials, understand that the lack of an effective immigration policy is one of the most important threats to our country. However, President Biden's decision to reverse the Trump policies that successfully secured our border is dangerous to the future of our Nation and driven solely by a need to pander to the left.

Make no mistake, President Biden's policies created this very crisis today, his promise of amnesty made it worse, and his administration is now ignoring it.

You would think in the absence of leadership, Congress would try to step in and address the Biden border surge crisis.

Instead, we are expecting to take up two liberal amnesty bills in the House this upcoming week, including H.R. 6, the American Dream and Promise Act.

H.R. 6 would provide amnesty to roughly three million people, which would be a slap in the face to everyone who ever has or currently is navigating our legal immigration system.

Even worse, it would incentivize more illegal immigration at a time

when we have no operational control of our southern border.

Even more bizarre, this bill allows for criminal aliens, people who have committed crimes in American communities, to be eligible for amnesty.

The bill specifically allows for an individual who has committed up to two misdemeanors or one crime of moral turpitude to gain a pathway to legal status.

Some may say, well, misdemeanors aren't that serious. Well, here are a few examples of crimes that are only misdemeanors in States such as California: Domestic violence, prostitution, drunk driving.

Worst of all, this legislation provides a waiver for people who would technically not otherwise qualify for this amnesty. This waiver specifically covers: Human smuggling offenses, voter fraud offenses, and communicable diseases.

I urge this Congress not to worsen this crisis, and to instead debate legislation that makes America safer and honors our legal immigrants.

Instead of providing amnesty to criminals, we should debate my legislation, H.R. 398, the No Asylum for Criminals Act, which would prohibit dangerous criminals from qualifying for asylum in the U.S.

When it comes to legal immigration, people of good faith can debate on what overall immigration levels are prudent for our country, how to best balance the needs of American citizens with the desire of immigrants who are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their family, how to cultivate patriotic assimilation, how to protect jobs for American workers while providing labor for our businesses, and the merits, or the lack thereof, of issues such as chain migration, birthright citizenship, diversity visas, and other unique features of America's immigration system.

But there should be no debate on the rule of law. We should be united and bipartisan on the critical importance of enforcing our laws and eliminating illegal immigration.

There is simply no honest debate regarding the fact that barriers, whether walls or fences, work. Just look around D.C. to see confirmation that our House Democratic leadership believes this.

There should be no debate regarding the fact that illegal immigration is a significant threat to our national security, our economic security, and our health security.

Illegal immigration further burdens our economy, our social services, our healthcare system, and our education system.

Illegal immigration also enriches Mexico's organized crime and the cartels that control everyone and everything that comes across the southern border.

The individuals illegally coming across our southern border suffer dangerous and sometimes deadly hardships and are often victimized by the Mexican cartels.

Individuals who cannot afford to pay the smugglers are often extorted into carrying drugs and other illicit material into the U.S. Others are abused as indentured servants to the cartels if they make it across. Many must live the rest of their lives with existential threats to themselves and their families.

Moreover, illegal immigration places our law enforcement and our citizens living near the border in immediate danger when drugs and other preventable materials are smuggled across the border with impunity. We are risking turning every community into a border town and making our Nation a sanctuary Nation.

We must commit to completing the wall, enforcing our existing laws, ending catch and release, requiring mandatory E-Verify, fixing our biometric entry/exit systems, and taking amnesty, unlawful employment, and citizenship off the table.

The future of our country is clearly at stake with how we manage or don't manage immigration.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is what Democrat control looks like.

At $1.9 trillion, this bill spends an average of $6,000 per American citizen.

What would you say to somebody claiming to be a friend, who forced you to take out a loan for $6,000 because he might give you $1,400 from a portion of those loan proceeds? Would you consider that a good deal?

What if the same friend had already forced you to take out loans totaling $85,000 and you had little to nothing to show for it?

That is the average citizen's share of the national debt.

This bill takes aggregate so-called COVID relief spending to $6 trillion to alleviate an estimated $300 billion in lost wages. This is 20 times the spending compared to the lost wages.

What is next?

This is not even the beginning of the end of the Democrats' insatiable desire to spend their citizens into financial ruin.

Only 9 percent of the $1.9 trillion is even related to COVID relief, while 91 percent is for pet Democrat projects.

We still have $1 trillion unspent from the previous $4 trillion, and despite the efforts of the Republicans on the Budget Committee begging the President for answers, we can't even get an accounting for that.

The bill gives $500 billion in bailouts to failed, poorly run blue State governments that have only lost an estimated $7.6 billion in revenue. The bill does nothing to push the blue States to reopen, to even get the bailout money. Those amendments were rejected.

At least the House Democrats didn't call us Neanderthals when they voted against reopening.

The CDC estimated last spring that it would cost $25 billion to reopen the schools, and there was $70 billion already spent in the $4 trillion worth of COVID packages from last year. However, there is no pressure on the schools to reopen to get the additional $130 billion that is in this bill. Those amendments were rejected, too.

Only 5 percent of the $130 billion will even be spent this year. That is how essential it is for COVID relief.

But there is $12 billion in foreign aid, $270 billion for arts and humanities, and millions more for the Speaker's pet projects. With $30 trillion in national debt, which will be the balance when this is passed, we will owe $90,000 per citizen.

How dare we do that to the next generation.

Mr. Speaker, unions make American companies less efficient, less profitable, less competitive, and they cost American jobs.

I actually worked in a unionized auto factory during college, and I saw the problems with unions firsthand.

Unions protect the unproductive worker; diminish the incentive to stand out and be exceptional; treat everyone the same based on seniority; encourage an entitlement mentality; and foster an attitude of resentment toward management.

They have outlived their value from when they originated to correct what are now unfair and unlawful labor practices.

Every employee should be inspired to progress within an organization without at some point stepping over to the dark side because they become stigmatized as a member of management.

The PRO Act is an example of government, or this very Congress, employing its own union boss tactics to try to reverse the Nation's downward trend in union membership.

It is no coincidence that unions are among the biggest contributors to the Democrat party with over $200 million given last year alone.

Every State should be a right-to-work State, and that is what we should encourage instead of trying to force union membership on the Nation's workers.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the PRO Act and to these amendments.

The PRO Act will ban right-to-work laws in 27 States. It will give unions millions more dollars to funnel to Democrats by requiring all workers to pay dues via payroll deduction, even if they don't support the union.

From 2010 to 2018, unions sent $1.6 billion from employee dues to leftwing groups, such as Planned Parenthood and the Clinton Foundation. The PRO Act will require companies to provide union organizers their private, personal contact information of employees so they can be pressured, harassed, and intimidated into supporting the union.

It will eliminate secret ballots and replace those with card check, where union bosses can simply collect authorization cards supposedly from employees agreeing to organize. If the Union doesn't win the election, it puts the burden on employees to prove they didn't engage in unfair labor practices to influence the outcome.

The PRO Act destroys the franchise model, independent contractor status, subcontractors, and gig workers by implementing a one-size- fits-all new employee classification. It repeals the ban on secondary boycotts and subjects suppliers and affiliates to union pressure, harassment, and intimidation tactics just because they do business with the company that is under attack.

It prohibits the replacement of striking workers, giving unions and employers risk-free leverage, unless the company closes; and eliminates the employer's ability to serve customers and operate during a strike. It massively increases fines and other penalties for employers.

The PRO Act will cost American businesses $47 billion annually, and I urge its rejection.

Madam Speaker, the right to organize is appropriately protected in America, the right to organize fairly, honestly, and transparently.

My amendment would provide greater fairness and transparency by prohibiting so-called neutrality agreements. These prevent an employer from saying anything negative about the union and ensure that workers only hear one side, the union boss's side.

Neutrality agreements often include card check in lieu of a secret ballot, permit unions access to company property for organizational efforts, and give private employee contact information to the unions. The company, which was inevitably threatened with retaliatory consequences if they didn't agree to the neutrality agreement, will often provide the unions with a captive audience on company time to present the prounion argument.

Neutrality agreements are grounded in the same leftist view that companies are trying to take advantage of their employees. Neutrality agreements should be prohibited. Employees should be permitted to hear both sides, pro and con, regarding organizing, and then permitted to make informed decisions by secret ballot.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to call up H.R. 682, the Reopen Schools Act, to get our kids out from behind screens and back in the classrooms.