[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4215-H4222]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1270, RESTORING ACCESS TO 
                         MEDICATION ACT OF 2015

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 793 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 793

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1270) to 
     amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the 
     amendments made by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care 
     Act which disqualify expenses for over-the-counter drugs 
     under health savings accounts and health flexible spending 
     arrangements. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. In lieu of the amendment in the nature 
     of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Ways and 
     Means now printed in the bill, an amendment in the nature of 
     a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 
     114-60 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, 
     shall be considered as read. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as 
     amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final 
     passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of 
     debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Ways and Means; 
     and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 793 provides for 
consideration of H.R. 1270, the Restoring Access to Medication Act.
  The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the 
majority and minority of the Committee on Ways and Means. Further, the 
rule makes in order an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
consisting of the text of the Rules Committee print considered 
previously during the Rules Committee hearing on this measure. As is 
standard with all legislation pertaining to the Tax Code, the Committee 
on Rules made no further

[[Page H4216]]

amendments in order; however, the rule affords the minority the 
customary motion to recommit.
  Under the rule, we will be considering commonsense policies from 
three different bills that empower individuals and families as 
healthcare consumers, while protecting taxpayer dollars. Each bill 
advanced through regular order and was favorably reported out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  H.R. 1270, the Restoring Access to Medication Act, would eliminate 
barriers created in the Affordable Care Act for those who want to 
purchase over-the-counter medications with funds from their health 
savings accounts. Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas introduced this 
bipartisan, bicameral bill to cut through the bureaucratic red tape 
created in the President's healthcare law.
  H.R. 5445, the Health Care Security Act, introduced by Congressman 
Paulsen and myself, eliminates certain burdensome limitations on health 
savings accounts to help consumers take back control of their health 
spending decisions.
  Finally, H.R. 4723, also introduced by Congresswoman Jenkins, 
protects taxpayers by recovering improper payments of Affordable Care 
Act subsidies.
  At the end of last month, the Speaker's Task Force on Health Care 
Reform released the Republican plan to replace the Affordable Care Act 
and modernize the American healthcare system. Good policy that will 
stand the test of time requires hard work, compromise, and the scrutiny 
of the American people.
  As, unfortunately, we learned during the run-up to the Affordable 
Care Act, policy hastily crafted by government bureaucrats behind 
closed doors results in devastating consequences. While we are 
committed to large-scale reform, real people are struggling as we 
speak, and we are not waiting to take action. These bills are an 
important example of the work that is going on right now to advance 
Member-driven solutions that will improve health care for all 
Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, the post-Affordable Care Act world is riddled with 
flaws, but one of its biggest problems is the failure to promote 
consumer-driven health care. Expanding the use of health savings 
accounts could go a long way to reverse this trend.
  Health savings account plans give consumers incentives to manage 
their own healthcare costs by coupling a tax-favored savings account 
used to pay medical expenses with a high-deductible health plan that 
meets certain requirements for deductibles and out-of-pocket expense 
limits. The funds in the health savings account are owned by the 
individual, controlled by the individual, and may be rolled over from 
year to year.
  Health savings accounts are not a novel idea. They have been 
available since 2004. In fact, their precursor, the medical savings 
account, is enjoying its 20th anniversary of being signed into law this 
month as part of the Kennedy-Kassebaum Act back in 1996.
  Current HSA policy is extraordinarily restrictive, making it harder 
for consumers to take advantage of them. While I have spent several 
years in developing extensive reforms to tap the potential for health 
savings accounts for consumers, H.R. 5445 includes meaningful 
improvements that can actually get across the finish line today.
  Deductibles and out-of-pocket limits have been steadily growing. 
Congress should be taking steps to make it easier for Americans to 
save, not restricting their options. Unfortunately, current law limits 
health savings account contributions to levels that are lower than the 
combined annual limits on deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses. H.R. 
5445 resolves this discrepancy by raising the individual and family 
contribution limits for health savings accounts to equal the annual 
limit on deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.
  Another problem in current law reduces the flexibility of HSAs for 
married couples. Under current law, if both spouses are HSA-eligible 
and age 55 or older, they must open separate HSA accounts to be able to 
make the maximum available contribution. Individuals should not be 
forced to jump through hoops just to save for their health care. H.R. 
5445 would allow both spouses to deposit catch-up contributions into a 
single health savings account.
  Finally, H.R. 5445 will take steps to ensure that HSA funds can 
reliably be used for medical expenses. Under current law, taxpayers may 
use HSA funds only for qualified medical expenses incurred after the 
establishment of the HSA, which might be some time after the 
establishment of the associated high-deductible health plan.
  If, for example, the taxpayer purchases an HSA-eligible health plan 
and then immediately incurs medical expenses before opening the HSA, 
the taxpayer may not use-tax favored HSA funds to pay those expenses. 
H.R. 5445 would treat HSAs opened within 60 days after gaining coverage 
under an HSA-eligible plan as having been opened on the same day as the 
health plan. This would allow for a reasonable grace period between the 
time of coverage through an HSA-eligible plan and establishment of the 
actual health savings account.
  H.R. 1270, the base bill, makes commonsense, patient-centered reforms 
to help defray costs for individuals.
  Over-the-counter medications, such as allergy or cold medications, 
proton pump inhibitors, antibiotic ointment, or pain relievers were 
historically eligible expenditures for a health savings account and 
other similar tax-favored healthcare accounts. However, the Affordable 
Care Act created a requirement in Federal law that forces the 
accountholders to go to their doctor to obtain a prescription for these 
over-the-counter medications before purchasing them with their health 
savings account or flexible savings account.
  Individuals who fail to jump through these hoops and purchase over-
the-counter medications without a prescription face a tax penalty for 
making a nonqualified distribution. This policy drives unnecessary 
utilization of doctors' services, decreases access to reasonable over-
the-counter medications, and discourages people from taking control of 
saving for their healthcare needs.
  H.R. 1270 repeals this harmful provision of the President's 
healthcare law, puts the consumer back in the driver's seat, and allows 
sufficient access to appropriate medication.

                              {time}  1615

  Last but not least, H.R. 4723 fulfills our duty as stewards of the 
tax dollars of hardworking Americans. Improper subsidy payments are 
treated to arbitrary and inconsistent standards. This is surely not 
good governance. The policy of H.R. 4723 will ensure that everyone who 
receives improper Affordable Care Act subsidy overpayments will be 
treated identically. This commonsense solution is a straightforward 
approach to saving billions of tax dollars for hardworking Americans.
  Instead of empowering individuals, the Affordable Care Act erected 
barriers to consumer-driven health care. The combined policies in H.R. 
1270 are an attempt to instill some of the rationality of a market-
based system into the chaotic world of the Affordable Care Act. H.R. 
1270 makes targeted but important reforms to strengthen the integrity 
of the healthcare system and improve access to quality care. This 
legislation is another example of the concrete actions that are being 
taken to return power to individual healthcare consumers.
  I encourage colleagues to improve the state of health care in America 
and vote for the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 1270.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. I appreciate having an 
opportunity to debate the rule because, as we learned a couple of weeks 
ago, we are not always guaranteed that right.
  I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the underlying bill that 
would be considered if this rule were passed, H.R. 1270, the so-called 
Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2015, I will insert into the 
Record the Statement of Administration Policy, which says that if the 
President were presented with H.R. 1270, he would veto the bill.
  Let me just read the first paragraph so my colleagues know why.
  He says: ``The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
1270, which would create new and unnecessary tax breaks that 
disproportionately benefit high-income people,

[[Page H4217]]

increase taxes for low- and middle-income people, and do nothing to 
improve the quality of or address the underlying costs of health 
care.''

                   Statement of Administration Policy


    H.R. 1270--The Restoring Access to Medication Act of 2015--Rep. 
                    Jenkins, R-KS, and 39 cosponsors

       The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 
     1270, which would create new and unnecessary tax breaks that 
     disproportionately benefit high-income people, increase taxes 
     for low- and middle-income people, and do nothing to improve 
     the quality of or address the underlying cost of health care.
       The Affordable Care Act is working and is fully integrated 
     into an improved American health care system. Discrimination 
     based on pre-existing conditions is a thing of the past. 
     Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, 20 million more Americans 
     have health insurance. And under the Affordable Care Act, we 
     have seen the slowest growth in health care prices in 50 
     years, benefiting all Americans.
       H.R. 1270 would repeal the Affordable Care Act's provisions 
     that limit the use of flexible savings accounts for over-the-
     counter drugs--provisions that help fund the law's coverage 
     improvements and expansions. The bill also would provide 
     additional tax breaks that disproportionately benefit those 
     with higher income by expanding tax-preferred health savings 
     accounts. These changes would do little to reduce health care 
     costs or improve quality. To fund these new high-income tax 
     breaks, H.R. 1270 would increase taxes paid by low- and 
     middle-income families by removing the law's limit on 
     repayment of premium tax credits available through the Health 
     Insurance Marketplaces.
       Rather than refighting old political battles by once again 
     voting to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act, Members of 
     Congress should be working together to grow the economy, 
     strengthen middle-class families, and create new jobs.
       If the President were presented with H.R. 1270, he would 
     veto the bill.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, like the previous bill we considered, this 
is a bill that is going nowhere. And it is, I guess, the 64th time that 
we have voted and considered a bill to either repeal or undermine the 
Affordable Care Act, but we have yet to consider one piece of 
legislation, not even one, to deal with the issue of preventing any 
additional gun violence in this country.
  For some reason, the leadership of this House can't find the time to 
have that debate and to bring such legislation to the floor, like the 
legislation we have been advocating for, which is the no fly, no buy 
legislation, which says that if you are on the FBI terrorist watch list 
and you cannot fly on an airplane, that you ought not to be able to go 
in and buy a gun.
  And the other piece of legislation would be one that would close all 
these loopholes that are currently in our background check laws; 
loopholes that say that, while you need to get a background check when 
you go into a licensed gun dealer, you don't need one if you buy a gun 
online or if you buy a gun at a gun show.
  I mean, how ridiculous is that?
  And for the life of me, why that kind of initiative is controversial 
or so difficult to get to the House floor is beyond me. I just don't 
get it.
  The number of mass shootings in the United States of America 
continues to increase. There were 372 mass shootings in the United 
States in 2015, killing 475 people and wounding 1,870 people.
  Why isn't there more alarm about those statistics by my friends on 
the other side of the aisle?
  There were 64 school shootings in 2015. I mean, nobody should have to 
worry about the safety of their child when they send them to school in 
the morning. Nobody should have to worry about their safety if they go 
into a movie theater or if they go into a church or if they go into a 
nightclub.
  Yet gun violence is at an epidemic level in this country, and we 
can't seem to get the leadership in this House to want to do anything 
about it.
  Now, I guess in response to the sit-in that the Democrats did 2 weeks 
ago, and to the growing calls that I know my colleagues are getting 
from concerned citizens, they are trying to bring a bill to the floor 
that essentially was written by the National Rifle Association, which I 
guess is a sound bite. But other than that, you can't say much about it 
because it would still allow people on the terrorist watch list to be 
able to get guns.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would just say to my colleagues that they can talk 
all they want about bills that are going nowhere, about meaningless 
pieces of legislation. That is their right. But we have the right--
unless my colleagues want to take that away from us, too--to speak 
about the issue that, quite frankly, is in the forefront of the minds 
of the American people.
  Every public opinion poll shows that 85, 90, 95 percent, Democrats 
and Republicans, support the commonsense gun safety legislation that we 
have proposed, and yet we can't even get a vote. The greatest 
deliberative body in the world, and we can't deliberate on the great 
issues confronting our country. We have to deliberate on issues that 
are going nowhere, issues that amount to nothing more than a press 
release written in the basement of the Republican Congressional 
Committee. I think that is shameful.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against this rule so we can bring up 
an amendment that will keep our constituents safe; a bill that would 
say if you are on the terrorist watch list, you can't buy a gun; and an 
amendment that says that if you buy a gun, you should have a background 
check.
  Federal law says that if you buy a gun at a licensed dealer, you have 
to get a background check. So about 60 percent of the guns that are 
purchased are purchased in a situation where a licensed dealer is 
involved, and they go through a background check. The reason for this 
is to make sure that criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic 
abusers, and terrorists can't get their hands on firearms. It makes it 
more difficult for them to get their hands on firearms, so it is our 
first line of defense.
  The problem is about 40 percent of the guns that are purchased are 
able to go around that requirement for a background check. Now, the 
irony is the places where they buy them. They buy them online. They buy 
them at gun shows. And if you go to a gun show or if you go online, 
there are licensed dealers that sell guns there. And if you go to the 
table that the licensed dealer has and try and buy a gun, you have to 
get a background check.
  Well, if you can't pass a background check, you can go to the next 
table, you can find an individual selling guns at a gun show, and you 
can buy the same gun without going through a background check.
  Thirty-four States allow guns to be sold through commercial sales 
without the benefit of a background check. This is tragic. Even if you 
are from one of the 16 States that don't allow it, all you have to do 
is, all a terrorist, a criminal, or a domestic abuser, all they have to 
do is just drive to the State next door that doesn't require background 
checks, buy the gun, and bring it back to your neighborhood.
  Now we know this happens. We know this. I have a friend, Elvin 
Daniels, from Wisconsin, whose sister was threatened by her husband. 
She got a restraining order. The husband went to the gun store to try 
and buy a gun, and because there was a restraining order, he was 
prohibited from buying that gun. So he went online, he bought the same 
gun he was prohibited from buying in the gun store, killed Elvin's 
sister and two other people.
  Background checks work. We know that in the licensed dealers arena, 
where you have to have a background check, 170 felons a day are 
prohibited from buying guns. Fifty domestic abusers a day are stopped 
from buying guns. Yet we allow an avenue for domestic abusers, the 
dangerously mentally ill, criminals, and terrorists to go straight down 
the road and buy a gun without the benefit of a background check.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Now, I want to emphasize there is nothing 
about either one of our measures--as a matter of fact, they are 
Republican bills that we are trying to bring to the floor--there is 
nothing about either one of them that is against the Second Amendment.

[[Page H4218]]

  I am a gun owner. I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. And the 
Supreme Court spelled out specifically in the Heller decision that 
individuals have a right to own firearms. But they also said that there 
can be certain restrictions, restrictions such as criminals, 
terrorists, domestic abusers, dangerously mentally ill; they can't have 
guns. Well, you can't do that unless you have a background check.

  Now, 70 of my friends across the aisle voted to augment the funding 
for the background check system, $20 million they voted to add to the 
system.
  How can you vote to fund a system, spend 20 million taxpayer dollars 
to fund a system that you won't require people to use? It is absurd.
  What are you afraid of? What are you afraid of that you won't bring 
this bill to the floor for a vote?
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).
  Mr. TAKANO. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people may be wondering why my colleagues 
and I are focusing on gun violence today and not on this financial 
services appropriations bill which, I should add, is loaded with poison 
pill riders.
  The reason is simple. We refuse to continue treating gun violence as 
business as usual in America. Forty-nine were killed in Orlando. We 
took a moment of silence, then it was business as usual.
  Fourteen were killed in San Bernardino. We took a moment of silence, 
then it was business as usual.
  Nine were killed in Roseburg. We took a moment of silence, then it 
was business as usual.
  Nine more were killed in Charleston. We took a moment of silence, 
then it was business as usual.
  Thirty-three thousand were killed by gun violence last year. We took 
a moment of silence, then it was business as usual.
  I cannot, in good conscience, debate a rule on an appropriations bill 
when so many of our communities continue to suffer from gun violence 
every day.
  I hear my Republican colleagues say this is our democracy at work, 
but a Congress that rejects two gun violence prevention bills that are 
supported by 90 percent of Americans is not democracy at work.
  I hear my Republican colleagues say we don't have the votes. Then 
prove it. Bring these bills to the floor. I am betting they pass.
  Every day that goes by, these firearms become more powerful and our 
failure to act becomes more reckless. I implore my Republican friends 
to disobey the gun lobby, hold a vote, and let's pass legislation that 
will save American lives.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Huffman).
  Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, it seems that when it comes time to attempt 
another repeal of the Affordable Care Act, House Republicans are 
willing to bring an unlimited number of bills to this floor, consume an 
almost unlimited amount of this House's resources. It seems that 
Congress is always ready to act and always ready to have debates and 
votes on their favorite issues for their favorite special interests.
  But when it comes to the worsening gun violence epidemic in America, 
we are back to the moments of silence. We are back to the banging of 
the gavel, the 30 seconds, at best, of silence, followed by another 
bang of that gavel and the resumption of business as usual; no 
meaningful debates, no meaningful votes.
  And we are now hearing that this week we are going to get a glorified 
moment of silence, a bill, written and blessed by the NRA, that would 
not keep guns out of the hands of terrorists or other dangerous people 
because it imposes a completely arbitrary 72-hour time window within 
which standards must be met that are simply unachievable.
  The prosecutor, the U.S. attorney, the Attorney General, must 
somehow, within this 72-hour window, marshal evidence that meets a 
probable cause standard that an individual is about to commit an act of 
terror, serve process on this individual, make sure that individual has 
been able to hire an attorney, and give that individual the opportunity 
to show up at a hearing and present their side of the case.

                              {time}  1630

  If none of that happens within 72 hours, guess what. They get to 
proceed right to their gun purchase.
  So this is not meaningful gun violence reform. This is window 
dressing. This is cosmetic. It is a glorified moment of silence.
  If we defeat the previous question on the 4,000th attempt to repeal 
or undermine ObamaCare, we can get serious about this issue. We can 
show the American people that we are listening to their voices and that 
we take seriously the thousands of people who are killed by gun 
violence each and every year. We can bring forward bills that will make 
a difference--and that is what we should do, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. 
If we do, I will once again offer an amendment to the rule to bring up 
no fly, no buy, bipartisan legislation that would give the Attorney 
General the authority to bar the sale of firearms and explosives to 
those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, the American people sent us here to solve 
problems. They sent us here to work together to help the American 
people.
  Frankly, the American people are getting pretty frustrated. We 
noticed a little bit of frustration break out on the floor of this body 
2 weeks ago, and they did that because, although we are hearing today 
about the consumer reigns supreme, the American people are afraid. They 
are afraid right now because you have to worry when you are praying in 
a church, when you are teaching or have your child in a first grade 
classroom, when you are playing in a park, walking down a street, or 
enjoying a Saturday night at a nightclub that a dangerous person with a 
gun may cut you down.
  That is the most fundamental right we all have as Americans, our 
right to our very lives, and we have not been allowed the opportunity 
to even debate this matter in the 3\1/2\ years that I have been in 
Congress.
  The time has passed. The time has passed for handwringing and for 
moments of silence. We have two bills. They are bipartisan bills. They 
will make a meaningful difference and save lives. We should call them 
up this week. The time is now.
  If you are too dangerous to get on an airplane because you are 
dangerous to the national security of this country, you should not be 
free to buy an arsenal. We should pass no fly, no buy.
  Fundamentally, we need to have expanded background checks on all 
sales of guns. None of this other legislation works. If we don't ask 
whether you are a dangerous, forbidden, prohibited person from buying a 
weapon, then even closing the terrorist watch list will be of no 
meaning because you can just go online, as so many Americans now do, 
and avoid the law.
  It is our job to help fix problems and to make things right. We are 
not doing our job if we are not debating--much less even voting on--
legislation that will save lives. The time has come to act. The time is 
now: no fly, no buy this week; expanded background checks this week.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
  Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding
  I come to the floor again to ask my Republican colleagues to bring to 
the

[[Page H4219]]

floor two commonsense proposals that will significantly reduce gun 
violence in this country. We have, each day it feels like--certainly 
regularly--come to the floor of the House and observed moments of 
silence. That is what we have done. We have spent one moment, said, and 
done nothing as our communities continue to be ravaged by gun violence. 
There are many of us who believe we have a responsibility to do more 
than to just observe moments of silence.
  So these two bills are overwhelmingly supported by the American 
people. The first bill says that if you are determined to be too 
dangerous to get on an airplane, if you are a suspected terrorist 
barred from getting on an airplane because it is too dangerous, then 
you should also be prevented from going into a gun store and buying as 
many guns as you want.
  The American people should know this: between 2004 and 2014, over 
2,000 individuals on the terrorist watch list went into a gun store and 
bought guns. Ninety-five percent of the American people who have been 
killed by terrorists since September 11 in this country were killed 
with a firearm. We have allowed more than 2,000 individuals on that 
watch list, that terrorist watch list, to go into a gun store. We must 
stop that.
  No fly, no buy: if you are too dangerous to get on a plane, then you 
are too dangerous to buy a gun. We owe it to those we serve, the people 
who sent us here, to end this practice and close this loophole.
  The second bill is to ensure that there are universal background 
checks. Background checks work. Every day, 171 attempted purchases by 
felons are stopped because of criminal background checks; 48 attempted 
purchases by domestic abusers and 19 attempted purchases by fugitives 
are stopped every single day in those sales where background checks 
occur. But some reports are that up to 35 percent of gun sales don't 
have a background check because they happen on the Internet or they 
happen at gun shows.
  Background checks make sense. Ninety percent of the American people 
support universal background checks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Rhode Island.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Universal background checks will require that all gun 
sales be subjected to that important safeguard.
  This is about our solemn responsibility to keep our constituents 
safe. We can't pass a bill that is going to eliminate every single 
instance of gun violence, but I will tell you this: we can do a lot to 
significantly reduce gun violence in this country. These two bills are 
an important first step, broadly supported by the American people. I 
know that I speak for so many of my constituents when I say that we 
have a moral responsibility to do something to respond to the carnage 
of gun violence in this country.
  I had an event in Rhode Island at the National Day of Action, and a 
couple came up to me. They said: Congressman, we lost our son at 
Virginia Tech. When we saw you and your colleagues sitting down on the 
House floor, we thought finally someone is trying to do something about 
it.
  Let's respond to those parents and to all the other parents who have 
lost a child to gun violence. Let's pass these two bills and show the 
American people we can get something done that will help keep them 
safe.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my Republican colleagues to bring those bills to 
the floor, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from 141 of the 
Nation's leading medical and public health organizations, a letter sent 
to all Members of Congress that urges us to end the dramatic and 
chilling effect of the current rider language restricting gun violence 
research, which, apparently, in the wisdom of the people who run this 
House, thought they would prevent the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention the ability to do research into this, which shows you just 
how powerful the National Rifle Association is in this House of 
Representatives.

                                                    April 6, 2016.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Chairman, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Barbara Mikulski,
     Vice Chairwoman, Appropriations Committee, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Harold Rogers,
     Chairman, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nita Lowey,
     Ranking Member, Appropriations Committee, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator/Representative: The undersigned health care, 
     public health, scientific organizations and research 
     universities representing over 1 million members across the 
     country urge you to end the dramatic chilling effect of the 
     current rider language restricting gun violence research and 
     to fund this critical work at the Centers for Disease Control 
     and Prevention (CDC).
       In 1996, Congress passed the so-called Dickey amendment as 
     a rider to the Labor-Health and Human Services-Education 
     Appropriations bill. The language stated that the CDC could 
     not fund research that would ``advocate or promote gun 
     control,'' and the language has remained in each subsequent 
     annual funding bill. At the same time, Congress cut CDC 
     funding for this research. Although the Dickey amendment does 
     not explicitly prevent research on gun violence, the 
     combination of these two actions has caused a dramatic 
     chilling effect on federal research that has stalled and 
     stymied progress on gathering critical data to inform 
     prevention of gun violence for the past 20 years. 
     Furthermore, it has discouraged the next generation of 
     researchers from entering the field.
       Gun violence is a serious public health epidemic resulting 
     in the senseless deaths of an average of 91 Americans, and 
     another 108 gun injuries, each and every day. A central part 
     of preventing future tragedies is through conducting rigorous 
     scientific research as this has been a proven successful 
     approach in reducing deaths due to other injuries.
       Health care providers and public health professionals are 
     overwhelmed in emergency departments, clinics, offices, and 
     communities with the victims of mass shootings, homicides, 
     suicides, accidental shootings, and firearm injuries. Medical 
     professionals and our communities work to address the 
     devastating and long-lasting physical and emotional effects 
     of gun violence on victims, their families and their friends, 
     but are hampered by the insufficient body of evidence-based 
     research to use to point communities toward proven gun 
     violence prevention programs and policies.
       Former Representative Jay Dickey (R-AR), author of the 
     current language that has effectively restricted gun violence 
     research, recently noted that, ``it is my position that 
     somehow or someway we should slowly but methodically fund 
     [gun] research until a solution is reached. Doing nothing is 
     no longer an acceptable solution.''
       Here are some of the critical questions that enhanced 
     research would help us answer:
       (1) What is the best way to protect toddlers from 
     accidentally firing a firearm? Safe firearm storage works, 
     but what kinds of campaigns best encourage safe storage? What 
     safe storage methods are the most effective and most likely 
     to be adopted? What should be the trigger pull on a firearm 
     so a toddler can't use it?
       (2) What are the most effective ways to prevent gun-related 
     suicides? Two-thirds of firearm related deaths are suicides. 
     Are firearm suicides more spontaneous than non-firearm 
     suicides? Do other risk factors vary by method? How do we 
     prevent it in different populations active military, 
     veterans, those with mental illness, law enforcement or 
     correctional officers, the elderly, or teenagers?
       (3) What is the impact of the variety of state policies 
     being enacted? How are different policies around safe 
     storage, mental health, public education, and background 
     checks impacting firearm injuries and deaths?
       The CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control 
     is an important part of answering these types of questions. 
     Public health uniquely brings together a comprehensive 
     approach connecting the complex factors that result in 
     violence and injuries including clinical, social, criminal, 
     mental health, and environmental factors.
       The impact of federal public health research in reducing 
     deaths from car accidents, smoking and Sudden Infant Death 
     Syndrome has been well proven. Decades ago, we did not know 
     infant car seats should be rear-facing. Robust research on 
     car accidents and subsequent legislation has helped save 
     hundreds of thousands of lives without preventing people from 
     being able to drive. It's time to apply the same approach to 
     reducing gun violence in our communities.
       As professionals dedicated to the health of the nation and 
     to the application of sound science to improving the lives of 
     our fellow Americans, we urge you to take action this year. 
     Americans deserve to know that we are working with the best 
     tools and information in the fight to reduce gun violence 
     deaths and injuries.
       As Congress works to craft the FY 2017 Labor-HHS-Education 
     Appropriations bill, we urge you to provide the Centers for 
     Disease Control and Prevention with funding for research into 
     the causes and prevention of gun violence.
       Thank you for your consideration. We look forward to 
     working with you to improve

[[Page H4220]]

     health and protect the safety of all Americans.
           Sincerely,
     Academic Consortium for Integrative Medicine & Health
     Academic Pediatric Association
     Alameda Health System Department of Emergency Medicine
     American Academy of Family Physicians
     American Academy of Pediatrics
     American Association for the Advancement of Science
     American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
     American Association of Nurse Practitioners
     American College of Emergency Physicians
     American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter
     American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine
     American College of Physicians
     American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
     American Educational Research Association
     American Geriatrics Society
     American Medical Association
     American Medical Student Association
     American Medical Women's Association
     American Pediatric Society
     American Psychiatric Association
     American Psychological Association
     American Public Health Association
     American Society for Clinical Pathology
     American Society of Hematology
     American Thoracic Society
     American Trauma Society
     Arkansas Public Health Association
     Asociacion de Salud Publica de Puerto Rico
     Association for Psychological Science
     Association of American Universities
     Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs
     Association of Population Centers
     Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
     Big Cities Health Coalition
     Boulder County Public Health
     Brigham Psychiatric Specialties
     California Center for Public Health Advocacy
     California Public Health Association-North
     Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned 
         Scientists
     Central Oregon Medical Society
     Champaign-Urbana Public Health District
     Chicago Center for Psychoanalysis
     Chicago chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility
     Colorado Public Health Association
     Committee of Interns and Residents/SEIU Healthcare
     Congregation Gates of Heaven
     Consortium of Social Science Associations
     Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
     Cure Violence
     Delaware Academy of Medicine/Delaware Public Health 
         Association
     Doctors Council SEIU
     Doctors for America
     Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma
     Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences
     Florida Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Inc.
     Futures Without Violence
     Georgia Public Health Association
     Hawaii Public Health Association
     Health Officers Association of California
     Houston Health Department
     Illinois Public Health Association
     International Society for Developmental Psychobiology
     Iowa Chapter Physicians for Social Responsibility
     Iowa Public Health Association
     JPS Health Network
     Kansas Public Health Association
     Koop Institute
     KU Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health
     Law and Society Association
     Lee County Health Department
     Local Public Health Association of Minnesota
     Louisiana Center for Health Equity
     Maine Public Health Association
     Maryland Academy of Family Physicians
     Minnesota Public Health Association
     Montana Public Health Association
     National AHEC Organization
     National Association of County and City Health Officials
     National Association of Medical Examiners
     National Association of Nurse Practitioners in Women's Health
     National Association of Social Workers
     National Association of State Emergency Medical Services 
         Officials
     National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
     National Black Nurses Association
     National Hispanic Medical Association
     National Medical Association
     National Network of Public Health Institutes
     National Physicians Alliance
     National Violence Prevention Network
     Nevada Public Health Association
     New Hampshire Public Health Association
     New Mexico Public Health Association
     North Carolina Public Health Association
     Ohio Public Health Association
     Oregon Academy of Family Physicians
     Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility
     Oregon Public Health Association
     Pediatric Policy Council
     Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona Chapter
     Physicians for a National Health Program NY Metro Chapter
     Physicians for Reproductive Health
     Physicians for Social Responsibility/Northeast Ohio
     Physicians for Social Responsibility Wisconsin
     Physicians for Social Responsibility, Arizona Chapter
     Physicians for Social Responsibility/New York
     Physicians for the Prevention of Gun Violence
     Population Association of America
     Prevention Institute
     Psychonomic Society
     Public Health Association of Nebraska
     Public Health Association of New York City
     Public Health Institute
     Research!America
     RiverStone Health
     Safe States Alliance
     San Francisco Bay Area Chapter, Physicians for Social 
         Responsibility
     Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine
     Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research
     Society for Mathematical Psychology
     Society for Pediatric Research
     Society for Psychophysiological Research
     Society for Public Health Education
     Society of Experimental Social Psychology
     Society of General Internal Medicine
     Southern California Public Health Association
     Southwest Ohio Society of Family Medicine
     Student National Medical Association
     Suicide Awareness Voices of Education
     Texas Doctors for Social Responsibility
     Texas Public Health Association
     Trauma Foundation
     Tri-County Health Department
     Trust for America's Health
     United Physicians of Newtown
     Vermont Public Health Association
     Virginia Public Health Association
     Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics
     Washington State Public Health Association
     Wellness Institute of Greater Buffalo
     Whiteside County Health Department

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  When I spoke earlier, I asked: What are you afraid of? Why won't you 
bring these bills to the floor?
  I think back to when I met with the parents of some of the children 
who were killed in one of the most horrific incidents in our country, 
the terrible, terrible incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School, and 
listening to the parents and hearing their stories, and I can't help 
but think to myself: Are you more afraid to bring this bill to the 
floor for a vote than those kids were hiding for their lives in those 
classrooms? Are you more afraid than those movie-goers in Aurora, 
Colorado, who were hiding, trying not to be killed? Are the people who 
were praying in Charleston when they were gunned down, are you more 
afraid; is this more frightening than what they experienced or San 
Bernardino or Orlando? What is stopping you from bringing commonsense, 
pro-Second Amendment gun violence prevention legislation to the floor 
for a vote?
  Gun owners are for this. I am a gun owner. I have told you that 
before. As a matter of fact, I am proud to say I am one of the 26 
Democrats who were labeled by the rightwing media for being hypocrites 
because we owned guns and we want to pass gun violence prevention 
legislation.
  As a matter of fact, I bought a gun. I bought it before the break but 
picked it up during the break because, in California, not only are you 
required to get a background check, but there is a cooling-off period 
that they require. You have to wait 10 days.
  So before the break, I bought a gun from a very close friend of mine, 
someone whom I have known for over 25, 30 years, yet the law says 
background check. It wasn't a problem. I took it in, left the gun. My 
friend signed the paper. I signed the paper. Ten days later, over this 
last break, I came and picked it up. It is no big deal.
  Why would you want to sell a gun to someone who may be a criminal, 
dangerously mentally ill, a domestic abuser, or a terrorist?
  These bills make sense. Bring them to the floor, and let's vote.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for yielding to me 
because I must rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 794 and H.R. 5485. 
They assault the District of Columbia's right to govern itself.

[[Page H4221]]

  This bill contains undemocratic, harmful, Big Government riders that 
prohibit the D.C. government from spending its local funds, consisting 
of local taxes and fees, as it deems necessary.
  In addition, the Republican-led Rules Committee has allowed 
Representative Gary Palmer to offer an amendment and interfere with my 
jurisdiction to keep D.C. from spending its local funds to enforce its 
own employment non-discrimination law.
  This bill repeals the D.C. budget autonomy referendum, which allows 
D.C. to spend its local funds after a 30-day review period.
  The Rules Committee prevented me from offering my amendments to 
strike the provisions in this bill that prohibit D.C. from spending its 
local funds on taxing and regulating marijuana sales and on abortion 
services for low-income women.
  Let's see the results.
  While recreational marijuana use is legal under D.C. law, Congress 
has uniquely prohibited the city from spending its local funds to set 
up a tax and regulatory system. This rider, therefore, has been 
referred to as the Drug Dealer Protection Act.
  As one marijuana dealer told the press, the rider is ``a license for 
me to print money.''
  Regulating marijuana, like alcohol, would allow D.C., instead of 
violent drug gangs, to control marijuana production, distribution, 
sales, and revenue collection.
  Every State has the authority to spend its own funds on abortion 
services for low-income women, and 17 States fund these services. The 
rider in this bill effectively prevents low-income women in D.C. from 
exercising their constitutional right to abortion, just affirmed by the 
Supreme Court, by depriving them of necessary funds.
  Republicans claim to support devolving Federal authority to State and 
local governments. Here is your chance. That support should not end at 
the D.C. border. The Constitution allows, but does not require, 
Congress to legislate on local D.C. matters.
  The Rules Committee had a choice to allow me to offer my amendments 
on the floor to strike the D.C. marijuana and abortion riders as well 
as to block the amendment on the D.C. non-discrimination law. In our 
democracy in the 21st century, these decisions should not be difficult 
because these are purely local matters.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. BURGESS. I yield myself 2 minutes, Mr. Speaker.
  I just want to again clarify what we have under consideration at this 
time, three different bills, a rule that would allow votes on three 
different bills that empower individuals and families as healthcare 
consumers while protecting taxpayer dollars. Each of these bills did 
advance through regular order and was favorably reported out of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  H.R. 1270, the Restoring Access to Medication Act, would eliminate 
barriers created in the Affordable Care Act for those who want to 
purchase over-the-counter medications with funds from their health 
savings account. H.R. 5445, the Health Care Security Act, introduced by 
Congressman Paulsen and myself, eliminates certain burdensome 
limitations on health savings accounts to help consumers take back 
control of their healthcare spending decisions. Finally, H.R. 4723, 
also introduced by Congresswoman Jenkins, protects taxpayers by 
recovering improper overpayments from subsidies awarded under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1645

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Clarke).
  Ms. CLARKE of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for 
yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my opposition to the rule being 
debated on the floor this evening, but also take this opportunity to 
remind the Speaker that the American people are waiting. They are 
waiting for us to bring commonsense gun violence prevention measures to 
this floor.
  Mr. Speaker, every day in New York City and in the Borough of 
Brooklyn, people are hurt and killed by gun violence. Too many families 
hold fear and sorrow in their hearts from their experiences with 
senseless gun violence.
  Mr. Speaker, people in my district and from all over our Nation have 
been demanding action. You and your Republican colleagues cannot 
continue to ignore their pleas and their pain.
  Well, I cannot ignore their pleas and their pain, and my Democratic 
colleagues will not either. Enough is enough. Congress must act to 
protect the lives of Americans. Congress must do more than hold a 
moment of silence to absolve you, Mr. Speaker, of your role in the 
death and destruction due to gun violence.
  For me and many in this Nation, gun violence is personal and it has 
hit home. My colleague, former New York City Councilman James E. Davis, 
was gunned down in the chambers of the New York City Council before me 
and his colleagues, the New Yorkers who visited our gallery, and the 
children, who were part of our audience on that infamous day. Whether 
it is in the legislative chamber of city hall, in a theater, an 
elementary school, or a night club, gun violence must end.
  Mr. Speaker, I will work tirelessly, relentlessly here on Capitol 
Hill to protect our communities from the ever-present threat of gun 
violence. I will continue to stand with all people of goodwill to 
demand action on the legislation that puts an end to this crisis. I 
will be their voice here in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that it is frustrating for not 
only many of us on this side of the aisle, but I am sure it must be 
frustrating to the American people who are watching this debate that 
here we are debating a bill that would essentially be the 64th bill 
that we have debated and voted on to either repeal or undermine the 
Affordable Care Act.
  We all know this bill is not going anywhere, and I doubt very much 
that we will see much action in the Senate, but we know that the 
President will definitely veto it. This is not like the other bills 
that we have been dealing with in this Congress, bills that really are 
more designed for press releases and sound bites than for really, 
actually, making people's lives better.
  In the aftermath of Orlando where 49--49--of our brothers and sisters 
were murdered, the best that the leadership of this House could do was 
have a moment of silence. I have to tell you, people that I have talked 
to in the aftermath of that moment of silence viewed that as the 
ultimate inaction by Congress because all we do is moments of silence 
when there are massacres. We don't do moments of silence after each 
individual loses a life to gun violence in this country because we 
would never have time to do anything else if we did. But people are 
just so angry that the people who serve in this Chamber don't seem to 
have the political will to do anything about it. I mean, massacre after 
massacre after massacre cannot be the new norm.
  Last Wednesday, a number of us participated in a national day of 
action all across the country in an attempt to try to raise awareness 
of ways to prevent gun violence. I did one in Worcester, Massachusetts, 
where I am from. We had a grandmother, Beverly Spring, who talked about 
how she lost not only one grandson to gun violence, but she lost two 
grandchildren to gun violence.
  Does anybody have any idea the heartache that this woman and mothers 
and fathers and grandmothers and grandfathers have gone through who 
have lost their loved ones to gun violence? Does anyone have any idea 
the pain of those family members whose loved ones were lost in Orlando 
or Aurora or Sandy Hook? Or I could go right down the list of 
massacres.
  I am asking my colleagues here to give us an opportunity to have a 
debate and to have a vote on two commonsense gun safety legislative 
initiatives. One is no fly, no buy. And the other is let's have our 
background check system be universal so that people who have criminal 
backgrounds or who have a history of mental illness do not go to gun 
shows to buy guns or go online to buy guns.
  That is why I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question. If we defeat the previous question, we could vote on the 
underlying bill, but we could vote on this sensible piece of

[[Page H4222]]

legislation. Enough is enough. Let's do something. Let's not just sit 
around here and continue to be indifferent. The American people expect 
more of us than what they have seen.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of an important 
bill to correct some of the most egregious changes in the Affordable 
Care Act that affected individuals' ability to save for their own 
healthcare needs. I was happy to be able to work with Mr. Paulsen, Ms. 
Jenkins, and Mr. Kind, who each contributed to the underlying 
legislation which will be considered by the House following the passage 
of today's rule.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 793 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. 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. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 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 with or without 
     instructions. 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. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________