[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.
____________________