[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 107 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4222-H4230]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5485, FINANCIAL SERVICES AND
GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 794 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 794
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, 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. 5485) making appropriations for financial
services and general government for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. The first reading
of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
Sec. 2. (a) After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read through page 265, line 9. Points
of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply
with clause 2 or clause 5(a) of rule XXI are waived except as
follows: beginning with ``: Provided further'' on page 122,
line 19, through ``2012'' on page 122, line 22. Where points
of order are waived against part of a paragraph, points of
order against a provision in another part of such paragraph
may be made only against such provision and not against the
entire paragraph.
(b) No amendment to the bill shall be in order except
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution, amendments en bloc described in
section 3 of this resolution, and pro forma amendments
described in section 4 of this resolution.
(c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
[[Page H4223]]
Sec. 4. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. 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.
Sec. 6. Section 1201 of H.R. 5485 shall be considered to
be a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d)
of House Resolution 5.
Sec. 7. During consideration of H.R. 5485, section 3304 of
Senate Concurrent Resolution 11 shall not apply.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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
may 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 794 provides for
consideration of H.R. 5485, the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017.
The rule provides 1 hour of debate equally divided between the chair
and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. The
resolution also provides for consideration of 70 amendments to H.R.
5485, and provides the minority the customary motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5485, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017, provides $10.9 billion for the
Internal Revenue Service, maintains the current $2.1 billion level for
taxpayer services, and provides a further $290 million to improve
customer service such as phone call and correspondence response times,
fraud prevention, and cybersecurity.
For the past several years, the American public has viewed the
Federal Internal Revenue Service as one that targets organizations for
their political affiliation, slowing down approval for tax-exempt
status, and attempting to chill their First Amendment-protected speech.
House Republicans have exposed the many violations that have taken
place at the Internal Revenue Service, and the bill before us continues
to reflect the close eye that Congress continues to have on this
agency, reining in their ability to further chill speech by
manipulating the Tax Code.
To achieve this, the bill includes language that prohibits the
Internal Revenue Service from using funds to target specific
individuals or groups exercising their First Amendment rights, and
further prohibits the White House--under the current administration or
the next one, from either political party--from using the Internal
Revenue Service to scrutinize their political opponents. This
protection of the right to freedom of speech is critical, and, of
course, I urge all Members to support it.
The bill also provides $1.5 billion for the Securities and Exchange
Commission, almost an identical figure to last year's request. The bill
keeps the Securities and Exchange Commission focused on critical
information technology initiatives and methods to help the Commission
better serve investors. It also rescinds the balance of what is known
as the Securities and Exchange Commission's reserve fund, a slush fund
that was created under the Dodd-Frank law that can be spent by the SEC
without congressional oversight.
{time} 1700
To assist Congress in its constitutionally obligated checks and
balances of the executive branch, the bill includes language to
increase the oversight of another creation of the Dodd-Frank Act--the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Currently, this agency is wholly
unaccountable to the American people as its funding was placed in the
Dodd-Frank legislation outside of the yearly appropriations process,
leaving little legislative check on that agency.
As it exists today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau draws
its funds on autopilot directly from the Federal Reserve. This bill
would place the CFPB into the regular, annual appropriations process
and, in doing so, would increase the transparency and the
accountability of its actions and allow for the appropriate oversight
from Congress.
Additionally, the bill replaces the single-person leadership
structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau with a more
balanced, five-person commission that mirrors those of other financial
regulators, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
CFTC.
The bill also includes $692 million for the Executive Office of the
President, which, in addition to providing funds for White House staff,
also includes critical funding for drug control efforts, such as the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas and Drug Free Communities Support
Programs. In his budget request this year, the President sought to
reduce funding for these programs by $70 million. This bill keeps those
important programs intact and actually increases their funding by a $5
million mark. The bill further includes a provision that requires the
Office of Management and Budget to release information on the expected
costs of executive orders and Presidential memoranda.
H.R. 5485 also includes $725 million as the Federal payment to the
Nation's Capital City, the District of Columbia, which includes funding
for public safety resources and security costs as well as $45 million
for the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act, which is an
important program to help children in our Nation's Capital get the
education they deserve and to choose the educational path that best
fits their needs. The bill includes $7 billion to the Federal court
system, which will improve public safety, bolster the security of
courtrooms, and improve the speed and efficiency of processing Federal
cases.
The consideration of appropriations bills each year is the core
function of the Congress. With the passage of today's rule, the House
will be taking another step in completing that responsibility. I urge
support for the rule and for the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank and appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess) for
yielding me the customary 30 minutes. As we all remember, 2 weeks ago,
we were not given that courtesy to have 30 minutes to debate the rule.
We also had no debate on the underlying bill that was brought up 2
weeks ago. In any event, I appreciate his yielding me the time.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule,
which provides for the consideration of H.R. 5485, the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act.
I hope there is a strong bipartisan vote against this rule for, among
other things, in the Rules Committee, they denied my colleague,
Representative Sean Patrick Maloney, the right to offer his amendment,
which would prevent discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender people.
For the life of me, Mr. Speaker, I cannot figure out why my
Republican friends think it is so controversial--or that it is a poison
pill--to put in statute language that bars Federal contractors from
discriminating against the LGBT community. Yet this amendment, which is
perfectly germane, was not allowed to be made in order. I think that
that alone should encourage both Democrats and Republicans to vote
against this rule.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is awful as it
undermines key elements of the Affordable Care Act; it undermines key
elements of the Dodd-Frank financial reform; it diminishes women's
access to legal health services; it meddles in the District of
Columbia's internal affairs; it undermines the President's Cuba policy;
it prevents the fair treatment of Internet content in order to benefit
the interests of a
[[Page H4224]]
few large corporations; and the bill rewards tax cheats, not honest,
hardworking Americans, by its failing to provide sufficient funding to
enforce tax law.
For all of those reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against the
underlying bill as well.
Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record the President's Statement of
Administration Policy, which says, if presented with this bill, he will
veto it.
Statement of Administration Policy
H.R. 5485--Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2017--Rep. Rogers, R-KY
The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R.
5485, making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year (FY) ending September
30, 2017, and for other purposes.
The bill's reductions in funding for the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) exacerbate the damaging reductions inflicted on
the IRS since 2010, and irresponsibly cut funding for the
agencies charged with implementing Wall Street reform. The
bill also underfunds the Federal Trade Commission's efforts
to promote economic competition.
Furthermore, the legislation includes highly problematic
ideological provisions, including provisions that restrict
the IRS's ability to implement the Affordable Care Act (ACA),
interfere with important new regulations designed to protect
consumers from risky or abusive lending, and undermine the
principle of home rule for the District of Columbia. These
provisions also prevent the Federal Communications Commission
from promoting a free and open internet and encouraging
competition in the set-top box market, impacting millions of
broadband and cable customers. Furthermore, these provisions
would bar Federal agency efforts to reduce the risks and
costs of flood disasters. Despite these shortcomings, the
Administration welcomes the bill's investments in
entrepreneurship and small business financing.
In October 2015, the President worked with congressional
leaders from both parties to secure the Bipartisan Budget Act
of 2015 (BBA), which partially reversed harmful sequestration
cuts slated for FY 2017. By providing fully-paid-for equal
dollar increases for defense and non-defense spending, the
BBA allows for investments in FY 2017 that create jobs,
support middle-class families, contribute to long-term
growth, and safeguard national security. The Administration
looks forward to working with the Congress to enact
appropriations that are consistent with that agreement, and
fully support economic growth, opportunity, and our national
security priorities. However, the Administration strongly
objects to the inclusion of problematic ideological
provisions that are beyond the scope of funding legislation.
If the President were presented with H.R. 5485, his senior
advisors would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Administration would like to take this opportunity to
share additional views regarding the Committee's version of
the bill.
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The Administration strongly
objects to the $766 million reduction in funding for the IRS
compared to the FY 2017 Budget request. This reduction would
bring IRS funding to FY 1993 levels, in real terms, hindering
the agency's efforts to provide robust service to taxpayers,
improve enforcement operations, and implement new statutory
responsibilities. Furthermore, these reductions would
negatively impact efforts aimed at deficit reduction, with
enforcement revenues in FY 2017 estimated to be more than $11
billion lower than if FY 2010 staffing levels had been
maintained. In addition, the Administration strongly opposes
sections of the bill that limit IRS funding and transfers to
carry out implementation of the ACA, under which millions of
individuals have signed up for coverage through the Health
Insurance Marketplaces. The Administration also objects to
provisions that unnecessarily encumber IRS operations with
burdensome reporting requirements and that would constrain
enforcement of tax laws.
Departmental Offices. The Administration appreciates the
support for targeted investments in Department-wide
cybersecurity enhancements. However, the Administration
objects to the bill's defunding of the Department's Systems
and Capital Investment Program and is disappointed that the
bill fails to permit funding for oversight and administration
of the Gulf Coast Restoration Trust Fund to be paid from the
Trust Fund. In total, the bill would require a $27.4 million
reduction in funding from the comparable level in the FY 2017
Budget request for core Departmental Offices Salaries and
Expenses.
Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) Fund.
The Administration appreciates the Committee's support for
the CDFI Fund, which is funded above the FY 2017 Budget
request. However, the Administration is disappointed that the
bill provides neither the $22 million requested for the
Healthy Food Financing Initiative, which offers financial and
technical assistance to expand the availability of healthy
food options in distressed communities, nor the $10 million
requested for the Small Dollar Loan Program to expand access
to small dollar loans in underserved communities and combat
predatory lending. The Administration also appreciates the
continuation of the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program, but is
concerned about the $250 million limitation on new
commitments, which is below the program's annual average
commitment level. This lower level of commitment authority
would unnecessarily constrain the provision of long-term
capital in low-income and underserved communities.
Office of Financial Research (OFR) and Financial Stability
Oversight Council (FSOC). The Administration strongly opposes
section 130 of the bill, which would subject OFR and FSOC to
the annual appropriations process beginning in FY 2018. This
language would hinder the independence of these entities and
limit their ability to develop critical market analysis and
improve regulator coordination if future funding shortfalls
prevent information technology (IT) investments or the hiring
of highly-skilled staff. The Administration also opposes
onerous new procedural requirements that could effectively
prohibit FSOC from formally designating nonbank financial
companies whose material financial distress could pose a
threat to U.S. financial stability. In addition, the
Administration strongly opposes section 129 of the bill,
which would require OFR to publish notice 90 days prior to
issuing any report, rule, or regulation; research reports are
intended to provide independent analysis of the facts,
unswayed by public or political sentiment.
Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA
Act). The Administration appreciates that the Committee fully
funded the FY 2017 Budget request for the Bureau of the
Fiscal Service for Government-wide implementation of the DATA
Act, and urges the Congress to fully fund the FY 2017 Budget
request for the Department of the Treasury's own
implementation of the DATA Act. This funding supports efforts
to provide more transparent Federal spending data, such as
updating information technology systems, changing business
processes, and linking financial and Federal award data with
the Award ID.
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
EOP Funding and Operations. The Administration objects to
section 621 of the bill, which would continue a prohibition
on paying salaries and expenses for certain White House staff
positions and impinge on the President's ability to organize
EOP operations. The Administration appreciates funding for
Presidential transition costs but strongly objects to the
lack of funding for Unanticipated Needs, which would severely
hamper the President's ability to meet unexpected
requirements for the furtherance of the national interest,
security, or defense. The Administration also objects to the
funding level in the bill for the National Security Council,
which is $2.1 million below the FY 2017 Budget request.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The Administration
strongly opposes the funding level in the bill for OMB, which
is $10 million below the FY 2017 Budget request. This
reduction would significantly diminish OMB's ability to carry
out its mission. The Administration also objects to
continuation of bill language that would require burdensome
OMB cost estimates to accompany the issuance of all Executive
Orders, as well as language that requires OMB to submit a
report to the Congress estimating the costs of implementing
the Dodd-Frank Act, an onerous and duplicative report of
limited value.
Information Technology Oversight and Reform (ITOR). The
Administration strongly opposes the funding level in the bill
for the ITOR account, which is $10 million below the FY 2017
Budget request. ITOR funds important efforts to improve the
most critical public-facing Federal digital services through
the application of best practices in product design and
engineering by the U.S. Digital Service and its agency
partners. The ITOR fund also supports efforts to protect
Federal systems through implementation of leading solutions
to address new and constantly evolving advanced, persistent
cyber-threats, drive value in Federal IT investments, and
implement the Federal Information Technology Acquisition
Reform Act. The bill's reductions to these initiatives would
undermine efforts to secure the Nation's highest value
information targets and build on successful reforms to the
Federal Government's management of IT resources, which have
resulted in about $3.6 billion in cost savings and avoidance.
General Services Administration (GSA)
Overall GSA Funding. Funding for GSA is an integral part of
supporting agencies in their performance of critical
missions. The bill's funding level would undermine GSA's
ability to deliver services, impacting agencies Government-
wide.
Federal Buildings Fund (FBF). The Administration finds the
bill's funding level for the FBF unacceptable at nearly $934
million below the FY 2017 Budget request and the anticipated
level of rent collections from other Federal agencies in FY
2017. The bill also denies critical construction funding for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Headquarters
project and the next phase of the Department of Homeland
Security's headquarters consolidation at St. Elizabeths,
Washington, D.C. Since FY 2011, the Committee has chosen to
fund the FBF at levels billions below what GSA collects in
rent from agencies. Underfunding construction and renovation
is particularly damaging, as the Government must be a good
steward of its own assets, able to take advantage of
opportunities to save money over the long term and maintain
its buildings adequately
[[Page H4225]]
to avoid more costly failures in the future. Further, the
practice of chronically underfunding the FBF is unfair to
other Federal agencies, who are no longer receiving the space
and services that they are paying for, as well as to the
other appropriations subcommittees who are providing funds
that are never used for their intended purpose.
FBI Headquarters. The Administration strongly urges the
Congress to provide the full request in the FY 2017 Budget
for the new consolidated FBI headquarters facility. The bill
provides only $200 million, $559 million below the FY 2017
Budget request for GSA for construction of the new FBI
headquarters. In total, the FY 2017 Budget requests $1.4
billion for the FBI headquarters project--$646 million for
FBI and $759 million for GSA's Federal Building Fund. Full
funding of the FY 2017 Budget request is required for GSA to
award a design and construction contract for the project this
year. Absent a new, modern, and secure headquarters facility,
the ability of the FBI to fully support its critical national
security and law enforcement missions may be compromised.
Information Technology (IT) Modernization Fund. The
Administration is concerned that the Committee does not
provide the requested $100 million for the IT Modernization
Fund (ITMF), part of a larger $3.1 billion request in the FY
2017 Budget that creates a revolving fund to retire and
replace legacy IT systems across Government. Absent funding
for the ITMF, the cost to operate and maintain legacy
systems, as well as security vulnerabilities and other risks,
would continue to grow.
Unified Shared Services Management (USSM). The
Administration urges the Congress to support the $5 million
requested in the FY 2017 Budget for the establishment of the
USSM, a new organization housed in GSA that would serve as an
integration body for the shared services environment. The
funding is needed to give the USSM a stable funding source.
Small Business Administration (SBA)
SBA Support for Businesses. The Administration appreciates
the strong support for small businesses through the bill's
robust funding for the SBA's business loan and
entrepreneurial development programs. The SBA's business loan
programs would support over $46 billion in lending to small
businesses in FY 2017, and the increased funding for
technical assistance and development programs would ensure
business owners can effectively deploy capital to grow their
businesses and create good jobs. However, the Administration
opposes the elimination of funding for Regional Innovation
Cluster grants and Growth Accelerators, as these innovative
programs help regions leverage their unique assets to create
jobs by turning entrepreneurial ideas into sustainable high-
growth small businesses.
Disaster Loans Program. The Administration urges the
Congress to utilize the disaster relief cap adjustment
authorized in the Budget Control Act of 2011 to fund the $159
million FY 2017 Budget request for SBA's administrative costs
associated with major disasters. By not utilizing the cap
adjustment, the bill makes unnecessary reductions to other
programs to accommodate this line of support to small
businesses after a disaster has struck.
Other Independent Agencies
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The
Administration strongly objects to the funding level of $1.55
billion for SEC, which is $226 million below the FY 2017
Budget request. The bill would hinder SEC's enforcement,
examination, and market oversight functions and undercut
investor protections strengthened by Wall Street Reform that
benefit both consumers and Main Street. The bill would also
shortchange SEC's core programs by mandating that funding for
IT initiatives increase by $50 million over the FY 2016
enacted level and prohibiting authorized IT spending from the
agency's mandatory Reserve Fund. Taken together, these
provisions would inhibit SEC's ability to improve oversight
and examination functions in a way that investors expect and
deserve. The SEC is fee-funded and its funding level has no
impact on the deficit, nor does it impact the amount of
funding available for other agencies.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The
Administration strongly opposes sections 502 and 503 of the
bill that subject CFPB to annual appropriations and
politicizes its leadership, which would severely weaken its
independence and undermine its ability to serve the most
vulnerable consumer populations. In addition, the
Administration strongly opposes sections 506, 637, 638, and
639 of the bill that undermine key consumer protections by
preventing the CFPB from finalizing or implementing payday
lending and arbitration regulations and would amend the Truth
in Lending Act to deny borrowers protections from certain
high-cost loans. These are problematic, ideological
provisions that are beyond the scope of this bill.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). The
Administration objects to the total funding level of $120
million for CPSC, an $11 million reduction below the FY 2017
Budget request. This funding level would significantly impede
CPSC's public safety mission intended to safeguard consumers,
particularly children, from hidden hazards that continue to
cause death and severe injuries, including its ability to
expand the import surveillance program through which CPSC
identifies hazardous products that can cause injury or death
before these goods can enter the U.S. market. In addition,
the Administration objects to section 510 of the bill that
would continue to prohibit CPSC from using funds to finalize
or implement mandatory standards for recreational off-highway
vehicles (ROVs) until CPSC commissions and completes a study
with the National Academy of Sciences. This provision could
indefinitely delay CPSC's ability to complete rulemaking on
ROVs, potentially compromising public safety. The language
also would undermine the Commission's statutory independence
and authority to write public safety regulations, interfering
with its regulatory independence and public safety mission.
Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The Administration
urges the Congress to provide the full $9.8 million requested
for EAC in the FY 2017 Budget, including $1.5 million for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology. The $4.9
million provided in the bill is half of the funding requested
in the FY 2017 Budget. Such a significant reduction would
severely limit EAC's ability to assist State and local
entities administer Federal elections, test and certify
voting equipment, and provide information about voting system
standards.
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The Administration
strongly opposes the deep reductions to the funding level for
FCC, which is $53 million, or 14 percent, below the FY 2017
Budget request. These reductions unnecessarily force FCC to
scale back important work on public safety and wireless
spectrum, delay efforts to modernize IT systems, and
undermine efforts to save the taxpayers money by
consolidating office space and improving oversight of the
Universal Service Fund. The Administration objects to the
$106 million cap on auction program funding, which is $18
million, or 15 percent, below the FY 2017 Budget request.
This would severely harm the FCC's efforts to modernize its
auction infrastructure to support the increasingly complex
auctions of the future, which have the potential to return
tens of billions of dollars to the U.S. Treasury.
FCC, Open Internet Order. The Administration strongly
objects to sections 630, 631, and 632 that aim at delaying or
preventing implementation of FCC's net neutrality order. The
order, which was issued after a lengthy rulemaking process
that garnered input from four million Americans, ensures a
level playing field that is increasingly vital to the future
of the Nation's digital economy and online competition. For
almost a century, U.S. law has recognized that companies who
connect Americans to the world have special obligations not
to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of
Americans' homes or businesses. It is common sense that the
same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the
transmission of information--whether a phone call, or a
packet of data. The FCC's rules recognize that broadband
service is of the same importance, and must carry the same
obligations as so many of the other vital services do. These
carefully-designed rules have already been implemented in
large part with little to no impact on the telecommunications
companies making important investments in the U.S. economy,
and would ensure that neither the cable company nor the phone
company would be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting
what Americans can do or see online. The appropriations
process should not be used to overturn the will of both an
independent regulator and millions of Americans on this vital
issue.
FCC, Set-top Rule. The Administration opposes section 636
that aims at delaying the FCC from adopting or enforcing new
rules to open the video set-top box market to additional
competition. Currently, 99 percent of cable and satellite TV
consumers rent set-top boxes directly from the cable
providers, costing households an average of $230 per year.
The FCC is already committed to a lengthy, thorough
rulemalcing process that would establish a robust record of
comment and analysis from companies, non-profit
organizations, and academics. The current provision
unnecessarily interferes with these long-established
processes by requiring a delay of at least 270 days, and
probably much longer, and a redundant, potentially costly
study.
Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The Administration is
concerned that the Committee is underfunding the efforts by
the FTC and the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust
Division to protect American consumers from criminal cartel
practices--such as price fixing, fraud, and currency
manipulation--and anticompetitive mergers. Since 2010, the
number of proposed $1 billion ``mega mergers'' reviewed
annually by the FTC and DOJ's Antitrust Division has more
than doubled. Anticompetitive mergers can harm American
consumers significantly by raising prices, reducing quality,
limiting output, restricting consumer choice, and stifling
innovation in markets such as healthcare and pharmaceuticals,
defense contracting, energy and petroleum, cable television
and internet, cell phones and service, airline travel,
appliances, and common food items. The bill provides $317
million for the FTC, $25 million below the FY 2017 Budget
request.
United States Postal Service. The Administration strongly
opposes new language in the bill that would roll back cost
saving measures implemented by the Postal Service over the
last four years. The Administration is also disappointed that
language under the Payment to the Postal Service Fund account
[[Page H4226]]
would prohibit the Postal Service from modifying its delivery
schedule to better adapt to its current business environment.
Each year, the President's Budget has proposed balanced
reforms to provide the Postal Service with the operational
flexibility to continue to meet its universal service
obligation and implement structural changes that would help
put it on a sustainable trajectory. While the Congress has
failed to act, the Postal Service has undertaken significant
administrative reforms under existing authority to reduce
expenses. Despite these efforts, since FY 2012 the Postal
Service has been forced to default each year on scheduled
payments to reduce its unfunded liability for retiree health
benefits and is expected to default on an additional $5.8
billion due during FY 2016. The Postal Service estimates that
reversing four years of service changes would increase its
operating deficit by roughly $1.5 billion annually and impose
an additional $500 million in one-time costs.
Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB). The
Administration objects to the funding level of $8.3 million
in the bill for the PCLOB, which is $1.8 million, or more
than 17 percent, below the FY 2017 Budget request. The
funding level provided would impair PCLOB's ability to
maintain sufficient staff to independently and robustly
assess the multi-billion dollar counterterrorism enterprise's
efforts to balance privacy and civil liberties. The Congress
and the Executive Branch have asked the Board to analyze a
number of complex issues that are subject to ongoing public
debate, including electronic surveillance. The impact of the
funding reduction on the Board's staffing would hinder its
ability to satisfy these requests.
Udall Foundation. The Administration opposes the
elimination of funding requested in the FY 2017 Budget for
the Udall Foundation, which provides education and research
resources to American Indians and Alaska Natives. In
addition, through the U.S. Institute for Environmental
Conflict Resolution, the Foundation provides mediation
services for conflicts involving Federal agencies or
interests. The Administration urges the Congress to fully
fund the Udall Foundation at the $5 million level included in
the FY 2017 Budget request.
District of Columbia (D.C.)
D.C. Local Budget Autonomy. The Administration does not
object to the one-year shutdown exemption in section 816 of
the bill, which would allow D.C. to spend local funds in the
event of a lapse in appropriations in FY 2018. However, the
Administration strongly objects to section 817 of the bill,
which repeals the D.C. Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012. The
residents of the District and their elected leaders deserve
to have the same ability as other U.S. residents and elected
leaders to determine how to use their local revenues. Such
authority is fundamental to a well-functioning democracy and
the denial of such authority is an affront to the residents
and leaders of the District. The Administration urges the
Congress to adopt provisions included in the FY 2017 Budget
request that would permanently allow the District to use
local funds without congressional action.
Restrictions on the District's Use of Local Funds. The
Administration strongly opposes language in the bill that
bars the elected leaders of the District of Columbia from
determining how to use local revenues. Specifically, the
Administration strongly opposes section 810 of the bill,
which prohibits the District from using both Federal and
local funds for abortion services for low-income women.
Longstanding policy prohibits Federal funds from being used
for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the
life of the woman would be endangered, but restrictions on
the District's use of local funds for abortion services is
contrary to the principle of home rule. In addition, the
Administration strongly opposes the restriction in section
809(b) of the bill on the use of both Federal and local funds
for regulatory or legislative activity pertaining to
recreational use of marijuana, which was approved by D.C.
voters. The Administration urges the Congress to adopt the
provisions in the FY 2017 Budget request that limit the
abortion and recreational marijuana restrictions to Federal
funds.
D.C. Syringe Services Program. The Administration strongly
opposes the restriction in the bill on the use of Federal
funds for the District's syringe services program. This is
contrary to current law, which prohibits the use of Federal
funds for syringe services programs only in locations where
local authorities determine such programs to be
inappropriate.
D.C. Education Funding. The Administration strongly opposes
the $20 million funding level in the bill for the Tuition
Assistance Grant Program (TAG), which is $20 million below
the FY 2017 Budget request level. TAG provides grants of up
to $10,000 per year to District residents to cover the
difference between in-State and out-of-State tuition at
public colleges and universities and helps to make college
affordable for many low-income District residents. In
addition, the Administration opposes the $30 million funding
level in the bill for D.C. public schools, which is $10
million below the FY 2017 Budget request, and the
Administration strongly opposes the additional $12 million
the bill provides for the Opportunity Scholarship Program
(OSP), a private school voucher program. The Administration
appreciates the bill's support for evaluation and
administration of OSP and will continue to use available OSP
funds to support students returning to the program until they
complete school, but strongly opposes additional funding for
more vouchers. The Administration remains focused on
improving the quality of public schools for all children
rather than supporting a handful of students in private
schools.
D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. The Administration opposes
the bill's lack of funding for D.C. Water and urges the
Congress to provide the $14 million included in the FY 2017
Budget request for ongoing work on the combined sewer
overflow project.
Mr. McGOVERN. Here we are again, Mr. Speaker, for the third time,
talking about a rule to consider a bill that is going nowhere. We are
doing this at a time when a vast majority of our constituents want us
to do something about preventing more gun violence in this country.
Mass shootings have become unacceptably commonplace in the United
States of America, and we have a responsibility to do more to keep guns
out of the wrong hands. The shooting in Orlando was the largest mass
shooting in our country's history. This is a moment of truth, and we
cannot have another moment of silence without some action.
We are pleading with the Speaker of the House, and we are pleading
with our Republican colleagues to allow us to bring two bipartisan
bills to the floor for consideration so that we can debate them and
vote on them. One is the no fly, no buy legislation. If you are too
dangerous to fly on an airplane because you are on the terrorist watch
list, according to the FBI, then you are too dangerous to buy a gun. It
shouldn't be controversial. The second is to eliminate the loopholes in
our background check system, which says that you have to go through a
background check if you go to a licensed gun dealer but that you can
get around that by going to a gun show or by buying a gun online.
Overwhelming numbers of Democrats and Republicans, according to the
latest public opinion polls, think both of these ideas are smart,
commonsense approaches. The only thing that is standing in the way is
the Republican leadership in this House.
Mr. Speaker, please schedule these bills for a vote. No, we will not
be satisfied with the NRA bill that you want to bring to the floor this
week that, basically, is nothing but a press release but will not keep
guns out of the hands of people who are suspected of being terrorists.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can reach some sort of accomodation with
our Republican friends. We are not going away. This issue is too
important, and it is about time we acted. Silence and indifference can
no longer be tolerated in this Chamber.
If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the
rule to bring up no fly, no buy. It is bipartisan legislation that will
give the Attorney General the authority to bar the sale of firearms and
explosives to those who are 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 gentleman from
California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate what it is we are trying to do by
defeating the previous question and bringing up commonsense, pro-Second
Amendment, gun violence prevention legislation.
We don't think that terrorists, criminals, or the dangerously
mentally ill should have easy access to firearms. We believe that we
should do everything possible to make sure that terrorists, criminals,
and the dangerously mentally ill can't get their hands on firearms.
That is why it is so important to pass the no fly, no buy and to pass
the background check legislation.
We know that background checks work. Every day, 170 felons are
prevented from buying a gun because of the background check, and 50
domestic abusers are prevented from buying a gun because of the
background check. That is every day. The bill that we are talking about
expands the background checks to include all commercial sales.
[[Page H4227]]
As the gentleman from Massachusetts just explained, there are
loopholes. In some States, you can go online and buy a gun without
having a background check. In some States, you can go to a gun show and
buy a gun without having a background check. That is absolute
foolishness.
Now, we are not talking about requiring family members to do
background checks. We are not talking about requiring your next-door
neighbor to do a background check. We are not talking about requiring
your hunting buddy or your shooting buddy to get a background check.
We are talking about gun sales through commercial sales--gun shows,
newspaper ads, online sales--because we know it works. It is our first
line of defense against the criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously
mentally ill from being able to easily access firearms.
It was once explained that the Federal Government set up a system to
screen these folks to make sure that the criminals, the terrorists, the
domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill didn't get firearms.
What they said is, if you buy it from a licensed dealer, you have to
have a background check, but if you buy it from a gun show or if you
buy it online, you don't have to have one.
The juxtaposition has been made that this is a lot like setting up a
screening system after 9/11 that says that all passengers have to go
through a metal detector so they don't bring guns, knives, and
explosives on the airplane, but only 60 percent of you have to do that.
The other 40 percent can go around--you can get on the airplane with
whatever you have in your pocket. Then you choose which one goes in the
40 percent line and which one goes in the 60 percent line.
It doesn't make sense. We need to have background checks to make sure
that criminals, that the dangerously mentally ill, that domestic
abusers, and that terrorists don't get their hands on weapons.
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. Mr. Speaker, I can't believe that our
friends on the other side of the aisle want criminals, terrorists, and
the dangerously mentally ill to have easy access to firearms. As a
matter of fact, there was an amendment on this floor that beefed up the
funding for the system that checks on the background checks, and 76
Republicans voted to increase the funding by $20 million--a $20 million
funding augmentation to the NICS system. Now you are telling us,
``Well, we supported the funding, but we don't want people to use the
system.'' That is an out-and-out waste of taxpayer money.
Not bringing these bills up is an out-and-out shameless ordeal on the
part of the leadership. You need to bring these bills to the floor. We
need to have a vote. We need to do everything we can to make sure our
constituents are safe--safe in places of worship, safe in the movie
theater, safe in school. We need to make sure that we do all we can to
keep our constituents safe. Bring it up for a vote.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, people who are watching may wonder: What are
these folks talking about? They are talking about a rule. What is this
about? If you just tuned in, I will tell you what it is about.
One hundred thousand Americans have died from guns in the last 3\1/2\
years, and this body--this House of Representatives, this U.S. House of
Representatives, the people's House--has done nothing, nothing at all,
not one little thing. The time has long passed for marking the deaths
of Americans by guns when we could help to prevent them. The time has
passed for moments of silence. We need to take action, and the action
needs to be now because, while we wait, Americans die.
What makes the news are the mass shootings. Sadly, they are becoming
more frequent, and they are becoming more horrific. Every single day,
Americans are dying in small towns, in big cities. They are dying in
bedrooms, dying in domestic violence arguments, dying on the streets of
Hartford and Chicago. It often doesn't even make the news, but, believe
me, those families know their loved ones are gone. Their friends know--
their friends at church, those in the neighborhood.
It is in the ripple of those deaths that we could do something that
has us here--that has us here all day, that had us here all night 2
weeks ago. We will keep raising our voices because the American people
depend on us to not just talk but to take action, and that is within
our power.
{time} 1715
Ninety-three percent of the American people support background
checks. Ninety-three percent. That is more probably than like chocolate
ice cream. We can do this. More than that support, keeping guns out the
hands of terrorists, there is nothing controversial about these
proposals.
It seems to have become an article of faith that, if the gun lobby is
opposed to it, that it is too dangerous for politicians to act.
I will tell you what is too dangerous. It is too dangerous to our
constituents for us not to act. It is too dangerous for them to have
this institution not listen to their cries, to their weeping, to their
pleading.
It is time for us to be strong, to be resolute. And whether it is the
gun lobby or whatever it is that keeps you from protecting American
lives with passing bipartisan commonsense legislation, it is time to
let go of those fears because the fears of the American people depend
on us relieving them, and we can only do that by taking action. We are
the body that is elected to do that. And the States are trying, but
they can't get the job done without our help.
It is up to us to do what our sworn duty is to do, to protect and
defend the American people. We can't defend them from all harms, but we
can do our job with this.
Background checks work. They save lives. They save uniform police
officers. They save folks in domestic violence situations. It is time
for us to do our job.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Judy Chu).
Ms. JUDY CHU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose this rule
and to speak about a critical issue. We must stop the senseless gun
violence in this country.
Last Wednesday, at my SpeakOut to stop gun violence, a courageous
young man stood up to tell his story. Josh Stepakoff here was the
victim of a mass shooting when he was 6 years old and miraculously
survived it. He was finishing a game at his home away from home, the
North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles. He assumed that
the strange man in front of him was a construction worker and that what
he held at his hip was a power drill.
How could he know that this man was a neo-Nazi carrying a
semiautomatic weapon and hundreds of rounds of ammunition intent on
killing as many people as he could?
Two of those bullets hit Josh, barely missing his spine and vital
organs. The physical and mental damage changed Josh's life forever, and
now he and his mother have devoted their lives to stopping gun
violence.
The NRA is saying that the way to keep people safe is by making more
guns available to everybody. If this is the solution, the U.S. would be
the safest place in the world. Instead, we face danger from guns
everywhere, even movie theaters, elementary schools, and churches.
Enough is enough. We must pass commonsense gun violence prevention
laws now. Now is the time to pass no fly, no buy and the comprehensive
background check bills.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I am in strong opposition to the rule, to
this flawed financial services bill, but that is not why I have risen
to speak.
I have risen to speak today because the American people are crying
out. They are crying out for a vote on legislation that makes a real
impact on the
[[Page H4228]]
epidemic of gun violence in our country.
Last week, in my district, Stratford, Connecticut, I stood in front
of the Victoria Soto School, demanding commonsense gun violence
legislation.
When the gunman began firing at Sandy Hook Elementary, Vicki Soto hid
her students in the closet. She died protecting them. The AR-15 was on
the floor by her body. She was a hero. She committed her time, her
effort, and her life to protecting and caring for children.
The school is a fitting tribute to Vicki and her life's work. There,
children can be children. But it is also a stark reminder of the real
and heartbreaking cost of gun violence, and it is a visible reminder of
what is at stake and why we need comprehensive gun violence legislation
now.
We must take action for Victoria, for the Soto family. I watch how
her parents suffer and her siblings suffer every single day, but we
need to do that for the Soto family and for every family like them who
know grief most of us will never understand.
We must now act for the families in Aurora, the families in Newtown,
the families in San Bernardino, the families in Orlando, and the
families of those who are killed every single day on the streets of
every city in this Nation.
You know, we cannot heal the hole in their heart, but what we can do
is what we have been charged to do in this institution, and that is to
vote on public policy that makes a difference in the lives of the
people that we have sworn to serve to uphold their rights.
That is why I urge commonsense gun legislation; universal background
checks; and no fly, no buy. Let's keep guns out of the hands of
terrorists.
I would go further. I would ban assault weapons. I want to see gun
violence prevention research done. I want to see the mental health
services that we need additionally to protect people in this Nation
from gun violence. But I think that what we can conclude is that not
one more death.
While moments of silence are good things to do, we cannot just have
one more moment of silence. The American people deserve real, concrete
gun violence prevention legislation. That is what our job is to do. We
can do it. That is what we have been elected to do.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Massachusetts (Ms. Clark), my colleague.
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, there is an African proverb
that says: ``When you pray, move your feet.''
But this Congress meets our gun violence crisis with only deadly
silence. Forty-nine people massacred on a dance floor, silence. First
graders and their teachers shot in their elementary school, silence.
Students and professors shot in their college classrooms, silence.
Parishioners shot after Bible study in their church, silence. Social
workers and disabled clients shot at a holiday party, silence.
Moviegoers shot watching a film, silence. Our colleague shot while
meeting with constituents, silence. Neighborhood sidewalks and parks
transformed into blood-soaked memorials, silence.
Over the past 12 years, gun violence has claimed more American lives
than war, AIDS, and illegal drug overdoses combined. Since Newtown,
tens of thousands of lives have been lost to this deadly crisis.
Yet the number of bills that have been debated and passed by this
Congress to help prevent such deaths, to put an end, to start to slow
this violence: zero.
Inaction is a choice. Inaction is costing lives, and that is why I am
asking this House to have a vote that we perform our basic
responsibilities as Members of Congress and members of our communities.
Let's debate and vote on two commonsense measures to curb gun violence.
Let's vote on expanding background checks and preventing suspected
terrorists from being able to buy a gun.
Why is this so paralyzing? It is widely supported by the American
people. Why is the only proposal scheduled for a vote drafted by the
NRA?
Does House leadership really believe that our Constitution and
liberties are so fragile that we have to tolerate carnage like we saw
in Orlando rather than risk a vote?
These proposals are widely supported by people of all types of
political ideologies. The American people get it. They understand we
could protect our constitutional rights and take reasoned steps to
reduce gun violence.
Moments of silence should be where the action begins. Sadly, in this
Congress, it is the only action ever taken.
No more silence. I urge us to bring up these two practical proposals
for a vote. Our communities and our democracy deserve that.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, about 10 days ago, something extraordinary
happened on this House floor. Members violated the rules, and they sat
in.
Some folks asked me the question: ``Peter, why did you do that? Why
did you join in that?''
I had to think hard about it because it is not something that should
be done in anything close to normal circumstances.
The reason was that, since Newtown, when there have been one mass
shooting after another--San Bernardino; Orlando the most recent--
Congress has responded with a moment of silence followed by complete
and utter inaction.
Congress is not doing its job. The issue of what gun legislation we
should pass is debatable.
Why won't we debate it? Why won't Congress face the fact that the job
of Congress is to come up with policies that are going to provide
protection to American citizens from this gun violence?
There is legislation out there. Two things that are very sensible: if
you are on a terrorist watch list, you can't buy a gun; if you are
subject to a background check, you can't evade it by all the loopholes.
We should debate those. And then those of our citizens who disagree
with us, they can vote against us or they can vote for us.
What we have no right to do is to fail to do our job, so I joined
with other Members of Congress sitting here basically saying: Let's
debate, let's discuss, but let's act. Let's not run the other way in
cowardly disrespect of our responsibilities in the expectation that our
citizens who sent us here rightly have that we address the issue of gun
violence and be held accountable by them for at least making an effort,
honestly, to do the job they have given us to do.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline).
Mr. CICILLINE. Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise in strong opposition to the
rule, but I would like to speak to the two pieces of legislation that
we are imploring our colleagues to bring to the floor: the no fly, no
buy and universal background checks.
Since the House adjourned on June 23, at least 522 more Americans
have been killed in incidents of gun violence just since we adjourned;
men, women, children, sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers. We
dishonor the lives of those we have lost to gun violence with this NRA-
written bill that we are taking up this week rather than the two
commonsense gun safety proposals pending before the Congress.
Just in case anyone doesn't understand, we have a gun violence
epidemic in this country, different from every other country in the
world. We kill each other with guns at a rate 297 times higher than
Japan, 49 times higher than France, and 33 times higher than Israel,
just to give you an example.
So far this year, more than 6,300 people have been killed and more
than 13,000 wounded in incidents of gun violence, and that includes
1,600 children. On average, 31 Americans are murdered with guns every
single day and 151 are treated for gun assaults in an emergency room.
This issue of making sure terrorists or suspected terrorists don't
have access to guns and making sure there are universal background
checks is not controversial anywhere else in America except in
Congress. It is widely supported by the American people, 85 and
[[Page H4229]]
90 percent. These are commonsense proposals to keep guns out of the
hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Behind each of the numbers I just mentioned, each of those
statistics, are real families who have been crushed and heartbroken by
gun violence. Let's do the right thing. Bring these bills to the floor,
debate them, make your arguments, and take a vote.
{time} 1730
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Matsui).
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, we lose over 30,000 people a year to gun
violence. We must never forget that that number is made up of thousands
of individual stories: a family grieving over the death of a child, a
teenager missing a friend at school, a son who must get used to
spending holidays every year without a parent.
One of my constituents in Sacramento lost her cousin and her cousin's
son to gun violence right before Christmas. She wrote to me and said,
``I would like to see a world where such crime is minimized . . . if
not erased. Gun control is an important and essential step in the path
toward nonviolence.''
We must listen to these stories that have become all too common. Just
over the weekend, another person in my community was shot and killed.
Every moment we don't act matters. Must we feel vulnerable in our
churches, sending our children to theaters or to the schools?
We are not going to accept this bloodshed any longer. We must disarm
the hate and vote on real solutions for the American people. Democrats
are calling for a vote on two pieces of bipartisan, commonsense
legislation. We must not wait any longer to answer the call for action.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Hampshire (Ms. Kuster).
Ms. KUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule, but I also want
to join my colleagues in urging the Speaker to bring forward a vote on
these two commonsense gun reforms.
I took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and to protect my
constituents. And while we were home over the holiday recess, going to
parades and celebrating our independence and celebrating our history,
time after time I spoke with constituents from all different
backgrounds. I am from a rural district. Hunting is important to us.
People hunt for their food. They want to protect their family. I
respect the Second Amendment, and I respect their right.
But the question that I got is people do not understand why we cannot
have a debate in this hallowed Hall about protecting our constituents.
People watched as an entire community was massacred simply going out to
dance and enjoy the evening. The American people watched as children
died in schools, as one of our colleagues was shot in a shopping
center, as people died in a church. We should be able to go to Bible
study; we should be able to go to the movies; we should be able to go
to the shopping centers; and certainly, our children should be able to
go to school.
My constituents, Mr. Speaker, who are gun owners, who care about
protecting their families and their homes, who care about their right
to enjoy hunting with their families, my constituents are asking, Mr.
Speaker: Please bring these two commonsense issues to the floor so that
we can protect our families.
When someone has taken an oath of allegiance to ISIS and has evil
intent in their heart, help us to protect our constituents.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I urge all of my colleagues to vote
against the rule--the underlying bill is terribly flawed--but I also
urge my colleagues to work with us to try to bring two commonsense
pieces of legislation to the floor. The first is the no fly, no buy
legislation. If you are on a terrorist watch list and you are too
dangerous to fly, then you ought to be too dangerous to buy a gun.
Just so my colleagues understand this, according to the Government
Accountability Office, since 2004, nearly 2,500 suspects on the FBI
terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in the United
States. Ninety-one percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to
purchase guns in the last 12 years walked away with the weapon that
they wanted. That should trouble every single person in this Chamber.
The other piece of legislation is to strengthen our background checks
so we get rid of these loopholes so that everybody who wants to buy a
gun goes through a background check; they can't escape going through a
background check by going to a gun show or buying a gun online.
That is it. That is all we are asking for.
Mr. Speaker, we had 9 people murdered in Charleston, 12 in Aurora, 14
in San Bernardino, 26 in Sandy Hook, and 49 innocent people murdered in
Orlando. Maybe the numbers are getting too big for some of my
colleagues to fully comprehend how horrendous this all is. Sometimes I
feel that with all these numbers that some of us are losing the human
ability to feel what is happening here. These people had families.
These people's lives were cut short for no good reason.
We can do something about it. The legislation that we have proposed
here is not going to solve everything, but if it could save one life,
then it is worth it. But inaction and indifference and silence can no
longer be tolerated. We will not have business as usual in this House
until we address some of these issues.
The American people want us to do this. They are waiting for us.
Please, Mr. Speaker, schedule these pieces of legislation for debate
and vote. No, we are not going to be satisfied with the NRA bill that
will come up to the floor under a closed rule that you want us to take.
That is just unacceptable. Give us a vote on this legislation. I urge
my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can have that vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
Mr. Speaker, I would remind Members that today's rule provides for
the consideration of the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 2017. This is an important piece
of legislation to fund the Federal Government. I urge support for the
rule and the underlying bill.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
bill. The rule and bill are assaults on the District of Columbia's
right to govern itself. This bill contains three 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 to block D.C. from
spending its local funds to enforce a local employment non-
discrimination law, the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act.
The bill repeals D.C.'s budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C.
to spend its local funds after a 30-day congressional review period.
Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local
jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a federal
body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in
a little over a month to repeal the referendum. I will offer an
amendment to strike the repeal of the referendum.
However, 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.
Four states have legalized the possession of marijuana for
recreational use, and they either have set up a tax and regulatory
system or are in the process of doing so. While recreational use is
legal under D.C. law, Congress has uniquely prohibited D.C. from
spending its local funds to set up a tax and regulatory system.
This rider 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 authority to spend its own funds on abortion services
for low-income
[[Page H4230]]
women, and 17 states fund these services. This rider effectively
prevents low-income women in D.C. from exercising their constitutional
right to abortion by depriving them of necessary funds.
Remarkably, this bill could have been even more harmful to the
District of Columbia. Three amendments were filed to block D.C. gun
safety laws, but they were not made in order. There was no way the
Republican leadership could bring these deadly amendments to the floor
so soon after Orlando. Representative Thomas Massie filed two
amendments. One would have allowed handguns, shotguns and rifles to be
carried, openly or concealed, on the streets of the nation's capital.
The other would have blocked D.C. from enforcing its enhanced penalties
for carrying a gun in schools and other places where children
congregate. Representative David Schweikert filed an amendment that
would have allowed people to get a concealed carry permit without
demonstrating a ``good cause'' for needing one.
These amendments presented a threat not only to D.C. residents, but
also to the millions who visit the nation's capital and the high-
ranking federal officials and foreign dignitaries who travel around the
city daily.
Republicans claim to support devolving federal authority to state and
local governments. 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 Palmer amendment. In our
American democracy in the 21st century, that choice should not have
been difficult.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 794 Offered by Mr. McGovern
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 8. 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. 9. 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.
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.
____________________