[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.

                          ____________________