[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4293-H4301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4361, FEDERAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS 
 SAFEGUARDS ACT OF 2016, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO 
                           SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 803 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 803

       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. 4361) to amend section 3554 of title 44, 
     United States Code, to provide for enhanced security of 
     Federal information systems, 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 amendments 
     specified in this section and shall not exceed one hour 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform. After general debate the bill shall be considered for 
     amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu of the 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform now printed in 
     the bill, it shall be in order to consider as an original 
     bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-minute rule 
     an amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 114-59. That amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. All 
     points of order against that amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute are waived. No amendment to that amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered 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, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute made 
     in order as original text. 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. 2.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of July 7, 2016, or July 8, 2016, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     as though under clause 1 of rule XV, relating to a measure 
     addressing the Federal Aviation Administration.

                              {time}  1245

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
1 hour.

[[Page H4294]]

  

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my friend from Colorado (Mr. Polis), 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. WOODALL. 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 Georgia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I want to begin at the end of the Reading 
Clerk's recitation of the rule. It makes in order that at any time on 
July 7 or 8 the Speaker can entertain motions to suspend the rules and 
bring up the FAA bill.
  In addition to serving on the Rules Committee, I serve on the 
Transportation Committee. We have been working very hard with the 
Senate to try to bring an FAA extension to a conclusion. We are very 
close to getting that done. But without the passage of this rule, we 
would not be able to consider that expeditiously later in the week. So 
among the many reasons to support the rule today, I would like to 
encourage my friends who care about transportation and who care about 
the Federal Aviation Administration during this holiday season to 
support the rule on those merits alone.
  But the primary purpose of the rule today, Mr. Speaker, is to bring 
up H.R. 4361. It is a bill designed to make some relatively minor, but 
important, changes to the way we interact with Federal Government 
employees.
  For example, Mr. Speaker, it ought to go without saying that focusing 
on pornography in the workplace during your daily activities should be 
prohibited. I would have guessed that it was. It certainly is in my 
office, but that commonsense provision is contained in this bill.
  It extends the probationary period, Mr. Speaker. As you know, when 
you get involved as a Federal Government employee, the stereotypical 
answer is that you can never be fired. You can be completely derelict 
and never be relieved from civil service. That is not true, and most of 
our Federal Government workers are incredibly conscientious. But it is 
true that we often do not have a long enough probationary period to 
find out whether or not someone is going to be a good civil servant. 
This extends the length of that probationary period from 1 year to 2 
years so that we will have time to look at those employees.
  It adds accountability to what they call the Senior Executive 
Service, Mr. Speaker. That is that area just above civil service folks 
oftentimes at the highest points in their career providing incredibly 
valuable work to the government. But it has been a challenge for folks 
to provide managerial accountability to those individuals, and we have 
added those improvements to the underlying text as well.
  This is a compilation of many different ideas that have all been 
vetted individually. We have combined them together. Again, they are 
independent ideas, but they are all focused around the idea of how do 
we give the taxpayers the best bang for their buck when it comes to 
America's civil service system.
  Now, this came out of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, 
Mr. Speaker, but that is not to say that folks will not have some other 
ideas on how to make this bill better. I would like to tell you, Mr. 
Speaker--and I don't do so with a small amount of pride; I do so with a 
great amount of pride--that every single Member who brought amendments 
to the Rules Committee yesterday and said they had ideas about how to 
improve this bill, every single Member that brought amendments got 
amendments.
  We talk about how to run this institution, Mr. Speaker, in a way that 
gives folks a voice. We have seen in recent times that how folks 
express their voice varies in this institution. I think it is important 
that we find a respectful way to have a dialogue about the ideas. The 
Rules Committee is not always able to make everything in order. In 
fact, we weren't able to make everything in order last night either, 
but every single Member who came to make their case, every single 
Member who submitted ideas to the committee was heard and will have an 
opportunity to bring their ideas here on the floor of the House.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the way we ought to be doing business. This is 
the way that the Rules Committee was designed to operate. It is a rule 
that all of my colleagues can be proud of. I hope that we will quickly 
dispense with this rule so that we can get on to the underlying 
legislation. I encourage all my Members to vote in the affirmative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 4361.
  Once again, this rule is not open. It does not make in order all 
amendments that were offered at our meeting yesterday. It makes in 
order some of them, but not all of them. In fact, much less would be 
offered here on the floor if we allowed this under an open rule where 
Members would have the opportunity to offer germane amendments while we 
were having the debate.
  This is a silly bill. It would simply attempt to prevent the 
President from being President for the rest of his term of office. We 
elect Presidents of the United States to 4 years in office. I 
understand the gentleman from Georgia may not have voted for this 
particular President. There have been Presidents in the past that I 
haven't voted for, but according to our Constitution, their term is 4 
years.
  It is a particularly silly effort because it is a bill that requires 
the President's signature. Of course, the President, rightly so, has 
said that he will veto it. Why would a President support a bill that 
says: I am agreeing to not do anything for the final 6 months of my 
Presidency?
  This bill is really more of a talking point just trying to further 
delegitimize the current President of the United States. It is part of 
a systematic effort throughout this great President's time in office to 
delegitimize him and prevent him from doing the duty to which he was 
elected, to serve as our Commander in Chief and chief of the executive 
branch in government which, of course, involves rulemaking authority, 
which has always been the prerogative of the executive branch.
  Now, we can write tighter legislation, and we probably should. That 
is a matter of legislative prerogative to prevent future Presidents of 
both parties from interpreting the authority we give them in ways that 
are contrary to this body's goals. But you certainly can't fault a 
President when you leave them the discretionary authority in bills that 
pass this body to become law simply trying to make them work.
  Now, this is a messaging bill, again, to delegitimize the President. 
Well, it turns out that we Democrats have our own messaging that we 
want to do as well, and we are going to be spending a lot of our time 
here today, as we have been, talking about meaningful legislation to 
address gun violence.

  Americans have demanded meaningful action on gun violence in the wake 
of the worst mass shooting in America's history at the gay club in 
Orlando just recently, and continual violence and the threat of 
terrorism continue to be a scourge in our communities.
  Now, before heading on the holiday break, my Democratic colleagues 
took strong, necessary action with regards to their actions on the 
floor. The demands are simple, and a number of my colleagues will talk 
about them. One, a vote on a bipartisan bill that the President would 
sign if it reached his desk that would simply expand background checks, 
which my home State of Colorado has already done.
  But, again, until we close this gun show loophole, even residents of 
my State that are convicted felons, who, through due process of law, 
lost their right to bear arms, can simply drive an hour to Wyoming and 
go to an open-air gun show without any background check. Even though 
they are a convicted felon, they can purchase a weapon.
  So we do need a better system of background checks, and, of course, a 
bill to address people that are on the terrorist watch list from 
acquiring arsenals to commit terrorist acts.

[[Page H4295]]

  Enough is enough. Every single one of my colleagues has a personal 
experience with these kinds of incidents in their district. Communities 
have suffered long enough, and, frankly, it is time for action. We 
can't only do moments of silence; we need to take action.
  Of course, this bill we are considering is just a continuation of the 
Republican effort to delegitimize President Obama at the end of his 
term, just as many of my colleagues from the other side have attempted 
to do throughout his presidency.
  Do you know what? President Obama was elected. Do you know what? 
President Obama was reelected. He is the President. He will be 
President until January when we inaugurate a new President. Taking 
actions like denying him even hearings or votes on Supreme Court 
nominations or passing a bill saying that Federal agencies have to stop 
their work just because you don't like who the President is is really 
disrespectful to our constitutional system of governance.
  This bill would virtually prevent the President of the United States 
from doing his job by stopping all rules regardless of when the rules 
were proposed or how long they have been working on various regulatory 
improvements.
  It also has several provisions that are needless or antagonistic 
toward Federal employees. For instance, if Federal employees are 
underperforming or defrauding, we need to make sure that we have the 
tools to make personnel decisions, and this bill prevents that.
  Many of the majority claim that some of these ideas come from the 
business community. But, of course, it is not a practice in the 
business community to demean employees and then turn around and ask 
them to do more for less.
  Instead of wasting time on this bill that is never going to become 
law--it is not going to pass the Senate; if somehow it did, the 
President would veto it; it is not going to become law--let's start 
work on bills that, for instance, make it harder for terrorists to 
acquire arsenals to commit acts of terror, and to make sure that 
convicted felons can't simply cross State lines to acquire a weapon 
that would be illegal because there is no background check and so there 
is no way of finding that out.
  Those are the kinds of things we need to do. Let's get back to work.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I look forward to working with my friend from Colorado to fight 
terrorism in this country. We have bill after bill after bill after 
bill that we are working on collaboratively here. We need go no further 
than the Defense Appropriations bill, which we all know needs to move 
across this floor. We know NDAA is a perennial challenge that we work 
on together and collaboratively in order to give folks the tools that 
they need.
  And certainly not to diminish the role this body has in fighting 
terrorism, this body also has a role in governing the civil service 
system. This happens to be a civil service bill today. Instead of 
bringing seven different rules on seven different bills and taking up 
all of that floor time talking about the civil service, we have 
combined them all into one bill so that we can move expeditiously and 
we can take care of the business that is important to do.
  Far from taking tools away from the civil service, this bill adds 
tools to the civil service. Instead of a 1-year probationary period, it 
is 2. Instead of having to demote someone, you have a possibility of 
removing someone. If the behavior is egregious, this is an addition of 
tools to the civil service arsenal.
  We heard testimony in the Rules Committee last night, Mr. Speaker, of 
a survey of Federal Government employees who themselves said it is too 
difficult in the current system to get rid of underperformers in their 
midst.
  Who among us does not want to work in a team of excellence?
  I am very inspired by the commitment of so many of the men and women 
in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. Folks that are depicted in the media as 
scoundrels, I am proud to work with so many folks here because they are 
hard-working public servants who want to do the right thing for their 
constituents back home even when we disagree.

                              {time}  1300

  But I will tell you that, far from being a bill targeting this 
President, this bill has nothing to do with the President. Far from 
this being an opportunity to try to rein in the President's powers, I 
would remind my friend from Colorado, Mr. Speaker, that the 
Constitution gives absolutely no rulemaking authority to the President 
whatsoever.
  I will say that again. The President of the United States under the 
United States Constitution has absolutely no rulemaking authority 
whatsoever. Every bit of rulemaking authority granted to the President 
of the United States is, in fact, a grant, and it is a grant that comes 
from the United States Congress.
  To characterize having this institution do oversight on its 
delegation of its responsibilities to the chief executive officer, to 
characterize that as some sort of anti-Obama agenda is ludicrous. In 
fact, I would tell you, Mr. Speaker, it has been Presidents of both 
parties as lame ducks, while they are on their way out the door, when 
they are no longer accountable to anyone in America any longer, who 
have pursued their most aggressive rulemaking role in those lame duck 
days, in those final 2 months after the last election their Presidency 
has taken place. I don't understand how we are served by that on either 
side of the aisle, on either end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
  And I would remind the entire Chamber that the rulemaking that goes 
on in executive branch agencies is rulemaking in pursuit of the goals 
that we have legislated. To suggest that failing to implement rules and 
regulations is somehow harming the President is ludicrous. It is this 
Congress that has passed the laws that need to be implemented. We are 
equally harmed in this way.
  My challenge to the White House, Mr. Speaker, is don't put it off. 
For Pete's sake, whatever you have got going on out there that is so 
mission critical that it could be described as an attack on the 
integrity of the administration for us to try to rein it in today, 
let's go ahead and get it done today, let's go ahead and roll that rule 
out tomorrow, let's go ahead and see it done in August, there is time 
in September and October.
  Every American citizen is instinctively suspicious of what goes on in 
this town in lame duck sessions. They are suspicious because time and 
time again they see things happen in lame duck sessions that could 
never have happened otherwise.
  Far from being an attack on the administration, Mr. Speaker, this 
bill is in service to the American people, and that is why I am proud 
to represent it today. I do hope we can get expeditiously again to the 
passage of this rule and to the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I think it is obvious that this bill is targeted at the current 
President, Barack Obama, because it affects him during the period 
between the next election and when the next President, whoever she is, 
takes office next January. Clearly, that is the President that it is 
targeted after. I have never heard these Republicans have the same 
concerns about either President Bush or any prior Presidents, as has 
been done systematically against this particular President, that 
prevented him from doing his authority that this body has sent him 
bills to do. He is doing his job, and we should let him do his job 
until the next President takes office.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, we will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up the nonpartisan no fly, no buy 
legislation that will allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of 
firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  The Republican majority refused even debate closing this glaring 
loophole for the first half of the year. Only after Democrats took 
action did the Republicans decide to propose a toothless version of 
this bill that will do nothing to keep our communities safer.
  This country can't wait any longer for Congress to take meaningful 
action on this issue. We are happy to have a discussion if we want to 
talk about

[[Page H4296]]

how we can have better transparency and oversight of these lists and 
ensure that due process is followed. Democrats care a lot about those 
issues, and we are happy to join those discussions and work out any 
issues that might exist in a bill that really is common sense.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
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 Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty), to discuss our proposal, one of our leaders on 
this effort.
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, I find it particularly ironic that we are here 
talking about suspicion of the public, talking about accountability. I 
will tell you, that is why my colleagues are here today, that is why 
several hundred Americans came to the Capitol today: to demand 
accountability of this body, to demand action by this body, because in 
3\1/2\ years since the slaughter of schoolchildren in my community of 
Newtown, this body has done nothing, nothing at all.
  Today, we are bringing up another useless messaging bill to provide 
fodder for TV ads in the fall, rather than responding to the needs of 
the American people. They are here. Ninety of them die every day when 
we do nothing about guns. So, in fact, we do need to be talking about 
accountability. But it is the accountability of the elected Members of 
Congress to bring forth reasonable, commonsense legislation, bipartisan 
legislation, that will help save lives.
  This is about immediate needs of the American people that have been 
going unanswered now for 3\1/2\ years. That is the sort of 
accountability we should be talking about today.
  The two bills we are asking for action on are simple. No fly, no buy. 
If you are too dangerous to get on an airplane, you pose a threat to 
the American people and national security of this country and you 
should not be legally allowed to buy an arsenal. And second, and 
critical, the basis, and it is, frankly, about accountability, we need 
to have background checks on each and every commercial sale of guns. If 
we aren't asking a question, we are not going to know if we are keeping 
guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
  The Internet has now become the go-to place, whether you are a 
terrorist, a domestic violence abuser, a felon, or dangerously mentally 
ill. It is our responsibility to take action to close these loopholes, 
to do our best to actually write the laws that our law enforcement are 
charged with enforcing.
  So with all due respect to my colleagues about important issues about 
Federal employee accountability, we need to be accountable in this 
institution. It is our job to protect and defend the American people. 
That is why we are here today and that is why we are going to be here 
every day we are in session to raise these issues.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I will tell my friends, I have only had a voting card in this 
institution for 5\1/2\ years, but I have learned enough in those 5\1/2\ 
years to know that we can't consider every issue every day. The 
gentlewoman from Connecticut just had her State ObamaCare exchange 
taken over by Federal regulators this week because it is so financially 
unstable. It was the 14th of 23 of these exchanges that have failed in 
the intervening year. Not failed the American taxpayer, though they 
have, but failed the American citizens who were forced into them.

  I will wait to hear if anybody is going to come to the floor today to 
wonder why it is we are not focused on abolishing those punitive 
actions, if we are going to have anybody come to the floor today and 
ask what we are going to do for those 400,000 people in Connecticut who 
we forced into an exchange that is now in receivership. We can't do 
every issue every day. I hope we will get to these issues as well, Mr. 
Speaker. But let's not minimize what this bill is today.
  I am not going to characterize anyone's motives, Mr. Speaker, but the 
reason this bill was necessary to begin with is because the Federal 
labor unions that represent Federal Government employees were standing 
between us and some serious national security concerns. Now, that 
hasn't been raised yet. But I want to make sure that if we are going to 
go down some rabbit holes, that we try to come back to why this is so 
important.
  At the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Speaker, they saw an 
uptick in the infections of their computer system. Now, they are 
mandated by Federal law to protect the Federal IT infrastructure. And 
when they delved further, Mr. Speaker, what they found was that 
individuals accessing their personal email, their Web mail, from their 
office computer was providing the gateway for these infections at the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  So, as you would expect, the Department of Homeland Security--and 
this was in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement subdivision--said 
no more Web mail until we get this figured out. The labor union filed 
suit. The labor union appealed that decision and said: No, no, no, no, 
I understand that you are trying to protect national security here, but 
we think we have collective bargaining rights and that our employees 
have the right to access their personal email on their work time and 
you cannot take this step to protect national IT infrastructure 
security without coming to the labor union collective bargaining table 
first. That is just nonsense. That is just nonsense.
  Now, you don't have to take my word for it, Mr. Speaker. I don't 
claim to be a labor union attorney. I have never done that kind of 
work. But I will read from the report. This is the dissenting member, 
because when the labor union appealed to the labor union board, the 
board came down in their favor. The dissenting member of the board 
wrote this. He said:

       It is obvious to me (after having served for seven and a 
     half years as the chief information officer at the U.S. 
     Department of Labor) that neither the FLRA--

  That is the board.

     --nor the arbitrator possesses the specialized knowledge or 
     expertise that would permit us to decide when a Federal 
     agency ought to address specific security risks or permit us 
     to second-guess how that agency should exercise those 
     responsibilities.

  This is a member of the labor board saying: Guess what? Having been 
the chief information officer, I can tell you this board has no skills 
that enable it to make decisions in this area.
  He goes on:

       I cannot conclude that Congress intended for our statute to 
     be read so expansively as to impose additional--

  In this case bargaining.

       --requirements on Federal agencies before they can act to 
     secure the integrity of their Federal IT systems, the breach 
     of which could directly impact our Nation's security and 
     economic prosperity.

  Mr. Speaker, this is a member of the labor board saying: I cannot 
believe that what Congress intended was to give labor relations so much 
power in this country that agency heads would be prevented from acting 
in the name of national security. And he was right. He was right.
  But you don't have to take my word for it that he is right. If this 
rule passes, if this bill comes to the floor, we are going to pass it 
again today. If you wonder what it was Congress intended, you need wait 
no further in the middle of the afternoon here on a Wednesday to find 
out what Congress intended because we are going to act on it again.
  It is lunacy, it is lunacy to suggest that collective bargaining 
rights have to run in conflict with national security. But that is the 
way the labor board came down. And only with the passage of this 
statutory change will we be able to see that Congress' original intent 
is fulfilled.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's discussion and 
analysis of these issues, but it begs just a couple of questions.
  There is some extensive discussion about what Congress intended and 
how a statute will be interpreted and whether interpreting that 
statute, acting in the name of national security, whether the statute 
should be clear so that it can be acted upon in the name of national 
security.
  So I ask my friend, if that is the case, if we are so worried about 
IT infrastructure and the security risks of

[[Page H4297]]

IT infrastructure and what Congress intended in a statute, then clearly 
the gentleman would agree we ought to be more concerned. In fact, it 
should be our fundamental concern to worry not just about the security 
risk to IT, but the security risk to the lives of people who live in 
our communities.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman knows 
what bills we are discussing, the gentleman knows it well. I had 
constituents in the office today. They brought their young children in. 
They are in town for the Fourth of July. And the dad said: Rob, 
sometimes I think folks are just trying to pick a fight up there. They 
are not even trying to find a solution or a pathway forward.
  My friend knows what FISMA requires, and it has nothing to do with 
the topic that the gentleman is pursuing. The gentleman knows what the 
labor act requires, and it has nothing to do with the topic that the 
gentleman is pursuing. And the gentleman knows that this bill is not 
trying to address a frivolous issue. It is an important issue that 
ought to be a uniting issue.

                              {time}  1315

  I understand that, as Members of this Chamber, we all have different 
axes that we have to grind, that we all have different topics that are 
hot in our districts back home, and that we all have different ideas 
about how to move this country forward.
  What ought to be number one on that list for me is the FairTax, Mr. 
Speaker. This doesn't happen to be FairTax day, but it is civil servant 
improvement day; and there is not a Member in this Chamber who believes 
we got it right the first time. There is not a Member in this Chamber 
who doesn't believe that we can do better both for civil servants 
themselves and for the taxpayers who fund them.
  Mr. Speaker, the rule that we are debating right now made amendments 
in order from every single Member of this body who had ideas about how 
to change it. I want to make that clear, Mr. Speaker. We may hear some 
conversation about voices in this Chamber and whether or not they will 
have an opportunity to be heard on this bill. On this bill, in this 
moment, on this day, for this issue, every single Member who said 
``pick me'' had a chance to have his voice heard.
  Mr. DEUTCH. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DEUTCH. I understand what we are debating here; but I would just 
ask the gentleman that, as we have a discussion about national security 
and the security risk to infrastructure: Isn't it true that the threat 
of a suspected terrorist purchasing a gun and the failure----
  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time from the gentleman, Mr. Speaker, 
perhaps we are not going to be able to come together on solving civil 
service issues today. Perhaps we are not. Perhaps we are just going to 
have to bring this bill to the floor without the kind of collegial 
debate that I would have hoped for. We will just have a vote on it, and 
we will see where the vote lies, but it doesn't have to be that way, 
Mr. Speaker. It doesn't have to be that way.
  I tell my constituents at town hall meetings all the time that what 
has disappointed me the most in this Chamber has been the focus that 
folks put on those things that divide us instead of on those things 
that unite us.
  If folks treat me shabbily on the little issues, Mr. Speaker, how do 
I gain the trust with them to work with them on the difficult issues? 
If folks go around the process on the little issues, how do we gain the 
trust with one another to work together on the big issues?
  We have got to get the little things right. It provides a framework 
for success that we will use to conquer the big issues, too. I have 
unlimited faith and expectations for this body, Mr. Speaker, but let's 
get this little thing right today. Let's build that trust.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, our time is spoken for, so I appreciate our being able 
to ask some questions even if we weren't able to complete them on our 
time. I think the gentleman from Florida's point was that many of the 
arguments by the gentleman from Georgia can be applied to the need to 
actually prevent terrorists from acquiring arsenals to commit terrorist 
acts.
  Are we concerned about cybersecurity?
  Yes. Again, our time is spoken for.
  Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POLIS. No. I will be happy to enter into a discourse with the 
gentleman on his time, but I have a number of speakers here.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island 
(Mr. Cicilline), a leader on the issue of fighting against terrorism.
  Mr. CICILLINE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is clear to the American people the 
extraordinary irony of this argument by our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle in that they are deeply focused on national security 
interests and the protection of infrastructure while they refuse to 
debate, for a moment, the fact that thousands of people on the 
terrorist watch list have purchased guns.
  Ninety-five percent of the people who have been killed in this 
country by terrorists since September 11 have been killed by a firearm, 
and there is no legal prohibition against preventing those individuals 
from going into a gun store and buying as many weapons as they want. So 
if we are really interested in protecting the American people and the 
infrastructure and the national security of this country, let's start 
with the simple proposition: prevent suspected terrorists from buying 
guns.
  Mr. Speaker, since we adjourned the last time, 2 weeks ago, 543 
Americans have been killed by gun violence. In my home State, since the 
beginning of this year, five people have been killed, and 36 people 
have been wounded in the State of Rhode Island by gun violence. Every 
day, 91 Americans lose their lives to an incident of gun violence. We 
kill each other with guns at a rate that is 297 times higher than in 
Japan, 49 times higher than in France, and 33 times higher than in 
Israel, just to give you some comparison. We have a gun violence 
epidemic in this country.
  We have a lot of statistics, and we have heard a lot of numbers. 
Earlier today, many of us stood on the steps of the Capitol with the 
survivors of gun violence, with mothers and fathers, with sons and 
daughters, with people all across this country who have suffered and 
whose lives have been changed forever because of gun violence.
  We heard from Catherine Bodine, from New Paris, Ohio. She was shot, 
and her 10-year-old daughter was killed because a convicted domestic 
abuser--someone who was legally prohibited from owning a gun--was able 
to purchase a firearm in a private sale without there being a 
background check.
  We heard from Antwan Reeves, a father of four, who was sitting in a 
parked car with his cousin, Los Angeles Rams' wide receiver Stedman 
Bailey, in November of last year, when someone drove past and sprayed 
their car with bullets. Antwan was shot 11 times as he shielded his 
kids in the back seat. His cousin was shot twice in the head, but, 
miraculously, he survived.
  We heard from Barbara Parker, whose daughter, Alison Parker, a 
reporter, was on live television when she was shot and killed, along 
with her cameraman, by a disgruntled former coworker in Roanoke, 
Virginia.
  We heard from Jill Robinson, whose 43-year-old son died in Baltimore 
after he was shot in the head, chest, and leg during a robbery gone 
wrong.
  We heard from DeAndra Yates, whose 13-year-old son was hit by a stray 
bullet at a birthday party in Indianapolis. Once an aspiring athlete, 
DeAndre is now a paraplegic who has lost the power of speech.
  We heard from Kate Ranta, who was shot by her estranged husband after 
he broke into her apartment in Coral Springs, Florida. Kate's father 
was also shot. The incident took place in front of her 4-year-old son.
  Finally, we heard from Andrew Goddard, whose son, Colin, was shot and 
killed in his French class at Virginia Tech during one of the worst 
mass shootings in American history.

[[Page H4298]]

  This epidemic is affecting Americans all across our country--young 
and old, rich and poor, Black and White, gay and straight. There are 
33,000 Americans who lose their lives every year in an incident of gun 
violence. For these families, a moment of silence is not enough; and 
for these families, the conversation they are hearing from the 
Republicans is not enough.

  As much as you try to change the subject, we will not. We heard their 
stories today. It is time for the entire Congress to hear their calls 
and to take up commonsense bills that will reduce the ongoing bloodshed 
in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, preventing suspects who are on the terrorist watch list 
from buying guns and having universal background checks are bills that 
will make a difference in the lives of all Americans. Bring those bills 
to the floor. Do it today. Let's have a debate. Let's hear the 
arguments. Do it for every American whose life has been changed by this 
epidemic. We owe it to them. We can have lots of debates, but these are 
urgent issues that are facing our country. We owe it to the American 
people.
  I ask my friend from Georgia: Will you use your influence in the 
Republican caucus to bring these bills to the floor? To urge the 
Speaker?
  You are an eloquent debater. Bring these bills to the floor. Defend 
your opposition so as to let the American people have a vote. Let's 
honor the memories of all who have been hurt by gun violence in this 
country, and let's do something today.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would say to my friends that I believe in this institution, and I 
believe in the debates that we have here. I was very disappointed in 
what I saw before the Fourth of July when folks took away the voices of 
many of us on the floor, and did so in violation of the rules that I 
hold to be very important; but I am grateful to my friends for the way 
that they are doing their debate today. They have an important issue 
that they want to spend time on, and I would be happy to reserve so 
that they could continue to do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to be clear. We would rather have this debate time under the 
rule for a bill that allows for the consideration of the no fly, no buy 
bill; but given that that rule hasn't come up before the Rules 
Committee yet, this and the 1 minutes and the sit-ins are, really, the 
only alternatives that are left to what I believe to be a majority of 
this body that cares a lot about keeping weapons out of the hands of 
terrorists.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson), a leader on the issue to reduce gun violence.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I 
associate myself with his remarks.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my colleague from Georgia that the 
disappointment that you had before the Fourth of July break pales in 
comparison to the disappointment of the families in the State of 
Connecticut and of the families all across this Nation who have 
witnessed firsthand devastation that defies comprehension and 
definition. It is that palpable feeling and their frustration for 
people who are sworn to serve the constituents they represent and to be 
denied even a vote.
  As for the bill for which this rule is currently being discussed, I 
agree with what Mr. Polis had to say, but I would say this: At least 
you are getting a vote.
  Paul Ryan has said--and I have great respect for our Speaker--``we 
will not duck the tough issues. We will take them head on . . . We 
should not hide our disagreements. We should embrace them. We have 
nothing to fear from honest disagreements honestly stated,'' except we 
don't ever get to state them because there is never a bill that comes 
before the floor.
  John Lewis and I had a candid discussion with the Speaker last night 
at the Speaker's invitation. The Speaker is an honorable man, and his 
respect for John Lewis and for John Lewis' explanation in talking about 
why we are here and why people are gathering outside of this building 
on a daily basis and throughout the social media, I think, is 
indicative to what is happening here in our call for a vote.
  Later today, on a rule and on a bill that Tim Murphy is putting 
forth, the Speaker said: Geez, I hope we can all come together on that.
  We went back to our caucus and to our people, and they all said: We 
understand the importance and magnitude of that bill. We understand the 
work that has gone into it.
  We will work and participate even in the midst of strong disagreement 
and differences because of the respect for the institution and also the 
work that went into that. We just ask that you respect our concerns, 
and, more importantly than our concerns, the concerns of hundreds of 
thousands of constituents all across the country who are asking for one 
simple thing: the responsibility, and then the dignity that comes from 
a vote. It doesn't matter where we sit in the final analysis. It 
matters where Congress stands, and we need to stand up and be counted.
  As has been said, the gentleman from Georgia is an eloquent debater. 
I have great respect for people on the other side of the aisle. It is 
now long overdue that we have an honest debate, whether we disagree or 
not, and to honestly state them.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to tell my friend from Connecticut how much I appreciate his comments. 
You don't solve big issues by fussing at each other on TV. You solve 
big issues by sitting down with each other and talking about them. I 
appreciate the gentleman's accepting the Speaker's invitation. It was 
an earnest effort to try to find a pathway forward. I am proud to serve 
in a House that is led by someone who is committed to finding pathways 
forward and to doing them in the collaborative way that the gentleman 
from Connecticut described.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Deutch).
  Mr. DEUTCH. I thank my friend from Colorado.
  Mr. Speaker, I would, respectfully, tell my friend from Georgia that 
preventing guns from falling into the hands of suspected terrorists is 
a big issue, but it is a small issue for us to address. It is very 
straightforward. I oppose the rule today because I find it hard to 
believe, given the threat of suspected terrorists' buying guns, that, 
rather than debating that, we are debating a bill about eliminating 
pornography from our agencies. That is the priority.
  America is watching. What is this House going to do in response to 
the continued threat of gun violence?
  Last month, in my home State of Florida, we suffered the worst mass 
shooting in our Nation's history. We shut down the House to demand a 
vote on legislation that will make our communities safer. Now, this 
week, we have a proposal before us that looks like it was blessed by 
the gun lobby. The fact is that gun companies have had their way in 
Washington for too long, and it is about time that we put the safety of 
the American people first.
  This morning, I met with my constituent Kate Ranta and joined her on 
the Capitol steps. She is a brave survivor of gun violence. Her words 
that she shared on the Capitol steps deserve to be heard in the 
people's House; so I will share them.
  ``I am far too familiar with the dangerous and deadly relationship 
between guns and violence against women in America.
  ``Three-and-a-half years ago, my estranged husband stalked me to my 
apartment, an address I had not given him.

                              {time}  1330

  ``He shot through the door with a 9-millimeter handgun. My father and 
I were standing behind that door pushing against it. My son was 
standing directly behind us and the bullets flew through the door.
  ``My father and I were both shot in front of my son when he was only 
4 years old. He screamed, `Don't do it, daddy. Don't shoot mommy.'
  ``He then watched me crawl in my own blood and begged for my life. He 
was only 4.''
  Kate's domestic abuser shouldn't have been able to get a gun, but our

[[Page H4299]]

broken and disjointed laws just don't work.
  Thirty-two States don't require background checks on all gun 
transfers. Those who we know are dangerous, those we know who want to 
hurt their own family, the presence of a gun, Mr. Speaker, in a 
domestic violence situation makes it five times more likely that the 
woman will be killed.
  Our broken gun laws make it as easy as a mouse click to get a handgun 
or a rifle with a 30-round magazine. Or they can go to one of the 
estimated 2,000 gun shows held every year in America. They can get 
these guns with no questions asked. We must close these loopholes.
  Kate won't stop speaking out for her family and for others like hers. 
I won't stop speaking out for them. We have to have a vote to close the 
background check loophole.
  I also value the way this body works. I value debate. But it is not 
debatable. It is not debatable that if you buy a gun in a gun store and 
have to have a background check that you shouldn't have to have the 
same check if you buy it at a gun show or if you buy it online. It is 
not debatable. It is not debatable that suspected terrorists shouldn't 
be able to buy guns.
  Let's move forward and do the right thing for the American people.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from the 
great State of Arizona (Mr. Gallego).
  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the previous 
question so that the House can consider legislation to close an 
outrageous legal loophole that allows known terrorists to purchase 
deadly weapons.
  Mr. Speaker, I am a United States Marine. I carried an M16A4 in Iraq, 
and I know something about firearms. I know that marines go into battle 
armed with these weapons because they are an effective tool for killing 
people.
  I know that military-style weapons fire rounds at velocities 
exceeding 3,000 feet per second. And as a surgeon in Orlando said, 
``the bullets have more energy to them--more speed--so they cause more 
tissue injury.'' I know that causing more tissue injury is the very 
point of these weapons.
  I know that high-capacity magazines enable shooters to kill more 
people before law enforcement can stop them. I also know that these 
magazines have no useful purpose for hunting or for sports shooting.
  I know that, despite all of this, House Republicans oppose keeping 
assault rifles and high-capacity magazines off our streets. Incredibly, 
they even oppose legislation that would prevent terrorists who want to 
kill Americans from purchasing military-style weapons.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, I know that it is shameful and horrifying that 
children in America today conduct active-shooter drills in their 
classrooms. I know it is shameful and horrifying that, in the wake of 
Orlando, some of our LGBT brothers and sisters still live in fear in 
the 21st century. And I know that it's within our power to stop the 
carnage in our communities by passing commonsense gun violence 
legislation.
  Let's defeat the previous question, and let's finally get serious 
about ending the epidemic of gun violence in America.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  We are going to have an opportunity to vote on this rule here in 
about 15 minutes. And when we dispose of this rule and then we bring up 
the underlying bill and then we vote on that underlying bill, we are 
going to make a difference on the one issue that is before us today.
  I do hope that we will be back in here to have more of a 
conversation. I regret that we didn't start that conversation sooner. I 
regret that when Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the 
Presidency, they did not solve the challenge of violence in this 
country. And I regret that when the Democrats controlled everything in 
this Nation--the House, the Senate, and the White House--they did not 
solve the challenge of violence in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, if it were easy, we would have done it before. But I am 
absolutely certain of one thing, and that is that the solution is going 
to be found with earnest discussion, not shrill recriminations. Of 
that, I can be sure.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) 
that I don't think anybody is saying that this will somehow solve the 
issue of violence in this country. We all know that is a complicated 
issue. There are economic factors. There are social factors. But it 
should be common sense that terrorists shouldn't be able to assemble 
arsenals to commit acts of mass violence against our fellow Americans.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thompson).
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, I am going to vote against 
the previous question today so we can bring up amendments that will 
address the issue of gun violence prevention in our country.
  Eighty-five percent of Americans believe that we should pass the no 
fly, no buy bill. Ninety percent of Americans believe that we should 
expand and enhance background checks for those folks who are trying to 
buy guns. And we have a perfect opportunity to do it.
  There are two bills in the House, both of them bipartisan, that 
address these two issues. Both of them are bipartisan. Both of them are 
pro Second Amendment. Both bills help keep guns away from criminals, 
terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill.
  Earlier today, some 300 victims and survivors of gun violence 
assembled outside. I listened to what they had to say.
  Later, I met with one of the women, one of the victims, Catherine 
Bodine from Ohio. She was wounded, and her 10-year-old daughter, 
Samantha, was killed.
  The murderer was a felon. He could not pass a background check, could 
not go to a licensed gun dealer and buy a gun. So instead he went 
online, and he bought a gun online. He wounded this woman, and he 
killed her 10-year-old daughter, Samantha.
  We should do everything we can to prevent those sorts of tragedies 
from happening, and we have a chance to do it with the two bills that 
are in this House. The background check bill, the bill that would have 
prevented this murderer from buying a gun online, is not only 
bipartisan, it is not only pro Second Amendment, it has 186 bipartisan 
coauthors.
  This is easy to do. This isn't a heavy lift. Bring the bill to the 
floor for a vote. Let America see us do our work. Let the 
Representatives of the American people have a vote on a background 
check bill that will, in fact, save lives.

  We know that background checks save lives. Every day, 170 felons are 
prohibited from buying guns through licensed dealers because of 
background checks. Every day, 50 domestic abusers are prohibited from 
buying guns through licensed dealers because of background checks.
  Why not expand it to include all commercial sales of firearms, not 
just 60 percent of the commercial sale of firearms? This makes sense. 
It is bipartisan. It is pro Second Amendment, and it will save lives. 
It works. We know it works. It will stop criminals. It will stop 
terrorists, and it will stop the dangerously mentally ill. It will make 
it much more difficult for them to get guns.
  Will it stop all violence? No. Nothing can do that, but this is our 
first line of defense. This is something that this Congress can do that 
will save lives.
  Please bring these bills for a vote.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would ask my friend from Colorado (Mr. 
Polis) if he has any further speakers remaining.
  Mr. POLIS. We have a lot of speakers, hundreds of them. As much time 
as you want to give us, we will be happy to use.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time so those 
speakers can continue.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I am on the floor today to urge our 
Republican colleagues to allow the two bills that have been spoken of 
over and over and over and over again to be brought to the floor. You 
know the statistics.
  Abraham Lincoln said that the sentiment of the American people is 
everything. The sentiment of the American

[[Page H4300]]

people has been expressed. There is over 90 percent support for one 
bill and 85 percent support for the other.
  We all know that our top responsibility as Members of Congress is the 
security of our country and its people. This is a national security 
issue. This is a national security issue.
  No one in my district can believe that we would allow someone that 
the FBI has placed on their terrorist list to be able to go out and 
purchase weapons. This simply doesn't make any sense. The American 
people are worthy of so much more.
  The other bill, the background check, Mr. Thompson gave a magnificent 
description of that.
  You know, above the Speaker's chair, it says, ``In God we trust''--
``In God we trust.'' Do you think for a moment that God is proud of 
where we are and what we are not doing?
  Members gather here, and they have moments of silence, moments of 
silence, thoughts and prayers. You know what? Maybe we should gather 
and pray for ourselves that God will give every single Member of this 
House the courage to stand up and to do the right thing for our country 
and to lessen this devastating violence that is taking and claiming too 
many lives of the American people.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to share with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) that I don't 
know how things work on the other side of the aisle, but I will tell 
you, at every Republican Conference meeting we have, we open it in 
prayer. We pray for ourselves; we pray for you; we pray for this 
Chamber; and we pray for the President of the United States. I think 
that is time well spent, and I am glad that we still open this House in 
prayer every day of the week.
  Again, there is more that we can accomplish beginning on that 
foundation of those things that unite us than we can on those 
foundations of things that divide us.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Ted Lieu).
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to respectfully 
request that my constituents and your constituents receive the dignity 
of having their Member of Congress cast a vote on gun safety 
legislation, specifically, on background checks and making sure that 
terrorists don't buy guns.
  I served on Active Duty in the U.S. Military. I am still in the 
Reserves. I fired guns. I have taken them apart, cleaned them, and put 
them back together. I have two marksmanship awards from the United 
States Air Force, and I know how lethal these weapons are, which is why 
we need gun safety legislation.
  Every day, 297 people are shot. That means that in the next 5 
minutes, someone else will be shot. Who will that be? Will it be a 
child? Will it be someone that you know?
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POLIS. Mr. Speaker, we have many more speakers, but we are out of 
time. I yield myself the balance of my time to close.
  Jonathan Blunk, A.J. Boik, Air Force Staff Sergeant Jesse Childress, 
Gordon Cowden, Jessica Ghawi, Navy Petty Officer Third Class John 
Thomas Larimer, Matt McQuinn, Micayla Medek, Veronica Moser-Sullivan, 
Alex Sullivan, Alex Teves, Rebecca Wingo, those are the victims of the 
Aurora shooting.
  Jennifer Markovsky, Ke'Arre M. Stewart, Garrett A. Swasey, those are 
the victims of the recent shooting at the healthcare clinic in Colorado 
Springs.
  It is time for action. As we stand here today, we are still reeling 
from the deadliest mass shooting in our country's history at the Pulse 
nightclub in Orlando, targeted against the gay community.
  It is time for action. It is our duty in Congress, our moral duty as 
parents, sisters, brothers, husbands, and wives to protect our fellow 
Americans. We can do that and protect the Second Amendment. We can and 
must do both.
  Vote ``no'' on this rule and the underlying bill. Demand the 
leadership of this House bring up the bipartisan background check bill 
and the no fly, no buy bill to prevent terrorists from assembling 
arsenals to kill our fellow Americans.
  Personal liberties and public safety are not mutually exclusive. We 
can protect both.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I love serving on the Committee on Rules. We are the last committee 
to touch every piece of legislation before it comes to this House. It 
gives us a chance to perfect some of that legislation, but it also 
gives us a chance to work through the rules of the House.
  There are some things that people think are glorious and glamorous 
about being a United States Congressman, Mr. Speaker, and I wish 
someone would send me a list of those things from time to time. I will 
tell you one thing that is not particularly glamorous, and that is 
sorting through Jefferson's Manual of procedure here. What is not 
particularly glamorous is reading the House rules. But if one were to 
do those things, Mr. Speaker, if one were to do those things, what one 
would find is that any Member of this Chamber can bring up any bill 
they wish to bring up if they can get a majority of the House to agree 
with them to do it. Not the majority of the House, Mr. Speaker, but a 
majority of the House.
  I am going to say that again. Any Member of this Chamber can bring up 
any bill in this House if only they go out and do the work of finding 
218 votes to agree with them.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it sounds like a lot of heavy lifting to get 218 
votes to agree with you, but it turns out, if you can't get 218 votes 
to agree with you to bring it up, you can't get 218 votes to agree with 
you to pass it, so you can't move the legislation anyway.
  We heard testimony from the other side about the outreach that our 
Speaker, Paul Ryan, is doing to try to bring together the sides of this 
House, and I love him for that. But we have also heard it suggested 
that the majority is using its majority to silence voices in this 
House--and it can't be done. It can't be done. If you have 218 votes, 
you can do anything you want in this institution, and if you don't have 
the 218 votes, you can't do anything at all.
  Time and time again, Mr. Speaker, we have seen this Chamber moved 
from the filing of a discharge petition, the gathering of 218 votes, 
and this House coming together to move issues forward. There is no 
shortage of avenues for a Member of Congress to have their voice heard. 
What there is a shortage of sometimes is finding the folks who want to 
do the hard work to make it happen because, I promise you, Mr. Speaker, 
it is easier to come down here on the floor of the House and make a 
speech than it is to go door to door and gather 218 votes to move a 
priority of mine. It is hard. It is hard.
  Now, we have done that on the underlying bill, brought together 
different pieces of legislation designed to make incremental changes to 
provide taxpayers more bang for their buck and civil servants more 
tools at their disposal. We did it because agency heads who were trying 
to implement procedures in the name of national security were stymied. 
We did it because Federal employees, when surveyed, said they feel like 
they are surrounded by underperformers, and folks can't get rid of 
those underperformers in a capable and efficient way. We are responding 
to those changes.
  When folks came to the Committee on Rules and said: We know how to do 
it better--and by ``folks,'' Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear, I am 
not talking about Republican folks. I am talking about Republicans, 
Democrats, every Member of this Chamber who came to the Committee on 
Rules and said: I have a plan to do it better. We said: Bring your 
amendment to the floor of the House, and let's have a vote. Bring your 
amendment to the floor of the House, and let's have a vote.
  Do not let someone tell you that when Paul Ryan is trying to run an 
open facility that it is not happening right here in this Chamber. It 
is happening here today, and it happens over and over and over again. 
Every Member who does the hard work and the heavy lifting to craft an 
idea--not to craft a speech, Mr. Speaker, but to craft an amendment, 
not to come down here and make a point, but to come down

[[Page H4301]]

here and make a difference. Every single Member who said: I have a 
difference that I can make on this legislation, the Committee on Rules 
said: Bring your amendment to the floor, and we will have a vote.
  Let's succeed together on the little things, Mr. Speaker. If the hard 
things were easy, we would have done them already. The hard things are 
hard, and that is the problem. Let's get together on these things that 
are common sense. Let's get together on these things that bring us 
together. Let's get together on these things where every single voice 
in the Chamber is being heard. Let's succeed, let's make a difference, 
and then let's come back tomorrow and do it again.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Polis is as follows:

            An Amendment to H. Res. 803 Offered by Mr. Polis

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. 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. 4. 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. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Graves of Louisiana). 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. POLIS. 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.

                          ____________________