[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4460-H4464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Buck). Pursuant to House Resolution 794 
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill, H.R. 5485.
  Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  0005


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further 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, with Mr. Donovan (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today, 
amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 114-639 offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) had been disposed of.


               Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  Each amount made available by this Act that is 
     not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available 
     by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 1 percent. In the 
     preceding sentence, the term ``this Act'' includes titles IV 
     and VIII.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control 
5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I know especially our ranking member 
has been looking so forward to having this amendment come to the floor 
tonight because we have such great, robust discussions every year when 
I bring this amendment forward. It is calling for a 1 percent across-
the-board reduction in the spending that is allowed through this 
appropriations bill.
  The reason I continue each year to move forward with presenting these 
is because across-the-board spending reductions work. It is a way that 
you hold the entire agency accountable for making those reductions. It 
is a way

[[Page H4461]]

that you say: No, you are not going to be able to reposition money that 
maybe was for one thing and you really want to spend it on another.
  This is money that goes back. You are not going to spend it because 
the taxpayers continue to tell us they are overtaxed, that government 
has overspent. And we are piling on the debt every single year. Quite 
frankly, the American people are tired of it.
  I can tell you that, as our millennials come of age and look at 
government spending, they are, indeed, tired of it. They feel like it 
is time for this House to get back into good fiscal shape, to get to 
fiscal health.
  Now, I commend the committee for the work they have done. It is $21.7 
billion base that is in this bill. It is $2.7 billion below the 
President's request. It is $1.5 billion below the enacted 2016 level.
  This is work that is to be commended, but I really believe there is 
more that needs to be done. The spending reduction of 1 percent across 
the board is turning to our Federal employees, rank-and-file employees, 
and saying: Help us with this. Be a part of the team. Let's push back 
to fiscal health. It will save us $217 million.
  This is something we should accept the challenge on. So should our 
Federal agencies. We should do this for our children and our 
grandchildren.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  0010

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the 
gentlewoman's amendment, my good friend from Tennessee.
  I appreciate her concern for the out-of-control spending that goes on 
in Washington. I think a lot of people are concerned about that. The 
problem is that she has got the wrong approach. She pointed out very 
clearly that we have already reduced the spending in this bill by 6.5 
percent. We oversee and fund about 20 different agencies, and we have 
said we are going to reduce the overall spending by $1.5 billion, 6.5 
percent.
  But when you do an across-the-board cut, you lose sight of the fact 
that some programs are actually working well and others are wasting 
money. And we did that. That is what the appropriations process is 
about. We have eight different full hearings. We have 1,800 Member 
requests from both sides of the aisle.
  While we reduce spending overall, we have some good programs that I 
think my good friend probably really doesn't want to cut. For instance, 
we have something called the Small Business Administration. That is an 
agency that helps small businesses finance their next big deal, and we 
increased the spending for SBA because they are the ones that create 
jobs. They are the ones that grow the economy. They have programs that 
help women-owned businesses, and I don't think she really wants to cut 
them because they are doing the job they ought to do.
  You have got other things like HIDTA. You hear people talk about 
that, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This is a combination 
of the Federal and the State and local government. They all work 
together to stop this epidemic of drugs. Opiates, we have got more 
people dying from heroin overdose than we have 4 straight years. Those 
are programs that we added money to while we reduced the spending 
overall.
  When you cut across the board, you treat all the agencies just alike. 
Her amendment would treat the IRS just like the SBA, and, obviously, 
they are different, because one of the things we do, we reduced 
spending heavily with the IRS. We cut them $236 million.
  So that is the right approach. This appropriations subcommittee has 
taken that approach. We have looked hard. The programs that work, we 
fund them, give them additional money; programs that don't work, that 
waste money, we cut them. So that is the way you do it.
  We have done it here well, so I am going to have to reluctantly ask 
everyone to actually oppose this wonderful amendment that my good 
friend has brought. It is just a little misguided.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of thoughts there.
  Across-the-board reductions work. This is what we see our States use. 
Indeed, in Oklahoma, one of our former colleagues who is the Governor 
there, December, 3 percent cut, came back in March, 4 percent across-
the-board cut because everyone has some skin in the game.
  Of course, there are good programs like the Small Business 
Administration, absolutely, good programs there. But I guarantee you, 
if you challenge those employees, yes, they can find a penny out of a 
dollar, absolutely. They can, just like their friends and colleagues at 
the State level or at local levels. They can do that. They can find the 
savings. And they need the opportunity to participate in getting our 
national debt under control and ending these annual deficits.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time I have 
left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano), the ranking member.
  Mr. SERRANO. I join you, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this 
amendment.
  With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I think she hasn't read this 
particular committee's bill over the last few years. It has been cut 
and cut and cut and cut.
  If I was going to give cutting budgets high marks, I would have to 
say the Republicans have done a great job because they have cut and 
they have cut and they have cut. So I don't see the purpose of across-
the-board cuts being more effective than the cuts that are taking place 
now--if cuts are, indeed, effective. I think they are not. I think they 
hurt agencies. I think they hurt programs. I think they hurt the 
ability to propose changes and to make our economy grow.
  But if you think that they are good, then just look at the percentage 
cuts that this committee has taken. Where else could we cut from? We 
have got agencies where we have practically destroyed their ability to 
do their work, and now we want an across-the-board cut. Across-the-
board cuts simply sound good, but they don't propose anything.
  What we need to do is really try to get back to regular order, to try 
to make the Appropriations Committee what it used to be, a committee 
that appropriated and not a committee that cuts. That is all we do now: 
we cut and we cut and we cut.
  Somewhere along the line, it is going to hurt us because somewhere in 
this country, right now, in another time zone, there is a young man or 
young woman, or both, working with lab coats on, trying to find a cure 
for some disease, trying to deal with the Zika virus, and yet we keep 
cutting and cutting and cutting.
  So across the board sounds good. Across the board is a big mistake. 
It should be defeated.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague across the 
aisle that it was individuals from his party over in the Senate that 
chose not to handle the Zika funding last week. That is very 
unfortunate. Zika is something that is going to be such a challenge for 
families and individuals during our time, and I find those actions to 
be most unfortunate.

  Another thing that I would like to say, not to see the purpose in 
spending reductions, we have $19 trillion worth of debt. If we are 
going to spend over $3 trillion this year, you want to tell me that we 
don't need to be making some spending reductions?
  There is $21.7 billion worth of spending here, so the Appropriations 
Committee is appropriating money. Many times it is money we don't have. 
It is money taxpayers do not have in their pockets. And we have 
children and grandchildren today who are paying for programs that they 
do not want, programs that we do not need, that have outlived their 
usefulness, programs that could be more efficient with utilization of 
new technologies.
  Should we be reducing what we spend and right-sizing government and 
getting Federal agencies off the back and out of the pocketbook of the 
American taxpayer? You better believe we ought

[[Page H4462]]

to be doing that. And if it means another penny out of a dollar, 
absolutely, absolutely, make another reduction.
  Challenge employees to come to the table with their best ideas. It is 
the way Governors do it, the way mayors do it. It is the way this House 
should do it. I encourage support.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, why not 2 percent? Why not 5 percent? Why 
not another 10 percent?
  The point is, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has done its job. It 
has reduced spending, 6.5 percent cut. We take the IRS back to what 
they were funded in 2008. We have done our job, and good programs 
receive more money. We ought not to be cutting them.
  So I appreciate her interest in controlling spending, and I guess she 
would compliment us for the work that we have done and, therefore, we 
don't need the amendment that she has offered. So I urge everyone to 
vote ``no'' and reject that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee 
will be postponed.

                              {time}  0020


                  Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Buck

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 23 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to pay the salary of the Commissioner of Internal 
     Revenue, during the period beginning on the date of enactment 
     of this Act and ending on January 20, 2017, at a rate of pay 
     greater than a pro rated annual rate of pay of $0.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because of the serious 
mistakes by the IRS.
  The IRS targeted political groups just because they disagreed with 
the groups' political beliefs, a practice that is patently un-American. 
But the problems with the IRS didn't just stop with the discrimination. 
The IRS destroyed evidence that Congress requested, by subpoena, for a 
congressional investigation into the discrimination issue. This action 
was, at the very least, incompetent and unethical.
  The IRS is out of control, a problem that ultimately rests with 
President Obama; but the President has been unwilling to work with 
Congress on this issue. Because of his unwillingness to address these 
serious ethical violations at the Nation's tax collection service, 
Congress must take immediate action to eliminate the position of IRS 
Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed by the President and serves 
at the pleasure of the President. Unfortunately, we simply cannot trust 
anyone that President Obama appoints in that position.
  Under this amendment, the salary for the IRS Commissioner will not be 
restored until January 20, 2017, when the next President can appoint a 
commissioner the American people can trust.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It would cut the 
pay of the IRS Commissioner down to zero. I thought that this was what 
the Republicans wanted to do to the whole Federal budget, but I guess 
this is a start.
  This is nothing more than a political cheap shot. I am sure there are 
those out there who think that Members of Congress should be paid 
nothing or next to nothing, and so this could start a trend.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I think people 
should realize that this is really the worst kind of statement 
possible.
  How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
  Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, it is not too often I come to the floor to 
oppose an amendment, especially at this late hour; but when I was sworn 
in as a Member of Congress, I took an oath to defend and uphold the 
Constitution. I have grave concerns that this amendment is 
unconstitutional.
  The U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the Federal Government from 
enacting what are known as bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a 
law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an 
identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a 
judicial trial.
  Courts use two main criteria to determine whether legislation is a 
bill of attainder: one, whether specific individuals are affected; and, 
two, whether legislation inflicts punishment.
  Clearly, the specific prong is met here: this amendment punitively 
targets a specific individual--the IRS Commissioner. The Supreme Court 
has held that targeting specific employees for reduction in pay is 
punishment. Specifically, in United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court 
held that a provision in an appropriations bill which cut off the pay 
of certain named government employees was punishment and struck down 
that provision as unconstitutional.
  Under this precedent, punitively targeting the IRS Commissioner in an 
appropriations law by reducing his pay is an unconstitutional act.
  Some might claim that because the IRS Commissioner is appointed, the 
precedent is somehow not applicable. To the contrary, in Lovett, the 
three government employees who had their pay cut were, in fact, 
political appointees.
  Others might claim that because it names an office rather than an 
individual, it will somehow pass a constitutional test. This is a 
distinction without a difference. There is only one Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue. He is readily ascertainable.
  My fellow colleagues, this is not about whether you believe the IRS 
Commissioner has done a good job or whether you believe he has 
committed an impeachable or censurable offense. This is a separate 
question, and this should be dealt with in a separate process.
  This is not about defending the IRS Commissioner. This is about 
defending the United States Constitution. We should uphold our oaths, 
and we should defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BUCK. May I inquire how much time do I have remaining, Mr. 
Chairman?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 4 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BUCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I 
just want to come here to praise what he is doing because I think this 
amendment is not only constitutional, I think it is common sense.
  I would say that at three different levels. I would say first it is 
about accountability in government. One of the reasons that people back 
home have told me they like the Trump candidacy is because they believe 
he would actually fire people in Washington, D.C., something that 
doesn't ever seem to happen. Whether you like the Trump candidacy or 
not, this notion of something other than an endless trail of words 
being the only measure of accountability in Washington, D.C., is

[[Page H4463]]

something that, indeed, makes common sense to most regular folks that I 
talk to back at home.

  Two, I think this is about common sense in affirming Congress' power 
of the purse. In fact, the only real power that Congress has is the 
power of the purse, not ultimately for the executive branch or the 
judicial branch to decide, but for Congress to decide what do we fund, 
when do we fund it, and how much do we fund it by?
  Finally, this is about common sense in reasserting authority with 
regard to Article I, section 9, clause 7. People talk about too much in 
the way of executive overreach. They are weary of it.
  What article I says there is that ``No money shall be drawn from the 
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
  What I think is interesting--with due respect to my colleague from 
the Midwest in what he just raised--is I am sure that he voted to 
defund Planned Parenthood, and I am sure he voted to defund ACORN. I 
have raised amendments that would, for instance, defund the Alaska 
regional commission where there is one employee.
  Congress has that power to go out and say that this does or doesn't 
make sense, whether there are one, 50, or 500 employees at a given 
locality. If we lose that right, we lose real jurisdiction in moving 
forward within the three-branch system of government. So I think that 
this is both constitutional and common sense. I think it is important 
that we assert this authority.
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on the amendment.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, despite what my colleague from Ohio contends, 
this amendment comports the ruling of the United States v. Lovett, a 
1946 Supreme Court case dealing with a bill of attainder. The 
guidelines in Lovett, this amendment singles out no individuals, but, 
rather, attempts to restructure the managerial level of a government 
agency, a task well within Congress' power of the purse. This task is 
necessary because the position has proven especially wasteful over the 
past few years, failing to rein in abuse within the agency that led to 
congressional investigations.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First of all, I want to apologize to Mr. Renacci for wrecking his 
name. It has happened to me a lot of times.
  Secondly, I am not a lawyer, but what the gentleman said made a lot 
of sense to me. I wonder--I wonder--if what applies to us could, in 
front of some judge with some good lawyers around, also apply to this 
agency.
  We can't raise or reduce our salary during one period or during one 
congressional period. We have to do it for the next Congress. We can't 
do it for ourselves. I wonder if someone could rule that you can't just 
lower the salary of the commissioner to zero during the term of that 
commissioner.
  Now, here is the other thing. We know that the argument is being made 
that it is a reduction to the agency, to bring the director of the 
agency, whoever he is, to zero. But there is nobody silly enough here 
to think that it is not directed at one person, and that is really very 
silly to just direct at one person and to start this trend of having 
zero as a salary.

                              {time}  0030

  There is only one person in this country right now that is running 
for something that can afford not to get paid, and he will probably get 
paid.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado 
will be postponed.
  The Chair understands that amendment No. 24 will not be offered.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas 
(Mr. Crawford).
  Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I would like to use this time to engage in a colloquy with my friend, 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
  Instead of moving forward with my amendment, as I had intended, that 
would enable our agriculture producers to sell products to Cuba on 
credit for the next fiscal year, we have agreed to work together and 
find a long-term solution that will work for our agriculture producers 
over time.
  Until today, there seemed to be no path forward for an agreement, but 
I have gotten commitments from the leadership and my friends from 
Florida that there will be a proper path forward. We have agreed to 
find a solution that does a number of things:
  Supports a long-term solution for our agriculture producers to sell 
commodities to Cuban buyers by eliminating restrictions in current law 
that weaken our producers' competitiveness;
  Lists a number of the impediments, a cash restriction being one of 
those, a cash requirement for purchases;
  Support for the thorough examination of the Cuban market potential 
for agriculture producers through a deliberative process across each 
relevant committee of jurisdiction; and
  Examines other long-term solutions that enable the United States to 
expand market access to the Cuban people.
  At a time when net farm income has dropped by more than 55 percent, 
it is critical that we work together to find ways to make this work on 
a long-term basis because there is no easy fix. Our producers are ready 
to sell products to the 11 million people in Cuba that represent a 
market value in excess of $1 billion a year.
  I thank the hard work and efforts of the agriculture, business, 
humanitarian, and religious organizations in supporting this amendment. 
I look forward to working with my colleagues from Florida, the 
committee chairs, the leadership, and the Agriculture Committee on a 
solution we can all agree on.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
  Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I understand how important this issue 
is for the gentleman from Arkansas and for his constituents and salute 
him for his efforts.
  As we all know, our farmers are some of the most patriotic Americans. 
I believe we should do everything we can to help them sell American 
agricultural products throughout the world. But we cannot, at the same 
time, help a Communist regime that harbors and supports terrorists and 
fugitives from U.S. law, the largest confiscator of U.S. property in 
history, fails to pay its debt, is one of the worst violators of human 
rights and religious freedom in the Western Hemisphere, is a top 
counterintelligence threat to the United States and a threat to 
democracy in Latin America.
  I commit to my friend that I will sit down with him, along with my 
colleagues Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Curbelo, to come up with a solution 
that meets the needs of the farmers that we all represent but does not 
endanger our national security or support the Castro regime, its 
military, or intelligence services.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


                Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Davidson

  The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25 
printed in House Report 114-639.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the 
     following new section:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be 
     used to change Selective Service System registration 
     requirements in contravention of section 3 of the Military 
     Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3802).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman

[[Page H4464]]

from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Congress, in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, has the power 
to raise and regulate armies. That relates to the Selective Service 
System. We have decided to use the Selective Service System to register 
men for the draft for many years now.
  During the course of this year, there has been discussion here in 
Washington about requiring women to register for the draft. Many 
families back home aren't aware of this, and especially many young 
women aren't aware of this, Mr. Chairman.
  I am asking that no funds from this appropriation be used for the 
Selective Service System to modify the current requirements. The 
purpose of that would be to let Congress do our job--to go back home 
and talk to our families and talk to our young women, listen to them, 
and come back here. If we are going to modify the Selective Service 
System, we do that with purpose and intent and we do that here in 
Congress. We don't let the administration or yet another executive 
agency decide something of their own accord or yet let the courts reach 
in.
  We should be clear in our intent to the courts that we don't need 
them or want them to come in and decide the rule. It is ripe for that 
unless we act.
  In Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, the Supreme Court upheld that the 
Selective Service registration for men was, in fact, constitutional and 
not discriminatory, primarily because it was to register for combat. At 
that time, Congress had made it clear that women were not permitted to 
be in certain combat roles. Since 2013, that has no longer been the 
case, so it is ripe for the courts to reach in as well.
  As Congress, we really need to act. My intent by asking that none of 
these funds be used by the Selective Service System to modify the 
current rule is that it would give us time to talk with our families, 
talk with young women, and then take a more considered action. It does 
not prevent anything that is being discussed in the Armed Services 
Committee or in our military, women being in any type of role. It 
doesn't take a position on any of that. It doesn't take a position on 
the future of the Selective Service. It just says let's not change it 
right now, and let's make sure that Congress takes action on it.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this may come to be known as the ``just in 
case bill'' because it takes out something that doesn't exist anywhere 
in a House bill. That is why I am opposed to this amendment.
  First, this is a policy issue that should be left to the Armed 
Services Committees.
  As you know, the Senate version of the FY 2017 National Defense 
Authorization Act included a change to military policy that would, for 
the first time, require young women to register for the draft.
  Defense Department leaders have already backed the idea of adding 
women to the draft, while emphasizing they do not see any scenario 
where a draft will actually happen.
  For the Record, no Americans have been pressed into involuntary 
service since the last draft ended in 1973.
  Furthermore, lawmakers have also included in the legislative language 
requiring a full review of the Selective Service System and possible 
``alternatives'' to the current system.
  I believe, since the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women in 
combat roles, every American who is physically qualified should 
register for the draft or we should do away with it.
  I urge all Members to vote their beliefs on this issue. That is the 
proper way.
  Republican leadership did not allow this to be a vote on the defense 
bill. Now Members have a chance to deal with this issue and be on the 
record if they support Selective Service allowing women to be part of 
the draft.
  Now, we know that this is a touchy issue. We know that there are 
differing thoughts and this is very emotional, but some of us would say 
that this is a very fair issue. If we are going to register people, 
knowing there is no draft in place at this point, then let everyone be 
registered. And to suggest that there are young ladies who are out 
there afraid of what is going to happen to them, they are in the same 
situation as young men, and young men know that there is no draft.

                              {time}  0040

  I think this is something that is sort of a what-if situation. Just 
in case you are thinking of doing this, don't do it. I don't think we 
should legislate that way. If it reaches a point at which everybody has 
to sign up, then everybody will be doing his part for the country. I 
don't see a problem right now, and we shouldn't create a problem where 
a problem does not exist.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York rightly 
pointed out, the Selective Service is under review right now in terms 
of what we shall do with it. It is in the right place. It is here in 
Congress.
  We should be doing that and not trusting the administration or the 
Selective Service System to come up with its own decrees. That is the 
concern, that there has been too much of that during the past 7-plus 
years and that families aren't looking for yet another edict to be 
decreed from Washington, D.C., and to catch them off guard. As Members 
of Congress, we don't need to go back home and have families and young 
women ask us: Where were you on this? This does give us a chance to say 
here is where we are. This bill, frankly, buys us time to do a more 
considered action.
  Why complicate things in the midst of further consideration by 
trusting the administration, which has not proven to be trustworthy on 
issuing rules and edicts, to stay the course with us? In fact, it is 
likely to not do that. The hope here is that we take the considered 
action that we will, and we should do that with the advice and consent 
of the well-informed public back home.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be 
postponed.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Crawford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Donovan, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration 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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________