Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 17 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 17 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H831-H840]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 41, PROVIDING FOR
CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 40,
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF A RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call
up House Resolution 71 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 71

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 41) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of a rule submitted
by the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to
``Disclosure of Payments by Resource Extraction Issuers''.
All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Financial Services; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 40) providing for congressional disapproval under
chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
submitted by the Social Security Administration relating to
Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of
2007. All points of order against consideration of the joint
resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled
by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
the Judiciary or their respective designees; and (2) one
motion to recommit.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania). The gentleman
from Colorado is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume.
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the
purpose of debate only.

General Leave

Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Colorado?
There was no objection.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying resolutions.
Before us is a resolution of disapproval that restores constitutional
rights and empowers individuals with disabilities. Many of us know
someone who struggles with a disability. We know friends or family who
have mental challenges. We know these people, and we know they deserve
the same constitutional protections as everyone else.
That is why this resolution is so important. It ends discrimination
against individuals with disabilities. It restores due process rights.
It keeps the Social Security Administration focused on its duty.
Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's last-minute regulation to
strip disability benefit recipients of their constitutional rights is
deeply troubling.
The regulation at hand declares that just because an individual needs
assistance in managing their disability benefits, they are also unfit
to own a firearm. But this kind of thinking is discriminatory, forcing
those with disabilities to choose between their constitutional rights
or their disability benefits turns back the clock on disability rights.
This regulation singles out a single constitutional right to strip
away from a group of Americans. It doesn't make sense.
Why take away one right and not others? Why not also strip those
citizens of the right to vote or the right to trial by jury or the
right to free speech?
In this country, your rights can't be limited without due process,
but this regulation limits a constitutional right and only offers the
recourse of appeal after the decision has been made. When it is easier
to have your rights stripped away than to have them restored, it means
your due process rights have also died in the process.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores the due process rights of
individuals with disabilities. This resolution also refocuses the
Social Security Administration. The agency's job is to administer
benefits to Americans, not adjudicate cases concerning constitutional
rights.
Mr. Speaker, I am also worried that this regulation will divert
precious Social Security Administration resources from vital agency
tasks. We trust the agency to fulfill our commitments to seniors and
those with disabilities. This regulation distracts from those sacred
promises.
I thank Mr. Johnson and my colleagues for their hard work on this
resolution. We need to pass it.
Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the joint resolution of disapproval
for the Dodd-Frank section 1504 regulation. This resolution restores
competitiveness to American energy companies. It allows American
companies to comply with foreign and domestic laws, and it protects
American workers abroad.
Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to report their
payments to our government or foreign governments related to oil,
natural gas, and mineral extraction. After reporting this to the SEC,
the agency publishes these disclosures. This process is costly and
unfair to American businesses.
By forcing disclosure of project-level sensitive business
information, American energy companies will face a disadvantage against
government-owned energy companies. Since government-owned companies
control three-quarters of the world's oil supply, this regulation could
drastically impair the competitiveness of American companies. And the
actual cost of compliance limit, estimated by the American Petroleum
Institute to take 217,000 employee hours over a 3-year period, would be
devastating.
Section 1504 must also be rolled back because it might force American
companies to break the law of foreign countries. Some foreign nations
prohibit the very disclosure requirements

[[Page H832]]

required by this SEC regulation. Our companies should not have to
decide between following the rule of law here and following it abroad.
Finally, by forcing such detailed and specific disclosures to the
public, section 1504 could make energy extraction sites prime targets
for terrorists. Whether in the U.S. or abroad, we need to wisely
protect American workers from terrorism and other threats.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores competitiveness to American
companies, allowing them to contribute to the global energy economy in
a safe, secure, and legal manner.
It is time for Congress to reassert its authority and fix this poorly
implemented legislation.
I commend the work done by Representative Huizenga and my colleagues
on this important resolution, and I urge its passage.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for
extending me the customary 30 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have
another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the
kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no
nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway.

This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the
greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is
shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are
traveling down, Mr. Speaker.
The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already
ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has
become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down
the process, rush bills through the House without regular order,
enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on
spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working
together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real
problems facing American families and workers.
Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are
eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people.
We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and
strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not
corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special
interests, but the people ought to come first.

{time} 1230

Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call
mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to
repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the
process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is
reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or
rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may
think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules
that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went
through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years
to complete.
They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment
period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people
weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that
we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no
markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing
way to govern.
The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with
President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own
Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was
signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump
White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies
charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were
caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and
chaos about how to carry it out.
That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is
thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad
policy.
The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this
week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new
regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No
details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they
would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to
our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The
American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I
think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House.
Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other
night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long
time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will
tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I
think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to
some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a
committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the
gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time
for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal.
Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand
what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed
to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to
understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in
this Congress. That is our job.
The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time
to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say
that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we
don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to
offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my
Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not
the way this House should be run.
So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember
that Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence
at all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do
is we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high
rate of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something
we ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a
commonsense, responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save
the lives of thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has
the responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards
that help prevent gun violence.
Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This
rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering
from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we
all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a
bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms
because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a
reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.
It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more
than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an
important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The
people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe
mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a
dangerous weapon like a gun.
I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online
gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I
think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI
and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and
think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought
not to be able to go out and buy a gun.
But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things
to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican
Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on
the House floor.
When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this,
or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House
Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says

[[Page H833]]

no to everything, says no to every idea that they don't absolutely
embrace. And that is not the way Congress should be run.
Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule,
I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a
hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to
talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have
the time. So here we are.

Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by
Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so
upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange
to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to
their natural resources.
Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be
transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but
President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the
swamp into a cesspool.
Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on
a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this,
is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back
regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and
fighting corruption.
ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new
Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this
anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is
irresponsible.
When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010,
the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress
fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in
fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The
European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as
did Canada with support of its global mining companies.
But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments
can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at
a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal
commercially sensitive information.
But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing
field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no
commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't
cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need
to do differently is report their numbers.
Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are
autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells,
gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from
their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in
league with them?
On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to
fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles
and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost
countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to
put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of
the corporate interests, and retain that important rule.
Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these
two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote
``no'' on this rule.
And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote.
This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not
a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore.
It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump
wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it.
I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected
by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts raising the issue of a
thoughtful process and whether this legislation was rushed to the
floor.
I think it is worth noting that the original legislation, which this
rule seeks to amend, became law in a time when my colleague was in the
House and his party was in the majority. The NICS Improvement
Amendments Act of 2007 was introduced in the House on June 11, 2007.
The bill was moved by Congressman Conyers under suspension of the
rules and passed by the House on June 13, 2007. There was no markup in
the Judiciary Committee. There was no meaningful debate on the floor.
The bill was rammed through the House in 3 days without any thought to
the potential consequences of its passage. It passed the Senate by
unanimous consent.
I did not see others standing up to leadership at that point in time.
In its implementation, we are seeing the consequences. They involve the
stripping away of constitutional rights and due process rights. They
involve the elimination of due process rights. They involve
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
As for the point that this rule that we are now debating somehow
encourages corruption, the fact is that this regulation puts U.S.
companies at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned entities abroad
that are not subject to SEC regulation.
Additionally, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance
costs for U.S. businesses. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act already
prohibits bribes to foreign governments to obtain or retain business.
These are legitimate payments being made to foreign governments, the
payments that we are discussing here, and we should still prosecute any
corruption to the full extent of the law.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of
history than the gentleman does, including one that represents a
bipartisan compromise with the Bush White House.
So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does
on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is
all about giving Big Oil what they want.

At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the
repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we
believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and
vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for
itself.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous
question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to
bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President
Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order
banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain
countries.
President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's
values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist
groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be
overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up
legislation to do just that.
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 Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.
Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this
previous question so that the bill to overturn President Trump's ill-
advised ban on travel can be addressed.

{time} 1245

There has been a lot of dustup and discussion about this, but,
really, if you read the order, it is very clear what it does. It
suspends entry for 90 days of all immigrants--that is green card
holders--and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. It
also suspends all refugee admission for 120 days.
Now, there has been discussion about the Middle East refugees, but if
you look at last year, most of the refugees who came in were from the
Congo and

[[Page H834]]

also from Burma. Those individuals who have suffered--they have been
tortured--are going to stay in the refugee camps at least for 120 days,
and, obviously, this disrupts the program. This will be a much longer
end to the refugee program.
Now, there is an exception, and the President has said he wants to
let Christian refugees in, and the order itself says minority
religions. There is a problem not only with violating the law because
the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits discrimination based on
nationality and on religion, but also the premise is that Christians
who had been persecuted were not admitted as refugees. That is simply
false. That is false. There were large numbers of refugees who have
been persecuted, including Christians. This order violates the
Immigration and Nationality Act. It also violates the Constitution.
That is why my bill should be brought up.
I am going to give you just two examples. One is General Talib al-
Kenani, who is an Iraqi four-star general who is commanding an elite,
American-trained counterterrorism unit that has led the fight against
ISIS for the last 2 years. His wife and children were moved to the
United States because staying in Iraq was too unsafe for them. He is
now unable to visit his family in the United States. He told CBS News:
``We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we
realize we are just considered terrorists.''
How does this help the fight against ISIS?
I want to give you another example. Remember the Yazidis? The Yazidis
were being persecuted by ISIS. We remember that they had been isolated
at the top of a mountain in Syria; and when President Obama was in
office, he acted. We bombed ISIS and we saved the Yazidis. This is what
President Obama said: ``When we have the unique capabilities to avert a
massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a
blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a
potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain.''
I mention this because there is an individual, a Yazidi woman, who
had been the only Yazidi person--woman--in the Iraqi parliament, Vian
Dakhil. One week after the President's announcement, she was injured in
a helicopter crash during a mission to deliver humanitarian aid to the
Yazidis who were trapped in the siege by ISIS. She has received awards
in London, in Dubai, in Vienna, and in Geneva for her human rights
work. Ironically, she was supposed to come to Washington, D.C., next
week to come to the U.S. Capitol to receive an award from the Tom
Lantos Human Rights Commission. Now, we remember our late colleague,
Tom Lantos, the only Member of Congress who survived the Nazi
concentration camps, and we have established this humanitarian prize in
his memory. This valiant woman now can't come to Washington, to the
U.S. Congress, to receive the Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize because of
President Trump's ban on individuals coming from Syria.
This is a ridiculous situation. It is illegal, it is
unconstitutional, it is contrary to American values, and it doesn't
make any sense. So I would hope that we can defeat this previous
question and that we can do something responsible: stand up for the
rule of law, stand up for the Constitution, stand up for common sense,
and overturn this executive order.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
Mr. BUCK. I am waiting for one. I do not have a speaker now, but the
gentleman's eloquence would be welcome at this point and any way that
the gentleman would like to inform us on important issues.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren,
stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are
horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's
executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent
people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who
have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who
have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get
human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to
correct this. We are better than this.
I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the
wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us
and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right
thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory
policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who sits on the Rules
Committee, and Mr. Buck, who is handling, I think, his first rule as a
member of the Rules Committee today. Mr. Buck is from Windsor,
Colorado. He is a second-term Member and is doing an awesome job not
only on his homework duties of recognizing how important it is for
Members to understand what we are talking about and why we are doing
things, but also enunciation of rules that we are talking about that
were promulgated by an administration.
Mr. Speaker, what we are really here today to talk about is there are
some of those rules and regulations where perhaps you didn't go through
the process that you should have or where there was really a
determination made by the American people that rulemaking goes too
far. That is why we are here today.

We are here today because there is a group of rules that were
promulgated that don't work and that did not really see, in our
opinion, the balance of what was going to be in it for the American
people. So, in particular, we are here to talk about a Social Security
rule that discriminates against individuals with disabilities by
denying them their constitutional rights.
The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, spoke very clearly about a meeting that
we had at the Rules Committee. I think that the witnesses that we had
were very specific and that they questioned--including Mr. Buck, who
was most active in his participation in the hearing--to work through
the rule that is promulgated but doesn't make sense when you evaluate
it. The administration chose to, I think, without due process, take
away from a person based upon a disability that had nothing to do with
their ability to effectively control a weapon, but based upon other
criteria and to take away a person's Second Amendment rights.
We oppose that. That is one of the reasons why we are here today.
This rule that we are going to take away wrongly discriminates against
those receiving disability benefits and, I believe, falsely promulgates
a stereotype against individuals with mental illness, calling them
dangerous. There are people who do have mental illnesses, there are
people who are struggling in life, and there are people who need help
and seek help; but that is not a criteria for taking away a person's
constitutional right.
We are joined in what we believe by the National Council on
Disability. This is what they said in a letter that they sent that was
dated January 24 of this year: ``There is, simply put, no nexus between
the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly
own, possess, or use a firearm. This arbitrary linkage not only
unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities
of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due
to their disabilities, may need a representative payee. . . . `'
So what happened is the rule by the administration linked together
these characteristics that they think identify a person as being a risk
so they take away their constitutional right. We couldn't really relate
to anybody that had done this, but it simply sounded like a good idea,
I am sure, to people, and so they did this.
Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to right all wrongs at the Rules
Committee, but when you take away somebody's constitutional rights and
take advantage of a person because of their disability, I don't think
that is fair.
I am proud of what Mr. Buck is doing here. I am proud that we stood
up on this issue, and I am pleased to be on the floor not only to
support Mr. Buck,

[[Page H835]]

but people who also live in the congressional district that I represent
in Dallas, Texas. I have received several calls from people. While I
will not say their names, they live in Dallas, Texas; Garland, Texas;
Wylie, Texas; and Rowlett, Texas; and they are worried about their
ability to lose their constitutional rights simply because they have
some help in managing their affairs but not related to a constitutional
right of owning a weapon.
So I am pleased to do this. There is no grandstanding necessary.
There is an understanding of some things that can be written properly
and some things that can't, and I simply think they got it wrong, and
that is what we are going to do here today. I thank the gentleman, Mr.
Buck, for allowing me the chance to speak on this important issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he
has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before I close, and then
I would like to recognize the chairman for additional comments.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for being
here today and just reinforce some of what the chairman had to say.
As I travel Colorado, I hear from individuals of all walks of life
about the regulatory burdens that they face, the burden that has been
placed upon them by their own government and how those burdens have
impeded their life, liberty, and certainly pursuit of happiness. Small-
business owners who would not open their business today because of the
change in the business climate find that their tax burden, their
regulatory burden, and the attitude of Federal regulators is such that
they would choose a different path had they had to do it all over
again.
I talked to school administrators who are, again, facing a pile of
paperwork to comply with school and nutrition requirements that have
been promulgated by this previous administration.

{time} 1300

I talk to veterans who have to wait on long, long lines and fill out
ridiculous paperwork because the Veterans Administration is unable to
recognize the necessity, the importance of what those veterans are
trying to accomplish at the VA. I am deeply concerned about the
regulations, and I am proud that my colleagues have decided to address
some of these regulations in the way that they have. I appreciate the
chairman standing up on this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
not only, once again, for being here, but for responsibly standing up
for his party and the things which they not only have a right to bring
to the floor, but an opportunity for him to discuss those things as he
chooses to justify the rules that we are going to not only discuss
their merits, but to really ensure that the American people understand
why we believe that these rules that were promulgated need to be
overturned.
Mr. Speaker, the second joint resolution that was included in Mr.
Buck's rule is a resolution that discusses the Securities and Exchange
Commission related to what is called disclosure of payments by resource
extraction issuers.
My gosh, what does that mean? Well, we understood the previous
administration is anti what they call Big Oil. They are after anybody
that is in the oil business. You and I both understand that our country
and the world is stronger because we don't freeze to death in the
winter and we don't get too hot in the summer because we have available
energy at a great price.
But it means that companies in the United States also go around the
world to find other places where they may extract oil or resources
related to energy, and the Securities and Exchange Commission published
in the Federal Register, on July 27, 2016, a rule that would place
American companies--and only American companies--that extract valuable
resources--meaning energy--from other places in the world and that they
would have to publicly disclose arrangements and deals that they make
related to them buying these resources.
The Securities and Exchange Commission understands already the rules
that are on American companies, including a rule that we know as the
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which means that an American company
cannot go overseas and induce through bribing someone to do something.
But now, in order to stop these companies--many of them large
companies, many of them medium-sized companies, but their nexus is that
they are energy companies--they are going to require in this rule that
that company tell everybody, including competitors, what the deal might
be that they got. So a private contract that might be between a
country, a company, and an American company is now going to see the
light of day.
Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. Fortunately, so does my party. We
think that is wrong, because it unnecessarily puts U.S. companies at a
competitive disadvantage to many state-owned competitors around the
world who are competing, many times, for the same resources.
In other words, we just told them what the deal is--how much money,
what the arrangement is, how it might be concluded--and that is a
violation, in my opinion, of not only the power that the SEC has, but I
think it is unwise. I think it is blatantly unwise that we would
unearth contracts from the free enterprise system while, at the same
time, knowing they have to follow the rules of engagement, meaning the
rules under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, at the same time.
So, Mr. Speaker, what we are here to say is that we believe that
these agencies are trying to harm America's opportunity to go and seek
out good deals, better deals, and to find long-term contracts around
the globe, wherever they might be, and that they have singled out
energy companies, that they have gone out of their way in what was
known as the Obama administration to single out energy companies
because they don't like energy deals.
Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of not only this, but
legislation that the Congress has done on December 18, 2015, is we
changed the Federal law related to the export of U.S. energy. Before,
there was a provision, some 40-year-old provision, that did not allow
energy from the United States to be sold overseas. Once we did that, it
completely turned the market upside down. So what might be deals then
and deals now are in the best interest of consumers instead of what
might be OPEC or a few other energy-rich countries.
We think that what this was done for was to punish those companies
that can go find better deals by telling everybody what happened--but
it was mostly done to punish--and it put us at a disadvantage.
We are here on the second part of this joint resolution to say that
the rule that was promulgated on July 27, 2016, is bad for America, is
bad for consumers, and most of all, it is bad for America to have rules
and regulations that take away the power of a private contract.
We stand up and say: What are we going to do about it? We are going
to go through the deliberate action that was taken not only at the
White House, but was taken on the floor of the House of Representatives
so that we have our say in the matter on rules and regulations.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague, Mr. Buck, that there is a
person who heard this debate going on and has come to the floor. I
don't know if he would choose to yield time to the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), but I have been told that Mr. Massie would like
to help me along on some of my comments because of his excitement about
what this rule does.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Colorado
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Sam Johnson and

[[Page H836]]

Ralph Abraham, for sponsoring this joint resolution. I would also like
to point out that my colleague from Colorado is a member of the Second
Amendment Caucus, and he has been working hard on this issue.

H.J. Res. 40 would strike down a rule that was finalized by the
Social Security Administration just days before the close of the 114th
Congress. This rule is yet another example of the previous
administration's last-ditch efforts to attack our Second Amendment
rights.
Any attempt to curtail the right of Americans to defend themselves
and their liberty is untenable. This scheme is particularly appalling
because of whom it targets and how the administration sought to
implement the rule.
The rule targets our grandparents, our elderly mothers and fathers
who have been awarded disability benefits and have had a family member
or guardian appointed to handle their finances. They haven't committed
a crime or demonstrated that they were a danger to society. There is no
trial, no presumption of innocence. Their names are sent to the NICS
database and their firearms are taken away, their right to own a
firearm.
Hardened criminals don't have their rights violated to that extent
without due process, so why would it be acceptable for our seniors?
These men and women have worked hard to raise families, worked a job,
and paid their fair share of taxes. Now they are being told that, in
order to receive their Social Security benefits, they must first
surrender the fundamental right to defend themselves. Is this the level
of pettiness to which we have sunk?
The House and the American people have soundly rejected gun control
in all of its forms year after year; yet this last administration
bypassed the legislative process, imposed a rule, and completely
disregarded due process in order to strip seniors of their
constitutional rights. Our seniors deserve better than that.
This rule is not about protecting anyone. This rule should be seen
for what it truly is: awful, politically motivated, and a dangerous
infringement on our Second Amendment rights.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have
heard so many fascinating things here today.
The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here
today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate.
The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another
closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no
real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this
stuff.
No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you,
listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would
have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a
hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the
gentleman raised.
When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them
that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this
determination is being considered and they are provided a process to
challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration
determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns,
rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is
what it says.
Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it;
but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that
are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless
Congress deemed it appropriate.
So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are
doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate
anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country.
The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his
constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but
they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have
a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against
themselves or their family members.
But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do
more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from
gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the
Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on
the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules
Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters.
Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial
Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are
some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think
go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but
around the world.
When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his
description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled
out, it makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just
said, in my opinion, does not reflect reality.
The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It
doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that
all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S.
exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to
governments for oil, gas, and mining resources.

{time} 1315

And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other
countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway
have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being
singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the
committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this
wouldn't be a point of contention.
The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It
places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or
how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any
aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to
nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it
easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory
impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper
payments. It is a simple reporting requirement.
There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia.
Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are
all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible
record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes
to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to
everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this
repealed.
So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of
all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This
is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance
of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance
of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of
order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always
under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new
Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage
Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some
issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor
with thoughtful ideas.
I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because,
again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed,
closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House
of Representatives. It really is shameful.
Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous
question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning
President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on
immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly
implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is
unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are
confronted with now.
I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new
President who is of your party, but this

[[Page H837]]

is absolutely the right thing to do. And if you want to vote no on
these things, vote no on them, but allow us to have the debate and
allow us to have the vote. I urge ``no'' on the previous question and
``no'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to
close.
I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Kentucky for
their remarks, and I appreciate the insightful remarks from the
gentleman from Massachusetts. I am troubled right now. I am struggling
to remember--as the gentleman describes Russia with its terrible record
on human rights, I am trying to remember exactly who it was who had the
reset button with Vladimir Putin, and I don't think it was the Trump
administration. I could be wrong.
Mr. Speaker, America has come so far in advancing the rights of those
with disabilities. We have also fought long and hard to protect our
constitutional rights. The rule before us achieves both of those ends.
The Obama administration's last-ditch effort to strip constitutional
rights from individuals with disabilities must not stand. We also
cannot stand for regulations that place American companies at a
disadvantage and place their workers at risk.
The rule before us will undo the costly and dangerous reporting
requirements placed on America's energy companies operating abroad.
When we repeal this unwise regulation on American energy companies,
they can again fully contribute to the world's energy economy.
Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and the underlying
measures.
Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule
governing debate on H.J. Res. 40, and the underlying legislation,
because in a nation that leads the civilized world in deaths by gun
violence, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for
persons suffering from a very severe, long-term, mental disorder that
makes them incapable of managing their financial benefits and unable to
do any kind of work in the U.S. economy, even part-time or at very low
wages to obtain deadly firearms.
The Republicans have brought to the floor this week a Congressional
Review Act (CRA) of Disapproval to overturn Social Security
Administration (SSA) regulations to comply with existing federal law
governing the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS).
H.J. Res. 40, would vacate an important rule issued by the Social
Security Administration implementing the NICS Improvement Amendments
Act of 2007.
That law, which we adopted in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at
Virginia Tech, requires federal agencies to report to the National
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of individuals
who are statutorily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
The statute was enacted with bipartisan support, and we should stand
together to defend efforts to see that it is fully implemented.
Let us be clear what a submission vote on this legislation is about:
the Republican's goal is to weaken our firearms background check
system.
The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 presented the deadliest
shooting rampage in U.S. history.
On April 16 2007, the violence began around 7:15 a.m., ending in the
deaths of 32 students and teachers after being gunned down on the
campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Seung
Hui Cho, a student at the school, who later died from a self-inflicted
gunshot wound.
Only four months prior, on December 13, 2005, Cho had been ordered by
a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his
roommates and was subsequently evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental
health facility.
On February 9, 2007, Cho picked up a Walther P-22 pistol that he
purchased online, just days before, on February 2 from an out-of-state
dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia
Tech.
In March of 2007, Cho purchased a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of
ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for 571 dollars.
The attack, resulting from these preventable actions, left 30 people
dead and another 17 wounded.
In all, 27 students and five faculty members died as a result of the
actions of a known mentally unstable individual who was nonetheless
allowed to purchase a firearm.
On December 14, 2012, Lenny Pozner dropped off his three children,
Sophia, Arielle, and Noah, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown,
Connecticut.
Noah had recently turned 6, and on the drive over they listened to
his favorite song, for what turned out to be the last time.
Half an hour later, while Sophia and Arielle hid nearby, Adam Lanza
walked into Noah's first-grade class with an AR-15 rifle.
Noah was the youngest of the 20 children and seven adults killed in
one of the deadliest shootings in American history.
Depending on whom you ask, there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or
twenty-eight victims in Newtown.
It is twenty-six if you count only those who were murdered at Sandy
Hook Elementary School; twenty-seven if you include Nancy Lanza--Adam's
own mother; twenty-eight once Adam turned the gun on himself.
There are twenty-six stars on the local firehouse roof.
On the anniversary of the shootings, the governor of Connecticut
asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times.
Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless,
needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.
To ensure the continued safety of American families, the Gun Control
Act of 1968 prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing
firearms, including those who, using outdated terminology, are
``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' (This is referred to as the
``federal mental health prohibitor.'')
The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally
licensed firearms dealers to run background checks on prospective gun
purchasers through NICS.
NICS includes records from various databases on individuals who are
prohibited by law from purchasing and possessing firearms.
In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, prior to which
the shooter's mental health prohibitor should have been, but was not,
reported to NICS, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved legislation to
adopt the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.
As senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland
Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I supported the 2016
Social Security Administration (SSA) rule, which committed the SSA to
submit records to the gun background check system for social security
recipients prohibited from possessing guns due to severe mental
illness.
It is a critical process for enforcing the law that bars prohibited
people from passing background checks and purchasing firearms.
The only way we are going to prevent guns from getting into the hands
of people who should not have them, people who pose a known and
documented danger to themselves and others, is through a system based
on robust, accurate and complete information.

Prior to the new SSA rulemaking, the agency had no process for
submitting records of prohibited people to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
NICS therefore, has been missing records for those prohibited
individuals.
NICS is only as good as the records it contains.
With those records missing from the system, these individuals are
able to pass a background check and complete a purchase even though
they are legally prohibited from purchasing guns under longstanding
federal law.
The SSA regulation closes this gap by committing the agency to begin
submitting prohibiting records into the gun background check system.
The rule does not impact any beneficiaries who are not already
prohibited under law, and does not impact people based on disability
findings that have been made prior to the rule taking effect.
Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless,
needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.
Under the regulation, only individuals with the most severe mental
impairments, who are (1) unable to earn any income due to their mental
incapacity, and (2) have been found incapable of managing their own
benefits meet the NICS reporting system cautionary criteria to report
the names of certain individuals who are prohibited by law from
purchasing or possessing firearms to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS).
SSA has evaluated legal, medical and lay evidence and determined that
these individuals are not capable of managing their own benefits.
SSA estimates that about 75,000 people per year will meet these
criteria for reporting to NICS.
Disability examiners make the determination based on medical and
other evidence, but physicians or psychologists review the evidence and
sign off on the cases.
An individual who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, suffers from
hallucinations and delusions, and most days cannot care for herself--
feeding, dressing, communicating with those around her.
Her symptoms and medical history meet the criteria in the listing for
schizophrenia.

[[Page H838]]

She receives disability benefits and has a representative payee.
She would meet the criteria for reporting.
An individual who has significant intellectual disability that
prevents him from working at any level (i.e., he meets the listing for
intellectual disability), and is unable to understand how to pay rent
or use his benefits to buy food.
He qualifies for disability benefits and has a representative payee.
He would meet the criteria for reporting.
Placing anyone into the NICS as a ``prohibited person'' is not
something we should take lightly, but it is a task that must be done in
limited circumstances and as required by statute.
The circumstances addressed by this rule require that we work
together on this serious and unfortunate issue.
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of Disapproval would,
if passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, deem the
rule to have not been in effect at any time and would also prohibit SSA
from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same.
The Republican's use of the CRA process to overturn the rule is an
extreme exercise in bad governance.
Rather than fixing or improving the rule, it would ban reporting by
the SSA entirely.
There would be no opportunity to simply improve aspects of the rule,
and we would prevent full implementation of the law we enacted after
the Virginia Tech shooting.
I cannot support that result and therefore oppose this resolution,
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
Subverting long-standing gun safety laws under the guise of
protecting Constitutional rights, while simultaneously pushing for
repeal of health reform laws that provided care to these communities
rings hollow.
Now is not the time to weaken our background checks system by
excluding those with the most severe and incapacitating forms of mental
impairment.
The Social Security Administration should be commended for its
efforts to keep children and families safe by following the lead of
other agencies and enforcing laws that have been on the books for
decades.
I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a rule, and the
underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

An Amendment to H. Res. 71 Offered by Mr. McGovern

At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 2. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
724) to provide that the Executive Order entitled
``Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the
United States'' (January 27, 2017), shall have no force or
effect, to prohibit the use of Federal funds to enforce the
Executive Order, and for other purposes. All points of order
against consideration of the bill are waived. General debate
shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. All points of order against
provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of
consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall
rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to
final passage without intervening motion except one motion to
recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of
the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution
on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House
shall, immediately after the third daily order of business
under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the
Whole for further consideration of the bill.
Sec. 3. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 724.
____

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. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 191, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 70]

YEAS--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen

[[Page H839]]

Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NAYS--191

Adams
Aguilar
Barragan
Bass
Beatty
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Blunt Rochester
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (MD)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capuano
Carbajal
Cardenas
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Castro (TX)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Correa
Costa
Courtney
Crist
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
Demings
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Espaillat
Esty
Evans
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Gonzalez (TX)
Gottheimer
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hanabusa
Hastings
Heck
Higgins (NY)
Himes
Hoyer
Huffman
Jackson Lee
Jayapal
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Khanna
Kihuen
Kilmer
Kind
Krishnamoorthi
Kuster (NH)
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lawson (FL)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham, M.
Lujan, Ben Ray
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn B.
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McEachin
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
O'Halleran
O'Rourke
Pallone
Panetta
Pascrell
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Raskin
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Rosen
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schneider
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Soto
Speier
Suozzi
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters, Maxine
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--10

Blackburn
Clark (MA)
Kildee
Mulvaney
Price, Tom (GA)
Russell
Smith (TX)
Taylor
Walker
Zinke

{time} 1346

Ms. BONAMICI and Mr. KENNEDY changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. BLUM changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 231,
noes 191, not voting 10, as follows:

[Roll No. 71]

AYES--231

Abraham
Aderholt
Allen
Amash
Amodei
Arrington
Babin
Bacon
Banks (IN)
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Bergman
Biggs
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Budd
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Cheney
Coffman
Cole
Collins (GA)
Collins (NY)
Comer
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davidson
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Dunn
Emmer
Farenthold
Faso
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Flores
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gaetz
Gallagher
Garrett
Gibbs
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guthrie
Harper
Harris
Hensarling
Herrera Beutler
Hice, Jody B.
Higgins (LA)
Hill
Holding
Hollingsworth
Hudson
Huizenga
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (LA)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan
Joyce (OH)
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger
Knight
Kustoff (TN)
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
Lewis (MN)
LoBiondo
Long
Loudermilk
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Marshall
Massie
Mast
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mitchell
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Murphy (PA)
Newhouse
Noem
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Posey
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Rice (SC)
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney, Francis
Rooney, Thomas J.
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce (CA)
Rutherford
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smucker
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Tenney
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Zeldin

NOES--191

NOT VOTING--10

Clark (MA)
Hartzler
Kildee
Mulvaney
Price, Tom (GA)
Russell
Smith (TX)
Taylor
Walker
Zinke

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes
remaining.

{time} 1352

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H840]]

____________________