[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 14, 2017)]
[House]
[Pages H1139-H1145]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 66, DISAPPROVING RULE 
 SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR RELATING TO SAVINGS ARRANGEMENTS BY 
STATES FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES, AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
  OF H.J. RES. 67, DISAPPROVING RULE SUBMITTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 
     RELATING TO SAVINGS ARRANGEMENTS BY QUALIFIED STATE POLITICAL 
              SUBDIVISIONS FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL EMPLOYEES

  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 116 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 116

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House any joint resolution 
     specified in section 2 of this resolution. All points of 
     order against consideration of each such joint resolution are 
     waived. Each such joint resolution shall be considered as 
     read. All points of order against provisions in each such 
     joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on each such 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 Education and the Workforce; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  The joint resolutions referred to in the first 
     section of this resolution are as follows:
        (a) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 66) disapproving the 
     rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings 
     arrangements established by States for non-governmental 
     employees.
       (b) The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 67) disapproving the 
     rule submitted by the Department of Labor relating to savings 
     arrangements established by qualified State political 
     subdivisions for non-governmental employees.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for 
1 hour.
  Mr. BYRNE. 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. BYRNE. 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 Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 116 provides for 
consideration of two joint resolutions designed to protect working 
families by blocking harmful regulations through the Congressional 
Review Act process.
  In 1974, Congress passed and President Gerald Ford signed the 
Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA. This legislation, 
which has broad and bipartisan support, sets standards for employer-
provided retirement plans to protect the workers of the United States 
of America. This regulatory framework for employer-provided retirement 
plans has been largely successful at helping working families save for 
retirement over the last 40 years.
  Unfortunately, in the waning days of his administration, President 
Obama put forward regulations to uproot this system that has worked for 
decades. The Obama administration's rules would pave the way for 
government-run IRAs--for bureaucrat-run IRAs--managed by States and 
certain municipalities. Employees in several States would be forced to 
automatically enroll in these government- and bureaucrat-run IRAs that 
are not subject to the important protections established by ERISA.
  In other words, in the waning days of the Obama administration, they 
sought to take back from workers the protections that were given to 
them when ERISA was passed 40 years ago. Let me say that again. 
Workers' ERISA protections will be out the window for those people in 
these government- and bureaucrat-run plans.
  These regulations remove important protections for American workers 
as they relate to their retirement plans. American consumers would be 
directly hurt by this regulation were it to go forward.
  Just as bad, workers would have less control over their retirement 
savings. Withdrawals or roll-over investments to a private-sector 
account could be restricted and even penalized.
  These regulations would create disincentives for small businesses to 
offer their retirement plans and invest in their employees' retirement, 
resulting in fewer options for workers. Instead, smaller employers will 
likely simply shift their employees on to these government- and 
bureaucrat-run plans.
  These regulations could also create a confusing patchwork of rules 
that vary State to State or, even worse, city to city. This confusion 
would directly hurt the consumer.
  Another concern with pushing people on to government- and bureaucrat-
run retirement plans is that taxpayers would end up footing the bill. 
We have seen how poorly managed many State and city pension plans have 
been all over this country. If these government-run IRAs are also 
mismanaged, taxpayers may be asked to pay and to honor the government's 
promises.
  Ultimately, these regulations are simply another attempt to exert 
control over the American people with a ``government knows best'' 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people are not children that need direction 
from their parents. They should not be forced by the heavy hand of the 
government and faceless bureaucrats to obtain certain plans the 
government

[[Page H1140]]

likes that they may not need or want. People are free today to decide 
whether they want their IRAs or not. This will put them in a position 
where they can be forced to have them whether they want them or not.
  We have seen the problems caused when the government tries to tell 
the American people what to do or what the government thinks is best 
for them. These types of heavy-handed policies simply do not work and 
they are counter to the principles our country was founded on.
  So these two bills would use the Congressional Review Act process to 
block these anti-consumer regulations from taking effect. By passing 
these two bills, we will protect working families, we will support our 
Nation's small businesses, and we will be shielding the taxpayers from 
potential liabilities.
  As I pointed out last week on this floor, just because we pass these 
bills using the CRA does not mean we cannot continue working toward 
solutions that improve our Nation's retirement programs. Just as the 
CRA gives Congress power to block regulations, the legislative branch 
can also give agencies further instructions and directions if a 
regulation is needed at some point in the future.
  As a member of the Education and the Workforce Committee, I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to 
find solutions to help Americans save for their retirement. Attempting 
to use the regulatory pen to skate around ERISA and its important 
protections is just not the right answer.
  So I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this rule and 
these pro-consumer bills and protect American families, workers, and 
their retirement plans.
  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1230

  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. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. 
Byrne) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are less than 2 months into 2017, and today we have 
another closed rule, or as I call them, ``Putin rules.'' This is how 
they operate in Russia--no deliberation. It is simply astonishing that 
here in the people's House we continue to have this closed process: no 
amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down.
  I have very serious concerns about the road we are traveling down. 
The 115th Congress is only 6 weeks old, and we have already ushered in 
a process that is alarmingly restrictive. It should distress not just 
Democrats, but Republicans as well. This is now the norm and is very, 
very sad.
  Mr. Speaker, today's rule would pave the way for the House to repeal 
two important consumer protections that help working families save for 
retirement. These protections went through a very lengthy process of 
review. We are repealing these protections without the committees of 
jurisdiction having any chance to weigh in and in a rushed process that 
is completely closed.
  These protections, as I said, were reviewed by the relevant agencies; 
they were subjected to public commentary; and we are bringing them to 
the floor to repeal them without even giving the committees of 
jurisdiction an opportunity to actually discuss these bills, to discuss 
whether this makes sense.
  Mr. Speaker, America is facing a retirement savings crisis, and rules 
like this--I should say, protections like this--are essential to 
helping workers plan for the future. As of today, 55 million Americans 
lack access to a way to save for retirement out of their regular 
paycheck. As a result, nearly half of all workers have no retirement 
assets. Yet we know that employees are 15 times more likely to save 
just by having access to a workplace retirement plan. These programs 
are a commonsense solution for working families and small businesses.
  Republicans should be working to strengthen programs like these, not 
rip them apart. If you have a problem and you want to make a tweak, 
maybe you ought to work with the agency to make that tweak, but not an 
outright repeal.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, pushing dangerous bills like this in a 
closed process with no debate is a lousy way to conduct the people's 
business. But with the avalanche of alternative facts coming out of the 
Trump White House every day, it should be no surprise that the House 
Republican majority on Capitol Hill is carrying on in such a heavy-
handed way. God forbid, in the people's House, we should actually 
deliberate and have debate and have the kind of give-and-take that the 
American people expect.
  Mr. Speaker, as bad as this process is, as bad as dismantling the 
rules and regulations put in place to protect the savings of working 
families is, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about something 
that is very serious and troubling to the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, this administration regularly goes on TV and appears 
before the press--and let me say this as plainly as I can--and 
consistently spouts falsehoods. Now, I am told, Mr. Speaker, that under 
the rules and precedents of the House that there are certain things 
that cannot be said. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Rules Committee 
and as somebody who respects the precedents of the House, I am going to 
be very polite in how I respond here today. I will speak plainly, but 
politely. I want people to understand that I would like to say things 
much stronger based on what is happening in this country and based on 
what is happening in this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, I certainly wouldn't want to do anything to hurt 
anybody's feelings, but it is troubling what is happening, the 
falsehoods and fabrications that we hear each and every day. Some of it 
is trivial and some of it is silly, like saying that his inaugural 
crowd size was bigger than President Obama's. Who cares?
  But some are more sinister and more dangerous, like the claim that 3 
million to 5 million ``illegal aliens'' voted for his opponent in the 
2016 Presidential election. Every fact checker, every Secretary of 
State, both Republicans and Democrats, say this is absolutely false. 
There is no basis for this falsehood. It undermines confidence in our 
political system. My fear is that the real purpose of this claim is to 
put in place policies to restrict voter rights in order to make it more 
difficult for people to vote in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, every day it feels like President Trump and his White 
House are trying to set a new record in terms of misinformation. There 
are so many falsehoods coming out of this White House, it makes me 
nostalgic for Nixon.
  President Trump, in a meeting with U.S. Senators last week, repeated 
another falsehood, that he only lost New Hampshire because thousands of 
Massachusetts residents were bussed to the State to vote illegally. 
This is simply not true. There is no basis for this statement. This is 
similar to the President's fabrication that 3 million to 5 million 
votes were cast illegally in the 2016 election. Plain and simple, 
President Trump and his White House staff continue to provide zero 
evidence to back up their claims of voter fraud.
  On Sunday, when top White House aide Stephen Miller was asked about 
the judiciary challenging President Trump's unconstitutional Muslim 
ban, he aggressively attacked critics and said that ``the powers of the 
President to protect our country are very substantial and will not be 
questioned.'' The powers of the President will not be questioned. I 
couldn't believe my ears when I heard that.

  President Trump might talk a lot about his love for Vladimir Putin, 
but this is not Russia. This is the United States of America. We have 
checks and balances to stop authoritarianism. Kellyanne Conway, when 
she is not giving free commercials for the Trump family business on the 
taxpayers's dime, is making up stories about the Bowling Green 
massacre, a terrorist attack which never happened, and spouting 
alternative facts on a daily basis. The latest falsehood from the Trump 
White House is one of the most serious yet.
  In repeated interviews, both Vice President Mike Pence and National 
Security Adviser Michael Flynn--I should be saying now, former National 
Security Adviser Michael Flynn--said that Flynn did not speak with 
Russian officials about U.S. sanctions before President Trump took 
office. A new report shows that that is blatantly false.

[[Page H1141]]

  After the U.S. intelligence community overwhelmingly agreed that 
Russia had actively meddled in our 2016 Presidential election to tip 
the result in favor of Donald Trump, President Obama announced strong 
sanctions against Russia, including expelling 35 Russian diplomats or 
agents from U.S. soil. When Vladimir Putin responded by saying that 
they would not expel any U.S. officials in Russia--what many expected 
he would not do--a lot of red flags were raised. A new report now shows 
that, in the 24 hours that followed, Michael Flynn communicated with 
Russian Government officials about the sanctions and may have actively 
undermined U.S. foreign policy weeks before Donald Trump even took the 
oath of office. And now we know that last month the Justice Department 
informed the White House of Flynn's deception of the Vice President and 
of the American people in the days immediately following the 
inauguration.
  Mr. Speaker, this is outrageous, and the fact that President Trump 
did not immediately fire Michael Flynn as soon as this came to light is 
stunning. I guess he was too concerned about crowd size rather than a 
deeply compromised national security adviser.
  Mr. Speaker, getting rid of Flynn is not enough. President Trump must 
stop the blatant and dangerous falsehoods coming from his White House. 
We need a full and independent and bipartisan investigation not only 
under the purview of the intelligence committees; we need to have a 
full investigation out in the open so the American people actually know 
what happened and know how many others were involved in Flynn's 
undermining of our national security.
  Who knew what when?
  Was Donald Trump aware of these unauthorized talks with Russia while 
President Obama was enforcing sanctions?
  The American people deserve the truth. They deserve transparency. 
They deserve this Congress to actually do proper oversight.
  One of the most troubling parts of all this is that the American 
people would have been completely in the dark if it were not for the 
hardworking journalists and patriotic U.S. officials who helped bring 
this outrageous scandal to light. Now, more than ever, we need to 
support freedom of the press, to hold President Trump and his White 
House accountable.
  The Republicans in Congress need to start doing their job by 
exercising the strong oversight needed. President Trump needs to know 
that he answers to the American people and he and no President is above 
the law.
  Mr. Speaker, America's hardworking families deserve a Congress that 
puts them first and a President and a White House that tells the truth 
instead of spreading falsehoods to stir up fear and advance a dangerous 
and extreme agenda. We can have policy disagreements, but you have to 
tell the truth. You can't just make stuff up.
  As we are seeing with this administration, alternative facts are 
contagious. The White House is rapidly losing the public's trust, and 
every day that Congress fails to hold the Trump White House 
accountable, we are losing the public's trust as well.
  Members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, have a 
responsibility to stand up for the truth and hold the President and his 
White House accountable. We are here to serve the American people, and 
they need to know that we are fighting for them, not serving as a 
rubber stamp for this administration.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule, and I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to refrain from 
engaging in personalities toward the President.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' remarks. We are not 
here today to talk about Russia, but I do remember about a month ago 
when we were on this floor counting electoral college votes, my 
colleague from Massachusetts objected to the Electoral College votes 
from my home State of Alabama because of Russian interference.
  I want to put his mind at rest. As a Representative of Alabama, I 
think I can say with complete confidence that the Russians had no 
influence over the Presidential vote in the State of Alabama last 
November. We get our electoral information like most people in America 
do: from watching FOX News or something like that.
  But in the fall, in Alabama, we are also paying real close attention 
to college football. So far from letting Russian influence have 
anything to do with our vote in Alabama, we were doing what most people 
in America were doing and paying close attention to college football. 
We gave no more credence to what the Russians think about our political 
votes in Alabama than we do to what they think about our college 
football teams.
  But let's get back to the substance of his remarks. He says that 
there is no debate. This rule provides for at least 2 hours of debate, 
perhaps more if we get into motions to recommit. And the truth of the 
matter is, under the Congressional Review Act, the actual form of these 
laws are prescribed by statute. We have no control over what can be in 
them. We can either vote for them or against them. And we are going to 
have clear debate--over 2 hours, maybe more--whether we are going to 
vote for or against it.

  There are people who are going to vote for them, and there are people 
who are going to vote against them, and people are going to have 
reasons for doing each. That is standard order here in the House. I 
think the American people would agree, on these sorts of fundamental 
things when you know what is simply in them, that is plenty of debate.
  He calls these regulations that we seek to overturn ``consumer 
protections.'' But remember what I said earlier: They take these 
employer plans, these IRA plans that are forced by the government, they 
take them out from the protections of ERISA. They take consumer 
protection away from the people that have these plans. So far from 
being consumer protection regulations, they are anticonsumer protection 
regulations. They are antiworker.
  So what is really going on here is this is not some effort--or was 
some effort by the Obama administration--to protect workers. It is an 
effort to try to get government more involved in people's lives, and 
the people of America don't want the government more involved in their 
lives.
  The gentleman mentioned that there are 55 million people in America 
today who don't have a retirement plan. Every one of those 55 million 
people have access, if they choose to get it, to an IRA. Anybody can 
set up an IRA. You don't need your employer to set it up for you. You 
sure don't need the government to set it up for you. There are plenty 
of people around the country that will help you set it up, and it is 
pretty easy, pretty simple.
  Maybe some of these people, or a lot of these people that don't have 
them, don't want them. So why would the government come in and tell 
them you have got to have them unless your real interest here is in 
empowering government and not protecting consumers? I will leave it to 
you to make the decision what the real motive was here.

                              {time}  1245

  Now, the gentleman talked about the fact that these come to us 
without going through the committees of jurisdiction; but, as I said 
earlier, because the form of these bills are prescribed by statute, 
there is really nothing for the committees of jurisdiction to do. But 
he will be glad to know that I am informed that, after we come back 
from the Presidents Day week break, there will be a number of bills 
coming to the floor that will have, in fact, gone through the 
committees of jurisdiction, including bills, I predict, that will both 
repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. So there is going to be 
plenty of things coming through regular order to this floor.
  But as we go through the Congressional Review Act process, we are 
pretty constrained in what we can say and not say in these bills, and 
we are simply following that which is prescribed by statute. As I said 
earlier, we can all decide, based upon that statutorily prescribed form 
for what we do, whether we are for it or we are against it, whether we 
want to force workers in America to get some government-forced type IRA 
and take them out from the protections of ERISA, or

[[Page H1142]]

whether we want to let them have their freedom and keep the protections 
of ERISA.
  We want to keep freedom for the American people. We want to keep 
freedom for the American workers, and we sure want them to keep the 
protections they have had for over 40 years under ERISA and not take 
those protections away from them so that we can force something down 
their throat from some government-bureaucrat-run plan.
  Getting back to what we are here to talk about today, we are here to 
reverse ill-considered regulations in the waning days of the Obama 
administration that hurt the American workers. By adopting this rule 
and by adopting these two pieces of legislation, we protect the 
American workers. I hope all of us are here to do exactly that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The gentleman is correct, I did rise to object to certifying the 
electoral college vote. Part of it was because I was appalled by the 
unprecedented Russian interference in our election system. I would urge 
the gentleman to read--maybe he doesn't want to read the classified 
version of the report--the unclassified version of the report. It is 
pretty outrageous. That is why so many of us have been calling for an 
independent bipartisan commission to investigate this.
  But the other reason why I objected was because of voter suppression. 
I would say to the gentleman that that is an equally serious issue, 
that there is still voter suppression in the United States of America, 
and it is something that we need to deal with. I worry very much under 
the Republican majority and under this White House that we are going to 
see more of an effort to restrict people's right to vote.
  Now, the gentleman is trying to paint a rosy picture about what we 
are doing here. I mean, we have had 13 closed rules, 6 structured 
rules, zero modified open rules, zero open rules. By the end of this 
week, we will be a third of the way to breaking the record for the 
Republicans' most closed Congress in the history of the United States, 
and we are still in February. My friends have outdone themselves in 
terms of closing up this process, of shutting people out from 
participation.
  The fact of the matter is, as I mentioned, these protections that the 
Republicans want to repeal went through a long process, lots of review 
within the agencies, lots of public commentary, a long time to develop 
these protections. Now, if the Republicans aren't happy with it, one of 
the things they might do is they could bring up these rules in the form 
of legislation where we could have an open process, and people can 
amend and add and change and do whatever they want to do to make it 
better, if that is what they want to do.
  But that is not what they are interested in. It is all about a press 
release. This is mindless legislating. When committees of jurisdiction 
do not do their job, do not hold hearings, do not do markups, and all 
of a sudden the Rules Committee just reports something out and sends it 
to the floor under a closed rule, that is mindless legislating. By the 
way, I am on the Rules Committee. I don't think that we have yet had a 
single bill come before the Rules Committee that went through 
committee. I am happy I am on the Rules Committee. At least you see a 
little action going on, but I feel bad if you are on any of these other 
committees.
  This is a lousy way to do business, and I am shocked that my 
Republican friends come to the floor and defend the indefensible. This 
is not the way this House should be run. This is the kind of process, 
as I said at the opening, you would expect to see in Russia, not here 
in the United States Congress. Different ideas should be debated. 
People ought to have an opportunity to have their voices be heard. But 
yet here, in this House of Representatives--which will break records in 
terms of being the most restrictive Congress, I think, in history--the 
name of the game is to try to shut people out. I think that is wrong. I 
think my Republican friends should be ashamed of the way they are 
conducting themselves in this Congress. This is not right.
  I just point that out because I think it is important for people to 
note that, by the end of this week, my Republican friends will be a 
third of the way to breaking their own record for the most restrictive 
Congress in history, with the most closed rules. That is something that 
I don't think anyone should be proud of. But it is the new norm here: 
shut everything down, shut everybody out. I think that results in bad 
legislation and, again, mindless legislating like we are doing here 
today.
  Mr. Speaker, we are all deeply concerned, as I mentioned in my 
opening statement, with the reports from our intelligence community 
regarding potential foreign interference in our most recent election. 
Everybody should be. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask people to vote 
``no'' on the previous question. If we defeat the previous question, I 
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative 
Swalwell's and Representative Cummings' bill which would create a 
bipartisan commission to investigate foreign interference in our 2016 
election. With the revelations about General Flynn coming to light, and 
all that we know about his dealings with the Russians, this is 
extremely timely.

  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, to discuss our proposal, I yield 3 minutes 
to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. McGovern for his 
work on this issue. I love my country, and I don't doubt that every one 
of my colleagues in this Chamber also loves this country. I admire 
every man and woman who has so bravely fought to defend it. After all, 
this is a country, this is a democracy worth defending. That is 
actually what defeating this previous question would take us to, the 
question of is this democracy still worth defending.
  This past election, our democracy was attacked. The attack was 
electronic, and it was nearly invisible. It came from a foreign 
adversary in Russia, ordered by Vladimir Putin. It was intended to help 
Donald Trump. Most concerning, the public intelligence report about 
this attack, the last finding is, Russia intends to do this again. They 
are undertaking a lessons-learned campaign so they can attack the 
United States again and attack our allies, the best check against 
Russia through the NATO alliance.
  Yesterday, the President removed a rotten plank in what is a 
compromised platform, Michael Flynn. In 2015, he went to Russia and sat 
next to Vladimir Putin, was paid for it, and, The New York Times 
reported yesterday, did not disclose that in the proper way he is 
supposed to to the Department of Defense. Because Russia attacked us, 
President Obama issued sanctions against Russia on December 28. Michael 
Flynn called Russia, its Ambassador, five times, at least five times, 
and discussed those sanctions, likely in violation of the Logan Act. He 
lied about it, lied to the Vice President about it, who went on 
national TV and defended Michael Flynn, saying it never happened.
  But here is what we also learned. We learned that 3 weeks ago the 
White House knew, because acting Attorney General Sally Yates told the 
White House, that Michael Flynn had lied and had put himself in a 
position where he could be compromised through blackmail by the Russian 
Government. Yet, despite knowing this, the White House allowed Michael 
Flynn to remain as the National Security Adviser, receive security 
briefings at the highest level, and advise our President on our 
security.
  All of the arrows continue to point to the Russian Government. We 
have more questions today than we did yesterday about whether there 
were any personal, political, or financial connections between 
President Trump, his family, his businesses, his campaign, and the 
Russian Government before the election and whether there are any 
efforts right now going on to pay back the Russian Government.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.

[[Page H1143]]

  

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 2 minutes to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. SWALWELL of California. All of the arrows continue to point to 
Russia. It is not disputed that Russia carried out this attack. It is 
not disputed that it was ordered by President Putin. It is not disputed 
that they sought to help Donald Trump. It is not disputed that Donald 
Trump admires President Putin and can't say a single bad thing about 
him. Despite disparaging our allies in Australia and Mexico, he can't 
say a bad thing about Putin. In fact, he wants to ease some of the 
sanctions against Russia and wants to roll back the influence of NATO.
  Of course, while all of this is going on, the President will not show 
us his tax returns. With all of those arrows pointing to Russia, the 
American people deserve to know what was the political, personal, and 
financial relationship between the President and his team and Russia. 
The only way to get there is to have an independent, bipartisan-
appointed commission.
  Defeating the previous question and bringing up the Protecting Our 
Democracy Act will get us one step closer. I believe that my Republican 
colleagues--who love this great country as much as I do--can join us, 
and this can be a bipartisan quest to say that never again will we 
allow a foreign adversary to interfere in our elections.
  Mr. BYRNE. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, when I was a young lawyer, an old lawyer one time gave 
me a piece of advice that I was fortunate to never have to follow. He 
said: Son, when you are strong on the facts, pound on the facts. When 
you are strong on the law, pound on the law. If you are weak on the 
facts and the law, pound on the table.
  What we just heard is pounding on the table about Russia, and that 
has nothing to do with the two bills that are covered by this rule. 
Nothing in the bills that underlie this rule has anything to do with 
Russia. But because there is not a good argument against the rule, 
there is not a good argument against these bills, we are pulling up 
something else and pounding on the table. Let's get back to the rule 
and the underlying legislation.
  This legislation will reverse two regulations that hurt working 
people in America, period, end of sentence. Far from being a press 
release, as my colleague from Massachusetts talked about, this bill is 
going to pass not only this House, it is going to pass the Senate, and, 
yes, it is going to be signed by the President of the United States. 
Two of the Congressional Review Act bills that have already come 
through this House have passed the Senate and, I am told, are going to 
be signed by the President this week. These aren't press releases. 
These aren't messaging bills. These are pieces of legislation that are 
going to become law and protect American workers after an attempt by 
the Obama administration, as it is going out the door, an attempt by 
them to take ERISA rights away from American workers through a 
regulation. I would think everybody in this body would be outraged, 
after 40 years of bipartisan support for ERISA, that we would think it 
is okay for anybody to take away workers' ERISA rights. It is not.
  What we are doing today is the right thing to do, not if you are for 
Big Government. But if you are for the American worker, this is the 
right thing to do. Rather than pound on the table, let's work together, 
pass this rule, pass this underlying legislation, and do the right 
thing for the American worker.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, there is one similarity with Russia and what we are 
doing here today, and that is the process. This is completely closed. 
This is totally undemocratic. There is no opportunity for amendment. 
There is no opportunity for different opinions to be presented here. 
So, again, this process is deeply flawed.
  Again, my friends on the other side of the aisle may want to defend 
it, but I will tell you this is unprecedented. With the number of 
closed rules that we have seen, you are going to break all records.
  My Republican friends also have the distinction of presiding over the 
most closed Congress in history. This will outdo that because they are 
moving in such a restrictive and closed way. This is not right.
  The idea that we are going to repeal protections with an up-or-down 
vote without having the committees of jurisdiction even do a hearing, 
even to weigh the very points of view on this, to bring these bills to 
the floor like this in a way that would not allow people to improve 
these protections is outrageous. But this is the new norm here. 
Everything is shut down.
  And the gentleman is right that the previous question maybe is a 
little bit off subject from the two underlying bills here, but as the 
gentleman knows, we are currently debating the rule. This is a tool 
used to set the House's agenda and to prioritize consideration of 
legislation.
  For that very reason, this is, in fact, the appropriate time for us 
to explain to the American people what legislation we would like to 
prioritize and what agenda we would like to pursue in this House. 
Because the fact of the matter is, if we offer amendments to the Rules 
Committee by a 9-4 vote, we are turned down. We are shut out all the 
time.
  So this is our only opportunity to be able to bring some of our 
priorities before our fellow Members in the House and to be able to let 
the American people know that some of us in this House are horrified by 
Russian interference in our election. It is unprecedented what they 
did. Anybody who sat through any of the briefings or even read the 
unclassified report, I don't know how you could not be horrified by the 
deliberate attempt to impact our elections.
  And yet, we can't even get oversight in this House. The wagons have 
all circled around the President. You can't do anything that will make 
him uncomfortable. Well, the fact of the matter is this is about more 
than making a President of the United States uncomfortable. This is 
about defending our electoral system, defending our democracy.
  And the gentleman from California, in arguing in favor of voting 
``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up a bill that would 
allow there to be an independent bipartisan investigation of Russian 
interference on our election I think is even more important, given what 
we know about what happened with General Flynn. Many of us said, when 
he was being considered for the top national security spot in the White 
House, that this was a bad choice. Why? Well, because this is a guy who 
regularly peddled in conspiracy theories, whacky conspiracy theories.
  Members of the intelligence community, members of our Defense 
Department regularly said, when he was being considered, that this was 
a bad choice. My Republican friends said nothing. Now we realize just 
how bad a choice this was and how bad the President's judgment was in 
allowing a man like this to be elevated to such a high position in the 
White House.
  There are serious questions that need to be answered here. I would 
say to my colleagues, rather than trying to dodge and rather than 
trying to hide and rather than trying to frustrate attempts to get to 
the truth, there ought to be a bipartisan effort, similar to the 9/11 
Commission, where people come together and, in an open, transparent way 
so the American people know what is going on, are able to get to the 
truth. That is what we are trying to do here. We have no other means to 
be able to get our views heard--certainly not in the Rules Committee. 
Every amendment we offer is turned down.
  So I would say to my colleagues, vote ``no'' on the previous 
question. Let us be able to bring up the Swalwell-Cummings bill and 
have a vote on it. If you don't want to do an investigation, then vote 
``no.'' But this is important and, I would argue, more important than 
the underlying bills, given what we are faced with. This is serious 
business, and it is about time my friends on the other side of the 
aisle treated it as serious business.
  I will just close, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I have served here now 
for 20 years, and I have gotten to know some of the finest people in 
this Chamber, both Democrats and Republicans. I know there are a lot of 
Republicans who believe, as we do on the Democratic side, that we need 
to find out

[[Page H1144]]

what happened and we need to get to the truth. We don't want to see 
more attempts to block investigations.
  I hope that those Republicans would join with us and vote ``no'' on 
the previous question because, if you vote ``no,'' we get to bring this 
up, we get to vote on it, and we still get to vote on the underlying 
legislation. This doesn't slow anything down; this doesn't stop 
anything; but it allows us, at this very important moment, to be able 
to debate something that I know a lot of people in this country are 
very concerned about.
  Mr. Speaker, again, vote `no' on the previous question, and vote 
``no'' on this closed, restrictive Putin rule.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I agree with my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) that this 
is, indeed, serious business. Looking out for the workers of America is 
perhaps the most serious business that we do.
  We have heard a lot of speechifying about trying to do the right 
thing for the average person in America. On the way out the door, the 
Obama administration promulgated two regulations that attempt to force 
government-tight retirement on people when they don't want it and take 
away their consumer protection rights under ERISA. That is very serious 
business.

  But instead of having a debate about that, my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle tried to switch the subject to something else because 
they don't want to have to defend the indefensible. These two 
regulations that these two CRA bills would reverse would take away 
protections for American workers.
  This debate is not closed. I completely disagree with that assertion. 
We had a full debate on this yesterday afternoon in the Rules 
Committee. We devoted an hour of debate to it right now. Of course, my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to chew up most 
of their time, instead of talking about this rule and the underlying 
legislation, talking about something else; but that is their right if 
that is what they want to do.
  If they had some serious debate that they wanted to have on this rule 
and the underlying legislation, we wouldn't be talking about Russia. We 
would be talking about these bills. We would be talking about these 
regulations.
  If this rule is adopted, we will have at least 2 hours of debate here 
on the floor on the bills themselves, and perhaps more if there is a 
motion to recommit. There is plenty of debate here. There is plenty of 
time to decide that you are for the American workers and protecting 
their consumer protection rights under ERISA or you are against 
American workers--either/or. It doesn't have anything to do with 
Russia. It has nothing to do with the Presidential election. It has 
everything to do with whether you stand with the workers of America or 
not.
  I stand with the workers of America. I think the vast majority of the 
people in this body want to stand with the workers of America. If they 
do, I hope that they will vote for this rule and vote for the 
underlying legislation so that we can reverse these two regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support H.R. 116 and the 
underlying joint resolutions.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 116 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 3. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     356) to establish the National Commission on Foreign 
     Interference in the 2016 Election. 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 Foreign Affairs. After 
     general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment 
     under the five-minute rule. All points of order against 
     provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of 
     the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution 
     on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House 
     shall, immediately after the third daily order of business 
     under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the 
     Whole for further consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 4. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 356.
                                  ____


        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. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. McGOVERN. My parliamentary inquiry is, are there any amendments 
that have been made in order under this rule?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not interpret the measure 
while it is pending.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Can the Speaker respond to whether this is a closed 
rule, which means that no amendments are in order?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will not characterize the measure.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  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.

[[Page H1145]]

  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________