[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 84 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H4292-H4301]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5515, NATIONAL DEFENSE 
AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF 
 S. 204, TRICKETT WENDLER, FRANK MONGIELLO, JORDAN McLINN, AND MATTHEW 
BELLINA RIGHT TO TRY ACT OF 2017; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF S. 
 2155, ECONOMIC GROWTH, REGULATORY RELIEF, AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 905 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 905

       Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 5515) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 
     year 2019 for military activities of the Department of 
     Defense and for military construction, to prescribe military 
     personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. In lieu 
     of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by 
     the Committee on Armed Services now printed in the bill, an 
     amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the 
     text of Rules Committee Print 115-70 shall be considered as 
     adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. The 
     bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill 
     for the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute 
     rule and shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived.
       Sec. 2.  (a) No further amendment to the bill, as amended, 
     shall be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution and 
     amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this resolution. 
     (b) Each further amendment printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules shall be considered only in the order 
     printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. (c) All points of order against 
     the further amendments printed in the report of the Committee 
     on Rules or amendments en bloc described in section 3 of this 
     resolution are waived.
       Sec. 3.  It shall be in order at any time for the chair of 
     the Committee on Armed Services or his designee to offer 
     amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the 
     report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution 
     not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant 
     to this section shall be considered as read, shall be 
     debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by 
     the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
     Armed Services or their designees, shall not be subject to 
     amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division 
     of the question in the House or in the Committee of the 
     Whole.
       Sec. 4.  At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment pursuant to this resolution, the Committee of the 
     Whole shall rise without motion. No further consideration of 
     the bill shall be in order except pursuant to a subsequent 
     order of the House.
       Sec. 5.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 204) to authorize 
     the use of unapproved medical products by patients diagnosed 
     with a terminal illness in accordance with State law, and for 
     other purposes. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on

[[Page H4293]]

     the bill 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 Energy and Commerce; and 
     (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 6.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2155) to promote 
     economic growth, provide tailored regulatory relief, and 
     enhance consumer protections, and for other purposes. All 
     points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. 
     The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 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 
     commit.
       Sec. 7.  Notwithstanding clause 8 of rule XX, further 
     proceedings on the recorded vote ordered on the question of 
     reconsideration of the vote on the question of passage of 
     H.R. 2 may continue to be postponed through the legislative 
     day of Friday, June 22, 2018.

                              {time}  1115

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 905 provides for the 
consideration of three important bills aimed at protecting our country, 
reducing regulatory burdens in the financial sector, and allowing 
patients who have nowhere else to turn with another option to 
potentially save their lives.
  These three bills, taken together, show House Republicans' commitment 
to putting Americans' interests first.
  Today's rule provides for a structured rule to begin consideration of 
H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019. 
The resolution grants 1 hour of debate equally divided between the 
chair and ranking member of the House Committee on Armed Services.
  In addition, as the first of two likely rules on the fiscal year 2019 
NDAA, the rule provides for the consideration of 103 amendments to the 
defense bill.
  Along with the Defense Authorization Act, the resolution today 
provides for a rule for House consideration of S. 2155, the Economic 
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, the Senate-
passed bipartisan bill to reduce the regulatory burdens imposed on 
community and local banks by the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory 
legislation.
  The legislation went through rigorous debate in the House and the 
Senate, and it mirrors in many ways the House-passed CHOICE Act, passed 
by the House in the summer of 2017 under the stewardship of Financial 
Services Chair Jeb Hensarling.
  Moreover, the resolution before us provides for a rule to allow the 
House to consider the unanimously passed Senate bill, S. 204, the 
Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina 
Right to Try Act of 2017.
  This legislation, highlighted by the President during his last State 
of the Union address, has been a top priority of the President for the 
Congress, allowing terminally ill patients a last chance at survival 
using a carefully crafted FDA process.
  H.R. 5515, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2019, would authorize appropriations for military activities of the 
Department of Defense and for military construction, as well as 
prescribe military personnel strengths for the next fiscal year.
  This critical piece of legislation, one of the most important bills 
that any Congress will consider in any year, provides the resources and 
the direction necessary for our men and women in uniform to do what 
they do best: protect and serve our country throughout the world.
  As will be discussed by many Members of this body over this week, 
this bill touches on all aspects of military policy, from the Middle 
East to the Korean Peninsula to the Arctic waters.
  Among the hundreds of amendments the Rules Committee is likely to 
make in order on this legislation, I am pleased that, once again, my 
amendment, offered with Ms. Lee, Mr. Lance, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Jones, Mr. 
Welch, Mr. Lewis, and Ms. Schakowsky, will again be made in order. This 
continues to push the Department of Defense to finally complete a full 
audit of its finances, as required by law.
  S. 2155, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer 
Protection Act, corrects some of the more egregious provisions in the 
Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation.
  The bill focuses on regulatory relief on smaller financial 
institutions--namely, community banks and credit unions--so they can 
more readily meet the needs of their local communities without 
burdensome Federal regulations stifling their economic growth. This 
places the focus of the financial institutions back on their customers 
instead of completing paperwork and answering to agencies in 
Washington, D.C.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, our final bill in today's rule, S. 204, will 
look familiar to many people here today, as we are again considering 
legislation that would bring hope to terminally ill patients across our 
country.
  A similar bill, H.R. 5247, passed this House in March. Minority 
Leader Chuck Schumer and Senate Democrats have refused to act on H.R. 
5247, the revised version of the Right to Try legislation, which passed 
the House 2 months ago on a strong bipartisan vote.
  As this body had heard earlier this year, Right to Try was the one 
piece of legislation that President Trump came and stood in the well of 
this House and specifically promised to the American people in his 
State of the Union address.
  Today, I will say again what I said in March when we first took up 
Right to Try: I stand with the President and I stand with the thousands 
of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their 
friends in getting this important policy to the President's desk.
  Mr. Speaker, when we pass this bill today, it doesn't go back to the 
Senate. It has already been passed by the Senate. It goes immediately 
down to the White House for a signature and becomes law.
  Here is an interesting fact. In the last couple of months since the 
House passed its Right to Try bill, even more States have joined this 
strong grassroots movement. Now, 40 States, including my home State of 
Texas, have passed and signed a version of Right to Try into law.
  In nine other States, a version of Right to Try has already been 
introduced, including the State of New York, which is the home State of 
the minority leader of the United States Senate.
  Last year, the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee held a hearing 
on access to investigational drugs where S. 204 was discussed. At that 
time, the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott 
Gottlieb, and other advocacy groups expressed concerns on the various 
Right to Try bills introduced in the Senate and the House.
  So, when the President asked the Congress to act, the House responded 
by holding multistakeholder discussions with patient groups, medical 
research advocates, and the administration in order to improve the 
original Right to Try bill. I want to commend Chairman Walden for 
leading these negotiations.
  I am also proud of the revised Right to Try legislation that the 
Energy and Commerce Committee produced because the policies were sound, 
and I believe it was a positive step forward in granting access to new 
treatments while allowing additional input from the Food and Drug 
Administration.
  Unfortunately, the minority party on the other side of the Capitol, 
Senate Democrats, said ``no, thank you'' to the revised House bill. 
While I am not surprised by their decision, I think the American 
people, particularly patients

[[Page H4294]]

with terminal diseases and their loved ones, would not be satisfied 
with a ``no, thank you'' nonaction by Congress on such an important 
issue.
  Today, the House is ready to act for the American people and will be 
considering S. 204, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan 
McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2017.
  This passed the Senate unanimously last August. This bill will offer 
terminally ill patients a chance at life. After it passes this House, 
it will be signed into law.
  Our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific 
breakthroughs recently and over the course of the last decade. American 
patients have widespread access to innovative treatments, thanks to 
researchers and our academic institutions and those working in the 
pharmaceutical and medical device industries.
  Despite these achievements, we continue to hear from patients with 
serious, life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from 
north Texas, who remain frustrated with what they see as regulatory 
barriers from trying new therapies when everything else has failed 
them.
  As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and 
therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for 
loved ones diagnosed with very difficult diseases.
  This crossroads where our Nation seems to be--when a potentially 
lifesaving treatment, while not approved, both exists but remains 
unavailable--is an important debate that we are having for these 
Americans. To them, it is not only a matter of life or death but 
another chance to spend more time with their children, grandchildren, 
parents, and other family members.
  Some of the opponents of Right to Try point to the Food and Drug 
Administration's current expanded access program, which is aimed at 
helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials gain access to 
therapies that the agency has yet to approve.
  While this program makes a good faith effort to help patients, we can 
do more by passing Right to Try and creating an alternative pathway for 
these patients to access eligible investigational drugs.
  Additionally, we know that many individuals may not qualify for a 
clinical trial if they do not meet strict patient inclusion criteria, 
which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of their 
disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions.
  There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical 
trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far 
from the clinical trial sites.
  Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition 
fall into one of these categories. This legislation that we are doing 
today allows these patients to participate in an alternative pathway, 
opening another door to investigational drugs that does not exist 
today.
  While there are a few differences between S. 204 and the House-passed 
Right to Try legislation, the underlying policies between the two bills 
are very similar.
  For example, only certain investigational drugs are considered 
eligible under both bills. In order to qualify, the drug must have 
completed a phase one clinical trial; have an active application at the 
Food and Drug Administration; be under active development or production 
by a manufacturer; and not have been approved, licensed, or cleared for 
sale under current law.
  Also, both bills require reporting of serious adverse events, having 
written informed consent to the treating physician, and notifying the 
agency when a sponsor provides an investigational drug.
  Lastly, Commissioner Gottlieb at the Food and Drug Administration 
recently expressed support for the Senate-passed Right to Try bill 
being considered today and said that his agency could ensure an 
appropriate level of patient safety through guidance and rulemaking.

  In other words, while the Food and Drug Administration may have some 
additional work, the key point is the agency can achieve the proper 
balance of ensuring patient safety and granting access to new 
investigational drugs.
  I think the Commissioner would agree that we would have preferred the 
revised House Right to Try legislation, but doing nothing is currently 
not an option. Hundreds of thousands of Americans with terminal 
illnesses and their families are looking for us to act. I support 
restoring hope for these patients and giving them a fighting chance at 
life.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge Members of this esteemed body to support today's 
rule and all three underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 
minutes for debate.
  Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures that are in this combined rule 
are matters of substance that do need to be addressed, and I will get 
back to it in a moment.
  Several of my colleagues will join me today in recognizing a historic 
moment in this particular body in this great country of ours.
  Madam Speaker, let me recognize that tucked inside this rule is the 
majority's 83rd and 84th closed rules of this Congress--and we are just 
in May--with more to go.

                              {time}  1130

  That is a historic number because it makes the 115th Congress the 
most closed Congress ever. My Republican friends have made history for 
all the wrong reasons.
  But we should not let this milestone go unrecognized right from the 
very beginning, because it is a sad point in this Chamber's history. It 
is why we have ignored virtually every major issue the public cares 
about. It is why this Congress can't get anything done. It is why we 
are so dysfunctional.
  It is clear to me that the majority has turned a deaf ear, which is 
absolutely shameful. Please know this: 1,793 amendments offered by 
Members of this body have been denied.
  When I came to Congress in 1992, there was an echo chamber from the 
right talking about the Democrats' closed rules. Quite frankly, at that 
time, I did not understand that dynamic. I arrived here, and during 
that particular session of Congress, we did have open rules, but there 
were closed rules as well.
  When Nancy Pelosi was last Speaker, we had 12 open rules. This 
Speaker, our now lame-duck Speaker, up to this point, has been and is 
the only Speaker of the House of Representatives never to have an open 
rule. What that means is not just Democrats have been shut out but 
Republicans have been shut out.
  Day in and day out, night in and night out, in the Rules Committee, 
Members offer up meaningful suggestions to this Congress, and they are 
denied. That is not denying the Member of Congress; it is denying the 
people those persons are here to represent and who expect them to 
advance measures that are pertinent to their respective communities.
  There will be Members who will talk about the shamefulness of the 
kinds of amendments that have been denied.
  This particular measure authorizes $647 billion in base budget 
authority for defense programs in the coming fiscal year, as well as an 
additional $69 billion in overseas contingency operations.
  The legislation comes on the heels of the bipartisan budget agreement 
signed into law in February, which increased the budget caps for 
defense and nondefense spending for 2 years.
  The legislation provides, rightly, a 2.6 percent pay raise for 
Active-Duty troops, the highest such raise in 9 years. It strengthens 
the Military Health System, provides assistance to local educational 
agencies servicing military dependent students, and improves the 
Transition Assistance Program to provide servicemembers better tailored 
resources and information as they prepare to enter civilian life.
  I was glad to see that this NDAA establishes a prescription drug 
monitoring program in order to prevent opioid abuse within the 
military, a proactive step that will help our country combat drug 
addiction.
  What is important about this particular measure is the chairman, 
Chairman Thornberry, and the ranking member, Adam Smith, have worked 
together, along with the members of the Committee on Armed Services, to

[[Page H4295]]

produce a bipartisan product. It proves it can be done.
  This is a bipartisan measure, and most Members in this body will have 
amendments that will be made in order and will have an opportunity to 
present their ideas how to better sustain military readiness. That is 
as it should be.
  But there are members of the Committee on Armed Services who belong 
to other committees of jurisdiction. In those committees of 
jurisdiction where few hearings are held, no bipartisan effort is 
undertaken, they are shut out just as well as the rest of the members 
of the other jurisdictions.
  Every jurisdiction in this Congress should be bipartisan and should 
have input from both parties.
  And I find it passing strange that I hear voices saying that 
Democrats are obstructionists. Obstructionists of what? We can't even 
get amendments made in order.
  The only thing we have left that we can do is voice our objection to 
the kind of closed process that we have witnessed during this 
particular session of Congress. I hope the American public understands 
how much their Members are being denied an opportunity to represent 
them.
  In terms of military readiness, the fiscal year 2019 NDAA dedicates 
substantial funding toward cutting-edge military capabilities and 
countering emerging threats through investments in cyber and space. The 
bill includes funding for thousands of additional Active-Duty troops 
and authorizes important funding for military construction and 
infrastructure.
  You know what it doesn't include and what it won't? There will be 
Members who will offer that we have an Authorization for Use of 
Military Force. Seventeen years have passed since we have had a new 
Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress should be declaring 
war, not Presidents.
  And it doesn't mean this President. The three or four before him 
operating in this Congress were allowed to go forward under the aegis 
of a 17-years-ago Authorization for Use of Military Force.
  I was also pleased to see an improved commitment to Historically 
Black Colleges and Universities in this year's package--schools that 
are critical to ensuring a pipeline of highly skilled, diverse college 
graduates into the United States Armed Forces.
  This bill also takes significant steps to support our allies. It 
provides $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative and 
declares that it is the policy of the United States to counter Russian 
influence campaigns.
  The bill also imposes additional sanctions on Russia for violating 
the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it renews authority 
in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and fully funds 
Israeli missile defense partnerships.
  Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we can be proud of in this NDAA. 
Unfortunately, despite all of these important investments, there are a 
few provisions in this bill that raise serious concerns.
  I have already spoken to the failure to pass a new military-use-of-
force measure. The one that we have is overly broad, and Members have 
never had an opportunity to vote on a new one, even as we commit to 
military engagements overseas.
  Members on both sides of the aisle agree that an up-or-down vote on a 
new AUMF is long overdue. So this is the time and the place to do it. 
My colleague Barbara Lee, I am sure, and my colleague on the Rules 
Committee Jim McGovern, I am sure, are going to offer measures that 
will accomplish that.
  I am also particularly alarmed that this legislation repeals the 
Federal ban on military production of low-yield nuclear weapons. 
Repealing this 15-year ban and pursuing low-yield nuclear warheads for 
submarine-launched ballistic missiles will have significant 
ramifications for global security.
  Additionally, the NDAA includes a number of provisions targeting 
DOD's fourth estate, which refers to nonmilitary portions of the 
Department of Defense. These provisions affect human resources, 
information systems, and other important services that affect the day-
to-day lives of our servicemen and -women as well as national 
readiness.
  Under this bill, these offices are targeted with an unrealistic and 
unnecessary spending cut, setting up a sequester-like automatic 25 
percent reduction to critical support functions.
  Madam Speaker, this brings me to the second measure, the Economic 
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
  Under the pretext of providing relief to community banks, this bill 
rolls back important financial and consumer protections and provides a 
giveaway to large Wall Street banks, allowing them to skirt enhanced 
regulations aimed at protecting our economy from another financial 
crisis.
  The third measure, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan 
McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, exposes more patients to 
harm and further sidelines the Federal Drug Administration's ability to 
oversee investigational treatments than the bill passed by the House in 
March.
  In fact, during the Rules Committee hearing in March, Energy and 
Commerce Committee Chair Walden and Health Subcommittee Chair and 
fellow Rules Committee member Burgess had reservations about this 
measure, which is why the House took up the more narrowly focused bill 
in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, last Friday, there was another school shooting. Again, 
America watched in horror as students and teachers fled their 
classrooms from a murderous gun rampage. Again, community leaders and 
government officials offered thoughts and prayers. Yesterday, we 
offered a moment of silence. Again, calls for stricter gun control laws 
and heightened school security returned.
  We all know that this will happen again to our young people. And for 
that reason, I can state emphatically and without fear of having to 
correct the Record that the Republican leadership of this House has not 
only abdicated their responsibility to the American people and our 
children but their common sense as well.
  No other country in the world has as many guns, as many homicides, or 
as many mass shootings as we do. There is simply no more time to waste. 
We need to be considering a ban on bump stocks. We need to be 
considering a ban on assault weapons.
  And don't anybody tell me we can't ban assault weapons. We did that 
when I first came to Congress. We banned assault weapons, and the kind 
of mass killings we have seen went down after we did that.
  We need to be considering protective orders allowing people to 
petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in 
crisis. We have seen evidence of that working when Florida passed its 
law. One week after that law went into effect, a person had his guns 
removed who would have been a harm to himself and to others.
  We need to be considering comprehensive background checks, and we 
can't stop there. We need to increase access to mental health services. 
We need to eliminate the feeling in this country that seeking help 
carries with it some sort of stigma.
  We need to learn to recognize the danger signs and offer a clear 
course of action. We need to teach students about conflict resolution.
  And we need to do more about civility in this Nation, in this House. 
And we should be its leaders, not standing and offering a moment of 
silence and returning to do nothing, as we have done, shooting after 
shooting, mass shooting after mass shooting, in this country.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bergman), a member of the Financial Services Committee.
  Mr. BERGMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the fiscal 
year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act.
  I want to thank Chairman Thornberry for all his leadership on this 
bill.
  Providing for our Nation's common defense is our constitutional duty. 
As a retired lieutenant general in the Marine Corps, I know that 
certainty from Washington, especially on this side of the river, is 
critical for the military to carry out its missions. Our men and women 
in uniform need consistency and reliability over the long term to meet 
complex threats, changing threats, in all corners of the world.
  This bill increases resources for readiness training and upgrades 
essential

[[Page H4296]]

equipment to provide our warfighters with increased capabilities on 
land, at sea, and in the air.
  I also want to thank the committee for including report language 
highlighting the critical role that the Soo Locks play in our national 
security. The Soo Locks, located in my home district, are a single 
point of failure in a multibillion-dollar supply chain and a potential 
target for disruptive activities. Any unscheduled outing of the locks 
would threaten our national economy and, in turn, our national 
security.
  Again, I thank the chairman for all his hard work on this defense 
authorization. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the 
underlying bill.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Foreign Affairs and 
Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all 
care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.
  Mr. TED LIEU of California. Madam Speaker, Paul Ryan promised regular 
order when he took over the speakership. He has broken that promise 
repeatedly. We have voted on bills here on the floor that violated the 
standard committee process.
  The majority has employed a technique called marshal law that allows 
them to bring up bills with little to no notice, and now we know we 
have the most closed Congress in U.S. history. The majority has blocked 
all amendments on most bills. That is a disgraceful way to run the 
people's House.
  Twenty-three amendments of mine have been blocked--simple amendments. 
One of them basically says, hey, the Federal Government should invest 
more in cybersecurity. We can't even get a debate on that.
  Really?
  Another amendment I have deals with anticorruption, and whether you 
have a Republican or a Democrat or an Independent, you don't want 
corruption. You don't want members of the executive branch making money 
off the taxpayer's dime.
  So one of these amendments basically says we are not going to 
reimburse the President or other members when they go and spend money 
on Mar-a-Lago or other Trump properties and have the Federal Government 
pay money there because that flows to the President or his immediate 
family. Can't even get a vote on that. Why? Because the Republican 
leadership knows it would pass.
  We need to open up this Congress and have a debate. We came here to 
debate ideas, not to block them.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Messer).
  Mr. MESSER. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this historic 
bipartisan compromise that rolls back some of the most harmful policies 
from the Dodd-Frank Act and will help grow our economy.
  The Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act 
includes bipartisan legislation that I authored to help communities in 
Indiana and across the United States save money on roads, bridges, and 
schools. It reverses a backward banking rule that gave foreign 
countries an advantage over American cities and towns. This will drive 
down the cost of borrowing and make it cheaper for cities and towns to 
finance local infrastructure projects.
  Ultimately, this bill saves taxpayer dollars. That is why it has 
passed the House twice. It is supported by numerous advocacy groups, 
and my good friend, the State treasurer of Indiana, Kelly Mitchell. I 
applaud this bill's inclusion in this banking reform package, and I 
urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Foreign Affairs and 
Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all 
care about but that have been blocked during this closed Congress.
  Mr. CICILLINE. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  We pride ourselves on being the most deliberative body on the planet, 
and all of us come here to contribute our best ideas to improve the 
lives of the American people.
  You wonder why this place doesn't work? It is the whole set of 
exclusion of ideas from nearly half this body.
  I am one of those people who has offered just about 25 amendments 
that were blocked by the Republicans. What are they afraid of? Debate 
your ideas. Make your arguments. Vote. Be held accountable.
  Some of the things they blocked, the amendments I offered: an 
amendment to increase student loan interest tax deductions in our tax 
bill; a provision to end tax breaks for companies that ship American 
jobs overseas; an amendment to increase funding to combat violent 
extremism; and an amendment to increase funding for fire departments in 
the SAFER grants. Those are just four examples.
  Their practice, they marked an important moment in history, not a 
good moment: the most closed Congress in the history of the United 
States, excluding from consideration debate, argument, and 
accountability.
  Vote on these things so the American people know where you stand. 
That is what we have here, over 1,000 ideas proffered by Democrats that 
our Republican colleagues won't even bring to the floor for 
consideration so the American people know where they stand on a range 
of important issues.
  This is a dark day for Congress, the most closed Congress in our 
history. It means the voices of the American people as reflected in 
nearly half of this body are not being considered, debated, and voted 
upon by the Congress.
  It is wrong. It is negatively impacting the lives of the American 
people. There are real consequences. It is not just that we want our 
own amendments considered. It is because we understand it will benefit 
the American people.
  I urge my colleagues to have some self-reflection on what they are 
doing here.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds for purposes of 
rebuttal before I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Budd).
  As a point of situational awareness, as of last week, in this 
Congress, over 1,000 amendments have been heard on the House floor: 47 
percent Democratic, 41 percent Republican, 15 percent bipartisan.
  For a point of reference, the last term that Nancy Pelosi was Speaker 
of the House, the 111th Congress, less than 1,000 amendments for the 
entire Congress. We passed that milestone prior to last week. We will 
continue to hear amendments on the floor.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina 
(Mr. Budd).
  Mr. BUDD. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
  Today is a great day for North Carolina's community financial 
institutions, small business innovators, and, most importantly, our 
economy. I rise today in strong support of this rule that will bring a 
much-needed regulatory relief bill, S. 2155, to the House floor.
  The most damaging aspect of the Dodd-Frank bill was the additional 
and unnecessary regulatory burden placed on community financial 
institutions, and because of this, we have seen American consumers and 
small businesses struggle to get the credit and the support that they 
need. Economic growth is held back because of Dodd-Frank, but I am 
happy to report that relief is on the way with the passage of S. 2155.
  Madam Speaker, while I urge adoption of this rule and urge passage of 
this bill, I also look forward to working with our chairman and our 
leader, Jeb Hensarling, Senator Mike Crapo, and Senate Democrats to 
craft a package of bills that focuses on capital formation. I offer any 
support I can to help bring that collection of bills across the finish 
line as well. I urge adoption of the rule, Madam Speaker.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, just to respond briefly to Mr. Burgess, 
it is a good thing that they made a handful of amendments in order that 
added up to 1,000. If we went through it, they would look like studies 
and things that were not significant; but when it came to the 
healthcare measures or when it came to tax reform, not one amendment by 
a Democrat was made in order.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut

[[Page H4297]]

(Ms. DeLauro), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, to 
discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and 
real people affected by these closed rules.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, this week, the Republican majority won 
the honor of having run the most closed Congress in American history: 
84 closed rules, zero open rules.
  What does that mean? It means that they blocked us from fully 
debating or amending legislation, prohibiting us from fully giving our 
constituents a voice in this Congress.
  Why are we here? Our constituents sent us here to be able to debate 
issues and to vote on those issues.
  Two weeks ago, the majority blocked my amendment to ensure equal pay 
for equal work. Congress passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963 to end 
unequal wages. Yet, in 2018, women still earn about 80 cents, on 
average, to a man's dollar. The gap is worse for women of color.
  A woman working full-time will lose $400,000 over the course of her 
career. African American women lose $840,000. Latinas will lose over $1 
million.
  Since women are the sole or co-breadwinner in half of the families 
with children, our Nation's families and our economy suffers, which is 
why I offered the Paycheck Fairness Act as an amendment. It toughens 
remedies in the Equal Pay Act to help America's working women fight 
wage discrimination and receive a full paycheck. They blocked it.
  The strength of this institution is its potential to make a 
difference in the lives of the American people. That is vital when the 
biggest economic challenge is jobs that do not pay them enough to live 
on.
  We cannot help raise wages, improve education, or fix crumbling 
infrastructure when this majority, more than any in American history, 
has closed the House to debate and to amendments. They closed it to 
action. It is unacceptable. The American people deserve better.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Loudermilk).
  Mr. LOUDERMILK. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Burgess) for yielding this time to debate these important measures.
  This is a historic moment here in the House. Today, we will be 
sending the most significant financial regulatory relief legislation to 
the President's desk in more than a decade. I am proud to have been 
part of this effort, and I thank all of my colleagues who helped get us 
to this moment.
  Madam Speaker, for the past 3\1/2\ years I served in this House, I 
have been telling the same story over and over again:
  My home State of Georgia lost 70 banks during the financial crisis, 
the most of any State in the Nation. Today, 52 of Georgia's counties do 
not have a community bank headquartered there, and three of Georgia's 
counties have no bank branch whatsoever. Why? Because of excessive 
regulatory burden placed on small community banks and credit unions by 
previous legislative action and through overreach by regulators.
  Today, we are taking a major step toward reversing that trend by 
taking bold action and by sending progrowth regulatory relief to small 
community banks and credit unions to the President's desk. This bill 
will help ensure that community banks and credit unions will no longer 
be crushed under the weight of regulations that do not distinguish 
between them and the largest financial institutions.
  Much of this bill originally came from House bills--bipartisan, I may 
add. This moment is an example of the legislative process working well 
in a strong bipartisan fashion.
  I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time both parties 
have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Love). The gentleman from Florida has 
10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has 13 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed 
rule and the real people affected by the GOP shutting down our 
democratic process.
  Mr. KILDEE. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I am here to protest what has been the most closed 
Congress in American history. I know the other side will recite the 
number of amendments that have been allowed, but the fact remains, this 
is the most closed Congress we have ever had: 84 closed rules and not 
one open rule.

  We are sent here by our constituents to advocate for their interests, 
and in the minority, one of the few tools we have is the ability to 
offer amendments and have those arguments heard on the floor of this 
House. Knowing that we may not win every fight, knowing that we may not 
win a majority on each idea, we ought to at least allow the power of a 
good idea to have a fair hearing.
  Twenty-eight times I have offered amendments, thoughtful amendments 
that were crafted with the idea that we could actually improve policy, 
and 28 times those amendments have been blocked.
  These are not messaging amendments, just to give two examples:
  One would have increased the amount of funding available to local 
governments that are struggling to improve their drinking water 
systems. Think about my hometown of Flint and the hundreds of other 
communities that would have benefited from that.
  Another would have directed the Federal Government to do more to deal 
with this issue of PFAS, perfluorinated chemicals, that is poisoning 
groundwater. In fact, while the EPA is having a conversation today 
about this very dangerous chemical that is affecting human life in this 
country, I offered an opportunity for Congress to do something.
  Why didn't we do it? Because up in the Rules Committee, it was 
blocked.
  The ideas ought to have a chance on the floor of the House. That is 
what we are sent here to do. We ought to open this Congress up.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
  Mr. DAVIDSON. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this historic 
bipartisan legislation. This progrowth bill is thanks to all the 
hardworking members of the House Financial Services Committee, and I am 
proud to have contributed to this meaningful reform.
  S. 2155 will reduce regulatory burdens hindering Main Street by 
providing job creators with resources they need to grow their 
businesses and, frankly, their banks. Under Dodd-Frank, big banks have 
gotten bigger and small banks have become fewer. Our economy is not 
well served when small banks are handicapped.
  As a former manufacturer, I understand the toll excessive regulatory 
burdens can have on small businesses. That is why I am a proud 
supporter of this legislation, and I look forward to seeing this bill 
signed on the President's desk.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am 
going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative 
Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act.
  This legislation would overhaul our broken campaign finance system 
and return to a government of, by, and for the American people.
  Madam 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 Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to 
discuss our proposal.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, no matter what you think of S. 2155, one of the 
underlying bills being considered today, it is not what a clear 
majority of Americans want Congress to be doing.
  Madam Speaker, nobody is coming up to us in townhalls and asking 
Congress to deregulate large financial institutions. We are not going 
to a fish fry

[[Page H4298]]

and hearing from people that they want us to dismantle important 
consumer protections. And nobody at VFW halls, Rotary Clubs, and PTA 
meetings thinks this bill should be Congress' priority.
  The reason this bill is on the floor is that the power brokers on 
Wall Street want it on the floor. It is their bill; it is not the 
people's bill.
  Our broken campaign finance system lies at the heart of this warped 
political system, where big money calls the shots in Washington.
  For starters, in this broken system, too many good candidates without 
access to big money are effectively barred from running altogether. 
Those who can make it through have to spend hours dialing for dollars, 
courting a narrow slice of the Nation's elite, while high-powered 
lobbyists and special interests are dictating legislation here in 
Congress, just like today.
  Most recently, these backroom power brokers used their influence to 
demand billion-dollar handouts for the wealthiest 1 percent from the 
GOP tax scam. Now they are once again tearing down critical rules to 
protect our financial system from another economic collapse.
  Today's previous question would force a vote on H.R. 20, the 
Government by the People Act, a comprehensive reform of our campaign 
finance system to combat the influence of big money in our politics, 
raise civic engagement, and amplify the voice of everyday Americans.
  This legislation would increase and multiply the power of small 
donors in America, breaking candidates' reliance on the big money 
crowd, giving candidates the resources they need to compete and win.
  That way, when it comes time to make policy, the elected 
representatives of the people will work on behalf of our constituents, 
not the big money donors.
  Madam Speaker, the American people are sick of getting a raw deal 
from Washington. That is why Democrats are offering a better deal for 
our democracy: a comprehensive reform agenda to get rid of the 
corruption that has led to such a dysfunctional political system here 
in Washington. We will deliver real reforms that will restore a 
government of, by, and for the people.
  Mr. BURGESS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Kustoff).
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding.
  Madam Speaker, today, I rise in support of S. 2155, the Economic 
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.
  This pro-growth package provides the desperately needed regulatory 
relief to our community financial institutions while providing 
consumers with greater options for accessing credit.
  For too long, we have seen many of the onerous regulatory burdens 
restrict banks and credit unions from serving the needs of their 
communities. After 8 years of failed economic policies, which led to 
the slowest, weakest recovery in the modern era, the economy is finally 
starting to take off, and consumer optimism is increasing each and 
every day each.
  As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, we remain 
committed to passing legislation designed to roll back some of the most 
burdensome provisions found in the Dodd-Frank Act.
  This legislation was intended to rein in large financial 
institutions, while harming our local community banks and credit 
unions. These increased regulations created a higher cost of business 
and diminished credit availability.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Palmer). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. KUSTOFF of Tennessee. Frankly, the Economic Growth, Regulatory 
Relief, and Consumer Protection Act tailors the rules to the size and 
risk profile rather than imposing sweeping changes to our consumer 
financial institutions.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their work on this important 
legislation, and I urge passage on the rule and on the final vote.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the Financial Services 
Committee, to continue the discussion of commonsense issues that we all 
care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.
  Mr. GONZALEZ of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend and 
distinguished Member of Congress, Mr. Hastings, for providing me the 
opportunity to speak today on behalf of deported veterans.
  Mr. Speaker, setting the record for the most closed Congress is not a 
proud accomplishment. Our job is in our title: Representatives. We 
represent the American people.
  According to the most recent Gallup poll, 78 percent of Americans 
disapprove of the way Congress is handling itself. Can you blame them?
  When I came to Congress, I heard from constituents and Americans 
across the country about the injustice of deported veterans.
  I heard from Arnold Giammarco from Connecticut, who was deported to 
Italy after coming to the United States at the age of 4 and honorably 
serving our country.
  I heard from Gerardo Armijo, a Purple Heart recipient in my district, 
who was brought to the United States as an infant. He served two tours 
in Iraq, came home honorably discharged with PTSD after he suffered 
major injuries from an IED, and failed to get the care that he needed 
from the Veterans Administration. Due to drugs and alcohol, he found 
himself in some trouble and is now deported.
  These stories are flooding in from all corners of the globe. We are 
deporting honorably discharged veterans after promising them 
citizenship. This is a disgrace.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend, a former member of 
the Committee on Rules who is now a member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about 
that have been blocked during this closed Congress.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is the most closed Congress in my lifetime. Eighty-
four closed rules. That means we don't debate on the floor.
  That is also on top of the fact that we don't debate in committee. 
The tax bill that was passed out of the Ways and Means Committee had no 
discussion, no debate, and no publication until it was brought up for a 
vote. The same thing is true for the healthcare bill.
  We need to be debating things.
  One of them was allowing citizens to import safe prescription drugs 
from Canada at a lower cost when those prescriptions were manufactured 
in FDA-approved facilities. I offered that amendment, and we were 
denied the opportunity to vote on that.
  Mr. Speaker, had we been allowed to vote on it, it would have passed, 
and Americans would have saved billions of dollars--and I said the word 
``billions''--on safe prescription medication if we could crack the 
lock that Pharma has on price gouging for pharmaceuticals.
  We could do that if the majority would allow us to vote on amendments 
that pursue the opportunities that Americans need to be safe and 
secure.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules, my good friend, who also serves on the Committee on 
Agriculture, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed 
Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this is a sad day, a very sad day, for 
this institution. Today, it becomes official that this will become the 
most closed Congress ever in the history of the United States.
  You heard why this matters. You heard from some of my colleagues here 
today that important issues, issues that the American people care 
about, like ensuring clean water for children, like high ethics in the 
executive branch, like cybersecurity, like banning bump stocks, like 
protecting our

[[Page H4299]]

veterans, or like protecting Medicare or Social Security--these 
amendments are routinely denied. We are shut out.
  Millions of young people all over the country protested for us to do 
something to combat gun violence, and we have done nothing. We have 
done nothing in this Chamber other than a moment of silence.
  The frustration of these young people is compounded by the fact that 
we can't even bring an amendment to the floor to ban bump stocks or to 
expand background checks or to ban assault weapons. They don't want to 
let anything come to the floor. It is outrageous.
  And for anybody to stand up here and defend this process, to somehow 
normalize this process, give me a break. This closed process is 
something you would see in Russia or Turkey or in some other 
authoritarian government, not in the people's House.
  This is supposed to be the greatest deliberative body in the world. 
What is so radical about deliberating every once in a while?
  We have a report that we are releasing today. It is 230 pages. Go to 
the Rules Committee Democrats' web page, and you can read all about how 
there has been a deliberate attempt to shut out the voices of the 
American people.
  Enough. This is not the way this place is supposed to be run.
  If Democrats are given the privilege to control this House again, I 
will tell you, we need to be more accommodating, we need to be more 
open, and we need to allow this place to be a deliberative body where 
important issues get debated.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we need to fix problems in this country.
  We could pass a bill to protect the Dreamers in a nanosecond if the 
Republican majority would allow us to bring an amendment to the floor, 
but they won't. Why? Because they are afraid that we are going to win.
  They don't want a fair fight. They want a system that is always 
rigged in their favor. Well, that is not democracy. That is not the way 
this place is supposed to be run.

  If we have a more accommodating approach to legislating, then I 
guarantee you that the polarization will be less. You will have more 
bills that will pass in a bipartisan way.
  And, by the way, it is not just Democrats that get shut out; 180 
Republicans have been shut out of the amendment process as well.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has again expired.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the 
gentleman.
  Mr. McGOVERN. The sad thing is that they just go along to get along, 
and they are complicit in this most closed process in U.S. history.
  Enough. Enough. We deserve better, the American people deserve 
better, my constituents deserve better, and your constituents deserve 
better. This place needs to be run differently.
  Mr. Speaker, vote against this rule.
  And I say to my Republican friends: Have the guts to stand with us 
and vote ``no'' on this closed process.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes for the 
purposes of a response.
  I would, of course, lead with the observation that those who do not 
remember their history are doomed to repeat it. I don't remember 
precisely who said it, but I think it bears repeating today.
  In the 111th Congress, Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats allowed less 
than a thousand amendments to be considered on the floor.
  Of the bills that were considered at that time, the Dodd-Frank bill 
was one of those bills. The amendments that were blocked by the 
Democrats in the 111th Congress were precisely the type of amendments 
that we are now considering today in the bill to alleviate some of the 
obstructions, some of the gridlock that has occurred with our credit 
unions and smaller banks--things that people have been asking us for 
repeatedly for the last 5 to 7 years.
  Mr. Speaker, the number of amendments that were blocked in the 111th 
Congress was significant. We have a chance today to undo some of that 
process, and I believe we ought to take that opportunity. As of 1\1/2\ 
weeks ago, over a thousand amendments had been made in order in this 
Congress.
  The Committee on Rules is run differently today than it was in the 
111th Congress. It used to be that you had to submit 45 copies of an 
amendment and you had a time limit by which you had to submit those 
amendments. You can submit amendments late now.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to myself.
  Chairman Sessions has been very accommodating in allowing us to bring 
amendments to the Committee on Rules late.
  There is no clock in the Committee on Rules, as the gentleman well 
knows. You can talk as long as you want in the Committee on Rules about 
your amendments, and you can offer whatever amendments you prefer.
  The process is not ideal, but it is important that we move forward 
with these important reforms that people have been asking us for years. 
And, today, that day is at hand, and those reforms will be delivered.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me say to my friend from Texas, we 
don't want to talk. That is what you guys want to do. We want to 
legislate.
  The fact is that the majority of bills that you have brought to this 
House floor have been closed. You have more closed rules than any other 
Congress in the history of the United States of America. How anybody 
can defend that with a straight face is beyond me.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 1 minute 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Texas 
that I am prepared to close if he is.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, seeing no more speakers on my side, I am 
prepared to close.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to look at this chart. Rules 
under Speaker Ryan: structured rules, 44 percent; closed rules, 56 
percent; open rules, zero. That is what we are talking about.
  As with all bipartisan measures, this NDAA has many things to like 
and some provisions that are causes for concern, but it did demonstrate 
that there can be bipartisan cooperation in order to safeguard our 
national security, and that should be the case in every one of the 
jurisdictional undertakings here in Congress.
  I commend the committee for once again tackling such a major 
legislative package, but sadly, this approach is far and away the 
exception to the rule around here.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to address gun 
violence in this country. Gun violence has overtaken our country. We 
have a moral responsibility to every child who now attends school 
thinking about, not if a school shooting will happen, but when it will 
happen to them. This responsibility is not owed to them at our leisure, 
it is not owed to them next month or next week or tomorrow, but today.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I again want to reiterate, the Rules Committee has spent 
hours listening and considering Member testimony. We have welcomed over 
225 Members to testify during this Congress, and roughly 493 times have 
made over 1,000 amendments in order, including 474 from Democrats, 383 
from Republicans, and over 150 which were bipartisan amendments.
  The rule today is important, three important pieces of legislation.
  The National Defense Authorization Act. Our number one priority when 
we are elected to this body is the defense

[[Page H4300]]

of our Nation, and we are authorizing that expenditure today.
  The bill to reform the financial services institutions is one that 
has been requested by small banks and credit unions for years, and this 
body is today prepared to deliver.
  Then finally, the Right to Try Act. The President stood in the State 
of the Union message and said that it was not correct that people had 
to go to other countries in order to get the medicines that they needed 
to prolong their lives. He wanted that to end, and today we are taking 
the step to end that.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the 
three underlying pieces of legislation
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings is as follows:

          An amendment to H. Res. 905 offered by Mr. Hastings

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 8. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare 
     the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on 
     the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     20) to reform the financing of congressional elections by 
     broadening participation by small dollar donors, and for 
     other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
     dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided among and 
     controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority 
     members of the Committees on House Administration, Energy and 
     Commerce, and Ways and Means. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 20.

        The Vote on The Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on:
  Adoption of House Resolution 905, if ordered, and
  Approval of the Journal, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 184, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 210]

                               YEAS--222

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

                               NAYS--184

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Barragan
     Bass
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo

[[Page H4301]]


     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Gottheimer
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     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
     O'Halleran
     Pallone
     Panetta
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree
     Pocan
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Raskin
     Rice (NY)
     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
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Allen
     Black
     Brown (MD)
     Burgess
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Garamendi
     Higgins (LA)
     Hoyer
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pearce
     Richmond
     Rogers (KY)
     Roskam
     Speier
     Stivers
     Walz

                              {time}  1244

  Mses. MENG, KELLY of Illinois, and VELAZQUEZ changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. MARCHANT changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall No. 210.
  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. HASTINGS. 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 227, 
noes 180, not voting 20, as follows

                             [Roll No. 211]

                               AYES--227

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)
     Comer
     Comstock
     Conaway
     Cook
     Costello (PA)
     Cramer
     Crawford
     Culberson
     Curbelo (FL)
     Curtis
     Davidson
     Davis, Rodney
     Denham
     DeSantis
     Diaz-Balart
     Donovan
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Dunn
     Emmer
     Estes (KS)
     Faso
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick
     Fleischmann
     Flores
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Gallagher
     Garrett
     Gianforte
     Gibbs
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gottheimer
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (LA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffith
     Grothman
     Guthrie
     Handel
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hensarling
     Herrera Beutler
     Hice, Jody B.
     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
     Lesko
     Lewis (MN)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Loudermilk
     Love
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     MacArthur
     Marchant
     Marino
     Marshall
     Mast
     McCarthy
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McHenry
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     McSally
     Meadows
     Messer
     Mitchell
     Moolenaar
     Mooney (WV)
     Mullin
     Murphy (FL)
     Newhouse
     Noem
     Norman
     Nunes
     O'Halleran
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Palmer
     Paulsen
     Perry
     Pittenger
     Poe (TX)
     Poliquin
     Posey
     Ratcliffe
     Reed
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rice (SC)
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney, Francis
     Rooney, Thomas J.
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothfus
     Rouzer
     Royce (CA)
     Russell
     Rutherford
     Sanford
     Scalise
     Schneider
     Schweikert
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sinema
     Smith (MO)
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smucker
     Stefanik
     Stewart
     Taylor
     Tenney
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tipton
     Trott
     Turner
     Upton
     Valadao
     Wagner
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walker
     Walorski
     Walters, Mimi
     Weber (TX)
     Webster (FL)
     Wenstrup
     Westerman
     Williams
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Yoho
     Young (AK)
     Young (IA)
     Zeldin

                               NOES--180

     Adams
     Aguilar
     Amash
     Barragan
     Beatty
     Bera
     Beyer
     Bishop (GA)
     Blumenauer
     Blunt Rochester
     Bonamici
     Boyle, Brendan F.
     Brady (PA)
     Brownley (CA)
     Bustos
     Butterfield
     Capuano
     Carbajal
     Cardenas
     Carson (IN)
     Cartwright
     Castor (FL)
     Castro (TX)
     Chu, Judy
     Cicilline
     Clark (MA)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly
     Cooper
     Correa
     Costa
     Courtney
     Crist
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis, Danny
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delaney
     DeLauro
     DelBene
     Demings
     DeSaulnier
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle, Michael F.
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Espaillat
     Esty (CT)
     Evans
     Foster
     Frankel (FL)
     Fudge
     Gallego
     Gomez
     Gonzalez (TX)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings
     Heck
     Higgins (NY)
     Himes
     Huffman
     Jackson Lee
     Jayapal
     Jeffries
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kelly (IL)
     Kennedy
     Khanna
     Kihuen
     Kildee
     Kilmer
     Kind
     Krishnamoorthi
     Kuster (NH)
     Lamb
     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
     Massie
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McEachin
     McGovern
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Meng
     Moore
     Moulton
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nolan
     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
     Schrader
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell (AL)
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Sires
     Smith (WA)
     Soto
     Suozzi
     Swalwell (CA)
     Takano
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Titus
     Tonko
     Torres
     Tsongas
     Vargas
     Veasey
     Vela
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters, Maxine
     Watson Coleman
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--20

     Allen
     Bass
     Black
     Brown (MD)
     DesJarlais
     Deutch
     Frelinghuysen
     Gabbard
     Gaetz
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Higgins (LA)
     Hoyer
     Norcross
     O'Rourke
     Pearce
     Rogers (KY)
     Speier
     Stivers
     Walz

                              {time}  1252

  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.

                          ____________________