[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 12116-12124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2015


                             General Leave

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material on the further consideration of H.R. 
5016, and that I may include tabular materials on the same.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Yoder). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 661 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 5016.
  Will the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas) kindly take the chair.

                              {time}  1237


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 5016) making appropriations for financial services and 
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and 
for other purposes, with Mr. Lucas (Acting Chair) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Tuesday, 
July 15, 2014, a request for a recorded vote on an amendment offered by 
the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) had been postponed, and 
the bill had been read through page 152, line 15.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Stivers) for the purpose of engaging in a colloquy.
  Mr. STIVERS. Chairman Crenshaw, I rise today to address a proposed 
amendment I was going to offer related to the Securities and Exchange 
Commission's Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation 
Initiative, or the MCDC. This is a program that was announced by the 
Securities and Exchange Commission in March, which is related to the 
issuance of municipal securities.
  Under the MCDC, the SEC is asking municipal bond issuers and 
underwriters to self-report potential technical inconsistencies 
associated with the financial information recording practices of State 
and local governments.
  On its face, this seems to be reasonable. However, the States and 
localities that the SEC is trying to protect do

[[Page 12117]]

not support this program and feel it is very punitive.
  In fact, the Government Finance Officers Association, or GFOA, which 
represents the Nation's State and local government finance directors, 
supports my proposed amendment because the MCDC initiative is both 
costly and unreliable for government issuers, taxpayers, and 
underwriters. In addition, the proposal changed rules midstream, 
applying one standard when the regulators' reporting apparatus was not 
even operable.
  I appreciate the chairman's time and his willingness to agree to work 
with me and the Financial Services Committee to find a resolution to 
this problem should the SEC not choose to curtail this program on their 
own. We want to make sure it is fair and equitable to our States and 
local municipalities.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman from Ohio for bringing this 
initiative to my attention.
  As he said, the SEC recently announced that issuers and underwriters 
of municipal securities are required to self-report violations of the 
Federal securities laws relating to representations and bond offerings. 
I understand the gentleman's concern that this is a massive 
undertaking, and to identify all the series of bonds sold and to make 
sure that all disclosures are made accurately and timely is a huge 
undertaking.
  So I look forward to working with you regarding your concerns and to 
find some solutions.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                     Amendment Offered by Mr. Engel

  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to lease or purchase new light duty vehicles for any 
     executive fleet, or for an agency's fleet inventory, except 
     in accordance with Presidential Memorandum--Federal Fleet 
     Performance, dated May 24, 2011.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, on May 24, 2011, President Obama issued a 
memorandum on Federal fleet performance that requires all new light-
duty vehicles in the Federal fleet to be alternate fuel vehicles--such 
as hybrid, electric, natural gas, or biofuel--by December 31, 2015.
  My amendment echoes the Presidential memorandum by prohibiting funds 
in the Financial Services Appropriations Act from being used to lease 
or purchase new light-duty vehicles except in accord with the 
President's memorandum.
  This amendment has been supported by the majority and minority on 
appropriations bills eight times over the past few years, and I hope it 
will receive similar support today.
  Our transportation sector is, by far, the biggest reason we send $600 
billion per year to hostile nations to pay for oil at ever-increasing 
costs, but America doesn't need to be dependent on foreign sources of 
oil for transportation fuel. Alternative technologies exist today that, 
when implemented broadly, will allow any alternative fuel to be used in 
America's automotive fleet.
  The Federal Government operates the largest fleet of light-duty 
vehicles in America. According to GSA, there are over 660,000 vehicles 
in the Federal fleet. By supporting a diverse array of vehicle 
technologies in our Federal fleet, we will encourage development of 
domestic energy resources, including biomass, natural gas, agricultural 
waste, hydrogen, renewable electricity, methanol, and ethanol.
  When I was in Brazil a few years ago, I saw how they diversified 
their fuel by greatly expanding their use of ethanol. When people drove 
to a gas station, they saw what a gallon of gasoline would cost and 
what an equivalent amount of ethanol would cost and could decide which 
was better for them.
  If they can do this in Brazil, then we can do it here. We can educate 
people on using alternative fuels and let consumers decide what is best 
for them.
  And let me say, my amendment, cosponsored by the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen), would demand and mandate that all cars 
produced in America be flex fuel cars. It would cost less than $100 per 
car to do that. And we are foolish, in my opinion, not to do that as 
well.
  But here in the Federal fleet, expanding the role that energy 
resources play in our transportation economy will help break the 
leverage over Americans held by foreign government-controlled oil 
companies and will increase our Nation's domestic security and protect 
consumers from price spikes and shortages in the world oil market.
  So I would ask that my colleagues support the Engel amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1245

  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy 
with Mr. Wenstrup from Ohio, and I yield to him.
  Mr. WENSTRUP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  The IRS has admitted to paying politics with our Tax Code, going as 
far as singling out certain groups for having ``patriot'' in their 
name. Unfortunately, much of the targeting that occurred happened in my 
district's backyard, in the IRS field office in Cincinnati. Americans 
have the right to be outraged, and they deserve better.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee for ensuring that free 
speech rights are protected in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I wrote to you in April asking that we prohibit funding 
to implement proposed rules on 501(c)(4) organizations, and my 
constituents are appreciative that you acted. By prohibiting funding 
for certain IRS activities, this bill would prevent these IRS abuses 
from becoming law. Importantly, this bill is designed to make sure the 
government works for its citizens, not against them.
  While the House continues its efforts to get to the bottom of the IRS 
political targeting, this is a meaningful action we can take now to 
make sure the behavior isn't repeated. Every American has the right to 
participate and engage in civic debate and must be protected from 
partisan bureaucrats.
  IRS targeting isn't just an affront to the Constitution, but a threat 
to all Americans seeking to exercise their First Amendment rights. I 
thank the chairman and his committee again for their diligent work on 
this bill.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I thank the gentleman for his kind words. I share 
his outrage over the Internal Revenue Service giving extra scrutiny to 
certain 501(c)(4) groups based on their political ideology.
  This bill includes numerous, but necessary, provisions in response to 
their numerous inappropriate activities. These activities must not be 
tolerated, and voting for this bill will go a long way toward making 
Congress' and the public's displeasure felt.
  So I thank the gentleman for bringing this forward, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Garrett

  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to--
       (1) designate any nonbank financial company as ``too big to 
     fail'';
       (2) designate any nonbank financial company as a 
     ``systemically important financial institution''; or
       (3) make a determination that material financial distress 
     at a nonbank financial company, or the nature, scope, size, 
     scale, concentration, interconnectedness, or mix of the

[[Page 12118]]

     activities of such company, could pose a threat to the 
     financial stability of the United States.

  Mr. GARRETT (during the reading). Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent 
to dispense with the reading.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New Jersey?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from New Jersey and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in an attempt to prevent 
government regulators from expanding the corrupt doctrine of ``too big 
to fail'' into even greater parts of our economy. You see, under Dodd-
Frank, FSOC, the Financial Stability Oversight Council, has the power 
to designate companies as SIFIs, systemically important financial 
institutions.
  I have heard people say that SIFI status does not mean too big to 
fail, but that is a ridiculous claim--on par with the reassurances we 
used to get that there was no implicit guarantee with Fannie and 
Freddie, the GSEs.
  In the real world, everyone knows that the Federal Government will 
never allow a SIFI to fail. It is basically the government's stamp of 
approval, if you will, that says that we really care about this 
company. And every time FSOC designates a SIFI, it exposes all of us, 
the American taxpayers, to literally billions and billions of dollars 
in potential losses.
  You see, first FSOC designates the megabanks as being too-big-to-fail 
SIFIs. Now they are claiming that nonbank firms such as insurance 
companies and asset managers also should be designated as SIFIs, as 
well. I really don't think that FSOC will be satisfied until every 
company in this country is a SIFI. So, obviously, this has got to stop.
  That is why I am offering an amendment to prevent the Secretary of 
the Treasury and the chair of the Securities Exchange Commission, both 
voting members of FSOC, from designating any additional nonbank 
companies as SIFIs. You see, SIFI status puts nonbank companies under 
Federal Reserve regulation. And then the Fed, which only understands 
banks, imposes its bank-type capital standards on them, and it doesn't 
really seem to care if that makes no sense at all for these companies. 
I guess basically if all you have is a hammer, then everything else out 
there looks like a nail.
  And so when companies become SIFIs, they cease to be part of the free 
market. Instead, they become something else. They become protected 
entities that are spared the costs and consequences that normal 
companies face. And, so, over time, the combination of this protected 
status and the Fed's risk-averse regulation will sap the energy and 
also the competitiveness from these companies.
  Do you know what? Creative thinking and management will be seen as 
too radical, and innovative business structures will be stamped out as 
too risky. Meeting some G-13's definition of ``safety'' will take the 
place of building shareholder value. Instead, lobbying and political 
donations will become the biggest, highest, and best use of capital for 
these companies. And government will corrupt the private sector and, in 
turn, it will corrupt government.
  You only have to look at the corporate culture over at Fannie Mae to 
see what sheltering a company from market discipline does to it. What 
do I mean by that? If you like the GSEs, then you are going to love 
SIFIs. And so we should not allow too big to fail to take root in the 
nonbank financial sector. These companies are too important as a 
counterbalance to the megabanks for us to ruin them with crony 
capitalism.
  You see, Dodd-Frank was based on a faulty premise, and this is it: 
that the financial crisis was caused exclusively by the greed of large 
financial institutions and that intrusive government regulation could 
have prevented all this and prevented the crisis by keeping them from 
making all these risky investments.
  So with these ideological blinders on, it is no surprise that we 
ended up today with FSOC and SIFIs. Instead of solving the problem of 
too big to fail, Dodd-Frank basically codified it.
  FSOC is not working out as intended. And with every reckless 
designation of a nonbank company as a SIFI, FSOC steps in and makes our 
economy more dangerous and makes it more unstable. As they say, if you 
find yourself in a hole, you should do what? Stop digging.
  So I respectfully request that you support my amendment, and I 
reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, Dodd-Frank does not designate any entity 
as too big to fail, as paragraph 1 of the Garrett amendment suggests. 
Instead, Dodd-Frank provides regulators with the tools to address the 
risks posed by large, complex, and interconnected financial 
institutions, both banks and nonbanks alike. This is crucial to 
addressing one of the main regulatory gaps we witnessed leading up to 
the 2008 crisis: too many nonbanks were in the shadows and escaped 
critical regulation that could have prevented the crisis.
  The Garrett amendment is an attempt to roll back the critical rules 
of the road we passed in the wake of the greatest financial crisis 
since the Great Depression.
  Large financial institutions are fighting the SIFI designation 
because they know that being identified as SIFI means being subject to 
regulation above and beyond current requirements, including living 
wills that will help regulators plan how to wind down the firms in an 
orderly fashion in the event they become insolvent.
  The heightened regulation also includes the ability for regulators to 
stress-test the entity to see if it can withstand financial distress, 
demand more capital, or to demand more stringent reporting.
  Former FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, a Republican appointee, noted in 
congressional testimony after the passage of Dodd-Frank that ``many 
institutions are vigorously lobbying against such a designation'' and 
that being designated as a SIFI will in no way confer a competitive 
advantage by anointing an institution as too big to fail.
  The capacity to designate nonbanks as SIFIs is critical to the U.S. 
financial system for appropriate regulatory oversight. The designation 
process already has in place multiple procedural safeguards and 
opportunities for appeal via a lengthy process. Therefore, we urge you 
to oppose the Garrett amendment as not necessary.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, obviously the markets have already 
disagreed with the gentleman by the pricing of their shares.
  Mr. Chairman, at this point, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw), the chairman.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I just 
want to rise in support of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment points out that you have got to 
have a thorough review, and if you don't consider the true implications 
on the U.S. economy and the U.S. taxpayers, then you have got a 
problem. So it is a good amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. GARRETT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Gallego

  Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:

[[Page 12119]]



                  TITLE--ADDITIONAL GENERAL PROVISIONS

       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used to implement or enforce Revenue Ruling 2012-18 (or 
     any guidance of the same substance).

  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman from Texas and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. GALLEGO. As the Chair knows, I find several of the Federal 
agencies very frustrating, but among the most frustrating is the 
Internal Revenue Service.
  One of the more interesting rulings of the Internal Revenue Service 
deals with the reclassification of certain gratuities as wages when 
they were meant to be tips. And having grown up in the restaurant 
business, I will tell you that there is a tremendous difference--not 
only to the employer, but to the employee--as to whether a wage is 
classified as a wage or whether it is classified as a gratuity. I know 
that firsthand from growing up in a family-run and local restaurant.
  Revenue rule 2012-18 has forced businesses to change the way that 
they have traditionally handled consumer checks, and that has resulted 
in a burdensome and logistical challenge for small and local businesses 
across the country.
  Mr. Chairman, for over 50 years, restaurants have had a longstanding 
practice of treating these automatic gratuities as tips. For example, 
if you have a large party of 50 people, then you want to make sure that 
your waiter or waitress is well taken care of. And for a while there it 
was 15 percent, now it is about 18 percent, that is added on as a 
gratuity. That gratuity is meant to go to the waiters and waitresses 
who have helped your party.
  Yet, the way the IRS would treat that, the IRS would treat that not 
as a tip, not as a gratuity, but as part of their wage, which means it 
is counted against the employer for income purposes, and then it is 
counted again against the employee for income purposes. The revenue 
ruling clearly, clearly, clearly is against years and years and years 
of practice by the IRS.
  Now, a lot of bigger restaurants may have the ability to forgo the 
automatic gratuities without experiencing any significant challenges, 
but for small and local restaurants, that is a big deal. Wait staff are 
often subject to inadequate tips on large parties. And if restaurants 
continue to utilize automatic gratuities, if they continue to say, 
please put an additional 15 percent on here for your waiter or 
waitress, then they can no longer take advantage of the Fair Labor 
Standards Act tip credit for employees who serve these tables, even if 
the restaurants distribute these gratuities to the employees. So even 
if the employee gets the money in the end, it is still counted against 
the restaurant as income and taxed in one place, and then it is again 
taxed as income to the employee.
  For many small businesses, an inability to collect this tip is a 
really big burden. It is very difficult to determine wages for 
employees when they are simultaneously performing tipped and non-tipped 
work because you cannot add that gratuity for large parties without it 
being classified in one direction, but for smaller parties you can do a 
different thing.
  Restaurants have treated automatic gratuities as tips for years, and 
they have been passed on to the employee. That is very important to the 
employees. It is a big part of the money that they make. And so as the 
champion of small and local businesses, I have very real concerns about 
the implications of the revenue rule 2012-18. I would like the IRS to 
delay it and reconsider their characterization of these tips and 
service charges.
  I want to thank the chairman of the committee for allowing me to step 
forward and raise my concerns, as well as the ranking member. Mr. 
Chairman, thank you so much for the opportunity.
  At this point, because of the point of order, I ask unanimous consent 
to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1300


                    AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MASSIE

  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:-
       Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act, 
     including amounts made available under titles IV or VIII, may 
     be used by any authority of the government of the District of 
     Columbia to enforce any provision of the Firearms 
     Registration Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Law 17-372), the 
     Inoperable Pistol Amendment Act of 2008 (D.C. Law 17-388), 
     the Firearms Amendment Act of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-170), or the 
     Administrative Disposition for Weapons Offenses Amendment Act 
     of 2012 (D.C. Law 19-295).

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Kentucky and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that 
would stop the District of Columbia from taking any action to prevent 
law-abiding citizens from possessing, using, or transporting a firearm.
  Despite the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. 
Heller that struck down the D.C. handgun ban, as well as the 
unconstitutional gunlock provision, it is still difficult for D.C. 
residents to exercise their God-given right to bear arms.
  Congress has the authority to legislate in this area pursuant to 
article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives 
Congress the authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.
  Through unreasonable regulation, arbitrary time limits and waiting 
periods, and a ridiculous registration renewal process for guns that 
have already been registered, the government bureaucrats in the 
District continue to interfere with the D.C. residents' rights to self-
defense.
  As The Washington Times reported earlier this year, the District of 
Columbia has passed the first law ever in the United States that 
requires a citizen who has already legally registered a gun to pay a 
fee for re-registration, go to police headquarters, and submit to 
invasive fingerprinting and photographing.
  This is pure harassment. Why would the D.C. government want to punish 
and harass law-abiding citizens who simply want to defend themselves?
  As everyone with even the smallest bit of common sense knows, 
criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. They will get guns any 
way they can. Does anyone actually believe that strict gun controls 
laws will prevent criminals from getting guns?
  Strict gun control laws do nothing but prevent good people from being 
able to protect themselves and their families in the event of a 
robbery, home invasion, or other crime.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. It is amazing. Like President Reagan once said to 
President Carter in debate, here you go again.
  I rise to oppose the amendment. We often hear people running for 
office rail against politicians who have gone Washington. This 
amendment is an interesting representation of that phenomenon. We are 
part of a group of folks here who would like to treat Washington, D.C., 
as their own little colony. Back home, they tell the world they want no 
part of Washington, but over here, they not only want part of it, they 
want to tell her how to act.
  This amendment would limit commonsense gun regulation put in place by 
the elected representatives of the

[[Page 12120]]

District of Columbia. Under our Constitution, States and localities, 
including D.C., have the ability to protect the health, safety, and 
welfare of their citizens.
  Even the Supreme Court has recognized that some level of regulation 
is necessary in order to uphold those goals. The Republican Party 
usually stands for states' rights, but not when it comes to the 
District of Columbia.
  Our former colleague, the great David Obey, used to say that if 
Members of Congress wanted to get involved in the District of 
Columbia's affairs, then perhaps they should run for the D.C. City 
Council. That may be an option that the gentleman from Kentucky would 
like to consider.
  I strongly oppose the amendment. I think it continues to be more than 
just a gun amendment. It is an anti-D.C. amendment, and we should stop 
this behavior once and for all.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Kentucky has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MASSIE. As John Lott, author of ``More Guns, Less Crime,'' says:

       The District of Columbia should have learned the problems 
     with gun control the hard way. There is only 1 year after 
     D.C.'s handgun ban went into effect in 1977 where its murder 
     rate was as low as it was prior to the ban. The D.C. murder 
     rate rose dramatically, relative to other cities after the 
     ban, with its murder rate ranking either number one or number 
     two among the 50 most populous U.S. cities for half the time 
     the ban was in effect and always in the top two-thirds.
       However, as soon as the ban and, more importantly, the 
     gunlock regulations were struck down in 2008, the murder rate 
     fell, dropping by 50 percent over the next 4 years. Indeed, 
     every place in the world that has banned guns has seen an 
     increase in murder rates.

  This experience can be seen worldwide. Island nations supposedly 
present ideal environments for gun control because it is relatively 
easy for them to control their borders, but countries such as Great 
Britain, Ireland, and Jamaica have experienced large increases in 
murder and violent crime after gun bans.
  For example, after handguns were banned in 1997, the number of deaths 
and injuries from gun crimes in England and Wales increased 340 percent 
in the 7 years from 1998 to 2005.
  Mr. Chair, I would like to point out that the other side of the 
aisle, when we talk about voting rights, they are very opposed to voter 
ID and to photograph IDs for voting. I think they would be very opposed 
to fingerprinting and photographing in order to exercise that basic 
fundamental right to vote, which is what they often say.
  Well, I would remind them that the Second Amendment says a right to 
bear arms is a basic right. If they argue that fingerprinting and 
photographing is invasive and disproportionately disenfranchises 
minorities from that basic right to vote, how can they not argue the 
same thing about the basic right to own and bear guns?
  In closing, my amendment states that none of the funds made available 
in this bill to the District of Columbia will be used by the D.C. 
government to prohibit the activity of people in possessing, acquiring, 
using, selling, or transporting firearms.
  It defunds four laws passed in the wake of Heller that constitute an 
attempt by the D.C. government to overrule and ignore the Heller 
decision. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this commonsense 
amendment.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. SERRANO. I would like to first say that we only oppose certain 
regulations about voting issues when they are meant to suppress the 
vote.
  I would like now to yield the balance of my time to the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who--get this--is the only 
elected Member from Washington, D.C., who is in this Congress at this 
time.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend for yielding.
  Mr. Massie of Kentucky is not accountable to the residents of the 
District of Columbia, but he is offering an amendment to effectively 
wipe out all of the District's gun safety laws now and in the future.
  Even if one were to agree with him, his is an entirely inappropriate 
amendment on an appropriation bill. A pending bill right now in this 
House would accomplish this end. He is a Member of the majority. If he 
wants to end gun laws, he has the authority to bring that bill to the 
floor.
  This amendment is being offered by a Member who claims, at every 
turn, to support the principle of local control or local affairs, yet 
he is using the big foot of the Federal Government to overturn local 
laws.
  Turning to the amendment itself, if this amendment passes, every gun 
law in this big city--which shares the same gun violence issues with 
other big cities and is also the Nation's capital--would be gone.
  While we are still reviewing the full effects of this amendment, it 
appears to prohibit the District government, including the Metropolitan 
Police Department, from enforcing almost all of the gun laws of the 
District of Columbia, making the District perhaps the most permissive 
gun jurisdiction in the country.
  The D.C. government would not be able to stop a person from carrying, 
openly or concealed, an assault weapon, including a .50-caliber sniper 
rifle with a magazine holding an unlimited number of bullets on any 
street and in any building except, of course, Federal buildings, like 
the one where we now stand.
  You want to buy a gun in a private transaction without undergoing a 
background check? The D.C. government couldn't stop you if this bill 
passed. Angry, want to buy a gun right now with no waiting period? The 
D.C. government couldn't stop you.
  Want to buy 100 handguns today? The D.C. government couldn't stop 
you. Want to carry a gun in a D.C. government building, including a 
polling place or the DMV? The D.C. government couldn't stop you. 
Convicted of a violent misdemeanor this week and want to buy and carry 
a gun? The D.C. government couldn't stop you.
  Every single Federal court that has ruled on the constitutionality of 
the District's post-Heller gun laws has upheld them. They have upheld 
our assault weapons ban, upheld our ban on large capacity ammunition-
feeding devices, and upheld our registration requirements.
  The Supreme Court only struck down D.C.'s effective gun ban law, 
holding only that a resident is entitled to have a gun in his home 
only. This bill goes well beyond the Supreme Court. It is a flagrant 
abuse of democracy by a Member who comes here with Tea Party principles 
that says power should be devolved to the local level.
  He is playing with the lives of American citizens who are not 
accountable to him, who live in my city, and he is playing with the 
lives of the Federal officials and visitors from across the country who 
we are charged to defend and protect while they are in our city.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky 
will be postponed.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Ellison

  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Supreme 
     Court of the United States--Salaries and Expenses'', and 
     increasing the amount made available for ``The White House--
     Salaries and Expenses'', by $2.13.


[[Page 12121]]


  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Chairman, based on the debates and discussions we 
have had in this Chamber, I have come to the conclusion that my friends 
on the other side of the aisle believe that $7.25 is enough to raise a 
family on in America. That is the current Federal minimum wage.
  Since we haven't had any ability to change it, to move it up, I 
assume that they assume that it is good enough for people, but I can't 
imagine that they think $2.13 is enough, but that is the Federal 
minimum wage for tip workers in America today. That is the Federal 
minimum wage for tip workers, and it is an appalling condition, and it 
should be an outrage for all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, 3.3 million Americans are trying to make it on $2.13 an 
hour, plus tips; and 75 percent of those, Mr. Chairman, are women.

                              {time}  1315

  What does it translate to? What does it all mean? It means that 
millions of Americans go to work every day and are forced to interview 
every time they serve a customer for their money. Every time they meet 
a new customer and take an order, they have to do a tryout or an 
interview to see if they are going to get paid. It is wrong, and we 
shouldn't tolerate it in this society. Tip workers are twice as likely 
as other workers to fall below the poverty line and three times as 
likely to rely on food stamps to close the gap between what they are 
paid and what they have to survive on.
  Mr. Chairman, the companies that pay them these tip wages in many 
cases are relying on us, the Federal Government, through the food stamp 
program, to make up the wages that they will not pay. At least we 
should make them pay their own freight for their own workers. People 
don't want to go to food stamps, but they need to, and the Federal 
Government helps them by setting food stamps.
  What if the employers themselves were required to pay a better wage? 
Tip workers are likely to experience wage theft. From 2010 to 2012, the 
Department of Labor conducted investigations of full-service 
restaurants and found violations in nearly all, including tip 
violations. A tip violation might be when an employer refuses to ``top 
up'' the pay to ensure that they are getting at least $7.25 when tips 
are low. Tip violations could also include making employees do work 
that doesn't earn tips, like cleaning or cooking, but still paying them 
$2.13 an hour. It happens, and it shouldn't happen.
  If we lifted the minimum wage to $10.10 for all tip workers, 700,000 
tip workers would be lifted out of poverty--half of whom would be 
people of color--and $12.7 billion in more wages would be pumped into 
the economy.
  Mr. Chair, in February, President Obama signed an executive order 
requiring Federal contractors, including those with contracts to 
provide concessions like restaurants, to pay $10.10.
  No one who works full-time should have to live in poverty. I urge 
adoption of the amendment, and I urge all Members of this body to at 
least demand that we don't have to make up wages that are not paid in 
the form of government supports.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the amendment, 
the gentleman wants to take money away from the Supreme Court and give 
money to the White House. What he had to say didn't seem to bear any 
relevance to what the amendment said. It was entertaining talk. I know 
he is free to offer any amendment he wants to offer. He could come down 
and do a 1-minute and talk about what he just talked about, and he 
could do a 5-minute Special Order and talk about what he talked about.
  I am not sure that the amendment that he offered is serious in the 
sense of why he is tampering with Supreme Court funding and tampering 
with White House funding. I just would urge my colleagues to say we 
enjoyed the chat. I appreciate him bringing that to our attention.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment, and I yield 
back the balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).
  The amendment was rejected.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Rokita

  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __. (a) None of the funds made available by this Act 
     may be used to propose, make, finalize, or implement any 
     rule, regulation, interpretive rule, or general statement of 
     policy issued after the date of enactment of this Act, that 
     is issued pursuant to section 553 of title 5, United States 
     Code.
       (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply with 
     respect to rules, regulations, interpretive rules, or general 
     statement of policy excepted under section 553(a) of title 5, 
     United States Code, or that are made on the record after 
     opportunity for an agency hearing under sections 556 or 557 
     of such title.

  Mr. ROKITA (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the 
gentleman's amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. A point of order is reserved.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman from Indiana and a 
Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROKITA. Mr. Chairman, I understand my amendment is subject to a 
point of order due to scoring or budget concerns. While I intend to 
cooperate and withdraw this amendment, I would like to acknowledge that 
this body has a history of waiving points of order on similar 
legislation that would result in substantive regulatory reforms, which 
is exactly what my amendment could accomplish.
  One specific example would be the REINS Act, of which I am a 
cosponsor, passed in this Congress and passed in the last Congress, 
which would very meaningfully overhaul our rulemaking system, much like 
this amendment would. Prior to the passage of that bill, we rightfully 
waived all points of order, including one being applied against my 
amendment here this afternoon, presumably.
  Mr. Chairman, I would propose that this body should wave points of 
order on legislation that would significantly and positively reform our 
regulatory process so that we can significantly help our economy by 
getting the boots of the regulatory and bureaucratic systems off the 
necks of those who create jobs in this country.
  For too long, the executive branch has continued to build its power 
through expanding the regulatory state. The agencies that we in 
Congress have tasked with the execution of the laws we now pass is in 
contravention of our intent, acting improperly as legislative bodies, 
with no really direct accountability to the voter.
  Whether through ``interpretive rules,'' ``general statements of 
policy,'' or through regulations themselves, administrative agencies 
have placed extreme burdens on all Americans without the transparency 
or electoral accountability that our Founders envisioned.
  Today, that process has yielded nearly 175,000 pages of regulations, 
growing by roughly 1,500 pages per week, written by unelected people 
who rarely consider the impact on our economy or the lives of the 
people the rules impact. In fact, the only thing growing faster around 
here, Mr. Chairman, is our public debt load. This has been a decades-
long abdication of duty by Congresses past, and we must correct it.

[[Page 12122]]

  Currently, informal rulemaking is the method of choice for proposing 
rules and regulations around here and simply requires: one, publication 
of a rule; two, an opportunity for public comment, but has no 
requirement to give weight to those comments from the public. In fact, 
any time I have questioned an agency witness during my 3\1/2\ years 
here, not one has been able to answer one simple question, and that is: 
What weight do you give public comments during the rulemaking process? 
What formula do you use? They can't answer the question because the 
answer is this: they don't care; it doesn't matter. What everyone wants 
or what the comment may be, if it stands in the way of the agenda of 
the rule, it gets no weight.
  So I am offering this amendment today to require all new rules and 
regulations to follow the formal rulemaking process which is already in 
law--it is in the Administrative Procedure Act--while leaving in place 
existing emergency exceptions to the rulemaking process, fully 
recognizing, though, that we have to address the definition of 
``emergency'' at some point as well.
  Several reforms passed by this House go a long way in providing 
relief to the end of the regulatory process--at least to improving it. 
My amendment provides relief at the beginning of the rulemaking 
process, slows the regulatory state, and increases transparency of this 
increasingly opaque and secret bureaucracy.
  Formal rulemaking requires a trial-like procedure, requiring parties 
to make their case for or against a rule in public. As a result, the 
administration, no matter the party, must prove the worth of their 
rules and regulations on the Record rather than relying on a closed-
door balancing of public comments. Again, there is a record made, so we 
know--just like all of America knows from the proceedings on the floor 
of this House, we know the reasons for the final makeup of the rule; 
and, if need be, we can further challenge the rule.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is consistent with the intent of the 79th 
Congress, which created this law for the agency rulemaking process. In 
the Judiciary Committee report of the law, the committee stated that:

       Matters of great import, or those where the public 
     submission of facts will be either useful to the agency or a 
     protection to the public, should naturally be accorded more 
     elaborate public procedures.

  The formal rulemaking process, Mr. Chairman, does that. So while, Mr. 
Chairman, I think that, in order to protect the public and the 
Republic, the rampant regulatory state must be stopped and agencies 
must afford the public weighted input and transparency during 
rulemaking.
  Out of respect for the chair and its appropriations process, I ask 
unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment at this time.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Indiana?
  There was no objection.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Crowley

  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are 
     revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Supreme 
     Court of the United States--Salaries and Expenses'', and 
     increasing the amount made available for ``The White House--
     Salaries and Expenses'', by $7.25.

  Mr. CROWLEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from New York?
  There was no objection.
  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from New York and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment--and I say this in 
anticipation and hope that the Chair and the gentleman from Florida 
doesn't think I am tampering. Tampering has a very negative connotation 
to it. What I would like to think we are doing is legislating today, 
and I would hope that it is taken in that light.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment would decrease part of the bill before us 
by $7.25 and increase the budget of the White House by that same 
amount.
  Why would I offer this amendment? It is such a small amount of money 
after all--$7.25. But just ask the millions of Americans who make only 
$7.25 an hour, otherwise known as the current minimum wage.
  What can the executive branch do with this money? They can buy pens, 
Mr. Chairman. They can buy pens that the President could use to keep 
signing executive orders focused on raising the wages of hardworking 
Americans.
  Last February, in light of no action from this Republic-controlled 
Congress, the President took the small but legal step of raising the 
minimum wage of employees working on Federal contracting projects, such 
as fast-food employees in Federal buildings and on our military bases.
  What has become crystal clear is that the Republican majority has no 
intention of putting forward an agenda focused on lifting hardworking 
Americans out of poverty. They have no intention of putting forward a 
jobs agenda. They have no intention of helping to foster economic 
growth in our country, but this administration wants to. And where 
Congress has failed, the administration has not faltered.
  Today, let's give $7.25 to the President so he can keep up that 
necessary work. If Republicans would join us in raising the minimum 
wage and lifting up American workers instead of putting language in 
this bill to forbid the President from trying to raise the wages of 
hardworking Americans, we wouldn't have this conversation today.
  That is right. Apparently it is not enough for Republicans to refuse 
to bring legislation for a vote that would raise the minimum wage; now 
they are also trying to stop the President from taking the small steps 
that he can do to raise the wages of Federal contractors, like those in 
the fast-food industry.
  They added sections 203 and 204 to this bill to specifically prohibit 
an executive order to do just that. I mean, come on, give us a break. 
Not only won't they allow a vote on the minimum wage, but now they want 
to tie the President's hands so that he can't help advance the issue 
either when they won't.
  Why are they fighting so hard against supporting working people in 
American families? No one working full-time should live in poverty. At 
$7.25 an hour, that is the reality facing 16.5 million Americans.
  So, when you hear that Congress is debating another huge spending 
bill, I want America to know that the Republican majority has snuck in 
language into this bill that actually prevents working people from 
getting a raise in their hourly pay. Democrats have a bill to raise the 
minimum wage and it is ready to go, but Republicans in Congress refuse 
to allow a simple up or down vote on that bill.
  What would happen if the Congress raised the minimum wage for every 
American from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour? 16.5 million American 
workers would see a raise, not just the 2 million workers on Federal 
contracts.

                              {time}  1330

  We would experience a boost to the economy, since more people with 
more money equals more spending in our economy; and we would be helping 
families and breadwinners, since the facts show adults make up 88 
percent of the low wage workers. The average age of a minimum wage 
employee is 35 years of age.
  Raising the minimum wage helps others as well. It also helps people 
who earn more by reducing the need for full-time workers to rely on 
public assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. So raising the pay 
of our lowest paid workers is not only good for minimum wage workers, 
but for all taxpayers.
  No one who works full-time should live in poverty. We need to raise 
the

[[Page 12123]]

minimum wage, and we need to prevent any and every effort by House 
Republicans to roll back any incremental increases in pay the President 
can legally give to workers on Federal contracts.
  Let's pass this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's effort in 
terms of minimum wage legislation, but I would simply remind him that 
this is an appropriations bill. The Appropriations Committee is not the 
committee of jurisdiction as it relates to minimum wage.
  As he points out, if he has legislation ready to go, I would just 
encourage him to introduce that at the appropriate place, have the 
appropriate discussions, and move forward there. But this is not the 
time or the place. Again, I appreciate his effort to legislate.
  With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no,'' and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley).
  The amendment was rejected.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available in this Act may 
     be used to study, promulgate, draft, review, implement, or 
     enforce any rule pursuant to section 913 of the Dodd-Frank 
     Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act or amendments 
     made by such section.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, this is a study in unintended 
consequences.
  This body determined that they wanted to have more oversight over 
people that are called broker-dealers of investment funds. They would 
be handled the exact same way as investment advisers that handle high-
end, large investments from wealthy individuals across the country. So 
the two are trying to be merged together. The Department of Labor and 
SEC are both trying to come up with their own version of a set of 
rules.
  Here is the unintended consequence that is coming at America: those 
folks on the lower end and the middle end of America are about to lose 
a lot of people that helped them with investment advisers.
  Here is how it works:
  Say you have a newlywed couple, just out of school, just getting 
started, making $26,000 a year combined, as a couple, and determine 
they are going to do the responsible thing. They are also going to open 
up a retirement account and get started thinking about decades from 
now. We encourage that couple to start thinking about their retirement.
  Would that couple making $26,000 a year, with what they are going to 
put into retirement--$15 a month, maybe--are they going to be 
attractive to an investment dealer? No, they are not going to be 
attracted to them. It is a very small amount; $15, $20. But one of 
these broker-dealers, that is what they love to do. They sign up 
couples just like that.
  The rules coming down from Dodd-Frank will put a new set of standards 
on those individuals that are providing retirement investment 
opportunities for people at the very beginning of their investment 
time. This hits exactly the wrong people, and the benevolent thoughts 
at the beginning are now coming down to unintended consequences across 
our country that there will actually be a disincentive to provide 
retirement vehicles for those with lower and middle income.
  The middle-income Americans should have every incentive and every 
opportunity to save. This simply says to the SEC they cannot promulgate 
that rule. They need to set it aside and keep the same standards that 
are already in place. This is not an unregulated industry. They are a 
heavily regulated industry already.
  Keep the same standards in place, and do not discourage investments 
for retirement from going into lower- and middle-income Americans.
  With that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  The gentleman may not remember the financial meltdown of 2007-2008, 
but one of the causes was lax oversight by the previous 
administration's financial regulators. Dodd-Frank has addressed many of 
these issues and restored safety and security in the marketplace. It 
has increased oversight over the financial sector in order to protect 
those on Main Street from abuses on Wall Street.
  This is not the time or place to change that landmark legislation. 
Any attempt to do so will create greater uncertainty in the marketplace 
and among many Americans, including retirees, who depend upon Federal 
regulators to protect them. We should not undermine the much-needed 
reforms of Dodd-Frank, let alone in an appropriations bill.
  This is yet another example of the other side attempting to add 
legislative riders to must-pass legislation that they could not pass 
through their regular legislative process. I oppose the amendment, and 
I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I would remind everyone that we continue to find ways to try to undo 
either the Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare, which is already law and 
approved by the Supreme Court, or Dodd-Frank, which is the law of the 
land. The sad part of it all is that we seem to have very short 
memories. We seem to forget that we are still suffering from the 
effects of 2007 and 2008 and what happened in my city on Wall Street 
and how it had the effect throughout the Nation.
  We have to regulate, whether we like it or not. We don't have to 
overburden industry; we don't have to harm anyone; but we can't allow 
people to do what they did before, which is hurt the economy and put us 
in the bind we are still in.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  I think we all believe in commonsense regulation--and we have plenty 
of that--but the gentleman has pointed out that so often well-
intentioned rules and regulations have unintended consequences.
  I don't think anybody believes that we don't have enough regulation. 
Any time there is a problem, somebody suggests that we spend more 
money, we pass another rule, we pass another law.
  What I think we need and what this gentleman is talking about is that 
we need common sense. We need to protect investors, but we need to do 
it in a reasonable way.
  So this is an amendment that I think makes the point that so often 
the rules are bad for investors, they are bad for the economy, and that 
shouldn't be the case.
  So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I would just close by saying the 2008 
financial meltdown was not caused because middle-income Americans 
didn't have access to retirement funds.
  This is a way to be able to protect middle-income Americans, protect 
their retirement, and to encourage them to save in the future, not 
decreasing the number of options they have out there. I would like to 
have lots of folks out there encouraging lots of Americans to be able 
to save in not just the largest investment dealers in the country, 
trying to go after the

[[Page 12124]]

largest, highest-income Americans. So this is something that we should 
support to maintain the regulations that are already in place and not 
decrease the options for Americans.
  I yield back the balance my time.
  The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Lankford

  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the 
     following:
       Sec. __.  None of the funds made available by this Act may 
     be used by the Federal Communications Commission to make any 
     changes to its policies with respect to broadcast indecency.

  The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 661, the gentleman 
from Oklahoma and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. Chairman, last year, the FCC published a notice 
that stated they had greatly reduced their backlog of complaints on 
indecent and obscene language and images on TV and sought comments on 
whether they should change their policy on enforcement moving forward. 
However, they reduced their backlog by 70 percent by closing out 
roughly 1 million cases that seemed too old to pursue or, as they 
believed, not within their justification to enforce. The end result was 
that the FCC unilaterally decided to leave complaints of incidents 
where TV content was offensive or inappropriate to be aired at times 
children are likely to be in the audience to be uninvestigated and 
unenforced.
  Moving forward, they asked the public if the FCC should make it the 
official policy of the Commission that they should only investigate the 
most serious violations of indecency on television. For instance, they 
wanted to know if a complaint against repeated expletives in a program 
warrants enforcement, while maybe an incident of one or two expletives 
does not. To many parents, this is an unreasonable distinction to make.
  As Chief Justice Roberts has mentioned in some of his opinions on 
this, this is not an incidence of only having a brief instance of 
nudity, that that shouldn't be warranted, when extensive nudity is not.
  While the FCC has not acted to formally finalize this regulation, it 
is in the public's best interest that they not continue down this road. 
If they do institute it, it will give the FCC the ability to decide, on 
behalf of the viewing public, what is indecent and what is not based on 
the rules that they have now.
  This is a significant shift away from the standards that have been 
set, and the American public wants to be able write in and complain 
about what their children have access to. Many of us as Americans have 
real concerns about what is happening in television and the enforcement 
now of existing law.
  Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to even allow your 
children to watch commercials nowadays, much less the television during 
the children's viewing hour. This is simply a statement to say to the 
FCC that they should retain and continue the current enforcement they 
already have.
  I understand that there are some issues with this amendment. I 
understand full well there are some issues we need to deal with in the 
FCC in days ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman 
from Oklahoma?
  There was no objection.


  Vacating Demand for Recorded Vote on Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. 
                                 Meehan

  Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my 
request for a recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Meehan of 
Pennsylvania to the end that the amendment stand disposed of by the 
voice vote thereon.
  The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.
  The Acting CHAIR. Without objection, the request for a recorded vote 
is withdrawn. Accordingly, the ayes have it and the amendment is 
adopted.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Jolly) having assumed the chair, Mr. Lucas, Acting Chair of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5016) 
making appropriations for financial services and general government for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________