[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10183-10191]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4768, SEPARATION OF POWERS 
 RESTORATION ACT OF 2016; PROVIDING FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD 
      FROM JUNE 23, 2016, THROUGH JULY 4, 2016; AND PROVIDING FOR 
             CONSIDERATION OF MOTIONS TO SUSPEND THE RULES

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 796 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 796

       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. 4768) to amend title 5, United States Code, 
     with respect to the judicial review of agency interpretations 
     of statutory and regulatory provisions. 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 the Judiciary. After general 
     debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 
     five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an 
     original bill for the purpose of amendment under the five-
     minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now printed in 
     the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute shall be considered as read. All points of order 
     against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     are waived. No amendment to the committee amendment in the 
     nature of a substitute shall be in order except those printed 
     in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution. Each such amendment may be offered 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. All points of order against such 
     amendments 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. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House 
     on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole to the 
     bill or to the committee amendment in the nature of a 
     substitute. 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.
       Sec. 2.  It shall be in order without intervention of any 
     point of order to consider concurrent resolutions providing 
     for adjournment during the month of July, 2016.
       Sec. 3.  On any legislative day during the period from June 
     23, 2016, through July 4, 2016--
        (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day 
     shall be considered as approved; and
       (b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned 
     to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, 
     section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by 
     the Chair in declaring the adjournment.
       Sec. 4.  The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the 
     duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed 
     by section 3 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) 
     of rule I.
       Sec. 5.  It shall be in order at any time on the 
     legislative day of June 23, 2016, or June 24, 2016, for the 
     Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules 
     as though under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his 
     designee shall consult with the Minority Leader or her 
     designee on the designation of any matter for consideration 
     pursuant to this section.

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for the consideration 
of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration Act of 2016. I rise 
today in support of this rule and the underlying legislation, which I 
believe directly benefits the American people by ensuring unelected 
bureaucrats are not able to reinterpret the intent of legislation 
passed by this body, the United States Senate, signed by the President, 
or known also as lawmakers under the legislative process Article I 
powers that are directly elected by the people of this country.
  Two weeks ago, the Rules Committee met and reported a structured rule 
for H.R. 4768. This rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided 
by the chair and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. I also want 
to point out that the Rules Committee asked Members to submit their 
ideas and amendments, and, as a result, this resolution makes in order 
all of the amendments submitted that did not raise a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of these United States established 
three coequal branches of government, each with a clearly defined role. 
The separation of powers protects Americans by

[[Page 10184]]

preventing any one branch from gaining too much power.
  Unfortunately, this system is being, I believe, abused by unlawful 
actions by administrative agencies that are increasingly asserting 
lawmaking powers. This modern ``Federal administrative state,'' as it 
is called, runs counter to our Founders' intent, outlined in our 
Constitution, and I believe must be reined in. That is why we are on 
the floor of the House of Representatives today with our ideas to move 
forth on behalf of the ideas that we believe should rule in law, in 
rulemaking, and in the way the American people find governance of these 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1984, the Supreme Court ruled that, when a 
congressional statute is ambiguous, courts hearing challenges to 
executive actions must preemptively defer to the regulators' 
interpretation of the law. The Court effectively rigged America's 
regulatory and judicial system in favor of unelected bureaucrats and 
against the American citizens that are being targeted.
  Later, in Auer v. Robbins, the Court required deference to agencies' 
interpretations of their own regulations. This great deference to 
administrative agencies is particularly troubling because it 
effectively gives unelected bureaucrats the power to make law.
  Administrative agencies issue, enforce, and settle disputes involving 
regulations that have the force of law in many, many respects. In every 
aspect of our daily life, we are impacted by these decisions. Though 
the courts have a duty to check the abuses of the political branches in 
certain appropriate cases, they too often rely on deferential doctrines 
in reviewing agency actions. Given the inconsistent application of 
Chevron deference and concerns about the separation of powers, it is 
imperative that Congress act.
  H.R. 4768 reverses this erosion of our constitutional system that has 
allowed unelected bureaucrats to mandate their own interpretations of 
laws. The legislation overturns the Chevron and Auer doctrines by 
clarifying the intent of the Administrative Procedure Act. 
Specifically, the bill directs courts to conduct a de novo, or from 
scratch, review of all relevant questions of law, including the 
interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions and the 
provisions of agency rules.
  I believe, Mr. Speaker, that, at the time we pass laws, at the time 
we debate intent, and at the time we pass these laws and give to the 
agencies the opportunity to work with us on the formation of how the 
laws will be played out, meaning the agencies' rules and regulations, 
it should be done with the intent of Congress. Many States have 
regulatory systems that require all regulations come back through their 
elected officials.
  We find that what we are trying to do is to simply return the power 
of legislating to Congress and ensure the courts, not the agencies, 
interpret the laws, based upon the original intent of the laws. This is 
a critical step in restoring the constitutional balance and, I believe, 
limiting executive overreach to the balance that works on behalf of 
people for the intent of the original passage of the laws.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) 
for the customary 30 minutes. I really want to thank him because, after 
what happened 2 weeks ago when we in the minority were denied any 
debate time on the rule or the underlying bill, I know that being given 
the customary 30 minutes is no longer something we should automatically 
assume.
  Let me begin by saying I rise in strong opposition to this rule. I am 
going to rise in strong opposition to the rule that comes after this, 
and the one that comes after that.
  We are debating three rules today that would provide for the 
consideration of legislation on the separation of powers bill, a health 
savings account bill that they put together, and a financial services 
bill. All three bills, I want my colleagues to know, are going nowhere. 
There are Statements of Administration Policy on all three pieces of 
this legislation saying the administration would veto them.
  Some of these bills are so bad, I am not even sure the Senate will 
consider them. They are either press releases that were written in the 
Republican congressional campaign committee or they are bills that are 
so loaded up with extraneous materials and riders on all kinds of 
subjects that have nothing to do with the underlying legislation that, 
again, we are just sitting here debating bills that have no future, 
that are going nowhere. We are wasting the time of our colleagues, and 
we are wasting taxpayer money.
  What we should be debating here today, and you have heard from a 
series of my colleagues earlier, is legislation that would provide for 
comprehensive background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and 
also on legislation that says that, if you are on an FBI terrorist 
watch list and you cannot fly on an airplane, then you should not be 
allowed to go into a gun store and buy a weapon of war--or buy any gun, 
for that matter.
  Those are the two pieces of legislation that we tried 2 weeks ago to 
get the Speaker of the House to give us time to debate and a vote on 
them, and we are still demanding consideration of these two very basic, 
commonsense pieces of legislation that I believe will save lives in 
this country. Quite frankly, that is what we should be concerned with: 
how we better protect our constituents, how we better protect the 
American people.
  The issue of gun violence is something that Democrats and 
Republicans, alike, care about. In fact, the two pieces of legislation 
that we want to bring to the floor are authored by a Republican Member. 
The distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. King) is the prime 
author of both of these pieces of legislation.
  This problem is something that seems to worry the American people, 
trouble the American people, but doesn't seem to trouble the people who 
are in charge of this House.
  Listen to this statistic from PolitiFact:
  So many people die annually from gunfire in the United States that 
the death toll between 1968 and 2011 eclipses all wars ever fought by 
the country. There were about 1.4 million firearm deaths in that period 
compared to 1.2 million U.S. deaths in every conflict from the War of 
Independence to Iraq.
  Mr. Speaker, 2 weeks ago, many of us came to this floor and joined 
with our colleagues--John Lewis, Katherine Clark, John Larson, Mike 
Thompson, and so many others--in a protest, in a sit-in. The reason we 
did that is because the frustration level on this side of the aisle is 
boiling over. This is supposed to be a deliberative body where 
important issues get debated and voted on. Instead, this has become a 
place where trivial issues get debated passionately and important ones 
not at all.
  In the aftermath of the terrible tragedy in Orlando where 49 people 
were killed, all we could do in this House was have a moment of 
silence. That was it. That was what that protest was all about. That is 
what that sit-in was all about.
  We have exhausted every other way to try to get this legislation to 
the floor. Every time we try to go through regular order, we are 
blocked, we are blocked, we are blocked, we are blocked.
  Enough.
  The American people overwhelmingly support the no fly, no buy bill 
and universal background checks. They are not going to fall for the 
theatrics that my Republican friends are now engaged in this week, 
which is to bring up an NRA-written bill, which they are going to say 
is no fly, no buy.
  But what they are not going to tell you is that all of the loopholes 
still exist. It doesn't matter what this bill purports to do; you could 
still be on the terrorist watch list and go online and buy a gun. You 
could still be on the terrorist watch list and not be able to fly and 
go to a gun show and buy a gun.
  It is pathetic that the loopholes and the background checks in our 
laws continue to be unaddressed. All we are trying to do is have our 
moment where we

[[Page 10185]]

can debate this issue, which, again, is a bipartisan issue. It is not a 
partisan issue. Again, the two pieces of legislation that we want to 
bring to the floor are authored by a Republican Member.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not going away. This issue is too important. We 
are not going to be silent. We are going to continue to use every means 
available to us to raise our voices and to demand that the leadership 
of this House respect not the wishes of the Democratic minority, but 
respect the wishes of the vast majority of the American people, 
Democrats and Republicans alike.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins), a member of the Rules Committee
  Mr. COLLINS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chairman 
yielding me the time.
  I rise today in support of House Resolution 796, the rule providing 
for consideration of H.R. 4768, the Separation of Powers Restoration 
Act.
  I want to thank not only the chairman, but the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Ratcliffe), my friend, for introducing this legislation and 
bringing it through the Judiciary Committee. This is something that we 
have had hearings on, we have had work done on, and I am proud to be an 
original cosponsor of H.R. 4768. I am glad to see it moving forward 
today.
  The Judiciary Committee discussed these concepts, worked on these 
concepts, and looked at the whole issue. Frankly, this is one that in 
many ways, except for the very partisan nature of what we are doing in 
Congress these days--and it is, and there are things that we disagree 
on--this one, to me, should really have been one that, frankly, 
shouldn't be partisan.
  In regards to an administrative determination that they will veto it, 
I am not sure that their machine knows anything else except to send us 
an administrative statement saying they are going to veto it. I have 
been on the Rules Committee 1\1/2\ years now, and I think I have seen 
one bill that they thought maybe we could sign. Now, there is a balance 
between both, but that doesn't bother me near as much as putting forth 
policy that actually helps and puts forward ideas that make sense.
  The Separation of Powers Restoration Act amends the Administrative 
Procedure Act to overturn two doctrines that call for judicial 
deference to agency interpretations of statutory and regulatory 
provisions: the Chevron and Auer doctrines. The legalese description of 
the bill may sound dry, but its importance cannot be understated. Let's 
just put it in plain English.
  The Separation of Powers Restoration Act ensures Federal bureaucrats 
can't interpret the legality of their own regulations at the expense of 
hardworking Americans and the separation of powers.
  The United States Constitution clearly defines the duties of each 
branch of government, but today the executive branch far too often acts 
as a lawmaker or a law interpreter when it is supposed to be a law 
enforcer. And for this Congressman, this is both parties. I do not want 
the executive to take this constitutional role of this body. I don't 
care who sits in the White House. This is not something that should be 
taking place. It has taken place over time. We have got to understand 
why this matters.
  This is a serious threat to the separation of powers. I believe the 
administration has gone out of its way to try to ignore or to rewrite 
what they don't like from up here. The Chevron and Auer doctrines are 
helping them justify these unacceptable actions.
  Executive branches should be seen not as lawmaking authorities, but 
instead almost as expert advisers or witnesses on regulation. But under 
the Chevron doctrine, agencies essentially got the power to make policy 
when Congress either explicitly or implicitly delegated the power.

                              {time}  1515

  Under the Chevron doctrine, or the Chevron deference, agencies are 
essentially free to define the meaning of statutes that they 
administer, and the courts defer to the agencies' interpretations.
  Mr. Speaker, just for a moment, listen here. The courts have set up 
the Chevron doctrine and have said, basically, this may be what 
Congress said, and here is what unelected officials have said. We are 
going to side with them. At what point, in the judicial frame of 
reference, does that make sense when they are to be the interpreter of 
the law that has been written in these bodies--in this building--
instead of by those down the street who have decided, in their own 
infinite wisdom, that they know better than those here?
  They may have larger degrees; they may have longer time; they may 
have studied it forever. That is fine. If they want to make law, let 
them put their money down and run for Congress. Do not make law from 
the cubicle, and that is what we are seeing. Unfortunately, the courts 
have said: We are going to side with the executive in this.
  In my opinion, this is out of the realm of what the Constitution 
actually states. In other words, really, what the courts are saying is, 
to avoid interpreting the law, they are allowing the agencies that 
wrote the regulations to be free to play political games and to do 
whatever they want to do.
  The Separation of Powers Restoration Act will address this situation. 
It replaces the current standard of review with a requirement that the 
courts review challenged agency decisions without their having 
deference or regard of the agency's legal conclusions. This will ensure 
that unelected bureaucrats are not left to write and interpret laws in 
order to achieve political gain at the expense of the American people.
  Federal regulations impose more than $1.88 trillion--that is trillion 
with a T--on the economy. The regulatory burden and the unelected 
bureaucrats who implement it have spun out of control, and it is the 
taxpayers of America who are left holding the bag. I am tired of it, 
and I know the American people are tired of it.
  When I go home, one of the first things that is talked about is the 
overreach and the continuous burden of a bureaucracy that seems to be 
completely out of control. In northeast Georgia, examples of regulatory 
burden include everything from ill-conceived requirements for the 
poultry industry, to new labor requirements that impact manufacturers, 
to the silica rule's effect on the granite industry in Elberton. It 
runs across the spectrum. In fact, with that last one, the silica rule, 
they can't even measure what they are wanting to enforce.
  Explain to me how that helps business. Explain to me how that 
actually helps anyone when you can't measure what you are wanting to 
actually enforce, except it sounds good, and it is a great press 
release as I have heard today. The press release is at the expense of 
American business and is not within the constitutional principles by 
which we operate.
  Part of the problem is that this is just an erosion of power. In 
fact, last month, the D.C. Circuit Court relied heavily on the Chevron 
deference to uphold the Federal Communications Commission's Open 
Internet Order, also known as the net neutrality rule. That rule 
attempts to regulate our way to new innovation and is a huge blow to 
Internet freedom.
  The FCC said it was acting in the interest of fairness and 
competition, but, in reality, it stifled fairness and competition. A 
shocker there, Mr. Speaker. What the government interferes with 
typically doesn't do what they intend it to do. We can go through 
program after program and see that.
  The FCC rule would slow Internet speeds, increase consumer prices, 
and hamper infrastructure development, including at my home in 
northeast Georgia, in my home district. Rather than interpreting the 
legality of the rule, the court's decision basically said it was 
acceptable for Federal agencies to rewrite the law to suit political 
whims. The court deferred to the agency's interpretation of its own 
rule.
  I wish I had the ability to say that with a Federal agency such as, 
maybe, the IRS. I am just going to write them

[[Page 10186]]

a little letter and say: I interpret the law differently. I don't owe 
anything this year. Thanks for asking--and have the court uphold mine. 
Do you think they would go along with that? No. Of course, this is the 
same IRS that has one person in control of almost a million people. 
They have one customer service agent in my district; so I don't think 
they care, really, about that. You see, if you go back to this right 
here, it is interpretation. The court said: Interpret your own rules. 
Do what you want to do.
  The Chevron doctrine is bankrupt when it comes to the separation of 
powers. We have got to get back to a way that this actually does this. 
This simply does this, and this is not new. This is not something that 
is unheard of.
  Importantly, the bill will also extend this requirement to not only 
judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, but also to 
various mini APAs that are scattered throughout the United States Code. 
For example, the Clean Air Act includes its own individual version of 
the APA. This bill ensures cases like that can't escape notice.
  We need to reverse the course. It is time we stopped diminishing 
congressional authority and handing the power over to the agencies. It 
is past time that we restore the checks and balances that our Founders 
built into this system.
  Mr. Speaker, this is where it is understandable. We can have 
differences of opinion on this floor. In fact, that is what our country 
was based on. We are going to have differences of opinion and different 
ways to go about it; but what I cannot understand is, on this floor, 
when we can't even come together to say we will hold for our own 
authority--our own congressional, constitutional authority. We say we 
will happily give it, and let the courts say that the folks who have 
not been elected and who will be there, maybe, long after we are gone 
can decide that that is not what Congress really meant, whether it be a 
Democratic Congress or a Republican Congress, whether it be a 
Democratic President or a Republican President.
  The Constitution was set up with three branches--three, not one. Just 
because the one--the executive--feels that because there is inaction on 
the Hill it can do whatever it wants is no excuse to not go by the law. 
It is even less of an excuse that the courts should turn a blind eye to 
the intent of Congress. That is what this is about.
  We are going to hear everything else today on this rule. I just 
wanted to take a few minutes to talk about the actual rule before you, 
not about everything else. We will have plenty of time on that. This 
bill is a good bill. It does what it needs to do. It restores for 
Republicans and Democrats and the American people what it needs to 
have.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am tired of this Republican leadership, on a regular basis, 
bringing meaningless bills to this floor for debate and taking up the 
time of the Members and wasting taxpayers' money. This bill is going 
nowhere, and we all know that.
  I am also tired of moments of silence after every massacre that 
occurs in this country--Sandy Hook, San Bernardino, Orlando, Aurora, 
Virginia Tech, Charleston. I can go on and on and on and on. All this 
body can do is have a moment of silence.
  We can't even have a debate on the floor on serious legislation, 
which is bipartisan legislation, because the NRA wouldn't like it. Too 
bad. Too many people are dying in this country, and we have to do 
something. We have to come together.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask that we defeat the previous question, and I will 
offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that 
would allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of firearms and 
explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  The Republican majority refused to even debate closing this glaring 
loophole for the first half of the year. Only after Democrats took 
action did the majority decide to offer a toothless NRA bill that will 
do nothing to keep our communities safer. The country, simply, cannot 
wait any longer for this Congress to take meaningful action to end gun 
violence. The American people will not be fooled by this latest--
cynical--Republican capitulation to the gun lobby.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I, too, plan to vote to defeat the previous question so 
we can have some debate on some gun violence prevention legislation--
which is long overdue to be debated in this body. The gentleman 
mentioned that he is going to offer our amendment on the no fly, no buy 
legislation--a Republican bill, authored by Republican Congressman 
Peter King from New York. I think it is essential that we do that.
  I understand we are also going to introduce an amendment on the 
background check legislation, which is also a bipartisan measure--with 
the overwhelmingly bipartisan support of 187 coauthors in this body. 
You have got to look at a lot of bills to find one that has that many 
coauthors--and bipartisan coauthors at that. Also, it is a measure that 
has overwhelming support amongst the American people. Upwards of around 
90 percent of Americans believe that we should do everything possible 
to make it more difficult for people who shouldn't have guns to be able 
to get guns. That is what our bill does. That is what our effort does. 
It makes it more difficult for individuals who shouldn't have guns to 
get those guns.
  I have said it before on this floor, in an attempt to try and get a 
vote on this critically important legislation, that, if the Republicans 
don't like the way we are working, work with us. Help us figure out 
what we can do to make our communities safer.
  To my friend on the other side of the aisle, do the Republican 
Members really believe that it should be easy for criminals, the 
mentally ill, domestic abusers, or terrorists to get guns?
  I know their constituents don't think that they should be able to 
easily get guns.
  The truth of the matter is that the background check legislation that 
we have makes it more difficult. That is our first line of defense 
against criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and 
terrorists from being able to get guns. We should bring that bill to 
the floor; we should debate that bill; and we should pass it. We should 
be in step with the 90 percent of American people who think that 
comprehensive background checks should be the law of this great land.
  I am a gun owner. I believe strongly in the Second Amendment. 
Personally, I wouldn't sell a gun to people unless I knew they weren't 
criminals, they weren't dangerously mentally ill, they weren't domestic 
abusers, and they weren't terrorists. How do you find out? If you are 
selling your gun to those you do not know, how do you know if they fall 
into one of these categories? That is why the background check is so 
critically important.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is 
that 34 States do not go beyond what that Federal floor is. They allow 
guns to be sold at gun shows, through newspaper ads, or online without 
the benefit of there being a background check. We should stop that. We 
should make sure that we do everything we can to ensure that criminals, 
the dangerously mentally ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists don't 
get guns. Right now, some 40 percent of the firearms that are sold in 
our country are sold without the benefit of there being a background 
check. How does that make our constituents safe? How does that make 
America more safe?

[[Page 10187]]

  It is shameful. We need to bring this bill to a vote. We need to pass 
a background check. We need to make sure that we know who it is who is 
buying guns. We must do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands 
of people who should not have guns: criminals, the dangerously mentally 
ill, domestic abusers, and terrorists.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. Esty).
  Ms. ESTY. Mr. Speaker, we need to act. We need to act to save lives 
as 100,000 Americans have died in the last 3\1/2\ years since Sandy 
Hook--since 6- and 7-year-olds were killed in my district. What has 
this House done? Nothing but hold moments of silence.
  Do any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle think that 
moments of silence are responsive to the needs of 100,000 American 
families who have lost loved ones in the last 3\1/2\ years?
  There is no other crisis we wouldn't be responding to. That is why 
that sense of frustration and urgency is what caused 150 or more of my 
colleagues to come to the floor 2 weeks ago to demand that we vote on 
two commonsense, bipartisan bills. These are bipartisan, and they will 
save lives.
  Background checks on all commercial sales work. They have stopped 
over 2 million felons and domestic violence abusers from buying weapons 
in the last 20 years. Those are all lives that are potentially saved; 
so they actually work.
  We also have bipartisan no fly, no buy legislation. The no fly, no 
buy legislation would also help keep guns out of the hands of 
terrorists.
  With all due deference to other legislative matters, 100,000 American 
families have borne the ultimate loss of their loved ones while this 
body has failed to act. The time to act is now. We should call up these 
two bills and vote on them this week. We will continue to push these 
bills.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The purpose why we came to the floor was to support the rule and the 
underlying legislation. And I believe that the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Collins) spoke very clearly about how this Congress needs to stand 
up and speak clearly about not only the role of Congress in writing 
laws, but also working more carefully with agencies as they write rules 
and regulations.
  We get that. We have oversight. We work with regulatory bodies. But 
what we are trying to say, as we provide the information on this bill, 
is that we want the courts to recognize that in the power struggle that 
takes place between the executive, legislative branch, and the courts, 
that we would like to defer to the people who originally wrote the law. 
What we are here to do today to talk about is exactly that.
  I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle feel like they 
have a lot of frustration about a lot of issues. I would say to them: 2 
weeks ago, that was the Zika virus; this House has tried to work its 
will on that. We will get to rather quickly this issue of the terrorist 
watch list.
  What we are trying to do today are also things that are of grave 
importance to the American people because of the loss of jobs in this 
country, based upon the executive branch that is overusing what we 
believe are the rules and regulations to inhibit the American people 
that are costly--over a trillion dollars' worth of cost--that have been 
placed over these years on private industry and the American citizens.
  We are here today to also talk about an important aspect, and that is 
jobs opportunity. The American people are overburdened. We are trying 
to bring back the discussion today that we believe the intent of those 
who write the law, that the rules and regulations that are the 
underpinning of how those laws will be looked at, will be supported by 
the same effort that we wrote the law with. And so we are trying to go 
back to the intent that the people who wrote the laws and the agencies 
that are attempting to enforce the laws, that they would mirror each 
other to the benefit of the American people.
  We have had virtually 1 percent GDP growth now during the entirety of 
President Obama's administration. For 7 years, America has lagged 
behind in its ability to catch up and be competitive with the world. 
And the question becomes: Why do we allow the Federal Government to be 
bigger and larger and put roadblocks, impediments in front of job 
creators?
  That is why we are here today. We are here today to say we would like 
to balance out the process. We would like the courts to understand and 
the administration to understand that for America to continue to be 
competitive with the world, we have to go back to some balance of power 
that we believe directly is related to Article I; that we believe that 
the courts should understand that the original intent of laws come from 
the legislative process. And that is why we are on the floor today.
  We have too many people who cannot find work, cannot find a job 
because of rules and regulations that are burdening industry and people 
who are job creators. This is why we are here today, Mr. Speaker. I 
think we are here doing the right thing.
  We are talking about jobs, job creation, the original intent of this 
body, the legislation that is written by legislators with the intent 
and rule of law.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  My Republican friends have the right to talk about whatever they want 
to talk about no matter how inconsequential or meaningless. We all know 
that this stuff we are dealing with today is going nowhere.
  We Democrats reserve the right to talk about matters of consequence, 
to talk about things that, quite frankly, our constituents are 
concerned about.
  From every public opinion poll I have seen, the majority of Americans 
want us to do something about it, and that is this issue of gun 
violence. People don't want to have massacres become the new norm in 
this country. They want us to do something.
  I would suggest to my colleagues that those who are resisting, 
allowing us to have these debates and to have these votes are on the 
wrong side of not only public opinion, they are on the wrong side of 
history.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts 
(Ms. Clark), one of the leaders in our Caucus.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, the American people have 
been very clear. They are demanding a vote to keep American families 
safe from gun violence. When the Speaker announced a vote this week on 
gun legislation, the American people hoped this would be the moment 
when the silence would end and debating and voting here in Congress on 
commonsense proposals to curb gun violence would begin. Instead, 
American families have been given a bait-and-switch. And for years, the 
majority of Americans have supported bipartisan, commonsense 
legislation that has been gathering dust on the Speaker's desk.
  Over the last few weeks since the horrendous event in Orlando, 
whether it was a sit-in on the floor of the House, to demonstrations 
across this country, the American people have clearly stated they will 
no longer stand for capitulation to the gun lobby. Yet, instead of 
listening to those demands, Speaker Ryan has doubled down on the gun 
lobby's demands.
  You, in America, are 25 times more likely to be shot to death than in 
any other developed country. But we know it doesn't have to be this 
way. We can look to my home State of Massachusetts where we rolled up 
our sleeves. We had tough debates with local communities, with 
sportsmen, with gun rights advocates, with law enforcement, moms, dads, 
teachers, voices from across our communities and neighborhoods. We 
worked together to close loopholes and enact some of the strongest gun 
safety bills in the country.
  What happened as a result?
  We in the Commonwealth are the third lowest in the country in terms 
of gun deaths. This wasn't easy, but we

[[Page 10188]]

fought for it because we knew it would save lives. Most importantly, 
the families of victims and survivors fought to make sure their voices 
were heard so others would not have to endure their same pain. 
Massachusetts lawmakers went to work for them.
  Shouldn't the American people know that their Federal lawmakers work 
for them, too?
  So I ask the Speaker: Does this Congress work for the American 
people? Or are we working for the gun lobby?
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote the will of 
the American people, to reject a cynical bill bought and paid for by 
the gun lobby and that will do nothing to make Americans safe.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 
seconds.
  Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I ask this Congress to pass 
comprehensive background checks and to keep guns out of the hands of 
suspected terrorists and defeat the previous question.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The bill that we are debating and going to vote on is a bill that is 
a very important bill talking about what is essentially the power of 
the United States Congress as we pass laws and to have the rules and 
regulations that are written by agencies to conform not only with the 
law, but even the intent of the law.
  This administration increasingly goes further and further and further 
and further beyond not only the original intent and narrowness of bills 
and laws, but they are into a power grab.
  That is why we are here, Mr. Speaker, because we are concerned about 
the GDP growth, the lack of jobs in this country, the huge number of 
people who are unemployed and the strong, strong support that they are 
not getting from Washington, D.C., to try and say that we need a pro-
growth agenda and we need less rules and regulations.
  We have many, many, many laws that are already on the books. And this 
administration keeps pouring on more and more and more rules, taking 
the laws that we have passed and taking advantage by writing rules that 
will inhibit not only business, but job creation. That is why we are on 
the floor today, and this is why Republicans will pass this bill, 
because we are talking about the real problems today that the average 
American has.
  Americans want to see themselves in a good job, a job that is located 
near their home, a job that provides good access not only for them, to 
provide more goods and services for their family, but for communities 
to survive the onslaught of rules and regulations where it seems like 
Washington knows better than people back home about how to provide not 
just jobs, but to make things better for people that are in their own 
environment.
  So, Mr. Speaker, that is why we are here. Republicans are going to 
stay after this. We deeply believe that what we are doing today is 
offering the American people a good solution to a huge, huge problem.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Again, I would remind my colleague that what we are doing today is 
considering three rules that will bring forward legislation that is 
going absolutely nowhere. And when the gentleman talks about the power 
of Congress, he is right; Congress does have power.
  Congress has the power to actually pass a universal background check, 
to make sure that there are no loopholes in our law that allows 
criminals or suspected terrorists from getting weapons that they could 
use against our people.
  Congress could pass a no fly, no buy bill, which says that if you are 
on an FBI terrorist watch list, then you should not be able to go to a 
gun store and buy a gun. So we have the power to do some important 
things for the American people. Unfortunately, this leadership in this 
House refuses to bring these important priorities to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Crowley), the vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I sense a bit of frustration in the voice 
of my good friend from Texas (Mr. Sessions) in appealing to Democrats 
to focus on the issue before us.
  We are focusing on the issue before us, the issue of gun violence in 
America today. If we learn nothing from 2 weeks ago, we should have 
learned this: it is no longer business as usual, and we are going to 
use whatever tactics we need to to get on this floor votes on no fly, 
no buy and on universal background checks. We are not going to settle 
for what is being cooked up right now as we speak in the Rules 
Committee, which has taken the Cornyn language in the Senate that will 
provide for a 3-day background check, which law enforcement has said 
over and over and over again will not work.
  So I can understand the frustration that I'm hearing, but I have to 
say get used to it because you are going to be frustrated for some time 
longer until we get on the floor a vote on those two measures that we 
have asked for.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, while most Americans were celebrating the 
anniversary of our Nation's independence this last weekend, hundreds 
more were mourning the loss of loved ones. Because in the past 72 
hours--in just these 72 hours--and since we have gotten these 
statistics, this number has probably grown. What we know is that 94 
people died and 248 were injured due to gun violence in America. That 
is one person killed or injured about every 12 minutes. At the end of 
the day, that number will have increased at pretty much that same pace.
  Now, I know we could not have prevented all of these senseless deaths 
and injuries, but perhaps if this House majority had allowed action in 
some meaningful way to improve our gun laws, we could have prevented 
just some of them.
  Would that not have been worth it to have prevented just some of 
them?
  Democrats in the House have been calling on Speaker Ryan and 
Republican leadership to, at the very least, consider, debate, and vote 
on the reforms we are requesting.

                              {time}  1545

  But not even the lowest common denominator, keeping firearms out of 
the hands of suspected terrorists, would be put to a vote on this 
floor. Until today maybe or maybe tomorrow. Caving in to the pressure--
not that the House Democrats bore--the House Republicans have finally 
decided to address this issue, sort of, kind of.
  The legislation we will consider this week doesn't really make 
Americans safer. In fact, it does just the opposite. The bill will 
actually create a brand-new loophole just for terror suspects. That is 
right, despite Republicans' description of the bill, individuals who 
are being investigated for links to terrorist groups won't be kept from 
buying a gun under their bill. Instead, they will get the firearm they 
tried to buy just because their background check wasn't completed in 72 
hours, even if the background check fails at hour 73.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the 
gentleman from New York.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, we have called this the Charleston loophole 
because it is how Dylan Roof, who opened fire on a Bible study group at 
the AME church in Charleston, South Carolina, received his gun. He 
failed his background check, but not within 3 days, so he got his gun. 
And now the terror suspects will have that same opportunity.
  Now, given this, you would think the Republicans would provide the 
funding needed to complete background checks and make them faster, but 
not under the bill they have proposed.
  So let's just call it what it is. More than the Charleston loophole, 
it is a brand-new ``anywhere loophole'' for terrorists. And dare I 
mention that all the other loopholes in our background check system 
will remain open under the legislation that they are stirring up in the 
Committee on Rules.
  So, Mr. Speaker, let's be under no illusion. I get the frustration on 
the

[[Page 10189]]

other side of the aisle. More frustration to come until we get a vote 
on this floor for universal background checks that are long enough for 
law enforcement to do their job and we get a vote on this floor on the 
no fly, no buy legislation.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Once again, what we are here to do today is to bring forth a bill 
that would bring about the constitutional authority that would give a 
clearer understanding and meaning to not only the legislative process, 
the executive process, but also the judicial process whereby there 
would be an understanding of the laws that are passed and rules and 
regulations which very understandably must be given to a branch of 
government, in this case the executive, to look at the law which the 
executive signed to determine its implementation.
  The facts of the case are that years later, this administration comes 
in and uses that same law which was very specific, which rules and 
regulations were passed for, and create new and onerous roadblocks and 
problems for not only industry, but also the development of jobs and 
job creation. And it is an apparent administration policy that they 
will use this as their advantage rulemaking authority to prevent 
further opportunities for us to grow jobs and job creation in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, I really could not be here at a more genuine time and 
say that just last month this great country only netted adding 28,000 
jobs--net 28,000 jobs--and yet we had millions and millions of young 
people who had just graduated from high school or college who should be 
seeking an opportunity to help themselves into a line of business, into 
a career, into an opportunity to sustain themselves, their way of life, 
their city, their State, and this great Nation.
  But the sign is there that said: No jobs available; we are not 
interested; we cannot hire more people; no thank you. And the number 
one reason back from industry, from employers, from people who want to 
make America stronger is rules and regulations, rules and regulations 
coming out of Washington, D.C., that are harming job creation, that are 
impediments to effectively being able to create new jobs.
  That is uncertainty. That is agency power that specifically targets 
all sorts of industry in this country. And they are doing it for a 
reason--to the demise of the free enterprise system of America on 
behalf of Washington, D.C., unnamed, unknown bureaucrats who hide 
behind their rules and regulations.
  We, as Members of Congress, are getting questions: Hey, what about 
our generation having jobs? What about our communities that cannot have 
jobs and job creation?
  Ask the coal industry in West Virginia. The war on West Virginia, 
Ohio, Virginia, people who are in an industry not only that has a 
lineage in this country, but who have adapted themselves very rapidly 
in the environment that we are in.
  How about truckers, men and women who are engaged in moving goods and 
services back and forth? How about bankers? How about financial 
services people who look up and see a regulatory scheme that keeps 
coming after them? How about my old industry that I spent 16 years at, 
the telecommunications industry, that would wish to put an extra some 
$18 billion a year more in investment in the ground, up in the air, and 
available to people, $18 billion they would like to put into the ground 
for people to have better services?
  No. The rules and regulations out of Washington, D.C.--and that is 
why you see the Democratic Party today talking about something else, 
because they are protecting this administration. They are protecting 
these people who write rules and regulations who are making sure that 
we only have 1 percent GDP growth and, Mr. Speaker, only 28,000 net new 
jobs last year in the middle of summer in 2016. Meanwhile, we look up 
and India is at a 7.9 percent GDP growth rate. We are minuscule. We 
can't sustain what we have, Mr. Speaker. That is why we are here.
  I understand the Democrats are frustrated. They are frustrated 
because their utopia of this idea of this land that would be just a 
giveaway isn't working because people don't have jobs, and that is why 
people are shooting each other--drug gangs, drug cartels, people who we 
have allowed to be in this country who shouldn't be here. That is why, 
because there are not jobs for people to do, and they are taking it out 
on each other.
  So we are going to stay on the floor. We are going to get our work 
done here on this bill, and it is about jobs and job creation, but more 
important, it is back to the original intent of what we believe that 
those people who write the rules, that the rules and the laws should 
better be in line with what they wrote in the original intent.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' defense of what I think is a 
lousy and meaningless piece of legislation. It is going nowhere. And 
just so people can put it in perspective, basically what it is about is 
easing up on regulations on polluters and big corporations that, quite 
frankly, don't care about average working people.
  But be that as it may, let me make clear to my colleagues, both 
Democrats and Republicans, that when I am asking Members to defeat the 
previous question, you can still vote on this meaningless and lousy 
piece of legislation. It would just also allow us to bring up the no 
fly, no buy legislation as well, the bipartisan no fly, no buy 
legislation.
  The underlying bill that the gentleman from Texas is talking about is 
a purely partisan document. And if we want to talk about how we get 
this economy moving even faster, maybe we ought to talk about how we 
work in a bipartisan way to do that, not constantly bringing partisan 
documents like this to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Meeks).
  Mr. MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question. It has nothing to do with the bad bill, as 
indicated.
  Mr. Speaker, for years Democrats in this House and a majority of the 
American people have demanded a vote on gun safety bills. After 
hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their lives to a gun, 
Republican leadership is bringing up an NRA-written bill that does 
little to make our communities safer. Republicans aren't serious about 
gun reform, not even preventing suspected terrorists on the no-fly 
list, like the one in Orlando, from buying a gun.
  It is ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous that suspected terrorists can 
still buy guns at gun shows or online without completing a background 
check, and it is downright irresponsible for this loophole to continue 
to put guns in the hands of those who shouldn't have them. It is just 
as irresponsible for Republicans to allow the NRA and gun manufacturers 
to dictate how the gun industry is regulated. That is insane.
  Should we also allow the tobacco industry to write a bill regulating 
cigarettes?
  The answer to that is no.
  We should protect the people who elected us, not the interests of the 
gun lobby. With 33,000 friends and family members dying by a gun every 
year, it is truly upsetting that these bills fail on very short or real 
reform that would protect American lives.
  During the civil rights movement, when legislation was slow in 
moving, Dr. Martin Luther King asked the question: How long? He said: 
No matter how difficult the moment or how frustrating the hour, not 
long.
  And so today the question is: How long before someone who is on the 
no-fly list can no longer buy a gun?
  I say not long because truth crushed to Earth will rise again.
  How long before the NRA run the Republican Congress?
  Not long because no lie can live forever.
  How long before the Republicans keep good bills from the floor?
  Not long because you shall reap what you sow.
  What we have and what we will have is legislation that will help 
reduce gun

[[Page 10190]]

violence because the arc of the moral universe bends toward justice, 
and justice requires us to have a vote that will save American lives 
because Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of gun 
violence.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Kelly).
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and underlying bill. I, instead, urge consideration of H.R. 1217, the 
Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act. This 
bipartisan bill has the support of 186 Members of Congress and it would 
simply require every firearm sale to conduct a background check. It is 
a commonsense bill that 90 percent of Americans support and that would 
save lives.
  Right now anyone can buy a gun online or at a gun show without a 
background check. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how does that make sense?
  By not requiring background checks for gun shows or online purchases, 
we are inviting bad guys to access guns. We have a gaping hole in our 
system that must be closed. It is time for the House to take action on 
gun violence.
  This week we finally have a gun bill on the floor, except that it 
isn't a gun violence prevention bill. It is a bill written by the big 
gun lobby that would give the Attorney General just 72 hours to 
determine if someone on the no-fly list should be able to purchase a 
gun. To call this a gun violence protection bill is disrespectful and 
dishonors the millions of victims of gun violence.
  What will it take for this House to take action on a real gun 
violence bill?
  When Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was shot, Congress did nothing. 
When innocent schoolchildren were slaughtered in Newtown, this House 
did nothing. As thousands of Americans each month continue to fall 
victim to gun violence, this House does nothing.

                              {time}  1600

  This past weekend, the world lost a great man, Elie Wiesel. He 
famously said that the opposite of love isn't hate; it's indifference.
  My Republican colleagues for too long have been indifferent to 
America's gun violence epidemic. They have been indifferent to grieving 
mothers. They have been indifferent to dying children. They have been 
indifferent to communities that have lost hope for their future. They 
are indifferent to 90 percent of the American people who want expanded 
background checks.
  The American people are sick of this inaction. I am one of these 
Americans.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. KELLY of Illinois. I can think of at least 185 other Americans in 
this Chamber right now who want to vote on a real gun violence 
prevention bill.
  Mr. Speaker, call a vote on H.R. 1217. This is the people's House. 
The people and their Representatives are speaking. We implore you to 
find the courage to stand up against the gun lobby and call a vote on 
this commonsense, bipartisan bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question so that we can bring up bipartisan legislation that would 
allow the Attorney General to bar the sale of firearms and explosives 
to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.
  Mr. Speaker, enough is enough is enough is enough. The American 
people demand action. We are supposed to be the greatest deliberative 
body in the world. It is time we act like it.
  Vote ``no'' to defeat the previous question and vote ``no'' on the 
rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, my friends failed to tell you that we know of not one 
person--not one--that has used the terrorist watch list as an excuse to 
buy a gun and do things.
  What they are forgetting to tell you is that we do have a problem 
with terrorists and people in this country. The President of the United 
States is not, in my opinion and in many other people's opinion, taking 
executive and affirmative action against this. They can't even call 
terrorism what it really is. That is our problem. But today, Mr. 
Speaker, we are on the floor trying to debate a bill which we are going 
to be voting on in a few minutes.
  In 2014, Mr. Speaker, 224 laws were enacted by Congress during the 
calendar year, yet 3,554 rules were passed by agencies. That means that 
there were 16 rules issued for every law.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration is attempting to smother, to overrun 
the free enterprise system in favor of administrations that are not for 
job creation, that are not for raising GDP. They have a 7-year history 
of trying to kill the free enterprise system.
  We are here for the American people to talk about jobs and job 
creation and more investment in America. As long as you have got an 
administration that is all about issuing some 3,554 new rules in 
exactly 1 year, you have got a problem. That is why we are here.
  Mr. Speaker, I know what we are trying to do, and so do they. This 
legislation restores all Americans' basic rights and it also helps this 
body. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this rule and 
the underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 796 Offered by Mr. McGovern

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 6. 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. 
     1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney 
     General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of 
     firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected 
     dangerous terrorist. 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 the Judiciary. After general debate the bill 
     shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports 
     that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the 
     next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the 
     third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, 
     resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further 
     consideration of the bill.
       Sec. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.R. 1076.
                                  ____


        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

[[Page 10191]]

     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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________