[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1501-1510]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




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

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

                               H. Res. 71

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

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


                             General Leave

  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Colorado?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying resolutions.
  Before us is a resolution of disapproval that restores constitutional 
rights and empowers individuals with disabilities. Many of us know 
someone who struggles with a disability. We know friends or family who 
have mental challenges. We know these people, and we know they deserve 
the same constitutional protections as everyone else.
  That is why this resolution is so important. It ends discrimination 
against individuals with disabilities. It restores due process rights. 
It keeps the Social Security Administration focused on its duty.
  Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's last-minute regulation to 
strip disability benefit recipients of their constitutional rights is 
deeply troubling.
  The regulation at hand declares that just because an individual needs 
assistance in managing their disability benefits, they are also unfit 
to own a firearm. But this kind of thinking is discriminatory, forcing 
those with disabilities to choose between their constitutional rights 
or their disability benefits turns back the clock on disability rights.
  This regulation singles out a single constitutional right to strip 
away from a group of Americans. It doesn't make sense.
  Why take away one right and not others? Why not also strip those 
citizens of the right to vote or the right to trial by jury or the 
right to free speech?
  In this country, your rights can't be limited without due process, 
but this regulation limits a constitutional right and only offers the 
recourse of appeal after the decision has been made. When it is easier 
to have your rights stripped away than to have them restored, it

[[Page 1502]]

means your due process rights have also died in the process.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores the due process rights of 
individuals with disabilities. This resolution also refocuses the 
Social Security Administration. The agency's job is to administer 
benefits to Americans, not adjudicate cases concerning constitutional 
rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also worried that this regulation will divert 
precious Social Security Administration resources from vital agency 
tasks. We trust the agency to fulfill our commitments to seniors and 
those with disabilities. This regulation distracts from those sacred 
promises.
  I thank Mr. Johnson and my colleagues for their hard work on this 
resolution. We need to pass it.
  Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the joint resolution of disapproval 
for the Dodd-Frank section 1504 regulation. This resolution restores 
competitiveness to American energy companies. It allows American 
companies to comply with foreign and domestic laws, and it protects 
American workers abroad.
  Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to report their 
payments to our government or foreign governments related to oil, 
natural gas, and mineral extraction. After reporting this to the SEC, 
the agency publishes these disclosures. This process is costly and 
unfair to American businesses.
  By forcing disclosure of project-level sensitive business 
information, American energy companies will face a disadvantage against 
government-owned energy companies. Since government-owned companies 
control three-quarters of the world's oil supply, this regulation could 
drastically impair the competitiveness of American companies. And the 
actual cost of compliance limit, estimated by the American Petroleum 
Institute to take 217,000 employee hours over a 3-year period, would be 
devastating.
  Section 1504 must also be rolled back because it might force American 
companies to break the law of foreign countries. Some foreign nations 
prohibit the very disclosure requirements required by this SEC 
regulation. Our companies should not have to decide between following 
the rule of law here and following it abroad.
  Finally, by forcing such detailed and specific disclosures to the 
public, section 1504 could make energy extraction sites prime targets 
for terrorists. Whether in the U.S. or abroad, we need to wisely 
protect American workers from terrorism and other threats.
  Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores competitiveness to American 
companies, allowing them to contribute to the global energy economy in 
a safe, secure, and legal manner.
  It is time for Congress to reassert its authority and fix this poorly 
implemented legislation.
  I commend the work done by Representative Huizenga and my colleagues 
on this important resolution, and I urge its passage.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for extending me the 
customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have 
another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the 
kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no 
nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway.
  This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the 
greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is 
shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are 
traveling down, Mr. Speaker.
  The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already 
ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has 
become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down 
the process, rush bills through the House without regular order, 
enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on 
spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working 
together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real 
problems facing American families and workers.
  Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are 
eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people. 
We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and 
strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not 
corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special 
interests, but the people ought to come first.

                              {time}  1230

  Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call 
mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to 
repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the 
process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is 
reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or 
rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may 
think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules 
that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went 
through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years 
to complete.
  They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment 
period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people 
weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that 
we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no 
markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing 
way to govern.
  The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with 
President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own 
Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was 
signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump 
White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies 
charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were 
caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and 
chaos about how to carry it out.
  That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is 
thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad 
policy.
  The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this 
week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new 
regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No 
details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they 
would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to 
our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The 
American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I 
think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House.
  Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other 
night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long 
time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will 
tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I 
think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to 
some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a 
committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the 
gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time 
for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal.
  Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand 
what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed 
to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to 
understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in 
this Congress. That is our job.
  The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time 
to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say 
that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we 
don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to 
offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my 
Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not 
the way this House should be run.
  So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember 
that

[[Page 1503]]

Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence at 
all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do is 
we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high rate 
of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something we 
ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a commonsense, 
responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save the lives of 
thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has the 
responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards that 
help prevent gun violence.
  Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This 
rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering 
from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we 
all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a 
bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms 
because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a 
reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.
  It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more 
than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an 
important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The 
people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe 
mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a 
dangerous weapon like a gun.
  I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online 
gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I 
think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI 
and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and 
think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought 
not to be able to go out and buy a gun.
  But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things 
to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican 
Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on 
the House floor.
  When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this, 
or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House 
Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says no to everything, says 
no to every idea that they don't absolutely embrace. And that is not 
the way Congress should be run.
  Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule, 
I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a 
hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to 
talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have 
the time. So here we are.
  Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by 
Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so 
upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange 
to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to 
their natural resources.
  Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be 
transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but 
President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the 
swamp into a cesspool.
  Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on 
a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this, 
is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back 
regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and 
fighting corruption.
  ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former 
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new 
Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this 
anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is 
irresponsible.
  When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010, 
the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress 
fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in 
fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The 
European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as 
did Canada with support of its global mining companies.
  But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments 
can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at 
a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal 
commercially sensitive information.
  But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing 
field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no 
commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't 
cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need 
to do differently is report their numbers.
  Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are 
autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells, 
gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from 
their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in 
league with them?
  On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to 
fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles 
and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost 
countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to 
put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of 
the corporate interests, and retain that important rule.
  Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these 
two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote 
``no'' on this rule.
  And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote.
  This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not 
a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore. 
It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump 
wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it.
  I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected 
by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process.
  With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts raising the issue of a 
thoughtful process and whether this legislation was rushed to the 
floor.
  I think it is worth noting that the original legislation, which this 
rule seeks to amend, became law in a time when my colleague was in the 
House and his party was in the majority. The NICS Improvement 
Amendments Act of 2007 was introduced in the House on June 11, 2007.
  The bill was moved by Congressman Conyers under suspension of the 
rules and passed by the House on June 13, 2007. There was no markup in 
the Judiciary Committee. There was no meaningful debate on the floor. 
The bill was rammed through the House in 3 days without any thought to 
the potential consequences of its passage. It passed the Senate by 
unanimous consent.
  I did not see others standing up to leadership at that point in time. 
In its implementation, we are seeing the consequences. They involve the 
stripping away of constitutional rights and due process rights. They 
involve the elimination of due process rights. They involve 
discrimination against individuals with disabilities.
  As for the point that this rule that we are now debating somehow 
encourages corruption, the fact is that this regulation puts U.S. 
companies at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned entities abroad 
that are not subject to SEC regulation.
  Additionally, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance 
costs for U.S. businesses. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act already 
prohibits bribes to foreign governments to obtain or retain business. 
These are legitimate payments being made to foreign governments, the 
payments that we are discussing here, and we should still prosecute any 
corruption to the full extent of the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of 
history than

[[Page 1504]]

the gentleman does, including one that represents a bipartisan 
compromise with the Bush White House.
  So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does 
on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is 
all about giving Big Oil what they want.
  At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the 
repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we 
believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and 
vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for 
itself.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous 
question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to 
bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President 
Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order 
banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain 
countries.
  President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's 
values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist 
groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be 
overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up 
legislation to do just that.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.
  Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote against this 
previous question so that the bill to overturn President Trump's ill-
advised ban on travel can be addressed.

                              {time}  1245

  There has been a lot of dustup and discussion about this, but, 
really, if you read the order, it is very clear what it does. It 
suspends entry for 90 days of all immigrants--that is green card 
holders--and nonimmigrants from seven Muslim majority countries. It 
also suspends all refugee admission for 120 days.
  Now, there has been discussion about the Middle East refugees, but if 
you look at last year, most of the refugees who came in were from the 
Congo and also from Burma. Those individuals who have suffered--they 
have been tortured--are going to stay in the refugee camps at least for 
120 days, and, obviously, this disrupts the program. This will be a 
much longer end to the refugee program.
  Now, there is an exception, and the President has said he wants to 
let Christian refugees in, and the order itself says minority 
religions. There is a problem not only with violating the law because 
the Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits discrimination based on 
nationality and on religion, but also the premise is that Christians 
who had been persecuted were not admitted as refugees. That is simply 
false. That is false. There were large numbers of refugees who have 
been persecuted, including Christians. This order violates the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. It also violates the Constitution. 
That is why my bill should be brought up.
  I am going to give you just two examples. One is General Talib al-
Kenani, who is an Iraqi four-star general who is commanding an elite, 
American-trained counterterrorism unit that has led the fight against 
ISIS for the last 2 years. His wife and children were moved to the 
United States because staying in Iraq was too unsafe for them. He is 
now unable to visit his family in the United States. He told CBS News: 
``We thought we were partners with our American friends, and now we 
realize we are just considered terrorists.''
  How does this help the fight against ISIS?
  I want to give you another example. Remember the Yazidis? The Yazidis 
were being persecuted by ISIS. We remember that they had been isolated 
at the top of a mountain in Syria; and when President Obama was in 
office, he acted. We bombed ISIS and we saved the Yazidis. This is what 
President Obama said: ``When we have the unique capabilities to avert a 
massacre, then I believe the United States of America cannot turn a 
blind eye. We can act, carefully and responsibly, to prevent a 
potential act of genocide. That's what we're doing on that mountain.''
  I mention this because there is an individual, a Yazidi woman, who 
had been the only Yazidi person--woman--in the Iraqi parliament, Vian 
Dakhil. One week after the President's announcement, she was injured in 
a helicopter crash during a mission to deliver humanitarian aid to the 
Yazidis who were trapped in the siege by ISIS. She has received awards 
in London, in Dubai, in Vienna, and in Geneva for her human rights 
work. Ironically, she was supposed to come to Washington, D.C., next 
week to come to the U.S. Capitol to receive an award from the Tom 
Lantos Human Rights Commission. Now, we remember our late colleague, 
Tom Lantos, the only Member of Congress who survived the Nazi 
concentration camps, and we have established this humanitarian prize in 
his memory. This valiant woman now can't come to Washington, to the 
U.S. Congress, to receive the Tom Lantos Human Rights Prize because of 
President Trump's ban on individuals coming from Syria.
  This is a ridiculous situation. It is illegal, it is 
unconstitutional, it is contrary to American values, and it doesn't 
make any sense. So I would hope that we can defeat this previous 
question and that we can do something responsible: stand up for the 
rule of law, stand up for the Constitution, stand up for common sense, 
and overturn this executive order.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Does the gentleman have any other speakers?
  Mr. BUCK. I am waiting for one. I do not have a speaker now, but the 
gentleman's eloquence would be welcome at this point and any way that 
the gentleman would like to inform us on important issues.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren, 
stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are 
horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's 
executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent 
people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who 
have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who 
have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get 
human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to 
correct this. We are better than this.
  I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the 
wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us 
and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right 
thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory 
policy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who sits on the Rules 
Committee, and Mr. Buck, who is handling, I think, his first rule as a 
member of the Rules Committee today. Mr. Buck is from Windsor, 
Colorado. He is a second-term Member and is doing an awesome job not 
only on his homework duties of recognizing how important it is for 
Members to understand what we are talking about and why we are doing 
things, but also enunciation of rules that we are talking about that 
were promulgated by an administration.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are really here today to talk about is there are 
some of those rules and regulations where perhaps you didn't go through 
the process that you should have or where there was really a 
determination made by the American people that rulemaking goes too far. 
That is why we are here today.
  We are here today because there is a group of rules that were 
promulgated

[[Page 1505]]

that don't work and that did not really see, in our opinion, the 
balance of what was going to be in it for the American people. So, in 
particular, we are here to talk about a Social Security rule that 
discriminates against individuals with disabilities by denying them 
their constitutional rights.
  The gentleman, Mr. McGovern, spoke very clearly about a meeting that 
we had at the Rules Committee. I think that the witnesses that we had 
were very specific and that they questioned--including Mr. Buck, who 
was most active in his participation in the hearing--to work through 
the rule that is promulgated but doesn't make sense when you evaluate 
it. The administration chose to, I think, without due process, take 
away from a person based upon a disability that had nothing to do with 
their ability to effectively control a weapon, but based upon other 
criteria and to take away a person's Second Amendment rights.
  We oppose that. That is one of the reasons why we are here today. 
This rule that we are going to take away wrongly discriminates against 
those receiving disability benefits and, I believe, falsely promulgates 
a stereotype against individuals with mental illness, calling them 
dangerous. There are people who do have mental illnesses, there are 
people who are struggling in life, and there are people who need help 
and seek help; but that is not a criteria for taking away a person's 
constitutional right.
  We are joined in what we believe by the National Council on 
Disability. This is what they said in a letter that they sent that was 
dated January 24 of this year: ``There is, simply put, no nexus between 
the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly 
own, possess, or use a firearm. This arbitrary linkage not only 
unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with disabilities 
of a constitutional right, it increases the stigma for those who, due 
to their disabilities, may need a representative payee. . . . ''
  So what happened is the rule by the administration linked together 
these characteristics that they think identify a person as being a risk 
so they take away their constitutional right. We couldn't really relate 
to anybody that had done this, but it simply sounded like a good idea, 
I am sure, to people, and so they did this.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to right all wrongs at the Rules 
Committee, but when you take away somebody's constitutional rights and 
take advantage of a person because of their disability, I don't think 
that is fair.
  I am proud of what Mr. Buck is doing here. I am proud that we stood 
up on this issue, and I am pleased to be on the floor not only to 
support Mr. Buck, but people who also live in the congressional 
district that I represent in Dallas, Texas. I have received several 
calls from people. While I will not say their names, they live in 
Dallas, Texas; Garland, Texas; Wylie, Texas; and Rowlett, Texas; and 
they are worried about their ability to lose their constitutional 
rights simply because they have some help in managing their affairs but 
not related to a constitutional right of owning a weapon.
  So I am pleased to do this. There is no grandstanding necessary. 
There is an understanding of some things that can be written properly 
and some things that can't, and I simply think they got it wrong, and 
that is what we are going to do here today. I thank the gentleman, Mr. 
Buck, for allowing me the chance to speak on this important issue.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he 
has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before I close, and then 
I would like to recognize the chairman for additional comments.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for being 
here today and just reinforce some of what the chairman had to say.
  As I travel Colorado, I hear from individuals of all walks of life 
about the regulatory burdens that they face, the burden that has been 
placed upon them by their own government and how those burdens have 
impeded their life, liberty, and certainly pursuit of happiness. Small-
business owners who would not open their business today because of the 
change in the business climate find that their tax burden, their 
regulatory burden, and the attitude of Federal regulators is such that 
they would choose a different path had they had to do it all over 
again.
  I talked to school administrators who are, again, facing a pile of 
paperwork to comply with school and nutrition requirements that have 
been promulgated by this previous administration.

                              {time}  1300

  I talk to veterans who have to wait on long, long lines and fill out 
ridiculous paperwork because the Veterans Administration is unable to 
recognize the necessity, the importance of what those veterans are 
trying to accomplish at the VA. I am deeply concerned about the 
regulations, and I am proud that my colleagues have decided to address 
some of these regulations in the way that they have. I appreciate the 
chairman standing up on this issue.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
not only, once again, for being here, but for responsibly standing up 
for his party and the things which they not only have a right to bring 
to the floor, but an opportunity for him to discuss those things as he 
chooses to justify the rules that we are going to not only discuss 
their merits, but to really ensure that the American people understand 
why we believe that these rules that were promulgated need to be 
overturned.
  Mr. Speaker, the second joint resolution that was included in Mr. 
Buck's rule is a resolution that discusses the Securities and Exchange 
Commission related to what is called disclosure of payments by resource 
extraction issuers.
  My gosh, what does that mean? Well, we understood the previous 
administration is anti what they call Big Oil. They are after anybody 
that is in the oil business. You and I both understand that our country 
and the world is stronger because we don't freeze to death in the 
winter and we don't get too hot in the summer because we have available 
energy at a great price.
  But it means that companies in the United States also go around the 
world to find other places where they may extract oil or resources 
related to energy, and the Securities and Exchange Commission published 
in the Federal Register, on July 27, 2016, a rule that would place 
American companies--and only American companies--that extract valuable 
resources--meaning energy--from other places in the world and that they 
would have to publicly disclose arrangements and deals that they make 
related to them buying these resources.
  The Securities and Exchange Commission understands already the rules 
that are on American companies, including a rule that we know as the 
Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which means that an American company 
cannot go overseas and induce through bribing someone to do something. 
But now, in order to stop these companies--many of them large 
companies, many of them medium-sized companies, but their nexus is that 
they are energy companies--they are going to require in this rule that 
that company tell everybody, including competitors, what the deal might 
be that they got. So a private contract that might be between a 
country, a company, and an American company is now going to see the 
light of day.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that is wrong. Fortunately, so does my party. We 
think that is wrong, because it unnecessarily puts U.S. companies at a 
competitive disadvantage to many state-owned competitors around the 
world who are competing, many times, for the same resources.
  In other words, we just told them what the deal is--how much money, 
what the arrangement is, how it might

[[Page 1506]]

be concluded--and that is a violation, in my opinion, of not only the 
power that the SEC has, but I think it is unwise. I think it is 
blatantly unwise that we would unearth contracts from the free 
enterprise system while, at the same time, knowing they have to follow 
the rules of engagement, meaning the rules under the Foreign Corrupt 
Practices Act, at the same time.
  So, Mr. Speaker, what we are here to say is that we believe that 
these agencies are trying to harm America's opportunity to go and seek 
out good deals, better deals, and to find long-term contracts around 
the globe, wherever they might be, and that they have singled out 
energy companies, that they have gone out of their way in what was 
known as the Obama administration to single out energy companies 
because they don't like energy deals.
  Mr. Speaker, what has happened as a result of not only this, but 
legislation that the Congress has done on December 18, 2015, is we 
changed the Federal law related to the export of U.S. energy. Before, 
there was a provision, some 40-year-old provision, that did not allow 
energy from the United States to be sold overseas. Once we did that, it 
completely turned the market upside down. So what might be deals then 
and deals now are in the best interest of consumers instead of what 
might be OPEC or a few other energy-rich countries.
  We think that what this was done for was to punish those companies 
that can go find better deals by telling everybody what happened--but 
it was mostly done to punish--and it put us at a disadvantage.
  We are here on the second part of this joint resolution to say that 
the rule that was promulgated on July 27, 2016, is bad for America, is 
bad for consumers, and most of all, it is bad for America to have rules 
and regulations that take away the power of a private contract.
  We stand up and say: What are we going to do about it? We are going 
to go through the deliberate action that was taken not only at the 
White House, but was taken on the floor of the House of Representatives 
so that we have our say in the matter on rules and regulations.
  Mr. Speaker, I would advise my colleague, Mr. Buck, that there is a 
person who heard this debate going on and has come to the floor. I 
don't know if he would choose to yield time to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Massie), but I have been told that Mr. Massie would like 
to help me along on some of my comments because of his excitement about 
what this rule does.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hultgren). The gentleman from Colorado 
has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\3/
4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).
  Mr. MASSIE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues, Sam Johnson and Ralph 
Abraham, for sponsoring this joint resolution. I would also like to 
point out that my colleague from Colorado is a member of the Second 
Amendment Caucus, and he has been working hard on this issue.
  H.J. Res. 40 would strike down a rule that was finalized by the 
Social Security Administration just days before the close of the 114th 
Congress. This rule is yet another example of the previous 
administration's last-ditch efforts to attack our Second Amendment 
rights.
  Any attempt to curtail the right of Americans to defend themselves 
and their liberty is untenable. This scheme is particularly appalling 
because of whom it targets and how the administration sought to 
implement the rule.
  The rule targets our grandparents, our elderly mothers and fathers 
who have been awarded disability benefits and have had a family member 
or guardian appointed to handle their finances. They haven't committed 
a crime or demonstrated that they were a danger to society. There is no 
trial, no presumption of innocence. Their names are sent to the NICS 
database and their firearms are taken away, their right to own a 
firearm.
  Hardened criminals don't have their rights violated to that extent 
without due process, so why would it be acceptable for our seniors?
  These men and women have worked hard to raise families, worked a job, 
and paid their fair share of taxes. Now they are being told that, in 
order to receive their Social Security benefits, they must first 
surrender the fundamental right to defend themselves. Is this the level 
of pettiness to which we have sunk?
  The House and the American people have soundly rejected gun control 
in all of its forms year after year; yet this last administration 
bypassed the legislative process, imposed a rule, and completely 
disregarded due process in order to strip seniors of their 
constitutional rights. Our seniors deserve better than that.
  This rule is not about protecting anyone. This rule should be seen 
for what it truly is: awful, politically motivated, and a dangerous 
infringement on our Second Amendment rights.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have 
heard so many fascinating things here today.
  The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here 
today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate. 
The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another 
closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no 
real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this 
stuff.
  No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you, 
listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would 
have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a 
hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the 
gentleman raised.
  When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them 
that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this 
determination is being considered and they are provided a process to 
challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration 
determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns, 
rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is 
what it says.
  Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it; 
but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that 
are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless 
Congress deemed it appropriate.
  So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are 
doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate 
anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country.
  The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his 
constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty, 
and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but 
they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have 
a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against 
themselves or their family members.
  But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do 
more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from 
gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the 
Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on 
the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules 
Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters.
  Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial 
Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are 
some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think 
go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but 
around the world.
  When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his 
description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled 
out, it

[[Page 1507]]

makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just said, in 
my opinion, does not reflect reality.
  The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It 
doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that 
all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S. 
exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to 
governments for oil, gas, and mining resources.

                              {time}  1315

  And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other 
countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway 
have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being 
singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the 
committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this 
wouldn't be a point of contention.
  The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It 
places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or 
how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any 
aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to 
nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it 
easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory 
impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper 
payments. It is a simple reporting requirement.
  There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia. 
Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are 
all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible 
record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes 
to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to 
everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this 
repealed.
  So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of 
all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This 
is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance 
of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance 
of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of 
order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always 
under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new 
Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage 
Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some 
issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor 
with thoughtful ideas.
  I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because, 
again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed, 
closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House 
of Representatives. It really is shameful.
  Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous 
question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning 
President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on 
immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly 
implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is 
unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are 
confronted with now.
  I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new 
President who is of your party, but this is absolutely the right thing 
to do. And if you want to vote no on these things, vote no on them, but 
allow us to have the debate and allow us to have the vote. I urge 
``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BUCK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to 
close.
  I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Kentucky for 
their remarks, and I appreciate the insightful remarks from the 
gentleman from Massachusetts. I am troubled right now. I am struggling 
to remember--as the gentleman describes Russia with its terrible record 
on human rights, I am trying to remember exactly who it was who had the 
reset button with Vladimir Putin, and I don't think it was the Trump 
administration. I could be wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, America has come so far in advancing the rights of those 
with disabilities. We have also fought long and hard to protect our 
constitutional rights. The rule before us achieves both of those ends. 
The Obama administration's last-ditch effort to strip constitutional 
rights from individuals with disabilities must not stand. We also 
cannot stand for regulations that place American companies at a 
disadvantage and place their workers at risk.
  The rule before us will undo the costly and dangerous reporting 
requirements placed on America's energy companies operating abroad. 
When we repeal this unwise regulation on American energy companies, 
they can again fully contribute to the world's energy economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and the underlying 
measures.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule 
governing debate on H.J. Res. 40, and the underlying legislation, 
because in a nation that leads the civilized world in deaths by gun 
violence, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for 
persons suffering from a very severe, long-term, mental disorder that 
makes them incapable of managing their financial benefits and unable to 
do any kind of work in the U.S. economy, even part-time or at very low 
wages to obtain deadly firearms.
  The Republicans have brought to the floor this week a Congressional 
Review Act (CRA) of Disapproval to overturn Social Security 
Administration (SSA) regulations to comply with existing federal law 
governing the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS).
  H.J. Res. 40, would vacate an important rule issued by the Social 
Security Administration implementing the NICS Improvement Amendments 
Act of 2007.
  That law, which we adopted in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at 
Virginia Tech, requires federal agencies to report to the National 
Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of individuals 
who are statutorily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.
  The statute was enacted with bipartisan support, and we should stand 
together to defend efforts to see that it is fully implemented.
  Let us be clear what a submission vote on this legislation is about: 
the Republican's goal is to weaken our firearms background check 
system.
  The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 presented the deadliest 
shooting rampage in U.S. history.
  On April 16 2007, the violence began around 7:15 a.m., ending in the 
deaths of 32 students and teachers after being gunned down on the 
campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Seung 
Hui Cho, a student at the school, who later died from a self-inflicted 
gunshot wound.
  Only four months prior, on December 13, 2005, Cho had been ordered by 
a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his 
roommates and was subsequently evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental 
health facility.
  On February 9, 2007, Cho picked up a Walther P-22 pistol that he 
purchased online, just days before, on February 2 from an out-of-state 
dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia 
Tech.
  In March of 2007, Cho purchased a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of 
ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for 571 dollars.
  The attack, resulting from these preventable actions, left 30 people 
dead and another 17 wounded.
  In all, 27 students and five faculty members died as a result of the 
actions of a known mentally unstable individual who was nonetheless 
allowed to purchase a firearm.
  On December 14, 2012, Lenny Pozner dropped off his three children, 
Sophia, Arielle, and Noah, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, 
Connecticut.
  Noah had recently turned 6, and on the drive over they listened to 
his favorite song, for what turned out to be the last time.
  Half an hour later, while Sophia and Arielle hid nearby, Adam Lanza 
walked into Noah's first-grade class with an AR-15 rifle.
  Noah was the youngest of the 20 children and seven adults killed in 
one of the deadliest shootings in American history.
  Depending on whom you ask, there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or 
twenty-eight victims in Newtown.
  It is twenty-six if you count only those who were murdered at Sandy 
Hook Elementary School; twenty-seven if you include Nancy Lanza--Adam's 
own mother; twenty-eight once Adam turned the gun on himself.

[[Page 1508]]

  There are twenty-six stars on the local firehouse roof.
  On the anniversary of the shootings, the governor of Connecticut 
asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times.
  Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, 
needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.
  To ensure the continued safety of American families, the Gun Control 
Act of 1968 prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing 
firearms, including those who, using outdated terminology, are 
``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' (This is referred to as the 
``federal mental health prohibitor.'')
  The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally 
licensed firearms dealers to run background checks on prospective gun 
purchasers through NICS.
  NICS includes records from various databases on individuals who are 
prohibited by law from purchasing and possessing firearms.
  In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, prior to which 
the shooter's mental health prohibitor should have been, but was not, 
reported to NICS, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved legislation to 
adopt the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.
  As senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland 
Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 
Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I supported the 2016 
Social Security Administration (SSA) rule, which committed the SSA to 
submit records to the gun background check system for social security 
recipients prohibited from possessing guns due to severe mental 
illness.
  It is a critical process for enforcing the law that bars prohibited 
people from passing background checks and purchasing firearms.
  The only way we are going to prevent guns from getting into the hands 
of people who should not have them, people who pose a known and 
documented danger to themselves and others, is through a system based 
on robust, accurate and complete information.
  Prior to the new SSA rulemaking, the agency had no process for 
submitting records of prohibited people to the National Instant 
Criminal Background Check System (NICS).
  NICS therefore, has been missing records for those prohibited 
individuals.
  NICS is only as good as the records it contains.
  With those records missing from the system, these individuals are 
able to pass a background check and complete a purchase even though 
they are legally prohibited from purchasing guns under longstanding 
federal law.
  The SSA regulation closes this gap by committing the agency to begin 
submitting prohibiting records into the gun background check system.
  The rule does not impact any beneficiaries who are not already 
prohibited under law, and does not impact people based on disability 
findings that have been made prior to the rule taking effect.
  Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, 
needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.
  Under the regulation, only individuals with the most severe mental 
impairments, who are (1) unable to earn any income due to their mental 
incapacity, and (2) have been found incapable of managing their own 
benefits meet the NICS reporting system cautionary criteria to report 
the names of certain individuals who are prohibited by law from 
purchasing or possessing firearms to the National Instant Criminal 
Background Check System (NICS).
  SSA has evaluated legal, medical and lay evidence and determined that 
these individuals are not capable of managing their own benefits.
  SSA estimates that about 75,000 people per year will meet these 
criteria for reporting to NICS.
  Disability examiners make the determination based on medical and 
other evidence, but physicians or psychologists review the evidence and 
sign off on the cases.
  An individual who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, suffers from 
hallucinations and delusions, and most days cannot care for herself--
feeding, dressing, communicating with those around her.
  Her symptoms and medical history meet the criteria in the listing for 
schizophrenia.
  She receives disability benefits and has a representative payee.
  She would meet the criteria for reporting.
  An individual who has significant intellectual disability that 
prevents him from working at any level (i.e., he meets the listing for 
intellectual disability), and is unable to understand how to pay rent 
or use his benefits to buy food.
  He qualifies for disability benefits and has a representative payee.
  He would meet the criteria for reporting.
  Placing anyone into the NICS as a ``prohibited person'' is not 
something we should take lightly, but it is a task that must be done in 
limited circumstances and as required by statute.
  The circumstances addressed by this rule require that we work 
together on this serious and unfortunate issue.
  The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of Disapproval would, 
if passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, deem the 
rule to have not been in effect at any time and would also prohibit SSA 
from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same.
  The Republican's use of the CRA process to overturn the rule is an 
extreme exercise in bad governance.
  Rather than fixing or improving the rule, it would ban reporting by 
the SSA entirely.
  There would be no opportunity to simply improve aspects of the rule, 
and we would prevent full implementation of the law we enacted after 
the Virginia Tech shooting.
  I cannot support that result and therefore oppose this resolution, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Subverting long-standing gun safety laws under the guise of 
protecting Constitutional rights, while simultaneously pushing for 
repeal of health reform laws that provided care to these communities 
rings hollow.
  Now is not the time to weaken our background checks system by 
excluding those with the most severe and incapacitating forms of mental 
impairment.
  The Social Security Administration should be commended for its 
efforts to keep children and families safe by following the lead of 
other agencies and enforcing laws that have been on the books for 
decades.
  I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a rule, and the 
underlying bill.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

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

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


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to

[[Page 1509]]

     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

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

                             [Roll No. 70]

                               YEAS--231

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

                               NAYS--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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

                              {time}  1346

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


                             Recorded Vote

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

                             [Roll No. 71]

                               AYES--231

     Abraham
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Amash
     Amodei
     Arrington
     Babin
     Bacon
     Banks (IN)
     Barletta
     Barr
     Barton
     Bergman
     Biggs
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (MI)
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Blum
     Bost
     Brady (TX)
     Brat
     Bridenstine
     Brooks (AL)
     Brooks (IN)
     Buchanan
     Buck
     Bucshon
     Budd
     Burgess
     Byrne
     Calvert
     Carter (GA)
     Carter (TX)
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Cheney
     Coffman
     Cole
     Collins (GA)
     Collins (NY)

[[Page 1510]]


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

                               NOES--191

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

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


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

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

                              {time}  1352

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

                          ____________________