Gun Violence Research Act

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I obviously rise in strong opposition to this rule. This can be a frustrating place. So frustrating, that sometimes I want to tear the remaining two strands of hair I have on my head out, because what we do here, in my opinion, is not to advance anything that is good for the American people. This is a frustrating place, because what happens on this House floor is either nothing or you guys make things worse.

On Sunday, we once again witnessed a massacre, the worst mass shooting in American history. People across this country are demanding action, but the response of the Republican leadership in this Congress is nothing. We had a moment of silence, but it means nothing because that is all we do. There are no hearings, no debate, no votes, just absolutely nothing.

It is obvious that too many Republicans have been intimidated and have been frightened or have been bought off by the National Rifle Association. It is shameful and, quite frankly, it is disgusting.

If the Republican leadership of this House is not willing to lead, then move aside. Allow us to bring measures to the floor so we can have a vote, so we can have a debate, so we can enact measures that might save some lives.

Mr. Speaker, what we are considering today, this Republican budget, is an example of the majority making things worse for the American people.

Budgets are moral documents. They show what we value and what we care about. And if this budget reflects Republican values, then shame on Republicans. When you look at the specific programs House Republicans target, it becomes clear just how cruel this budget really is.

Last night, in the Rules Committee, I complained loudly to the distinguished chairwoman of the Budget Committee about the cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program known as SNAP, basically a program that provides poor people food. It helps prevent hunger in this country. In this budget, they call for $164 billion in cuts to this program.

The chairwoman said: Well, I believe that people who get this benefit ought to work.

I pointed out to her last night, and I am going to point out to my colleagues here today, that the majority of people on this program--67 percent of the people who are on this program are not expected to work. Why? Because they are children, because they are senior citizens, because they are disabled.

Of those who can work, the majority work. But you have individuals who are working, who are on SNAP because they earn so little that they still qualify for this program.

So why aren't we demanding that work pay more in this country? Why aren't we coming together to demand an increase in the minimum wage so it is a livable wage, so that people who work don't have to be on public assistance?

Instead, we have yet another attack on poor people in the form of these cuts.

The gentlewoman said: Well, I want to narrow it down to just able- bodied adults without dependents. They all ought to work.

Well, many of these people do work, Mr. Speaker, but many of them don't work, for a number of reasons. Many have limited educational experience, with 80 percent having no more than a high school education or a GED. Some are aging out of foster care. Some have underlying mental health issues, difficult histories of substance abuse, or are ex-offenders with nowhere else to turn.

As many as 60,000 of these able-bodied adults without dependents who have qualified for SNAP initially are veterans. These are brave, courageous men and women who have served our country, who have returned home and are having difficulty reintegrating into the community, getting on their feet. Our gratitude for their service is, we

are going to throw you off the food benefit? I don't know what people are thinking who drafted this in the budget.

The chairwoman of the Budget Committee said: Well, it is important that we constantly review programs to see if they are working, if they are living up to our expectations. I agree. I am a liberal Democrat. I want to make sure that whatever programs are in existence are working, are effective. Nobody is for ineffective government.

I happen to sit on the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Speaker. We have already held 23 oversight hearings on this program--23 on SNAP alone. We have had Republican witnesses, and we have had Democratic witnesses. As my friend from Georgia knows, his party is in control, so Republicans get to have more witnesses than Democrats do. We have had 23 hearings, and not one witness, not one, recommended a $164 billion cut in this program.

In fact, what they recommended, Democrats and Republicans, was that we ought to strengthen wraparound services. That means like you ought to fund fully job training programs so that States can guarantee people a slot in a job training program.

Many argue, Democratic and Republican witnesses, that the benefit is too inadequate, that we need to expand the benefit, because contrary to what you hear oftentimes on this floor about SNAP and about how generous the benefit is and that it is like a gravy train, if you will, the average SNAP benefit is $1.40 per person per meal. That is it. That is the benefit.

That is why when you talk to the heads of food banks all across the country, in every State in this country, they tell you the same thing, that they experience an uptick in people who need to utilize their services in the middle and toward the end of the month because, basically, the benefit is not enough to carry them through the month so they can put enough food on the table for them and their families.

We have 42 million people in the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world, who are hungry. I am ashamed of that, and I am ashamed because hunger is a political condition.

What I mean by that is we can solve it, but we don't, because for some reason, this population, these people struggling in poverty, never quite rise to the level as the very wealthy in this country.

We have a budget here that not only cuts SNAP but basically cuts a whole bunch of other programs aimed at helping people get out of poverty and helping struggling middle class families.

Basically, this budget, just so everybody is clear, is kind of a blueprint to help pave the way for the Republican tax cut bill that they are going to produce on this floor in the not-too-distant future.

It was interesting last night in the Rules Committee, we heard people talk about, well, we have to make tough choices because we don't want to saddle our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren with debt. Well, if, in fact, my Republican friends get their wish and pass this tax cut, we are told that it will add about $2.4 trillion to our debt.

The deal is this, Mr. Speaker. One of the faults in their budget is they have these assumptions that we all know are not true. Like, for example, the Affordable Care Act is going to kind of mysteriously just disappear, and they are going to be able to cut Medicaid by close to $1 trillion to help offset the cost of their tax cut. But the last time I checked, their repeal barely passed this House, and it can't seem to get anywhere in the United States Senate. Their assumptions are fantasy. They are not based on reality.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just food assistance that this budget dismantles. It cuts half a trillion dollars in Medicare and ends the Medicare guarantee. It rips apart the Affordable Care Act, drastically raising healthcare costs for older and low-income adults, and kicks another 20 million people off their health insurance if they get their wish here. It makes higher education more expensive. It cuts veterans' benefits. It reduces our commitment to ensuring that our neighbors have access to affordable housing. It even sticks the American taxpayer with a $1.6 billion bill to begin constructing a costly and stupid and ineffective wall along the U.S. southern border with Mexico.

In case people are scratching their heads, during the campaign, Donald Trump said that Mexico was going to pay for the wall. I guess he didn't mean it because a downpayment was put into their budget.

I could go on and on and on, but you might ask yourself, Mr. Speaker: Who wins? The answer is simple. If this budget goes through, and they pave the way for their tax cut, it is clear who the winners are: Donald Trump, the Trump family, and all of his wealthy friends. While all these cuts in the budget come from our safety net programs, infrastructure investments, and programs that help middle and working class families, none of the savings in this budget--that is right, not one penny--come from closing tax loopholes that benefit big corporations or the wealthy.

As I said before, the drastic cuts are all being used to try to finance this massive tax cut that disproportionately benefits the wealthiest in this country. Give me a break.

Mr. Speaker, it is galling how indifferent that so many in this House seem to be to those who are struggling in poverty. America's most vulnerable, granted they don't have super PACs, they don't have big lobbyists, their voice in Washington is supposed to be us. The whole purpose of government, in my view, is to make sure that everybody gets a fair shake, and the people who need government the most are the people who are struggling in poverty.

But to listen to my colleagues and to look at this budget that they put together, it is clear that the poorest Americans in this country are being treated as if they don't exist, as if they are invisible, as if they don't matter. I just find that deeply offensive.

President Kennedy said it this way. He said: ``If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.'' It is frustrating. It is just frustrating that here we are with this budget which devastates so much of what I think is important.

If we implemented what this budget asks us to do, this country would become a tale of two cities, and it is already getting to that point. It would truly become a tale of two cities. It would create a government without a conscience, and I think we need to push back and we need to reject that.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't some Ayn Rand fantasy where we can just mess with the numbers and see what happens. We are talking about real people here--people who are counting on us; people who need help. This budget fails by any measure, in my opinion, to be a budget even for Republicans to support.

I think America's hardworking middle class families and all those working to struggle to get in the middle class deserve a heck of a lot better than this.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and certainly vote against this cruel Republican budget, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in opposition to the Republican budget.

United States Conference of

Catholic Bishops,

Washington, DC, August 31, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: As Congress proceeds with the 2018

budget process, the United States Conference of Catholic

Bishops (USCCB) reaffirms that the federal budget is a moral

document with profound implications for the common good of

our nation and world. The budget requires difficult decisions

that ought to be guided by moral criteria that protect human

life and dignity, give central importance to ``the least of

these'' (Matthew 25), and promote the welfare of workers and

families who struggle to live in dignity.

The Catholic Church teaches that it is the role of the

state to promote the three pillars

of the common good. In May 2017, we outlined these three

pillars: respect for the fundamental and inalienable rights

of the human person, promotion of human development, and

defense of peace. Our Conference has long supported the goal

of reducing future unsustainable deficits that would harm all

citizens, especially those who are poor. However, a just

framework for sound fiscal policy cannot rely almost

exclusively on disproportionate cuts in essential services to

poor and vulnerable persons.

Sharp increases in defense and immigration enforcement

spending, coupled with simultaneous and severe reductions to

non-defense discretionary spending, particularly to many

domestic and international programs that assist the most

vulnerable, are profoundly troubling. The House Budget

Committee's H. Con. Res. 71 proposes increasing defense

spending by $929 billion over the next decade, which is $72

billion above sequester levels. This is coupled with a

proposal to cut $4.4 trillion over the same period from

domestic and international programs that assist the most

vulnerable, potentially impacting health care safety net

programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and CHIP, as well as food

security programs like SNAP. The proposal would also reduce

current funding levels for environmental stewardship by $824

million.

Such deep cuts would harm people facing dire circumstances,

and would place the environment and natural resources at

risk. When the impact of other potential legislative

proposals, including the proposed reduction of spending on

health care by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next

decade and implementation of tax policies that would offer

trillions of dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy over the same

period are considered, the prospects for vulnerable people

become even bleaker.

Our nation should elevate diplomacy, along with

humanitarian and international development assistance, as

primary tools for promoting lasting peace, regional stability

and human rights. The USCCB urges Congress to reject H. Con.

Res. 71's proposed fiscal year 2018 budget authority level of

$41.521 billion for the International Affairs functions of

government. This would represent a $10 billion cut from this

year's appropriations for those functions. Although the USCCB

does not support every individual International Affairs

account, it has repeatedly called for robust diplomatic

efforts to end longstanding conflicts in a range of

countries, including Syria and Iraq, as well as for robust

funding for refugee and humanitarian assistance. It is hard

to reconcile the need for diplomacy, political solutions, and

life-saving humanitarian and development assistance with cuts

to the State Department budget of the magnitude proposed by

H. Con. Res. 71.

At the same time, H. Con. Res. 71 anticipates dramatic

increases in immigration enforcement spending. We fear that

such increases could pave the way for enactment of many of

the destructive proposals contained in recently released

budget plans, including increases in immigrant detention

beds, the construction of a wall along the entire border

between the United States and Mexico, and the expansion of

agreements with state and local governments that threaten

local law enforcement's ability to foster trusting

relationships with immigrants in their jurisdictions. Any

changes to the tax code called for through reconciliation

should include a provision to empower the educational choices

of families. The reconciliation process should not be used to

achieve savings through cutting health care, nutrition,

income security, or other anti-poverty programs. This budget

attempts to use the reconciliation process to fast-track over

$200 billion in cuts to anti-poverty programs over the next

ten years, including Medicaid and Medicare. The bishops have

devoted their efforts to addressing the morally problematic

features of health care reform while insuring that all people

have access to health care coverage.

The human consequences of budget choices are clear to us as

pastors. Our Catholic community defends the unborn and the

undocumented, feeds the hungry, shelters the homeless,

educates the young, and cares for the sick, both at home and

abroad. We help mothers facing challenging situations of

pregnancy, poor families rising above crushing poverty,

refugees fleeing conflict and persecution, and communities

devastated by wars, natural disasters and famines. In much of

this work, we are partners with government. Our combined

resources allow us to reach further and help more. Our

institutions are present in every state and throughout the

world, serving some of the most marginalized communities and

enjoying the trust of local populations.

The moral measure of the federal budget is how well it

promotes the common good of all, especially the most

vulnerable whose voices are too often missing in these

debates. The Catholic Bishops of the United States stand

ready to work with leaders of both parties for a federal

budget that reduces future deficits, protects poor and

vulnerable people, and advances peace and the common good.

Sincerely yours,

His Eminence Timothy Cardinal Dolan,

Archbishop of New York, Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life

Activities.

Most Rev. Oscar Cantu,

Bishop of Las Cruces, Chairman, Committee on International

Justice and Peace.

Most Rev. Christopher J. Coyne,

Bishop of Burlington, Chairman, Committee on

Communications.

Most Rev. Frank J. Dewane,

Bishop of Venice, Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice

and Human Development.

Most Rev. George V. Murry, SJ,

Bishop of Youngstown, Chairman, Committee on Catholic

Education.

Most Rev. Joe S. Vasquez,

Bishop of Austin, Chairman, Committee on Migration.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Coalition on Human Needs against the Republican budget.

Coalition on Human Needs,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the Coalition on Human

Needs, I strongly urge you to vote no on H. Con. Res. 71, the

proposed FY 2018 Budget Resolution, and to vote for the

substitute budgets advanced by the Congressional Progressive

Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus, and the Democratic

alternative budget resolution.

The Coalition on Human Needs is an alliance made up of

human service providers, faith organizations, policy experts,

labor, civil rights, and other advocates for meeting the

needs of low-income and vulnerable people. Our members

understand that the economic security of millions of American

families depends on building on the progress we've made in

health coverage, jobs, basic living standards, and ensuring

that our children are well-prepared for productive lives. But

the majority's proposed budget does not build--it breaks

apart our engines of progress. It will make our nation weaker

for decades to come.

The most recent survey data on poverty in the U.S. shows

the biggest two-year decline since the late 1960's.

Refundable tax credits for working families, SNAP/food stamps

and housing subsidies have lifted multi-millions of people

out of poverty. The decline in the proportion of our

population without health insurance continued its decline in

2016, down to 8.8 percent. More people are working, and in

general, low- and moderate-income households have finally

started to make income gains.

The budget advanced by the House Budget Committee would be

a dangerous backwards plunge, stripping trillions of dollars

from programs that work to reduce poverty and create security

and opportunity. Medicaid, Medicare, working family tax

credits, nutrition assistance, education and housing

assistance: these are just some of the services the budget

would massively cut. The budget takes trillions in funding

that supports economic security and progress and hands it to

the wealthy and corporations in the form of enormous tax

cuts.

The primary goal of H. Con. Res. 71 is to allow huge tax

cuts to be enacted with only a simple majority in the Senate.

These tax cuts are claimed to be a critical element in

increasing economic growth enough to make the tax cuts

deficit neutral. Reputable economists are skeptical that the

proposed tax cuts would boost the economy to the 2.6 percent

average growth projected in the budget and acknowledge that

tax cuts to corporations and the rich deepen the deficit.

History supports this: the economy grew and unemployment

declined more during the Clinton tax increase years than

during the Bush era tax cuts. And the Kansas experience with

tax cuts is cautionary: revenues plummeted, with the tax take

in 2016 $570 million lower than in 2013, even after counting

increases enacted in sales and cigarette taxes. The economic

growth that did occur from cutting taxes was estimated to

bring in about $30 million, leaving the state very deeply in

the hole. The state legislature has recently reversed course,

unwilling to slash education budgets as much as the revenue

hole would have forced. They saw that they were weakening

their state. Congress should not inflict the same dangerous

lesson on the entire nation.

We urge you to reject H. Con. Res. 71 because of its

central choice: paying for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favor

the rich and corporations with cuts to essential services.

Our nation faces major challenges: reducing disproportionate

poverty among children and helping children and young adults

to advance in education so they can meet the challenges in

our economic future, protecting seniors in their retirement,

and rebuilding communities. Both the emergency needs of

communities devastated by natural disasters and the similarly

urgent threats from opioids and other epidemics, decaying

infrastructure and inadequate public health and consumer

protections demand a vigorous federal response. Instead of

making these investments, the House budget would cripple the

federal capacity to respond by slashing domestic

appropriations by 44 percent compared with FY 2010 levels

over the next decade and making similarly extreme cuts in

health care, nutrition, income assistance for seniors, people

with disabilities, and working families. In addition to

trillions of dollars in cuts and structural constraints to

basic mandatory programs, the budget would fast-track $203

billion in cuts to domestic programs over the next ten years

through reconciliation rules. Cuts like these would

recklessly weaken us; they are self-inflicted wounds.

The proposed tax cuts will worsen inequality and reward

businesses that park their income offshore. Instead, Congress

should insist that corporations and the rich pay their fair

share. Please vote against weakening America, and instead

protect and expand investments as called for in the budgets

proposed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus,

Congressional Black Caucus, and the House Budget Committee

Democrats' substitute. These three constructive alternatives

deserve your yes vote.

Sincerely yours,

Deborah Weinstein,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter to all Members of Congress from the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda against this Republican budget.

National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda,

July 26, 2017.

Re NHLA opposition to House Budget Resolution.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the National Hispanic

Leadership Agenda (NHLA), the coalition of the nation's 45

preeminent Latino advocacy organizations, we are writing to

express our deep concerns with the budget resolution that

recently passed out of the House Budget Committee and urge

you to vote against passage of the resolution if it comes to

the House floor. The resolution threatens the basic living

standards of tens of millions of Americans in order to

subsidize tax cuts for the wealthy. From education and

scientific research to basic assistance and health programs,

the House budget would cut $4.4 trillion from entitlement

programs and $1.3 trillion from non-defense discretionary

programs over the next decade, crippling the most important

drivers of our nation's economic engine--working families.

For these reasons, and those detailed further below, NHLA

will consider any votes on the budget resolution for

inclusion in future NHLA scorecards evaluating the support of

Members of Congress for the Latino community.

Budget resolutions serve as fiscal blueprints that signal

the priorities of government spending to support all

Americans in their attainment of the American Dream. However,

rather than seek to bolster opportunities for American

working families, the House budget places the burden of

reducing our deficit squarely on the backs of families

struggling to make ends meet in order to give tax breaks to

wealthy corporations and individuals. Rather than investing

in America's future homebuyers, workers, and students, both

the House budget and President Trump's budget undermine the

progress our country has made and prioritize corporate

interests over those of hardworking American families.

The trillions of dollars of cuts in the House budget would

have a catastrophic impact on the millions of Latinos who

struggle to put food on their tables and a roof over their

heads. Recent research by UnidosUS (formerly NCLR) provides

evidence of the strong impact of federal assistance programs

on lifting millions of Latinos, especially children, out of

poverty. In 2015, for example:

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) lifted about 2 7 million

Latinos out of poverty, including 1.4 million children.

Child Tax Credit (CTC) lifted an estimated 981,000 Latinos

out of poverty, including 560,000 children.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) lifted an

estimated 1.3 million Latinos out of poverty, including

640,000 children.

Rental assistance lifted about 720,000 Latinos out of

poverty, including 270,000 children.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) lifted an estimated

630,000 Latinos out of poverty, including 140,000 children.

The House budget resolution would threaten the

effectiveness of many of these programs. The budget plan also

calls for cuts to Medicaid and other health programs more

severe than the House-passed bill to repeal the Affordable

Care Act.

Further, the House budget resolution dismantles consumer

and worker protections, jeopardizing the ability of Latino

and all working families to build and maintain wealth. The

budget plan not only guts the Consumer Financial Protection

Bureau--the only agency whose sole mission is to protect

Americans from predatory practices in the financial

marketplace--but also undermines our nation's workforce,

cutting funding for the Wage and House Division in the

Department of Labor more deeply than proposed in the Trump

budget. Additionally, Latino workers cannot afford cuts to

the Environmental Protection Agency, which protects our human

health and environment from toxic chemicals. Working families

need more and better enforcement of consumer financial and

labor protection laws to protect Americans from abuse, and

also ensure law-abiding financial service providers, as well

as employers, are not harmed by unfair competition by

unscrupulous actors.

Simply put, the House budget resolution would harm American

families and workers, especially Latinos, making our nation

more inequitable and less prepared for economic challenges.

We strongly urge Members of Congress to oppose the House

budget plan and instead support a budget that defends the

interests of the American public and prudently spends

taxpayer dollars.

Sincerely,

Hector Sanchez Barba,

Chair, NHLA, Executive Director, Labor Council for Latin

American Advancement (LCLAA).

Bruce Goldstein,

Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,

President, Farmworker Justice.

Eric Rodriguez,

Co-Chair, NHLA Economic Empowerment and Labor Committee,

Vice President, UnidosUS.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record letters from the AARP, the Main Street Alliance, and the League of Conservation Voters, all in strong opposition to the Republican budget.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that it is clear that, certainly on the Democratic side, we are very much dedicated to trying to lift people out of poverty. That is one of the reasons why we oppose this Republican budget that cuts $211 million from financial aid programs to help people be able to get additional higher education. That is one of the reasons why we have complained loudly about the inadequate funding for job training. You want people to train for employment, you need to make sure that those slots are available so that people can get the training and the assistance they need.

The gentleman says: Don't worry about the debt because the reconciliation instructions will instruct the Ways and Means Committee to do a deficit neutral tax plan.

Well, I mean, there is lots of stuff in here that are assumptions that aren't true, like, you repealed the Affordable Care Act. That didn't happen and it is not going to happen.

And what we are told from the Tax Policy Center and the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, according to their analysis, is that what the Republicans are proposing in terms of their tax plan will basically cost well over $2 trillion, and that will be added to our debt.

So I don't--we can debate fantasyland if we want, but the reality is the reality, and this budget is a bad deal for everybody.

Mr. Speaker, this week, our Nation witnessed the deadliest mass shooting in history. We have endured horrific mass killings in Newtown, San Bernardino, Orlando, and now Las Vegas, among many others, all without any congressional action. The killings happen every single day on our streets, at public events, and even in our homes.

Mr. Speaker, my heart broke when the children of Sandy Hook were killed, and I remain absolutely stunned that this Congress has done nothing about it, nothing.

Now 59 people lost their lives in Las Vegas during what was supposed to be a celebratory event, a concert, and this is only 16 months after the last deadly mass shooting in Orlando. Gun violence in this country is out of control, and all we have done is cater to the gun lobby.

The United States Congress is a legislative body, Mr. Speaker. We are not a think tank or a church or a synagogue. Thoughts and prayers are not what this country expects from us, and it is not what it needs from us. The people of this country need us to act, to pass laws that protect their lives and their children's lives.

As my colleague in the Senate, Senator Chris Murphy, has said: ``This must stop. It is positively infuriating that my colleagues in Congress are so afraid of the gun industry that they pretend that there aren't any public policy responses to this epidemic. There are. And the thoughts and prayers of politicians are cruelly hollow if they are paired with legislative indifference.''

For this reason, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Mr. Thompson's bill, H. Res. 367, which I am a cosponsor of, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain what I mean when I say ``defeat the previous question.'' We are here debating which bills will come to the House floor this week, the agenda for the House of Representatives. The majority chose to consider their misguided budget. Fine. We can do that.

But what I am saying is that we should also take the first step in at least setting up a committee to look at gun violence in America. So if we say no to ending debate on this rule, by defeating the previous question, we can then debate whether or not to create this committee. This is the least we can do.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson) to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I include in the Record letters from the UAW, the SEIU, The National Treasury Employees Union, AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees, and NARFE.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace &

Agricultural Implement Workers of America-UAW,

Washington, DC, October 3, 2017.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the International Union,

United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement

Workers of America (UAW), I am writing to strongly urge you

to oppose H. Con. Res. 71, the House Fiscal Year (FY) 2018

budget resolution. The federal budget is a moral document as

well as a fiscal blueprint, and H. Con. Res. 71 fails

spectacularly on both fronts. This draconian budget would be

a disaster for our economy, the middle class and our most

vulnerable citizens.

The proposed budget forces working people and retirees to

pay for enormous tax cuts to the wealthy. Despite claims to

the contrary, by 2027, roughly 30 percent of households

earning between $50,000 and $150,000 would see an increase in

their taxes. H. Con. Res. 71 cuts $1.5 trillion from Medicare

and Medicaid and ends the programs as we know them. Medicaid

and Medicare are literal lifelines for many of our most

vulnerable citizens--especially children and the elderly.

Medicaid is the largest provider of nursing home and long-

term care.

This radical piece of legislation creates fast-track

procedures to implement the tax cuts that will overwhelmingly

benefit the wealthy and multinational corporations. The

average tax cut for millionaires would be $230,000 a year by

2027. It eliminates the estate tax, which currently only

applies to the top two tenths of one percent of estates,

giving the ultrawealthy $239 billion in tax cuts. By 2027,

80% of tax cuts will go to the top one percent.

It also uses these procedures to make at least $203 billion

in cuts to mandatory programs that are important for working

families and our most vulnerable citizens. In

total, this budget assumes $5.4 trillion in spending cuts.

Cuts of this magnitude would almost certainly lead to

slashing funding for Legal Services Corporation, federal

employee pensions, nutritional assistance infrastructure, and

unemployment compensation, to name a few. It also repeals the

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and the Affordable Care Act.

This budget resolution takes America in the wrong

direction. We have tried ``trickle down'' economics several

times in the past; it did not work then and it will not work

now. These tax cuts will not pay for themselves. Instead,

they will come at the expense of hardworking every day

Americans--many of whom have trouble affording basic

necessities today.

We strongly urge you to oppose H. Con. Res. 71 and instead

work on a federal budget that invests in our country and

works for ALL Americans.

Sincerely,

Josh Nassar,

Legislative Director.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my colleague from Georgia, thanks for reminding us that the Republicans have been working on the budget for 10 months; but according to your own Republican Budget Committee website, the budget was supposed to be presented and finished by April 15, so you are a little late.

In any event, I also want to remind the gentleman, because I know he is on the Rules Committee, so I know he knows this, that the rule sets the agenda for the House. Yes, if one of the things that the Republicans want to bring up is their terrible budget, that is fine. You can do that. But the rule can also be an opportunity for us to bring up the bill that Mr. Thompson has offered, to set up this commission to deal with gun violence. We can do both.

You can walk and you can chew gum at the same time. This is not a radical idea. But this is our only way to be able to bring something to the floor, because the leadership of this House has said no to everything. They have said no to everything. We can't get hearings. We can't get votes. We can't get debates. We get nothing.

Don't be startled by us trying to defeat the previous question. It is a perfectly legitimate way to try to expand the agenda, and I hope that some of our Republican friends will vote with us to defeat the previous question. We can still do the budget, but we can also do the Thompson bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Delaware (Ms. Blunt Rochester).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.

I just want to tell my colleague from Georgia, if he hasn't read what we are trying to propose here, we are suggesting that they bring up the Thompson bill to the floor under an open rule, and even get a motion to recommit, but under an open rule. Take us up on this offer because we have had no open rules in this Congress. Try it; you might like it. It might be contagious. We might see more open rules where Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives can offer their ideas. We suggest they bring it up under an open rule.

I would urge all of my colleagues to think about that before they cast their vote on defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I began by saying the frustration I have with this place is that we either do nothing or we make things worse for people. Going back to this issue on creating a commission to deal with gun violence, there are a lot of things I would like to do, but maybe this is a way to get some bipartisan buy-in to actually try and figure out how to respond to this epidemic of gun violence.

There have been 26 bills on gun safety introduced in this Congress sponsored by Democrats and Republicans. I include that list in the Record.

Gun Safety Bills in the 115th Congress

1. H. Res. 367 Establishing the Select Committee on Gun

Violence Prevention.

2. H.R. 2841 Title: Disarm Hate Act

3. H. Res. 361 Supporting the goals and ideals of

``National Gun Violence Awareness Day'' and ``National Gun

Violence Awareness Month''.

4. H.R. 57 Accidental Firearms Transfers Reporting Act of

2017

5. H.R. 62 Gun Violence Reduction Resources Act of 2017

(200 additional ATF Agents)

6. H.R. 1982 To authorize funding to increase access to

mental health care treatment to reduce gun violence

7. H.R. 370 Amending the Rules of the House of

Representatives to require that a standing committee (or

subcommittee thereof) hearing be held whenever there is a

moment of silence in the House for a tragedy involving gun

violence

8. H.R. 630 National Statistics on Deadly Force

Transparency Act of 2017

9. H.R. 445 Buyback Our Safety Act (gun buyback program)

10. H.R. 1079 Campus Gun Policy Transparency Act

11. H.R. 163 Gun Manufacturers Accountability Act

12. H.R. 2033 Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act

13. H.R. 3013 Help Communities Fight Violent Crime Act

14. H.R. 1111 Department of Peacebuilding Act of 2017

15. H. Res. 90 Expressing the sense of the House of

Representatives that gun violence is a public health issue

and Congress should enact by the end of the 115th Congress

comprehensive Federal legislation that protects the Second

Amendment and keeps communities safe and healthy, including

expanding enforceable background checks for all commercial

gun sales, improving the mental health system in the United

States, and making gun trafficking and straw purchasing a

Federal crime.

16. H.R. 1475 Title: Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2017

17. H.R. 1612 Title: Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2017

18. H.R. 1708 Firearm Risk Protection Act of 2017

(insurance for gun owners)

19. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting

or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence

prevention.

20. H.R. 2380 Handgun Trigger Safety Act of 2017

21. H.R. 1832 To authorize the appropriation of funds to

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for conducting

or supporting research on firearms safety or gun violence

prevention.

22. H.R. 1478 Gun Violence Research Act

23. H.R. 3613 Safer Neighborhoods Gun Buyback Act of 2017

24. H.R. 3361 SECURE Firearm Storage Act

25. King-Thompson Background Check Bill (closes gun show

and Charleston loopholes, not yet reintroduced)

26. No Fly No Buy (not yet reintroduced)

Mr. Speaker, people have their ideas. Some of them are maybe not so good ideas; some of them may be very good ideas. But let's begin to talk about what our response should be. That is at least doing something. That is better than a moment of silence or offering your thoughts and prayers to people who were victims in this terrible latest massacre.

We have got to do something, and nothing is no longer sufficient. We can't keep on doing that. People are horrified that Congress seems indifferent. We can't even have a hearing on this issue, never mind a debate on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so we can bring up the Thompson bill, and maybe we can start coming together and coming up with some ideas that might save some lives. That is the least we can do.

Mr. Speaker, to my other point that we either do nothing or you guys do things that make life worse for people, it brings us to the budget. This budget basically, in my opinion, is a cruel budget that targets, disproportionately, those who are poor and those who are in the middle class.

It is astounding to me where some of the savings are sought. The idea that you would cut SNAP by $164 billion, a program that provides food to people; a program where 67 percent of the people on the benefit are children, are senior citizens, or people who are disabled; a program where those who can work, the majority of them work, but they earn so little in the workforce that they still qualify for that program. You want to take that benefit away, a benefit that is $1.40 per person per meal.

Come on. What are people thinking when they make those kinds of suggestions?

By the way, we all know what this is. It is basically a pretext to move forward on your tax cut plan, which benefits Donald Trump, Donald Trump's family, and Donald Trump's friends.

This idea that somehow this would be deficit neutral is laughable. The OMB Director, Mick Mulvaney, stated: ``If we simply look at this as being deficit neutral, you're never going to get the type of tax reform and tax reductions'' that you guys are looking for. That is the former colleague and the OMB Director.

So we all know what is going on here. But people ought to think long and hard before they cast their vote for this Republican budget. Budgets basically indicate what we value, what we think is important.

I have got to tell you, I just don't believe that if people read this budget, that a majority of my friends, we have disagreements on lots of issues, but I just don't believe that deep in your heart you actually believe this stuff. I mean, this is offensive.

We ought to be talking about lifting people up and not putting them down. We ought to be talking about all of the citizens of this country with respect and treating them with dignity. We ought not treat people who are in poverty as if somehow they are invisible, and that is what this budget does.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote down this Republican budget. I urge them to defeat the previous question so we can bring up, under an open rule--under and open rule, which nobody in this Congress has seen--a bill that would allow us to create a commission, a bipartisan commission to examine gun violence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 553 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all of my colleagues may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to be a great day. I don't know how your Wednesday has gotten started, but we are now in the throes of budget day.

Budget day only happens on the floor of this House once a year, and it is one of those times where I would tell you the House operates as every man, woman, and child across this country believes the House should operate every day.

I have the great honor as a member of the Rules Committee and as a member of the Budget Committee of bringing this structured rule to the floor today.

Mr. Speaker, H. Con. Res. 71, the rule that we will be debating for the next hour, makes in order every single budget substitute that was offered in the Rules Committee. Now, let me tell you what that means in practical terms.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out for what the American government should spend, what American policies should look like, what the Federal budget should include.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to hear visions laid out from every single Member or group in this institution that cared enough about this process to craft a budget of their own.

Mr. Speaker, I serve in the Republican Study Committee. I was once chairman of the Budget and Spending Task Force on the Republican Study Committee. I had the honor of crafting a substitute budget to bring to the floor to offer for my colleagues' consideration.

Over the next 2 days, any Member who has a voice that needs to be heard

has had the opportunity. We put out the call last week. My friend from Massachusetts and I, we sit on the Rules Committee, Mr. Speaker. We send out the call to the membership in advance to say this is what we expect to happen in the Rules Committee, this is what we are going to be considering in the Rules Committee. We sent out the call for any Member of this House to craft their substitute amendment, and we received four.

We received one from the Congressional Black Caucus, we received one from the Progressive Caucus, we received one from the Republican Study Committee, and we received one from the Democrats on the Budget Committee. Every single one of those has been made in order by the rule that I will ask my colleagues to support today.

We are going to debate those. We are going to vote on those each individually, allowing everybody to have their say. That budget that this House ultimately agrees on collectively, collaboratively after these days of debate, we will then send to the United States Senate for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker, they say that budgets are a reflection of values. I believe that to be true. We are going to have budgets on the floor of the House to consider that cut taxes, budgets that believe that the economy has not grown to its full potential, budgets that believe that the American workforce participation rate is still at historically low levels. We have to get men and women back into the workforce. We have to reward that dignity of work. We have budgets that are going to cut taxes in an effort to stimulate that job growth across this land.

We have other budgets that are concerned that we are not bringing enough revenue into the government coffers. It is true, Mr. Speaker. I know you are thinking it. We are bringing in more tax revenue today than we have ever brought in in the history of the United States of America. That is true, but we are still running budget deficits. So we will consider those budgets today that don't necessarily believe that spending is the problem; they think it is tax collection that is the problem.

We will consider budgets that raise taxes by about $2 trillion. We will consider other budgets that raise taxes by about $4 trillion. Mr. Speaker, I think we will even consider budgets that raise taxes by $9 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, there are only two things that can happen in this institution. We either have to raise more revenue, or we have to cut spending, or we have to mortgage our children's future. Three things: raise taxes, cut spending, mortgage our children's future.

Over the next 2 days, we are going to have that debate and we are going to have that discussion.

I know where my constituency lands, Mr. Speaker. There are tough decisions that have to be made, and they believe they sent men and women to Congress to help make those tough decisions. We sit on the Budget Committee. That is what we do.

If you have not gotten a chance to work with her this season, Mr. Speaker, Chairwoman Diane Black on the House Budget Committee, if there is a more patient and more persistent Member of this body, I don't know who that would be. She has worked tirelessly to move this process along, to get us to this point where we are today, trying to bring people together around a unified vision of what we can do and what we should do not just as an institution, but as a nation.

I expect we will have some disagreements over the next 2 days, Mr. Speaker. It won't surprise me at all. In fact, I think this institution is characterized by the things that we disagree about. Certainly that is what the media would like to focus on. But at the end of this process, what will have to be said is that we have considered every idea, that we have considered every point of view, that we have made room for every voice, and that we have now come together on a common pathway forward. That is what is ahead of us, Mr. Speaker, if we support this rule that we are debating now.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this rule. I hope you will find that budget that meets your constituency's needs, support that underlying budget, and then let's move a budget to the United States Senate and speak with one voice for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, you heard the passion of my friend from Massachusetts, and I have had an opportunity to work with him on the Rules Committee for 7 years now. I can tell you that every bit of that passion is sincere.

So often I think folks turn on C-SPAN, they look at a group of politicians talking, and they think it is all for the cameras and it is all for show. I will tell you that while I sometimes have that same suspicion when I turn on a program of folks I don't know, with folks I do know, I can tell you that that passion is sincere.

What I can also tell you is that many of those concerns are misguided, and I think that is important. What happens here in this institution matters. Our ability to have that debate with one another matters. The truth is, as you know, Mr. Speaker, most of that debate doesn't happen here on the House floor.

My friend from Massachusetts and I are here today because it is time to vote. We are here to bring the rule, we are here to bring the substitutes, we are here over the next 2 days to vote. The conversation has gone on not for a day, not for a week, not for a month, but for the better part of this year on what the budget is going to look like.

I happen to have a copy of the budget report right here, Mr. Speaker. It captures all the votes we have taken. It

captures all the debates we have had. It captures what the intent of the institution is.

Now again, we are going to have a choice of which budget we want to support. If you think taxes are too low, you can vote to raise taxes. If you think taxes are much too low, you can vote to raise taxes a whole lot. If you think the tax code as it exists today is a ridiculous compilation of confusing provisions stitched together by a patchwork of Congresses over the last 40 years, you can vote for fundamental reform.

If you are tired of the fact that America used to be number one in the world in terms of tax competitiveness and now we are at the bottom of the list and you want to take America back to being number one, you can vote for that, too. I happen to put myself in that category.

I want to read, if I may, Mr. Speaker, from the budget report. The fact is, I can't. I imagined myself a younger man when I grabbed that report.

If I can now read from the budget report. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions,'' that is what is in the budget, Mr. Speaker. That is what allows us to take a tax package from the House to the Senate. You have heard about how the Senate is having a tough time getting anything done because it requires a supermajority. It requires 60 votes. Through reconciliation, you can get things done with less than 60 votes. That is how the Affordable Care Act was passed, with less than 60 votes. You can get the tax bill passed with less than 60 votes.

It says this. ``The resolution's reconciliation instructions that the Committee on Ways and Means will develop will be a deficit-neutral tax reform legislation and report such legislative language to the Committee on the Budget.'' Deficit neutral. Nobody wants to blow a hole in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

What the discussion is, is can we do better than today's tax code? Candidly, Mr. Speaker, if any Member of this body wants to take the position that we can't do any better, the IRS is as good as it can be in implementing the American Tax Code today, the Tax Code that is twice as long as the Bible is absolutely as concise and succinct as it can possibly be, those Americans who spend dozens of hours, even dozens of days, even dozens of weeks trying to put together their taxes, that is just the best we can do.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen it happen. Sometimes folks throw their hands up and think: We can't do any better. Not me. Not today.

We can all agree that we can do better than what we are doing today. Passage of this budget gives us that opportunity.

You heard my friend from Massachusetts speak from the heart, Mr. Speaker, about the ability we have as a government to care for one another. I would tell you that responsibility isn't uniquely a government responsibility. I would say it is a faith responsibility, it is a family responsibility, it is a community responsibility. It is a responsibility that begins at home. It doesn't begin here, it begins at home, but it is a sincere responsibility, and it is one that we want to do better at every day.

I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the labor force participation rate in America is the lowest it has been since the President from my great State of Georgia, Jimmy Carter, was in office. The labor force participation rate. There is not one of us in this body who can drive down the street without seeing a ``help wanted'' sign. There is not one of us in this body who can go out to a business without seeing someone asking folks to come in and help, yet fewer Americans are working today than ever before. Why? It is a hard question.

Fewer Americans are working today than since the 1970s. Why? It is important that we ask that question.

The budget is not designed to answer it. The budget can't answer it. I sit on the Budget Committee. I don't have the jurisdiction to answer it, but I know this: you will find in this budget a discussion of whether it is better to support people in poverty or lift folks out of poverty.

It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I would tell you that we can support people until we can lift them up, but that lifting them up must be our goal. Supporting them is not enough.

You will find it here, Mr. Speaker, in these pages. This is a vision document. This is what we are gathered together to do today, and we will have legitimate disagreements about when we are doing enough in a particular area and when we are doing too much.

There are those in this body, Mr. Speaker, who believe passionately in education. I am one of those people. I come from a district with amazing school systems.

You can go to any public school in my district, Mr. Speaker, if you work hard and apply yourself. I don't care what your background is, I don't care where your family is from, I don't care what you have stacked against you; if you work hard and apply yourself in our public schools, you can be anything you want to be.

I know everybody wants that for their constituency back home; and I have colleagues who believe that only Washington, D.C., is successful enough, has a track record of success strong enough to implement that vision back home.

I don't come from that camp. I see a lot of failure come out of Washington, D.C. I see a lot of bureaucracy come out of Washington, D.C. I see success come out of parents and teachers and principals back home raising taxes, supporting those institutions, making sure every child has a chance. We do that together as a community.

The discussion that we might have in this institution, Mr. Speaker, is not: Do you believe in education?

It is: Do you believe educators in Washington, D.C., have the best answers, or educators back home in your district have the answers?

The truth is that we don't have many educators in Washington, D.C. We have bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., who oversee educators. I side with my educators back home. It is a legitimate disagreement that we are welcome to have.

What can't be said, though, Mr. Speaker, is that there are any disagreements over these next few days that we are not going to be allowed to have. I have said it before, and I will say it again because it makes me so proud. We don't always have time or make room for all the voices in this institution, Mr. Speaker. You know, sometimes we pick and choose winners and losers, whose voice is going to be heard. Not today. Any Member of Congress could submit their budget to the United States House of Representatives Committee on Rules.

It is a hard thing to produce a budget. I told you I have done it before, Mr. Speaker. It takes a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of commitment. But if you believe that you have a better idea, you can do it. And if you did it, we made it in order in the Rules Committee last night and we are going to debate it on the floor and we are going to vote on it on the floor.

We can't always say that every single idea, every single substitute is going to make it to the floor for a vote. We can say that today. I am proud that we can.

It is not going to stop the disagreements, Mr. Speaker, but what it is going to do is air those disagreements; what it is going to do is allow us to talk about our differing visions; and what it is going to do is allow us to come together on a common vision at the end of the day.

I hope my colleagues will support this rule so we can begin that process, and I hope my colleagues will support the underlying budget of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

If you have not tuned in to this debate until just these past few minutes, you might not know that this is the budget debate today. We have been prepping for the budget debate today for about 10 months now, and we are ready today not just with one budget, but with a variety of budget choices. And what is wonderful about this process is it has been such an open process.

You can come down to the House floor and air absolutely any idea that is on your mind. That has not just been true today, Mr. Speaker, but that has been true throughout this entire budget process. In fact, I have a letter signed by literally hundreds of groups that support not just voting on the rule to bring the budget to the floor, but groups that support passing the budget as we passed it out of the House Budget Committee.

Now, if my colleagues have any concerns about that, I hope they will come and knock on my door, Mr. Speaker, because I promise you that one of these groups is going to be from their part of the country.

Certainly, in Georgia, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce is on that list. So our folks back home are supportive. If you are from Alabama, I have got Alabamans on here. If you are from Baton Rouge, I have got Baton Rouge. If you are from Battle Creek, I have Battle Creek, because what we are working on here isn't a Republican budget, Mr. Speaker.

What we are working on isn't a regional budget. What we are working on here is the national budget for the United States of America that can be transformational for absolutely every citizen in absolutely every corner of this country.

We have that opportunity. I think we are going to seize that opportunity, but we can't do it until we move this rule to get to the underlying bills. I encourage my colleagues to do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend from Massachusetts that I have no further speakers remaining. I would be happy to close when the gentleman is prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, what I love most about budget day is the fact that we do get to talk about our competing ideas. I do reject some of the implications that we have heard that what we are talking about is whether we love people or not. That is actually not the debate today.

I want to stipulate that I know the men and women of this Chamber on a personal basis, and each and every one of them that I know personally loves and cares for their constituency back home. The debate that we have is not whether we love people; it is how to love people best.

Do you love people best by giving them a check or giving them a job? That is a legitimate debate.

Do you love people best by leaving their children with them or taking their children away from them? That is a legitimate debate.

I believe in families. I believe in the dignity of work. I want to have those debates.

I think we do ourselves a disservice when we describe what is going on here today on the floor of the House as anything other than our absolute legal and governmental responsibility to pass a budget for the United States of America. Wherever you sit on the continuum, the political continuum, the economic continuum, the regional continuum, there is a budget for you today.

If what you believe, Mr. Speaker, is that the problems we have in this country are because taxes are not high enough, there is going to be a Democratic substitute coming out of the Budget Committee that will raise taxes about $2.4 trillion. If you think taxes are too low, we can raise them $2.4 trillion. That budget never balances. That budget never stops borrowing from our children and our grandchildren. That budget never stops mortgaging America's future. But it is a legitimate debate because folks are taking those funds and they are investing them in America. They are prioritizing that investment over balancing.

If you believe $2.4 trillion is not enough, Mr. Speaker, we will have a budget from the Congressional Black Caucus today that will raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. We can raise taxes by $4.2 trillion. Again, that budget never balances. It spends all that money and more, but it is a legitimate debate about where those dollars come from and where those dollars are going. I am glad we are going to be able to have it.

If raising taxes by $4.2 trillion isn't enough for you, Mr. Speaker, we have the Congressional Progressive Caucus' budget on the floor. It raises taxes by just over $10 trillion. Again, the budget never balances. It spends all of that money and more and continues to borrow from our children and grandchildren, but it is a legitimate debate and it is a conversation worth having. I am proud that the Rules Committee made that debate in order.

To describe what is happening on the floor of the House today, Mr. Speaker, as anything other than what is exactly expected of this institution is to do us all a disservice.

I talked about making taxes higher. Let me talk a second about making taxes lower.

I talked to some friends back home; I talk to constituents; I talk to folks for whom I work, and some of them might say: ``Rob, I have enough to feed my family, and if it means paying down the debt and deficit, I am willing to pay a little bit more.'' Other members in the community, Mr. Speaker, say: ``For Pete's sake, I am trying to grow a business here, Rob. I am trying to employ your friends and neighbors. I am trying to keep the community working. I am plowing everything I have back into the business. If I don't have to pay as much in taxes, I am going to be able to hire more people.''

The Republican budget, Mr. Speaker, takes a shot at once-in-a- generation tax reform--once in a generation. This isn't what we talked about last year or the year before that or the year before that. This is a conversation we have not had since Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill had it in 1986. This is a conversation that we have not had since America slipped from number one in the world to almost last in the industrialized world in terms of tax competitiveness. This is a conversation that America has longed for and that we can deliver today.

Mr. Speaker, let's have these debates about what our priorities are. Let's have these debates about whether or not we can do better. At the end of the day, let's agree that we, in fact, can do better, that our bosses back home expect us to do better, and that by supporting this rule and supporting one of the underlying budgets, we, in fact, will do better.

I encourage my colleagues, Mr. Speaker, support this rule, begin this debate. Let's pass this budget. Let's fulfill our promises. Let's make the difference that we all came here to make.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 787 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 787 provides for the consideration of two important bills whose focus is to empower the people of this Nation by removing governmental obstacles standing in the way of life and prosperity in this country.

The first bill, H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, is a bipartisan effort from the Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Jeb Hensarling, authored by the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Poliquin).

The second piece of legislation in today's rule, H.R. 5247, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act of 2018, authorizes the use of certain drugs to eligible patients who have been diagnosed with a stage of a disease or a condition for which there is a reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months.

The rule provides for 1 hour of debate for H.R. 4566, the Alleviating Stress Test Burdens to Help Investors Act, equally divided between the Chair and the ranking members of the Committee on Financial Services.

The rule makes one amendment in order, authored by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Maxine Waters), the ranking member. Further, the rule provides for the consideration of one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

For H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, the rule provides for 1 hour of debate equally divided between the Chair

and the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Although no amendments to the bill were made in order, the rule does provide for one motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, before I speak about the substance of the two bills under consideration in the rule before us today, I do want to take a minute to honor our colleague and the Rules Committee's ranking member, Louise Slaughter, who passed away unexpectedly last week.

I have known Ranking Member Slaughter since I first joined Congress in 2003. We spent countless hours debating every issue one can imagine in the Rules Committee upstairs, often long into the night.

When I joined the Rules Committee in 2013, Ranking Member Slaughter was then the ranking member, but it was under her chairmanship where she ushered through the Affordable Care Act, where my largest memories reside. During the debate for the Affordable Care Act, I went up to H- 313, the Rules Committee hearing room, with 18 amendments under my arm, a small selection of the many ways I felt the law needed to be changed.

Certain that I would only be able to get through a small portion of those amendments before I was cut off, I began my testimony. To the chairwoman's credit, she let me go on and on and on, and despite my being convinced that she was going to gavel me down at any second, she allowed me to finish speaking on all 18 amendments.

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't until I actually became a member of the Rules Committee several years later that I discovered there is, in fact, no time limit for Members and witnesses to speak, much to the chagrin of many Members when we debate the National Defense Authorization Act.

Ranking Member Slaughter was always proud of her background as a microbiologist, and it served her well during her tenure in Congress, because, after all, we deal with, sometimes, almost miniscule, microscopic issues, so time as a microbiologist would be good preparation.

One moment where I was glad to be able to work with Ranking Member Slaughter was in 2007. This was right after the Democrats took control of the House. Ms. Slaughter had been pushing for years for legislation that would prohibit the discrimination of employees based on genetic information.

The legislation was forward leaning, long before companies offered DNA testing kits in every pharmacy of the country. And, in fact, it was former Speaker Newt Gingrich himself who brought this bill to my attention, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which I was proud to support as it moved through the Energy and Commerce Committee and was eventually signed into law by President Bush.

I would also like to mention Don Sisson, the staff director for the minority on the Rules Committee. Don has been with the committee for years--even at one point working under Chairman Drier--and has been with the ranking member of the Rules Committee through many events in the past years, including the death of her own husband, who, in fact, often sat in the audience of the Rules Committee and joined Ms. Slaughter during our late-night Rules hearings.

Don is, indeed, a loyal staffer, himself hailing from Rochester, New York, and is a great example of how Ms. Slaughter's life and passing is affecting so many people. I do want to thank Don for his written remarks that were read into the record of the Rules Committee last night from the staff perspective on the passing of Ranking Member Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I would like to hold off making further comments on the legislation before us to allow others to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it was indeed incredibly disappointing last week when our Democratic colleagues did not join us in supporting what was very carefully crafted right-to-try legislation.

The President came and talked to us at the beginning of February, and right to try was one of the issues that he highlighted there from the podium. So it should be to no one's great surprise that this House would indeed take up and work on that issue that the President himself highlighted. Right to try was the one piece of legislation that President Trump specifically promised to the American people in the State of the Union address.

Today, I want it to be known that I stand with the President. I stand with the thousands of Americans with terminal diseases and their families and their friends in getting this important bill passed.

Since 2014, 37 States, including my home State of Texas, have passed a version of a right-to-try law, and through a strong grassroots movement, they have accomplished that.

Today, the House is considering H.R. 5247, the Right to Try Act of 2018, which would improve access to experimental treatments for terminally ill patients and offer them a chance--a second chance, a third chance--at life.

Over the course of the last decade, our Nation has achieved unprecedented innovation and scientific breakthroughs. Thanks to researchers in our academic institutions and those working in the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, American patients have access to innovative treatments.

Regardless of these achievements, I hear from patients with serious life-threatening conditions, including my constituents from north Texas, who are frustrated with what they see as regulatory barriers from trying and experimenting with new therapies when every other avenue has failed.

It does seem we are at a crossroads when lifesaving treatments, while not yet approved, both exist and remain unavailable to patients.

As a physician, I understand that access to investigational drugs and therapies is a deeply personal priority for those seeking treatment for themselves or loved ones with a serious and life-threatening condition.

It is crucial to mention the multistakeholder efforts that have gone into improving the original right-to-try bill. Chairman Walden of the Energy and Commerce Committee led negotiations with the Commissioner of the United States Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, and with other stakeholders to ensure that this legislation opens the door to innovative experimental drugs for these patients without necessarily compromising the vital work and the mission of the Food and Drug Administration. The product of those negotiations is a bill that strikes the proper balance between ensuring patient safety and granting access to these treatments.

I also want to mention that the Subcommittee on Health did have a hearing in this regard October 3. We heard from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration during that hearing. We heard from a number of patient groups and stakeholders who felt that it was, in fact, in their best interest for us to advance legislation.

Currently, the Food and Drug Administration conducts an expanded access program aimed at helping patients who do not qualify for clinical trials to gain access to therapies that the agency has yet to approve. While this program makes a good faith effort to help those patients, right to try would create an alternative pathway for those individuals, allowing them to access eligible investigational drugs.

The fact is that individuals may not qualify for a clinical trial if they do not meet very specific patient inclusion criteria, which may include factors such as age, gender, type and stage of disease, previous treatment history, and other medical conditions. There are also many patients for whom participation in a clinical trial is not feasible, especially those who live in rural areas far from where those academic clinical trial sites exist.

Most, if not all, of the patients with a terminal medical condition fall into one of these categories. This legislation allows those patients to participate in the alternative pathway so long as they are certified by a physician who is in good standing and abides by the rules laid out in the bill.

Again, we worked closely with the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the new alternative pathway does not hinder or conflict with the critically important oversight that that agency conducts. While some people may have reservations about the safety of a new pathway, this bill protects patients from manufacturers mislabeling or misbranding drugs, requires sponsors and manufacturers to report adverse events to the Food and Drug Administration, and provides certain liability protections for parties participating in the new pathway. This alternative pathway would also be limited to individuals who have exhausted all FDA-approved treatment options.

Additionally, only certain investigational drugs are considered eligible under this legislation. In order to qualify, the drug must have completed a

phase one clinical trial, must have an active application, must be under active development or production by the manufacturer, and must not be the subject of a clinical hold.

Eligible patients include those suffering from a stage of a disease or condition for which there is reasonable likelihood that death will occur in a matter of months or that would result in significant irreversible morbidity that is likely to lead to premature death.

This revised right-to-try bill also provides certainty to manufacturers in the drug approval process. It is essential that we do not create additional hurdles in that process. The legislation clearly states that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services ``may not use a clinical outcome associated with the use of an eligible investigational drug . . . to delay or adversely affect the review or approval of such drug.''

Since the Health Subcommittee first considered the right-to-try legislation, the bill has passed in the Senate, and we have had many conversations with patients, advocates, the administration, and stakeholders on all sides of this complex topic. That collaborative effort was necessary, and I am certainly grateful to all who participated in those discussions.

Madam Speaker, this represents months of hard work and thoughtful discussions and decisions. I believe this legislation is a positive step forward in our shared goal of improving care for American patients. Again, this was the one aspect of the President's State of the Union Address where he asked us specifically to act on this legislation.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), who is a fellow member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an article from The Dallas Morning News from 2010. The title of the article--and I am not going to read the whole thing--is: ``Pelosi Pulled Strings to Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Try Experimental Cancer Drug.''

[From the Dallas Morning News, 2010]

Pelosi Pulled Strings To Let Dying Dallas Lawyer Baron Try Experimental

Cancer Drug

(By Todd J. Gilman)

Washington.--Dallas' top Democratic donors will cut big

checks to share dinner later this month with House Speaker

Nancy Pelosi. Most will be motivated by a desire to protect

the party's congressional majority.

Lisa Blue will have an extra reason: to say thanks for

Pelosi's efforts when her husband, Fred Baron, was dying of

bone marrow cancer. His only option was an experimental drug

whose manufacturer refused to give permission to use it for

Baron's condition.

``He was a big fan of hers, and now I am as well,'' Blue

said.

Baron, the ``King of Toxic Torts,'' built a fortune suing

on behalf of asbestos victims. He died the week before

Election Day 2008 at age 61.

A prolific Democratic fundraiser, he served as finance

chief that year for his friend John Edwards, who also made

his fortune in court. Baron later acknowledged funneling

large sums to Edwards' mistress--a scandal that gave

ammunition to those who already despised trial lawyers.

But to Blue, first and foremost, Baron was a husband.

The tale she tells of his final weeks is not so different

than any widow might tell, except, of course, that the couple

had friends in especially high places--friends like Pelosi,

who will headline the Aug. 24 dinner to raise cash for the

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

In 2002, Baron was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By

October 2008, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic were telling him

he had just days to live.

They also offered a glimmer of hope. Over the years, the

couple had donated about $1 million to Mayo. The staff was

especially diligent, Blue said. They tested an arsenal of

drugs and finally discovered that Baron's cancer responded

surprisingly well, in the lab, to a drug called Tysabri.

Mayo had an ample supply, but the drug was--and still is--

approved only for treatment of multiple sclerosis and Crohn's

disease. The manufacturer, Biogen Idec, refused to give

permission, even under special ``compassionate use'' rules

that protect a drug-maker from a black mark in case of an

adverse outcome.

Biogen said it didn't want to jeopardize the drug's

availability to other patients. (The company did not respond

to a request for comment last week.)

``I told Mayo, `I'll sign anything, I'll release anything.

Just give him the drug,' '' Blue said.

Blue, also a top lawyer, began making calls. She started

with Lance Armstrong, the bicyclist and cancer survivor, whom

she had represented.

``I started going through Fred's Rolodex,'' she said. ``I

called every politician, every celebrity that I knew and just

begged them to help. . . . I must have made 200 calls.''

She called clinics in Canada, trying in vain to find

doctors willing to administer the drug without Biogen's OK.

She hired a lawyer and prepared to sue Mayo to force it to

dispense the drug. She even bought some Tysabri online from

Australia, intending to send stepson Andrew Baron to smuggle

it back, she said.

The younger Baron posted an open plea online to Biogen,

noting that Bill Clinton, Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy

of Massachusetts, Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa and even the head

of the Food and Drug Administration had urged the company to

reconsider.

``You talk about mental anguish,'' Blue recounted. ``Fred,

every day, would wake up and he said, `Am I going to get the

drug?' ''

Others were supportive, she said, but Pelosi ``put her

heart and soul'' into the cause, as did Harkin.

Somehow--Blue still isn't sure how--Pelosi cajoled the FDA

to find a legal justification that let Mayo administer the

drug, even without Biogen's consent.

``Nancy figured out a way,'' she said.

The drug beat back the cancer for a few days, but not

enough.

Blue has no illusion that a typical family could pull such

strings.

``There are so many cases like Fred's,'' she said. ``One

thing he taught me was politics matters. What a personal

experience for me to understand how politics matters.''

And no, she added, ``It's not fair that other people can't

pick up the phone and make the government give them a drug. .

. . It was just such an awakening about how the drug

companies have so much power.''

That's what she'll tell Pelosi over dinner.

Mr. Speaker, this article references events that occurred in 2008.

In 2002, this individual was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. By October of 2008, his doctors were telling him that

he had just days to live. They also offered a glimmer of hope. There was perhaps one chance of therapy. It was an unproven therapy that might, in fact, be helpful to him.

The family made inquiries, made entreaties, but they were not successful until they invoked the then-Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who actually helped this lawyer get access to this medication. Unfortunately, it was not successful. His disease spread to a point where the therapy was not helpful. But the family observed, ``Nancy figured out a way.''

How about that. The Speaker of the House figured out a way to get this medication to an individual who was dying of a disease, who obviously was very important--a large Democratic donor, and I get that.

But the Speaker of the House intervened because the clinic where he was being treated felt that they did not have the authority to give him the medication. The company that was manufacturing the medication did not feel that it was in anyone's best interest to give him the medication. But Nancy found a way.

Well, Mr. Speaker, today, we are going to find a way. The President asked us, and we are going to find a way for those millions of Americans who are asking for that same chance.

So today's rule provides for consideration of two important consumer- driven pieces of legislation:

H.R. 4566, by Mr. Poliquin, will help alleviate some of the regulations that were put in place under the Dodd-Frank Act.

H.R. 5247, the right-to-try bill which garnered a majority of bipartisan support last week, will give patients who have nowhere else to turn another option to fight the potentially fatal health conditions with which they have been diagnosed.

I do want to thank President Trump and Vice President Pence for their leadership on this issue and helping us understand here in this body how important it is to move forward with this patient-centered legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support today's rule and the two underlying pieces of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess), my friend, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, like my friend from Texas, I was overcome with sadness by the tragic news of Louise's passing, who was not only the ranking member of the Rules Committee, but the first and only woman to have chaired the committee.

For 30 years, Louise poured every ounce of energy she had into serving her constituents in upstate New York. She never hesitated to speak her mind, and she never wavered in espousing her beliefs. I will always be truly grateful for the time that I had to serve alongside her.

Louise was one of my dearest friends in Congress, having not only served with her on the Rules Committee but also on the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, the Helsinki Commission.

Her legacy speaks for itself. She was not just a champion of women's rights. She was a champion of working families everywhere. This Nation has lost one of our fiercest public servants, and her absence will leave an unfillable void.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my deepest condolences to Louise's daughters: Megan Secatore, Amy Slaughter, and Emily Minerva; her seven grandchildren and one great-grandson; as well as to her friends, constituents, and congressional staff during this extremely difficult time. Her spirit and loving memory will forever live in the Halls of Congress. She will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, turning to today's rules, this rule brings the number of closed rules for the 115th Congress to 74. In other words, more than 50 percent of the legislation coming to the Rules Committee has been closed off from an open and honest debate by my Republican friends.

At the beginning of this Congress, we were told by my Republican colleagues that they would run the government in an open manner. They even championed regular order. Well, that spirit has clearly been jettisoned in favor of an overly partisan approach to governing.

By way of example, one of today's bills, H.R. 5247, was introduced last Tuesday, brought to the House floor for a vote on the same day without the committee of jurisdiction holding one single hearing on the bill or Members having the opportunity to offer their amendments.

Not surprisingly, the measure failed to pass under suspension of the rules.

What was the response of my friends on the other side of the aisle when the vote failed? Did my Republican colleagues insist that the Energy and Commerce Committee hold hearings on the measure? Did my Republican colleagues on the committee of jurisdiction invite experts to speak on what the consequences would be if this bill were to become law? Did my Republican colleagues work with Democrats to come up with a bipartisan solution? No.

Madam Speaker, let me tell you what did happen. The Republican leadership ignored the problems with the measure and brought it to the Rules Committee last night for it to be considered on the House floor today.

Now, this flies in the face of regular order, to ask the entire membership of the people's House to vote on something for which no one can honestly say they know what the unintended consequences would be if this bill were to become law.

Bad process makes bad bills, and the process we have witnessed with this bill can't get much worse. Yet it did get worse when the Republican majority blocked the ranking member's, Mr. Pallone's, substitute amendment, an amendment which was both germane and had bipartisan support.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority took it a step further when they extended the Holman rule for the remainder of the 115th Congress. My friends on the other side of the aisle are yet again seeking to scapegoat Federal employees, make cuts to the Federal workforce, and politicize the civil service system that was established to professionalize agencies and offices, all while ignoring the waste and abuses in the reality show of the Trump administration.

Madam Speaker, challenged by the American people to bring up comprehensive gun reform, House leadership instead brings up one bill that hasn't gone through anything resembling regular order and another bill that weakens and undermines a valuable tool that gives financial companies and regulators an opportunity to identify and correct problems before they could lead to another financial crisis.

Every year, roughly 35,000 people are killed by guns. Moreover, 2,700 children and teens are shot and killed, and over 14,000 more are shot and injured every year. That is an average of 47 American children and teens shot every day.

And the effects of gun violence extend far beyond those struck by a bullet. Gun violence shapes the lives of the millions of children who witness it, know someone who was shot, or live in fear of the next shooting. We have witnessed the effects over the last month with the students from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

This weekend, hundreds of thousands of students and their supporters will descend on Washington, D.C., to demand that the Federal Government take action to stop the epidemic of mass shootings, which have become all too familiar.

No less than this morning when I turned on the television, less than an hour and a half away from here, in yet another school, yet another shooting. Fortunately, it appears that the resource officer there engaged the shooter early on and may have caused there to be less damage, although some people were injured, and one or two critically.

We can no longer ignore what gun violence really is in this country. It is an epidemic.

But do not just take my word for it or the students who witnessed 14 friends' and 3 teachers' lives brutally cut short. The American Medical Association, following the tragedy at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, declared gun violence in this country ``a very public health crisis,'' a crisis which the Republican majority's only answer is to offer thoughts and prayers and further block any Democratic measures to address this crisis and to continue to block the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from even researching gun violence.

Instead of finally making permanent the status of Dreamers in this country as full citizens, the Republican majority ignores their calls and the calls of the vast majority of Americans and, instead, brings up one bill that undermines a valuable early warning system of our Nation's economy and another bill that has gone through a completely closed process.

Enough is enough. President Donald John Trump says he wants to fix this problem. The Speaker says he wants to fix this problem. We on this side of the aisle clearly want to fix this problem. So let's do it already.

Madam Speaker, last week, when I was managing yet another useless financial regulation, I commented and I asked the American public to respond:

Would you rather us stop banks from having stress tests or would you prefer that we deal with the deferred action for children in this country, 800,000 of whom are Dreamers, 120 of whom lose their status every day?

Would you prefer that we deal with the measure that is on the floor today or that we deal seriously with a variety of issues having to do with gun violence in our society, which I have described as an epidemic?

Would you prefer as a priority, America, that we deal with these trivial matters that are going nowhere fast or that we center ourselves and focus on those measures that are vital to the survival, security, and safety of all Americans?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee, I had dialogue with the author of this legislation and also the ranking member, Mr. Pallone. I indicated to them that I have very strong sympathies regarding persons who are in the apparent throes of death and seeking some hope, and medication can have its advantages, and experimental medication can have its advantages.

My quarrel with the legislation is that it didn't go through regular order. I don't understand why, with all of the experts. I introduced into the Record in the Rules Committee last night a substantial number of organizations and individuals who have come forward. They all agree that something along the lines of what is being sought ought be undertaken, but it would allow for those persons to have added input into what ultimately may be significant legislation. But my friends on the other side plow right ahead on this matter that I reiterate was brought on suspension last week that failed, and then brought here last night for purposes of a rule along with financial stress legislation.

So it is not that many of us are not sympathetic to the underlying principle that is being offered. It is that it is rank process and that we should not allow legislation to continue to come to the floor of the House of Representatives that blocks out a significant number of persons who may have input that would make the measure be much more salient to a more significant number of people.

It is for that reason that I continue to ask the questions: What are our priorities here? What is the rush with reference to this matter while we are ignoring a significant number of other matters that we could be undertaking?

In addition to that, we were supposed to go to the Rules Committee this afternoon on the omnibus bill; and now, evidently, there is wrangling going on between the parties and bicameral between the Senate and the House, and that measure isn't ready to come to the floor.

Yet we are dealing with something that isn't the highest priority of the moment. I commented last night, anything that will help a person who is facing death is the kind of thing that we would want that person to have that opportunity to deal with. But we have children who have been killed and we have children who are facing the potential for that kind of horror, yet we are doing nothing.

So, Madam Speaker, once again, I rise to appeal to my friends on the other side of the aisle: Please, listen to the American people and do more to help end the epidemic of gun violence that has plagued our Nation and that the American people are demanding Congress to do more.

For example, in a recent Gallup Poll, nearly two-thirds of adults wanted stricter laws on the sale of firearms. According to a recent NPR/Ipsos poll, 75 percent of respondents said they think gun laws should be stricter.

As I indicated earlier, just this morning there were reports of another school shooting just an hour and a half from Washington, D.C., in Great Mills, Maryland. The American people are begging this body to do something to end this epidemic, so I offer the majority this opportunity:

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research Act.

These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on the causes of gun violence.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can finally do something to address gun violence.

Through you, Madam Speaker, I would advise my friend from Texas that I have no further speakers and I am prepared to close when he is prepared to close.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I would say to my friend from Washington what I said last night: We would do a great service to Louise's memory if we were to make more open rules here on the House floor; and I will argue for her in that regard.

Madam Speaker, before I close, I want to again reiterate the tremendous loss felt in this Chamber with the passing of our longtime colleague, Congresswoman Louise McIntosh Slaughter. She was a champion of all the issues she cared about and a giant here in the House of Representatives. Her wisdom will be missed every day.

Madam Speaker, the people's House should be approaching our work in a manner that is fair to all Americans, in a manner where the appropriate committee of jurisdiction holds hearings and markups, in a manner where experts in the field are consulted, and in a manner where Members of both parties have the opportunity to offer amendments and debate the contents of the bill.

The process we are witnessing here today is truly a slap in the face to regular order. A bill that has zero input from members on the Energy and Commerce Committee or that has been the subject of any thoughtful discussion is suddenly on the House floor for a vote.

Now, I respect my friend from Texas' view that last year in the Senate, and even perhaps since that time, and throughout the country, right-to-try measures have passed in several States to some degree. But this particular bill that is on the floor that we are making a rule for has not gone through regular order; and that, then, disallows a significant number of persons who would have an opportunity to have input to what could be legislation that all sides could agree upon. Our failure to undertake to do that is a disservice, in my view, to the institution and to the measure that is being sought to be passed here today.

This is not just an affront to normal House procedure; it is downright undemocratic and emblematic of the Republican majority's inability to govern. I think it will redound to their discredit that they are not allowing this House to proceed under regular order.

As I indicated earlier, more than 50 percent of all of the measures that have come to the Rules Committee and have ultimately come to the floor of the House of Representatives have been under closed rules, which means that Members who represent millions of people in America do not have opportunities to offer amendments that might make the measure better or, at the very least, have their views heard with reference to substantive legislation that is moving through this body.

If we continue down this path for the remainder of this session, we will probably break the 100th barrier on closed rules. We have already had more closed rules than in the history of legislating in this country.

That is not fair. That is basically all we are arguing. Open up the process. Let every Member have an opportunity for input on behalf of his or her constituents. It is the right thing to do. What has been happening is the dead wrong thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Madam Speaker, today's bills would roll back important consumer and financial protections by undermining the effectiveness of financial regulators' ability to conduct important stress tests, create unnecessary hurdles for regulators to contend with in the future, and limit the Federal Reserve Board's flexibility in determining the health and stability of our financial institutions.

Madam Speaker, including these two measures, the Rules Committee will have considered 30 Financial Services bills this Congress, 15 of which were considered under closed rules. Those 15 are part of a much larger closed process that Republican leadership has wielded with brute force to push through the legislative priorities of powerful special interests. Indeed, this week, we witnessed the 73rd closed rule for this Congress, a style of legislating that is as brazen as it is broken.

This critique of the majority's reliance on a closed process is not just some technical point, but, rather, an important one; because when you close out those on your side of the aisle who are not in leadership and those on our side of the aisle from offering amendments, you do not simply silence us, you silence the American people.

And what has this process wrought for the American people?

Well, let's take a look. Bear with me because it is a doozy

First, we witnessed the majority--in what I believe was the most chaotic and convoluted process during my 25 years in the House of Representatives--try to take away healthcare from 23 million Americans.

When they couldn't get that done, the majority then honed in on a tax giveaway to corporate America and the ultrawealthy not only at the expense of the middle class, but also to the detriment of future generations, as that bill will explode our national debt by an estimated $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years.

Just last week, we watched as our Republican friends attacked Clean Air Act protections to give a handout to specified industries to emit more pollution into the air.

Is this what my Republican friends were sent here to do: To take away healthcare from millions of people? To remove important environmental protections that keep America's air and water safe? To limit the amount of stress tests the Federal Reserve Board should run on our biggest financial institutions so that we can avoid another financial meltdown?

Footnote right there. If these stress tests are so bothersome to these big old banks, how is it that they are making all of this big old money?

They don't seem to have any hindrance when it comes to sopping up the resources of this country.

Madam Speaker, my constituents haven't been calling me or writing or emailing my office asking that we consider or pass any of the measures the House will consider this week. On the other hand, they have written to my office asking what Republican leadership is going to do about addressing the gun violence epidemic ravaging our country. I was meeting in my office just an hour ago with officials from Tamarac, Florida, and we received an alert that two schools near the Parkland school were on lockdown.

My constituents have asked about what Republican leadership will do to ensure that the DACA recipients have a pathway to citizenship. They have asked what Republican leadership will do to address our Nation's needs for serious and sustained investments in our infrastructure. Unfortunately, the answer is little to nothing.

Footnote right there. When I came to this Congress 25 years ago, there were 14,000 bridges in the United States of America in need of a repair. Today, there are 56,000 bridges in this country in need of repair.

Madam Speaker, since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America. Let me let that soak in. Since 2014, there have been over 1,360 mass shootings in America.

In 2018 alone, nearly 500 teens and over 100 children have been killed or injured by guns. Last month, 14 students and 3 teachers were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School by a former student using an AR-15 that he bought legally.

And just 2 days ago, American citizens took to the grounds of this Capitol and placed 7,000 pairs of shoes on the front lawn here at the Capitol. Citizens placed a pair of shoes for every child killed by gun violence since the Sandy Hook massacre. Regardless of your views on this subject, please let that number sink in: 7,000 pairs of shoes.

Madam Speaker, we should not be considering a bill to reform the Financial Stability Oversight Council. We should not be considering a measure that limits the frequency of stress tests on our financial institutions.

What we should be doing is considering a ban on bump stocks. We should be considering a ban on weapons of war. We should be considering protective orders allowing people to petition a court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis.

We should be considering a measure to provide for comprehensive background checks, and maybe this time try not to sabotage it by attaching a controversial concealed carry provision to the measure.

Madam Speaker, the Republican majority is also ignoring the plight of 22,000 Dreamers who have lost their protected status since President Trump ended DACA, and the other hundreds of thousands of Dreamers who remain in legal limbo. Every day, 120 of them lose their status.

Madam Speaker, 25 times--25 times--House Republicans blocked a vote on the bipartisan Dream Act, which protects innocent Dreamers from this cruel Republican inaction. Every day of inaction on the part of my friends across the aisle means another day that families are needlessly made to live under the threat of being torn apart.

Madam Speaker, all across America, our infrastructure is in need of repair and greater investment. Every Member in the House of Representatives likely received a visit from members of the National League of Cities around the United States of America, and every one of them is talking about infrastructure needs. Every one of them. Yet the Republican majority has stalled on presenting a single infrastructure bill.

Even President Donald John Trump's infrastructure plan faces an obstacle: his own budget cuts.

President Trump claimed the Federal Government was investing $1.5 trillion to our infrastructure, but, in reality, the White House's plan actually only proposed $200 billion in Federal funding. At the same time, he proposed slashing critical infrastructure funding to the Department of Transportation by nearly 20 percent, and the Army Corps of Engineers' budget by 22 percent.

How does that work, Madam Speaker?

The truth is, it doesn't.

Madam Speaker, we stand here today with a to-do list a mile long and an ocean wide. I suggest the following: that we stop being forced to spend our time checking off items on the wish lists of powerful corporate special interests, and we turn to the business of the American people--Republican and Democrat, independent, conservative, and liberal American people.

For starters, we could work together to end our country's gun violence epidemic, bring relief to DACA recipients, and bring thought- out and serious legislation to the floor that will invest in our infrastructure.

Now, I am sure that my friend is either thinking or likely to say that we are here about financial services measures, and he is correct. That is what these rules call for. But what these rules are about, in the final analysis, is a diversion from things that we know are more critical.

Why, then, are we not dealing with prioritized matters that we know that the American people want, rather than those that the corporate greedy, needy, big old businesses want?

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, it has been one month since the tragic events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The district that I am privileged to serve is adjacent to that school, and I have two of my remaining cousins in life that live in Parkland, and I live within 30 minutes of where that school is situated.

A gunman killed 17 innocent students and teachers. Since that heartbreaking day, Americans from coast to coast have raised their voices and said: Enough is enough.

Yesterday, thousands of students from across our country walked out of their classrooms to protest this body's inaction. Two days ago, as I said earlier, 7,000 empty pairs of children's shoes were laid on the Capitol lawn to commemorate all the children who have been tragically killed by gun violence since the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. I might add, not only at schools, but in Nevada, in California, in Texas, in South Carolina, in churches, in Orlando bars, these mass shootings are occurring. People don't think it is an epidemic.

My friends on the other side of the aisle did bring a bill to the floor yesterday that I voted for that was also cojoined by my friend, Ted Deutch, whose district is where the Parkland school is. He, too, was involved with that legislation, but it was done to improve school security. Much more needs to be done, and it needs to be done now.

So, today, I offer my colleagues yet another opportunity to show the American people that they value their safety and the safety of their children over the lobbying of the National Rifle Association and the gun manufacturers.

If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up four commonsense gun safety bills: H.R. 4240, the Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act; H.R. 3464, the Background Check Completion Act; H.R. 2598, the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act; and H.R. 1478, the Gun Violence Research Act.

These bills would close the dangerous gun show and internet sale background check loopholes, prevent the sale of guns without a completed background check, ensure that people who are a danger to themselves or to others can be prevented from possessing a gun, and lift the prohibition on government-sponsored scientific research on causes of gun violence.

Let me send a message to gun owners in this country. I own a gun. I believe in the Second Amendment. I don't want anybody to take anybody's gun; but nobody can persuade me that anybody, other than military and police officers, are deserving of having in their possession automatic weapons. I believe every American feels the same way.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), my very good friend that I knew before we came to Congress together, and the distinguished assistant Democratic leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Carbajal), a member of the Armed Services and Budget Committees of this House of Representatives.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Murphy), my colleague who represents my home area that I was born in, a member of the Armed Services and Small Business Committees.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I would advise the previous speaker that I knew Jay Dickey, I served with him here, as did many other Members; and my understanding is that, before his death, he indicated that he thought that his measure that has carried forth was a mistake.

Madam Speaker, my friends across the aisle have clearly demonstrated where their priorities lie. And for the benefit of the American public, if it looks like we are ships passing in the night, then doubtless we are when it comes to priorities.

I would ask anyone in this country and anyone in this House: Which do you think should be a priority? Addressing the gun epidemic in this country or bailing out big old banks with more opportunities to potentially carry us to yet another financial disaster by simply disallowing them having to undergo the stress test that they need?

I listened to my friend when he talked about stress tests, that they don't know how they are going to be tested or what part they are going to--well, my goodness gracious. Kids in school don't know what is going to be on the test; so why should the bank know what is going to be on the test?

But in the deal, when it goes down, whether they know or not, they still are making a ton of money; and, therefore, the regulations aren't affecting them in the way that we make it sound here. And there again, I ask the question: Which is your priority, America? Whether we address gun violence in this country and the epidemic that it is or whether we address these financial services regulatory measures that are more for corporate America than they are for you?

Americans working hard to make ends meet need answers--working hard to get their kids off to school, working hard to make sure they can put food on the table at the end of the day, working hard to ensure that they can put a little money aside for their child's education, working hard to ensure that they can put some retirement money aside.

Footnote there. What are we doing to protect the pensions of people in this country? We are not addressing that. We are addressing big banks.

That they don't have to keep working two or three jobs for the rest of their lives, that is what Americans are looking for.

Well, if they are working hard, then we need to be working hard, and we need to be working hard for them. It is with their interests in mind that we are sent here, and we do a disservice to them and to our country when we abandon that responsibility and consider bills like those put before us today rather than addressing the many, many needs that this country has.

Madam Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.