Establishing the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule, which provides for consideration of two deeply flawed pieces of legislation.

H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, is yet another attempt by this Republican majority to prioritize corporate profits over ensuring people have access to safe and clean drinking water.

This bill would not only threaten our clean water, it would also undermine States' rights and Tribal rights by prioritizing power generation above all else when deciding whether to grant or extend a license to operate a hydropower project.

Simply put, this bill puts profits ahead of the public interest. By giving a rubber stamp commission more power than other expert agencies, the bill rigs the process in favor of power producers at the expense of States, Tribes, and our environment.

This bill prioritizes profits over clean water and healthy fisheries and should be strongly defeated. Protecting our families and our environment should always be our first priority.

In another giveaway to corporate interests, House Republicans are also bringing to the floor this week H.R. 3441, the so-called Save Local Business Act, under the false claim that it eliminates uncertainty for workers and protects small businesses.

The truth is a very different story, Mr. Speaker. Joint employment standards ensure workers can hold employers accountable for violating wage and hour laws, child labor, or refusing to collectively bargain. This bill represents a significant and dangerous break from that standard and would undermine the rights of American workers.

This legislation rewards companies that rent employees from staffing agencies instead of hiring them directly, and allows them to evade responsibility for upholding the rights of those employees, even though they profit from their work.

This bill is not about helping workers or small businesses. This is all about giving powerful companies even more power over their employees.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is just as troubling as the content of the underlying bills is the process Speaker Ryan and his Republican leadership team routinely use to call up this terrible legislation.

Today we are considering the 49th completely closed rule of the 115th Congress. That is right. Today House Republicans are breaking their own record for the most closed session of Congress in history. It is astounding. This is something you would celebrate in Putin's Russia, not here in the United States.

Since he first took the gavel in 2015, Speaker Ryan has continue to shamelessly break his promise to allow a fair and open legislative process here in this House.

In Speaker Ryan's first speech as Speaker in October of 2015, he said: ``We need to let every Member contribute. . . . Open up the process. Let people participate. A neglected minority will gum up the works. A respected minority will work in good faith. Instead of trying to stop the majority, they might try to become the majority.''

Speaker Ryan and I disagree on a great many issues, but I strongly agree with what he said in that 2015 speech. We do need to let every Member contribute and open up the process here in the House. We do need the majority party to respect the minority party so we can actually work together on bipartisan solutions.

But in the 2 years since Speaker Ryan took the gavel, he has, sadly, failed to deliver on his commitment to open up the legislative process. Things have only gotten worse. In fact, Speaker Ryan is the only Speaker who has not allowed a truly open rule to give Members the opportunity and the chance to do what their constituents sent them here to do and to offer different perspectives and ideas on how to improve legislation.

With each new closed rule they bring to the floor, shutting out amendments from both Democrats and Republicans, the cynical hypocrisy grows louder and louder. Instead of the people's House, this has, sadly, become ``only the people who agree with Paul Ryan's House.''

I guess my question for the Speaker would be: Did you mean any of what you said? Did you forget all those promises you made? Or did you have absolutely no intention of keeping those promises once you were in power?''

Every single Member of this House of Representatives was elected to represent the people of their district, but

we cannot do that if the party in the majority blatantly uses strong- arm tactics like these that prevent us from doing our jobs.

In 2015, Speaker Ryan also said: ``We need to return to regular order. We are the body closest to the people. Every 2 years, we face the voters. . . . We represent them. We are supposed to study up and do the homework that they cannot do. So when we do not follow regular order--when we rush to pass bills a lot of us do not understand--we are not doing our job. Only a fully functioning House can truly represent the people.''

Where do I begin?

Literally just a few months ago, Speaker Ryan and the Republican leaders of this House were recklessly steamrolling their healthcare bill to the House floor without holding anything close to the number of hearings that we held when the Affordable Care Act was passed.

Instead, they led a haphazard process where the bill was drafted in secret behind closed doors--locked doors--without any input from rank and file Members of Congress and the American people. Mr. Speaker, that is not regular order. That is unconscionable. That disrespects this House.

Today, when asked by a reporter about this record-breaking closed process, Speaker Ryan responded: ``Absolutely we have an open process.''

Really?

Let's review his record this Congress: Zero open rules--zero. Forty- nine completely closed rules.

Open process?

Open process my foot, Mr. Speaker.

I guess in the age of Donald Trump, words simply don't matter anymore. Black is white, up is down, open is closed, and politicians can say whatever they think sounds good and they think they can get away with it--facts be damned.

If Speaker Ryan were serious about a fair and open process, he would not turn this House into a rubber stamp for Donald Trump. He would let us be the independent voice the people of our districts elected us to be. He would not routinely shut out the voices of Democrats and Republicans. He would let this House actually debate the serious legislation and issues that come before us.

With one closed rule after another on each bill that comes to the floor, Speaker Ryan has completely shut out both Democrats and rank- and-file Republicans, routinely blocking amendments we offer.

This is not how the Congress is supposed to work. Our constituents deserve a Congress that actually debates the bills that will affect their lives. They deserve better.

I refuse to sit by while the Republican leadership makes a mockery of this House. American voices will not be silenced.

The Speaker may grant promises of openness, inclusiveness, and regular order, but we just lived through the most closed year in the history of this institution, and the year isn't even over yet, Mr. Speaker.

Republicans ought to remember that they will not always be in the majority. I don't think a Democratic majority could be this bad on basic process, even if we tried. But any Member who votes for this record-breaking closed rule today had better not have crocodile tears for regular order and openness when they find themselves in the minority some day in the future. Anyone who supports 49 closed rules and zero open rules in a single year loses all credibility on the issue of openness.

My Republican friends should be ashamed--ashamed--of diminishing this House and diminishing its Members and their thoughtful ideas. I urge Democrats and Republicans to take a stand and vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thought I had heard everything. The gentleman from Alabama got up and said how proud he is of the Rules Committee and of the process in this House. Oh, my God. The fact that the gentleman would get up and say that with a straight face, you take my breath away. It is unbelievable.

Today, we are considering our 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making this the most closed session in Congress in history, and the gentleman is proud of that.

More than half of the rules Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. That means that no Member, Democrat or Republican, can offer their ideas on the House floor.

The gentleman says: Well, we want to prevent killer amendments from being made in order. So all the Republicans that offer amendments to the Rules Committee have killer amendments? It is ridiculous to say that about the Democratic amendments.

In total, just so the gentleman understands this, in total, the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is 1,300. They are all killer amendments? They are all not deserving of a debate in the people's House?

They blocked 1,300 amendments, including 955 Democratic amendments. You blocked 260 Republican amendments and 121 bipartisan amendments.

Blocking these amendments has a very real impact. A bad process produces bad policy. Shutting out input from the vast majority of Members, both Democrats and Republicans, may make it easier for you to jam your agenda through the House, but that speed comes at the expense of the policy itself.

When you block amendments, you are shutting down debate on incredibly important issues, issues that this House of Representatives should be debating and voting on.

Here are a few examples of germane amendments that the majority didn't think were worthy of a debate and an up-or-down vote in the House. These were totally in order.

There is my bipartisan amendment to require a Presidential determination and congressional action to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. With the longest war in American history, I thought maybe it was worth some debate, but the Rules Committee said no to that.

Also, a bipartisan amendment to phase out the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, they blocked that.

Also, an amendment to ensure that the U.S. doesn't withdraw from the Paris climate agreement--I know my Republican friends think climate change is a hoax. They don't believe in science. But, you know what? You ought to have the guts to debate it. But you blocked it.

You blocked an amendment for funding for troops in Syria.

You blocked an amendment to create the National Russian Threat Response Center.

The list goes on and on and on.

These aren't killer amendments. These are important issues that get blocked time and time again. These issues are at the very core of our responsibilities here in Congress, and you blocked them from even being considered by the full House.

In this Congress, the majority has blocked over 1,300 amendments from coming to the floor. You are proud of that? That is disgraceful.

I truly hope that breaking the closed rule record is a wake-up call and that some of you over there will decide to do things a little bit differently around here and a little bit better around here, starting next week with your tax bill, but I am not going to hold by breath.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) for a unanimous consent request.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Signatory Wall and Ceiling Contractors Alliance, which says that this legislation would not benefit small businesses that create good jobs. It actually would place such employers at a permanent competitive disadvantage to unscrupulous companies that seek to thrive solely at the expense of the workers and taxpayer-funded social safety net programs.

Signatory Wall and

Ceiling Contractors Alliance,

Saint Paul, MN, October 5, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives, Washington,

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this point I have been making about how this is now officially the most closed Congress in history, and I think people need to keep that in mind before they vote for this rule.

But the gentleman from Alabama, again--I guess in this age of Trump, I mean, you can twist things all kinds of different ways, you know-- bragged about all this great bipartisanship here. In that number that he was referring to, a number of bills that were supported in a bipartisan way, a big chunk of them are things like naming post offices, suspension bills that are not controversial, Hats Off to Teachers Day, those types of bills.

But on major legislation, whether it is healthcare or whether it is this crummy tax bill that they are going to be bringing up, this place is polarized because they block out any competing ideas.

Let me again reiterate for my colleagues: the Rules Committee has blocked more than 1,300 amendments this year. That is just this year alone.

Now, I already mentioned amendments on the AUMF, climate change, Afghanistan, and more. I think those are important subjects. But the Members offering these amendments, I think, no matter what you believe about these amendments, deserve the right to be heard by the whole House and to receive an up-or-down vote.

But here are a few more examples of the germane amendments that my friends on the Republican side on the Rules Committee blocked under the closed and structured rules. They blocked an amendment to prohibit the repeal of DACA.

You know, I mean, 800,000 people's lives now are in the balance because of Donald Trump rescinding the protection for these DREAMers, and he said: Congress, you do it. You fix it.

Well, we tried to bring an amendment to the floor to have a debate and fix it, and if my Republican friends don't want to vote for it, they can vote ``no.'' But they blocked it. They blocked an amendment to bar funds from being spent on this stupid, idiotic wall that the President seems enamored with along our border. They blocked an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse. They blocked several amendments to ensure the Trump family doesn't profit off the Presidency, and we all know that they are, but we can't even have that debate.

They blocked an amendment to protect asylum seekers and human trafficking victims, and they blocked an amendment to ensure victims of incest can have access to abortion care. I can go on and on and on. I mean, they blocked Congressman Grothman's budget amendment twice. He is a Republican. It was germane. He even testified before the Rules Committee, but you blocked it.

Last week, you blocked Representative Jimmy Duncan's amendment to allow doctors to practice medicine out of State on a volunteer basis. Germane. It may be a good idea. It deserves to be debated. You blocked it.

Is that a poison pill? Is that what the gentleman was referring to? You know, process matters, and it matters for this reason, because when you have a lousy process, you end up with a lousy product.

I know it is not sexy to talk about process, you know, but it is important. It is important that we do our jobs, we debate these issues, and that we listen to Democrats and Republicans, you know, come before us with ideas: some we may agree with, some we may not, but let's have that debate. What is wrong with that? Why is that such a radical idea in this place? To get up and say I am proud of this; I am proud that we are now the most closed Congress in the history of our country? That is something to be proud of?

I think that is something to be ashamed of. I think it diminishes this House of Representatives, and it diminishes every single member of this House, Democrats and Republicans alike.

This is supposed to be a deliberative body. Let's deliberate. Let's not negotiate things in the back room and then rush it to the floor and demand an up-or-down vote. You know, you don't have a monopoly on good ideas, and there are people in your own party who have some good ideas, too, and I think we have good ideas as well. And if you want bipartisanship, true bipartisanship, and you want to end the polarization, open the process a little bit. That would be helpful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is right, we can work together and come together in a bipartisan way to pass a post office bill, to name a post office after somebody, but my friends didn't think it was important to come together and work with us on improving the Affordable Care Act, totally cut out of the process.

I am willing to bet that when the tax bill comes up, the tax bill that is going

to give wealthy people a big tax break and raise taxes on a lot of middle-income families, that will be a very closed process as well. So yeah, you know, Hats Off to Teachers Day, naming post offices, stuff that, I mean, Western civilization, as we know it, doesn't hinge upon, yeah, there is lot of bipartisanship here.

We had a couple of bills yesterday that passed unanimously. I mean, we had votes on them. They were noncontroversial. But when it comes to anything really meaningful, there is no bipartisanship, and there is no openness here.

Again, let me repeat, so my colleagues understand this. This is the most closed session of Congress ever in history, and the year is not even over yet. Today, we are considering the 49th closed rule of the 115th Congress, officially making it the most closed session of Congress in history. More than half of the rules the Republicans have reported out of the Rules Committee have not allowed any amendments. They have blocked over 1,300 amendments.

Speaker Ryan now is the only speaker who has not allowed an open rule. Speakers Boehner, Pelosi, Hastert, and Gingrich all allowed some open rules. This is the first time we never had one.

Mr. Speaker, again, I would say to my colleagues, process matters, and this is really a sad day for this House, for this institution, and I hope my Republican friends think about it a little bit because you are doing great damage to this institution, and that makes me very sad.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind my colleagues as well that the bill that the gentleman from Alabama is talking about, his bill, when it--in the Rules Committee last night, the Rules Committee thought it was appropriate to block three germane amendments from the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee. I mean, that is the process that we are dealing with here.

The ranking member of that committee does not have the opportunity to bring his ideas to the floor and debate them and get a vote up or down on it. That is not right, and the Rules Committee, unfortunately, is becoming a place where democracy goes to die, where every good idea is routinely shot down, and it has to stop.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleagues to defeat the previous question. And I want to say to my colleagues that, a month ago, I stood at this very podium, following our Nation's deadliest mass shooting in Las Vegas, asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can begin to study gun violence.

Now I stand here again, after yet another unthinkable tragedy, begging my colleagues to allow us to take this small first step following Sunday's deadly mass shooting at First Baptist Church in Texas.

Twenty-six people in that church lost their lives to gun violence, and that is from one single shooting. On an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.

I would like to ask my colleagues again: What will it take?

If the deaths of those children in Sandy Hook Elementary School weren't enough for Congress to take action, if the 49 lives lost in Orlando weren't enough, if the 58 lives lost in Las Vegas weren't enough, and if the 26 lives lost in Texas on Sunday aren't enough, then nothing may ever be enough for Congress to have the courage to do the right thing.

But I am hoping that is not true. Today we can decide to take the first step in fighting gun violence with one vote. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up H. Res. 367, which would establish the Select Committee on Gun Violence Prevention.

It is time that we start having serious discussions about this problem. Moments of silence and calls for prayer are not enough. We have been doing that. It is time for us to get serious.

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, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are bringing to the floor two bills today that I think are bad bills. But, nonetheless, they represent the thinking of the Republicans who are in charge of this Congress.

What is particularly distressing to me is that, on one of those measures, it is being brought to the floor under a completely closed process.

As I mentioned, last night, the ranking member of the Education and the Workforce Committee came before the Rules Committee to offer three germane amendments, and the Rules Committee said: No, you don't have the right to have a debate on your ideas, even though they are perfectly germane, on the House floor.

I think that is lousy. As a result, we come today and we make history. This is now officially the most closed Congress ever in the history of our country. My friends on the other side of the aisle are getting up and talking about how proud they are. They talk about bipartisanship. What they don't tell you is that most of the bipartisanship are on things that really don't mean a lot: naming of post offices and bills that pass by 435-0. On big things, on important issues, they block us. I mentioned some of the things they blocked.

I know a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle care deeply about the DREAMers, since Donald Trump decided to throw their fates into the balance. They want to do something to help these young people, many of whom came when they were 1 year old or 2 years old and know no other country as their home but this country. We tried to fix that legislatively, as the President said he wanted us to do, and the Republican majority blocked us. They blocked us.

We tried to offer an amendment again to say let's not invest a gazillion dollars on a border wall. Let's invest in our people. Let's build up our infrastructure. Let's construct the finest railway system in the United States--in the world--over the next decade. They blocked us.

We had an amendment to increase funding to fight rural domestic violence and child abuse, and they blocked us.

We had an amendment to say we need to ensure that this culture of corruption that we see in the White House doesn't grow any bigger, that the Trump family doesn't benefit from the taxpayers, they don't benefit financially from the taxpayers, and we were blocked on that as well.

Then we have been blocked on amendments to debate these wars that have gone on for years and years. The war in Afghanistan is endless. It is the longest war in American history. We can't have a debate on the floor. We are

told that it is not appropriate and that it is not the right time.

The bottom line is, what my friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is they are running this place in a very authoritarian way, basically saying: It is our way, and that is it. It is our way or the highway, and you don't matter.

Well, we have had enough. We have had enough of being shut out, and we are not going to shut up. We are not going to sit by and allow this pattern of closed rules and closed processes to continue without a protest. This is a serious matter.

For the Speaker of the House in his press conference today to get up and say, ``Oh, we have a very open house,'' I mean, where is he living?

That does not reflect the reality. Maybe Donald Trump can say those kind of things that don't reflect reality, but the Speaker of the House ought to know that today, under his leadership, this has become the most closed House ever, and it diminishes this institution and it diminishes every single Member of this institution.

So vote ``no'' on this rule. I urge my Republican friends, who care about process, who want this place to be more deliberative, to vote ``no.'' Send a message to your leadership that you have had enough.

If you want more bipartisan legislation, if you want a less polarized Congress, then open the process up a little bit. I have news for you, if you do, maybe the popularity of Congress will go up a little bit. I think we are at, like, 12 or 13 percent now. Maybe that might get you up to 15 or 16 percent. But it is the right thing to do.

This is not the way we are supposed to run a legislative body. When you do it this way, you end up with lousy legislation. Your healthcare bill was a disaster. It reflected no input from anybody. Thank God the Senate said no to it. We see the same thing going on with the tax bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so maybe we can bring up a little bit of a debate on the need for a select committee to study gun violence. But, please, vote ``no'' on this. Please send a message to the Republican leadership that enough is enough and we are tired of these closed rules.

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

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

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 607 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 Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 607 provides for consideration of H.R. 3043, the Hydropower Policy Modernization Act of 2017, and H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act.

H.R. 3043 would modernize Federal regulatory permitting processes for the licensing of hydropower projects. Specifically, the bill would designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, as the lead agency for these projects.

I am a proud supporter of an all-of-the-above energy strategy that allows for not only American energy independence, but for American energy dominance.

Hydropower should be a part of that strategy. In the Pacific Northwest especially, hydropower is a clean and reliable energy source that is particularly abundant. There is remarkable potential for the hydropower industry in this region and around the United States.

In 2015, hydropower accounted for approximately 6 percent of total U.S. electricity generation and 46 percent of electricity generation from renewable sources. However, less than 3 percent of dams in the U.S. produce electricity. That shows just how great the potential is here.

Through this legislation, we can help ease regulatory burdens and streamline the permitting process by naming FERC as the lead agency for coordinating all Federal authorizations. This will result in balanced and more timely decisionmaking and reduce the current duplicative oversight regime.

So how does this benefit the average American?

Well, having a reliable power source is essential to the world today.

Even more, this legislation also has the potential to lower energy costs and create good-paying jobs. By doing so, we can help Americans put away and keep more of their hard-earned money.

Currently, the hydropower industry employs a workforce of approximately 143,000 people, and that number would certainly rise under this legislation as we unlock our full potential.

Now, some of my colleagues have expressed concerns that this legislation could hurt the environment, so I want to address that.

First, hydropower is an entirely clean source of renewable energy. Increasing hydropower production actually helps protect the environment and promote better public health.

Second, the legislation makes clear that these permitting reforms should have no effect on this Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Those laws and their protections will remain in place.

This is simply about promoting a reliable power source, lowering energy costs, creating jobs, and unlocking the full potential of an all-of-the-above energy strategy.

Mr. Speaker, I will also note that this rule will provide for consideration of four amendments to H.R. 3043, including one minority and one bipartisan amendment.

The other bill covered by the rule is H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act. As the sponsor of this legislation, I am thrilled to see this body taking action to protect millions of jobs and provide clarity to America's workers.

Jesus said that no man can serve two masters, and there is real wisdom behind what He said as there is wisdom behind everything He said. His teachings are important every day, but that basic principle seems particularly important in the context of this legislation.

For decades, there was a commonsense legal test that determined when two or more separate businesses could be considered joint employers and held jointly responsible for the same group of employees. Employers had to share direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment. As a former labor and employment attorney who practiced in this area for decades, I can assure you this was the standard that everyone knew and appreciated.

Well, in 2015, the activist National Labor Relations Board issued a ruling

in Browning-Ferris Industries that upended this cornerstone of Federal labor law and created a vague and totally unworkable new joint employer policy.

Making matters even worse and more complicated, Federal agencies then incorporated the new standard in their regulatory agenda. Under this new standard, two independent businesses could be considered joint employers if they make a business agreement that ``indirectly'' or ``potentially'' impacts their employees. Under some of these standards, you can actually be reserved power.

Just think about the uncertainty and ambiguity this standard could cause. It is hard enough for people to even agree on what exactly those terms mean. Imagine how confusing it is for Main Street businesses to understand and follow that.

This is not some abstract issue. In fact, I have been hearing and talking with job creators and workers in my district about this for years. I have sat around the restaurant tables and heard real stories and concerns.

Bob Omainsky, the owner of Wintzell's Oyster House in my home district, had this to say about the confusion caused by the new joint- employer standard: ``If we hire an outside landscaping company to keep our lawns lush, I could be considered a joint employer if I show the landscapers where to mow. Or, if I contract a food supplier for certain ingredients, I could become part of a lawsuit if one of their workers complains about overtime pay. The uncertainty is nothing more than governmental overreach that is crippling eateries like Wintzell's and discouraging growth throughout the restaurant industry.''

This story and example is not unique to my district. These stories exist all over the country from Seattle, Washington, to Miami, Florida; and we heard a whole bunch of them in the hearings that we held in committee. This is why this bill has earned support from both sides of the aisle. This is not a partisan issue, but instead this is about protecting jobs and providing clarity to workers.

Workers shouldn't have to wonder who their employer is. They deserve better than a vague and confusing rule that the American Action Forum found threatens 1.7 million jobs. Even the Progressive Policy Institute issued a statement saying the expanded standard ``may do more harm than good.''

I also want to make one thing perfectly clear: this legislation does not remove a single worker protection. All worker protections provided by the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Equal Pay Act remain unchanged and are still available.

I also want to dispel the myth that this legislation is some departure from the norm. In fact, this legislation simply restores the agreed-upon legal standard that existed for decades.

The reality is that the new standard has created so much confusion and ambiguity that no one really knows what the law is. There are at least nine different legal tests nationwide to determine joint employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and there are more to come.

This patchwork of standards creates regulatory uncertainty, especially for job creators doing businesses in multiple States. Ultimately, this legislation is about providing clarity to workers and job creators. It is about protecting the rights of workers and ensuring employers have clarity on their responsibilities to their employees, and it is about preserving the small businesses that are the backbone of our local communities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely proud of the work that the Rules Committee has done this year and of the leadership in this Congress and how we have handled legislation.

Unlike our Democratic colleagues who would shut the doors and refuse to accept late amendments from Members, the chairman of our committee has made it a point to ensure every single Member has the opportunity to submit their amendments and come to the committee to share their thoughts and concerns.

Under this model of transparency and openness, the committee has spent countless hours listening and considering Member testimony. In fact, we have welcomed over 330 Members to testify, this Congress alone, before the Rules Committee. We have made in order 864 amendments, including 403 from Democrats, 341 from Republicans, and 120 bipartisan amendments.

Unfortunately, our friends across the aisle have become more interested in derailing legislation than actually improving legislation. For example, Democrats politicized an open appropriations process by offering poison pill amendments meant to kill legislation they had no intention of supporting, regardless of the outcome.

These tactics have fundamentally changed the way we do business. Instead of offering thoughtful ideas intended to shape a measure, their dilatory tactics are for one purpose and one purpose only: to score political points.

The Rules Committee will not let these political games get in the way of fulfilling the promises we made to the American people who elected this majority. That is why the chairman of our committee has made it a priority to listen to all Members. I would ask all of you who come to the Rules Committee to watch our committee listening to all Members.

We are also committed to moving the majority's progrowth agenda forward. As a result of our efforts, we have had a record of success in this House. To date, we have passed almost 400 bills out of the House.

This further underscores that the House is here to work, we are here to serve, and we are here to get results. But the proof is in the facts. John Adams said: ``Facts are stubborn things.''

As of November 7 of this year, in just the first session of this Congress, we have provided for the consideration of 864 amendments on the House floor. Under Speaker Pelosi, during the entirety of the 111th Congress, both sessions, she had only made in order 778. You tell me who has an open House and who had a closed House.

There is no shame on this side at all. There is great pride in the work we are doing for the American people, and we are not going to let anyone get in the way of our making sure that we fulfill the promises we made.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse), a distinguished member of the Rules Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, when I was giving the statistics earlier, I left one very important one out. I can't believe I forgot this.

Of the almost 400 bills we passed in this House this year, 80 percent of them have been bipartisan. So this record production of bills we have had in the House this year has benefited both sides of the aisle as we have

worked together to come up with commonsense policies for the American people.

I am very proud of that work and that progress we have made in this House. The gentleman from Minnesota acted as if this bill, the Save Local Business Act, is something to benefit big companies, but let me tell you who I, and virtually all of us who are supporting this bill, have heard from: small businesses in our districts that are begging us to pass this bill.

I have had dozens of meetings in my own district. I know of hundreds of meetings that have been held across the country between Members of this House on both sides of the aisle and small businesses in their districts that say: Please pass this bill.

This isn't for the big businesses in America. This is for the small, Main Street businesses in our communities and for the people who work there.

At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Norman), one of the newest Members of the House who has already made a distinguished mark here.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and very proud of the bipartisanship that we have had in this House this year to pass all these bills. Let me note just two very substantive bills, one last week and one today.

Last week, we passed a bill that got rid of this IPAB group that is going to take money, is proposed to take money out of Medicare. It was cosponsored by 45 Democrats, and dozens and dozens of Democrats voted for it on the floor last week. Today, this Save Local Business Act is bipartisan in its sponsorship and, I predict, on the vote of the floor today.

Now, how important is that? Let me read to you just a few of the organizations that support this bill: the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Asian American Hotel Owners Association, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace, the Coalition to Save Local Businesses, The Latino Coalition, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Manufacturers, National Council of Chain Restaurants, National Retail Federation, U.S. Travel Association, the Capital Research Center, Generation Opportunity, Heritage Action for America, Hispanic Leadership Fund, the Independent Women's Institute for Liberty, the James Madison Institute, the National Taxpayers Union, the Tea Party Nation, Food Marketing Institute, National Franchisee Association, National Apartment Association, Retail Industry Leaders Association, and the Workplace Fairness Institute, and I could have dozens and dozens more.

The truth of the matter is, these are very important bills that we bring before this floor, and most of them are bipartisan. The ones we have today are bipartisan bills.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to you that this House has a lot to be proud of, of the great work we have done this year, and I am most proud of the fact that, in most of those cases, we have been working together.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when we adopt this rule later on this afternoon, when we adopt my bill, let me tell you who is going to be happy. Tens and tens of thousands of small businesses and hundreds of thousands of their employees across America, that is who is going to be happy.

And you know what, we are not here to make ourselves happy. We are here to make the people who sent us here and expect us to do their business, we are here to make them happy, and we are going to make them happy today, as we have done over and over again this year, by passing legislation that works for them, not for us.

So there may be some unhappiness in the room because we haven't made every little amendment in order for this floor, but we have made the amendments that matter to the American people, and, more importantly, we passed legislation that matters to the American people, and I am very proud of that, and the American people, indeed, are happy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very open process. At the beginning, you recognized me for an hour and I gave, as is customary, half of my time to the other side so that they could present their side.

In our committee, the Rules Committee, we let anyone who wants to come--any Member who wants to come and basically say whatever they want to say for as long as they want to say it. We don't really have any rules in the Rules Committee because we want to have it so open, we want to give everybody such an opportunity, that we let everybody come and say whatever they want. Then we take it all into account and we make some amendments in order and some not.

Because we have done our job so well this year, we have had so many bills in the House--and the House has passed them all--that this House is just about a record-breaking House in terms of what we are passing. Yes, our friends over in the Senate haven't passed a lot of them. I don't think the American people like that. I think the American people want the Senate to get to work like the House has been at work.

This is important work, and we are here to do it and not play games. The bills that are under this rule are very important bills.

I have heard a lot about climate change. The gentleman may suggest that people on our side of the aisle don't understand science. I am not a scientist, but I do understand climate change. I do understand from the people who are worried about it, and a lot of people are legitimately worried about it. The only thing you can do about that is to have alternative sources of energy.

Hydroenergy is one of those sources. You don't release any carbon molecules in the air when you generate electricity using water. So one of the bills addresses that.

The other bill--my bill--the Save the Local Business Act, is a very important bill, a bipartisan bill. There are bipartisan sponsors on this bill. As I said earlier, there are tens of thousands of businesses around America and hundreds of thousands of employees of those businesses that are aching for us to pass this bill.

So far from being small things that don't matter--by the way, saying nice things about teachers isn't a small thing. I think it is a big thing. These are important pieces of legislation, and I am proud of the work that this House has done to make sure that we consider them and pass them.

Mr. Speaker, I again urge my colleagues to support House Resolution 607 and the underlying bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Republican effort to roll back the joint-employer rule that the Obama administration promulgated. This joint-employer rule is an attack on workers, and it is an attack on franchisee businesses.

For people watching, Mr. Speaker, understand that when a franchisor, the big headquarters, tells a franchisee, ``You have got to do every single thing we tell you. You basically work for us. We are going to tell you the size of the sandwich. We are going to tell you the kind of oil to use. We are going to tell you how to schedule your workers. We are going to, basically, control your enterprise, though you are supposed to be an independent business,'' the Obama administration said, ``We are going to treat you as if you are joint employers.'' So if there is wage theft or there is unfairness on the job or some problem that comes up with workers, then the big company, the headquarters, will also be held responsible for solving the problem.

What the Republicans do today, Mr. Speaker, is say: ``No, we might impose all these conditions on you per the franchisee agreement, but, if there are problems, it is going to be your problem, franchisee.''

This is absolutely unfair. As workers are going all over this country trying to get higher wages, this is a whole movement for them to get livable wage for people who work every single day at our fast-food chains. They are going to their local franchisee owners to ask for those wages.

But if the franchisor says: ``You can't pay any more than this. We are going to restrict you in multiple number of ways. We are going to make you sell food items at a cost that you can't even sustain, like the dollar menu''--those things cost more than a dollar, folks. But if the big headquarters says you have got to charge a dollar as a promotion, then the franchisee has to eat that.

But when workers need more money, the big company makes that impossible, and then workers are left holding the bag along with the franchisee.

The joint-employer rule, holding both sides responsible for those wage thefts to pay for hours, these things make a more fair process and require the big headquarters to take responsibility as well.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this. This is an antiworker bill. This is an anti-small business bill, which is somewhat surprising to me, given that my friends on the other side of the aisle say they are for small business, but, really, they are just for big business. If you have any doubts about that, all you have got to do is look at this tax bill they are putting out there.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record this letter from United Steelworkers urging a ``no'' vote on the joint employer bill.

United Steelworkers,

Pittsburgh, PA, November 1, 2017.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: On behalf of the 850,000 members of

the United Steelworkers (USW), I strongly urge you to oppose

H.R. 3441, the ludicrously named ``Save Local Business Act''.

The bill has virtually nothing to do with small businesses

but will greatly restrict the definition of employer under

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Targeting a National Labor Relations Board decision,

Browning-Ferris Industries, H.R. 3441 is not only drafted to

repeal a decision where the employer tried to avoid

collective bargaining responsibilities through

subcontracting, but radically changes the Fair Labor

Standards Act. Currently, under the FLSA, employers cannot

hide behind labor contractors or franchisees when they set

conditions of employment. H.R. 3441 strips nearly a century

of workforce protections to give large employers almost

unfettered ability to hide from long established employer

responsibilities.

The rise in temporary or precarious work in the United

States is fast becoming an unfortunate norm in the economy. A

recent study on the rise of temporary employment found the

proportion of American workers engaged in ``alternative

work'' jumped from 10.7% to 15.8% in the last decade. When in

the last decade 94% of net job growth is in the alternative

work category, workers continuously find themselves unable to

seek remedy for their grievances or an ability to

collectively hold their ultimate employer accountable. H.R.

3441 will accelerate the growth of job-instability as

employers will be able to manipulate the system to avoid

collective bargaining by hiring temporary employees or

contractor employees.

Congress' responsibility to American workers in this time

of rising income inequality and precarious work must be to

improve access to collective bargaining and stop employer

circumvention of U.S. labor laws, not to weaken them. H.R.

3441 strips workers of another tool to hold their employers

accountable. A vote for this legislation is a vote against

working people and the right to democratic representation in

the workplace. I urge you to vote no on H.R. 3441.

Sincerely,

Leo W. Gerard,

International President.