H.Res. 71

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

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

I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck) for extending me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we are only one month into 2017; and today we have another closed rule or, as I call them now, Putin rules. This is the kind of process they have in Russia: no amendments, no debate, no nothing, completely shut down. It is your way or the highway.

This is not the way the United States House of Representatives, the greatest deliberative body in the world, should be run. This is shameful. I have very serious concerns about the road that we are traveling down, Mr. Speaker.

The 115th Congress is only a few weeks old, and we have already ushered in a process that is alarmingly restrictive. Sadly, it has become routine in this Republican House for the majority to close down the process, rush bills through the House without regular order, enforce the rules for Democrats but not for Republicans, and insist on spending all of our time on partisan legislation instead of working together to find bipartisan compromises and solutions to the real problems facing American families and workers.

Mr. Speaker, today's legislation makes clear that the Republicans are eager to repeal protections put in place to help the American people. We should be working to expand opportunity for hardworking families and strengthen safeguards to put the American people first, not corporations, not wealthy CEOs, not big donors, and not special interests, but the people ought to come first.

Today is another sad day. We are engaged in what I would call mindless legislating. While my Republican friends say they want to repeal needless regulation--something that we all want to do--the process my Republican friends have embraced, to put it gently, is reckless. No matter what you think of a particular regulation, or rule--or, in many cases, they are protections--no matter what you may think of a particular regulation, there is no denying that these rules that my Republican friends are bringing to the floor to repeal went through a vigorous process that took months and months, and even years to complete.

They went through agency review. They went through a lengthy comment period, oftentimes thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people weighed in on the pros and cons of a particular idea. But the idea that we would just erase them with the blink of an eye, no hearings, no markups, nothing, it is a mindless way to legislate and a disturbing way to govern.

The ``act first and think later'' approach was on full display with President Trump's Muslim ban. It was so hastily enacted that his own Secretary of Homeland Security didn't even know that the President was signing the executive order until he saw it on cable news. The Trump White House did such a poor job of briefing the Federal agencies charged with enforcing the policy that airports across the country were caught completely off guard, and there was widespread confusion and chaos about how to carry it out.

That is what happens when you don't embrace a process that is thoughtful. You get confusion, you get chaos, and you usually get bad policy.

The mindless approach to governing by Republicans continued this week. On Monday, President Trump announced that, for every new regulation passed, two regulations must be repealed. That is it. No details on what kind of regulations would be repealed, or why they would be repealed. This is a blind shotgun and arbitrary approach to our Nation's laws. We shouldn't be dumbing down the way we govern. The American people deserve better from their leaders in Congress, and I think they deserve better from their leaders in the White House.

Now, when this legislation came before the Rules Committee the other night, there were plenty of questions. The hearing went on for a long time. Lots of the questions came from my Republican friends. And I will tell you, the chairman's answers were not always that enlightening. I think maybe some more hearings would have helped. But in response to some of these objections, namely, did the bill undergo any review by a committee, one of my Republican friends--and it may have been the gentleman from Colorado--said: We don't have time. We don't have time for hearings. We have so many regulations that we want to repeal.

Don't have the time for a hearing? Don't have the time to understand what we are doing? I thought that was part of our job. We were supposed to deliberate. We were supposed to read the bill. We were supposed to understand the impact of the actions that we may or may not take in this Congress. That is our job.

The American people have given us the responsibility to take the time to do our job right and to carefully consider the laws we pass. To say that we don't have time for hearings and deliberation--never mind, we don't have time to allow an open process where people might want to offer amendments--is ridiculous. It is shameful. And I will tell my Republican friends, stand up to your leadership on this. This is not the way this House should be run.

So as we consider the repeal of the NICS rule, we should remember that Congress has failed to take any meaningful action on gun violence at all. We have massacres on a regular basis in this country. All we do is we have a moment of silence. That is our response. We have a high rate of suicides in this country due to gun violence. It is something we ought to talk about. And I think that the NICS rule is a commonsense, responsible gun safety measure that could potentially save the lives of thousands of people in this country. I think Congress has the responsibility to keep our families safe, not remove safeguards that help prevent gun violence.

Far too many have lost their lives to preventable gun violence. This rule is intended to keep firearms out of the hands of those suffering from severe mental illness. That is a commonsense idea that I think we all should agree on. In 2007, President George W. Bush signed a bipartisan bill to identify individuals ineligible to possess firearms because of severe mental health issues. This rule allows for a reporting method to ensure that the law is implemented effectively.

It is intended to save lives. Every year in the United States, more than 21,000 people kill themselves, and mental illness is also an important factor. A gun is used in the majority of these cases. The people listed on NICS are the 75,000 dealing with the most severe mental illnesses. These are people who need help, not access to a dangerous weapon like a gun.

I think this rule is a critical step, but we must close the online gun show loopholes, and we must ensure universal background checks. I think we ought to bring to the floor a bill that says that if the FBI and our security agencies have put you on a terrorist watch list and think that you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, then you ought not to be able to go out and buy a gun.

But under the way this House is run, we can't even bring those things to the floor for a debate. The Republican leadership and the Republican Rules Committee blocks it so that there can't be real deliberation on the House floor.

When people ask me all the time, Why can't you have a debate on this, or why can't you have a vote on it, I have to explain that the House Rules Committee, run by nine Republicans, says

no to everything, says no to every idea that they don't absolutely embrace. And that is not the way Congress should be run.

Mr. Speaker, even if you disagree with me on the value of this rule, I think it is an important enough issue that there ought to have been a hearing. There ought to have been that opportunity to deliberate and to talk about it and what the impacts are. But no, nothing. We don't have the time. So here we are.

Mr. Speaker, the other bill before us is a naked attempt by Republicans to undo anticorruption rules. The rule that they are so upset about would require energy companies on the U.S. stock exchange to disclose payments they make to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

Now, there are reasons for this. It is important that there be transparency. We heard all about the plans to drain the swamp, but President Trump and the Republicans are doing all they can to turn the swamp into a cesspool.

Putting aside all of his conflicts of interest that, I think, are on a collision course with corruption, I mean, repealing things like this, is just a bad idea. The Republicans in Congress are trying to roll back regulations like this one that are aimed at increasing transparency and fighting corruption.

ExxonMobil heavily lobbied against this rule. And now, with former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson on the cusp of becoming our country's new Secretary of State, Republicans are proposing to kill this anticorruption rule that benefits Big Oil. That is reckless, and it is irresponsible.

When this rule was enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank bill in 2010, the Big Oil lobbies strongly fought against it in court, but Congress fought back to assert America's traditional role as a global leader in fighting corruption. American leadership delivered results. The European Union promptly moved to enact nearly identical legislation, as did Canada with support of its global mining companies.

But now, Big Oil is back seeking repeal of the rule so their payments can be kept secret from the American people. They claim they will be at a competitive disadvantage to foreigners, or they will have to reveal commercially sensitive information.

But with Europe and Canada in the same disclosure system, the playing field is now level and the companies already filing have suffered no commercial harm, nor revealed vital secrets. The fact is, this won't cost a single American job, and the only thing oil companies will need to do differently is report their numbers.

Aside from Big Oil, those most eager to repeal this rule are autocrats in places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela--with oil wells, gas fields, or copper mines--who want to keep the money secret from their citizens. Why should we do their bidding? Why should we be in league with them?

On top of that, this rule is our most affordable and effective way to fight corruption abroad. We cannot afford to betray our own principles and severely undercut our allies in Europe and Canada. It would cost countless lives over the long run and endanger our security. We need to put American interests first, ahead of the special interests, ahead of the corporate interests, and retain that important rule.

Obviously, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the repeal of these two rules, but you got to do what you got to do. But I urge you to vote ``no'' on this rule.

And I ask you to vote ``no'' because it should be a principle vote.

This place is becoming so closed up, so restrictive, that this is not a deliberative body anymore. We are not talking about things anymore. It is basically whatever the leadership wants, whatever Donald Trump wants, you bring to the floor, rubber stamp it, and that is it.

I don't care what political party you are in, nobody who got elected by the people of this country should stand for that kind of process.

With that, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

With regard to the NICS bill, I have a very different version of history than the gentleman does, including one that represents a bipartisan compromise with the Bush White House.

So I have a very, very different recollection of history than he does on that. And on the other bill, it is all about corruption, and it is all about giving Big Oil what they want.

At the end of the day, the two interests that are most happy with the repeal of this rule are Big Oil and Russia. And if that is where we believe that we ought to be using our energy to help then go ahead and vote to repeal it. But again, I think that this process speaks for itself.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, and, if they do, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Lofgren's bill to overturn and defund President Trump's immoral, unconstitutional, and discriminatory executive order banning Syrian refugees and suspending immigration from certain countries.

President Trump's executive order flies in the face of our Nation's values. It compromises our national security by providing terrorist groups with a recruiting tool. This executive order needs to be overturned, and, if we defeat the previous question, we will bring up legislation to do just that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren) to discuss our proposal.

Does the gentleman have any other speakers?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, as my distinguished colleague, Ms. Lofgren, stated, we want to defeat the previous question because we are horrified, quite frankly, by the impact that President Trump's executive orders on immigration have had on a lot of good, decent people, many of whom have already been vetted. We have students who have been held up who have student visas, we have dual citizens who have been caught up in this mess, and we have people coming to get human rights prizes. I could go on and on and on, but we need to correct this. We are better than this.

I would suggest to my Republican friends, rather than circling the wagons to try to defend the indefensible, they ought to join with us and defeat the previous question so that we can actually do the right thing and overturn this narrowminded, misguided, and discriminatory policy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the gentleman from Colorado if he has additional speakers or is that the speaker we were waiting for?

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

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I am not sure where to begin, because I have heard so many fascinating things here today.

The distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee said we are here today to enunciate the rules. I don't know what there is to enunciate. The only thing to enunciate is this is a closed rule. It is yet another closed rule. There is no opportunity to have any real deliberation, no real discussion. On top of that, there were no hearings on any of this stuff.

No matter what your position is, I have to be honest with you, listening to the gentleman, Mr. Massie, just speak, I think it would have been nice if the Judiciary Committee could have actually had a hearing on this and maybe delved into some of the issues that the gentleman raised.

When people say that there is no due process, I would remind them that, under the rule, impacted beneficiaries are notified that this determination is being considered and they are provided a process to challenge that determination. Should the Social Security Administration determine that that recipient is able to safely use or possess guns, rights are restored and the person's name is removed from NICS. That is what it says.

Now, if there is a way to improve this, I am all for improving it; but by passing this measure here today, you prevent the agencies that are impacted here from ever being able to revisit the issue unless Congress deemed it appropriate.

So we are not trying to fix anything here. Basically, what we are doing is the bidding of the National Rifle Association to eliminate anything aimed at protecting people from gun violence in this country.

The gentleman from Colorado talked about the fact that his constituents want the right to protect their rights for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, my constituents want that, too, but they have a right to not have to be victims of gun violence. They have a right to protect their loved ones who may use a weapon against themselves or their family members.

But again, we can have this argument on whether or not we should do more--and I believe we should--to protect people in this country from gun violence, but that discussion ought to have happened first in the Judiciary Committee, at a minimum, not in the Rules Committee. I am on the Rules Committee. I admire the intellect of everybody on the Rules Committee, but our expertise is not on judiciary matters.

Similarly, on the other rule that is being repealed, the Financial Services Committee should have deliberated on that. I think there are some serious issues raised by repealing that rule, issues that I think go to the heart of corruption not only here in the United States, but around the world.

When the chairman of the Rules Committee got up and gave his description that somehow the U.S. oil companies are only being singled out, it makes my case why we should have had a hearing. What he just said, in my opinion, does not reflect reality.

The fact of the matter is, I looked at section 1504 of Dodd-Frank. It doesn't just require all extractive companies in the U.S. It says that all extractive companies, U.S. and foreign, listed on the U.S. exchanges are to publicly disclose the payments they make to governments for oil, gas, and mining resources.

And then, on top of that--and I said this earlier--is that other countries have followed suit. Canada and the European Union and Norway have all passed similar laws. It is not just the United States being singled out. That is just wrong. Maybe, if we had a hearing in the committee of jurisdiction, that would have been clear, and this wouldn't be a point of contention.

The fact of the matter is, it is a simple reporting requirement. It places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to or how much or for what. It has absolutely no regulatory effect on any aspect of their business operations. There is absolutely no benefit to nullifying this commonsense law unless your objective is to make it easier for corrupt elites to steal money. The rule has no regulatory impact on business operation and does not define illegal or improper payments. It is a simple reporting requirement.

There is a problem with corruption, especially in places like Russia. Now, I know with the new administration, Russia is now in, and we are all supposed to say nice things about Russia. But Russia has a terrible record on human rights, and Russia has a terrible record when it comes to corruption, and we know that. We ought to not just cave to everything that Russia wants, and Russia and Big Oil want this repealed.

So I would say to my colleagues that we can argue about the merits of all of this, and that is fine, but I go back to my original point. This is the rule, and the Speaker of the House talked about the importance of regular order. I have heard my colleagues talk about the importance of regular order. We don't have regular order. You are all out of order. We end up coming to the floor with legislation that is always under restrictive processes, and most of the time now, in this new Congress, completely closed rules. That doesn't just disadvantage Democratic lawmakers who may have some ideas or may want to raise some issues, it disadvantages Republicans who may want to come to the floor with thoughtful ideas.

I urge my colleagues to absolutely vote ``no'' on this rule because, again, we are getting into this habit where it is closed, closed, closed, closed, closed, and it undermines the integrity of this House of Representatives. It really is shameful.

Finally, I will urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we can have a debate and a vote on overturning President Trump's awful, discriminatory executive orders on immigration. It jeopardizes our national security. It was carelessly implemented, carelessly put together. It is shameful. It is unconscionable that we are confronted with the mess that we are confronted with now.

I know it is uncomfortable to talk about issues that impact the new President who is of your party, but this

is absolutely the right thing to do. And if you want to vote no on these things, vote no on them, but allow us to have the debate and allow us to have the vote. I urge ``no'' on the previous question and ``no'' on the rule.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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

H.J. Res. 41 would roll back the SEC's rule that implemented an important congressional mandate in Dodd-Frank requiring oil, gas, and mining companies to publicly disclose payments made to foreign governments for access to their natural resources.

That rule helps fight corruption in the extractive industries sector, provides investors with crucial information on their investments, and enables citizens to demand greater accountability from their governments for spending that serves the public interest. It also helps to diminish the political instability in resource-rich countries, which is not only a threat to investment but also to our own national security.

Specifically, the disclosure rule enables shareholders to make better informed assessments of opportunity costs, threats to corporate reputation, and the long-term prospects of the companies in which they invest.

In addition, opening the extractive industries to greater public scrutiny is key to increasing civil society participation in resource- rich countries, which are often underdeveloped countries that are politically unstable, rife with corruption, with a history of civil conflict fueled, in part, by natural resources.

Moreover, the SEC's rule is a reasonable disclosure and places no limits or restrictions on who companies can pay money to, how much, or what for. After 5 years of robust debate and input, the final rule accommodated a number of industry concerns, providing companies with a generous 4-year phase-in period and a case-by-case exemption process for companies that face implementation challenges. The SEC also allowed companies to comply with the disclosure by using a report prepared for other substantially similar disclosure regimes, which include regimes in the European Union and Canada.

Nevertheless, Republicans continue to claim that the SEC's rule is harmful and puts American companies at a competitive disadvantage to their foreign competitors.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they are entitled to their own set of opinions, but they are not entitled to their own set of facts. I suppose these are alternative facts.

The truth is that U.S. companies are not the only ones required to make these disclosures. Many foreign companies must report under the U.S. rules, including a number of state-owned oil companies, such as China's PetroChina and Sinopec, and Brazil's Petrobras.

Also, after the SEC issued its initial rule in 2012, the rest of the world followed our lead, establishing a global standard for the public disclosure of extractive payments companies make to governments.

A wave of transparency laws have been adopted in foreign markets that mirror the U.S. law. This includes legislation in the European Union, Norway, and Canada, which are all now in force. These laws cover the vast majority of oil, gas, and mining companies that compete with U.S. firms.

Now, leading global oil companies like BP, Shell, and Total, as well as Russia's state-owned companies--Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil--are entering their second year of reporting under EU rules without any negative impact.

So contrary to Republican claims, U.S. and foreign companies already compete on a more level playing field here and abroad. Therefore, rolling back the SEC's disclosure rule would directly undermine the interests of extractive companies in having a level playing field.

Worse, once the rule is nullified by this resolution, the SEC would not be able to put another rule in place that is substantially similar. This would create different reporting regimes directly contravening what companies have requested from the SEC. And, the SEC final rule accommodated industry concerns by including a generous phase-in period. U.S.-listed companies are not required to report until 2019. The rule also provides for case-by-case exemptions if covered companies face any implementation issues.

Therefore, the rule does not put U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage, nor does it impose an unreasonable compliance burden.

I would also point out to my Republican colleagues the importance of the SEC's disclosure rule in protecting U.S. national security and energy security interests.

Specifically, it helps protect U.S. national security interests by helping prevent the corruption, secrecy, and government abuse that has catalyzed conflict, instability, and violent extremist movements in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond.

As ISIS demonstrated, nonstate actors can benefit from trading natural resources in order to finance their operations. Project-level disclosures in the rule will make hiding imports from nonstate actors more difficult, thereby limiting their ability to finance themselves with natural resource revenues.

Corruption and mismanagement of oil revenues destabilizes regions and leads to conflict. And, resource-rich countries like Venezuela, Iraq, and Angola are considered to be among the top ten countries perceived to be the most corrupt according to Transparency International.

In addition, transparency of Russian companies and its extractive industry is critical. The SEC's rule would create transparency of Exxon and other company payments to the Russian Government. Gazprom, Rosneft, and Lukoil are already disclosing under the U.K. rules, and BP has already reported payments to the Russian Government. The SEC's disclosure rule will make a crucial contribution as Russian citizens seek to follow the money received by their government.

A vote to roll back the SEC's resource extraction disclosures would be a vote to abandon U.S. leadership in the fight against global corruption.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.J. Res. 41.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn B. Maloney), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Capital Markets on the Financial Services Committee.

I yield the gentlewoman an additional 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster), a member of the Financial Services Committee and of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Trade on the Financial Services Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano), a senior member of the Financial Services Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?

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

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

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

Include a number of articles in the Record. One is a Bloomberg article, entitled: ``Exxon Set for Early Victory As Congress to Rescind Payments Rule.'' The other one is a Politico Magazine article that says: ``Tillerson tried to get this rule killed. Now Congress is about to do it for him.'' The other article is a Washington Post article: ``One of House GOP's first targets for regulatory rollback is tops on the oil industry's wish list.''

[From Bloomberg Government, Jan. 30, 2017]

Exxon Set for Early Victory as Congress To Rescind Payments Rule

(By Catherine Traywick)

For years the oil industry has appealed to the executive

branch and courts to de-fang a U.S. rule forcing Exxon Mobil

Corp., Chevron Corp. and other producers to disclose their

payments to foreign governments.

Now, the Republican takeover in Washington is handling it

for them.

The House of Representatives is set to vote this week on

killing a Securities and Exchange Commission edict that

requires publication of overseas payments by oil, natural gas

and mining companies. The industry says the rule, part of the

2010 Dodd-Frank act, gives global rivals a competitive edge.

Backers say it will help keep payments to foreign nations in

government coffers, not private pockets.

``To roll it back would be a complete abdication of U.S.

initiative and leadership on issues of corruption,'' said

Daniel Kaufmann, president of the Natural Resource Governance

Institute, an International transparency watchdog.

The SEC rule, set to take effect next year, is one of a

series of Obama administration regulations Republican

lawmakers are trying to reverse using the Congressional

Review Act, a law that allows Congress to undo regulations

with a simple majority vote.

Congress also plans to vote this week to kill rules curbing

methane venting and mountain-top mining. To do so, both

chambers must pass a resolution disapproving the rules, which

the president would then have to sign. While President Barack

Obama would have reliably vetoed such resolutions, President

Donald Trump is likely to sign it.

Trump argues that curbing regulations is key to unleashing

investment by U.S. companies. He pledged to rescind two

existing regulations for each new one that's issued.

``The SEC's rule forces U.S. companies to disclose

proprietary information to its competitors while foreign

entities do not. This can give some large industry players an

advantage on future business projects,'' the American

Petroleum Institute, an industry group, said in a statement.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy pledged in a Wall

Street Journal op-ed, to ``take the ax'' to the SEC rule,

which he characterized as ``an unreasonable compliance

burden.''

Transparency advocates dismiss that argument, pointing out

that the European Union and U.K. already require such

disclosures from some of Exxon's biggest competitors. BP Plc,

Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell are among those that annually

report taxes, bonuses and other payments to foreign

governments.

U.S. Advantage

Because Exxon and Chevron aren't listed on the European

exchanges, they don't have to comply with the EU disclosure

rules. That may give them an edge over other oil majors who

must report project-level payments, critics say.

In its 2015 disclosure to the UK, Rosneft reported $29.8

million in payments to the Russian Federation, Vietnam,

Brazil and Norway. In the same year, BP reported $15.2

billion in payments to 23 countries, Total disclosed $16.7

billion to 44 countries, and Shell reported $21.8 billion to

24 countries.

The idea behind the measure is simple: If foreign oil

companies disclose payments of $1 million to the government

of Country X, then the lawmakers and citizens of Country X

will know that $1 million should show up on the country's

budget. If less shows up, that means it has been diverted for

private use.

ExxonMobil and Chevron say they support financial

transparency in the oil sector. Both are members of an

advisory committee under the Interior Department that

oversees a voluntary corporate financial disclosure program.

sec comments

In comments to the SEC, the companies say they would

support a version of the regulation that protected company-

specific data. They argue that the current SEC rule would

make available potentially valuable company information to

state-owned competitors such as Saudi Aramco and Cnooc Ltd.,

neither of which are subject to the disclosure rules.

The American Petroleum Institute successfully challenged an

earlier version of the rule in court, forcing the SEC to

rewrite it.

API asked the agency to consider a reporting model that

detailed payments by resource type and production method--

omitting company-specific data. But, the SEC didn't adopt

that approach.

``The SEC largely ignored industry's comments,'' said Exxon

spokesman Bill Holbrook. While the final rule included

exemptions for acquired companies and exploratory activities,

it ``remains based on the EU's model and likely will

adversely affect the ability of publicly-traded companies to

compete globally,'' he said.

A Chevron spokesperson did not respond to a request for

comment.

pattern of behavior

Transparency advocates say they're concerned that the

repeal effort is part of a pattern of behavior among

Republican lawmakers.

``The GOP that tried to gut the ethics committee is trying

to gut a critical anti-corruption law,'' said Jana Morgan,

director of the advocacy group Publish What You Pay. ``It

sends a really disturbing message.''

The planned vote is generating tension among members of the

anti-corruption advisory committee on which Exxon, Chevron

and API sit. The panel, made up of representatives from

government, industry and civil society, publishes an annual

report detailing U.S. government revenues from the oil,

natural gas and mining industries, as well as voluntarily

reported payments made to the U.S. government from companies

in those sectors.

Civil society members of the committee say Exxon's

opposition to the SEC rule jeopardizes its standing on the

panel. At a meeting on Wednesday, members will discuss

whether Exxon, Chevron and API should keep their seats at

all.

``I really have to question whether it's appropriate for

companies like Exxon and Chevron and API to continue to sit

around this table,'' said Zorka Milin, an attorney with the

anti-corruption group Global Witness, and a member of the

advisory committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely surprised at how brazen our friends on the opposite side of the aisle are. They come here on this floor today with this rule that they would like to overturn. They have not been in committee. We have not had any hearings. They have moved very, very quickly to do exactly what all of these articles are discussing. They are concentrating on how to roll back disclosure that the SEC had developed a rule for for the oil industry.

And why are they trying to do this?

It is so interesting that this is happening on the same day that Mr. Tillerson has just been voted on to be the Secretary of State for the United States Government, the former CEO of Exxon; and I am going to talk about that connection, which should cause a lot of people to be concerned.

This government is not about disclosure. First of all, the President of the United States refuses to disclose his income tax returns. I didn't expect them to support disclosure of the oil industry to avoid corruption.

As a matter of fact, they have the audacity to come here today and say that it is too expensive to be honest. It costs too much money to these huge billionaire oil companies to disclose, and somehow that is going to prevent them from creating jobs. That is nonsense.

I would like to just show some connections here.

Both during his campaign and since his election, Donald Trump has surrounded himself with people who have extensive ties to Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government, and then we are going to see the connection between Tillerson and the Russian Government. First of all, let's look at this circle of people around him and their connection to Russia.

Paul Manafort, Trump's former campaign manager, was a paid lobbyist for Viktor Yanukovych, the pro-Russian politician in Ukraine who fled to Russia in 2014 and was subjected to U.S. sanctions related to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Manafort has also been involved in multimillion-dollar business deals with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs, which were reportedly the subject of an FBI inquiry.

The other person, Roger Stone, Trump's longtime friend, is reportedly under investigation for possible links with Russia. He has denied ever visiting Russia but admitted he had worked in Ukraine. Stone announced in a speech last summer that he had spoken to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and Stone predicted that there would be additional leaked documents, a prediction that came true within weeks.

Let's go to another person. Michael Flynn, Trump's National Security Adviser, did a paid series of events in Moscow, including a speech and appearance at a party for RT, a Kremlin-funded TV station, where he was photographed sitting next to Vladimir Putin.

Trump's nominee for Secretary of Commerce, Wilbur Ross, was a business partner of Viktor Vekselberg, a Russian oligarch and Putin ally, in a major financial project involving the Bank of Cyprus.

Finally, former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, Trump's nominee and now the person who has been voted by the Senate for Secretary of State, signed a multibillion-dollar agreement with Russia in 2011 on behalf of ExxonMobil for an oil drilling project in the Arctic. The project was brought to a halt in 2014 as a result of the sanctions that were imposed on Russia in response to Russia's aggression in Ukraine.

Putin personally awarded Tillerson the Order of Friendship in 2013. Don't forget, this President talked about lifting sanctions. Oh, you can see the connection here.

In addition to that, I just want to point out that it comes as little surprise that ExxonMobil is one of the leading companies in the fight against the global initiative to enhance the transparency of extractive industry payments made to foreign governments, given its long history of engaging in questionable transactions with governments of oil-rich countries such as Nigeria, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Angola, and Chad.

The move to eviscerate the rule issued under section 1504 that we are talking about here today makes clear that Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration believe that profits are more important than people and that fighting corruption is less important than enriching oil, gas, and mining companies.

Without the SEC's extractive industry transparency rule, citizens around the world will lose a critical tool for holding their governments and corporations accountable for how natural resource proceeds are used.

Let's talk about Nigeria. Just days before the Securities and Exchange Commission issued its final rule pursuant to section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, Global Witness, a highly respected and good governance NGO, issued a report detailing how a major oil deal, as I referred to earlier, struck by ExxonMobil with the Nigerian Government, was being investigated by Nigeria's Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, an agency charged with uncovering high-level corruption.

The investigation relates to a widely reported deal in which the Nigerian Government in 2009 agreed to renew a

40 percent share of three oil licenses from Mobil Producing Nigeria, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ExxonMobil. This is all about the billionaires. Just follow the dollars and you can see what this is all about.

Little town, America, needs to know that this is not about them. This is about these billionaires, and they will go to any extent to continue to steal from them.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 71 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, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of the rule and the underlying resolutions.

Before us is a resolution of disapproval that restores constitutional rights and empowers individuals with disabilities. Many of us know someone who struggles with a disability. We know friends or family who have mental challenges. We know these people, and we know they deserve the same constitutional protections as everyone else.

That is why this resolution is so important. It ends discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It restores due process rights. It keeps the Social Security Administration focused on its duty.

Mr. Speaker, the Obama administration's last-minute regulation to strip disability benefit recipients of their constitutional rights is deeply troubling.

The regulation at hand declares that just because an individual needs assistance in managing their disability benefits, they are also unfit to own a firearm. But this kind of thinking is discriminatory, forcing those with disabilities to choose between their constitutional rights or their disability benefits turns back the clock on disability rights.

This regulation singles out a single constitutional right to strip away from a group of Americans. It doesn't make sense.

Why take away one right and not others? Why not also strip those citizens of the right to vote or the right to trial by jury or the right to free speech?

In this country, your rights can't be limited without due process, but this regulation limits a constitutional right and only offers the recourse of appeal after the decision has been made. When it is easier to have your rights stripped away than to have them restored, it means your due process rights have also died in the process.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores the due process rights of individuals with disabilities. This resolution also refocuses the Social Security Administration. The agency's job is to administer benefits to Americans, not adjudicate cases concerning constitutional rights.

Mr. Speaker, I am also worried that this regulation will divert precious Social Security Administration resources from vital agency tasks. We trust the agency to fulfill our commitments to seniors and those with disabilities. This regulation distracts from those sacred promises.

I thank Mr. Johnson and my colleagues for their hard work on this resolution. We need to pass it.

Mr. Speaker, we also need to pass the joint resolution of disapproval for the Dodd-Frank section 1504 regulation. This resolution restores competitiveness to American energy companies. It allows American companies to comply with foreign and domestic laws, and it protects American workers abroad.

Section 1504 of Dodd-Frank requires companies to report their payments to our government or foreign governments related to oil, natural gas, and mineral extraction. After reporting this to the SEC, the agency publishes these disclosures. This process is costly and unfair to American businesses.

By forcing disclosure of project-level sensitive business information, American energy companies will face a disadvantage against government-owned energy companies. Since government-owned companies control three-quarters of the world's oil supply, this regulation could drastically impair the competitiveness of American companies. And the actual cost of compliance limit, estimated by the American Petroleum Institute to take 217,000 employee hours over a 3-year period, would be devastating.

Section 1504 must also be rolled back because it might force American companies to break the law of foreign countries. Some foreign nations prohibit the very disclosure requirements

required by this SEC regulation. Our companies should not have to decide between following the rule of law here and following it abroad.

Finally, by forcing such detailed and specific disclosures to the public, section 1504 could make energy extraction sites prime targets for terrorists. Whether in the U.S. or abroad, we need to wisely protect American workers from terrorism and other threats.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution restores competitiveness to American companies, allowing them to contribute to the global energy economy in a safe, secure, and legal manner.

It is time for Congress to reassert its authority and fix this poorly implemented legislation.

I commend the work done by Representative Huizenga and my colleagues on this important resolution, and I urge its passage.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I appreciate my colleague from Massachusetts raising the issue of a thoughtful process and whether this legislation was rushed to the floor.

I think it is worth noting that the original legislation, which this rule seeks to amend, became law in a time when my colleague was in the House and his party was in the majority. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 was introduced in the House on June 11, 2007.

The bill was moved by Congressman Conyers under suspension of the rules and passed by the House on June 13, 2007. There was no markup in the Judiciary Committee. There was no meaningful debate on the floor. The bill was rammed through the House in 3 days without any thought to the potential consequences of its passage. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent.

I did not see others standing up to leadership at that point in time. In its implementation, we are seeing the consequences. They involve the stripping away of constitutional rights and due process rights. They involve the elimination of due process rights. They involve discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

As for the point that this rule that we are now debating somehow encourages corruption, the fact is that this regulation puts U.S. companies at a competitive disadvantage to state-owned entities abroad that are not subject to SEC regulation.

Additionally, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars in compliance costs for U.S. businesses. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act already prohibits bribes to foreign governments to obtain or retain business. These are legitimate payments being made to foreign governments, the payments that we are discussing here, and we should still prosecute any corruption to the full extent of the law.

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

I am waiting for one. I do not have a speaker now, but the gentleman's eloquence would be welcome at this point and any way that the gentleman would like to inform us on important issues.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments before I close, and then I would like to recognize the chairman for additional comments.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for being here today and just reinforce some of what the chairman had to say.

As I travel Colorado, I hear from individuals of all walks of life about the regulatory burdens that they face, the burden that has been placed upon them by their own government and how those burdens have impeded their life, liberty, and certainly pursuit of happiness. Small- business owners who would not open their business today because of the change in the business climate find that their tax burden, their regulatory burden, and the attitude of Federal regulators is such that they would choose a different path had they had to do it all over again.

I talked to school administrators who are, again, facing a pile of paperwork to comply with school and nutrition requirements that have been promulgated by this previous administration.

I talk to veterans who have to wait on long, long lines and fill out ridiculous paperwork because the Veterans Administration is unable to recognize the necessity, the importance of what those veterans are trying to accomplish at the VA. I am deeply concerned about the regulations, and I am proud that my colleagues have decided to address some of these regulations in the way that they have. I appreciate the chairman standing up on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Massie).

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

I thank the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Kentucky for their remarks, and I appreciate the insightful remarks from the gentleman from Massachusetts. I am troubled right now. I am struggling to remember--as the gentleman describes Russia with its terrible record on human rights, I am trying to remember exactly who it was who had the reset button with Vladimir Putin, and I don't think it was the Trump administration. I could be wrong.

Mr. Speaker, America has come so far in advancing the rights of those with disabilities. We have also fought long and hard to protect our constitutional rights. The rule before us achieves both of those ends. The Obama administration's last-ditch effort to strip constitutional rights from individuals with disabilities must not stand. We also cannot stand for regulations that place American companies at a disadvantage and place their workers at risk.

The rule before us will undo the costly and dangerous reporting requirements placed on America's energy companies operating abroad. When we repeal this unwise regulation on American energy companies, they can again fully contribute to the world's energy economy.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support for this rule and the underlying measures.

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

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

Former President Obama was never a champion of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. He fought to deny Americans their constitutional rights throughout his whole 8 years in office. In fact, on his way out the door, former President Obama finalized a rule that discriminates against individuals with disabilities and that deprives law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights. Under this rule, certain Social Security disability beneficiaries, who also need help, would be stripped of their Second Amendment rights. More specifically, their names would be reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

Mr. Speaker, just because someone has a disability does not mean he is a threat to society. Furthermore, needing help to manage your benefit does not make you dangerous; but you don't have to take my word for it as the disability community has also raised serious concerns with regard to this rule.

The National Council on Disability, which is the independent agency that is charged with advising Congress and the President on disability policy, said:

``There is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own, possess or use a firearm.''

In addition, Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record many letters of support I have received for my bill from one of the disability community's Second Amendment groups and civil rights groups and others.

National Council on Disability,

Washington, DC, January 24, 2017.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,

Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan: I write on

behalf of the National Council on Disability (NCD) regarding

the final rule the Social Security Administration (SSA)

released on December 19th, 2016, implementing provisions of

the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, 81 FR 91702. In

accordance with our mandate to advise the President,

Congress, and other federal agencies regarding policies,

programs, practices, and procedures that affect people with

disabilities, NCD submitted comments to SSA on the proposed

rule on June 30th, 2016. In our comments, we cautioned

against implementation of the proposed rule because:

``[t]here is, simply put, no nexus between the inability to

manage money and the ability to safely and responsibly own,

possess or use a firearm. This arbitrary linkage not only

unnecessarily and unreasonably deprives individuals with

disabilities of a constitutional right, it increases the

stigma for those who, due to their disabilities, may need a

representative payee[.]''

Despite our objections and that of many other individuals

and organizations received by SSA regarding the proposed

rule, the final rule released in late December was largely

unchanged. Because of the importance of the constitutional

right at stake and the very real stigma that this rule

legitimizes, NCD recommends that Congress consider utilizing

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal this rule.

NCD is a nonpartisan, independent federal agency with no

stated position with respect to gun-ownership or gun-control

other than our long-held position that restrictions on gun

possession or ownership based on psychiatric or intellectual

disability must be based on a verifiable concern as to

whether the individual poses a heightened risk of danger to

themselves or others if they are in possession of a weapon.

Additionally, it is critically important that any restriction

on gun possession or ownership on this basis is imposed only

after the individual has been afforded due process and given

an opportunity to respond to allegations that they are not

able to safely possess or own a firearm due to his or her

disability. NCD believes that SSA's final rule falls far

short of meeting these criteria.

Additionally, as NCD also cautioned SSA in our comments on

the proposed rule, we have concerns regarding the ability of

SSA to fairly and effectively implement this rule--assuming

it would be possible to do so--given the long-standing issues

SSA already has regarding long delays in adjudication and

difficulty in providing consistent, prompt service to

beneficiaries with respect to its core mission. This rule

creates an entirely new function for an agency that has long

noted that it has not been given sufficient resources to do

the important work it is already charged with doing. With all

due respect to SSA, our federal partner, this rule is simply

a bridge too far. In fact, it is conceivable that attempts to

implement this rule may strain the already scarce

administrative resources available to the agency,

further impairing its ability to carry out its core mission.

The CRA is a powerful mechanism for controlling regulatory

overreach, and NCD urges its use advisedly and cautiously. In

this particular case, the potential for real harm to the

constitutional rights of people with psychiatric and

intellectual disabilities is grave as is the potential to

undermine the essential mission of an agency that millions of

people with and without disabilities rely upon to meet their

basic needs. Therefore, in this instance, NCD feels that

utilizing the CRA to repeal the final rule is not only

warranted, but necessary.

Regards,

Clyde E. Terry,

Chair.

Mr. Speaker, we need to put a stop to this rule now. That is why I introduced H.J. Res. 40, along with Congressman Abraham, to overturn this rule and make sure the constitutional rights of individuals with disabilities are protected.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' and pass this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Abraham).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith).

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Renacci).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Walorski).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Arrington).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

Mr. Speaker, having no other speakers, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

This is about constitutional rights of individuals with disabilities. Just because someone has a disability does not mean they are a threat to society. Furthermore, needing help to manage your benefits does not make you dangerous.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record additional letters of support.

American Association of

People with Disabilities,

Washington, DC, January 26, 2017.

Hon. Paul Ryan,

Speaker of the House,

Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,

Office of the Democratic Leader,

Washington, DC.

Dear Speaker Ryan and Democratic Leader Pelosi: The

American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) urges

you to support a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to

disapprove the Final Rule issued by the Social Security

Administration (SSA) on December 19, 2016, ``Implementation

of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.'' This rule

would require the Social Security Administration to forward

the names of all Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)

and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefit recipients who

use a representative payee to help manage their benefits due

to a mental impairment to the National Instant Criminal

Background Check System (NICS).

AAPD is a national disability rights organization that

works to improve the lives of people with disabilities by

acting as a convener, connector, and catalyst for change,

increasing the economic and political power of people with

disabilities.

Prior to the issuance of the Final Rule, AAPD conveyed its

opposition to the rule to the Obama Administration. We, and

many other disability rights organizations, opposed the rule

for a number of reasons, including:

1) The damaging message that may be sent by a SSA policy

change, which focused on reporting individuals who receive

assistance from representative payees in managing their

benefits to the NICS gun database. The current public

dialogue is replete with inaccurate stereotyping of people

with mental disabilities as violent and dangerous, and there

is a real concern that the kind of policy change encompassed

by this rule will reinforce those unfounded assumptions.

2) The absence of any data suggesting that there is any

connection between the need for a representative payee to

manage one's Social Security disability benefits and a

propensity toward gun violence.

3) The absence of any meaningful due process protections

prior to the SSA's transmittal of names to the NICS database.

Although the NICS Improvements Act of 2007 allows agencies to

transmit the names of individuals who have been

``adjudicated'' to lack the capacity to manage their own

affairs, SSA's process does not constitute an adjudication

and does not include a finding that individuals are broadly

unable to manage their own affairs.

AAPD urges Congress to act, through the CRA process, to

disapprove this new rule to prevent the damage that it

inflicts on the disability community and the extraordinarily

damaging message it sends to society that people with mental

impairments could should be feared and shunned.

Thank you for taking our position into consideration.

Yours truly,

Helena R. Berger,

President & CEO.

Mr. Speaker, as the ACLU said: ``We oppose this rule because it advances and reinforces the harmful stereotype that people with mental disabilities, a vast and diverse group of citizens, are violent. There is no data to support a connection between the need for a representative payee to manage one's Social Security disability benefits and a propensity toward gun violence.''

Mr. Speaker, we must act today to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities.

Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of H.J. Res. 40, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule governing debate on H.J. Res. 40, and the underlying legislation, because in a nation that leads the civilized world in deaths by gun violence, the last thing we should be doing is making it easier for persons suffering from a very severe, long-term, mental disorder that makes them incapable of managing their financial benefits and unable to do any kind of work in the U.S. economy, even part-time or at very low wages to obtain deadly firearms.

The Republicans have brought to the floor this week a Congressional Review Act (CRA) of Disapproval to overturn Social Security Administration (SSA) regulations to comply with existing federal law governing the submission of records to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

H.J. Res. 40, would vacate an important rule issued by the Social Security Administration implementing the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007.

That law, which we adopted in the wake of the tragic mass shooting at Virginia Tech, requires federal agencies to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) records of individuals who are statutorily prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.

The statute was enacted with bipartisan support, and we should stand together to defend efforts to see that it is fully implemented.

Let us be clear what a submission vote on this legislation is about: the Republican's goal is to weaken our firearms background check system.

The shootings at Virginia Tech in April 2007 presented the deadliest shooting rampage in U.S. history.

On April 16 2007, the violence began around 7:15 a.m., ending in the deaths of 32 students and teachers after being gunned down on the campus of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University by Seung Hui Cho, a student at the school, who later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Only four months prior, on December 13, 2005, Cho had been ordered by a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his roommates and was subsequently evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental health facility.

On February 9, 2007, Cho picked up a Walther P-22 pistol that he purchased online, just days before, on February 2 from an out-of-state dealer at JND Pawn shop in Blacksburg, across the street from Virginia Tech.

In March of 2007, Cho purchased a 9mm Glock pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition from Roanoke Firearms for 571 dollars.

The attack, resulting from these preventable actions, left 30 people dead and another 17 wounded.

In all, 27 students and five faculty members died as a result of the actions of a known mentally unstable individual who was nonetheless allowed to purchase a firearm.

On December 14, 2012, Lenny Pozner dropped off his three children, Sophia, Arielle, and Noah, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

Noah had recently turned 6, and on the drive over they listened to his favorite song, for what turned out to be the last time.

Half an hour later, while Sophia and Arielle hid nearby, Adam Lanza walked into Noah's first-grade class with an AR-15 rifle.

Noah was the youngest of the 20 children and seven adults killed in one of the deadliest shootings in American history.

Depending on whom you ask, there were twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight victims in Newtown.

It is twenty-six if you count only those who were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School; twenty-seven if you include Nancy Lanza--Adam's own mother; twenty-eight once Adam turned the gun on himself.

There are twenty-six stars on the local firehouse roof.

On the anniversary of the shootings, the governor of Connecticut asked churches to ring their bells twenty-six times.

Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.

To ensure the continued safety of American families, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits certain categories of individuals from possessing firearms, including those who, using outdated terminology, are ``adjudicated as a mental defective.'' (This is referred to as the ``federal mental health prohibitor.'')

The 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act requires federally licensed firearms dealers to run background checks on prospective gun purchasers through NICS.

NICS includes records from various databases on individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing and possessing firearms.

In response to the mass shootings at Virginia Tech, prior to which the shooter's mental health prohibitor should have been, but was not, reported to NICS, Congress in 2007 unanimously approved legislation to adopt the NICS Improvement Amendments Act.

As senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary and Homeland Security and Ranking Member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security and Investigations, I supported the 2016 Social Security Administration (SSA) rule, which committed the SSA to submit records to the gun background check system for social security recipients prohibited from possessing guns due to severe mental illness.

It is a critical process for enforcing the law that bars prohibited people from passing background checks and purchasing firearms.

The only way we are going to prevent guns from getting into the hands of people who should not have them, people who pose a known and documented danger to themselves and others, is through a system based on robust, accurate and complete information.

Prior to the new SSA rulemaking, the agency had no process for submitting records of prohibited people to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

NICS therefore, has been missing records for those prohibited individuals.

NICS is only as good as the records it contains.

With those records missing from the system, these individuals are able to pass a background check and complete a purchase even though they are legally prohibited from purchasing guns under longstanding federal law.

The SSA regulation closes this gap by committing the agency to begin submitting prohibiting records into the gun background check system.

The rule does not impact any beneficiaries who are not already prohibited under law, and does not impact people based on disability findings that have been made prior to the rule taking effect.

Americans have spoken and they are outraged by the countless, needless gun related deaths claiming the lives of their children.

Under the regulation, only individuals with the most severe mental impairments, who are (1) unable to earn any income due to their mental incapacity, and (2) have been found incapable of managing their own benefits meet the NICS reporting system cautionary criteria to report the names of certain individuals who are prohibited by law from purchasing or possessing firearms to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

SSA has evaluated legal, medical and lay evidence and determined that these individuals are not capable of managing their own benefits.

SSA estimates that about 75,000 people per year will meet these criteria for reporting to NICS.

Disability examiners make the determination based on medical and other evidence, but physicians or psychologists review the evidence and sign off on the cases.

An individual who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia, suffers from hallucinations and delusions, and most days cannot care for herself-- feeding, dressing, communicating with those around her.

Her symptoms and medical history meet the criteria in the listing for schizophrenia.

She receives disability benefits and has a representative payee.

She would meet the criteria for reporting.

An individual who has significant intellectual disability that prevents him from working at any level (i.e., he meets the listing for intellectual disability), and is unable to understand how to pay rent or use his benefits to buy food.

He qualifies for disability benefits and has a representative payee.

He would meet the criteria for reporting.

Placing anyone into the NICS as a ``prohibited person'' is not something we should take lightly, but it is a task that must be done in limited circumstances and as required by statute.

The circumstances addressed by this rule require that we work together on this serious and unfortunate issue.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution of Disapproval would, if passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President, deem the rule to have not been in effect at any time and would also prohibit SSA from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same.

The Republican's use of the CRA process to overturn the rule is an extreme exercise in bad governance.

Rather than fixing or improving the rule, it would ban reporting by the SSA entirely.

There would be no opportunity to simply improve aspects of the rule, and we would prevent full implementation of the law we enacted after the Virginia Tech shooting.

I cannot support that result and therefore oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Subverting long-standing gun safety laws under the guise of protecting Constitutional rights, while simultaneously pushing for repeal of health reform laws that provided care to these communities rings hollow.

Now is not the time to weaken our background checks system by excluding those with the most severe and incapacitating forms of mental impairment.

The Social Security Administration should be commended for its efforts to keep children and families safe by following the lead of other agencies and enforcing laws that have been on the books for decades.

I urge you to oppose this Republican scare tactic of a rule, and the underlying bill.