Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Republic of Azerbaijan on the 100th Anniversary of its independence, which occurred on May 28, 1918. On the adoption of its Declaration of Independence, what was then known as the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, became the first secular parliamentary democracy in the Muslim world.

Since that time, Azerbaijan suffered an invasion by the Bolsheviks which led to the establishment of a Soviet government and ended with the forced incorporation of Azerbaijan into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). As the Soviet Union collapsed, the people of Azerbaijan readied themselves for

yet another independence movement culminating in the restoration of their independence on August 30, 1991--the United States once again recognized Azerbaijan's independence on December 25, 1991. Since that Christmas Day over twenty-five years ago, the United States has supported the Republic of Azerbaijan's political independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders.

Mr. Speaker, Azerbaijan has not only been a friend to the United States in our times of need, most notably after September 11, 2001, when Azerbaijan gave us their unconditional assistance in bringing to justice those who carried out that cowardly attack, but also to our dear friend Israel. Azerbaijan and Israel recently celebrated twenty- five years of strong diplomatic relations. A relationship that has seen great growth in trade between the two nations and an ever increasing dedication to strengthening energy security in the region.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my sincerest congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan as they celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the establishment of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague, Brad Schneider, just said, yesterday we held a moment of silence for those who were killed at Santa Fe High School. I have relatives and their children who live in Parkland, so these kinds of shootings affect us all.

Everybody in this country knows that we have a gun epidemic in this country. We also know that we have a severe mental health crisis in our Nation. In my opinion, it is morally unjust for this Congress to do nothing.

I own a gun. I believe in the Second Amendment. I would stand toe-to- toe with anyone who would urge that we take guns away from people, but I will stand with anyone who says that assault weapons should only be in the hands of military and police.

I cannot understand how we continue to have these moments of silence and return to doing nothing. We don't have all of the answers, but we do have some of the answers, and to do nothing is morally bankrupt and legislative malpractice.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying measures that are in this combined rule are matters of substance that do need to be addressed, and I will get back to it in a moment.

Several of my colleagues will join me today in recognizing a historic moment in this particular body in this great country of ours.

Madam Speaker, let me recognize that tucked inside this rule is the majority's 83rd and 84th closed rules of this Congress--and we are just in May--with more to go.

That is a historic number because it makes the 115th Congress the most closed Congress ever. My Republican friends have made history for all the wrong reasons.

But we should not let this milestone go unrecognized right from the very beginning, because it is a sad point in this Chamber's history. It is why we have ignored virtually every major issue the public cares about. It is why this Congress can't get anything done. It is why we are so dysfunctional.

It is clear to me that the majority has turned a deaf ear, which is absolutely shameful. Please know this: 1,793 amendments offered by Members of this body have been denied.

When I came to Congress in 1992, there was an echo chamber from the right talking about the Democrats' closed rules. Quite frankly, at that time, I did not understand that dynamic. I arrived here, and during that particular session of Congress, we did have open rules, but there were closed rules as well.

When Nancy Pelosi was last Speaker, we had 12 open rules. This Speaker, our now lame-duck Speaker, up to this point, has been and is the only Speaker of the House of Representatives never to have an open rule. What that means is not just Democrats have been shut out but Republicans have been shut out.

Day in and day out, night in and night out, in the Rules Committee, Members offer up meaningful suggestions to this Congress, and they are denied. That is not denying the Member of Congress; it is denying the people those persons are here to represent and who expect them to advance measures that are pertinent to their respective communities.

There will be Members who will talk about the shamefulness of the kinds of amendments that have been denied.

This particular measure authorizes $647 billion in base budget authority for defense programs in the coming fiscal year, as well as an additional $69 billion in overseas contingency operations.

The legislation comes on the heels of the bipartisan budget agreement signed into law in February, which increased the budget caps for defense and nondefense spending for 2 years.

The legislation provides, rightly, a 2.6 percent pay raise for Active-Duty troops, the highest such raise in 9 years. It strengthens the Military Health System, provides assistance to local educational agencies servicing military dependent students, and improves the Transition Assistance Program to provide servicemembers better tailored resources and information as they prepare to enter civilian life.

I was glad to see that this NDAA establishes a prescription drug monitoring program in order to prevent opioid abuse within the military, a proactive step that will help our country combat drug addiction.

What is important about this particular measure is the chairman, Chairman Thornberry, and the ranking member, Adam Smith, have worked together, along with the members of the Committee on Armed Services, to

produce a bipartisan product. It proves it can be done.

This is a bipartisan measure, and most Members in this body will have amendments that will be made in order and will have an opportunity to present their ideas how to better sustain military readiness. That is as it should be.

But there are members of the Committee on Armed Services who belong to other committees of jurisdiction. In those committees of jurisdiction where few hearings are held, no bipartisan effort is undertaken, they are shut out just as well as the rest of the members of the other jurisdictions.

Every jurisdiction in this Congress should be bipartisan and should have input from both parties.

And I find it passing strange that I hear voices saying that Democrats are obstructionists. Obstructionists of what? We can't even get amendments made in order.

The only thing we have left that we can do is voice our objection to the kind of closed process that we have witnessed during this particular session of Congress. I hope the American public understands how much their Members are being denied an opportunity to represent them.

In terms of military readiness, the fiscal year 2019 NDAA dedicates substantial funding toward cutting-edge military capabilities and countering emerging threats through investments in cyber and space. The bill includes funding for thousands of additional Active-Duty troops and authorizes important funding for military construction and infrastructure.

You know what it doesn't include and what it won't? There will be Members who will offer that we have an Authorization for Use of Military Force. Seventeen years have passed since we have had a new Authorization for Use of Military Force. Congress should be declaring war, not Presidents.

And it doesn't mean this President. The three or four before him operating in this Congress were allowed to go forward under the aegis of a 17-years-ago Authorization for Use of Military Force.

I was also pleased to see an improved commitment to Historically Black Colleges and Universities in this year's package--schools that are critical to ensuring a pipeline of highly skilled, diverse college graduates into the United States Armed Forces.

This bill also takes significant steps to support our allies. It provides $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative and declares that it is the policy of the United States to counter Russian influence campaigns.

The bill also imposes additional sanctions on Russia for violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, and it renews authority in the war against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and fully funds Israeli missile defense partnerships.

Madam Speaker, there is a lot that we can be proud of in this NDAA. Unfortunately, despite all of these important investments, there are a few provisions in this bill that raise serious concerns.

I have already spoken to the failure to pass a new military-use-of- force measure. The one that we have is overly broad, and Members have never had an opportunity to vote on a new one, even as we commit to military engagements overseas.

Members on both sides of the aisle agree that an up-or-down vote on a new AUMF is long overdue. So this is the time and the place to do it. My colleague Barbara Lee, I am sure, and my colleague on the Rules Committee Jim McGovern, I am sure, are going to offer measures that will accomplish that.

I am also particularly alarmed that this legislation repeals the Federal ban on military production of low-yield nuclear weapons. Repealing this 15-year ban and pursuing low-yield nuclear warheads for submarine-launched ballistic missiles will have significant ramifications for global security.

Additionally, the NDAA includes a number of provisions targeting DOD's fourth estate, which refers to nonmilitary portions of the Department of Defense. These provisions affect human resources, information systems, and other important services that affect the day- to-day lives of our servicemen and -women as well as national readiness.

Under this bill, these offices are targeted with an unrealistic and unnecessary spending cut, setting up a sequester-like automatic 25 percent reduction to critical support functions.

Madam Speaker, this brings me to the second measure, the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.

Under the pretext of providing relief to community banks, this bill rolls back important financial and consumer protections and provides a giveaway to large Wall Street banks, allowing them to skirt enhanced regulations aimed at protecting our economy from another financial crisis.

The third measure, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, exposes more patients to harm and further sidelines the Federal Drug Administration's ability to oversee investigational treatments than the bill passed by the House in March.

In fact, during the Rules Committee hearing in March, Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Walden and Health Subcommittee Chair and fellow Rules Committee member Burgess had reservations about this measure, which is why the House took up the more narrowly focused bill in the first place.

Madam Speaker, last Friday, there was another school shooting. Again, America watched in horror as students and teachers fled their classrooms from a murderous gun rampage. Again, community leaders and government officials offered thoughts and prayers. Yesterday, we offered a moment of silence. Again, calls for stricter gun control laws and heightened school security returned.

We all know that this will happen again to our young people. And for that reason, I can state emphatically and without fear of having to correct the Record that the Republican leadership of this House has not only abdicated their responsibility to the American people and our children but their common sense as well.

No other country in the world has as many guns, as many homicides, or as many mass shootings as we do. There is simply no more time to waste. We need to be considering a ban on bump stocks. We need to be considering a ban on assault weapons.

And don't anybody tell me we can't ban assault weapons. We did that when I first came to Congress. We banned assault weapons, and the kind of mass killings we have seen went down after we did that.

We need to be considering protective orders allowing people to petition the court to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis. We have seen evidence of that working when Florida passed its law. One week after that law went into effect, a person had his guns removed who would have been a harm to himself and to others.

We need to be considering comprehensive background checks, and we can't stop there. We need to increase access to mental health services. We need to eliminate the feeling in this country that seeking help carries with it some sort of stigma.

We need to learn to recognize the danger signs and offer a clear course of action. We need to teach students about conflict resolution.

And we need to do more about civility in this Nation, in this House. And we should be its leaders, not standing and offering a moment of silence and returning to do nothing, as we have done, shooting after shooting, mass shooting after mass shooting, in this country.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Ted Lieu), a member of the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Cicilline), a member of the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about but that have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Madam Speaker, just to respond briefly to Mr. Burgess, it is a good thing that they made a handful of amendments in order that added up to 1,000. If we went through it, they would look like studies and things that were not significant; but when it came to the healthcare measures or when it came to tax reform, not one amendment by a Democrat was made in order.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut

(Ms. DeLauro), who is a member of the Appropriations Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.

Madam Speaker, may I ask how much time both parties have remaining.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee), a member of the Financial Services Committee, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed rule and the real people affected by the GOP shutting down our democratic process.

Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to bring up Representative Sarbanes' bill, H.R. 20, the Government by the People Act.

This legislation would overhaul our broken campaign finance system and return to a government of, by, and for the American people.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes), who is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to discuss our proposal.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gonzalez), a member of the Financial Services Committee, to continue the discussion of commonsense issues that we all care about but have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), my good friend, a former member of the Committee on Rules who is now a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, to discuss the commonsense issues that we all care about that have been blocked during this closed Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, my good friend, who also serves on the Committee on Agriculture, to discuss the significance of this record-breaking closed Congress and real people affected by these closed rules.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 30 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional 15 seconds to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, I ask how much time I have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise the gentleman from Texas that I am prepared to close if he is.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the American people to look at this chart. Rules under Speaker Ryan: structured rules, 44 percent; closed rules, 56 percent; open rules, zero. That is what we are talking about.

As with all bipartisan measures, this NDAA has many things to like and some provisions that are causes for concern, but it did demonstrate that there can be bipartisan cooperation in order to safeguard our national security, and that should be the case in every one of the jurisdictional undertakings here in Congress.

I commend the committee for once again tackling such a major legislative package, but sadly, this approach is far and away the exception to the rule around here.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, we have a moral responsibility to address gun violence in this country. Gun violence has overtaken our country. We have a moral responsibility to every child who now attends school thinking about, not if a school shooting will happen, but when it will happen to them. This responsibility is not owed to them at our leisure, it is not owed to them next month or next week or tomorrow, but today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great privilege to rise today to commend Mr. Roger DeHart, a devoted public servant who walked more than 1,000 miles from Fort Lauderdale, Florida to Washington, D.C., in order to raise awareness about human trafficking.

Roger is a Deputy Officer in the Broward County Courthouse. He began training for this walk six months ago, and after pooling his vacation time, he set-off from the steps of the Broward County Courthouse to the steps of the U.S. Capitol.

Human trafficking is a form of modern-day slavery and the United States is one of the top destinations in the world for trafficked victims. Centers of tourism, including Florida, are major destinations for human trafficking victims--many of whom come from our own communities and schools. Florida now has the third highest rate of trafficking in the country, and Broward and Palm Beach Counties rank first and fourth respectively for in-state incidences of trafficking.

We are seeing a disturbing trend of victims being targeted at schools, where traffickers use force, fraud, or coercion to control victims and subject them to compelled labor or commercial sex acts. One year ago, I led members of the South Florida Congressional Delegation in urging the Palm Beach County and Broward County Public Schools systems to incorporate human trafficking education into their curriculums in order to push back against this horrific crime.

Mr. Speaker, I am awe inspired by Roger's activism and dedication to raising awareness about an issue that is taking place in our community and in every state across our nation. Roger deserves a debt of gratitude for all that he is doing to bring about real change, and working to end human trafficking once and for all. It only takes one person to make a difference. I thank Roger for being an unsung hero to so many, for his service to our community and to our nation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my great honor to rise today and recognize the achievements of Coach Robert A. Green, also known as ``Pompey.'' Coach Green, a world-class runner, Army veteran, and Athletic Director at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, touched countless lives over the course of his distinguished career and represented the best of men, known by all for his generosity, kindness, and caring of his athletes.

Coach Green was born in Fort Myers, Florida and attended Dunbar High School. He was considered the fastest football player in his graduating class of 1949. He attended Allen College in Columbia, South Carolina, on a full football scholarship, where he obtained four Southern Intercollegiate Athletic Conference Championships in the 100-yard dash and became the first runner from Allen to run in the world famous Penn Relays in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. After school, Coach Green joined the United States Army, receiving numerous awards, medals and commendations for achievements. While serving in the military, he tied the world record for the 100-yard dash at 9.3 seconds.

Coach Green began working at Dillard High School in Fort Lauderdale in 1957. He served as the Track Coach, Department Chair and Athletic Director over a 35-year career. He was the first African American Coach to attend the Broward County Coaches Clinic for Track Coaches, allowing Dillard High School to participate in the County's Integrated Track Meet in 1967.

He is also the founder of the Panther 100 Club. This innovative and vast booster club has donated over $100,000 to the academic and athletic clubs of Dillard High School. These funds have afforded numerous unique opportunities for the children of Dillard High School, including trips to Alaska, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C. Coach Green is a member of the National Negro, Allen University, Florida High School and Dillard High School Halls of Fame. The tracks of Dillard High School and Dunbar High School are named in his honor and his football jersey, No. 4, is retired from use at Dunbar High School.

Mr. Speaker, Coach Robert A. Green is more than deserving of recognition in the annals of American History for his service to our country, and his dedication to the education, mentoring, and the personal development of the youth of Dillard High School. I thank him once again for his years of service.

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

I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes for debate.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate the rule for consideration of this measure, H.R. 3053.

As my good friend alluded to, this legislation has bipartisan support and takes an important step towards permanently securing nuclear waste in our country.

Thirty-six years ago, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In doing so, this institution created a formal process for constructing a permanent geological repository for the growing amount of nuclear waste across our country.

This particular provision established a scientifically based, multistage process for selecting an eventual site of permanent storage for highly radioactive nuclear waste, delineated the Federal Government's responsibilities for the transportation of spent nuclear fuel, and created a dedicated funding source for disposing of nuclear material.

Five years after passing the NWPA and following significant congressional review of the Department of Energy studies, it was determined that the facility be built at Yucca Mountain. However, after many subsequent years of planning, licensing, and construction, the project has stalled--at a cost of tens of billions of dollars.

The question of how to dispose of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste has been an ongoing problem in our country for decades. Even with the statutory requirements put in place by the NWPA nearly four decades ago, no permanent solution is currently available for safely storing high-level radioactive waste in a consolidated, secure location. Rather, spent nuclear fuel is stored at nuclear reactors across the country. Many of these facilities have been shut down, or soon will be, without any solution to the long-term problem.

For obvious reasons, the issue of nuclear waste storage at plants across the country is of great concern to the surrounding communities, especially as some nuclear plants are shuttered early. The longer we wait, the greater the problem will become.

H.R. 3053, the underlying legislation, directs the Secretary of the Department of Energy to create a program to consolidate and temporarily store commercial spent nuclear fuel during the development, construction, and initial operation of a national repository. The legislation provides the Energy Department with consolidated storage options to help fulfill the Federal Government's obligations to take possession of spent nuclear fuel in other States that are waiting for a permanent repository.

This bill, although I have some concerns, is a good step forward. This is a complicated issue, and I believe this institution has come together to present at least a viable option for addressing a very serious need.

Mr. Speaker, in taking up this legislation, the Rules Committee has acted for the second time in just a few weeks to bring bipartisan legislation to the House floor. While the bill we are debating today is certainly not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through compromise and bipartisan cooperation. This type of process should not be the exception to the rule. It should be the standard operating procedure for the House of Representatives.

I mention this because we all know this is, by and large, not the case. Instead of working together, we have witnessed dozens of controversial and partisan bills pushed through the House through a closed process designed to silence the minority and even voices within the Republican majority. That is wrong, and for the sake of this institution, it cannot continue.

Using the closed process, my Republican friends recently pushed through one of the largest tax giveaways in American history. They did so at the expense of middle class families across the country, passing the bill without so much as a single hearing or bipartisan conversation.

According to the latest survey by the National Association for Business Economics, the massive tax cuts have not made any difference in businesses' hiring plans. Rather, almost every week, we hear of corporations using their millions of dollars in handouts to buy back stock and pad the pockets of their investors. It is no wonder most Americans haven't seen their paychecks go up.

In a few years, when the tax breaks expire--that is right, they are only temporary--the few families across the country who benefit will recognize the tax scam for what it really is: an empty bag of goods that added nearly $2.5 trillion to the national debt.

My friends on the other side are even contemplating paying for part of their tax plan by retroactively eliminating funding for a number of programs, and the children's healthcare program is one of them.

Let me say that again. In order to pay for the tax cuts for millionaires and large corporations, my Republican colleagues are suggesting cutting billions of dollars from healthcare programs for vulnerable children.

How dare they.

The closed process isn't just about what is being rammed through the House; it is about what is being blocked altogether.

Americans across our Nation continue to be victims of gun violence, yet Congress has failed to pass even basic commonsense reforms like banning bump stocks or fixing our background check system.

More than 26,000 children and teens have been killed in gun violence since 1999. This year alone, 500 teens and over 100 children have been killed or injured by guns. People are killed every single day, and this body has done nothing but prevent sensible reforms from even being considered.

Another example is DACA. Eighty-three percent of Americans say they favor continuing the DACA program, as do a majority of the Members of this House, and that includes Republicans and Democrats; yet the majority refuses to bring up the Dream Act for a vote.

Just put it down here for a vote; that is all. The 26 measures for guns that are reasonable, put it down here for a vote. If it doesn't pass, then at least we can say to the American people that we tried to do something about gun violence and we tried to do something about the Dream Act.

Mr. Speaker, it is our responsibility to the American people to consider legislation in a transparent and serious manner, and the legislation that we are considering today is exactly that kind of situation, something that doesn't happen nearly enough. I commend my colleagues for their bipartisan work on H.R. 3053, but it is absurd that bipartisan work is such a rarity, and that is worthy of comment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, few people in this body understand the dynamics of Yucca Mountain as do the Members from the State of Nevada. One of my good friends is on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and I have had the pleasure of being on the Rules Committee and hearing her make presentations with reference to this matter. She speaks very clearly.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Titus).

I yield the gentlewoman from Nevada an additional 1 minute.

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

When debating a bill as significant as this one, it is imperative that the people's House allow as much debate and as open a process as possible. Sadly, the Rules Committee did not even allow all Members from Nevada, whose State this bill will impact the most, to offer their amendments on the House floor.

Once again, this majority picked winners and losers and limited debate to just a select few amendments. This is unfortunate but all too common an event during the 115th Congress.

To block a Member from offering an amendment to a bill that would impact their district, in particular, is to block a Member from representing their constituents. I might add, there were five Members, Democratic and Republican, from the Nevada delegation who were present at the Rules Committee last night.

Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I am going to offer an amendment to the rule to allow the people's House to debate and vote on Representative Rosen of Nevada's amendment, which was blocked by the Rules Committee.

Her amendment, which is a thoughtful proposal, would delay licensing, planning, or construction of the nuclear repository at the Yucca Mountain site until the Director of OMB studies the economic viability and job-creating benefits of alternative uses of the Yucca Mountain site.

It is bothersome to me that we have had most of the discussion here already without talking about reprocessing; and I asked last night how much research is being done, of the distinguished chairman of the committee, who, I believe, has done an incredibly good job in offering up bipartisanship.

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.

As I said previously, the members of the Nevada delegation know more about this issue than all the rest of us combined. So to discuss our proposal, yet another clear voice that came to the Rules Committee last night and her amendment was not made in order.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Rosen), a member of the Armed Services Committee, and the Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), my good friend, who serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and is a former member of the Rules Committee, so she understands our process extremely well and has done extraordinary work on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to close by again commending the committees involved in presenting this legislation, and for doing so in a bipartisan manner.

While the underlying bill we are debating today is not perfect, it is, nonetheless, an example of what can be accomplished through bipartisan work.

In bringing up this bill, the Republican leadership has, perhaps, tipped its hand. It has demonstrated that it is capable of working with the minority and allowing for mature debate and compromise worthy of this institution. I hope this trend continues. I suspect that it will not.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question and the rule, and 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 rise today to honor the life and legacy of my very dear friend, Mr. Cyrus ``Russ'' M. Jollivette. I was fortunate to have known Russ for many years. His untimely passing is a true loss for the State of Florida.

Russ was born on August 5, 1946 in Miami, Florida to Frances Reeves Jollivette Chambers and Cyrus M. Jollivette, Sr. He is the brother of two sisters, Regina Jollivette Frazier and Cleo Leontine Jollivette.

He held a bachelor's degree in Business Administration from C.W. Post College, a Masters of Business Administration in Management from Long Island University, and a Juris Doctor from the University of Miami's (UM) School of Law.

Russ dedicated himself to the advancement of higher education, health access and services, and public service. While well-known for his 24 years of service at UM, and his 12 years of service at Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Florida, there are many other organizations, educational institutions, nonprofits, and community groups that Russ started, chaired, or directed.

Russ committed himself to creating and supporting educational opportunities for students in Florida and beyond, at colleges and universities from the University of Miami to St. Thomas University, Florida A&M University, Florida International University, University of Florida, University of North Florida, Barry University, Jacksonville University, Eckerd College, and community colleges throughout the state.

He also played a major role in the world of health, seeking support for several hospitals and medical schools, and especially children's hospitals and schools of nursing throughout Florida. He had served as the Chairman of the Dade Public Health Trust, and always sought support for the Children's Hospital at the University of Miami/Jackson Memorial Medical Center, the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, part of the University of Miami Health System, as well as cancer centers throughout Florida.

Additionally, Russ played a role in the world of philanthropy. He directed relations for the UM Foundation for decades and directed the BCBS Florida Blue Foundation. He was responsible for hundreds of millions of dollars reaching education, health, community, and nonprofit initiatives.

Russ was a special leader in the world of higher education and public service, and a leader in the African American community. Everywhere he went, he made a positive impact on those around him.

Fond memories of Russ will forever remain with his daughter Lynn Jollivette Johns, and his two beautiful grandchildren, Richard Franklin II and Lauren Marie.

Mr. Speaker, I was truly honored to have known Russ and to call him my friend. He was kind and generous person, who was always giving back. I know that Russ' spirit and loving memory will always live on. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this extremely difficult time. He will be dearly missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of my dear friend Lottie Albert. Lottie was born on December 25, 1915 to Eva and Louis Wernick in New York City. Twenty-one years later, Lottie married Sol Albert and the two enjoyed 55 years of marriage, and have two lovely daughters, Harriet and Doreen. Lottie was the loving grandmother to Eric, Glenn, and Lowell, as well as a great-grandmother to Kyle, Samantha, Heather, and Seth.

Lottie was a resident and community leader of Broward County for over 40 years. It has been my honor to see Lottie's commitment and passion for serving her community. She was an amazing individual, who dedicated herself to helping so many throughout South Florida.

In 1988, she was inducted into the Area Agency on Aging's Dr. Nan S. Hutchinson Broward Senior Hall of Fame. Additionally, Broward County honored Lottie in 2005 by declaring November 12th as ``Lottie Albert Appreciation Day.''

In 2012, Lottie was inducted into the Broward County Women's Hall of Fame for her work with the Ann Storck Children's Center, the Elderly Interest Fund's MEDIVAN Program, and the Alzheimer's Family Center.

Mr. Speaker, Lottie was an extraordinary friend. She helped me at every stage of my career, never wavering, never faltering. On good days and bad days, I knew Lottie would be there for me as she was for so many of us. Her advice, wisdom, humor, and vast knowledge of life will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mourn the passing of my dear friend, Lottie Albert.

Lottie was born on December 25, 1915, to Eva and Louis Wernick in New York City. Twenty-one years later, Lottie married Sol Albert. The two enjoyed 55 years of marriage and have two lovely daughters, my friends, Harriet and Doreen. Lottie was the loving grandmother to Eric, Glenn, and Lowell, as well as the great-grandmother to Kyle, Samantha, Heather, and Seth.

Lottie was a resident and community leader of Broward County for over 40 years. It has been my honor to see Lottie's commitment and passion for serving her community. She was an amazing individual who dedicated herself to helping so many throughout south Florida.

In 1988, she was inducted into the Area Agency on Aging's Dr. Nan S. Hutchinson Broward Senior Hall of Fame. Additionally, Broward County honored her by declaring November 12 as Lottie Albert Appreciation Day.

In 2012, Lottie was inducted into the Broward County Women's Hall of Fame for her work with the Ann Storck Children's Center.

Mr. Speaker, Lottie was an extraordinary friend of mine. She helped me at every stage of my career, never wavering, never faltering. On good days and bad days, I knew Lottie would be there for me, as she was for so many of us. Her advice, wisdom, humor, and vast knowledge of life will be sorely missed.

Mr. Speaker, it is kind of good to see a Floridian in the pro tempore chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate this rule. Last night at the Rules Committee, we had the opportunity to hear from Chairman Kevin Brady of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee, Lynn Jenkins, and the ranking member of the Oversight Subcommittee, John Lewis, about this legislation.

They discussed--hey, America, listen to this--the bipartisan nature in which they worked on this issue to craft legislation that they hope can achieve strong bipartisan support in this body.

It came out of committee 38-0.

H.R. 5192 protects young children and recent immigrants from synthetic identity theft, a type of fraud that involves combining a legitimate Social Security number with a fake name in order to create a new synthetic identity. One in every 10 children have fallen victim to this type of threat. Research has shown that children's identities are stolen at a rate of 50 times more frequently than adults, resulting in children and families shouldering unforeseeable debt and a flawed credit history that is extremely difficult to clear.

Mr. Speaker, in a refreshing change of pace, this measure, as I indicated, had a 38-0 vote coming out of the markup in committee and included input from Democrats, the IRS, and consumer protection advocates.

Unsurprisingly, as I have indicated, it came out of committee overwhelmingly with all 16 Democrats voting in favor. The bipartisanship reflected in this bill is certainly a rarity in this body and, frankly, could have easily come before us under suspension of the rules.

It is now painfully obvious what the Republican majority's playbook is. My friends across the aisle can work in a bipartisan manner if they want to, but when it comes to major issues facing our country, like taking away healthcare from 23 million Americans or handing a $1.5 trillion tax giveaway to America's wealthiest citizens, they would rather force through partisan legislation written in back rooms with little to no expert analysis, similar to the farm bill that is about to come out here sometime in the not-to-distant future.

While it is certainly refreshing that we are working in a bipartisan manner for a change, protecting children and families from identity theft is not the only bipartisan priority. These reforms are just as pressing as protecting our children from gun violence, providing relief for hard-working, young Dreamers, and debating the use of military force overseas--or how about an infrastructure bill of consequence and real immigration reform.

Sixty-eight percent of Americans say Congress must do more to reduce gun violence. More than a million Americans took to the streets across the country to march for our lives and to urge Congress to take action to reduce gun violence. I had the honor of sitting on the stage on that day, and I was never as proud as I was of the children from Broward County, where I am privileged to serve, or from around this Nation, and their friends and allies, parents, loved ones, and constituents who came from all over the country here, as well as to events in a significant number of locations around the country.

207 members of Congress, including 14 Republicans, are sponsoring H.R. 4240, the Democratic Representative Mike Thompson's bill that would give States the resources to help them submit information to the background check system. One hundred Members of Congress, including seven Republicans, are cosponsoring the Gun Violence Restraining Order Act, which will allow family members or law enforcement officials to petition a judge to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis. We had that example in Florida after it passed its law. Immediately, a family came to the sheriff's office to have weapons taken from a person in crisis.

Has the Speaker brought these bipartisan measures to the floor for a vote? No. The Republican majority has refused to take up even the most basic commonsense legislation to help mitigate the epidemic of gun violence facing this country. My friends across the aisle have even refused to address the use of bump stocks, a reform whose need is agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans, including the President. Fortunately, in the State of Florida, it did pass in the last session of the legislature.

Mr. Speaker, just last year, 34 House Republicans signed a letter to Speaker Paul Ryan urging him to bring forward a permanent legislative solution for the Dreamers, these young, hardworking individuals who are stuck in legal limbo. But despite this bipartisan support, not to mention the support of 90 percent of the American public, the Republican majority continues to block the Dream Act, ignoring the calls of the vast majority of Americans.

It is time for the Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress to stop playing politics with the lives of Dreamers and come to terms with the fact that their long anti-immigrant wish list is not going anywhere fast.

Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives is a place where the issues facing our Nation should be addressed and solved in a bipartisan manner, similar to this legislation. It is a sad state of affairs for the Nation that Congress has continued to sit idly by while the executive branch further engages our military in conflicts overseas without congressional authorization.

Republican leadership's refusal to allow a robust debate on the efficacy of an authorization of the use of military force for our presence in Syria is not only a dereliction of duty but does a great disservice to the country and our Constitution. If the President, any President, intends to further involve American troops in the Syrian conflict, or any conflict, then Congress has not only the responsibility but also the constitutional authority to lead that conversation.

Despite across-the-aisle support for these pressing problems, we are not here today debating the rule to address gun violence in America. We are not here today debating the rule to protect Dreamers from being removed from our

workforce or being deported to countries of which they have no knowledge. We are not here today debating the rule for the use of military force in Syria. We are not here today discussing immigration reform. We are not here today discussing an infrastructure measure that is desperately needed.

When I came to Congress in 1992, there were 14,000 bridges in this country in need of repair. Today there are 54,000 bridges in this country in need of repair. But we are not discussing that here today. Instead, we are using floor time to discuss a bill that could have easily been considered on the suspension calendar, and I predict that, had it been on the suspension calendar, 435 Members, or as many as assembled, would have voted unanimously in favor of the measure today as they would if it were on the floor at this particular moment.

Are my friends across the aisle intent on running out the clock before the midterm elections? Is that what the American people have to look forward to over the next 7 months? The people who sent us here deserve bipartisan solutions to the pressing problems confronting this great Nation. Not next month. Not next week. Not tomorrow. But today.

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

Mr. Speaker, through you, I would advise my friend that I have no further speakers, and I am prepared to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to my friend from Alabama, and he indicated that the action that was just undertaken over the weekend by this administration was ``something,'' and I maintain that it was under an old Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Listen, one of the reasons Congress won't undertake to debate an authorization for the use of military force, which I would urge my friend would give us a strategy if we had that debate and at least the administration would have Congress' input with reference to the use of military force--we can't continue to have pin pricks at the whim of any President. I argued the same thing during the Obama administration, and I argued it during the Clinton administration.

What we have done is abdicate our responsibility in Congress when it comes to war. And if you think it isn't war, then ask the 500,000 people who are dead as a result of this measure undertaken in Syria, not just by the United States but with a variety of forces fighting inside. If you think it isn't war when a bomb destroys a building, or 76 missiles destroy buildings, then I have news for you about what war looks like. And we had no input.

My understanding is the administration met with the leadership of the Republican Party. I don't recall hearing a single Democrat was invited to have any discussion at all about this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I applaud this bipartisan legislation, as I have said, that would limit synthetic identity fraud and help protect millions of identities, including those of young children and recent immigrants, from being stolen. In a refreshing change of pace, this measure received input from Democrats, the IRS, and consumer protection advocates.

My friend from Alabama said that there are measures that are coming

forward, and I applaud him that those measures are coming forward. But I didn't hear him say that there were going to be measures having to do with Dreamers. I didn't hear him say there was anything that would be significantly involved in gun violence other than his words with reference to bump stocks and some reference back to some other date in time. I am talking about right now, not only bump stocks but the necessary indicia for buying a weapon and the age for buying a weapon and a variety of measures.

Twenty-six measures exist right here in the House of Representatives on which we could be voting--any one of them--that are commonsense gun reform. And we refuse to do so because the Speaker won't put them on the floor.

I hope that we can continue working together across the aisle to confront the pressing issues facing this great Nation. When the farm bill comes here, I hope Democrats have some input. They haven't had any at this point. And we can help people whom we have been elected to serve.

However, it is time that we address gun violence in America; it is time that we protect Dreamers; it is time we exert our constitutional authority and debate a new Authorization for Use of Military Force; and it is time for us to repair these broken-down bridges and raggedy roads in the United States of America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I mistakenly voted no, when I meant to vote yes on Roll Call No. 108, H.R. 1116--the TAILOR Act of 2017.

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

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

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

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

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

And what has this process wrought for the American people?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does that work, Madam Speaker?

The truth is, it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.