[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 108 (Wednesday, July 6, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4460-H4464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Buck). Pursuant to House Resolution 794
and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill, H.R. 5485.
Will the gentleman from New York (Mr. Donovan) kindly take the chair.
{time} 0005
In the Committee of the Whole
Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5485) making appropriations for financial services and
general government for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and
for other purposes, with Mr. Donovan (Acting Chair) in the chair.
The Acting CHAIR. When the Committee of the Whole rose earlier today,
amendment No. 21 printed in House Report 114-639 offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) had been disposed of.
Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mrs. Blackburn
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. Each amount made available by this Act that is
not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available
by a provision of law is hereby reduced by 1 percent. In the
preceding sentence, the term ``this Act'' includes titles IV
and VIII.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentlewoman
from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and a Member opposed each will control
5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Tennessee.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I know especially our ranking member
has been looking so forward to having this amendment come to the floor
tonight because we have such great, robust discussions every year when
I bring this amendment forward. It is calling for a 1 percent across-
the-board reduction in the spending that is allowed through this
appropriations bill.
The reason I continue each year to move forward with presenting these
is because across-the-board spending reductions work. It is a way that
you hold the entire agency accountable for making those reductions. It
is a way
[[Page H4461]]
that you say: No, you are not going to be able to reposition money that
maybe was for one thing and you really want to spend it on another.
This is money that goes back. You are not going to spend it because
the taxpayers continue to tell us they are overtaxed, that government
has overspent. And we are piling on the debt every single year. Quite
frankly, the American people are tired of it.
I can tell you that, as our millennials come of age and look at
government spending, they are, indeed, tired of it. They feel like it
is time for this House to get back into good fiscal shape, to get to
fiscal health.
Now, I commend the committee for the work they have done. It is $21.7
billion base that is in this bill. It is $2.7 billion below the
President's request. It is $1.5 billion below the enacted 2016 level.
This is work that is to be commended, but I really believe there is
more that needs to be done. The spending reduction of 1 percent across
the board is turning to our Federal employees, rank-and-file employees,
and saying: Help us with this. Be a part of the team. Let's push back
to fiscal health. It will save us $217 million.
This is something we should accept the challenge on. So should our
Federal agencies. We should do this for our children and our
grandchildren.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 0010
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly rise to oppose the
gentlewoman's amendment, my good friend from Tennessee.
I appreciate her concern for the out-of-control spending that goes on
in Washington. I think a lot of people are concerned about that. The
problem is that she has got the wrong approach. She pointed out very
clearly that we have already reduced the spending in this bill by 6.5
percent. We oversee and fund about 20 different agencies, and we have
said we are going to reduce the overall spending by $1.5 billion, 6.5
percent.
But when you do an across-the-board cut, you lose sight of the fact
that some programs are actually working well and others are wasting
money. And we did that. That is what the appropriations process is
about. We have eight different full hearings. We have 1,800 Member
requests from both sides of the aisle.
While we reduce spending overall, we have some good programs that I
think my good friend probably really doesn't want to cut. For instance,
we have something called the Small Business Administration. That is an
agency that helps small businesses finance their next big deal, and we
increased the spending for SBA because they are the ones that create
jobs. They are the ones that grow the economy. They have programs that
help women-owned businesses, and I don't think she really wants to cut
them because they are doing the job they ought to do.
You have got other things like HIDTA. You hear people talk about
that, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. This is a combination
of the Federal and the State and local government. They all work
together to stop this epidemic of drugs. Opiates, we have got more
people dying from heroin overdose than we have 4 straight years. Those
are programs that we added money to while we reduced the spending
overall.
When you cut across the board, you treat all the agencies just alike.
Her amendment would treat the IRS just like the SBA, and, obviously,
they are different, because one of the things we do, we reduced
spending heavily with the IRS. We cut them $236 million.
So that is the right approach. This appropriations subcommittee has
taken that approach. We have looked hard. The programs that work, we
fund them, give them additional money; programs that don't work, that
waste money, we cut them. So that is the way you do it.
We have done it here well, so I am going to have to reluctantly ask
everyone to actually oppose this wonderful amendment that my good
friend has brought. It is just a little misguided.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, a couple of thoughts there.
Across-the-board reductions work. This is what we see our States use.
Indeed, in Oklahoma, one of our former colleagues who is the Governor
there, December, 3 percent cut, came back in March, 4 percent across-
the-board cut because everyone has some skin in the game.
Of course, there are good programs like the Small Business
Administration, absolutely, good programs there. But I guarantee you,
if you challenge those employees, yes, they can find a penny out of a
dollar, absolutely. They can, just like their friends and colleagues at
the State level or at local levels. They can do that. They can find the
savings. And they need the opportunity to participate in getting our
national debt under control and ending these annual deficits.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, can you tell me how much time I have
left?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida has 2\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Serrano), the ranking member.
Mr. SERRANO. I join you, Mr. Chairman, in opposition to this
amendment.
With all due respect to the gentlewoman, I think she hasn't read this
particular committee's bill over the last few years. It has been cut
and cut and cut and cut.
If I was going to give cutting budgets high marks, I would have to
say the Republicans have done a great job because they have cut and
they have cut and they have cut. So I don't see the purpose of across-
the-board cuts being more effective than the cuts that are taking place
now--if cuts are, indeed, effective. I think they are not. I think they
hurt agencies. I think they hurt programs. I think they hurt the
ability to propose changes and to make our economy grow.
But if you think that they are good, then just look at the percentage
cuts that this committee has taken. Where else could we cut from? We
have got agencies where we have practically destroyed their ability to
do their work, and now we want an across-the-board cut. Across-the-
board cuts simply sound good, but they don't propose anything.
What we need to do is really try to get back to regular order, to try
to make the Appropriations Committee what it used to be, a committee
that appropriated and not a committee that cuts. That is all we do now:
we cut and we cut and we cut.
Somewhere along the line, it is going to hurt us because somewhere in
this country, right now, in another time zone, there is a young man or
young woman, or both, working with lab coats on, trying to find a cure
for some disease, trying to deal with the Zika virus, and yet we keep
cutting and cutting and cutting.
So across the board sounds good. Across the board is a big mistake.
It should be defeated.
Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleague across the
aisle that it was individuals from his party over in the Senate that
chose not to handle the Zika funding last week. That is very
unfortunate. Zika is something that is going to be such a challenge for
families and individuals during our time, and I find those actions to
be most unfortunate.
Another thing that I would like to say, not to see the purpose in
spending reductions, we have $19 trillion worth of debt. If we are
going to spend over $3 trillion this year, you want to tell me that we
don't need to be making some spending reductions?
There is $21.7 billion worth of spending here, so the Appropriations
Committee is appropriating money. Many times it is money we don't have.
It is money taxpayers do not have in their pockets. And we have
children and grandchildren today who are paying for programs that they
do not want, programs that we do not need, that have outlived their
usefulness, programs that could be more efficient with utilization of
new technologies.
Should we be reducing what we spend and right-sizing government and
getting Federal agencies off the back and out of the pocketbook of the
American taxpayer? You better believe we ought
[[Page H4462]]
to be doing that. And if it means another penny out of a dollar,
absolutely, absolutely, make another reduction.
Challenge employees to come to the table with their best ideas. It is
the way Governors do it, the way mayors do it. It is the way this House
should do it. I encourage support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, why not 2 percent? Why not 5 percent? Why
not another 10 percent?
The point is, Mr. Chairman, this subcommittee has done its job. It
has reduced spending, 6.5 percent cut. We take the IRS back to what
they were funded in 2008. We have done our job, and good programs
receive more money. We ought not to be cutting them.
So I appreciate her interest in controlling spending, and I guess she
would compliment us for the work that we have done and, therefore, we
don't need the amendment that she has offered. So I urge everyone to
vote ``no'' and reject that.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Tennessee
will be postponed.
{time} 0020
Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Buck
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the
following:
Sec. __. None of the funds made available by this Act may
be used to pay the salary of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, during the period beginning on the date of enactment
of this Act and ending on January 20, 2017, at a rate of pay
greater than a pro rated annual rate of pay of $0.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
from Colorado (Mr. Buck) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is necessary because of the serious
mistakes by the IRS.
The IRS targeted political groups just because they disagreed with
the groups' political beliefs, a practice that is patently un-American.
But the problems with the IRS didn't just stop with the discrimination.
The IRS destroyed evidence that Congress requested, by subpoena, for a
congressional investigation into the discrimination issue. This action
was, at the very least, incompetent and unethical.
The IRS is out of control, a problem that ultimately rests with
President Obama; but the President has been unwilling to work with
Congress on this issue. Because of his unwillingness to address these
serious ethical violations at the Nation's tax collection service,
Congress must take immediate action to eliminate the position of IRS
Commissioner. The Commissioner is appointed by the President and serves
at the pleasure of the President. Unfortunately, we simply cannot trust
anyone that President Obama appoints in that position.
Under this amendment, the salary for the IRS Commissioner will not be
restored until January 20, 2017, when the next President can appoint a
commissioner the American people can trust.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. It would cut the
pay of the IRS Commissioner down to zero. I thought that this was what
the Republicans wanted to do to the whole Federal budget, but I guess
this is a start.
This is nothing more than a political cheap shot. I am sure there are
those out there who think that Members of Congress should be paid
nothing or next to nothing, and so this could start a trend.
Mr. Chairman, I urge opposition to this amendment. I think people
should realize that this is really the worst kind of statement
possible.
How much time do I have remaining, Mr. Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Renacci).
Mr. RENACCI. Mr. Chairman, it is not too often I come to the floor to
oppose an amendment, especially at this late hour; but when I was sworn
in as a Member of Congress, I took an oath to defend and uphold the
Constitution. I have grave concerns that this amendment is
unconstitutional.
The U.S. Constitution expressly prohibits the Federal Government from
enacting what are known as bills of attainder. A bill of attainder is a
law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an
identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a
judicial trial.
Courts use two main criteria to determine whether legislation is a
bill of attainder: one, whether specific individuals are affected; and,
two, whether legislation inflicts punishment.
Clearly, the specific prong is met here: this amendment punitively
targets a specific individual--the IRS Commissioner. The Supreme Court
has held that targeting specific employees for reduction in pay is
punishment. Specifically, in United States v. Lovett, the Supreme Court
held that a provision in an appropriations bill which cut off the pay
of certain named government employees was punishment and struck down
that provision as unconstitutional.
Under this precedent, punitively targeting the IRS Commissioner in an
appropriations law by reducing his pay is an unconstitutional act.
Some might claim that because the IRS Commissioner is appointed, the
precedent is somehow not applicable. To the contrary, in Lovett, the
three government employees who had their pay cut were, in fact,
political appointees.
Others might claim that because it names an office rather than an
individual, it will somehow pass a constitutional test. This is a
distinction without a difference. There is only one Commissioner of
Internal Revenue. He is readily ascertainable.
My fellow colleagues, this is not about whether you believe the IRS
Commissioner has done a good job or whether you believe he has
committed an impeachable or censurable offense. This is a separate
question, and this should be dealt with in a separate process.
This is not about defending the IRS Commissioner. This is about
defending the United States Constitution. We should uphold our oaths,
and we should defeat this amendment.
Mr. BUCK. May I inquire how much time do I have remaining, Mr.
Chairman?
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Colorado has 4 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BUCK. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr.
Sanford).
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I
just want to come here to praise what he is doing because I think this
amendment is not only constitutional, I think it is common sense.
I would say that at three different levels. I would say first it is
about accountability in government. One of the reasons that people back
home have told me they like the Trump candidacy is because they believe
he would actually fire people in Washington, D.C., something that
doesn't ever seem to happen. Whether you like the Trump candidacy or
not, this notion of something other than an endless trail of words
being the only measure of accountability in Washington, D.C., is
[[Page H4463]]
something that, indeed, makes common sense to most regular folks that I
talk to back at home.
Two, I think this is about common sense in affirming Congress' power
of the purse. In fact, the only real power that Congress has is the
power of the purse, not ultimately for the executive branch or the
judicial branch to decide, but for Congress to decide what do we fund,
when do we fund it, and how much do we fund it by?
Finally, this is about common sense in reasserting authority with
regard to Article I, section 9, clause 7. People talk about too much in
the way of executive overreach. They are weary of it.
What article I says there is that ``No money shall be drawn from the
Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.''
What I think is interesting--with due respect to my colleague from
the Midwest in what he just raised--is I am sure that he voted to
defund Planned Parenthood, and I am sure he voted to defund ACORN. I
have raised amendments that would, for instance, defund the Alaska
regional commission where there is one employee.
Congress has that power to go out and say that this does or doesn't
make sense, whether there are one, 50, or 500 employees at a given
locality. If we lose that right, we lose real jurisdiction in moving
forward within the three-branch system of government. So I think that
this is both constitutional and common sense. I think it is important
that we assert this authority.
I thank the gentleman for allowing me to speak on the amendment.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BUCK. Mr. Chairman, despite what my colleague from Ohio contends,
this amendment comports the ruling of the United States v. Lovett, a
1946 Supreme Court case dealing with a bill of attainder. The
guidelines in Lovett, this amendment singles out no individuals, but,
rather, attempts to restructure the managerial level of a government
agency, a task well within Congress' power of the purse. This task is
necessary because the position has proven especially wasteful over the
past few years, failing to rein in abuse within the agency that led to
congressional investigations.
Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First of all, I want to apologize to Mr. Renacci for wrecking his
name. It has happened to me a lot of times.
Secondly, I am not a lawyer, but what the gentleman said made a lot
of sense to me. I wonder--I wonder--if what applies to us could, in
front of some judge with some good lawyers around, also apply to this
agency.
We can't raise or reduce our salary during one period or during one
congressional period. We have to do it for the next Congress. We can't
do it for ourselves. I wonder if someone could rule that you can't just
lower the salary of the commissioner to zero during the term of that
commissioner.
Now, here is the other thing. We know that the argument is being made
that it is a reduction to the agency, to bring the director of the
agency, whoever he is, to zero. But there is nobody silly enough here
to think that it is not directed at one person, and that is really very
silly to just direct at one person and to start this trend of having
zero as a salary.
{time} 0030
There is only one person in this country right now that is running
for something that can afford not to get paid, and he will probably get
paid.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Buck).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado
will be postponed.
The Chair understands that amendment No. 24 will not be offered.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Florida is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Crawford).
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I would like to use this time to engage in a colloquy with my friend,
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-Balart).
Instead of moving forward with my amendment, as I had intended, that
would enable our agriculture producers to sell products to Cuba on
credit for the next fiscal year, we have agreed to work together and
find a long-term solution that will work for our agriculture producers
over time.
Until today, there seemed to be no path forward for an agreement, but
I have gotten commitments from the leadership and my friends from
Florida that there will be a proper path forward. We have agreed to
find a solution that does a number of things:
Supports a long-term solution for our agriculture producers to sell
commodities to Cuban buyers by eliminating restrictions in current law
that weaken our producers' competitiveness;
Lists a number of the impediments, a cash restriction being one of
those, a cash requirement for purchases;
Support for the thorough examination of the Cuban market potential
for agriculture producers through a deliberative process across each
relevant committee of jurisdiction; and
Examines other long-term solutions that enable the United States to
expand market access to the Cuban people.
At a time when net farm income has dropped by more than 55 percent,
it is critical that we work together to find ways to make this work on
a long-term basis because there is no easy fix. Our producers are ready
to sell products to the 11 million people in Cuba that represent a
market value in excess of $1 billion a year.
I thank the hard work and efforts of the agriculture, business,
humanitarian, and religious organizations in supporting this amendment.
I look forward to working with my colleagues from Florida, the
committee chairs, the leadership, and the Agriculture Committee on a
solution we can all agree on.
Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Diaz-
Balart).
Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, I understand how important this issue
is for the gentleman from Arkansas and for his constituents and salute
him for his efforts.
As we all know, our farmers are some of the most patriotic Americans.
I believe we should do everything we can to help them sell American
agricultural products throughout the world. But we cannot, at the same
time, help a Communist regime that harbors and supports terrorists and
fugitives from U.S. law, the largest confiscator of U.S. property in
history, fails to pay its debt, is one of the worst violators of human
rights and religious freedom in the Western Hemisphere, is a top
counterintelligence threat to the United States and a threat to
democracy in Latin America.
I commit to my friend that I will sit down with him, along with my
colleagues Ms. Ros-Lehtinen and Mr. Curbelo, to come up with a solution
that meets the needs of the farmers that we all represent but does not
endanger our national security or support the Castro regime, its
military, or intelligence services.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Davidson
The Acting CHAIR. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 114-639.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
At the end of the bill, before the short title, add the
following new section:
Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be
used to change Selective Service System registration
requirements in contravention of section 3 of the Military
Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 3802).
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 794, the gentleman
[[Page H4464]]
from Ohio (Mr. Davidson) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Congress, in Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, has the power
to raise and regulate armies. That relates to the Selective Service
System. We have decided to use the Selective Service System to register
men for the draft for many years now.
During the course of this year, there has been discussion here in
Washington about requiring women to register for the draft. Many
families back home aren't aware of this, and especially many young
women aren't aware of this, Mr. Chairman.
I am asking that no funds from this appropriation be used for the
Selective Service System to modify the current requirements. The
purpose of that would be to let Congress do our job--to go back home
and talk to our families and talk to our young women, listen to them,
and come back here. If we are going to modify the Selective Service
System, we do that with purpose and intent and we do that here in
Congress. We don't let the administration or yet another executive
agency decide something of their own accord or yet let the courts reach
in.
We should be clear in our intent to the courts that we don't need
them or want them to come in and decide the rule. It is ripe for that
unless we act.
In Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, the Supreme Court upheld that the
Selective Service registration for men was, in fact, constitutional and
not discriminatory, primarily because it was to register for combat. At
that time, Congress had made it clear that women were not permitted to
be in certain combat roles. Since 2013, that has no longer been the
case, so it is ripe for the courts to reach in as well.
As Congress, we really need to act. My intent by asking that none of
these funds be used by the Selective Service System to modify the
current rule is that it would give us time to talk with our families,
talk with young women, and then take a more considered action. It does
not prevent anything that is being discussed in the Armed Services
Committee or in our military, women being in any type of role. It
doesn't take a position on any of that. It doesn't take a position on
the future of the Selective Service. It just says let's not change it
right now, and let's make sure that Congress takes action on it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chairman, this may come to be known as the ``just in
case bill'' because it takes out something that doesn't exist anywhere
in a House bill. That is why I am opposed to this amendment.
First, this is a policy issue that should be left to the Armed
Services Committees.
As you know, the Senate version of the FY 2017 National Defense
Authorization Act included a change to military policy that would, for
the first time, require young women to register for the draft.
Defense Department leaders have already backed the idea of adding
women to the draft, while emphasizing they do not see any scenario
where a draft will actually happen.
For the Record, no Americans have been pressed into involuntary
service since the last draft ended in 1973.
Furthermore, lawmakers have also included in the legislative language
requiring a full review of the Selective Service System and possible
``alternatives'' to the current system.
I believe, since the Department of Defense lifted the ban on women in
combat roles, every American who is physically qualified should
register for the draft or we should do away with it.
I urge all Members to vote their beliefs on this issue. That is the
proper way.
Republican leadership did not allow this to be a vote on the defense
bill. Now Members have a chance to deal with this issue and be on the
record if they support Selective Service allowing women to be part of
the draft.
Now, we know that this is a touchy issue. We know that there are
differing thoughts and this is very emotional, but some of us would say
that this is a very fair issue. If we are going to register people,
knowing there is no draft in place at this point, then let everyone be
registered. And to suggest that there are young ladies who are out
there afraid of what is going to happen to them, they are in the same
situation as young men, and young men know that there is no draft.
{time} 0040
I think this is something that is sort of a what-if situation. Just
in case you are thinking of doing this, don't do it. I don't think we
should legislate that way. If it reaches a point at which everybody has
to sign up, then everybody will be doing his part for the country. I
don't see a problem right now, and we shouldn't create a problem where
a problem does not exist.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DAVIDSON. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New York rightly
pointed out, the Selective Service is under review right now in terms
of what we shall do with it. It is in the right place. It is here in
Congress.
We should be doing that and not trusting the administration or the
Selective Service System to come up with its own decrees. That is the
concern, that there has been too much of that during the past 7-plus
years and that families aren't looking for yet another edict to be
decreed from Washington, D.C., and to catch them off guard. As Members
of Congress, we don't need to go back home and have families and young
women ask us: Where were you on this? This does give us a chance to say
here is where we are. This bill, frankly, buys us time to do a more
considered action.
Why complicate things in the midst of further consideration by
trusting the administration, which has not proven to be trustworthy on
issuing rules and edicts, to stay the course with us? In fact, it is
likely to not do that. The hope here is that we take the considered
action that we will, and we should do that with the advice and consent
of the well-informed public back home.
I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Davidson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chair announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Chair, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio will be
postponed.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Crawford) having assumed the chair, Mr. Donovan, Acting Chair of the
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 5485)
making appropriations for financial services and general government for
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
____________________