Providing for Consideration of H.R. Preventing Irs Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act; and Providing for Consideration of H.R. Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

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

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of the rule and the underlying bills that the rule would allow to be considered, I do want to take a moment to reflect on what happened yesterday here in the House of Representatives.

In the aftermath of this terrible tragedy in Orlando, the Speaker of the House asked for a moment of silence to pray for the victims: those who lost their lives, those who were injured, and their families. We stood here and, for 10 seconds, had a moment of silence.

One of our leaders, Mr. Clyburn, sought to get the Speaker's attention to ask a question. Basically, the question was: Is that it? What about legislation? What about action to prevent these types of tragedies from happening in the future? He was gaveled down.

There was a lot of outrage here on the House floor, and I think justifiably so. We have been on this floor calling for moments of silence after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando again and again and again. It is not enough. Surely, this Congress, Democrats and Republicans, can come together and do more than just have a moment of silence.

Mr. Clyburn was asking about whether or not we could bring to the floor the bill that basically says that, if you are a suspected terrorist and you are on the FBI's no-fly list, then you ought not to be able to go into a gun store and buy a weapon of war, could that come up for a debate and could we have a vote on that.

He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we can revisit legislation that would call for a ban on assault weapons. The weapon that this killer used was an assault weapon, and it was perfectly legal for him to buy. Is it worth a discussion as to whether or not we ought to place limits on the purchase of such weapons?

He was also going to raise the issue about whether or not we could pass the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, a bill that would prevent criminals who have been convicted of misdemeanor assaults against a victim based on his or her race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability from causing further harm with a gun.

This is common sense, and both parties need to come together and take action. For the life of me, I can't understand why there is a hesitancy by the leadership of this House to grapple with some of these issues. It is just not enough to come here after terrible tragedies like the one in Orlando, where 49 people lost their lives and 53 were wounded, and just have a moment of silence. It is becoming an empty gesture. We need to follow it up with action.

The American people, I don't care what their political ideology or political party may be, want us to do something. Instead, all we can do is have a moment of silence. I would just say to my colleagues: It is not enough. It is time for action.

Mr. Speaker, getting to this rule, I rise in strong opposition to the rule, which provides for consideration of H.R. 5053, the so-called Preventing IRS Abuse and Protecting Free Speech Act, under a completely closed process. No amendments can be made in order.

The rule also provides for general debate of H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for 2017, and we expect the Rules Committee to report a structured rule later today for consideration of amendments to that legislation.

When Speaker Ryan was elected to preside over the House, he made a promise to return to regular order. He promised to fix this broken House by making changes to the process by which the House does business. He promised to ``open up the process,'' to ``let people participate.'' He said it would be a ``relief'' to the American people if we were to get our act together.

Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we are light-years away from regular order and have yet to get our act together. We are here on the floor of this House considering another two pieces of legislation under rules that violate the Speaker's promise of an open process for both the majority and the minority.

This week, the Republican leadership has chosen to shut down the appropriations process even further, with the majority on the Rules Committee indicating that they will issue a structured rule for consideration of amendments to the FY17 Defense Appropriations bill.

Now I am saddened by the recent events that have led to the shutdown of the appropriations process, and by the fact that my conservative Republican colleagues voted down their own appropriations bill because it included an amendment to protect LGBT rights, which was adopted during consideration of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill a few weeks ago.

But I shouldn't be surprised. Last summer, the appropriations process was upended because some of my conservative colleagues refused to vote for legislation that banned the display of the Confederate flag. So this is just more of the same dysfunction and misplaced priorities from this Republican majority.

Mr. Speaker, Republicans have yet to issue a single open rule this Congress, and we are now beginning a process that further restricts what little opportunity we once had to offer amendments under a modified-open appropriations process.

And let me say a few words about the Department of Defense Appropriations Act bill that we are set to consider this week.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, I oppose and I have been deeply troubled by these endless wars, by continuing to send tens of billions of dollars each year to fund U.S. military operations and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and elsewhere.

In the cases of Afghanistan, and especially Iraq and Syria, I believe that this Congress has failed in its most solemn constitutional duty to debate and approve an authorization for the use of military force. I believe that without Congress approving an AUMF, our troops should not be there, quite frankly.

For me, this is not just a matter of principle, it is a matter of the Constitution of the United States and the role and responsibility of the United States Congress. It is also the duty that we owe every single one of our men and women in uniform, to either formally authorize their mission, or to bring them back home to the comfort and security of their families.

Over the years, we have had a few debates on this serious issue, and often those opposed to bringing forward an AUMF will argue that we can't put in jeopardy the support of our troops.

Well, Mr. Speaker, for those Members who are concerned about cutting off funds for our troops, they must stand up and be counted and oppose this rule and the underlying Defense Appropriations bill.

H.R. 5293 cuts the funds in the overseas contingency operations account so badly that it is estimated that all funds for all U.S. military engagements in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere will run out on or around the end of next April.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may recall that the defense authorization bill actually sets a date for this national security disaster: April 30, 2017. And while the authors of the Defense Appropriations bill are too coy to name a date, the amount of money is so limited that it is guaranteed to run out just about this time.

Now the Republican leadership is gambling that the next President and the next Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill to fund all these wars through the remainder of fiscal year 2017, just scarcely 2 months after being sworn into office.

Even I, as someone who does not support these wars, can see that this is crazy.

How can anyone stand up and say that they support the troops, and then support a bill that knowingly, deliberately, willfully cuts them off at the knees at the beginning of next year? And why did the Republican majority, with eyes wide open, take such a calculated move?

Well, they did it to pump up the funding of some of their favorite pet projects in the defense base budget. They stole $15.17 billion of OCO funds--that is nearly 27 percent of the OCO budget--funds that were supposed to fund our troops, their equipment, and their supplies for an entire fiscal year, and boosted the base budget.

To take this hypocrisy another step further, the rule that we are debating right now forbids any amendments from being offered that would take money from the base budget and put it back into OCO, not even to fund our troops for 5 months until the end of the fiscal year.

This is ludicrous. This is a disgrace. And this is just one more dishonorable act perpetrated by this Congress against our men and women in uniform. We won't formally authorize their missions overseas, and now we are not going to fund them for an entire year.

Now, the last piece of irony to this disgusting set of gimmicks is that this type of prohibition in a rule is rarely, if ever, seen.

Why, you ask, Mr. Speaker?

Well, because that type of guidance is generally outlined in a budget resolution.

You know, Mr. Speaker, the budget resolution that the Republican leadership hasn't brought to the House floor this year because it can't get a consensus out of its cantankerous caucus, and can't corral enough votes to even pass a budget resolution.

Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. We need to bring forward an AUMF for Iraq and Syria, and if we continue to fail to do so, then we should bring our troops home. If the Members of this House can sit here safe and sound, then so should our troops. And we should stop purposely robbing the funding for our troops and using that money for their pet projects and weapons systems in the base budget.

Lastly, let me just say a few words about the other bill that we are considering this week, to constrain the Internal Revenue Service's ability to enforce our tax laws and reduce transparency.

H.R. 5053 removes one of the only tools available to ensuring that foreign money is not illegally spent by tax-exempt groups in our elections, and I strongly oppose this most recent effort to unleash a new flood of unlimited, anonymous, unaccountable money into our political system.

My colleague mentioned that this was about people being able to give freely to charitable organizations. The charitable organizations that they are referring to are groups like Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, funded by--these are the groups headed by Karl Rove and the Koch brothers.

The Koch brothers sent a nice letter to all of us asking us to support this legislation with one goal in mind, to basically keep the American people in the dark. They don't want you to know all the money that is being pumped in to influence our elections and who is giving that money. They want to keep the American people in the dark.

I think the one lesson on both the Democratic side and the Republican side during this Presidential campaign that is clear, people want us to open up the process. They think this process has been corrupted by money. And rather than opening up the process, this is shutting the process down, shutting transparency, and I think that goes against what both Democrats and Republicans want.

I urge my colleagues to defeat the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter signed by a number of reform organizations that are organized to protect the public from the big money and from foreign donations, from the League of Women Voters, to Public Citizen, to Common Cause, to the Campaign Legal Center, the Center for Responsive Politics, Brennan Center for Justice, and so on. There are many more.

I want to submit for the Record the letter they sent to every Member of Congress saying, vote ``no'' on the Roskam bill, and vote against opening loopholes for foreign money.

These organizations believe that we are opening a loophole for more foreign money into our political system. And if that is what you want, then support the bill. I personally do not, and ask that that be part of the Record.

Reform Groups Urge No Vote on Roskam Bill, H.R. 5053--Vote Against Opening Loophole for Foreign Money June 13, 2016.

Dear Representative: Our organizations strongly urge you to oppose H.R. 5053, Representative Peter Roskam's bill that would eliminate the requirement for 501(c) groups to disclose their donors to the IRS.

Our organizations include the Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress and Represent.Us.

The Roskam bill would open the door wide for secret money from foreign donors to be illegally laundered into federal elections through 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups. Foreign money cannot be legally spent in U.S. elections, but it can be given to 501(c) groups and they can spend money in our elections. These groups are not required to disclose their donors publicly, but they are required to make non-public disclosure of their donors to the IRS.

This disclosure to the IRS is the only protection citizens have to prevent 501(c)(4) and other 501(c) groups being used to illegally spend foreign money in our elections. The fact that 501(c) groups are required to disclose their donors to the IRS means the groups know that donor information is available as an accountability check against illegal conduct.

If donor disclosure to the IRS by 501(c) groups is eliminated, however, as the Roskam bill would do, no one will be in a position to determine if a 501(c) group illegally spent foreign money in our elections--other than the group and foreign donor involved. Any check will be gone and there will be no way to hold a group and foreign donor accountable for illegally spending foreign money in U.S. elections.

House members should vote against eliminating the existing check against foreign countries, foreign companies and foreign individuals spending money illegally to influence our elections.

We strongly urge you vote to protect the integrity of U.S. elections by voting against H.R. 5053. Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center, Center for Responsive Politics, Common Cause, CREW, Democracy 21, Every Voice, Issue One, League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, Sunlight Foundation, The Rootstrikers Project at Demand Progress, Represent.Us.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list.

It is unconscionable that the majority in this House has repeatedly refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole, which continues to allow suspected terrorists to legally buy firearms.

The country can simply not wait any longer for this Congress to act. And if my friends want to vote against it, then they can vote against it. But denying the ability of this legislation to come to the floor, I think, is just wrong.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, to discuss our proposal, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thompson).

Mr. Speaker, there are 1,000 reasons to be opposed to this rule. One is that it brings forward two bills that are deeply flawed.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record The New York Times editorial against the Roskam bill, ``Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold.'' [From the New York Times Editorial, Apr. 28, 2016] Dark Money and an I.R.S. Blindfold (By the Editorial Board)

It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed bill advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.

It would alter the current tax code provision that, while permitting the identity of donors to 501(c) ``social welfare'' groups to be kept firmly secret from the public, requires that the donors be privately identified to Internal Revenue Service officials responsible for enforcing the law. Politically oriented groups claiming dubious exemptions as ``social welfare'' nonprofits have proliferated in recent elections, allowing donors--including publicity-shy campaign backers--to work from the shadows.

Under the proposal, the I.R.S. would no longer be told the identities of contributors to these nonprofits. Watchdog groups warn in a letter to the House that this would ``open the door wide for secret, unaccountable money from foreign governments, foreign corporations and foreign individuals to be illegally laundered into federal elections.'' The letter, signed by the Brennan Center for Justice, the Campaign Legal Center, Democracy 21 and five other groups, stressed that the disclosure requirement is one of the few ways of guarding against foreigners influencing American elections.

Representative Peter Roskam, the bill's sponsor, dismissed the reform groups' warning, saying the I.R.S. ``has a miserable track record when it comes to safeguarding sensitive data'' and a history of targeting conservative nonprofits that are critical of administration policies. His office insisted that ending the disclosure requirement would not affect the foreign-donation ban, but the reform groups sensibly ask who else could monitor what has become a runaway system of big-money stealth politicking.

Claiming a ``social welfare'' tax exemption has become a tool for powerful political operatives like Karl Rove, the Republican campaign guru. His Crossroads GPS group, which has 501(c) status, has spent $330 million on ads and candidates since it was created in 2010. Other political groups, including the Democrats' Priorities USA Action, which aided in President Obama's re-election campaign, have followed suit in claiming ``social welfare'' status. In the last four years, more than $500 million in secretive election contributions has been netted by those using the ploy.

Amid fierce Republican criticism, the I.R.S. has grown ever more gun-shy about enforcement, with Tea Party and other right-wing groups accusing tax officials of bias in daring to investigate conservative ``social welfare'' claims. As I.R.S. wariness grows, so does the attraction of 501(c)s for donors more interested in stealth politicking than charity work. Enabling foreigners to join this dark money debacle would be disastrous.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will read the opening paragraph: ``It is plainly illegal for foreigners to contribute to American political campaigns. But reform groups are warning that the ban would be gravely undermined by a little-noticed bill''--which is this bill--``advanced Thursday by Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee.''

This is basically saying that this opens up a loophole that, quite frankly, can be very, very dangerous. So I urge my colleagues that if this rule gets passed, that they would vote against this bill.

Again, as I mentioned on the Defense Appropriations bill, it is a bill that is based on budget gimmicks, and it is also a bill that continues to fund endless wars without having any authorization from this Congress. We have not voted on an AUMF for the most recent war in Iraq and in Syria. I find it unconscionable that we have no problem just putting these wars on automatic pilot and having our brave men and women in uniform in harm's way, and we don't even have the guts to debate it.

We have tried and tried and tried and tried on various bills--on authorization bills and on appropriations bills--to be able to have that debate. There is always an excuse--oh, it is a different committee jurisdiction; oh, we have to give it more than 10 minutes; oh, we have to do this, we have to do that--but this is our constitutional responsibility. We have time to vote on all these other bills that, quite frankly, are going nowhere that are political messaging pieces written at the National Republican Congressional Committee, but we can't find the time to debate these wars to clarify what our mission is--these wars that our brave men and women in uniform have been put in harm's way to deal with?

Come on. At some point, we have to find the courage to debate this. If people think these wars are the right way to go or they want to expand Presidential authority, then that is how you do it. If people like me think our military footprint is too big in the Middle East and that we need to have a more clearly defined mission about what we are doing, then that is the forum in which we restrain these wars.

But to do nothing--to do nothing--is cowardly. It is just wrong. I am hoping in the amendment process that we will have the opportunity to debate some of these issues. But if history is any indication, the answer is probably not.

Finally, I am urging my colleagues to defeat the previous question. Quite frankly, instead of these flawed bills, we should be debating how to prevent more tragedies like the one that took place in Orlando.

If we defeat the previous question, we will bring up a bill that is a bipartisan bill that would simply say that, if you are on an FBI watch list so you are unable to fly, then you should be unable to buy a gun at a gun store. It is that simple.

I don't quite understand why that is such a big deal. If the FBI believes that you are potentially dangerous so that they will not allow you to fly on an airplane, then how in the world can we allow that person to go into a gun store and buy a gun? And not just any gun; they can buy an assault weapon. It is crazy.

We have tried, on numerous occasions, to bring this issue to the floor, and House Republicans have voted 11 times--11 times--to block the bipartisan No Fly, No Buy legislation that was originally authored by my Republican colleague, Congressman Peter King.

Since taking control of the House in 2011, my Republican friends have drastically cut the resources available for law enforcement, slashing the COPS program, which includes COPS hiring, COPS technology, interoperability, et cetera, by 64 percent. We need to respond to these terrible tragedies and make sure that our communities have what they need to keep people safe.

According to the Government Accountability Office, as my colleague from California (Mr. Thompson) pointed out, more than 2,000 suspects on the FBI's terrorist watch list have successfully purchased weapons in the United States--more than 2,000. These are people who can't fly on airplanes because they are suspected of being terrorists, but they can go in and buy a firearm. More than 90 percent of all suspected terrorists who attempted to purchase guns in the last 11 years walked away with the weapon they wanted, with just 190 rejected, despite their ominous history.

This legislation that we want to bring to the floor--just so there is no misunderstanding here--was originally crafted in 2007 and endorsed by President Bush's Justice Department. It has bipartisan support in the House and is supported by prominent Republicans and counterterrorism and law enforcement experts. Yet we can't find the time to bring it to the floor. All we can do in the aftermath of terrible massacres like the one in Orlando is come to the floor and have a moment of silence for 10 seconds, and that is it. That is our obligation.

It is awful that we can't deal in a responsible way with legislation like the bills that I have mentioned here. I think the American people--and this goes beyond political affiliation--are getting sick of our inaction on this stuff. I should just say, if my friends are afraid of the NRA, according to a 2012 poll, 71 percent of current or former NRA members and 80 percent of other gun owners support preventing people on a terrorist watch list from purchasing guns.

I don't know what it is going to take, but I will tell you this: the outrage is already beyond description here on the House floor of people who are simply tired of our inaction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to defeat the previous question so we can actually have a debate and vote on something that might save some lives, and also vote against the rule.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source