[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 95 (Wednesday, June 15, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H3837-H3842]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5293, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 783 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 783
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 5293) making appropriations
for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. No further
general debate shall be in order.
Sec. 2. (a) The bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as
read through page 170, line 7. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived.
(b) No amendment to the bill shall be in order except those
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, amendments en bloc described in section 3 of
this resolution, and pro forma amendments described in
section 4 of this resolution.
(c) Each amendment printed in the report of the Committee
on Rules shall be considered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
(d) All points of order against amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules or against amendments en
bloc described in section 3 of this resolution are waived.
Sec. 3. It shall be in order at any time for the chair of
the Committee on Appropriations or his designee to offer
amendments en bloc consisting of amendments printed in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution
not earlier disposed of. Amendments en bloc offered pursuant
to this section shall be considered as read, shall be
debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees, shall not be
subject to amendment except as provided by section 4 of this
resolution, and shall not be subject to a demand for division
of the question in the House or in the Committee of the
Whole.
Sec. 4. During consideration of the bill for amendment,
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Appropriations or their respective designees may offer up to
10 pro forma amendments each at any point for the purpose of
debate.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Sec. 6. It shall be in order at any time on the
legislative day of June 16, 2016, for the Speaker to
entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though
under clause 1 of rule XV. The Speaker or his designee shall
consult with the Minority Leader or her designee on the
designation of any matter for consideration pursuant to this
section.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter),
the ranking member, pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
General Leave
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have
5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 783 provides for further
consideration of H.R. 5293, the Department of Defense Appropriations
Act. The resolution provides for a structured rule and makes in order
75 amendments. The rule also provides suspension authority for
Thursday.
I want to kick off today's debate by making one thing very clear: the
underlying bill is a very good bill. I know some of my colleagues may
have some things to say that they would want to have added or a few
things they would want to see changed. But all things considered, this
is a very good bill. Let me tell you why.
This bill provides funding for the entire United States military,
including critical funding to help fight the Islamic State and others
who wish to do us harm. This bill ensures that our military receives
the 2.1 percent pay raise they deserve, instead of the 1.6 percent pay
raise requested by President Obama.
An important function of our military is research and development of
new technologies and weapons systems, so this bill provides funding for
those efforts. This bill makes important investments in military
readiness by providing for equipment procurement for each of the
service branches. We are sending far too many of our servicemembers
into harm's way with outdated or damaged equipment, so this bill also
includes much-needed funding for maintenance operations.
This bill also includes vital funding for the Defense Health Program,
which provides care for our troops, while also spurring investment in
important areas like traumatic brain injuries, cancer research, suicide
prevention programs, and sexual assault prevention and response.
Now, I seriously doubt that any of my colleagues disagree with those
functions. So this should be a bipartisan bill that passes with
overwhelming support, especially considering all that is going on in
the world today.
Just look at what happened this past weekend in Orlando. A person
influenced by radical Islamic terrorists took the lives of innocent
Americans.
Well, this bill includes funding to help fight the groups and
organizations like the Islamic State that are spreading this
radicalization. This bill is critical if we are to defeat the radical
organization that is spreading terror all around the globe.
Sadly, Mr. Speaker, I expect that today's debate will focus little on
what is actually in this bill. I fear that today's debate will result
in conversations about things that have absolutely nothing to do with
the United States military. That is a real shame, because this bill is
so very important.
I know some of my colleagues are going to express concerns about
procedure and the fact that this is a structured rule. So I want to
share some quick facts with you. More importantly, this rule makes in
order 75 amendments out of 105 submitted to the Rules Committee. Forty-
three of these amendments--over half--are Democrat and bipartisan
amendments.
Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot of talk here about regular order. Well,
regular order means that the House works. Regular order doesn't mean
chaos. Regular order doesn't mean that Members get to offer poison pill
amendments just to kill a bill. Regular order is about ensuring we can
do the business that the American people elected us to do and that they
expect us to do.
Let's be real for a second. Only in Washington are people debating or
worried about whether a bill to fund our troops comes to the floor
under a structured rule or an open rule.
You know what people are worried about in homes from Maine to Hawaii?
They are worried about the safety and security of their families.
So let's not get caught up, especially on this bill, in political
games. The men and women who put their lives on the line each and every
day to keep us safe deserve better than that. And the American people
deserve better than that.
I urge my colleagues to support this rule and this bill.
[[Page H3838]]
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, despite Speakers Boehner and Ryan promising that the
Chamber would be open, we haven't had an open rule since Speaker Ryan
became Speaker. He has closed down the legislative process, shutting
out Members and, thus, their constituents.
We need a full, open debate process, and though Speaker Ryan had the
best of intentions when he assumed the mantle, his best laid plans have
already crumbled and the Chamber has been slowed to a halt so
Republicans can avoid taking difficult votes.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides appropriations for the
Department of Defense at a level $3 billion above fiscal year 2016,
though it still remains $587 million below the President's request.
There are some strong, bipartisan measures in the bill, including
funding for research into traumatic brain injuries, cancer, and
physiological health research, as well as sexual assault prevention
funds. Those are welcome investments.
Also included is a well-deserved pay raise for our men and women in
uniform. Their immense sacrifice cannot be quantified, and they deserve
our wholehearted support for the tireless defense of our Nation.
Additionally, the bill provides robust funding for cybersecurity and
sorely needed assistance for our friends struggling for democracy in
Ukraine so they can get the training and equipment they need to defend
themselves against Russian aggression.
One of the most important aspects of this bill, however, is the
investment made in the Department's manufacturing technology programs.
That is the wave of the future, Mr. Speaker. We have no way to achieve
national security if we cannot manufacture the goods that we need here
at home.
The Manufacturing Technology Office administers the soon to be eight
DOD-led Manufacturing Innovation Institutes that allow us to secure
technological advantage and economic competitiveness around the world.
I am proud that one of these institutes, AIM Photonics, is included,
and that this bill fully funds the institute's launch with $25 million
of the total $110 million committed by the Federal Government. I thank
the chair and the ranking member for making our Nation's industrial
policy a bipartisan priority.
However, these essential pieces of funding are overshadowed by the
way in which the House majority has decided to source their funds. They
do so by raiding the overseas contingency operations, or OCO, which is
meant to be emergency supplemental funding.
This budget gimmick makes it even more likely that the Department of
Defense will run out of funding early next year as we will come to
another standoff over funding.
{time} 1245
This is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not how any rational
citizen would run a household budget. And why would the House majority
endorse it?
The discussion and debate, while essential, detract from the urgency
of addressing the war at home, the gun violence epidemic that is
crippling our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today heartbroken from the
horrific loss of life due to gun violence in America, but this Chamber
keeps turning and churning, and going about business as usual.
On Monday night, as so many of my colleagues said, we held yet
another moment of silence. Since there have been 998 mass shootings in
the United States since Newtown, that is a lot of moments of silence,
but no action at all.
How many times do we have to stand on the floor and observe that
silence when our colleagues who actually have the power to make the
changes necessary to stop it are in the room with us?
For the victims of Orlando and every shooting before, for their
families and our constituents, we need more than thoughts and prayers.
We need action and laws now.
Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, half of the world's
guns are in the United States. We have 317 million people in our
Nation, but an estimated 350 million guns. If you think that the
ubiquity of firearms in our Nation has not increased the likelihood of
mass shootings, I encourage you to reconsider.
What happened in Orlando was a man with a military weapon shot
without pause for heaven knows how long a time because he had a weapon.
The fact that he had that--and we have said over and over again that
those guns are only intended to kill people, and, unfortunately, that
has come true, and it is our citizens that they are killing.
Now, we, the Members of this body, could vote for lifesaving,
commonsense measures, yet the majority refuses to act. The majority
blocks votes to prevent terrorists from buying guns. A terrorist on a
watch list can go ahead and buy a gun.
They won't consider legislation to require universal background
checks, which the majority of Americans support. They won't even
consider, anymore, the assault weapons ban. Before it expired, it made
a lot of difference in the mass killings in this country.
What is even more dangerous is that, in the healthcare bill passed--
it was stunning to me that it was even in there--the Centers for
Disease Control can't even track data on gun violence as a public
health issue. Also, family doctors, who can ask about drugs in the
home, are not allowed to ask about guns in the home; and some gun sales
records are destroyed after 24 hours, by law, making it incredibly
hard, if not impossible, to verify information and to track sales.
So that is the state of affairs in this Chamber today. Instead of
thoughts and prayers, which we always turn to for solace, we would like
to have, now, some actions and laws.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the gentlewoman's positive words about the underlying
bill. She pointed out a number of things about this bill that are very
good indeed.
I hear that she disagrees with the use of the overseas contingency
account for funding part of what is going on here, but we are in a war.
We are in a war overseas, and we are going to have to use that account
to fight that war overseas.
I also heard her say that we need to do more than just have a moment
of silence, as we did the other night. Acting on this bill does
something very important to stop terrorists over there from coming over
here and harming us, or to stop terrorists over there from being able
to inspire some of our own citizens to attack us. I have said many
times, if you want to stop terrorism in the United States, it is better
to defeat them over there. The underlying bill does that. It has been
worked out carefully, in a bipartisan fashion, as the gentlewoman said,
with the Department of Defense, so that they have what they need to
protect us, because the most important way to stop violence from
terrorists hitting us here at home is to make sure those terrorists are
destroyed abroad.
I am glad the gentlewoman from New York brought up the issue of open
rules. To have this debate, I think it is important to look at the
minority's record when it comes to openness and fairness on
appropriations bills.
When the gentlewoman was chair of the Rules Committee in the 111th
Congress, they also had a structured rule for the Department of Defense
Appropriations. So how many amendments did they make in order? Fifteen.
This bill makes in order 75 amendments to the Defense Appropriations
bill. That is a pretty stark difference, Mr. Speaker.
Let's not just look at the Defense Appropriations legislation. On the
Energy and Water bill, which this House considered under an open rule a
few weeks ago, the Democrat majority considered it under a structured
rule and made just 21 amendments in order.
What about the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs bill in
fiscal year 2010? The gentlewoman made just eight amendments in order.
The House considered the same bill earlier this year under an open
rule.
A few more numbers for you from fiscal year 2010. Only 5 amendments
were made in order through the Labor,
[[Page H3839]]
Health and Human Services bill, just 23 for Transportation, Housing and
Urban Development Appropriations, 17 for Financial Services, and 1--
only 1--amendment to the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill.
Then, for fiscal year 2011, under the Democrat majority, only two
appropriations bills were presented to the House, both under structured
rules. They were considered, and then they just stopped the
appropriations process altogether.
Mr. Speaker, it is easy to talk a big game about open rules and the
importance of fairness; but, if you look at the record, it is clear
that this House has been much more open and much fairer under
Republican leadership.
Our Conference wanted to restore open rules in the appropriations
process; however, the minority has abused the process, and we have no
choice but to take the steps necessary to ensure we can get the
business of the American people done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a minute to say that I
appreciate the history lesson, but the fact is that both Speaker
Boehner and Speaker Ryan had said that this was going to be the most
open Congress in history, but we haven't had a single open rule since
Speaker Ryan took over. So I think we could go on in this debate like a
tennis match all day long, but the facts are the facts.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democrat whip.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
I tell my friend, Bradley Byrne, I would love to have a discussion
with him on that issue that he raised, but I don't have the time to do
it now because I want to speak about the bill.
First, let me thank Chairman Frelinghuysen, who is the chairman of
the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Mr. Visclosky. They have
worked together. They worked positively, and America can be proud of
their leadership. Both of them have been extraordinary advocates for
our military and men and women who serve.
This rule presents a rejection, however, of the regular order Speaker
Ryan promised in the House. He promised it. That is the issue, not a
question of how many. What he said was this was going to be open.
As soon as it became clear, however, that the House Republicans might
have to take an up-or-down vote again on whether to ban discrimination
against LGBT Americans, they shut the open appropriations process down.
And, in fact, when we adopted that amendment, a majority of the
Republican Members voted against their own bill. That was the abuse of
the system, I tell my friend, not anything we have done over here.
No transparency, no open process, no regular order, no scruples about
denying Americans' Representatives the chance to add their input in
this Defense bill, simply because they want to allow discrimination
against LGBT Americans. That is what this is about. That is how we got
to this closed rule or structured rule. Make no mistake about it.
In rejecting the Maloney amendment last month and now closing the
process as a result of losing the Energy and Water bill because it did
not allow discrimination, House Republicans are feeding the same kind
of anti-LGBT sentiment that makes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and
transgender Americans feel unsafe in our country and creates an
environment which furthers racism, homophobia, and xenophobia. That is
tough language. I get it.
Speaker Ryan had said he would allow the House to work its will. That
was his pledge. He told Roll Call in November that the Republican
leadership would not ``predetermine the outcome of everything around
here.''
Well, in this instance, the House is being steered in a very
deliberate direction by the Speaker and the leader. The Republican
leadership, once again, is more concerned with keeping its Members from
having to vote on LGBT discrimination than on maintaining the open
process that it promised. Each and every Member of this House ought to
be not only willing but eager to cast their votes to say,
unequivocally, we are against discrimination.
Let me be clear. There are many provisions in this bill that I
support, but there are a number about which I have serious concerns. My
concerns include the dangerous act of setting up a funding cliff next
year that would put our troops in danger.
In their attempt to get around the funding caps both parties agreed
to last year, House Republicans pretend that they are keeping the deal
we made, but, in reality, they are raiding the account that provides
our troops with the resources they need to do their jobs safely.
This bill also includes restrictions on the Pentagon's ability to
transfer Guantanamo Bay detainees as well as, once again, abandoning
military-civilian pay parity in cost-of-living increases.
The American public, Mr. Speaker, ought to know it costs $5 million
per incarceree at Guantanamo, $5 million per person. How many
terrorists have escaped from American prisons? Zero. Zero.
Now there is a Republican amendment to ban DREAMers from serving in
uniform, a discriminatory provision in this bill.
Because the process has been shut down, Mr. Speaker, Democrats have
been severely limited in our ability to put forward amendments to
improve this bill and address these concerns. We will continue,
however, to push hard to ensure all our troops have the tools they need
to succeed at their mission and come home safely, and we will keep
asking the House to take a vote to end discrimination. We must not rest
until all Americans are truly equal under the laws and Constitution our
men and women in uniform put their lives at risk to defend.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I really appreciate my friend from Maryland who, recently, he and I
had an opportunity to spend some time together. I have enjoyed his
company, and I recognize that he is a man of great experience and
wisdom. I do have some differences with him on some of his remarks,
however.
He mentioned the Guantanamo Bay provision. It has recently come to
light that the White House has now admitted that some of the Guantanamo
Bay detainees that have been released are now back on the battlefield
trying to kill American servicemen and -women. So, for those of us on
this side of the aisle, that is not acceptable. We don't want more
Guantanamo Bay detainees out there putting our men and women in harm's
way. We want to keep them where they are, to keep our men and women in
uniform safe.
He talked about a funding cliff. What he is referring to is that this
takes us, on the OCO account, into next spring, to when we will have a
new President in place and, at that time, we can put in the rest of the
funding.
Now, this is exactly what was done 8 years ago when we were having a
transition from the Bush administration to the Obama administration. At
that time, then-Senator Obama, then-Senator Kerry, both voted for that,
both supported that. So all we are doing now is the same thing we did 8
years ago. It is common sense. It was perfectly okay with them then; it
is not now.
And then on the Maloney amendment, I know exactly what the gentleman
is talking about. The other side asked for that amendment. It was
adopted by the House. It was put in the bill, and then when the bill
itself, with the amendment on it, came up for a vote, only six
Democrats voted for it. I voted for the bill with the language in it.
The Democrats voted and killed the bill that had the antidiscriminatory
language that they feel so strongly about.
So let's understand what is really going on here. This is not an
effort to do anything about discrimination. This is an effort to bring
an end to the appropriations process, to throw a rock in the gears of
what we have got to do to make government work for the American people.
And our side of the aisle, the majority, is simply not going to allow
that to happen. We are going to do the work that the American people
sent us here to do; we are going to use structured rules; we are going
to bring order out of chaos; and we are going to get the people's work
done.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
[[Page H3840]]
{time} 1300
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York, our
ranking member, for yielding me the time.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote against this
restrictive rule. The gentleman from Alabama talks about a poison pill.
The poison pill amendment he is talking about is an amendment that
would prohibit discrimination against the LGBT community. That is the
poison pill. It is pathetic that an anti-discrimination measure would
be considered a poison pill, but only in this Republican-controlled
House would that be the case.
I would also say to the gentleman that the last time I checked,
Republicans have the majority in this place. You have 247; we have 188.
You can do whatever you want to do. That is why we see these
restrictive rules one after another after another coming before the
House.
When I hear that we are limiting the appropriations amendment process
only to get rid of poison pills, there are other amendments that I
don't think would be considered poison pills that were denied. My
colleague from California, Jackie Speier, had an amendment dealing with
littoral combat ships. That was not made in order. If we had an open
rule under the appropriations process that we should have had, that we
were promised, she could have offered her amendment. But that was
denied as well.
In terms of how the whole bill is funded with this overseas
contingency account, it is one gimmick after another. It is
embarrassing to try to defend this OCO account and how my colleagues
have tried to get around the budget caps by going in and taking money
to lift up the overall amounts in the base bill.
But here is the deal: I will say that I am grateful that an amendment
was made in order that I authored along with Congressman Jones and many
of my other colleagues that would basically say that it is about time
Congress has a debate and a vote on an AUMF. We are at war in Syria,
and we are at war in Iraq again. Our troops are in combat situations.
That is the way the Secretary of Defense describes it. Our troops are
being wounded. We have lost soldiers in these recent battles, and we
have not had the courage in this institution to actually debate these
wars and to vote up or down on whether we should continue these wars.
My friends have all kinds of excuses why we can't do this. First they
say: Well, the White House has to come up with a plan.
The White House did.
Now it is: Well, we can't debate this because it is a delicate time.
We should have debated these wars before we entered these wars, yet
the leadership of this House prevented us time and time again.
Now we have 10 minutes, 5 on both sides, to debate this amendment.
But my amendment is very simple. It basically says no AUMF, no money.
If we don't have the courage to have this debate and to authorize these
wars, then our troops ought to come home. It is that simple. It is
very, very straightforward. For the life of me, I can't understand why
anybody would vote against this.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Rothfus). The time of the gentleman has
expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1
minute.
Mr. McGOVERN. If some of my colleagues want to expand these wars,
then this is the opportunity for you to do it. If some of my
colleagues, like me, want to lessen our military footprint in the
Middle East, this is the opportunity. But to do nothing is
unconscionable, and voting for this would force us--would force us--to
do our job and to live up to our constitutional responsibility.
We cannot hide behind all these excuses anymore. There is no more
excuse. Our brave men and women are in harm's way. The least we can do
is show them that we care enough about what is going on to have this
debate and vote on an AUMF.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues on both side of the aisle to vote
for the McGovern-Jones amendment. Vote to force this House to have a
debate and a vote on an AUMF. If not, let us bring our troops back home
to safety with their families.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Rules Committee is exactly right.
We made in order his amendment that would allow him to have a debate on
this floor on the AUMF. I also agree with him that it is probably not
enough time to have a full debate on the AUMF. We talked about this
several times in the Rules Committee, and he and I have a common
understanding of the need for us to have a full debate on this floor on
an AUMF. I agree with the gentleman, so we made his amendment in order.
I think he would like for us to go beyond that and actually bring an
AUMF itself to the floor so we could have a fuller debate. When the
time is right--and I don't know when that is going to be--I am going to
be supportive of that. I have written letters in that respect, so I
believe in that.
I want to point out to him that we made his amendment in order. We
made his amendment in order and 74 others. That is 60 more amendments
that were made in order on the Defense Appropriations bill than when
the Democrats were in control of this House. So I have heard enough
about this closed debate, closed rules. We have a structured rule to
bring order out of chaos, and we have allowed many, many, many more
amendments than the Democrats ever allowed on appropriations bills.
This is a good rule. It is a fair and balanced rule that allows for a
full debate on issues. Some of these amendments I don't agree with, Mr.
Speaker, but I thought they should be made in order, as did everybody
else in the Rules Committee who voted for the rule. I know the
Democrats didn't. This is a good rule, and I hope that we will adopt
this rule and move forward with the debate on these important issues.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my colleague has
further speakers.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I do not.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I am prepared to close.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that some amendments he likes, some he
doesn't. That is perfectly legitimate, but that is not why we make
amendments in order in the Rules Committee. We don't pick out some we
like and some we don't. We talk about the germaneness of the
amendments. Certainly, if you have 70, I am sure there are going to be
several people do not agree with.
But there is beginning to be a very unpleasant trend--and I am very
concerned about it--that members of the majority on the Rules Committee
will ask people coming to ask to have their amendments made in order--
which, remember, as far as I can say right now, and I could be proved
wrong, I think we are the only committee where members of a committee
come up and ask for something. It is a totally different process from
what happens in the other committees.
They come to us with full understanding--of course, the ratio, as you
know, is 9-4, so it is kind of window dressing a lot of time--to ask
that an amendment be in order. Those are sometimes people from the
committee whose amendments weren't made in order in the committee, or
it is other Members who have a great interest in that bill and would
like to express the interest of their constituents in it.
But there is no question that there is really beginning to be a
trend: if they don't like the amendment themselves, it is out the
window. There is no chance of debate. In fact, so few of us get a
chance to do any debating that we believe--and think that it is a
fact--that many of our constituents in the country are just shut out of
the debate.
What is even worse than that, now members have begun to ask the
witnesses, as they come with their amendments: If we make your
amendment in order, will you vote for the bill?
I object most strenuously to that. We are just getting into it, and I
really want to study, but there is a quid pro
[[Page H3841]]
quo there that I don't believe is intended for members of the Rules
Committee to have.
There is a favoritism being asked: If we do this for you, not because
it is good, it is germane, it should move the bill and because, as a
Member of Congress, you have a right to do it; but if we grant you this
wish, your obligation is to vote for the bill, even though you may hate
everything else that is in it.
So we will amplify on that a little bit. We have some review to do on
how that is going to work, but on the face of it, I find it totally
offensive myself.
Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity now to make a meaningful change,
as all my colleagues have said, to address the gun violence epidemic
that is crippling our Nation.
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.
No matter how hard I might try--and I don't plan to--I don't believe
I could find any kind of cogent argument that would argue against that.
I think a thinking person would say: Yes, someone on the FBI's
terrorist list, we would not like them to be collecting firearms and
explosives.
It is unconscionable that the Republican majority has repeatedly
refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole. In fact, in our
discussions about that and shouldn't that be done--as I said, the
public really wants that done--they won't even consider it.
The country can't wait any longer for Congress to act. I think the
whole country is absolutely paralyzed with sadness, anger, and mixed
feelings about what is going on in this country. The number of people
shot in a weekend in Chicago; the young singer the other night, just
before the Orlando massacre, who was shot to death because somebody
wanted to do it and had the ability to do it.
We have Second Amendment rights, but we also have rights to live. We
have the right to think that when our children go to school in the
morning, they are going to come home in the afternoon. I can assure you
that all the people worshiping in Mother Emmanuel Church believed they
were going to go home after that to supper and to bed and to look
forward to the next day.
We are not sensibly looking at what is going on here. Our record
internationally is appalling. I will tell you that the country, I
believe, at this moment is really crying out for something, and I am
afraid, again, it will fall on deaf ears.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately
prior to the vote on the previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and
defeat the previous question so that we can do an amendment on guns and
to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the gentlewoman, and I do
want to say this to her and to all of my colleagues in the House: The
American people are worried. They are fearful, and they are fearful
because there are people in other places who want to come here and do
us harm simply because we are different from them. We are Christians,
or we are a different type of Muslim from them, or we are LGBT, or we
believe in all the principles that make America great. They want to
come here and destroy all of us.
The attack on Sunday was an attack on every citizen of the United
States of America. People are fearful that those terrorists will come
here or they will find more people who are here now and inspire them to
do the horrendous act that we saw done Saturday night, early Sunday
morning.
They want us to defend them. We defend them by authorizing and
appropriating the money to pay for the activities of the Armed Forces
of the United States of America. That is what this bill is about. That
is what we should be debating. That is what the people of the United
States want us to do.
So we have put together a rule that is going to get the people's work
done and provide the money to defend them from people that would harm
us. That is the least we could do in reaction to what happened the
other night, but it is a very, very important step for the people of
this country.
Mr. Speaker, I, again, urge my colleagues to support House Resolution
783 and the underlying bill.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 783 Offered by Ms. Slaughter
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 7. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
Speaker shall, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare
the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole House on
the state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R.
1076) to increase public safety by permitting the Attorney
General to deny the transfer of a firearm or the issuance of
firearms or explosives licenses to a known or suspected
dangerous terrorist. The first reading of the bill shall be
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of
the bill are waived. General debate shall be confined to the
bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
All points of order against provisions in the bill are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the
third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV,
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 8. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 1076.
____
The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means
This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow
the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a
vote about what the House should be debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous
question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an
immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no
substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.''
But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the
Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in
the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition,
page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous
question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally
not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member
controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of
offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by
voting down the previous question on the rule . . . When the
motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the
time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering
the previous question. That Member, because he then controls
the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for
the purpose of amendment.''
In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment
[[Page H3842]]
or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Republican
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.
Mr. BYRNE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________