[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 112 (Tuesday, July 12, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H4677-H4678]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5538, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 
 ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017; PROVIDING 
FOR PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PERIOD FROM JULY 15, 2016, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 
                    5, 2016; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Newhouse) for graciously yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and 
I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, despite the repeated claims by the majority that the 
Chamber is an open one and represents the American people, we have not 
had a single open rule since Speaker Ryan assumed the gavel. Although 
they claim there are many restricting amendments processed to prevent 
so-called ``poison pill'' amendments, nothing could be further from the 
truth, and, frankly, even poison pill amendments are allowable.
  The bill before us contains several controversial policy riders that 
virtually guarantee the President's veto and blocks a number of 
amendments that would be in order under the standing rules of the 
House.

                              {time}  1345

  The bill drastically underfunds important agencies and programs by 
more than $1 billion below the President's request. This sends a 
message that the majority puts what is best for their special interests 
ahead of what is best for the health of our communities.
  I am particularly concerned that the bill makes draconian cuts to the 
Environmental Protection Agency, which will undercut the health and 
safety of all Americans--these cuts, despite the ongoing public health 
disaster in Flint, Michigan, where, for the rest of their lives, the 
children who were poisoned by lead in their drinking water could suffer 
from neurodevelopmental damage that could lead to everything from 
behavioral changes, to anemia, to hypertension.
  All across the Nation, there are century-old water pipes in older 
cities in desperate need of replacement. Although lead pipes were 
banned 30 years ago, there are an estimated 3 to 10 million still in 
service today. My district has an estimated 23,000 lead service lines 
that lead from the water main to the curb, and that is 40 percent of 
all the water lines in the district.
  Multiple schools in the district recently tested have found elevated 
lead levels in their water sources. The majority refuses to make 
virtually any investments in our Nation's infrastructure as it 
crumbles. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, lead has been found in the 
drinking water in the Cannon Building, one of the legislative office 
buildings. I can almost guarantee you that before the next week is out, 
that that will be taken care of. I don't know how this Congress can 
ignore the needs of the young people in Flint, Michigan, and other 
children throughout this country who are drinking lead water in their 
schools such that we will take care of what happens here in Congress 
and completely overlook and ignore their needs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, being as we have no additional speakers, I 
just would like to inquire of the gentlewoman from New York if she is 
ready to close.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, every day we are here considering bills like this that 
will never become law, and every time we do that, that is another day 
that we have failed to combat the gun violence epidemic that is tearing 
our country apart.
  Mr. Speaker, an epidemic of gun violence is happening all across the 
country, and the majority should stop the political games and the 
gimmicks. Instead of voting on another one-House bill that is sure to 
be vetoed by the President should it ever become a two-House bill, we 
should be voting on no fly, no buy. It is astonishing to American 
citizens that persons who are on the no-fly list as suspected 
terrorists can nonetheless buy guns.
  Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an 
amendment to the rule to bring up this important legislation. No fly, 
no buy is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would keep guns out of 
the hands of suspected terrorists. In the interest of public safety, if 
nothing else, we should be doing that by all means. It is supported by 
nearly 90 percent of the public and deserves our consideration.
  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'' on 
ordering the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bill.

[[Page H4678]]

  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The rule we have considered today provides for consideration of an 
important and badly needed bill. This legislation funds critical 
activities, such as wildfire mitigation and response, PILT payments for 
counties with large amounts of Federal lands, fish hatcheries that are 
helping to meet salmon recovery goals, the $12 billion maintenance 
backlog on our National Park Service lands, and the need to address the 
problem of lead in drinking water across our country.
  This is also a fiscally responsible bill that reflects House 
Republicans' priorities in tackling our out-of-control national debt. 
This is accomplished by striking a smart balance between funding 
essential programs and making responsible reductions to lower priority 
activities to ensure we meet our tight budget guidelines. This bill 
includes provisions that will roll back and prevent many harmful 
Federal regulations that have had a chilling effect on business 
development and economic activity at a time when we can ill afford 
either.
  The measure protects the rights of law-abiding Americans by 
prohibiting Federal agencies from issuing new closures of public lands 
to hunting and recreational shooting as well as from regulating the 
lead content of ammunition and fishing tackle.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation recognizes and respects the current 
fiscal landscape, lowers overall funding in the bill by $64 million 
below current levels and $1 billion below the President's request, yet 
it still provides the means necessary to fund the Department of the 
Interior and environmental programs that protect and promote our 
natural resources with a responsible, yet sustainable, budget.
  Additionally, the measure provides critically needed funds to ensure 
forest health and combat wildfires, a priority for many living in the 
West who have seen devastating wildfires destroy homes, businesses, and 
millions of acres of land over the last few years.
  This is a strong rule that provides for the consideration of a very 
important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support the rule's adoption 
and invest in a prosperous future for our country by passing the FY 
2017 Interior and environment appropriations bill.
  The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:

          An Amendment to H. Res. 820 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 15. 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. 16. 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 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. NEWHOUSE. 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.

                          ____________________