[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 8783-8788]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 8784]]

     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.
  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.

[[Page 8785]]



                              {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, 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

[[Page 8786]]

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.

                              {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

[[Page 8787]]

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 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

[[Page 8788]]

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 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.

                          ____________________