[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H2981-H2987]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5055, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 743 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 743
Resolved, That (a) 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 consideration of
the bill (H.R. 5055) making appropriations for energy and
water development and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2017, and for other purposes. 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 Appropriations. After
general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. Points of order against
provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of
rule XXI are waived.
(b) During consideration of the bill for amendment--
(1) each amendment, other than amendments provided for in
paragraph (2), shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent;
(2) no pro forma amendment shall be in order except that
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; and
(3) the chair of the Committee of the Whole may accord
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member
offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read.
(c) When the committee rises and reports the bill back to
the House with a recommendation that the bill do pass, 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. 2. Section 508 of H.R. 5055 shall be considered to be
a spending reduction account for purposes of section 3(d) of
House Resolution 5.
Sec. 3. During consideration of H.R. 5055 pursuant to this
resolution, section 3304 of Senate Concurrent Resolution 11
shall not apply.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington is recognized
for 1 hour.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms.
Slaughter), a good friend of mine from the Rules Committee, 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. NEWHOUSE. 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 Washington?
There was no objection.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, the Rules Committee met and
reported a rule, House Resolution 743, providing for consideration of
an important piece of legislation, H.R. 5055, the fiscal year 2017
Energy and Water Development Appropriations bill. The rule provides for
the consideration of H.R. 5055 under a modified open rule, allowing for
consideration of all amendments that are germane to the bill and
conform to House rules.
Mr. Speaker, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill
appropriates annual funding for national defense nuclear weapons
activities, the Army Corps of Engineers, various programs under DOE,
and other related agencies.
Over the past few years, we have seen increasing threats to our
national security, historic droughts in many regions of the United
States, the importance of water, and the need for greater energy
security and independence. This legislation addresses all of these
issues, as well as many others, and invests in efforts to promote a
more secure and prosperous future for our Nation.
With ever-changing global security threats from Russia and Iran to
terrorist groups like ISIL and al Qaeda, national security continues--
as well it should--to be a top concern for many Americans. Now it is
more vital than ever that the U.S. maintain our nuclear security
preparedness, and this legislation takes important steps to ensure our
nuclear weapons stockpile is modern, secure, stable, and available. It
provides a total of $12.9 billion for DOE's nuclear weapons security
programs. That is a $327 million increase above the 2016 level. And
this funding will uphold the Nation's nuclear deterrence posture,
maintain the safety and the readiness of our weapons stockpile, and
allow the U.S. to meet any nuclear threat.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 5055 also addresses the need for reliable water
resources. As we have seen from the severe droughts that have impacted
many Western States, accessibility to safe and adequate water resources
is critical to our local communities. In my home State of Washington,
we have seen historic droughts over the past few years, with serious
water supply shortages that have impacted the agriculture, energy, and
manufacturing sectors as well as many families and small businesses
that rely on an adequate and stable supply of water.
Additionally, Washington and much of the Western United States have
experienced catastrophic wildfire seasons over the last 2 years, with
Washington enduring back-to-back years of record-setting fires which
have been fueled by a lack of rainfall and extremely arid conditions.
This legislation contains funds for the Department of the Interior and
the Bureau of Reclamation to help manage, develop, and protect the
water resources of Western States. Further, the measure includes
several new provisions to help Western communities by providing relief
from the onerous and excessive Federal regulations that have
exacerbated this situation.
Energy independence is paramount to the future of our country, and
the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development bill invests in an
all-of-the-above energy strategy in order to promote a more secure and
prosperous future for our Nation. Under the legislation, funding is
allocated for DOE energy programs, and the bill prioritizes
[[Page H2982]]
and increases funding for the programs that encourage U.S. economic
competitiveness and help advance the goal of greater domestic energy
production and security.
This bill provides funds for research and development to advance
coal, natural gas, oil, and other fossil energy technologies which will
help the U.S. make better use of our rich national energy resources and
help keep energy costs low. Additionally, nuclear energy research,
development, and demonstration activities are increased.
Mr. Speaker, while this bill includes funding for many activities
that are critical to our country's future, it also appropriates funds
to address an important issue from our past, and that is the cleanup of
our country's defense nuclear sites that supported our previous nuclear
weapons production. These sites played a critical part in our country's
ability to win World War II as well as the cold war by producing the
basic and complex materials used in the fabrication of nuclear weapons.
It just happens that the largest of these sites is the Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, which is located in my central Washington State
district. It produced plutonium for nuclear weapons development both
during and after World War II. There are many similar sites across the
country where the Federal Government has a moral and a legal obligation
to clean up the remaining contaminated facilities and hazardous nuclear
waste.
A key component of our defense environmental cleanup efforts is the
availability of a viable nuclear repository where this waste can be
stored. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Yucca Mountain is the country's only
legal and permanent nuclear repository, though for years there have
been efforts to kill the use of this site, efforts that would hinder
defense nuclear cleanup for decades and would waste the Federal
Government's $15 billion investment in this repository. This
legislation continues congressional efforts to support Yucca Mountain
by providing funding for the nuclear waste disposal program and funds
for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to continue the adjudication of
DOE's Yucca Mountain license application. Additionally, the bill denies
the administration's funding proposals for non-Yucca nuclear waste
activities.
Another component of this measure is strong support for our national
laboratories, such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory located
in Washington's Fourth Congressional District. These labs perform
critical research on cybersecurity, develop high-performance computing
systems, and advance the next generation of energy sources which lay
the groundwork for a more secure energy future, helping to reduce the
Nation's dependence on foreign energy and ensuring continued economic
growth.
Finally, H.R. 5055 includes many conservative policy priorities that
are critical to combating the administration's efforts to undermine
economic growth through excessive and burdensome regulations. The bill
effectively prohibits the EPA and the Corps from implementing the
waters of the United States rule and any changes to Federal
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. It also restricts the
application of the Clean Water Act in certain agricultural areas. There
is also language prohibiting the administration from changing the
definition of ``fill material'' and ``discharge fill material.'' From
the beginning, the WOTUS rule has been an unprecedented Federal power
grab that expands Federal regulation over ponds, over streams, and over
irrigation ditches in the middle of cropland, giving the EPA
unprecedented say over what farmers can or cannot do with their land.
This bill takes the important step of prohibiting funding for the
implementation of this deeply misguided rule which would have
devastating economic consequences for farmers, for ranchers, for small
businesses, and for communities across our country.
Additionally, the legislation protects Americans' constitutional
Second Amendment rights by including language that allows law-abiding
Americans to possess firearms on Army Corps of Engineers public lands.
In places in my district, these public lands are used heavily by the
community.
The bill includes language that I offered along with Congressman
Gosar of Arizona to prevent the removal of any Federal dams, protecting
the critical flood control and the hydropower benefits provided by
these facilities. Hydropower is a key resource throughout the West, and
we must prevent misguided attempts to shut down these dams.
Finally, it continues a restriction from fiscal year 2016 to prevent
any funds from being used to start or enter into any new nuclear
nonproliferation contracts or agreements with Russia.
Mr. Speaker, this is a good rule that provides for the consideration
of H.R. 5055, the fiscal year 2017 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations Act.
{time} 1330
This is a responsible measure that supports the U.S. national
security, safety, and economic competitiveness; advances an all-of-the-
above energy strategy; and makes strategic investments in
infrastructure and water resources projects--balancing these critical
priorities while still maintaining tight budget caps. These efforts
will help promote a more secure and prosperous future for our Nation,
which is why I urge all of my colleagues to support the rule and
support the underlying bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I thank my colleague from Washington for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, every year, the House comes together to allocate funds
for programs across the country. From keeping our waters clean to
managing our nuclear arsenal, they all need funding.
Under H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, some programs see shortfalls and others
windfalls. Balancing these competing priorities is a herculean effort,
and I want to commend Chairman Simpson and Ranking Member Kaptur
because they have worked so much in tandem to help bring good bills to
the floor.
First, the bill provides robust funding for the Army Corps of
Engineers, and includes strong funding for the Harbor Maintenance Trust
Fund, which keeps our Nation's ports and harbors dredged, maintained,
and operational. As the cochair of the Great Lakes Task Force, I know
the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is an essential component to keeping
local economies on the shores of the Great Lakes thriving. We owe a
great deal to the Great Lakes. We are, along with Canada, the
protectors of 20 percent of the fresh water on the planet, providing
drinking water for both Canadians and United States citizens. We owe it
to the great thing that we have inherited there, called the Great
Lakes, to protect them.
Also included in the bill is increased funding for much-needed
nuclear cleanup. The bill provides funding to clear contamination from
past nuclear weapons research and production activities, creating
usable land and adding to the safety and well-being of our communities.
However, I do remain concerned about the funding levels for our
Nation's scientific research. We should be meeting the President's
requests, and even adding to them for research funding. The agencies
that are covered by this bill are not adequate to really meet the needs
of our Nation's scientific research and help us to make up for lost
ground and reclaim our global leadership, not pulling on the reins.
One of those programs funded is in my hometown of Rochester, New
York. We are a photonics hub, Mr. Speaker--one of the best in the
world--and we have recently been named an innovative manufacturing
facility in Rochester. Let me tell you what kind of excellent research
that we are doing up there and what great things we are already capable
of doing.
About 12 engineers, who had previously worked at Eastman Kodak on 35-
year-old repurposed Kodak equipment, made the components of the night
vision goggles that took down Osama bin Laden. That same small company
with 250 employees also made the laser beams that the Navy SEALs used
to take down the Somali pirates holding Captain Phillips. That was on
35-year-old equipment. Imagine what they could do if we were able to
help them get new machines. Rochester is also famous with Eastman Kodak
because the Norden bombsight was made
[[Page H2983]]
there, which was a great contributor into the winning of World War II.
It is awfully important that we recognize what has happened there now
and make sure that we can keep it going. In many cases it is falling
apart, and we need much more help for it.
I am grateful for the money for the laser lab because it not only is
moving research along, but it is responsible for checking on the
supplies that we have of nuclear weapons to make sure that they are in
good condition without having to do live testing.
There are bright spots in the bill, but there are some harmful policy
riders that stand in the way of strong investments.
These policy riders include one that would prevent the Army Corps of
Engineers from clarifying which waters are protected by the Clean Water
Act by locking in a widely acknowledged state of confusion about the
scope of the law's pollution control programs. While it sounds nice to
let everybody just do all of the runoffs that they want into the Great
Lakes, the algae pollution problem caused by runoff of pesticide
control and other things that are in the water have caused us a great
deal of pain up there. That is not a very good idea either in
stewardship or for our future. But the runoff of pesticides and other
things that they do certainly needs more attention than we are getting.
I think in this bill we are going in the wrong direction on that.
Another rider would prevent the Corps from using funds to regulate
industry waste, locking in loopholes for polluters, and leaving many of
the waterways vulnerable to harmful pollution. We know better than
that, too. We know that it is not smart. Remember, many of those are
the water that we drink.
Also, I know that my colleague mentioned the one that he liked, the
highly partisan and controversial rider that would allow guns to be
carried on all Corps of Engineers land. Given the number of Americans
killing each other on a daily basis with guns--and one week about 2
weeks ago, four toddlers, who got ahold of guns that were unsecured,
killing themselves--more guns on more lands is not my idea of the way
that we should be looking at it. I am very much concerned that we don't
want to live in a country--that I think we are becoming--where people
can leave home to go to work, or to the theater, or to school, and you
don't have the assurance, as we all grew up with, that you are going to
be safely coming back home. Guns are a descendant of pioneers. The idea
of having everybody have a gun--there are 330 million Americans and 320
million guns--that seems to me to be a pretty one-sided equation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to agree with the
gentlewoman from New York. I certainly, too, appreciate the bipartisan
effort that was put into this bill on the part of both Chairman Simpson
as well as Ranking Member Kaptur. They did an excellent job, which is
illustrated in both the committee and the subcommittee. This
legislation passed on a voice vote. That is a demonstration of great
bipartisan support, and certainly speaks well to this committee doing
excellent work together.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Carter).
Mr. CARTER of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Congressman
Newhouse and the Rules Committee, as well as Chairman Simpson and the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
Subcommittee, for their leadership and progress made on this year's
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
H.R. 5055, the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, is a step forward in updating our Nation's
waterborne infrastructure and energy needs.
The First District of Georgia is home to a unique set of resources,
with two large ports, various wetlands and islands, and the State's
entire coastline. Whether it is the Savannah Harbor Expansion Program,
the growth of the Port of Brunswick, or the unique characteristics
involved with wetlands permitting, the Energy and Water Appropriations
bill has a significant impact on the citizens of the First
Congressional District of Georgia.
The Port of Savannah is the second busiest East Coast port, and is
rapidly expanding, growing at a substantial rate year after year. The
Port of Brunswick is the third busiest roll-on/roll-off cargo port in
the country. These ports are the economic engines of Georgia and for
the Southeast, reaching as far as the Midwest in cargo imported and
exported out of their facilities.
H.R. 5055 is vital to ensuring that projects like the Savannah Harbor
Expansion Project continue on time so our Nation's economy continues to
grow.
I would like to thank the gentleman, the Rules Committee, and the
Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee for
their continued devotion to this cause.
I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Nevada (Ms. Titus).
Ms. TITUS. Mr. Speaker, I am here to discuss provisions in the
underlying bill that relate to the State of Nevada--provisions that are
identical to language in last year's bill to try and restart the failed
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump just outside my Congressional
District.
First, with all due respect, let me correct my friend across the
aisle. Yucca Mountain is not a defense repository. It is a commercial
nuclear power plant repository. Let's be clear about that.
Second, a recent Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement by the
NRC confirmed what we in Nevada have known for decades: Yucca Mountain
is not a secure repository that would seal dangerous waste safely for a
million years. It is, instead, a proposal based on bad science and
faulty assumptions.
Specifically, the NRC confirmed that the site is not secure, that it
will leak, and that radiation will travel for miles through underground
water sources to farming communities in the Amargosa Valley on its way
to Death Valley National Park.
But before the radioactive material can leak out of the ground, it
first has to be shipped, using untested procedures by truck and by rail
through nearly every State and every Congressional District in the
lower 48. These shipments will occur for decades, passing homes and
schools, parks and hospitals, churches and farms. They will pass
through the heart of my Congressional District, along the famed Las
Vegas strip where 42 million people come every year to work and play.
We need to stop the Yucca Mountain boondoggle once and for all, and
turn, instead, to recommendations from the Blue Ribbon Commission on
Nuclear Waste, including my legislation, the Nuclear Waste Informed
Consent Act.
Congress must either accept this reality and work towards actual
solutions, or we can continue this charade every appropriations season,
whereby language to fund Yucca shows up in bills so politicians can
continue to collect checks from the nuclear energy industry.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do want to thank the gentlewoman from New York for her comments as
they relate to the moral and legal obligation of the Federal Government
to continue the nuclear waste cleanup that we have all over this
country.
And then the gentlewoman from Nevada certainly has voiced some
concerns that we have heard before that are important to the people in
the State of Nevada.
Let me just remind everyone that we are under a modified open rule.
If there are changes to this bill, every Member in this body has an
opportunity to provide amendments to this bill. Under a modified open
rule, everything is on the table. If that is something that she can get
the support of the majority of the people on this floor, then that is
certainly something that she can take out of this bill.
But I have another opinion, another viewpoint. I have been to Yucca
Mountain. I don't know that there is a perfect place in the universe to
store nuclear waste, but Yucca Mountain, to me, seems to be about as
close to perfect as you can find. In that mountain, we have 1,000 feet
of rock above where the waste would be stored, and you have 1,000 feet
of rock below where that storage situation would be. And I
[[Page H2984]]
should remind the body that Yucca Mountain is the country's only legal
and permanent nuclear repository. It is for both commercial as well as
defense waste, and it is a critical component of our efforts to clean
up the defense nuclear waste created during and after World War II.
While I appreciate the gentlewoman's differing opinion, she does have
the opportunity to offer amendments, and I would encourage her to do
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up comprehensive
legislation that provides the resources needed to help the families in
the city of Flint, Michigan, recover from the water crisis.
The Families of Flint Act, authored by Mr. Kildee, would provide for
long-term investments in infrastructure and care for children affected
by the crisis.
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 yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee) to discuss our proposal.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for offering this
amendment and for yielding to me.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we
can immediately bring up H.R. 4479, which, as described, is the
Families of Flint Act.
We all know this story. Many Members have heard me talk about it here
on the floor of the House before. But in short, the city of Flint had
been a struggling community already because of the loss of jobs.
{time} 1345
Then the State of Michigan just a few years ago cut one of the three
essential elements to keep that city running--State revenue sharing--
which threw the city into a financial crisis. The State's response:
appoint a financial manager, an emergency manager, to take over the
city government, to suspend democracy, and, essentially, to act in
dictatorial form.
One of the decisions that that emergency manager made was to move the
city from using Great Lakes water as its primary drinking water source
to using the Flint River--a highly corrosive river--just to save money,
and they did save money. The corrosion from that water, untreated,
caused lead to leach into the pipes in Flint and into the homes of
100,000 people.
There are consequences to that decision. The lives of children--the
lives of people in Flint--are permanently affected by that. There are
9,000 children under the age of 6 who could potentially bear scars of
this poisoning for the rest of their lives and have their development
affected.
Lead is a neurotoxin. It affects brain development, and its impact is
permanent. But, with help, people can overcome the effects of this kind
of lead exposure.
The failure by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and
the terrible mistakes made by the emergency manager cannot be undone.
The effect can't be changed.
What we can do is make it right for the people of Flint. We can
prevent another exposure. The Kildee-Upton bill, which I worked on with
my friend from across the aisle, Mr. Upton, would do that.
Just preventing the next Flint isn't enough. We have to make it right
for the people of Flint and provide them justice.
The Families of Flint Act would do that. It would provide immediate
relief in making sure that they have clean drinking water. It would
provide support to get rid of those lead service lines and improve the
water distribution system so that this does not happen again.
Importantly, the Families of Flint Act would also provide ongoing
support for those families in Flint and give them the kind of health
care they need to overcome the effect of lead exposure in the
monitoring of their health.
Especially, it would provide for kids, who should have every
opportunity to overcome the effect of lead exposure, by basically
providing to those 9,000 children the same thing that any of us would
do for our own children if they had a developmental hurdle to
overcome--providing the kind of behavioral support and the kind of
enrichment opportunities that many of these kids, because they are born
into poverty in Flint, don't have access to. This would provide that
for them to make sure that they have a chance to overcome this terrible
crisis.
Justice for the people of Flint will come in many forms. Some people
have resigned. Some have been fired. Some have been criminally charged.
None of that does any good for the people of my hometown unless we also
do what we can to restore to them the opportunity that the kids in
Flint and that the families in Flint--like any other American--expect
to have for their kids.
Justice comes in lots of forms. Our job in Congress is to make sure
we seek justice for the people in our country. When one community, one
group of folks, is struggling, facing a disaster, facing the biggest
challenge that the community has ever faced, it is our duty, our job,
our responsibility, to come together to help them.
The Families of Flint Act would do that by providing Federal help
that would be required to have State support equal to what the Federal
Government provides. Basically, rather than litigating who is at fault,
we would fix the problem and realize that the people who live in Flint
have a right to have their Federal Government step up for them.
Even if it were primarily the State's responsibility for what took
place, they are citizens of the United States just like they are
citizens of Michigan. When they face the greatest crisis that they have
ever had, they have every right to expect that Congress itself would
act to provide for them the relief to get through this disaster.
We have done it in other cases. There are times when we all come
together as Americans. This is one of those times. Congress must act.
Congress should do its job. By defeating the previous question, we can
bring up the Families of Flint Act and do that.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would just inquire of the gentlewoman
from New York if she has any further speakers.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and
I am prepared to close.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have today an opportunity to fund groundbreaking, cutting-edge
research all across the country, to protect our precious environment,
and to support the Army Corps of Engineers. Yet the addition of several
harmful, dangerous policy riders will inhibit those goals and have no
place in the appropriations process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question and to vote ``no'' on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. NEWHOUSE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the good gentlewoman from New York.
Mr. Speaker, the rule we have considered provides for the
consideration of a very important piece of legislation that will
protect our country from security threats; that will ensure we have a
modern, safe, and reliable U.S. nuclear weapons program; that will
promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy; and that will make
critical investments in water resources and infrastructure projects.
The funds appropriated for national security needs, improvements in our
Nation's infrastructure, domestic energy development, and growing our
economy will benefit all Americans.
This bill is a responsible measure that supports U.S. national
security, energy research, water resource development, and economic
competitiveness, balancing these critical priorities while maintaining
tight budget caps.
In the current fiscal climate, where our national debt is approaching
a staggering $20 trillion, many difficult decisions had to be made by
the committee in drafting this measure, and I believe we have a bill
that preserves fiscal responsibility, advances sound
[[Page H2985]]
conservative and progrowth economic policies, and prioritizes funding
for our country's most pressing needs.
The past few years have seen the U.S. face growing security threats
abroad, highlighting the need to keep our country at the pinnacle of
nuclear security preparedness as well as the importance of investing in
domestic energy production that takes much-needed steps towards energy
independence.
In the Western United States, Americans have endured severe droughts
and catastrophic wildfires, which have drastically restricted the
availability of water and have devastated ground infrastructure. This
legislation addresses these issues as well as many others, and it
invests in efforts to promote a more secure and prosperous future for
our Nation.
Mr. Speaker, the 2017 Energy and Water Development and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act also includes much-needed conservative
reforms and policies to counter the administration's issuance of one
crippling regulation after another, hindering our domestic energy
development and security and undermining overall economic growth.
H.R. 5055 prohibits the EPA and the Army Corps from implementing the
excessive WOTUS rule, which would vastly expand Federal jurisdiction
over our water resources. It prevents any changes to Federal authority
under the Clean Water Act and impedes efforts to apply the Clean Water
Act in certain agricultural areas, such as farm ponds and irrigation
ditches.
The legislation blocks efforts to remove Federal dams, and it
protects Americans' Second Amendment rights by allowing for the
possession of firearms on Army Corps lands. Finally, it continues a
policy from last year that restricts any funds from being used to enter
into any new nuclear nonproliferation contracts or agreements with
Russia.
Mr. Speaker, this bill responsibly funds infrastructure, water, and
defense programs that are critical to our national security, to our
safety, and to our economic competitiveness, all while making tough
choices to ensure that taxpayers' funds are spent wisely.
I urge my colleagues to support the rule's adoption and invest in a
secure and prosperous future for our country by passing the 2017 Energy
and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 743 Offered by Ms. Slaughter of New York
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 4. 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.
4479) to provide emergency assistance related to the Flint
water crisis, and for other purposes. 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 Energy and Commerce. 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. 5. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.R. 4479.
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 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on ordering the previous question will be
followed by 5-minute votes on adoption of House Resolution 743, if
ordered; ordering the previous question on House Resolution 742;
adoption of House Resolution 742, if ordered; and the motion to suspend
the rules and pass H.R. 5077.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 233,
nays 174, not voting 26, as follows:
[Roll No. 231]
YEAS--233
Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
[[Page H2986]]
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--174
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Frankel (FL)
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Vela
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
Allen
Bass
Bishop (UT)
Castro (TX)
Collins (GA)
Crenshaw
Engel
Fattah
Fincher
Granger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson Lee
Loudermilk
Meeks
Miller (MI)
Moulton
O'Rourke
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, Austin
Takai
Thompson (CA)
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1416
Messrs. CLYBURN, SWALWELL of California, CARSON of Indiana, CLEAVER,
Ms. CLARK of Massachusetts, and Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. GRAVES of Missouri and GROTHMAN changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. MOULTON. Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, May 24, 2016, I was unable to
be present for rollcall vote No. 231 on providing for the consideration
of H.R. 5055. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
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. This is a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 237,
nays 171, not voting 25, as follows:
[Roll No. 232]
YEAS--237
Abraham
Aderholt
Amash
Amodei
Babin
Barletta
Barr
Barton
Benishek
Bilirakis
Bishop (MI)
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Blum
Bost
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brat
Bridenstine
Brooks (AL)
Brooks (IN)
Buchanan
Buck
Bucshon
Burgess
Byrne
Calvert
Carter (GA)
Carter (TX)
Chabot
Chaffetz
Clawson (FL)
Coffman
Cole
Collins (NY)
Comstock
Conaway
Cook
Cooper
Costa
Costello (PA)
Cramer
Crawford
Culberson
Curbelo (FL)
Davis, Rodney
Denham
Dent
DeSantis
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Donovan
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Duncan (TN)
Ellmers (NC)
Emmer (MN)
Farenthold
Fitzpatrick
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Garrett
Gibbs
Gibson
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Graves (GA)
Graves (LA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Grothman
Guinta
Guthrie
Hanna
Hardy
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Heck (NV)
Hensarling
Hice, Jody B.
Hill
Holding
Hudson
Hultgren
Hunter
Hurd (TX)
Hurt (VA)
Issa
Jenkins (KS)
Jenkins (WV)
Johnson (OH)
Johnson, Sam
Jolly
Jones
Jordan
Joyce
Katko
Kelly (MS)
Kelly (PA)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Knight
Labrador
LaHood
LaMalfa
Lamborn
Lance
Latta
LoBiondo
Long
Love
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
MacArthur
Marchant
Marino
Massie
McCarthy
McCaul
McClintock
McHenry
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
McSally
Meadows
Meehan
Messer
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moolenaar
Mooney (WV)
Mullin
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Neugebauer
Newhouse
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Olson
Palazzo
Palmer
Paulsen
Pearce
Perry
Peterson
Pittenger
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Poliquin
Pompeo
Posey
Price, Tom
Ratcliffe
Reed
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rice (SC)
Rigell
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney (FL)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothfus
Rouzer
Royce
Russell
Salmon
Sanford
Scalise
Schweikert
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (MO)
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stefanik
Stewart
Stivers
Stutzman
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Trott
Turner
Upton
Valadao
Wagner
Walberg
Walden
Walker
Walorski
Walters, Mimi
Weber (TX)
Webster (FL)
Wenstrup
Westerman
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Williams
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Yoho
Young (AK)
Young (IA)
Young (IN)
Zeldin
Zinke
NAYS--171
Adams
Aguilar
Ashford
Beatty
Becerra
Bera
Beyer
Bishop (GA)
Blumenauer
Bonamici
Boyle, Brendan F.
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brownley (CA)
Bustos
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardenas
Carney
Carson (IN)
Cartwright
Castor (FL)
Chu, Judy
Cicilline
Clark (MA)
Clarke (NY)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly
Conyers
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis, Danny
DeFazio
DeGette
Delaney
DeLauro
DelBene
DeSaulnier
Deutch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle, Michael F.
Duckworth
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Esty
Farr
Foster
Fudge
Gabbard
Gallego
Garamendi
Graham
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hahn
Hastings
Heck (WA)
Higgins
Himes
Honda
Hoyer
Huffman
Israel
Jeffries
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kaptur
Keating
Kelly (IL)
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilmer
Kind
Kirkpatrick
Kuster
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lawrence
Lee
Levin
Lewis
Lieu, Ted
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren
Lowenthal
Lowey
Lujan Grisham (NM)
Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)
Lynch
Maloney, Carolyn
Maloney, Sean
Matsui
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meng
Moore
Moulton
Murphy (FL)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nolan
Norcross
Pallone
Pascrell
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree
Pocan
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rangel
Rice (NY)
Richmond
Roybal-Allard
Ruiz
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell (AL)
Sherman
Sinema
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Swalwell (CA)
Takano
Thompson (MS)
Titus
Tonko
Torres
[[Page H2987]]
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Vargas
Veasey
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson Coleman
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
Allen
Bass
Castro (TX)
Collins (GA)
Crenshaw
Fattah
Fincher
Frankel (FL)
Granger
Herrera Beutler
Hinojosa
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Jackson Lee
Loudermilk
Meeks
Miller (MI)
O'Rourke
Payne
Sanchez, Loretta
Scott, Austin
Takai
Thompson (CA)
Vela
Waters, Maxine
{time} 1424
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________