The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 5055, ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2017” mentioning the Department of Interior was published in the House of Representatives section on pages H2981-H2987 on May 24, 2016.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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 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 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 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:
YEAS--233
AbrahamAderholtAmashAmodeiBabinBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBilirakisBishop (MI)BlackBlackburnBlumBostBoustanyBrady (TX)BratBridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuchananBuckBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)Carter (TX)ChabotChaffetzClawson (FL)CoffmanColeCollins (NY)ComstockConawayCookCostello (PA)CramerCrawfordCulbersonCurbelo (FL)Davis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonovanDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)Ellmers (NC)Emmer (MN)FarentholdFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGarrettGibbsGibsonGohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)GriffithGrothmanGuintaGuthrieHannaHardyHarperHarrisHartzlerHeck (NV)HensarlingHice, Jody B.HillHoldingHudsonHultgrenHunterHurd (TX)Hurt (VA)IssaJenkins (KS)Jenkins (WV)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJollyJonesJordanJoyceKatkoKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)Kinzinger (IL)Kline KnightLabradorLaHoodLaMalfaLambornLanceLattaLoBiondoLongLoveLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMacArthurMarchantMarinoMassieMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMcSallyMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)MoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNewhouseNoemNugentNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPaulsenPearcePerryPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PoliquinPompeoPoseyPrice, TomRatcliffeReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)RohrabacherRokitaRooney (FL)Ros-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRouzerRoyceRussellSalmonSanfordScaliseSchweikertSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)StefanikStewartStiversStutzmanThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTrottTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalkerWalorskiWalters, MimiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IA)Young (IN)ZeldinZinke
NAYS--174
AdamsAguilarAshfordBeattyBecerraBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.Brady (PA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Chu, JudyCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCooperCostaCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDeLauroDelBeneDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.DuckworthEdwardsEllisonEshooEstyFarrFosterFrankel (FL)FudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGrahamGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHastingsHeck (WA)HigginsHimesHondaHoyerHuffmanIsraelJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLeeLevinLewisLieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMatsuiMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMengMooreMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNolanNorcrossPallonePascrellPelosiPerlmutterPetersPetersonPingreePocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRangelRice (NY)RichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.SarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)ShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (MS)TitusTonkoTorresTsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelaVelazquezViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatson ColemanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--26
AllenBassBishop (UT)Castro (TX)Collins (GA)CrenshawEngelFattahFincherGrangerHerrera BeutlerHinojosaHuelskampHuizenga (MI)Jackson LeeLoudermilkMeeksMiller (MI)MoultonO'RourkePayneSanchez, LorettaScott, AustinTakaiThompson (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:
YEAS--237
AbrahamAderholtAmashAmodeiBabinBarlettaBarrBartonBenishekBilirakisBishop (MI)Bishop (UT)BlackBlackburnBlumBostBoustanyBrady (TX)BratBridenstineBrooks (AL)Brooks (IN)BuchananBuckBucshonBurgessByrneCalvertCarter (GA)Carter (TX)ChabotChaffetzClawson (FL)CoffmanColeCollins (NY)ComstockConawayCookCooperCostaCostello (PA)CramerCrawfordCulbersonCurbelo (FL)Davis, RodneyDenhamDentDeSantisDesJarlaisDiaz-BalartDoldDonovanDuffyDuncan (SC)Duncan (TN)Ellmers (NC)Emmer (MN)FarentholdFitzpatrickFleischmannFlemingFloresForbesFortenberryFoxxFranks (AZ)FrelinghuysenGarrettGibbsGibsonGohmertGoodlatteGosarGowdyGraves (GA)Graves (LA)Graves (MO)GriffithGrothmanGuintaGuthrieHannaHardyHarperHarrisHartzlerHeck (NV)HensarlingHice, Jody B.HillHoldingHudsonHultgrenHunterHurd (TX)Hurt (VA)IssaJenkins (KS)Jenkins (WV)Johnson (OH)Johnson, SamJollyJonesJordanJoyceKatkoKelly (MS)Kelly (PA)King (IA)King (NY)Kinzinger (IL)KlineKnightLabradorLaHoodLaMalfaLambornLanceLattaLoBiondoLongLoveLucasLuetkemeyerLummisMacArthurMarchantMarinoMassieMcCarthyMcCaulMcClintockMcHenryMcKinleyMcMorris RodgersMcSallyMeadowsMeehanMesserMicaMiller (FL)MoolenaarMooney (WV)MullinMulvaneyMurphy (PA)NeugebauerNewhouseNoemNugentNunesOlsonPalazzoPalmerPaulsenPearcePerryPetersonPittengerPittsPoe (TX)PoliquinPompeoPoseyPrice, TomRatcliffeReedReichertRenacciRibbleRice (SC)RigellRobyRoe (TN)Rogers (AL)Rogers (KY)RohrabacherRokitaRooney (FL)Ros-LehtinenRoskamRossRothfusRouzerRoyceRussellSalmonSanfordScaliseSchweikertSensenbrennerSessionsShimkusShusterSimpsonSmith (MO)Smith (NE)Smith (NJ)Smith (TX)StefanikStewartStiversStutzmanThompson (PA)ThornberryTiberiTiptonTrottTurnerUptonValadaoWagnerWalbergWaldenWalkerWalorskiWalters, MimiWeber (TX)Webster (FL)WenstrupWestermanWestmorelandWhitfieldWilliamsWilson (SC)WittmanWomackWoodallYoderYohoYoung (AK)Young (IA)Young (IN)ZeldinZinke
NAYS--171
AdamsAguilarAshfordBeattyBecerraBeraBeyerBishop (GA)BlumenauerBonamiciBoyle, Brendan F.Brady (PA)Brown (FL)Brownley (CA)BustosButterfieldCappsCapuanoCardenasCarneyCarson (IN)CartwrightCastor (FL)Chu, JudyCicillineClark (MA)Clarke (NY)ClayCleaverClyburnCohenConnollyConyersCourtneyCrowleyCuellarCummingsDavis (CA)Davis, DannyDeFazioDeGetteDelaneyDeLauroDelBeneDeSaulnierDeutchDingellDoggettDoyle, Michael F.DuckworthEdwardsEllisonEngelEshooEstyFarrFosterFudgeGabbardGallegoGaramendiGrahamGraysonGreen, AlGreen, GeneGrijalvaGutierrezHahnHastingsHeck (WA)HigginsHimesHondaHoyerHuffmanIsraelJeffriesJohnson (GA)Johnson, E. B.KapturKeatingKelly (IL)KennedyKildeeKilmerKindKirkpatrickKusterLangevinLarsen (WA)Larson (CT)LawrenceLeeLevinLewisLieu, TedLipinskiLoebsackLofgrenLowenthalLoweyLujan Grisham (NM)Lujan, Ben Ray (NM)LynchMaloney, CarolynMaloney, SeanMatsuiMcCollumMcDermottMcGovernMcNerneyMengMooreMoultonMurphy (FL)NadlerNapolitanoNealNolanNorcrossPallonePascrellPelosiPerlmutterPetersPingreePocanPolisPrice (NC)QuigleyRangelRice (NY)RichmondRoybal-AllardRuizRuppersbergerRushRyan (OH)Sanchez, Linda T.SarbanesSchakowskySchiffSchraderScott (VA)Scott, DavidSerranoSewell (AL)ShermanSinemaSiresSlaughterSmith (WA)SpeierSwalwell (CA)TakanoThompson (MS)TitusTonkoTorres TsongasVan HollenVargasVeaseyVelazquezViscloskyWalzWasserman SchultzWatson ColemanWelchWilson (FL)Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--25
AllenBassCastro (TX)Collins (GA)CrenshawFattahFincherFrankel (FL)GrangerHerrera BeutlerHinojosaHuelskampHuizenga (MI)Jackson LeeLoudermilkMeeksMiller (MI)O'RourkePayneSanchez, LorettaScott, AustinTakaiThompson (CA)VelaWaters, 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.
____________________
