Providing for Consideration of S. Energy Policy Modernization Act of Providing for Consideration of H.R. Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of and Providing for Proceedings During the Period From May Through June 2016

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 744 and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. Res. 744

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 2012) to provide for the modernization of the energy policy of the United States, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-55 shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided among and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; and (2) one motion to commit with or without instructions.

Sec. 2. If S. 2012, as amended, is passed, then it shall be in order for the chair of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his designee to move that the House insist on its amendment to S. 2012 and request a conference with the Senate thereon.

Sec. 3. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5233) to repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, to amend the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to clarify the respective roles of the District government and Congress in the local budget process of the District government, and for other purposes. All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Sec. 4. On any legislative day during the period from May 27, 2016, through June 6, 2016-- (a) the Journal of the proceedings of the previous day shall be considered as approved; and

(b) the Chair may at any time declare the House adjourned to meet at a date and time, within the limits of clause 4, section 5, article I of the Constitution, to be announced by the Chair in declaring the adjournment.

Sec. 5. The Speaker may appoint Members to perform the duties of the Chair for the duration of the period addressed by section 4 of this resolution as though under clause 8(a) of rule I.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), 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
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 744 provides for the consideration of S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016, and H.R. 5233, Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016.

The rule provides 1 hour of debate, equally divided amongst the majority and minority members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and Natural Resources for S. 2012. As S. 2012, as amended, is a comprehensive compilation of energy legislation that has already passed the House, the Committee on Rules made no further amendments in order. However, the rule affords the minority the customary motion to recommit, a final opportunity to amend the legislation should the minority choose to exercise that option.

The rule further provides for 1 hour of debate, equally divided between the majority and minority of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on H.R. 5233. No amendments were made in order as the bill is a targeted response to what Members of the House have perceived as an unlawful action taken by the District of Columbia in contravention of the Federal Home Rule Act. The minority is, however, afforded the customary motion to recommit, a final chance to amend the legislation.

Finally, the rule contains the standard tools to allow the orderly management of the floor of the House of Representatives during an upcoming district work period.

The House amendment to S. 2012, the Energy Policy Modernization Act of 2016, builds on the work of the House. The House has done this work over the past year and a half to update the Nation's energy laws and move the country forward on energy policy.

While many House committees have had input on this package, Members can feel comfortable that a wide array of opinions and positions are represented in the legislation. This is how the House works its will most effectively, by combining various pieces of legislation into one package.

In amending S. 2012, the Senate passed energy legislation. Following passage of S. 2012 in the House, both bodies will be able to begin to conference the differences in the two bills, a further step in the regular order of this bill becoming a law.

The legislation will benefit Americans across the country: modernizing our energy infrastructure; expediting and improving forest management; providing for greater opportunities on Federal lands for hunting, fishing, and shooting; and prioritizing science research using Federal taxpayer dollars.

S. 2012, as amended, includes various pieces of legislation considered and passed by the House not only in the current 114th Congress, but it also includes many pieces of bipartisan legislation from the 112th and 113th Congresses.

A major win for the American people in this package is the provisions allowing for expanded access by sportsmen, fishermen, and recreational shooters to Federal lands, lands that should have always been accessible to all Americans for various legal and constitutional activities.

Further, the legislation before us focuses on protecting American interests in a world where uncertainty due to terrorism and unfriendly and unstable regimes in the Middle East threaten American access to reliable sources of energy. We have long believed that America should focus less on relying on foreign energy sources, given the abundance of resources below our very feet across this Nation. Only if Federal policies are aligned with this view, which the House will do with this package, can our country fully focus on becoming energy secure.

The second piece of legislation contained in today's rule addresses the House concerns with recent actions taken by the District of Columbia's Mayor and City Council. H.R. 5233, Clarifying Congressional Intent in Providing for DC Home Rule Act of 2016, repeals the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012, a referendum passed in the District of Columbia, which many believe violates both the U.S. Constitution and the Federal Home Rule Act.

When the Founding Fathers crafted our Constitution, they acknowledged the special status that the Nation's Capital held and created a special relationship between it and the Federal Government not enjoyed by other States and other localities.

While some argue that the District of Columbia should be entirely self-governed, that is not how our Constitution treats the Federal city. Article I, section 8, clause 17 states that the Congress of the United States shall have the power--I am quoting from the Constitution here--``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings.''

The District of Columbia, falling squarely within the parameters of this clause, is, therefore, subject to Congress' exclusive exercise over its laws.

I have no doubt that a strong debate will surround the consideration of H.R. 5233, as we heard in the Committee on Rules last night, but Congress would be relinquishing its duty under the United States Constitution to oversee the governance of the Nation's Capital.

Today's rule will allow the House to complete the final two pieces of legislation for the month of May, a month where the House of Representatives has passed legislation to provide funding for our military bases, funding for our veterans, funding for energy and water policies; to provide new authorities and funding to combat the growing threat of the Zika virus; to update our Nation's chemical laws; to provide help to those in this country facing opioid addictions; and to provide tools to our Nation's armed services necessary to keep our citizens safe from the growing threat of terrorism. It has been one of the most productive months of the year for the House of Representatives.

I would remind the House that this energy legislation has worked its way through the House for the last 18 months; and, indeed, the two previous Congresses, multiple committees have had input on this. It has been one of the most thoroughly vetted pieces of legislation. I cannot tell you the number of hearings, the number of markups that I have sat through in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It has had similar treatment over in the Senate. The concept of getting this bill through the House, going to conference with the Senate, this is a good product and is worthy of the support of this body.

Mr. Speaker, the Founders recognized that, within the District of Columbia, this was a unique entity. But Congress, in its benevolence, granted the District of Columbia limited autonomy in the Home Rule Act of 1973. That autonomy did not extend as far as what the current Mayor and city council envisioned it to.

The Home Rule Act maintained the role of the Federal Government in the District's budget process; and, indeed, the Federal Government has had to step in as late as the 1990s because the District had so mismanaged its finances.

Then, the District of Columbia Financial Control Board had to be instituted in order to correct the many financial disasters that the District of Columbia government had created for itself. Congress gave the board the power to override the D.C. government where it saw fit.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out in the statement I gave at the beginning of this hour, just reflecting back on the month of May, a month where the House of Representatives passed legislation funding our military bases, funding our veterans, funding energy and water policies, providing new authorities to combat the growing threat of the Zika virus, we updated our Nation's chemical laws for the first time in 40 years, we provided help to people in this country facing opiate addictions, we provided pay and benefits to our military, we provided the tools to our armed services necessary to keep our citizens safe from the growing threat of terrorism, it has been a significant month in the United States House of Representatives. Oftentimes we don't reflect back on what has been accomplished. So this is a good opportunity to do that.

Mr. Speaker, today's rule provides for consideration of two important bills to update our Nation's energy policies and address the constitutional deficiencies in recent District of Columbia Council actions.

I want to thank the many Members of the House on both sides who contributed to the underlying pieces of legislation, which will be considered today following the passage of today's rule.

Finally, I do want to join my colleagues--I am probably the most recent addition to the House Rules Committee, but I certainly have been there long enough to appreciate the wise counsel and guidance of Miles Lackey and certainly wish him well in his future endeavors and pray for his successor.

The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows: An Amendment to H. Res. 744 Offered by Ms. Slaughter

At the end of the resolution, add the following new sections:

Sec. 6. 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. 430) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide for additional disclosure requirements for corporations, labor organizations, and other entities, 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on House Administration, the Judiciary, and Ways and Means. 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. 7. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H. R. 430.

Sec 8. Immediately after the disposition of H.R. 430 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. 5189) to address the opioid abuse crisis. 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 among and controlled by the respective chairs and ranking minority members of the Committees on Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. All points of order against provisions in the bill are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the next legislative day the House shall, immediately after the third daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further consideration of the bill.

Sec. 9. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the consideration of H.R. 5189. 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. 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source