Louise Slaughter

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, the Majority shouldn't be rushing to leave town. We should be acting to combat the gun violence epidemic that's tearing apart our country. Guns have devastated communities all across the country, whether it's a place of worship, a hospital, or even an elementary school. What were once sanctuaries have all too often become shooting galleries. We all watched just days ago as a peaceful protest in the wonderful city of Dallas turned deadly as a gunman ambushed and murdered police officers in the deadliest attack on law enforcement in the U.S. since 9/11. No community should have to go through such horror. This is another tragic reminder of the dangers posed by easy access to weapons designed to kill. It should forever refute one of the most pervasive talking points from the gun lobby, that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Law enforcement across the country make sacrifices every single day to keep us safe. But even an entire police force cannot prevent the tragedy caused by a madman determined to use a weapon of war in our communities. Mr. Speaker, the sad reality is that 91 people are killed by a gun every single day in America. Since Sandy Hook, there have been close to a thousand mass shootings. This has left our nation in a state of perpetual mourning with the constant fear that when our loved ones leave the house, we may never see them again. But despite this, the Majority has bowed to the pressure of the gun lobby again and again and failed to take up any meaningful reforms to combat gun violence. During the sit-in, we made a commitment to the American people that despite the Majority's inaction, we would keep fighting. The public remains united in demanding action. We're asking for votes on two bills that make good sense, one of which may have helped prevent the tragedy in Dallas. People must be astounded to hear that someone on the terrorist watch list cannot fly but still buy a gun. But instead of taking up these bills, the Majority is running for the exits to begin a nearly two month recess. It's shameful.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Newhouse) for graciously yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, despite the repeated claims by the majority that the Chamber is an open one and represents the American people, we have not had a single open rule since Speaker Ryan assumed the gavel. Although they claim there are many restricting amendments processed to prevent so-called ``poison pill'' amendments, nothing could be further from the truth, and, frankly, even poison pill amendments are allowable. The bill before us contains several controversial policy riders that virtually guarantee the President's veto and blocks a number of amendments that would be in order under the standing rules of the House. The bill drastically underfunds important agencies and programs by more than $1 billion below the President's request. This sends a message that the majority puts what is best for their special interests ahead of what is best for the health of our communities. I am particularly concerned that the bill makes draconian cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, which will undercut the health and safety of all Americans--these cuts, despite the ongoing public health disaster in Flint, Michigan, where, for the rest of their lives, the children who were poisoned by lead in their drinking water could suffer from neurodevelopmental damage that could lead to everything from behavioral changes, to anemia, to hypertension. All across the Nation, there are century-old water pipes in older cities in desperate need of replacement. Although lead pipes were banned 30 years ago, there are an estimated 3 to 10 million still in service today. My district has an estimated 23,000 lead service lines that lead from the water main to the curb, and that is 40 percent of all the water lines in the district. Multiple schools in the district recently tested have found elevated lead levels in their water sources. The majority refuses to make virtually any investments in our Nation's infrastructure as it crumbles. But as you know, Mr. Speaker, lead has been found in the drinking water in the Cannon Building, one of the legislative office buildings. I can almost guarantee you that before the next week is out, that that will be taken care of. I don't know how this Congress can ignore the needs of the young people in Flint, Michigan, and other children throughout this country who are drinking lead water in their schools such that we will take care of what happens here in Congress and completely overlook and ignore their needs. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, every day we are here considering bills like this that will never become law, and every time we do that, that is another day that we have failed to combat the gun violence epidemic that is tearing our country apart. Mr. Speaker, an epidemic of gun violence is happening all across the country, and the majority should stop the political games and the gimmicks. Instead of voting on another one-House bill that is sure to be vetoed by the President should it ever become a two-House bill, we should be voting on no fly, no buy. It is astonishing to American citizens that persons who are on the no-fly list as suspected terrorists can nonetheless buy guns. Mr. Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up this important legislation. No fly, no buy is a commonsense, bipartisan bill that would keep guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists. In the interest of public safety, if nothing else, we should be doing that by all means. It is supported by nearly 90 percent of the public and deserves our consideration. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on ordering the previous question, the rule, and the underlying bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Elbert L. Merrick, III, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of action on the House floor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I ask unanimous consent to bring up H.R. 1217, the bipartisan expanded background checks legislation, to honor the memory of Valerie Short, a victim of gun violence who never received a moment of silence on the House floor.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Chair, I rise today in support of Congressman Grayson's amendment number 12 to the FY 2017 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations legislation. This pro-woman amendment would strike a long-standing and unfair policy rider from the underlying legislation that restricts abortion coverage for those ensured under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Restricting access to this constitutionally protected right sets women working for the federal government apart as a separate class. FEHBP provides health insurance to federal employees and their dependents. Like employees in the private sector, federal employees contribute to the cost of their health insurance through co-pays and deductibles. Unlike other employees in the private sector, however, federal employees are unable to access health plans that cover abortion. Since 1983, Congress has adopted language through the Financial Services Appropriations bill to eliminate abortion coverage from FEHPB except in narrow circumstances when the pregnancy would endanger the woman's life or the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest. I rise in support of this amendment because it is time to end this prohibition. Every woman in the United States is entitled to access the constitutionally-protected full range of pregnancy-related care, including abortion. No employer--including the federal government-- should be allowed to dictate how an employee uses health care coverage or interfere in the benefits an employee chooses to access. Congress should respect the health care decisions of each federal employee and treat women with the dignity and compassion they rightly deserve. I urge my colleagues to support this important amendment to protect the rights of federal employees and their right to access constitutionally-protected medical services. For too long, this body has interfered with the difficult decisions women should make with their families, their doctors and whomever they choose. It's time that Congress lifts this ban and all bans on abortion coverage not just in FEHBP.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained and missed Roll Call vote numbers 334, 335, and 336. Had I been present, I would have voted nay on Roll Call vote number 334 and aye on both Roll Call votes 335 and 336.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, despite Speakers Boehner and Ryan promising that the Chamber would be open, we haven't had an open rule since Speaker Ryan became Speaker. He has closed down the legislative process, shutting out Members and, thus, their constituents. We need a full, open debate process, and though Speaker Ryan had the best of intentions when he assumed the mantle, his best laid plans have already crumbled and the Chamber has been slowed to a halt so Republicans can avoid taking difficult votes. Mr. Speaker, the bill before us provides appropriations for the Department of Defense at a level $3 billion above fiscal year 2016, though it still remains $587 million below the President's request. There are some strong, bipartisan measures in the bill, including funding for research into traumatic brain injuries, cancer, and physiological health research, as well as sexual assault prevention funds. Those are welcome investments. Also included is a well-deserved pay raise for our men and women in uniform. Their immense sacrifice cannot be quantified, and they deserve our wholehearted support for the tireless defense of our Nation. Additionally, the bill provides robust funding for cybersecurity and sorely needed assistance for our friends struggling for democracy in Ukraine so they can get the training and equipment they need to defend themselves against Russian aggression. One of the most important aspects of this bill, however, is the investment made in the Department's manufacturing technology programs. That is the wave of the future, Mr. Speaker. We have no way to achieve national security if we cannot manufacture the goods that we need here at home. The Manufacturing Technology Office administers the soon to be eight DOD-led Manufacturing Innovation Institutes that allow us to secure technological advantage and economic competitiveness around the world. I am proud that one of these institutes, AIM Photonics, is included, and that this bill fully funds the institute's launch with $25 million of the total $110 million committed by the Federal Government. I thank the chair and the ranking member for making our Nation's industrial policy a bipartisan priority. However, these essential pieces of funding are overshadowed by the way in which the House majority has decided to source their funds. They do so by raiding the overseas contingency operations, or OCO, which is meant to be emergency supplemental funding. This budget gimmick makes it even more likely that the Department of Defense will run out of funding early next year as we will come to another standoff over funding. This is robbing Peter to pay Paul, and it is not how any rational citizen would run a household budget. And why would the House majority endorse it? The discussion and debate, while essential, detract from the urgency of addressing the war at home, the gun violence epidemic that is crippling our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I rise today heartbroken from the horrific loss of life due to gun violence in America, but this Chamber keeps turning and churning, and going about business as usual. On Monday night, as so many of my colleagues said, we held yet another moment of silence. Since there have been 998 mass shootings in the United States since Newtown, that is a lot of moments of silence, but no action at all. How many times do we have to stand on the floor and observe that silence when our colleagues who actually have the power to make the changes necessary to stop it are in the room with us? For the victims of Orlando and every shooting before, for their families and our constituents, we need more than thoughts and prayers. We need action and laws now. Mr. Speaker, according to the United Nations, half of the world's guns are in the United States. We have 317 million people in our Nation, but an estimated 350 million guns. If you think that the ubiquity of firearms in our Nation has not increased the likelihood of mass shootings, I encourage you to reconsider. What happened in Orlando was a man with a military weapon shot without pause for heaven knows how long a time because he had a weapon. The fact that he had that--and we have said over and over again that those guns are only intended to kill people, and, unfortunately, that has come true, and it is our citizens that they are killing. Now, we, the Members of this body, could vote for lifesaving, commonsense measures, yet the majority refuses to act. The majority blocks votes to prevent terrorists from buying guns. A terrorist on a watch list can go ahead and buy a gun. They won't consider legislation to require universal background checks, which the majority of Americans support. They won't even consider, anymore, the assault weapons ban. Before it expired, it made a lot of difference in the mass killings in this country. What is even more dangerous is that, in the healthcare bill passed-- it was stunning to me that it was even in there--the Centers for Disease Control can't even track data on gun violence as a public health issue. Also, family doctors, who can ask about drugs in the home, are not allowed to ask about guns in the home; and some gun sales records are destroyed after 24 hours, by law, making it incredibly hard, if not impossible, to verify information and to track sales. So that is the state of affairs in this Chamber today. Instead of thoughts and prayers, which we always turn to for solace, we would like to have, now, some actions and laws. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, let me take just a minute to say that I appreciate the history lesson, but the fact is that both Speaker Boehner and Speaker Ryan had said that this was going to be the most open Congress in history, but we haven't had a single open rule since Speaker Ryan took over. So I think we could go on in this debate like a tennis match all day long, but the facts are the facts. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democrat whip.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a valued member of the Rules Committee.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the previous question so that we can do an amendment on guns and to vote ``no'' on the rule. I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if my colleague has further speakers.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Then I am prepared to close. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time. Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that some amendments he likes, some he doesn't. That is perfectly legitimate, but that is not why we make amendments in order in the Rules Committee. We don't pick out some we like and some we don't. We talk about the germaneness of the amendments. Certainly, if you have 70, I am sure there are going to be several people do not agree with. But there is beginning to be a very unpleasant trend--and I am very concerned about it--that members of the majority on the Rules Committee will ask people coming to ask to have their amendments made in order-- which, remember, as far as I can say right now, and I could be proved wrong, I think we are the only committee where members of a committee come up and ask for something. It is a totally different process from what happens in the other committees. They come to us with full understanding--of course, the ratio, as you know, is 9-4, so it is kind of window dressing a lot of time--to ask that an amendment be in order. Those are sometimes people from the committee whose amendments weren't made in order in the committee, or it is other Members who have a great interest in that bill and would like to express the interest of their constituents in it. But there is no question that there is really beginning to be a trend: if they don't like the amendment themselves, it is out the window. There is no chance of debate. In fact, so few of us get a chance to do any debating that we believe--and think that it is a fact--that many of our constituents in the country are just shut out of the debate. What is even worse than that, now members have begun to ask the witnesses, as they come with their amendments: If we make your amendment in order, will you vote for the bill? I object most strenuously to that. We are just getting into it, and I really want to study, but there is a quid pro quo there that I don't believe is intended for members of the Rules Committee to have. There is a favoritism being asked: If we do this for you, not because it is good, it is germane, it should move the bill and because, as a Member of Congress, you have a right to do it; but if we grant you this wish, your obligation is to vote for the bill, even though you may hate everything else that is in it. So we will amplify on that a little bit. We have some review to do on how that is going to work, but on the face of it, I find it totally offensive myself. Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity now to make a meaningful change, as all my colleagues have said, to address the gun violence epidemic that is crippling our Nation. If we defeat the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule to bring up bipartisan legislation that would bar the sale of firearms and explosives to those on the FBI's terrorist watch list. No matter how hard I might try--and I don't plan to--I don't believe I could find any kind of cogent argument that would argue against that. I think a thinking person would say: Yes, someone on the FBI's terrorist list, we would not like them to be collecting firearms and explosives. It is unconscionable that the Republican majority has repeatedly refused to even debate closing such a glaring loophole. In fact, in our discussions about that and shouldn't that be done--as I said, the public really wants that done--they won't even consider it. The country can't wait any longer for Congress to act. I think the whole country is absolutely paralyzed with sadness, anger, and mixed feelings about what is going on in this country. The number of people shot in a weekend in Chicago; the young singer the other night, just before the Orlando massacre, who was shot to death because somebody wanted to do it and had the ability to do it. We have Second Amendment rights, but we also have rights to live. We have the right to think that when our children go to school in the morning, they are going to come home in the afternoon. I can assure you that all the people worshiping in Mother Emmanuel Church believed they were going to go home after that to supper and to bed and to look forward to the next day. We are not sensibly looking at what is going on here. Our record internationally is appalling. I will tell you that the country, I believe, at this moment is really crying out for something, and I am afraid, again, it will fall on deaf ears. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the rule which joins two disparate issues. The first, District of Columbia budget autonomy. The second, pursuing an energy bill that prioritizes an outdated energy policy. First, D.C. budget autonomy. Mr. Speaker, Congress sits in the District of Columbia, and our presence looms far beyond the footprint of the buildings. Congress has mandated that the government of the District of Columbia pass every budget plan--every spending plan down to the penny of their own money that they raise--through Congress. But in 2012, the District of Columbia exerted its own authority and passed the Local Budget Autonomy Amendment Act of 2012 and essentially said: We will allocate our own local funds ourselves unless Congress overrides our plan, and we will only ask permission beforehand when we spend money that comes from the Federal Treasury. The bill before us, H.R. 5233, would repeal the District's local law, keep the District of Columbia from spending its own money on local services, and prohibit the District from granting itself budget autonomy in the future. For far too long, the residents of the District have paid their fair share of taxes and have not had full representation in Congress. The District sends young people off to war, but doesn't have an equal voice in either going to war or how the country is governed. In fact, it reminds me a lot of a plantation. Subjecting the District to the lengthy and uncertain congressional appropriations process for its own use of their local tax collection imposes operational and financial hardships for the District, burdens not borne by any other local government in the country. In addition to that, it is more expensive to them. It defies reason that the House majority would continue this overreach, and I urge each considerate Republican to rethink their position. In fact, there are some key Republicans who do support the District's budget autonomy. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee's last four chairmen--including Republicans Tom Davis and Darrell Issa--worked to give D.C. budget autonomy. I urge my Republican colleagues to follow suit. Second, the rule would allow the House to replace the text of the Senate's bipartisan energy reform legislation with the House's partisan energy bill. Time and again, we have seen the Senate come to a reasonable, bipartisan compromise, but the House chases a partisan agenda and derails the legislative process every time. The House proposal encourages an outdated energy policy that favors fossil fuels above the clean and renewable energy sources, and it seeks to roll back important environmental protections. The majority's insistence on negating environmental protections and doubling down on their attacks on environmental laws is a troubling waste of time. Nevertheless, Democrats will fight to protect the environment and precious natural resources. The bill locks in fossil fuel consumption for years to come by repealing current law aimed at reducing the government's carbon footprint. It also puts up barriers to the integration of clean, renewable energy technologies, all while rolling back the energy efficiency standards. In the past, efficiency standards were an area of bipartisan compromise. Not anymore. Americans cannot afford the Republican majority's head-in-the-sand approach to climate change and energy consumption. In fact, I understand that the presumed Presidential candidate of the Republican Party had applied to build a wall on one of his foreign golf courses, blaming climate change for the erosion. So if he believes it in a foreign country, I certainly hope he will think about believing it here. I urge my colleagues to work toward an all-of-the-above strategy that will modernize our Nation's energy infrastructure in a way that addresses climate change, promotes clean energy, drives innovation, and ensures a cleaner, more stable environment for future generations. Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule. I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), a hardworking Member who represents 700,000 people who have no say because this body decides everything that they do. As I pointed out before, they pay their taxes and they send their children off to war, but she cannot vote in this House in any way to affect anything.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 3 minutes.

Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time remains on both sides?