Louise Slaughter: “Mr. Speaker, this rule has many good features. It is an open rule that will allow Members to work their will. It…”

“Mr. Speaker, this rule has many good features. It is an open rule that will allow Members to work their will. It self-executes important amendments that deal with vital issues, such as the wildland fire suppression, forest health and Indian health care. In fact, I would have been pleased to vigorously support this rule if it had protected all portions of the committee-reported bill from points of order and if it had allowed the precedents of the House to determine the order in which Members would be recognized to offer amendments. However, the rule reported by the Committee on Rules leaves unprotected a single provision of the bill, allowing that provision of the bill to be struck, but then the rule allows a specified majority member to offer an amendment to put the same provision back in the bill. Now, why do we go through this charade? Because apparently they wanted to mollify a segment of the conference while simultaneously allowing a majority Member, who is not a member of the Committee on Appropriations or the authorizing committee, to appear to take a leadership role on the arts.”