[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 127 (Wednesday, October 2, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H6954-H6955]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE--INTEGRITY OF PROCEEDINGS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE
CONSTITUTION
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to rule IX, I rise to a question
of the privileges of the House, offer a privileged resolution that I
noticed, and ask for its immediate consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
A resolution, in accordance with House Rule IX, expressing
a sense of the House that its integrity has been impugned and
Constitutional duty hampered by the inability of the House to
bring to the floor the Fiscal Year 2003 Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, due to the severe under funding
of Education within the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2003
Budget.
Whereas under Article I, Section IX, of the Constitution
states no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by law.
Whereas it is the fiscal duty of the Congress to
appropriate annually the funds needed to support the
execution of programs and operations of the Federal
government.
Whereas to date the House has only considered five
Appropriations bills.
Whereas as President, George W. Bush has been persistent in
resonating public concern for better schools. He dedicated
significant amounts of time and public dialogue during his
first year in office to the passage of H.R. 1, the ``Leave No
Child Behind'' Act, not only implying he favored more help to
schools from the federal treasury but specifically
authorizing large increases in a number of key program areas.
Whereas within weeks of signing H.R. 1, Public Law No: 107-
110, the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act, the President
submitted a budget that stopped six years of steady progress
in federal support to local schools dead in its tracks.
Whereas instead of the strong and consistent growth in
support to local schools that the federal government has
provided for more than a decade, the President's FY 2003
Budget holds aid to local schools virtually flat.
Furthermore, his Budget Director now insists that if Congress
exceeds the budget request by even the smallest amount, the
President will veto entire appropriation bills.
Whereas the future of our labor force and our economy is
heavily dependent on elevating the education and skills of
all future workers.
Whereas about one third of the 53.6 million children now in
elementary and secondary schools in America are at serious
risk of being left behind. The achievement gap between these
students and the rest of the student population remains large
and has failed to close.
Whereas of the 53.6 million children currently enrolled in
elementary and secondary schools in this country, 9.8
million, or nearly 20 percent, are from households defined by
the Commerce Department as being in poverty.
Whereas the House is faced with the choice of supporting
schools or supporting the President and his effort to reverse
the trend of expanding federal support for local schools.
Whereas the Congress has provided states with an unfunded
mandate by approving the ``No Child Left Behind'' Act without
the necessary financial resources to fund it. Now, therefore,
be it
Resolved that it is the sense of the House of
Representatives that the Congress should provide states with
the resources they need to fully implement the ``No Child
Left Behind'' Act as it promised less than a year ago, by
completing action on the Fiscal Year 2003 Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will hear briefly from the
proponent of the resolution as to whether the resolution constitutes a
question of the privileges of the House under rule IX.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky).
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the recognition to speak on
the resolution.
Article 1, section 9 of the Constitution states that ``No money shall
be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made
by law.''
It is the fiscal duty of the Congress to appropriate the money
necessary to provide the funds needed to support the execution of
programs and operations of the Federal Government. To date, only five
of these important measures have been considered.
The failure of this unrealistic budget resolution is especially true
in respect to the fiscal year 2003 Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education and Related Agencies appropriations bill in its funding for
education. This inaction has hampered this body's constitutional duty.
{time} 1500
Mr. Speaker, this inaction has hampered this body's constitutional
duty and impinged its integrity. President Bush dedicated significant
amounts of time and public dialogue during his first months in office
to the passage of H.R. 1, the Leave No Child Behind Act. It
specifically authorized large increases in a number of key educational
programs. However, within weeks of signing the bill, the President
submitted a budget that stopped 6 years of steady progress. His budget
director now insists that if Congress exceeds the budget request by
even the smallest amount, the President will veto the entire
appropriations bill.
Mr. Speaker, section 702 of House rule IX, entitled ``The General
Principles,'' concluded that certain matters of business arising under
the Constitution mandatory in nature for the House have been held to
have a privilege which supersedes the rules establishing the order of
business. The powers of raising revenue and appropriating funds is the
question of the House's constitutional authority and is therefore
privileged in nature, especially given the importance of this funding
to the future of our Nation.
The future of our labor force and our economy is heavily dependent on
elevating the education and skills of future workers. The achievement
gap between students who are at risk and the rest of the student
population remains large and has failed to close.
It is not only the prerogative of this Chamber but its constitutional
duty for the House to take action on the Labor, Health and Human
Services and Labor bill. The Congress has provided States with an
unfunded mandate by approving H.R. 1 without the necessary financial
resources to fund it. The majority of this body voted for H.R. 1, and
we should deserve to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege regards the integrity of our
proceedings as a House as prescribed by the Constitution. The U.S.
Constitution conveys upon this body the power to originate
appropriation measures. It is not only our responsibility, it is our
duty and obligation to reinstate this message and this legislation
about the importance of education. And I do believe the resolution that
I have introduced is privileged in the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The Chair is prepared to
rule on whether the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) constitutes a question of privileges of the House under
rule IX.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky)
expresses the sense of the House that the Congress should complete
action on a legislative measure. Specifically, the resolution calls
upon the Congress to provide the States with additional education
resources by completing action on a general appropriation bill.
The Chair has most recently ruled on November 4, 1999, consistent
with the principal enunciated by Speaker Gillett in his landmark ruling
of May 6, 1921, that a resolution expressing a legislative sentiment
ordinarily does not give rise to a question of privileges of the House
under rule IX. Specifically, the Chair held on that occasion that
legislative sentiment that the President should take specified action
to achieve a desired policy end did not present a question affecting
the rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity or the
integrity of its proceedings as required under rule IX.
In the opinion of the Chair, the instant resolution expressing the
sentiment that Congress should act on a specified measure also falls
short of the standards of rule IX.
The Chair would quote from the landmark Gillett ruling: ``No one
Member ought to have the right to determine when it should have come in
preference to the regular rules of the House.''
[[Page H6955]]
To permit a question of privileges of the House either urging or
requiring congressional action or inaction on education funding would
permit any Member to advance virtually any legislative proposal as a
question of privileges of the House.
As the Chair ruled on December 22, 1995, the mere invocation of the
general legislative power of the purse provided in the Constitution,
coupled with a fiscal policy end, does not meet the requirements of
rule IX and is really a matter properly initiated through introduction
in the hopper under clause 7 of rule XII.
Accordingly, the resolution offered by the gentleman from Indiana
(Mr. Visclosky) does not constitute a question of privileges of the
House under rule IX and may not be considered at this time.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is: Shall the decision of the
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Jeff Miller of Florida
Mr. JEFF MILLER of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the appeal on
the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. VISCLOSKY. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 210,
nays 200, not voting 21, as follows:
[Roll No. 433]
YEAS--210
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Graham
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller, Dan
Miller, Gary
Miller, Jeff
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Upton
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--200
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Lynch
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Shows
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--21
Abercrombie
Barr
Callahan
Cooksey
Davis, Tom
Deal
Ehrlich
Ganske
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Hilleary
LaFalce
Lampson
Mascara
McKinney
Pitts
Roukema
Sanchez
Stump
Tanner
Watkins (OK)
{time} 1524
Mr. EDWARDS and Mr. HINOJOSA changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Mr. HEFLEY and Mr. WELDON of Florida changed their vote from ``nay''
to ``yea.''
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________