[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 129 (Thursday, September 23, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H6899-H6902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of the
privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas a reconvening of Congress between the regularly
scheduled Federal election in November and the start of the
next session of Congress is known as a lame-duck session of
Congress;
Whereas Democrats have recently insinuated that significant
legislative matters would deliberately not be addressed
during the 111th Congress until after the midterm 2010
elections;
Whereas this Congress began its mortgage of the Nation's
future with a ``stimulus'' package costing $1.1 trillion that
failed to lower unemployment, spur economic growth, or
actually address the needs of struggling American businesses
and families;
Whereas this Congress continued its freewheeling spending
with an increase of $72.4
[[Page H6900]]
billion in nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year
2009 to reach a total spending level of $1.01 trillion for
the first time in United States history;
Whereas this Congress approved a budget resolution in 2009
that proposed the 6 largest nominal deficits in American
history and included tax increases of $423 billion during a
period of sustained high unemployment;
Whereas the House of Representatives disregarded the
interests and opinions of everyday Americans by passing a
national energy tax bill that would increase costs on nearly
every aspect of American lives by up to $3,000 per person per
year, eliminate millions of jobs, reduce workers' income, and
devastate economic growth;
Whereas this Congress disregarded the interests and
opinions of everyday Americans by passing a massive
government takeover of health care that will force millions
of Americans from their health insurance plans, increase
premiums and costs for individuals and employers, raise taxes
by $569.2 billion, and fund abortions--all at a cost of $2.64
trillion over the first 10 years of full implementation;
Whereas this Congress nationalized the student loan
industry with a potential cost of 30,000 private sector jobs
and $50.1 billion over 10 years;
Whereas the House of Representatives passed the DISCLOSE
Act, which would violate the First Amendment and hinder the
free speech of citizens associations and corporations while
leaving all unions exempt from many of the new requirements,
in order to try to influence the outcome of the midterm 2010
elections;
Whereas in spite of the House Budget Committee Chairman's
2006 statement that ``if you can't budget, you can't
govern'', the Democrat leadership has failed to introduce a
budget resolution in 2010 as mandated by law, but instead
self-executed a ``deeming resolution'' that increases
nonemergency discretionary spending in fiscal year 2011 by
$30 billion to $1.121 trillion, setting another new record
for the highest level in United States history;
Whereas this Congress has failed Main Street through
passage of a financial system takeover that fails to end the
moral hazard of too-big-to-fail, does not address Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac, and creates numerous new boards, councils,
and positions with unconstitutionally broad authorities that
will interfere with the creation of wealth and jobs;
Whereas this Congress has wasted taxpayer funds on an
unnecessary and unconstitutional auto industry bailout, a
``cash for clunkers'' program, a home remodification program
(``cash for caulkers''), and countless other special interest
projects while allowing the public debt to reach its highest
level in United States history;
Whereas the New York Times reported on June 19, 2010, that
``[f]or all the focus on the historic federal rescue of the
banking industry, it is the government's decision to seize
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in September 2008 that is likely
to cost taxpayers the most money. . . . Republicans want to
sever ties with Fannie and Freddie once the crisis abates.
The Obama administration and Congressional Democrats have
insisted on postponing the argument until after the midterm
elections'';
Whereas the Washington Times reported on June 22, 2010,
that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer stated, ``a budget,
which sets out binding one-year targets and a multiyear plan,
is useless this year because Congress has shunted key
questions about deficits to the independent debt commission
created by President Obama, which is due to report back at
the end of this year'';
Whereas the Hill reported on June 24, 2010, that Senator
Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, suggested that ``Democrats
might attempt to move `card-check' legislation this year,
perhaps during a lame-duck session. . . . `A lot of things
can happen in a lame-duck session, too,' he said'';
Whereas the New York Times published an article on June 28,
2010, titled ``Lame-Duck Session Emerges as Possibility for
Climate Bill Conference'' that declares, ``many expect the
final energy or climate bill to be worked out during the
lame-duck session between the November election and the start
of the new Congress in January'';
Whereas the Hill reported on July 1, 2010, that
``Democratic leaders are likely to punt the task of renewing
Bush-era tax cuts until after the election. Voters in
November's midterms will thus be left without a clear idea of
their future tax rates when they go to the polls'';
Whereas the Wall Street Journal reported on July 13, 2010,
that ``there have been signs in recent weeks that party
leaders are planning an ambitious, lame-duck session to
muscle through bills in December they don't want to defend
before November. Retiring or defeated members of Congress
would then be able to vote for sweeping legislation without
any fear of voter retaliation'';
Whereas the Hill reported on July 27, 2010, that Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid said, at the recent Netroots
Nation conference of liberal bloggers, in reference to
Democrats' unfinished priorities, ``We're going to have to
have a lame duck session, so we're not giving up'';
Whereas the Hill reported in the same piece on July 27,
2010, that the lame-duck session will include priorities such
as ``comprehensive immigration reform, climate change
legislation and a whole host of other issues'';
Whereas during NBC's Meet the Press on August 8, 2010,
White House advisor Carol Browner stated that Congress would
``potentially'' deal with a national energy tax bill in a
lame-duck session;
Whereas the Hill reported on August 20, 2010, that Rep.
Mike Quigley (D-IL) said, ``I'm more hopeful about the lame
duck session. I have faith that we're going to repeal Don't
Ask Don't Tell'';
Whereas the members of the House Republican Conference, as
an alternative to passing a massive omnibus spending bill for
next year during a lame-duck session, have called on members
of both parties, as a starting point, to work together this
month to enact legislation that cuts nonsecurity
discretionary spending to 2008 levels (the last year before
the wave of bailouts, stimulus spending sprees, and takeovers
that have dismayed the American people) for the next year and
provides much-needed certainty to American small businesses
by freezing tax rates at their current levels for the next 2
years;
Whereas recent public polling shows that the American
people clearly oppose the idea of dealing with major new
legislation in a lame-duck session;
Whereas the Declaration of Independence notes that
governments ``[derive] their just powers from the consent of
the governed'';
Whereas the American people have expressed their loss of
confidence through self-organized and self-funded taxpayer
marches on Washington, at countless ``tea party'' events, at
townhalls and speeches, and with numerous letters, emails,
and phone calls to their elected representatives;
Whereas the Democrat majority has all but announced plans
to use any lame-duck Congress to advance currently
unattainable, partisan policies that are widely unpopular
with the American people or that further increase the
national debt against the will of most Americans;
Whereas reconvening the House of Representatives in a lame-
duck session to address major new legislation subverts the
will of the American people, lessens accountability, and does
lasting damage to the dignity and integrity of this body's
proceedings; and
Whereas under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the
Democrat majority, and largely due to the current trends of
expanding governmental power and limiting individual liberty,
the American people have lost confidence in their elected
officials, and that faith must be restored: Now, therefore,
be it--
Resolved, That the House of Representatives pledges not to
assemble on or between November 2, 2010, and January 3, 2011,
except in the case of an unforeseen, sudden emergency
requiring immediate action from Congress, and that the
consideration of any of the following matters does not
constitute an unforeseen, sudden emergency:
(1) Card check, including H.R. 1409 (111th).
(2) A national energy tax, including H.R. 2454 (111th).
(3) Any legislation that would provide more authority to
Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
(4) Any legislation pertaining to the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
(5) Any legislation making regular appropriations for
fiscal year 2011 that would be an increase over previous
funding levels.
(6) Any legislation increasing any tax on any American.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Richardson). Does the gentleman from
Georgia wish to present his argument on why the resolution is
privileged under rule IX to take precedence over other questions?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I do, Madam Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, the rules of the House are
important. Following these rules increases the trust of the American
people in our institution, in our actions, a trust that is pivotal to
the survival of our Republic.
The questions of privilege of the House in this resolution come to
the floor by virtue of rule IX, which states in part: ``Questions of
privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House
collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its
proceedings.'' Integrity of its proceedings, Madam Speaker.
Further: ``Those questions of privilege shall be those affecting the
rights, reputation, and conduct of its Members.''
{time} 1220
Madam Speaker, the reputation and the conduct of Members and the
integrity of our proceedings is in question and is highlighted in this
resolution. What could be more questionable than having this House
adopt further affronts to this great country in a lame duck session.
As the resolution states in just one ``whereas,'' ``Whereas
reconvening the House of Representatives in a lame
[[Page H6901]]
duck session to address major new legislation subverts the will of the
American people, lessens accountability, and does lasting damage to the
dignity and integrity of this body's proceedings.''
Madam Speaker, the intent of the majority is very clear. They want to
spend more, they want to tax more, they want to borrow more, and they
wish to harm more job creation in this lame duck session. And the
American people don't want this.
To positively represent our constituents, I urge the Speaker to allow
this resolution to be considered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The resolution offered by the gentleman from Georgia declares a
variety of facts and circumstances and expresses sundry opinions. On
those premises the resolution proposes to prescribe principles by which
to schedule or conduct the constitutional session of the House. It
ultimately proposes a special rule to govern the final months of the
constitutional session of the House.
In evaluating the resolution under the standards of rule IX, the
Chair must be mindful of a fundamental principle illuminated by
annotations of precedent in section 706 of the House Rules and Manual,
to wit: that a question of the privileges of the House may not be
invoked to effect a change in the rules or standing orders of the House
or their interpretation, nor to prescribe a special rule or order of
business.
The averment that this resolution presents a question of the
privileges of the House under rule IX embodies a precisely contrary
principle. It augurs that the mere articulation of some prudential
motive makes it privileged to regulate the proceedings of the House on
instant bases. Under such an approach, each individual Member of the
House could constitute himself or herself as a virtual Rules Committee.
Any Member would be able to place before the House at any time whatever
proposed order of business he or she might deem advisable, simply by
alleging an insult to dignity or integrity secondary to some action or
inaction. In such an environment, anything could be privileged, so
nothing would enjoy true privilege. With every question having
precedence over every other question, the legislative attention of the
House would be managed ad hoc by the presiding officer's discretionary
power of recognition.
Under the long and well-settled line of precedent presently
culminating in the ruling of August 10, 2010, the Chair finds that such
a resolution does not affect ``the rights of the House collectively,
its safety, dignity, or the integrity of its proceedings'' within the
meaning of clause 1 of rule IX and, therefore, does not qualify as a
question of the privileges of the House. The Chair therefore holds that
the resolution is not privileged for consideration ahead of other
business. Instead, the resolution may be submitted through the hopper
for possible consideration in the regular course.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Madam 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
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of
the ruling of the Chair.
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. PRICE of Georgia. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and
nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to
table will be followed by 5-minute votes on ordering the previous
question on House Resolution 1640; adoption of House Resolution 1640,
if ordered; motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 5110; and motion to
suspend the rules on H.R. 4823.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 236,
nays 172, not voting 24, as follows:
[Roll No. 534]
YEAS--236
Ackerman
Adler (NJ)
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Giffords
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNerney
Meeks (NY)
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Simpson
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
NAYS--172
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Chaffetz
Childers
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Djou
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Harper
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling
Herger
Hoekstra
Hunter
Inglis
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Lamborn
Lance
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Lewis (CA)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Nye
Olson
Paul
Paulsen
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Posey
Price (GA)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schmidt
Schock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Stearns
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden
Wamp
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Young (AK)
NOT VOTING--24
Becerra
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boren
Braley (IA)
Bright
Capuano
Conaway
Costa
Davis (IL)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Ellison
Fallin
Hall (NY)
Heller
Honda
McCarthy (CA)
Meek (FL)
Pence
Roskam
Sullivan
Teague
Yarmuth
Young (FL)
[[Page H6902]]
{time} 1251
Messrs. KINGSTON, SHUSTER, MACK, BOOZMAN, and Mrs. CAPITO changed
their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. NEAL changed his 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.
Stated for:
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on September 23, 2010, I inadvertently
missed rollcall No. 534, but had I been present I would have voted
``yea.''
Stated against:
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, had I been
present, I would have voted ``nay.''
Mr. CONAWAY. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 534, to Table the Appeal
of the Ruling of the Chair, had I been present, I would have voted
``nay.''
____________________