[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 46 (Friday, April 1, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2219-H2232]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1255, GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN
PREVENTION ACT OF 2011
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 194 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 194
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (H.R.
1255) to prevent a shutdown of the government of the United
States, 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 to final passage without
intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally
divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority
Leader or their respective designees; and (2) one motion to
recommit.
Point of Order
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res.
194 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional
Budget Act.
The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against
consideration of the bill, which includes a waiver of section 425 of
the Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation of section
426(a).
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from Minnesota
makes a point of order that the resolution violates section 426(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
The gentleman has met the threshold burden and the gentleman from
Minnesota and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes of debate
on the question of consideration. Following debate, the Chair will put
the question of consideration as the statutory means of disposing of
the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I raise this point of order, not
necessarily out of concern for unmet, unfunded mandates, although there
are likely many in this bill; I raise the point of order because it's
the only vehicle we've got to actually talk about this rule and this
bill and how we're being denied the ability to actually offer the
amendments that we would like to to illuminate what's actually in this
bill.
Republicans are playing partisan political games with America's
future, America's seniors, and Americans veterans with the following:
with America's government.
Since taking control of Congress over 13 weeks ago, Republicans have
failed to introduce a single bill, not one single bill to create one
single job. Instead, the Republican majority has hatched an
unconstitutional scheme to fire nearly 1 million Americans and
foreclose on the middle class.
Madam Speaker, I think it's ironic that today is April Fool's Day,
because the Republican majority is playing an April Fool's joke on the
American people. This unconstitutional Washington ``tricknology'' and
``trickeration'' reflected in the underlying bill would destroy at
least 700,000 jobs according to the Economic Policy Institute, Mark
Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economics, and even Goldman Sachs.
Let's be clear. The underlying bill of which Mr. Woodall is a
cosponsor implies that the Senate has passed a bill which has already
failed there. It assumes or deems that the President has signed a bill
which he threatened to veto.
{time} 0920
April Fool's, America. There is no Senate or Office of the Presidency
today under the Republican majority bill. The Republican spending bill
badly damages our fragile economic recovery, according to 300
economists of all political stripes, and threatens to send us spiraling
into another Republican recession. And as we have heard earlier this
week, the Republican answer to 14 million Americans who lost their jobs
and can't find new ones is: Stop talking about jobs.
At this time, I would like to ask the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall) a simple question: How many jobs does this bill create?
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I would be happy to
answer that question.
By eliminating the crushing Federal deficit that we have today? By
taking the first steps we have seen in a generation to take the
government out of the capital market and put the private sector back
in?
Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, I do appreciate the gentleman's
decision not to answer my question.
[[Page H2220]]
Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to try again, Mr. Ellison.
Mr. ELLISON. I have the time and I have reclaimed it. I do appreciate
the gentleman's decision not to answer how many jobs this bill is going
to create because it certainly creates none. In fact, it destroys jobs.
And it is really a shame. And I think that if the gentleman wanted to
give us a number, even an estimate, just some sort of an estimate as to
how many jobs this bill is going to create, we certainly could have a
good dialogue about how America goes forward.
But unfortunately, Madam Speaker, the gentleman cannot answer that
question because the Republican majority has been exposed. They have a
no-jobs agenda. And this bill they propose to deem and pass today would
cut upwards of 1 million jobs and as low as 700,000. This is a no-jobs
agenda.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Tonko).
Mr. TONKO. I thank the gentleman.
This Republican April Fool's resolution on the House floor today
seems to look for a waiver of all points of order against consideration
of the bill, which includes the waiver of section 425 of the
Congressional Budget Act, which causes a violation, we believe, of
section 426(a).
I am not sure if the rules of the House are declared null and void on
any April Fool's Day, but I have a feeling that we are about to see
that happen today on the floor. Apparently, the new Republican
leadership and their majority believe that they can take control of the
parliamentary system. Unfortunately for them, we still have a bicameral
legislature, including a United States Senate and a Constitution that
requires the President of the United States to sign legislation.
So the rules seem to be changing every day around here. I thought we
were going to see bills 72 hours in advance. The bills would have to be
paid for under the Republican cut-go measure, and all bills--again, all
bills would have to meet a constitutional test before the floor
considers it. In the last 2 weeks, we have violated every one of these
principles.
There are likely some unfunded mandates in this measure. I raise a
point of order because this is the only way that we have to debate this
bill and we are being denied the ability to actually offer the
amendments that we would like to, to illuminate what is actually in
this legislation and how this is a break again from the hallmark and
tradition of this great House, which is to allow open debate on
appropriations bills.
So, in conclusion, we simply cannot trash the rules of the House like
we are doing here today and, ironically, on April Fool's Day.
Mr. ELLISON. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I rise to claim time in opposition to the
point of order and in favor of consideration of the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
10 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, it appears that this is going to be an
April Fool's theme day, and I suppose I should have known that when I
woke up this morning.
I am a little surprised that it begins with folks claiming a point of
order against unfunded mandates that they are not sure at all exist in
the bill; that they claim a point of order against unfunded mandates in
a rule that waives those points of order if they did exist.
I want to say, Madam Speaker, I'm a big proponent of regular order. A
big proponent of regular order. And the prophylactic waiver that is in
the rule is designed just in case there was something that we missed.
But what is important is that we had the largest and most open debate
we have had in this House in a decade on H.R. 1, the only provision
that could possibly have an unfunded mandate in it and does not.
This bill does two things, the underlying legislation does two
things: It both gives the Senate an opportunity to come out from under
its paralyzing inaction and pass H.R. 1; and, it says that if the
Senate does not, if the Senate fails to act--we are not asking the
Senate to do exactly what we want them to do. We are asking them to
act. If they fail to act, that Congress will not get paid. Congress
will not get paid. My colleagues on the left won't get paid, my
colleagues on the right won't get paid, and my colleagues in the Senate
won't get paid.
I would ask my good friend Mr. Ellison, do you believe that this
provision that will prevent us from getting paid for not doing our job
is the unfunded mandate in that provision?
Mr. ELLISON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. ELLISON. I believe that the Republican no-jobs agenda is a
serious affront to the American people.
Mr. WOODALL. Well, let me reclaim my time, Madam Speaker, to say that
I appreciate the gentleman's support for making sure we don't get paid
if we are not doing our work.
There is a divide in this town, Madam Speaker. There is a crowd that
believes that government creates jobs, and the more government activity
that takes place the more jobs there are. There is another crowd in
this town that believes that only the private sector can create jobs.
As this bill will put more capital into the private markets, it will
create jobs. As this bill will provide much-needed certainty that we
cannot have under these continuing resolutions, this bill will create
jobs. As this bill goes to complete the work that should have happened
last Congress but did not, this bill will create jobs.
It is a cruel April Fool's Day joke on the American people, Madam
Speaker, that instead of debating the underlying resolution--and I have
a rule that I am prepared to bring to the floor that will allow time to
debate the underlying resolution--we are instead focused on points of
order that even my colleagues on the left don't believe exist.
They accuse us of perverting the process, Madam Speaker, and we have
had the most open process in the first 90 days of this Congress than
this Congress has seen in a decade. And, in doing so, they pervert the
process, raising points of order that they do not believe exist and
they know in their hearts do not exist.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ELLISON. I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maryland, Ms.
Donna Edwards.
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for raising this point of order. I join in support of the
point of order.
First of all, it is time for us to create jobs, and we haven't
created jobs and we are 13 weeks into this Congress and we are not
debating jobs today.
Second, as to the underlying resolution, I will speak to that later,
Madam Speaker, but today we are sitting here with a bill that violates
the rules of this House. The Congress said when they took on this new
leadership that they were going to come into the Congress open and
transparent and without hypocrisy, and not following the kind of rules
that they railed against during the previous Congress, and yet here we
are today with a rule that doesn't allow us to really consider
appropriations in the way that this Congress--not the last Congress,
but this Republican Congress--established. We are neither open, we are
not transparent. And this point of order raises a question as to
whether the Republican majority is going to operate according to the
rules that it set. Not the rules that Democrats set, but the rules that
Republicans set.
And so, Madam Speaker, I am really troubled today both by the
underlying resolution and by the fact that we have here perhaps a bill
that has unknown, unfunded mandates that we aren't able to look at and
for which there won't be any amendments. So I thank the gentleman from
Minnesota for raising the point of order, and I would urge strong
consideration by my colleagues to make this process, as the leadership
has committed, to make it open, to make it transparent, and to make it
without hypocrisy.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I would ask the gentleman, would he be
amenable to stripping out all but the Member pay issue that's contained
within the bill? Would he be willing to do that?
Mr. WOODALL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ELLISON. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. WOODALL. You want to remove the most debated provision we have
[[Page H2221]]
had in this entire Congress? You feel that hasn't been debated enough?
{time} 0930
Mr. ELLISON. We will deal with the Member pay issue. Are you willing
to do that?
Mr. WOODALL. The Member pay issue is critically tied to the inaction
of the folks on the funding bill. The answer is no, Mr. Ellison, I
cannot agree to that.
Mr. ELLISON. Reclaiming my time, thank you for finally getting around
to that ``no.''
Well, I think that makes the point here, Madam Speaker. The fact is
that this particular Republican action is yet another opportunity to
degrade and take away the basic social safety net of America while
doing nothing to get Americans back to work.
Americans deserve to work. Americans thought that they were going to
get a majority that would help them get back to work back last
November, but they were sorely surprised when the Republican majority
got in and decided to do nothing to help Americans get back to work.
All the majority has done is strip away programs and things that will
help Americans do better, to take programs and money away from police
officers, to fire public employees. This has been their agenda, and
this is too bad. I think that this is a shame, and it certainly is an
abandonment of what people thought they were getting in November.
So, Madam Speaker, this particular point of order raised today does
address the critical issues that must be addressed. But, at the bottom,
we are still looking at 13 weeks with no jobs and Republicans offering
legislation that literally would put nearly 1 million people out of
work.
So I ask my colleagues to stand with the American people. Let's move
America forward. Let's reject the rule and the underlying bill by
voting ``no'' on this motion to consider this unconstitutional
Washington trickery.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to a gentleman who is making sure we do keep our promises on
Capitol Hill, the gentleman from California, Chairman Lungren.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I rise to speak
to the question that has been raised during this discussion, and that
is the provision dealing with the pay of Members of Congress and the
President of the United States.
The Senate has sent over to us a bill which purported to deny pay to
the President of the United States and to the Congress on a permanent
basis for any time that lapsed during which there was not authorization
for appropriations for the conduct of government activities. It is on
its face blatantly unconstitutional, violating the section of the
Constitution that deals with the Presidential pay and, specifically,
the 27th Amendment to the Constitution, which does not allow us to do
that.
The intent, as expressed by the author of the bill before us in the
statement of the constitutional authority, makes it clear that we
recognize the limits of the action that we can take, and instead we
would in this way command those payments not to be made during the
period of time in which there is inaction by the President and the
Congress of the United States, thereby making a very serious and good
faith attempt to put that pressure on Members of Congress and the
President of the United States, but in a constitutional way.
So Members should be aware of the difference between the language
contained in this provision before us and that which was sent over here
by the Senate, which on its face constitutional scholars have looked at
it here on the House side and the Senate side and the White House and
have suggested that bill that came over from the Senate would not stand
up to constitutional examination. This is an attempt on our side to try
to provide that action, if demanded by Members of Congress, in a way
that would be rendered constitutional.
So at least I wanted to make sure that as we debate this point of
order, the rule and the bill, that it is clear what the intention of
the author is in this case and why we are attempting to follow
constitutional procedures.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to thank the chairman for that explanation, because constitutional
principles are paramount, are absolutely paramount on this side of the
aisle, and so is accountability, so is accountability for our actions
here in this body and our actions across the way. And I could not be
more pleased to be a cosponsor of the underlying resolution because it
does hold us accountable and says no work, no pay. No work, no pay.
This is April Fool's Day here in the House of Representatives and
across the country. We are talking about jobs every day. Every day in
this body we are talking about jobs, and yet the debate this morning is
focused on are we doing enough debating about a bill that already has
been the most aggressively debated bill this Congress has seen in over
a decade.
I want to invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and in the
United States Senate to join me as a cosponsor of H.R. 25. H.R. 25 is
the Fair Tax Act. It is the only bill in Congress that eliminates every
single corporate loophole, exception, lobbyist-inserted provision. Not
a one survives the Fair Tax. It is the only bill in Congress that
eliminates the payroll tax, that largest tax that 80 percent of
Americans pay.
Do you want to talk about American families and their pain? Let's
talk about the largest tax that American families pay. It is the
payroll tax, and H.R. 25 is the only bill in the United States House of
Representatives that eliminates the payroll tax in favor of a flat rate
personal consumption tax that ceases to punish productivity and begins
to reward those activities that build jobs in this country. It is the
only bill in Congress that puts American manufacturing on a level
playing field with the rest of the world.
Do you want to talk about jobs or do you not? Do you want to get
America back on track or do you not? Because this is a point of order
that we know doesn't exist. It is a point of order just designed to
fill the airwaves first thing in the morning. If you want to fill the
airwaves, fill it with promises of jobs. Fill it with promises of
ending the Tax Code that drives jobs out this country and bringing in
that capital that we so desperately need.
Again, Madam Speaker, there are no unfunded mandates in this bill.
This has been the most aggressively debated bill that this Congress has
seen in a generation, I would argue. The only two things the underlying
legislation does, it forces the government to stay open with funding
levels, those funding levels provided in H.R. 1 if the Senate passes
this bill, and it insists that no work in Congress receives no pay.
Forty days we have waited on the Senate to act. They have defeated
two bills, but they have passed nothing, Madam Speaker. They have
passed nothing. If you want to talk about jobs, if you want to talk
about certainty, you have to bring a proposal to the table. This is a
freshmen proposal that reaches out to try to do something to make
things happen.
I don't know how you guys break logjams in this city. Clearly, it is
not easy. Last year there was a Democratic House, a Democratic Senate,
and a Democratic White House, and you still couldn't get a budget
passed. You still couldn't get appropriations bills passed. So,
clearly, logjams are complicated things. I am not here to assign blame
for those logjams. I am here to offer solutions. Over and over and over
again you see folks rising here to offer solutions.
Madam Speaker, with that, I ask that you overrule that point of order
and allow us to get to the underlying bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Capito). All time for debate has
expired.
The question is, Will the House now consider the resolution?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 219,
nays 172, not voting 41, as follows:
[[Page H2222]]
[Roll No. 213]
YEAS--219
Adams
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Amash
Austria
Bachmann
Bachus
Barletta
Bartlett
Bass (NH)
Benishek
Berg
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Black
Blackburn
Bonner
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Brooks
Broun (GA)
Buchanan
Bucshon
Buerkle
Burgess
Calvert
Camp
Canseco
Capito
Carter
Cassidy
Chabot
Chaffetz
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cole
Conaway
Cravaack
Crawford
Crenshaw
Davis (KY)
Denham
Dent
DesJarlais
Diaz-Balart
Dold
Dreier
Duffy
Duncan (SC)
Ellmers
Emerson
Farenthold
Fincher
Fitzpatrick
Flake
Fleischmann
Fleming
Flores
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Gardner
Garrett
Gerlach
Gibbs
Gibson
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Goodlatte
Gosar
Gowdy
Granger
Graves (GA)
Graves (MO)
Griffin (AR)
Griffith (VA)
Grimm
Guinta
Guthrie
Hall
Harper
Harris
Hartzler
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Heck
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herrera Beutler
Huelskamp
Huizenga (MI)
Hultgren
Hurt
Issa
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson (OH)
Jones
Jordan
Kelly
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kinzinger (IL)
Kline
Labrador
Lamborn
Lance
Landry
Lankford
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lewis (CA)
LoBiondo
Long
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
Marino
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McKeon
McKinley
McMorris Rodgers
Meehan
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mulvaney
Murphy (PA)
Myrick
Neugebauer
Noem
Nugent
Nunes
Nunnelee
Olson
Palazzo
Paulsen
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pitts
Poe (TX)
Pompeo
Posey
Price (GA)
Quayle
Reed
Rehberg
Reichert
Renacci
Ribble
Rigell
Rivera
Roby
Roe (TN)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rokita
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross (FL)
Runyan
Ryan (WI)
Scalise
Schilling
Schmidt
Schock
Schweikert
Scott (SC)
Scott, Austin
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Southerland
Stearns
Stivers
Terry
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Tipton
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden
Walsh (IL)
Webster
West
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Womack
Woodall
Yoder
Young (IN)
NAYS--172
Ackerman
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass (CA)
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown (FL)
Capps
Capuano
Carnahan
Carney
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Cicilline
Clarke (MI)
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Cooper
Costello
Courtney
Critz
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Deutch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Engel
Eshoo
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Keating
Kildee
Kind
Kissell
Kucinich
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lujan
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
Meeks
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore
Murphy (CT)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Pingree (ME)
Polis
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richmond
Ross (AR)
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (VA)
Scott, David
Serrano
Sewell
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Speier
Sutton
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (FL)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth
NOT VOTING--41
Barton (TX)
Bilbray
Boustany
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Campbell
Cantor
Cardoza
Clarke (NY)
Conyers
Costa
Culberson
Duncan (TN)
Filner
Frelinghuysen
Giffords
Hanabusa
Hanna
Hunter
Johnson, Sam
Kaptur
Langevin
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Moran
Owens
Paul
Payne
Peterson
Platts
Richardson
Rogers (AL)
Royce
Sarbanes
Stark
Stutzman
Sullivan
Waters
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
{time} 1003
Mr. SHULER changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Speaker, I missed a vote earlier today because I
was inadvertently detained. If I had been here, I would have voted
``yea'' on rollcall No. 213.
Stated against:
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall 213, I was unable to vote. Had I
been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for
1 hour.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my good friend, 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
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Georgia?
There was no objection.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, this rule that we have today provides for
an hour of consideration on a bill that would do two very simple
things.
First, it would provide that, if the House and the Senate fail to do
their business, they fail to get paid. It's a pretty basic principle in
America: no work, no pay. If the House and the Senate fail to get
together and solve this budget crisis, no pay. All the underlying
resolution asks is that the Senate act--Senate act. They don't have to
agree with the House. They just have to act, act, and send something to
the House for negotiation and consideration.
The second thing this bill does--and it's every bit as important as
no work, no pay--is that this bill says, for whatever reason, if the
Senate cannot act, if the Senate cannot pass something--they've
defeated two things but they have passed nothing--then the text of H.R.
1 will control the appropriations of the United States of America and
the government will not shut down, will not shut down because we will
continue to operate under H.R. 1 funding levels until such time as the
Senate can affirmatively pass yet a different bill.
I rise in strong support of that underlying legislation, Madam
Speaker.
For the opening of this debate, I yield 5 minutes to my good friend
from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).
Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and as a fellow
freshman and colleague of his in this remarkable new class, I value his
friendship and his sense of purpose.
Madam Speaker, that is precisely why I rise today in support of my
bill to prevent a government shutdown. I have a unique background,
having helped a family start a broadcasting company that now spans in
excess of 30 years, served my country in uniform for more than 30
years, spent a little time in the financial services sector, and
finally, for the last 12 years, having served as mayor of one of
Arkansas's most dynamic cities and one of America's most livable
cities, Rogers, Arkansas, and clearly, one of our Nation's most dynamic
and fastest growing regions.
Madam Speaker, it was there I had the privilege of working side by
side with executives from some of our leading corporations: Walmart,
Tyson Foods, J.B. Hunt Trucking, all startup companies once upon a time
and now leaders in their trade and with a global reach. These industry
giants did not get where they are by ignoring their challenges. They
confronted them. It's part of their genius.
It is in this context that I share with my colleagues my greatest
frustration: having been elected by the citizens of Arkansas's Third
District to come to Washington, D.C., and help deliver our
[[Page H2223]]
country to a better future, only to find myself and my colleagues mired
in the muck of Beltway politics.
We have a crisis on our hands: unsustainable deficits as far as the
eye can see, a national debt nearing statutory limitation, and
overreaching government bureaucracy intruding into the lives and
businesses of every sector of society, people struggling to find work
so they can pursue the American Dream. And, Madam Speaker, they've
elected this Congress to face our Nation's toughest issues head-on, and
that's what House Republicans have been doing.
We were 3 months into this fiscal year when we took our oaths of
office, and, without a budget, we went straight to work on the most
pressing issue upon arrival: funding government for the rest of this
year. And it is sad that, as I make these remarks, all we have been
able to show for our work now into the month of April are temporary
measures that continue to distract us away from the real work ahead:
the 2012 budget.
Madam Speaker, this has to stop. The political gamesmanship going on
in the upper Chamber might make for good headlines in the capital
press, but it is hurting our Nation. That's why I've offered this bill
to self-impose a deadline on Congress, and I'm asking my colleagues to
join me in supporting H.R. 1255 to start the clock on the Senate to
pass something we can agree to in funding government for the remainder
of this year by April 6, or assuming a government shutdown, expect to
have our pay withheld until we can reach agreement.
{time} 1010
Every time we fail to address these issues, Madam Speaker, we add to
the uncertainty now plaguing America, we contribute to the decline of
our economy, we add to the burden of future generations, and we dash
the hopes and dreams of millions of people who count on us every day.
Madam Speaker, the time is now to act.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding me the
customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, over 200 years, the House of Representatives has seen
almost everything. From the days as a young nation, to modern day
America, the exchange of ideas and the debate of legislation is a rich
and proud tradition that moves our country forward. Unfortunately,
today's legislation abandons this proud history and marks a new low in
the United States House of Representatives. As you know, the new
majority started off the session with reading every section and every
piece of the Constitution of the United States to show our reverence
for it, but this morning that Constitution has been kicked under the
couch out of sight, lest its presence in the room restrict what is
attempting to be done here today. Indeed, this legislation proposes
that we throw away 200 years of legislative history and upend the
fundamental process of how a bill becomes law.
Despite the urgent and dire issues facing our constituents, here we
are, the U.S. House of Representatives, considering legislation that
has no chance of becoming law. Today's legislation would ``deem'' a
bill that the Senate has already voted down as passed by that very
Senate. It would take a remarkable mind to even come up with such an
idea. This notion, while clever, will never pass through the U.S.
Senate. And let me remind you that what we're doing this morning,
saying that we're going to bypass the Senate, would not do anything at
all unless the Senate passed it of themselves saying, forget about us.
It's simply not going to happen.
The Republican majority claims this bill is a solution to a
government shutdown. I hope that discussions regarding the solution to
a government shutdown are taking place in offices between Senate and
House Members and representatives of the administration as we speak.
They are the people who can avoid that. The majority claims this bill
is a solution, as I said. If this is their only solution, America is in
big trouble. The solution to a government shutdown is to meet the
Democratic Party at the negotiating table, not to propose scrapping the
entire legislative process simply because the majority party refuses to
tell the right wing of their party ``no.''
I am sad to say that today's legislation is more befitting an entry
to Grimm's Fairy Tales than to this august body. I think it demeans the
House to pretend to do the impossible, to pretend to do what we can't.
Does the majority believe that majority confers supernatural powers
upon them to bypass the United States Senate?
In the House of Representatives, there are written rules for how the
legislative process proceeds, rules that were crafted by Thomas
Jefferson, rules that have been tried and true since the founding of
this legislative body. These rules have helped lead our country through
debates much more fractured than this. From civil war to civil rights,
the rules of the House have seen us through struggle and strife and
kept our country strong. Today's bill would throw away these rules and
very much upset Thomas Jefferson.
Every one of us knows as schoolchildren that there is no way for a
bill to become law without both chambers acting on it, a conference
committee to meet if necessary, and the signature of the President of
the United States. I wish that I were not standing here having to
explain to my colleagues how a bill becomes law. I said yesterday, and
I must say it again, that I hope we have warped no children's minds.
Anyone who may be watching the perversion of the process today and any
teachers who are guiding children through this process, take courage,
because you can see the video that will explain once again, ``I am a
bill.'' Never before has anyone seriously considered the idea that one
House can pass a bill and decide it will be the law of the land.
Hopefully no party will ever try such a far-fetched tactic again.
Just last year, the procedure to ``deem and pass'' legislation
through the House was derided by Republicans as the ``Slaughter
Solution,'' a procedure we ultimately chose not to use. At the time,
Speaker Boehner called the deem and pass process ``an affront to every
American.'' Now he brings his own ``dream and pass'' legislation to the
floor.
Finally, I want to speak to the process that leads us to the floor
today. The proposed bill has seen no committee consideration of any
kind, there has been no opportunity whatever for public input, it
required an emergency meeting of the Rules Committee last night to rush
it to the floor today, and no chair or ranking member of the four
committees responsible for this legislation even came to the Rules
Committee; with the Democrat ranking members saying they had never
heard of the bill. They certainly did not want to come up and debate
it.
We are now considering another closed rule. A process such as this is
far from ``the most open and transparent Congress in history'' that we
were promised. If we are moving forward with emergency legislation
under a closed rule, it should be for one reason: to create jobs. We've
gone 13 weeks without a single jobs bill brought to the House floor by
the majority. In fact, all of us know that that is the overriding fear
in the United States today. Instead, we debate legislation so far-
fetched that it will never proceed beyond this House floor.
We should not waste another minute ignoring the needs of millions of
Americans, those who have no job and are losing their homes, while
debating fantastical legislation that will never become law. This is a
bad joke on the American people and not a serious solution to our
problems.
I urge my colleagues to think again about the proud tradition of the
House of Representatives and how proud each of us are to be able to
represent constituents here and to try to do it in a sensible way that
can really move the country forward and not, as we are doing today,
simply again wasting time.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on today's rule and ``no'' on the
underlying bill.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 60 seconds to apologize to
the gentlelady from New York. I am told by my team here that normal
order would have been to yield to you before I yielded to my colleague.
I'm new, and I apologize for going out of order in that way.
[[Page H2224]]
Ms. SLAUGHTER. There is no need to apologize. That is perfectly all
right.
Mr. WOODALL. I would just say, as I beg the gentlelady's forgiveness,
that as a freshman, I'm just trying to get things done. I'm trying to
make things happen. This bill is one of those steps along the way.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. We all were freshmen once. We understand.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentlelady.
Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as he may consume to my good
friend and leader, the chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I want to begin by expressing my
appreciation to my friend from Lawrenceville for not only managing this
rule but as one of the lead cosponsors of this legislation.
I hate the fact that we are doing this bill. I don't like it at all,
Madam Speaker. But I like even less the prospect of a government
shutdown. We are determined to do everything we possibly can to ensure
that we don't shut down the government and potentially create a
scenario whereby our men and women in uniform are not compensated and
all the other things that we have talked about that would be serious
problems that we would face if a government shutdown would take place.
We want to prevent that. That's the reason that we are here dealing
with this very, very unpleasant situation.
Now why is it, Madam Speaker, that we are here today? We are here
today because for the first time since passage of the 1974 Budget and
Impoundment Act, we saw a United States Congress fail to pass a budget.
That's what happened last year. We also for the first time saw the
failure to pass appropriations bills. There was an attempt to do it
under a closed process, and we know we're in the process of changing
that, but the bills weren't passed. And so the last Congress dumped in
our laps, in December, a continuing resolution which extended the
operations of the Federal Government to March 4 of this year.
{time} 1020
Well, Madam Speaker, we know that there was a new Congress elected on
November 2 of last year. I am very happy about that. Mr. Woodall, Mr.
Canseco, other new Members are here. There are 87 new Republicans, nine
new Democrats who have joined the 112th Congress. For my party, it's
the largest gain that we have had in nearly three-quarters of a
century, since 1938. And it's not simply a gain for my party, Madam
Speaker. It was a message that was sent by the American people. All
across this country, the American people said, We've had it. We're up
to here. We need to create jobs, get our economy growing, and we need
to reduce the size and scope and reach of the Federal Government.
We constantly hear this argument from our friends on the other side
of the aisle that we are not creating jobs, that we are not taking
action to create jobs. Well, Madam Speaker, as we know, the Joint
Economic Committee has just come out with a study looking at nations
around the world. And it's very clear: everything we do to reduce
government spending has, based on empirical evidence that we have,
worked to grow economies and create jobs; and that's exactly what we
are going to be able to do here.
Now the other thing that's very sad is that 41 days ago, we passed
the measure that we are debating here. Forty-one days ago, we had, as
my friend from Lawrenceville said, a virtually unprecedented debate of
90 hours. Democrats and Republicans, for the first time in decades, had
an opportunity on a continuing resolution to debate and pass their
amendments. Members on both sides of the aisle had amendments that
succeeded during those 90 hours of debate, which was a challenge for
all of us, but we went through it. That's the work product that we have
before us. This House worked its will, and that's what we were able to
achieve. Forty-one days ago, we did that, Madam Speaker. And the other
body, our colleagues in the Senate, have done absolutely nothing, other
than defeat two measures--this one, H.R. 1, and they defeated their
Democratic proposal. So no action has been taken.
Speaker Boehner has consistently been saying not only where are the
jobs--and we're all gratified that the positive signs of our getting
our fiscal house in order has played a big role in creating 216,000
nonfarm payroll jobs last month and brought the unemployment rate from
8.9 down to 8.8 percent, positive indications that have come about
because we're starting to get our fiscal house in order.
But, Madam Speaker, our friends in the other body have failed to act
on dealing with this issue. So that's why we are here today as we look,
April Fool's Day, everyone has been talking about that. But 1 week from
today, it's not going to be a joke at all if we face the prospect of a
government shutdown, and we do, 1 week from today. And that's why we
feel that it's very important for us to pass this measure again, remind
our colleagues--some of whom may have become a little forgetful. They
may not know that it was 41 days ago that we sent this measure over to
them. So, Madam Speaker, we want to do that again. And I hope very much
that we'll be able to do it. Again, I don't like a lot of what's in
here. I don't like the fact that we're here. But it's because of this
crisis that we're here.
Now we're dealing with very serious international challenges around
the world. Madam Speaker, I am particularly proud that the House
Democracy Partnership, which my colleague from North Carolina (Mr.
Price) and I have the privilege of leading, has had a group of newly
elected parliamentarians from Indonesia, Pakistan, Lebanon, and Iraq
visiting us this week, observing this institution. And I heard an
interview this morning with one of our colleagues in the other body who
said, What kind of signal does it send to people who are working to
develop democratic institutions, political pluralism, the rural rule of
law, self-determination in their countries? What kind of signal does
that send when the United States of America can't even come together
and keep the Federal Government going? Now many of those people happen
to be here right now with us, Madam Speaker, and they are observing
what is taking place. We need to show them that we can get our work
done. And we need to show the American people that the message that was
sent to us last November 2 is one that has been heard.
So, Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this
rule and in favor of the underlying legislation so that we will be able
to take an unpleasant situation, ensure that the government doesn't
shut down a week from today, and ensure that we can get back to the
work that we're supposed to be doing this year, not cleaning up last
year's work. And we should do that as expeditiously as possible. I
thank my friend, again, for his thoughtful leadership on this very
important issue and his management of the rule.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
closed rule and to the ridiculous, meaningless, and unconstitutional
underlying legislation.
Today the Republican leadership has brought forward a bill that they
call, without any apparent trace of irony, the Government Shutdown
Prevention Act of 2011. This bill was introduced on Wednesday and
rushed to the floor without the 72 hours of notice that the Republicans
promised. Even though the bill was referred to four different
committees, not a single hearing has been held, not a single markup has
taken place. Where is the openness? Where is the fairness? This process
is lousy.
This bill would not only have no practical effect, it's not even
remotely constitutional. If my friends on the other side of the aisle
want to put out a press release or issue a series of talking points,
hey, it's a free country. But to waste the time of the House on
something this ridiculous is an insult to the American people. We
should be talking about jobs and the economy, not debating silliness
that is supposed to appeal to the GOP's right-wing base. If my friends
want to avert a government shutdown--and make no mistake, because of
your intransigence, because of your insistence on cutting everything
from Pell Grants to the National
[[Page H2225]]
Institutes of Health, this is in your hands. This is in your hands. But
if you want to avert a government shutdown, I have an idea. Pick up the
phone. Send a note. Or, better yet, engage in meaningful negotiations
with the Senate and the White House. Enough pontificating, enough
polarization. Do your job.
My Republican colleagues like to talk a lot about the sanctity of the
Constitution. They made a big display of reading the entire document on
the floor of the House at the beginning of this Congress. Apparently
they weren't paying very much attention. For the benefit of my
Republican colleagues, let me read from article I, section 7:
``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and
the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the
President of the United States. If he approve he shall sign it; but if
not, he shall return it . . . ''
Instead, what this bill says is that if the Senate hasn't passed a
continuing resolution by April 6, then H.R. 1 would be deemed as passed
by the Senate, signed by the President, and enacted into law.
You have got to be kidding me, Madam Speaker. If this is the new
standard that the Republicans are going to use, I have a few ideas of
my own. I would like to introduce a bill that says that the House deems
the Red Sox to have won the 2011 World Series. It wouldn't mean
anything. It wouldn't be constitutional. But it sure would be popular
in Massachusetts.
Madam Speaker, this would be laughable if it weren't so outrageous. I
urge my colleagues to reject this closed rule and the underlying
legislation, and I urge my Republican friends to go back to the
negotiating table and negotiate in good faith with the other body.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a
freshman from Texas (Mr. Canseco), my very good friend.
Mr. CANSECO. I thank my colleague from Georgia.
Madam Speaker, the House of Representatives is attempting to prevent
the government from shutting down. We have to do so because the Senate,
under the leadership of Senator Harry Reid, hasn't passed a bill to
fund the government for the remainder of the year. It has now been 41
days since the House passed our bill, H.R. 1. The lack of Senate action
certainly isn't because they haven't had the time. Since the passage of
H.R. 1, the Senate has had time to pass legislation like the bill
designating March 11 as World Plumbing Day.
Senator Reid's excuse for not passing the bill: House Republicans
passed ``extreme'' spending cuts. Despite the $61 billion in spending
cuts in H.R. 1 being the largest spending cut since World War II, it
amounts to approximately a 2 percent cut of what the CBO projects the
Federal Government will spend in 2011.
{time} 1030
That's cutting spending by approximately 2 cents for every dollar we
are projected to spend. Given that the Federal Government is borrowing
approximately 40 cents out of every dollar we spend and sending the
bill to our children and grandchildren, cutting 2 cents out of every
dollar hardly seems extreme or excessive.
The only thing that is extreme and excessive is the desire of
Washington liberals to spend the hard-earned money of the American
people on the Federal Government's priority, leaving the American
people unable to spend on their priorities.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Polis), a member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. POLIS. Madam Speaker, you know, we do face a real issue here
before us today, a government shutdown in a week that could hurt our
security and safety as a nation, and hurt our recovery and job growth.
And this real issue deserves a real discussion, a discussion and
agreement between the House and the Senate and the President.
We have 6 days left to negotiate, and yet here today, instead of
contributing to a solution, the House Republicans are bringing about a
constitutional crisis on top of the funding crisis. That's the last
thing that our fragile economy needs.
Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Rules Committee, and I think this
might very well be the first time that this has occurred on the Rules
Committee in my just over 2 years, every witness that came to visit our
committee was opposed to what we're doing here today. The witnesses
were unanimous that this approach is unconstitutional and that this
approach is ill-advised. Now, in my time on the Rules Committee I don't
think we've ever had such unanimity among the witnesses that have come
before us.
Madam Speaker, Article I, section 7 of the Constitution, which I will
include in the Record, clearly states that ``Every bill which shall
have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before
it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States.''
Now, what's being done with this bill is entirely different. I'd like
to show our friends a very basic lesson in how a bill becomes a law.
This is our friend, a bill. For a bill to become a law, it needs to
pass the House and the Senate before it goes to the President. Now, we
all know if there are differences between the House and the Senate
version, they can be resolved through a conference committee, or it can
be sent, with an amendment, back to the other body to accept that, as
we routinely do.
What is being done in this case is this little guy, this little guy
is deeming from the House that it has passed the Senate. Now, this is
particularly unusual because, not only has this bill not passed the
Senate, it's actually specifically been rejected by the Senate. And
now, a bill is going to the Senate asking them to deem that they have
passed something that they have actually rejected. It's some sort of
Orwellian doublespeak of conforming some sort of alternate version of
reality with regard to this deem and pass measure.
Now, there are some things we could be doing in this House and I hope
we do. In addition to the good faith negotiations which this
constitutional crisis undermines, we could be taking up Senate Bill
388. Senate Bill 388 would make sure that Members of Congress don't get
paid during the government shutdown. Now, this is news to most of the
American people because, you know what? Most Federal workers, they're
not going to get paid if the government shuts down.
But you know who does get paid? Those of us who are speaking here
before you today. That's the current law. We can change that law today.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
Mr. POLIS. The Senate sent over a bill that passed unanimously that
would make sure that Members of Congress didn't get paid if the
government shut down. We can take up that bill today. It's been sitting
here at the House desk because Republican leadership has not taken up
that bill. We can send it on to the President of the United States who
could sign that bill, make sure that the incentive of Members of
Congress is to come to the table, and we are in the same boat as the
other Federal workers with regard to a government shutdown.
It's time to get serious about solving how we're going to fund the
operations of government and not put a constitutional crisis on top of
the funding crisis.
Article. I.
Section. 1.
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a
Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a
Senate and House of Representatives.
Section. 2.
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
State Legislature.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have
attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven
Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when
elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen.
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this Union,
according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other
Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be
[[Page H2226]]
made within three Years after the first Meeting of the
Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent
Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law
direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one
for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least
one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made,
the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three,
Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations
one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four,
Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten,
North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State,
the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election
to fill such Vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and
other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
Section. 3.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof
for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of
the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may
be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first
Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year,
of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and
of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so
that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if
Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the
Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof
may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the
Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to
the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the
United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an
Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President
of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally
divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a
President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President,
or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the
United States.
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on
Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States
is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person
shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of
the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further
than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and
enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United
States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable
and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment,
according to Law.
Section. 4.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the
Places of chusing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year,
and such Meeting shall be on the first Monday in December,
unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.
Section. 5.
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and
Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each
shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller
Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to
compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and
under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,
punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the
Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.
Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and
from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as
may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays
of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the
Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the
Journal.
Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall,
without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three
days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two
Houses shall be sitting.
Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a
Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law,
and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall
in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace,
be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the
Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and
returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in
either House, they shall not be questioned in any other
Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for
which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under
the Authority of the United States, which shall have been
created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased
during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the
United States, shall be a Member of either House during his
Continuance in Office.
Section. 7.
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House
of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with
Amendments as on other Bills.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a
Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If
he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it,
with his Objections to that House in which it shall have
originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their
Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such
Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass
the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to
the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered,
and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become
a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall
be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons
voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the
Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be
returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted)
after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be
a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the
Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which
Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence
of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary
(except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to
the President of the United States; and before the Same shall
take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved
by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and
House of Representatives, according to the Rules and
Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,
Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the
several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform
Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United
States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign
Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the
Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by
securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the
exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the
high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and
make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money
to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land
and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the
Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel
Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be
employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to
the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and
the Authority of training the Militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress;
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;--And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for
carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other
Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the
United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Section. 9.
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the
States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be
prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand
eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on
such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the
public Safety may require it.
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless
in Proportion to the Census or
[[Page H2227]]
enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any
State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce
or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another;
nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to
enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in
Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular
Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all
public Money shall be published from time to time.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States:
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under
them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind
whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or
Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin
Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and
silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation
of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay
any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may
be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws:
and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any
State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the
Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be
subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any
Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of
Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another
State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless
actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not
admit of delay.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would like to ask my good friend Mr. Polis if he would be kind
enough to lend me his chart for a moment.
Mr. POLIS. I would be happy to.
Mr. WOODALL. I want to say--and I thank my friend for sharing with
me--that's the kind of thing that goes on. I mean, folks often see the
frustration on the House floor. You often see the tempers at their
height. But the kind of thing that goes on behind the scenes that you
don't usually see is exactly the kind of thing I grew up with on TV.
And I thank the gentleman for bringing this chart this morning.
Our colleague, Mr. Hastings, actually sang this song for us
yesterday. And it was a wonderful treat in the Rules Committee, I think
we would all agree. But as you know, when you listen to this song,
Madam Speaker, once the bill passes the House, it goes to the Senate
and the Senate acts. The Senate acts.
There's all these pleas for negotiation, the suggestion as if we're
not doing enough on the House side. Longest debate this House has had,
most amendments, more amendments, in fact, on H.R. 1, the bill that's
contained in this underlying resolution, than we had on all
appropriation bills combined over the past 4 years. This is the proud
work product of the House, H.R. 1.
Here's the work product of the Senate, Madam Speaker. It's right
here. As my colleague asks, pleads, in fact, that we negotiate with the
Senate, here's what the Senate has offered.
How do you negotiate with that, Madam Speaker? How do you negotiate
with that?
This is what we learned about. This is what our students are studying
across the Nation. This is what the Senate has given us to work with.
Now, you tell me, as a freshman, what is it that I'm supposed to do?
What it is that I'm supposed to do when the Senate fails to act?
And what we have done is to say, if the Senate fails to act: You
can't pass anything; I don't know why. So just go ahead and fund the
government, prevent the government shutdown, fund the government at
H.R. 1 levels, and let's continue that negotiation.
I look forward to the day when we don't have a blank sheet here.
Mr. POLIS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. POLIS. Yes, you are correct that the House has passed a
continuing resolution; however, that specific resolution has actually
failed in the United States Senate. It's actually a rejection. On top
of that, the third body, the executive, has threatened a veto of that.
What this calls for is some sort of deal that everybody can do to
ensure the government continues to operate.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I thank my friend. Because he's
absolutely right, and that's critically important. There are those who
would have you believe that the House is insisting that it's its way or
no way at all, but that's not the case at all. We just did our job
here, and we're waiting for the counteroffer.
How do you negotiate with this? You can't, Madam Speaker.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Madam Speaker, I know it's April Fool's Day, but I still
am amazed by the jokes or the myths that are being relayed by my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And I like my colleague from
Georgia, but I just want to say three things.
First of all, I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) get
up and say that the Republican policies with this CR were creating
jobs. And he cited the fact that the unemployment numbers went down
from 8.9 to 8.8 in March. If anyone thinks that by passing 2- or 3-week
CRs that you're going to create jobs and somehow improve the economy
and lower the unemployment rate, you know, I've got a bridge to sell
you.
The fact of the matter is that every economist is telling us that
this Republican CR kills jobs. Economic Policy Institute shows that the
Republican CR would destroy more than 800,000 jobs. And I could go
through the list.
{time} 1040
So the myth that they are creating jobs and helping the economy with
this is simply not true.
The second thing is, the gentleman keeps talking about Congress not
getting paid if there is a shutdown. Well, S. 388, to stop Member pay
during a shutdown, passed the Senate unanimously over 1 month ago with
Republican leader Mitch McConnell's support. It has been sitting right
here at the House desk because the Republican leadership refuses to
take it up. That bill could become law today if they wanted to bring it
up. Simply bring it up. Don't mask what you are doing with the CR by
talking about Members getting paid. You can bring that bill up at any
time.
Now, the third myth is this idea that the Republicans are not
preventing a government shutdown. They are the ones that are preventing
the government shutdown because they refuse to compromise. There are
negotiations going on with the Senate, but it is the tea party and the
right wing of the Republican Party that keeps insisting that ``it is my
way or the highway.'' Pass H.R. 1, pass their CR, or do nothing.
Yesterday was a rally on the Mall. What did the tea party cry out? They
said cut it or shut it. Either go along with my bill, or shut the
government down.
So don't say you are trying to prevent a government shutdown. You are
doing just the opposite. Let's not continue with all these myths today,
April Fool's Day.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 2 minutes to my good
friend from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
Mr. McCOTTER. I rise in support of the rule that I think for two
reasons that are very important. The first is so that we can continue
to discuss what happens when you bury prosperity beneath Big
Government. But second is because we also need to be reminded that the
road to hell is paved with good intentions.
It seems to me that when you have an impasse on the budget, it is
borne of the difference very fundamentally that one side wants less
spending and one side would like more spending, and there are a bunch
of Members who wind up in the middle.
Now, I think we can all concede, whatever our positions, that
reducing Federal spending is hard. Certainly past precedent proves
that. Past precedent also proves something else: that, historically,
the way you break a log jam in Congress is to logroll. That is the
process whereby Members who have differences split that difference and
[[Page H2228]]
spend more money to make each other happy and to serve their
constituents as they think best.
What we have done in this bill is to incentivize spending, because I
want you to think of the situation we are in. You are now telling a
politician that you will get no money in your pocket until you spend
money from someone else's pocket. You are telling them that the fastest
way to end an impasse is to settle. And you are making it harder for
those who would seek more spending reductions to stand their ground and
fight for it.
So that is why I support the rule and why I oppose the underlying
bill, because I will not pave the fiscal road to hell with good
intentions or your money.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman
from Maryland (Ms. Edwards).
Ms. EDWARDS. Madam Speaker, I am really dumbfounded as to why we are
here today.
I sat back and I closed my eyes, and I remembered that my favorite
grade was fifth grade, and now I remember why my favorite grade was
fifth grade: because, as my colleague from Colorado has pointed out, I
remember in fifth grade playing how a bill becomes a law, and I was the
House and somebody else was the Senate and another set of our fifth
graders were the Constitution. And what we learned is you have to pass
a bill out of the House, it goes on to the Senate, it goes on to the
President, he signs it, it becomes a law. Pretty simple. Well, here we
are in fifth grade yet again.
What I want to say here, Madam Speaker, is that I oppose the rule, I
oppose the underlying bill. And I am recollecting that just over 1 year
ago, we had this exact discussion about deem and pass. And so while an
elephant never forgets, it seems that the party of elephants is just
forgetting every day. And if this were only about mascots, forgetting
would be okay. But it is not okay because it is not just about mascots;
it is about the American people.
So I want to remind the American people about the words of some of
our leaders here in this House when deem and pass was put on the table
just 1 year ago.
Our now Speaker, John Boehner, called it a ``scheme and plot'' that
set a precedent that was ``one of the most outrageous things that he
had seen since he had been in Congress.'' That was on March 19, 2010.
Mike Pence said it is a ``trampling on the traditional rules of the
House and Senate, even on the Constitution of the United States.'' That
was on March 16, 2010.
Eric Cantor termed it a ``malfeasance manner,'' and those who might
support it as having ``discharged the duties of their offices.'' That
was on March 18, 2010.
And here we are, the elephants never forgetting, but the elephants
repeating.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to associate myself with the gentlewoman's remarks. Those comments on
the bottom of the board are as true today as they were a year ago.
There is no deeming in this bill. And I give my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle the benefit of the doubt that they know that
and that is just the spin for today.
There is no deeming in this bill. This bill says one thing and one
thing only about H.R. 1, and that is, that if the Senate cannot act, we
are going to give the Senate some cover. If the Senate doesn't want to
commit to H.R. 1 for the remainder of the year, we give them the
opportunity to incorporate the language of H.R. 1 into this bill, send
it to the President's desk for his signature, make it the law of the
land, while we continue to work to sort out our budget differences.
Now, that is critically important; one thing and one thing only this
bill does: gives the Senate the opportunity to say, you know, for
whatever reasons--and the reasons are still a mystery to me--we can't
pass legislation in the Senate. We can defeat things all day long, but
we can't pass anything. I'm not sure why that is. This bill says: but
none of us want a shutdown.
Now, I have got to be honest, Madam Speaker. I am beginning to wonder
if ``none of us want a shutdown'' is actually a true statement, because
there are some folks who seem to be driving us right down that road.
This is a bill that just gives us another option, another arrow in
our quiver to say, if you cannot act, Senate, if you are paralyzed by
inaction, pass this bill, and we will continue those negotiations while
H.R. 1 is the law of the land.
And I would like to say to my friend from Michigan, I thank him for
his support of the rule. I hope I can persuade him to support the
underlying resolution. He suggested that by penalizing Members of
Congress for failure to act and curbing our salaries, that would
somehow encourage a compromise that would spend more out of other
people's pockets. I certainly share that fear if that is what this bill
does, but it does not.
What it says is the very best deal we have been able to negotiate
among ourselves here in the House was H.R. 1. The most conservative and
the most liberal, the work product of all 435 of us, is what came out
of this House in H.R. 1. And it says, let's fund at those levels that
we are already agreed on, that has already been the work product of the
people's House, the most responsive body in politics. Let's incorporate
that as our baseline while we continue to discuss.
So it is not going to spend an additional nickel out of anyone's
pockets, Madam Speaker. It is only going to say to the Congress and the
Senate, if you do not work, you do not get paid. And I cannot think of
a constituent back home who would disagree with that.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 1255. And I say to my friend from Georgia that no matter how he
slices it, if you are saying in this bill that if the Senate fails to
act, then H.R. 1 becomes law, check Webster's. That's deeming.
This is blatantly unconstitutional deem-and-pass legislation offered
by Representative Womack, and it makes me wonder what sort of April
Fool's Day joke is being played on the American public.
To be sure, Congressman Womack cited constitutional authority for his
bill. First, he cites clause 7 of section 9 of article I of the
Constitution for the concept that Congress has the authority to spend
money by passing laws. He then cites clause 1 of section 8, article I
for the idea that Congress shall have power to lay taxes and pay the
debts.
But what my Republican colleague fails to cite is clause 1, section
1, article I for the fundamental concept that Congress shall consist of
a Senate and a House of Representatives. As much as we don't like that
much of the time, that is what the Constitution says.
I also refer him to clause 2, section 7 of article I that lays out
the basic constitutional construct that a bill becomes a law if, and
only if, it is passed by the House and the Senate and signed by the
President.
The House has no magic wand to do this all on its own. Glinda, the
good witch of the north, is not coming to save you. H.R. 1 is more like
a product of the wicked witch of the west. Perhaps at the start of the
next Congress we should show the ``Schoolhouse Rock'' video ``I Am Just
a Bill,'' as a refresher on how a bill really becomes a law. It appears
reading the Constitution on the floor hasn't stuck so well.
Now, while today is April Fool's Day, it also feels a bit like Ground
Hog Day because here we are again deeming to pass the majority's job-
killing spending bill, H.R. 1.
{time} 1050
In case anyone has forgotten, that job-killing spending bill would
destroy 700,000 jobs and threaten the economic recovery now underway.
The Democratic minority remains committed to our goals for the 112th
Congress to create jobs, strengthen the middle class, and responsibly
reduce the deficit. I say defeat this misguided legislation and make
sure that Members of Congress aren't paid when government employees
aren't.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H2229]]
Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, as the week ends, there is the welcomed
news that American employers added 216,000 jobs. But this is still a
night for 15 million people where they didn't get one of those jobs,
and it is going to be another sleepless night, another Friday without a
paycheck. And what did the majority in the House of Representatives do
about that this week?
Well, early in the week they took a bill to cancel out a program that
helps people that are trying to keep their homes and pay their bills
out of foreclosure. Then we spent a day pretending we were the District
of Columbia board of education debating about how the D.C. schools
should be organized. Today is going to be capped off by debating a bill
that any fifth grader would understand is unconstitutional because it
does not require the House and the Senate to act.
There are serious discussions going on about what we ought to do in
this country, but the most serious thing we ought to do is work
together to create an environment so that entrepreneurs, large and
small, could create jobs. Instead, what we are doing is wasting yet
another week, this is week 14, yet another day, yet another session,
having a fairly superficial political discussion about a bill that
simply isn't constitutional and doesn't make any sense.
Why don't we put on the floor a bill that reduces the deficit, cuts
the subsidies to the oil companies, and puts some of the money into
putting Americans back to work building clean water systems and roads
and schools? Why don't we do that?
At a minimum, what we are going to do today is vote for something I
do support. If there is a government shutdown, and I sure hope there
isn't, we shouldn't get paid either. We can agree on that. Let's put
that on the floor. But, for goodness' sake, can't there come a day in
this House when we actually work together on a jobs bill, instead of
another week of failure?
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume
to say that one of the great joys of serving in this body is when you
get to take a stand on something you really believe in. And while I
have great respect for my friend from New Jersey and I know he
represents his constituency well, my constituency does not believe that
the government has the power to create a single job. Not one.
In fact, my constituency believes that every single person that the
United States Government hires is a job that would have been done in
the private sector. It would have been done better in the private
sector. It would have spurred the private sector economy, but, instead,
we suck that into the Federal Government.
We understand that entrepreneurs create jobs. Entrepreneurs create
jobs. And I will say as we continue to count the days since the House
has passed H.R. 1 and the Senate hasn't acted, it is the same number of
days, Madam Speaker, since I came to this floor, probably shortly after
my friend from New Jersey spoke on the H.R. 1 rule, to say if you want
to do away with those tax subsidies, if you want to go after the oil
companies, if you want to go after the lobbyists, if you want to go
after the special exceptions, join me on H.R. 25, the Fair Tax. Not one
new friend of mine from the other side of the aisle has joined me since
that speech, the only bill in Congress.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I would love to yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend, and I thank him for his passion.
I thought I heard the gentleman say a minute ago that every job
created in the public sector sucks away money that could create a
private sector job. Did the gentleman say that?
Mr. WOODALL. To be clear, Mr. Andrews, I absolutely said that the
government cannot create jobs. It can hire people that would otherwise
have been hired in the private sector.
Mr. ANDREWS. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I would ask him if he
would apply that definition to our people in the military.
Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I am so thankful to you for bringing
that up, because I actually intended to speak to that.
That is critically important, Madam Speaker, and it has been ignored
throughout this whole debate.
Do you know what happens in a government shutdown? Those heroes of
this country do not get paid. Now, understand that. In a government
shutdown, this is a bill to provide a special rule so that we don't get
paid, but by the ordinary function of law, our men and women who serve
this country at home and abroad in uniform do not get paid. Do not get
paid.
Now, it is alarming to me, because I know you share my passion for
that, that this is the only solution that has been brought to the
floor. I am one of the cosponsors who brought it to the floor, and we
have had nothing but contempt for this effort. I am not saying this is
the end-all, be-all of good government. In fact, I would associate
myself with Chairman Dreier's remarks. I hate that we have to do this.
I have been in Congress for 90 days, Madam Speaker. I haven't gotten
to work on the new agenda yet. My time has been wholly consumed with
trying to sort out the problems from last year, and it is frustrating
to me as someone who wants to look to the future and not look to the
past.
But I thank the gentleman for bringing up our men and women in
uniform, because they are outrageously disadvantaged by a government
shutdown. Say what you want to, because I know my friend would agree
with me; when we have a tea party rally on The Mall, they are 100
percent supportive of our men and women in uniform and want to see
those folks get paid. This is the only bill to do that.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. Would the gentleman say that people who are FBI or DEA
agents are sucking money out of the Treasury that could be used for
private sector jobs?
Mr. WOODALL. Again, I want to point out, Madam Speaker, one of the
great joys of the job is being able to work with colleagues across the
aisle. I think Mr. Andrews is 100 percent right, 100 percent right,
because what he struck on is one of those narrow opportunities where
the Constitution actually gives the government the responsibility to
act. And that is one of the wonderful things, Madam Speaker.
I may be new here on Capitol Hill, but the job came with an
instruction book. It is kind of neat. It came with an instruction book.
It is the United States Constitution, and it tells us what it is we
should and shouldn't be doing, what it is we should and shouldn't be
funding.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WOODALL. While I would love to yield to the gentleman, I suspect
what I would hear, if I can presume, is a discussion of the
constitutionality of this provision that's here before us today. The
good news is I read the instruction book before I came to the floor
today and I'm very comfortable with where we are headed.
I would encourage my friends to support us on this resolution. Again,
it is not the end-all, be-all of government. It's a step in the right
direction. And if you are going to have an all-or-nothing attitude, I'm
not sure that we are going to get things done. I wish you would work
with me incrementally to make this happen.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. To respond, I would like to yield 15 seconds to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
I appreciate my friend. I would just, with all due respect, say it is
not an instruction book; it's an owner's manual. And the owner's
manual, the Constitution, says for a bill to become law, the House has
to pass it and the Senate has to pass it. That is why this bill is
unconstitutional.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), who has helped create a few
jobs while he has been here.
Mr. DeFAZIO. That was pretty astounding. Apparently the gentleman is
unfamiliar with the portions of the Constitution referring to what were
then post roads.
The government can't create a job? We create incredible wealth,
millions of jobs, by facilitating the infrastructure of this country,
which is paid for
[[Page H2230]]
by the taxpayers. And those are all private sector jobs. They are
contracted out to the best bid. So the gentleman has a little bit to
learn.
I realize he is new here and he has been sent here on a fool's
errand: Let's keep the Republican freshmen busy while behind closed
doors your Speaker is cutting a deal.
Things haven't changed around here all that much. And you are down
here pretending that somehow we have become the omnipotent, unicameral
legislature and the rulers of America, the President and the Senate be
damned.
Now, I am pretty fed up with the Senate, too, and I share your low
opinion of them. They are a problem.
Let's kind of think this through. We can pass a bill here that
becomes a law. Now, in the last Congress, the House passed 300 bills
that never came up in the Senate. Are those all laws today? Boy, we
have got some catching up to do here. There were a lot of good bills
that died in the Senate, 300 laws. Great.
But what if the Senate passes a bill and the House doesn't? Does that
become a law? Well, I guess, you know, they could deem themselves the
unicameral, omnipotent legislative branch, which I think they feel like
they are all the time anyway. So then anything they pass we don't take
up becomes law.
What if the President takes a bill that someone has introduced here
but hasn't been debated and voted on by either House and he signs it?
Does that become a law?
{time} 1100
What a brave and wonderful new, efficient world we have. We can have
two branches and three competing places passing what they deem to be
laws. Now, come on. Let's get real here. We read the Constitution on
the second day of this Congress, and, in fact, Joe Wilson--we all
remember Joe Wilson, ``you lie''--he read article I, section 7, clause
2 on the floor. But apparently he and many others on that side didn't
take it to heart. It's pretty darn specific. It's got to pass the House
and the Senate in identical form and be agreed to by the President of
the United States. We cannot deem anything. In your fantasy world, we
can deem everything.
If the Constitution is a little too technical, I would recommend what
I give out to schools kids: ``How our Laws are Made.'' It would be a
good primer for the Republican freshmen who are being duped.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind Members to refrain
from engaging in improper references to the Senate.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, may I inquire how much time is remaining
on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\
minutes remaining. The gentlewoman from New York has 6\1/4\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to one
of our freshmen, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutch).
Mr. DEUTCH. I thank the gentlewoman from New York.
I have been listening to this debate about the Constitution. I am
proud to serve in a body that has such respect for the Constitution.
Yet I couldn't find this provision that was applicable today until just
a moment ago. Apparently, my friends on the other side of the aisle are
using a special April Fool's edition of the Constitution that has the
following provision in it. It says: When a majority party in the House
of Representatives is immovably committed to shutting down the
government unless the President of the United States and the United
States Senate get on board with their plan to destroy 700,000 jobs and
cripple the Nation's economic growth, that House majority can simply
deem their plan the law without a vote by the Senate or the signature
of the President, as they are null and void.
There you have it, Madam Speaker. What we've clearly seen here is
that my colleagues are so bent on adding 700,000 Americans to our
unemployment lines that they can simply declare the Senate of the
United States and the President of the United States null and void.
This bill tramples on our Constitution. It is bad political theater. I
urge my colleagues to oppose it.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say what I
fear will fall on deaf ears, and that is that H.R. 1255 will not become
the law of the land until the Senate passes it and the President signs
it. The Senate passes it and the President signs it. That is the only
thing we're talking about doing here today.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I quarrel with the
understanding of the gentleman on the other side of the aisle about the
Constitution. There are three branches--the judiciary, the legislature,
and the President. Thank God there are because that means that we have
the ability to be reasonable and practical, recognizing we have a
responsibility to reduce the debt but not killing off seniors and those
in classrooms.
I just came from speaking to Spelman College, a group of women in a
Historically Black College. Women who are ready to go out and serve
America, and they realize that their education is a gift. But they want
to give back to America. This ridiculous $61 billion in cuts wants to
make sure that we don't have the American Dream.
As a member of the Homeland Security Committee, I sit and listen to
those voting the war of drug cartels on the border, but $400 million is
going to be cut out of the Homeland Security funding so that it impacts
ICE agents, it impacts Border Patrol agents, it impacts intelligence
gathering. These kinds of nonpractical ways are undermining America and
America's dream; 700,000 jobs is just the beginning. It's the floor,
not the limit.
For those of you who seek a single tunnel view of how we run this
country, have mercy on those who are in need. This is the wrong
direction. Sit down at the bargaining table. Let's reassess what we
need to do and stop putting your ideas on the back of Americans who
need to be able to have the American Dream.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 16 seconds to point out
the irony of being lectured on job creation by the crowd that left us
$14 trillion in debt and mortgaged our children's future.
This bill is about responding to our children's needs. This bill is
about providing a better day tomorrow than we have today. I stand
proudly in support of it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a former
member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentlelady.
The House passed H.R. 1 with the Republican majority. It can't get it
through the Senate. They're frustrated. Their responsibility is to be
direct with the people who supported their passage of H.R. 1, and being
direct with those folks is telling them they have a problem in the
Senate. The reason they have a problem in the Senate is because the
Senate has a problem with the bill.
Coming into this House of Representatives as a political gambit to
pass a ``let's pretend'' bill: let's pretend if the House passes it, it
becomes law, without Senate action; let's pretend that if the House
passes it, it becomes law without the Senate or the President signing
it. That is misleading and not being straight with the folks who
supported H.R. 1. Tell them the truth. They have a problem with the
Senate.
Now, there's a reason they have a problem with the Senate. H.R. 1 is
a bill designed to fail. It will not address the deficit. It will
reduce spending in some areas. If you're low income and getting heating
assistance, you will lose some money. If you're an oil company that's
making $55 billion in tax breaks from people, you will continue to
receive it. If you have the practice of putting our two wars,
Afghanistan and Iraq, on the credit card, that will continue. What H.R.
1 did was target low-income folks, middle class folks, and it left all
the other aspects of the budget off the table that have to be on the
table if we're going to get the fiscal balance.
Number two, H.R. 1 was loaded with political hand grenades that were
designed to make this thing blow up. And
[[Page H2231]]
that's what's happening in the Senate: things like ending National
Public Radio or Planned Parenthood; getting into a debate about choice
and abortion. All of those are issues that are vitally important and
legitimate to be debated. But why put them on a bill where the
objective of the bill is to help bring us into fiscal balance? That's a
self-conscious decision, it's a willful decision, and a decision that
has implications. And you're seeing it played out in the United States
Senate.
H.R. 1 will not succeed in the challenge we face getting us the
fiscal balance. And that is the problem that the majority in the House
is having with that bill. Coming in here with a bill that's flatly,
explicitly unconstitutional by its own language, not what the sponsors
say the bill does, but what the bill says it does. Allowing the House
by its unilateral action to pass legislation is unconstitutional, it
has no merit, and it is simply a way of trying to avoid responsibility.
Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds, and I wish I
had more time to refute that misdirection.
What we're asking here is that we pass the only bill that has been
passed in either house of Congress. I don't care if the Senate passes
H.R. 1 or not. Pass something. Do I need to bring the chart back up of
what the Senate has done already? They have done nothing. They need to
do something. This bill prods them to do it.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen).
Mr. COHEN. Madam Speaker, I'm just totally confused. I was in New
York a couple of weeks ago and I saw a play called ``The Bengal Tiger
at the Baghdad Zoo.'' Robin Williams was the star. I wrote him a letter
and said, ``Reality, what a concept. It even exists in Congress.''
Robin, I'm sorry. I was wrong. It doesn't exist today.
Mr. WOODALL. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, if we defeat the previous question, I
will offer an amendment to the rule to provide immediately after the
House adopts this rule and brings up S. 388, a bill to prohibit Members
of Congress and the President from receiving pay during government
shutdowns.
As we face the possibility of a shutdown and to discuss how to
prevent and deal with it, there's one point on which we all agree--that
Members of Congress should not be paid during a government shutdown.
The Republican bill we're about to bring up ties this bipartisan pay
proposal to a partisan bill that isn't going anywhere. We could pass
the Member Pay bill today and clear it for the President and simply
take the Senate bill from the desk.
Madam 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from New York?
There was no objection.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' and defeat the
previous question so we can debate and pass a bill that actually does
something useful, and that is deal with the pay of the President and
the Congress and actually has a chance, because it has already passed
the Senate, of being enacted into law.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.
I yield back the balance of my time.
{time} 1110
Mr. WOODALL. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, this has been an interesting experience for me as a
freshman Member of Congress and as a cosponsor of the underlying
legislation. I haven't had my motives impugned quite as much in the
previous days as I've had them impugned today.
We're trying to make a difference. We're trying to move the ball
forward. I wish our ``I'm just a bill'' song went on to talk about what
you do when you have an intransigent Senate that can't act, a Senate
that's paralyzed with inaction. I wish that were part of a song, but
it's not.
In 7 days, Madam Speaker, the United States Government shuts down. I
just want to make that clear. In 7 days, the United States Government
shuts down if the Senate can't pass a bill and if we can't get together
and define a solution. That means our men and women in uniform don't
get paid. That means our USDA inspectors, who inspect all the meat and
the chicken that we eat, won't go to work, and those products won't go
to the grocery stores. It's not a little deal. It's a big deal. It's a
big deal, and this is a step in the direction towards finding a
solution. Now, this rule provides for debate on that underlying
resolution. We'll get to that this afternoon, and I look forward to
that.
I would ask all my colleagues on the left and the right, the
conservatives and the liberals of all stripes, to support this rule so
that we can move forward and debate in an open fashion the underlying
resolution.
The material previously referred to by Ms. Slaughter is as follows:
Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered By Rep. Slaughter of
New York
Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the
following:
``That immediately upon adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (S. 388)
to prohibit Members of Congress and the President from
receiving pay during Government shutdowns, if called up by
the Minority Leader or her designee. 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 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 House Administration; and (2) one
motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of S. 388.''.
____
(The information contained herein was provided by the
Republican Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
110th and 111th Congresses.)
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 opposition, at least for the moment, 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.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Republican
majority they will 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. House of
Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special
Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on
such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on
Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further
debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues:
``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a
resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control
shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous
question, who may offer a proper amendment
[[Page H2232]]
or motion and who controls the time for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. 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.
Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________