[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.

                          ____________________