[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 134 (Wednesday, October 2, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6133-H6138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 370, I call
up the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 71) making continuing appropriations
of local funds of the District of Columbia for fiscal year 2014, and
ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
H.J. Res. 71
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
Sec. 1. This joint resolution may be cited as the
``District of Columbia Continuing Appropriations Resolution,
2014''.
Sec. 2. (a) The District of Columbia may expend local funds
under the heading ``District of Columbia Funds'' for such
programs and activities under title IV of H.R. 2786 (113th
Congress), as reported by the Committee on Appropriations of
the House of Representatives, at the rate set forth under
``District of Columbia Funds--Summary of Expenses'' as
included in the Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request Act of 2013
(D.C. Act 20-127), as modified as of the date of the
enactment of this joint resolution.
(b) Appropriations made by subsection (a) are provided
under the authority and conditions as provided under the
Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (division F of
Public Law 113-6) and shall be available to the extent and in
the manner that would be provided by such Act.
Sec. 3. Appropriations made and authority granted pursuant
to this joint resolution shall cover all obligations or
expenditures incurred for any project or activity during the
period for which funds or authority for such project or
activity are available under this joint resolution.
Sec. 4. Unless otherwise provided for in this joint
resolution or in the applicable appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2014, appropriations and funds made available and
authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution shall be
available until whichever of the following first occurs: (1)
the enactment into law of an appropriation for any project or
activity provided for in this joint resolution; (2) the
enactment into law of the applicable appropriations Act for
fiscal year 2014 without any provision for such project or
activity; or (3) December 15, 2013.
Sec. 5. Expenditures made pursuant to this joint
resolution shall be charged to the applicable appropriation,
fund, or authorization whenever a bill in which such
applicable appropriation, fund, or authorization is contained
is enacted into law.
Sec. 6. Appropriations made and funds made available by or
authority granted pursuant to this joint resolution may be
used without regard to the time limitations for submission
and approval of apportionments set forth in section 1513 of
title 31, United States Code, but nothing in this joint
resolution may be construed to waive any other provision of
law governing the apportionment of funds.
Sec. 7. It is the sense of Congress that this joint
resolution may also be referred to as the ``Provide Local
Funding for the District of Columbia Act''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
30 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the Chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Appropriations.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw) and the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Serrano) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
General Leave
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
[[Page H6134]]
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 71, and that I may include
tabular material on the same.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I bring before the
House today a continuing resolution that's very limited in scope. It
simply allows the District of Columbia to spend their locally raised
revenues. That's all it does.
I brought this same resolution before the House yesterday, under the
suspension of the rules. The vote was 265-163, a majority, but not the
two-thirds majority required by the suspension of the rules. So the
bill that is back before us today will require a majority for passage.
Quite frankly, I don't understand why so many of our friends on the
other side of the aisle voted ``no'' yesterday, because all it does is
allow the District of Columbia to spend their own money. But, be that
as it may, that's what happened.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, who represents the District of Columbia, made
a very eloquent, very impassioned plea as to why we should pass this
continuing resolution. But apparently that didn't convince enough of
her Democratic colleagues for it to reach the two-thirds majority. So
here we are today.
I think most of the Members recognize that the District of Columbia
is unique. It's a unique city among all the cities in our great
country. It's called a Federal city. And because of that unique
relationship, Congress must appropriate the locally raised funds before
they can be spent.
We do that every year, on a routine basis, as part of the Financial
Services appropriations bill. We've done that from time to time, and
things always seem to work out. But this time, we're back with the same
resolution that we had yesterday.
The way it works is simply this: the District of Columbia has passed
the 2014 budget. The mayor makes his proposal, the city council
receives the proposal, it considers the budget, and this year it has
approved the budget. There's an independent chief financial officer
that has certified the budget. It's balanced. And there we are.
So now we're faced with a situation, unless Congress appropriates the
money, they're not able to spend the money.
I don't think that, after they passed their budget, that just because
the United States Congress is arguing back and forth between the House
and the Senate as to how we should fund the government, I don't think
that should stop the District of Columbia, this unique city, from
spending the money that they've raised locally.
For instance, you have people that work for the District of Columbia,
like any other city. You have schoolteachers that go to work every day,
and they teach kids. You've got policemen that get up every day, that
work night shifts, day shifts, to make sure that the streets in the
District of Columbia are safe.
You've got firemen that go to work every day. They're there on call
in case there's an emergency. Other first responders, they're working
every day.
People keep the streets clean. They pick up the garbage. People go to
work as librarians, and they do the work to make sure that people have
access to reading material.
Now, there's no reason in the world why these people should be
furloughed or not paid simply because Congress can't get its act
together as to how to fund the Federal Government. That doesn't make
any sense.
And if you live in the District of Columbia, you shouldn't have your
quality of life degraded because of what goes on in Congress. You ought
to have the police and fire protection. You have all the services that
other cities have. You ought to have those.
Despite the fact that we tried to get together, the House and the
Senate, to figure out a way to keep our government running, to keep it
open, we haven't been able to do that. And so we shouldn't penalize the
people in the District of Columbia for that.
So this simple resolution takes care of that. It authorizes, it
appropriates the money, under the law, that needs to be spent on the
local level by the locally raised funds. That's what it does.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
For the people watching at home, this debate may seem familiar, and
it is, because we just considered this same bill yesterday.
Unfortunately, nothing has changed in the past 24 hours, so I continue
to oppose this bill.
Our Nation still finds itself in the midst of a completely
unnecessary government shutdown caused by the Republican Party. And we
all know the solution--passing the Senate version of the continuing
resolution, which would reopen our Nation's government totally for
everyone.
Doing anything less than a full CR is simply a political ploy. It is
a false process designed, strangely enough, by a member of the other
body to deflect attention from the harm that the shutdown is causing.
Now, for 23 years that I've been in Congress, I've been, at times,
begging Members of the other side of the aisle to help the District of
Columbia. I've spent years getting rid of riders that they imposed on
the District of Columbia.
All the things that you just heard today from the chairman of the
committee, who I have a lot of respect for--and I know the public
listens to this kind of debate and then says, but they say they respect
each other. We do. We care for each other.
{time} 1545
But a lot of this is just simply politics. All of the things that he
just said are things that for 23 years his party refused to do for the
District of Columbia. This is only to make it look good now so they can
find yet another way to go after ObamaCare.
In fact, this bill continues that meddling by continuing a harmful
and controversial rider that prevents the District of Columbia from
spending its own funds on abortion services. No other State in the
Nation has such a restriction.
Although I support D.C. being able to spend its own money, I do not
understand why this bill is not being considered as part of the full
Financial Services appropriations bill.
Many agencies under our jurisdiction have suffered, or will suffer,
devastating problems as a result of the Republican Federal Government
shutdown. Let me recap briefly some of the problems that I mentioned
yesterday.
The Republican shutdown has required the Small Business
Administration, our committee, to furlough almost two-thirds of its
workforce. The agency has had to shutter almost all of its loan
programs for our Nation's small businesses, including loan programs for
veterans, women-owned small businesses, and small businesses located in
underserved areas.
The Federal defenders currently have enough money to continue
operations for just a couple of weeks. However, once that time is up,
they will be unable to fulfill their constitutional duty to uphold the
Sixth Amendment rights of criminal defendants.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is going down from 540
employees to only 22, putting all of the American people at risk.
The IRS, a favorite target of the other side, has been forced to lay
off most of their workforce, preventing the agency from providing
taxpayer assistance to those who have questions, to examine
questionable tax returns, or even to accept paper tax filings. The IRS
brings the vast majority of our Nation's revenue, and the Republican
shutdown is harming our ability to pay our bills.
All of these agencies need and deserve a continuing resolution so
they can perform the many functions of government that remain essential
to American consumers, investors, taxpayers, and small businesses.
Let me close by saying that I have a lot of respect for the Members
on the other side, but you've been caught up by a small group in your
party and one person in the other body who is running this show and
telling you that this shutdown has to go down for as long as it can--
until the public tells you not to do it any longer. And they will do
that soon.
[[Page H6135]]
And so rather than now open up the government totally by approving a
proper resolution, you're going to start nitpicking little pieces--not
necessarily because you have now developed this great love for the
District of Columbia, but because you know that it can divide people on
this side and on your side. And division is what is best for this
situation right now for a lot of folks on your side.
I hope that we can see this for what it is--which is a sham, a trick,
and more of the same.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I just find it ironic that the other side always likes to complain
that Republicans meddle too much in the affairs of the District of
Columbia. And yet yesterday, so many of them voted not to even let the
District of Columbia access their own local funds.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Not allowing them to use their local funds is something
that has been said on that side many, many, many times.
Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend for the time.
One of my colleagues yesterday said, You've seen it worse, haven't
you? Well, I've only been here 57 years, and I never have.
I've never seen such small-minded, miserable behavior in this House
of Representatives and such a disregard of our responsibilities to the
people. We're supposed to solve the problems of the people. We're
supposed to deal with the concerns they have. We're supposed to see to
it that the Nation prospers. None of that is being done. The American
people could get better government out of the monkey island in the
local zoo than we're giving them today.
I'm embarrassed and I'm humiliated. I certainly hope that my
colleagues on both sides--especially on the Republican side--are
embarrassed.
This is going to cost us huge amounts of money. It's going to waste
money in an amount which will exceed that which we saw wasted during
the last time the Republicans shut the House down. They shut it down in
1995 and 1996. In today's dollars, it cost $2 billion, according to the
Office of Management and Budget. This shutdown is no different. It's
going to end up not only costing money, but hurting the economy,
hurting jobs, and hurting the American recovery.
During the last shutdown, we lost huge amounts of revenue through the
IRS, EPA, and other agencies. Passport applications were not processed,
which meant even more revenue was lost. National parks, battlefields,
and monuments were closed.
Now we're going to pass a budget with hit-and-miss legislation and
the subjugate people are going to think that in some quaint way we're
solving the Nation's problems.
We are called the Congress. That means coming together. I see no
coming together here. I see a waste of time, a waste of money, and a
behavior of a bunch of people who look small, petulant, and small-
minded.
I'm embarrassed. I hope my colleagues are embarrassed. And the
American people are not only embarrassed; they're being hurt by the
shameless, miserable behavior that we're demonstrating today in this
Chamber and on the television to the Nation.
Let's get down to business. Let's pass a continuing resolution. Let's
do our responsibilities. Let's behave as a Congress of the United
States, not an aggregation of petulant children.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I still don't understand why it's so hard for my friends on the other
side to vote in favor of allowing the District of Columbia to spend
their own locally raised funds.
Back in 1996, as they may recall, there was a shutdown of the
government; and there was a standalone provision, pretty much just like
this, and it was signed into law by the President of the United States.
It was Bill Clinton, a Democrat.
I just don't understand why it's so hard for Democrats to accept that
today.
With that, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California,
Darrell Issa, the distinguished chairman of the Government Oversight
and Reform Committee.
Mr. ISSA. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I'm the gentleman, the colleague, that
walked up to Mr. Dingell and asked him if he'd ever seen it this bad
before. And I'm sorry to hear that he did. Because in his 57 years, he
covered 57 of my 59 years of life. So I hope I'm not the petulant child
when I say that, quite frankly, the disregard over the District of
Columbia is on his side of the aisle.
It's not an appropriations bill. It's not really part of the CR.
The truth is the District of Columbia pulls quarters out of meters
every day, and they're not going to be allowed to spend that. They
receive revenues from building permits, but they're not going to be
able to use that money to keep the people that look at those building
permits employed.
They receive money from the various services they do, including,
obviously, making sure that the property in the District of Columbia is
protected. And that creates the property value on which we who own
property in the District of Columbia--and I am among them--pay our
taxes.
Now, the Democrats love to talk about taxation without
representation. Well, I'm here today to say, Where is Eleanor Holmes
Norton's representation? Give her her due.
They're being taxed locally. Those moneys will build up locally. And
you're saying they can't spend it?
There's no question in your mind that the right thing to do is to
pass a CR on everything cleanly. That's good. But until we pass a CR
which would include some funds for the District of Columbia, allowing
them to have what every single Member on both sides of the aisle has
going on in every single city in their districts, it's just fairness.
Do not treat the District of Columbia greater than what it is--it is
the Federal city--but for goodness sake, it's a city. It should have
the right to spend its own money.
Yesterday, I was pleased to see some 34 Democrats cross former
Speaker Pelosi's orders and edicts to vote ``no'' on everything and
vote with Eleanor Holmes Norton. I just hope today that people will
search their souls and ask the question, Don't you really want to vote
``yes''?
Isn't this a time in which you show your independence and do the
right thing for the District of Columbia and let them spend their own
money? Or will you go home to the city you live in tonight or this
weekend, knowing that they're spending the money that they collect
locally and you're denying the District of Columbia the ability to
spend the money it collects locally?
Our committee passed unanimously a bill to make that permanent. It
wasn't an appropriations bill. It was a statutory change to the Home
Rule Act. I only ask that you realize that we were on a trajectory
toward providing an enhancement in home rule that would cover this. I
want that bill brought up as soon as possible, but this is the
equivalent for this crisis period.
I saw my friend Eleanor Holmes Norton almost in tears yesterday
because she couldn't believe her own party wouldn't support her. Don't
do that today.
Support the Delegate from the District of Columbia and support the
people of the District of Columbia in their ability to spend their own
money, or you will be damning them to taxation without representation.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation
of the rules of the House.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Just two quick points. First of all, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Issa), the bill yesterday passed on a voice vote, and then he
interrupted the Speaker and asked for a vote, which then led to a
recorded vote.
Secondly, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from New York (Mrs.
Lowey), my colleague and ranking
[[Page H6136]]
member on the Appropriations Committee.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Republican
shutdown. We can't cherry-pick our way through funding the government.
Of course we support funding for the District of Columbia; but we also
support funding for 800,000 Americans who are being furloughed,
restoring SBA loans to help small businesses grow, and restarting Head
Start centers.
Mr. Speaker, I would say to my friend, Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton, it really pains me that Republicans have brought up this
cynical bill yet again today. Funding one budget at a time is no way to
fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to keep the government
running or growing our economy.
This bill is nothing more than a Republican ploy. It isn't designed
to solve problems. It is designed only to help Republicans shift blame
for the most evident results of their shutdown. It would not be before
us if Republicans had not been so irresponsible throughout the
budgetary process, forcing us into a shutdown.
This bill is wasting critical time that should be spent passing the
Senate-passed compromise bill that we know the President would sign to
end the shutdown for all of government. This bill is irresponsible.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Collins of Georgia). The gentleman from
Florida has 6 minutes; the gentleman from New York has 5\1/4\ minutes.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1600
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. KAPTUR. I want to thank Ranking Serrano, and ask unanimous
consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59,
the clean continuing resolution, so we can go to conference on a real
budget.
Let's end this Republican government shutdown that is already harming
economic recovery and has already slowed growth by a third of 1
percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under guidelines consistently issued by
successive speakers, as recorded in section 956 of the House Rules and
Manual, the Chair is constrained not to entertain the request unless it
has been cleared by the bipartisan floor and committee leaderships.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Price) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PRICE of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the House now consider the Senate-passed clean continuing
resolution so that the Department of Homeland Security can pay the
frontline personnel that put their lives on the line every day and
secure our country's critical infrastructure.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, the
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Farr) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to bring up the Senate
amendment to H.J. Res. 59 and stop this silly game-playing, multiple-
choice government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Pastor) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. PASTOR of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
House bring the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean continuing
resolution that will end the outrageous Republican shutdown which
threatens the recovery of our housing sector, furloughs more than 3,000
aviation safety inspectors, and is reckless to our economy.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island
(Mr. Langevin) for a unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will recognize for proper
unanimous consent requests, but not for debate.
The gentleman from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to
conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government
shutdown that is slowing the economic growth and threatening to derail
our economy at a time when we can least afford it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, the
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North
Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the
Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, which is the clean CR, and go to
conference on a budget so that we can end this Republican government
shutdown that is delaying student loans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, the
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
The gentleman from New York will be charged.
Mr. SERRANO. Charged with what?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Time will be deleted.
Mr. SERRANO. Oh, just checking what I was being charged with.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Understandable.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida
(Ms. Wasserman Schultz) for a unanimous consent request.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the
House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, to end this
reckless Republican-orchestrated shutdown. It is time for the House
Republican leadership to stop with the gimmicks and step up with a
legitimate effort to re-open the government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
The gentleman from New York's time will be charged.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New York
(Ms. Meng) for a unanimous consent request.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman will suspend. The Chair
would like to clarify.
The Chair would advise Members that although a unanimous consent
request to consider a measure is covered by the Speaker's guidelines
for recognition. Embellishments constitute debate and can become an
imposition on the time of the Member who is yielded for that purpose.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, does that mean that the Members cannot
state why we should end this charade?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Members can state their unanimous
consent request but cannot engage in debate thereon.
The gentlewoman can continue.
Ms. MENG. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring
up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to
conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government
shutdown that is taking away nutritious foods from young children and
mothers in the WIC program.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Kennedy) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. KENNEDY. I thank my colleague from New York.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House and ask
that the House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean
CR, and go to conference on a budget so that we can end the Republican
government shutdown that is hurting public safety.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
[[Page H6137]]
Mr. BARTON. Mr. Speaker, how much time does the gentleman from New
York control at this point in time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 5 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington
(Mr. Kilmer) for a unanimous consent request.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey) for a unanimous
consent statement.
I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano) for a unanimous
consent request.
Parliamentary Inquiry
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, before I state my unanimous consent request,
may I ask a point of information?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. TAKANO. My inquiry is: Who is the Speaker of this House? Is it
John Boehner or is it Ted Cruz?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. TAKANO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring
up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, to go to
conference on a budget so that we end this Republican government
shutdown that is adding to the veterans' disability backlog.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs.
Beatty) for a unanimous consent request.
Mrs. BEATTY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House
bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to
conference on a budget that will end this Republican government
shutdown that is delaying home loans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Barber) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. BARBER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House bring
up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to
conference on a budget so that we can end this irresponsible shutdown
of the United States Government and restore the people's government.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey
(Mr. Holt) for a unanimous consent request.
Mr. HOLT. I thank the gentleman.
I ask unanimous consent that the House bring up the Senate amendment
to H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and go to conference on a budget so that
we can end this Republican government shutdown that is undermining
public health by preventing the CDC from working on its annual flu
vaccine or detecting disease outbreaks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from the great
State of New York (Mr. Sean Patrick Maloney) for a unanimous consent
request.
Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that, to help the hundreds of workers at West Point and the
Stewart Air National Guard base, we bring up the Senate amendment to
H.J. Res. 59, the clean CR, and stop this reckless Republican
government shutdown.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I'd now like to yield 3 minutes to the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his support
during his service in Congress for the District of Columbia.
Notwithstanding the way the D.C. budget is coming to the floor this
year, I come to the floor to ask my colleagues for help. And I think
each and every last one of you would be saying exactly what I'm saying
if your own district was on the line.
I'm speaking for 618,000 innocent bystanders to this Federal food
fight. They have raised $8 billion--more than four States--but they are
not able to spend a dime of it as I speak because this Congress hasn't
done its work, and they have no authority to spend their own local
funds. They are living off of contingency funds that are fast running
out. You are holding their local funds as if it were your money. It's
our money.
The strategy of each side seems to deepen the city's crisis. The
Republicans cherry-pick, but the health care bill is still on the
table. The Democrats see that the public is on its side, so they don't
have any incentive to move. The goals of each side are known, but
neither has an exit strategy, and it is the District of Columbia that
is hurting.
If the game plan is to keep this going until the debt ceiling in the
middle of the month, please don't. Each day without an agreement is
punishing millions of Americans and every single D.C. resident. Freeing
D.C. leaves every bit of the strategy of each side in place because all
the Federal funds are there.
The sin was requiring the local budget to come here in the first
place. Don't compound that sin by simply throwing D.C. into the pile
with Federal appropriations and pretending as if they were the same.
You have no right to pull a defenseless city into this Federal boxing
match. You have no right to use the good name of the people of the
District of Columbia alongside appropriations--no matter how wonderful
they are. Those appropriations depend upon your funding. The $8 billion
is our funding.
You have no right to leave our local budget sticking up like a sore
thumb among the Federal appropriations. It's our money, not yours. Do
not drive the Nation's Capital into crisis. Pass this bill. Free D.C.
Please free the people of the District of Columbia.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, can I inquire of the gentleman from New
York how many speakers he has remaining?
Mr. SERRANO. We have two.
Mr. CRENSHAW. We don't have any additional speakers, so I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have
remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 2 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Florida has 6 minutes remaining.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
Mr. KILDEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I'm new to Congress, and I knew when I was elected last year that I
was coming to a place where I would be in the minority and where it was
a highly partisan environment.
I was elected to replace a gentleman--my uncle--who served in this
body for 36 years. He sat alongside Mr. Dingell, whom we heard from
earlier. I did not believe, though, that I was elected to a body where
the majority would impose its will and use the rules to prevent a vote
on the floor of the House for action that would open government--that
the President supports, that the Senate has already adopted, and that
Democrats and Republicans in this body have both acknowledged would
pass if it were brought to a vote here on the floor of the House.
We know how we can get D.C. and the whole rest of the government open
again. It's simply to do what the will of this body would have us do if
we were only allowed a vote. And that is to bring the Senate CR to the
floor of the House. We will pass it; we will get government open again;
and then we can go to conference on the rest of the budget.
Mr. CRENSHAW. I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia
(Mr. Bishop) for a unanimous consent statement.
Mr. BISHOP of Georgia. I thank the gentleman.
In order to end these childish games and put our government back to
work
[[Page H6138]]
for the American people, I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, that the
House bring up the Senate amendment to H.J. Res. 59.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As the Chair has previously advised, that
request cannot be entertained absent appropriate clearance.
Mr. SERRANO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, I just wish that in the 23 years I've been fighting on
behalf of the District of Columbia I had heard so much love from the
other side for the District of Columbia.
{time} 1615
This is a game, this is a ploy. It is such a ploy that even when they
had an opportunity to get by under the screen yesterday, they didn't do
it.
Let me just end briefly by repeating this. There was a vote call on
the floor. No one from this side called for a vote. The Speaker said
that the bill had passed. Someone--they are denying now who it was--
from that side called for a vote.
We had a vote on this bill yesterday which resulted in what it
resulted in because that side called for a vote. Why? Because they
wanted to show a vote on the board. They wanted to make this a show, a
trick, a ploy, and a sham. They didn't want that bill to really pass,
and I am not sure they want the bill to pass today.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
There has been a lot of talk about political games. To watch people
parade up and down and make speeches under the guise of a unanimous
consent, I am not sure how serious that is. I am not sure how much that
complies with the rules of the House. But be that as it may.
You have folks on the other side that say they really believe the
District of Columbia ought to be able to spend its own money, but yet
they vote ``no'' on the authorization to do that.
We are in the second day of a shutdown in the Federal Government. A
lot of people are upset. I am upset, I am disappointed, because it
doesn't have to be this way.
On three separate occasions, this House sent to the Senate a
continuing resolution that would have kept the government open, kept
the government running--three times. Yet three times the Democratic-
controlled Senate said no--not once, not twice, but three times.
Then this House sent to the Senate a continuing resolution that also
said: let's appoint a conference committee. That is a group of
individuals from the House and a group of individuals from the Senate.
They would sit down and they would try to resolve these differences to
try to keep the government open. Because how are you going to solve a
problem unless you sit down--that is what we call a conference
committee--and then you try to move forward? But the Senate once again
said no.
Now, we all know that we have conference committees from time to
time. The gentleman from New York and I--he is the ranking member of
the Financial Services Subcommittee of Appropriations. We have
jurisdiction over lots of different agencies--the IRS, the Department
of Treasury, the Federal Court system, the Supreme Court, the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Communications
Commission.
We drafted a spending bill this year. I assumed the Senate was
working on their own spending bill somewhere, somehow, some way.
Usually, when it all ends up there is a conference committee and you
try to work out your differences.
For instance, we oversee the IRS. Members might remember the scandal
that took place. As we were appropriating money to the IRS, we found
out that they had been singling out individuals and groups of
individuals based on their political philosophy and they had
intimidated them, they bullied them, and it held them up. We thought
that was wrong. So when we drafted our appropriations bill we didn't
give the IRS all the money they asked for.
But the Senate might have done something different. If that was the
case, then we would come together and have a conference committee, and
we would talk about that.
That is all we are saying here. Why don't we sit down and have a
conference committee about how we are going to fund the Federal
Government? That is the way to get started, that is the way to figure
out a final way, that is a way to stop this shutdown.
Again, we don't have to be here. It is disappointing. I wish we could
move ahead. But at least--at least--let's pass this continuing
resolution. Let's say to the District of Columbia we have met our legal
responsibility and we have appropriated their own local funds so they
can move on with their lives. Let's don't punish the citizens of the
District of Columbia, let's don't punish the people that work in the
District of Columbia to try to keep the city open, keep it running,
keep it safe, keep it clean. Let's pass this resolution and move ahead.
With that, I urge the adoption of this joint resolution, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 370, the previous question is ordered.
The joint resolution was ordered to be engrossed and read a third
time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider
was laid on the table.
____________________