[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6370-H6381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 89, EXCEPTED EMPLOYEES' PAY
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION
OF H.R. 3273, DEFICIT REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WORKING GROUP ACT
OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 90, FEDERAL
AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 373 and ask for its immediate consideration.
[[Page H6371]]
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 373
Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be
in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 89) making appropriations for the salaries and related
expenses of certain Federal employees during a lapse in
funding authority for fiscal year 2014, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
Sec. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3273) to
establish a bicameral working group on deficit reduction and
economic growth. 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 and on any amendment thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except: (1) 40 minutes of debate
equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion
to recommit.
Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.J. Res. 89, the Clerk
shall--
(1) add the text of H.R. 3273, as passed by the House, as
new matter at the end of H.J. Res. 89;
(2) conform the title of H.J. Res. 89 to reflect the
addition of the text of H.R. 3273, as passed by the House, to
the engrossment;
(3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within
the engrossment; and
(4) conform cross-references and provisions for short
titles within the engrossment.
(b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3273, as passed
by the House, to the engrossment of H.J. Res. 89, H.R. 3273
shall be laid on the table.
Sec. 4. Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in
order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J.
Res. 90) making continuing appropriations for the Federal
Aviation Administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other
purposes. All points of order against consideration of the
joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. All points of order against provisions in
the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall
be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any
amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion
except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and
controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1
hour.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester,
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 373 provides for a closed rule for
consideration of H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth
Working Group Act of 2013; H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay
Fairness Act of 2013; and H.J. Res. 90, the Flight Safety Act of 2013.
Mr. Speaker, today this body will consider three important pieces of
legislation designed to address the current government shutdown and the
looming debt limit. The first of these bills would appropriate the
funds necessary to pay essential Federal employees who have been
continuing to work during the shutdown. These men and women have earned
their paychecks and deserve for us to act on their legislation to
ensure that they are paid on time.
Secondly, we will consider legislation to fully fund the FAA in order
to ensure that our Nation's commerce and air travel continues
uninterrupted and safely. There are many, many workers of the FAA who
need to come back to work to ensure the safety and to ensure that
millions of American passengers in the air are not put at risk due to a
continued government shutdown.
Finally, we will consider legislation to establish a bicameral,
bipartisan Working Group on Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth. This
working group would consist of 10 Members of the House and 10 Members
of the Senate, representing six from the majority and four from the
minority of both Chambers. These Members would be appointed no less
than one day after the enactment of this legislation, and would each
meet on the subsequent calendar day until an agreement is reached on
the overall discretionary levels for fiscal year 2014; changes to the
discretionary debt limit; and reforms to direct spending programs.
For nearly a month now, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have asked
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to sit down and
negotiate with House Republicans. Bill after bill from House
Republicans and this body have gone to the United States Senate only to
be batted down or to be revised and to come back without addressing the
significant problems that our country faces today.
So what we are trying to do is to find another avenue, and that is to
have the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and
their appointees be able to meet together in a working group to resolve
these issues. What do I envision? I envision a TV would be in the room.
The American people could take part in these discussions and see how
much progress can be made between Senate Republicans and Senate
Democrats and House Republicans and House Democrats on these important
issues, and hold those Members accountable for exactly the same thing
that we're trying to do, and that is to get this government back opened
up with an agreement about how we are going to fund this government.
So, today, we ask once again if the Senate is willing to join us not
only as we work towards ending this government shutdown but on how we
are going to address our government's debt and put our Nation back to
work on the pathway to prosperity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes''
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.
I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1530
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions), my good friend, for granting me the customary 30
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are devolving into self-parody.
The solution to this unnecessary and manufactured crisis is simple, and
it hasn't changed for months:
Step one, pass a clean, short-term continuing resolution at
Republican sequester levels to reopen the government;
Step two, pass a clean debt ceiling bill so that the United States
will not default for the first time in history and so we don't send the
economy into a tailspin;
Step three, finally agree to go to conference on the budget so we can
sit down and talk about our priorities.
Let me go over that once more just in case there's any confusion on
the other side of the aisle: reopen the government; raise the debt
ceiling; and negotiate on the budget.
That has been what the White House and Democrats in Congress have
been asking for over and over and over and over again. It's what we're
asking for today, and it's what we will ask for tomorrow.
By contrast, the list of House Republican demands changes every 10
minutes: repeal ObamaCare, defund ObamaCare, delay ObamaCare, stage a
non-filibuster filibuster, ask for the entire Romney economic platform
in order to raise the debt ceiling, yell at park rangers, fund this
part of the government, fund that part of the government, pay
furloughed employees, pay essential employees, hold a conference
meeting, hold a press conference, rinse and repeat.
Enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough.
Here we are again with yet another convoluted, cockamamie legislative
effort that is going absolutely nowhere. We have yet another ``message
bill'' that is designed to win today's news cycle but that gets us no
closer to resolving this crisis.
Today's effort is particularly pathetic, Mr. Speaker. Instead of
actually
[[Page H6372]]
solving the problem and letting the American people get on with their
lives, the bill before us today would create that most cherished and
beloved Washington institution, a committee--not just any committee,
no, but another supercommittee. It's Supercommittee 2: The Wrath of
Cruz.
We have before us a bill that was dreamed up--Lord knows when--
floated in the press at 10 o'clock this morning, distributed as
legislative language at 11:30 this morning, in the Rules Committee at
12:30, and on the floor at 3:20. Forget the 3-day rule, Mr. Speaker.
This contraption barely even followed the 3-hour rule.
And the Superdupercommittee Part 2--pardon me, the ``bicameral
working group on deficit reduction and economic growth''--that is
created by this bill doesn't come with any instructions. There is no
time line. There is no deadline. It doesn't reopen the government. It
doesn't prevent a default. It doesn't do much of anything.
It's unclear whether coffee and pastries will be provided at the
Superdupercommittee Part 2 working group. Maybe we need another bill to
do that.
This is just another press release. Mr. Speaker, we do not need
another committee to do the job that we were elected to do. Let me
remind my colleagues that we have this thing called the Budget
Committee, and the Republicans made a big deal about the fact that we
passed a budget in the House and the Senate didn't pass a budget in the
Senate. Then the Senate did pass a budget. What you're supposed to do
is then go to conference and work out your differences and come up with
a final product. For 6 months we have been pleading with the Speaker of
the House and the Republican leadership to appoint conferees to
negotiate a budget agreement. That's the way it's supposed to work. The
Senate does something, we do something, and we negotiate the
differences. For 6 months the Republicans have refused to appoint
conferees, and now they're saying we need this kind of vague committee
that has no instructions, that has no time line. It doesn't do anything
to stop the government shutdown. It doesn't do anything to stop the
government default on our financial obligations.
This is no way to run a railroad, let alone the United States House
of Representatives. So I would urge the Republican leadership to start
caring a little less about winning today's news cycle and a little more
about the American people, who sent us here and who expect us to do our
jobs.
Open the government. Raise the debt ceiling. Negotiate on the budget.
It is really not that complicated.
In the meantime, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this closed
rule, reject the underlying legislation, and reject the politics of
manufactured crises.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, hot off the press this afternoon from Politico, which is
not exactly a right-wing newspaper, it says:
Obama calls Boehner. Reiterates he won't negotiate.
So the President evidently today, as reported by Politico, called Mr.
Boehner to repeat: I'm not going to negotiate on bills to reopen the
government or to raise the debt ceiling. That's what's being reported.
Mr. Speaker, this is, I think, a bad precedent. Where I'm from in
Dallas, Texas, leaders lead. Leaders lead by trying to do what's in the
best interest of everybody, not running to crisis after crisis after
crisis, not negotiating, not agreeing to meet with people, not agreeing
to do things to help resolution. Leaders present ideas, opportunities,
options. They're the ones that stay at the table, and they're the last
ones to leave when everybody else gets frustrated.
I think what's important to note is this President is simply
different than every other President we've ever had. What he is doing
is giving up not only his legitimate moral authority to lead, but what
he's doing is saying, I recognize what could happen if we're
unsuccessful. I think, as Speaker Boehner said yesterday, the
President's senior adviser said he would sooner see the government go
into default than to meet with and negotiate with the Republicans. That
is not what leaders should be doing, and I would suggest to you that
this President stands on the shoulders of other Presidents for 230-plus
years who have given their very best to the benefit of others. They
have looked at Republicans, they have looked at Democrats, they've
looked at House Members, they've looked at Senate Members, and realized
they had to negotiate. That was one of the key things I remember as a
young man about Ronald Reagan's negotiating with Tip O'Neill, inviting
Tip O'Neill down to the White House, their being good with each other,
talking about how they could make progress with each other.
We are evidently past that. This President even has the audacity to
call the Speaker and say, I'm not going to negotiate with you. That is
not good leadership, and the American people are seeing it.
The House of Representatives, we're not going to get our nose out of
joint. We're going to stay at work. It is true that we bring this bill
up, and we'll probably be here tomorrow and the next day with new ways
to negotiate. Today, we're here on the floor just as we were yesterday,
just as we were on Saturday, talking about constructive, creative,
bipartisan issues to fund this government and to make sure we can get
moving.
The NIH should have been open already. We should have had lots of
government agencies as a result of what we are doing, including Head
Start. We should have these activities, even if it's one by one, to
open up. Today, we're on the floor to say, We ought to pay those
government employees who have been working when Tuesday rolls around.
They should get paid. We should have people at the FAA come back to
work and open that agency back up. That's what House Republicans are
doing. We recognize this President will not negotiate, but we're going
to offer ourselves up. I think the American people see what House
Republicans are attempting to do.
I am very proud of not only what our Speaker is doing but of our
majority leader, Eric Cantor, and our whip, Kevin McCarthy. They are
attempting to move forward ideas that sustain this body to where we can
look people straight in the eye and where we can accomplish things on
behalf of the American people.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume
Mr. Speaker, we are in this predicament because the Republicans shut
the government down. It is that simple.
You own this shutdown whether you like it or not.
The gentleman quoted Politico. Let me read from Politico. It says:
President Barack Obama opened the door to a short-term debt
ceiling increase in order to avoid going over the fiscal
cliff and allowed negotiations between the White House and
Congress on a long-term deal.
That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't want to negotiate. I'd
prefer a long-term deal because I'm tired of this crisis by crisis by
crisis, but this President has gone out of his way to negotiate over
and over and over again.
I will just point out another thing for my colleagues. Senate
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Boehner negotiated a deal on
this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government going.
Speaker Boehner admitted that this week with George Stephanopoulos on
Sunday, that they negotiated a short-term spending deal to keep the
government open at the Republican sequester levels. The deal was that,
in return for the Republican numbers, the Speaker wouldn't attach any
extraneous materials to that short-term continuing resolution.
Obviously, that is a deal that the Speaker did not keep in large part
because of a group in his conference who kind of represents, I guess,
the Ted Cruz wing of the party who said that wasn't enough. They wanted
to shut the government down, and they're willing to default on paying
our bills for the first time in history. That is, in my opinion,
unconscionable.
Let's not talk about who wants to negotiate here. Democrats have
negotiated going to your level on the short-term continuing resolution.
The President has been willing to negotiate time and time again. Every
time he gets close to an agreement, the Speaker can't deliver. He's
going to continue to try, but don't say he's not trying to negotiate.
[[Page H6373]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address all remarks
to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it is really getting more and more difficult for us to
get out here and act as though we're really having a serious debate
about something, and I just want to start off by saying that I don't
want anybody in the country to forget--as they're trying to do things
with a Federal Government that's shut down as the VA service centers
did, and their phones are now inoperative as we've all learned to our
great dismay--the deceased soldiers and their families have not been
able to be compensated in any way to make it possible for them to pay
for funerals or even go to them. I'm sure that will be something we're
going to come up and deal with as they're doing with this part-time
``let's build ourselves a new government.''
Don't forget that this was about health care. That's all there is to
it. Service people can't get the benefits that they need. Nobody can
get anything from the government. Mortgages are on hold because
Republicans didn't like health care.
If you would have asked them why in the world do you object to 30
million Americans who have not been able to afford health insurance
having an opportunity to get it, they don't give you any answer. It's
more obfuscation. If we talk about negotiations, let me tell you the
negotiation that is really critical that is not taking place at all,
and we're doing an example of that right now.
There is no negotiation in the committee process. The only committee
that has been putting anything up to the floor of the House has been
the Rules Committee. Somebody writes a bill in the afternoon, and
either that evening or early the next day, the Rules Committee goes in,
and it goes right to the floor. There is no amendment chance, there's
no discussion chance, and we don't know what they're doing. The
discussion and the amendments and the negotiation, yes, that's supposed
to go on between the two parties in the committees, and it is nowhere
to be seen and hasn't been for ages.
We've been down this road before, again with the supercommittee idea,
which was such a glaring disaster and only ended up in sequestration,
and the whole idea of sequestration was so, with all of that, none of
us ever thought we'd get there, but now we're pretending that's what it
is. Now it's, Let's have another supercommittee. I will tell you that
was so awful, and it set us back so much in this country not only with
scientific research and national security and public safety being
compromised, but now they want to do it again.
I think it's just another delaying tactic because I'm persuaded
today, as I stand here, that the Republican Party in this House does
not want to open the government. The opportunities they've had over and
over again have been absolutely quashed. There's a lot of talk in the
media about, Oh, if only I had a chance to vote for a clean resolution,
I would do it in just a moment. Well, let me tell you that it has been
turned down twice before in the House of Representatives on the rule
when we got to the part about the previous question. We always say just
vote ``no'' and you will then have your opportunity to vote on the
clean bill from the Senate, which already passed there, and would go
directly to the President. We never got a single Republican vote. Draw
your own conclusions about the 25 Republicans who stated if only they
were given that opportunity.
{time} 1545
Now the sequestration, as my colleague has pointed out, we accepted
as part of a deal on our behalf between Speaker Boehner and Senator
Reid. As awful as it is--and most of us did not like that--nonetheless,
for the short-term CR, we were willing to take it, but now the
majority, again, refuses to let us vote on a CR which was agreed on.
This irresponsible governance has continued in the days since the
majority shut the government down; and over this last week--or last
several weeks, actually--the majority has abandoned any semblance of
regular order and just turned the Rules Committee, as I've said, into
the committee of jurisdiction.
Now, where does all this come from? I think most Americans were
surprised. Let me express my concern.
I recall that, just after Senator Obama was elected President in
2008, we all heard about the great dinner that took place on inaugural
night, declaring, among Republican elected officials, that they would
not allow Senator Obama--now President Obama--to get anything done.
Well, we thought after 4 years, maybe that was over with, and we did
get the health care bill passed.
Now we learned on Sunday morning that that is taking place again,
which again says, you know, I'm not sure that this party could put the
government back into business or not because they would have to get the
permission, apparently, from the Heritage Foundation's Heritage Action
for America, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, and David Koch,
because they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they
engineered this whole thing. That appeared on Sunday. This is Tuesday.
Not a single refutation has taken place.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. So it's time for this game to come to an end, but it
won't because it's not part of the plan. I am really tired, on behalf
of the American people, of watching them being fooled; and I think that
we are more than disgusted and tired with the process by which this
legislation comes to us. The four of us on the Rules Committee are
calling for you to open up this process so that the other members of
our party--as well as yours who, I am confident, know nothing more
about these bills than we do--have an opportunity to really do our jobs
as we were sent here to do.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. Just
before we came down to the floor, we had a very, very nice committee
meeting where she was able to not only articulate that, but was joined
by her other colleagues. I did offer words of assurance to them about
not only how we need to move forward but also how the committee needed
to get slightly better in our time frames, and we're going to attempt
to do that.
The gentlewoman recognizes that what we are doing is bringing bills
as quickly as we can, including the FAA, opening up the FAA again, and
how important that is. So she recognized the importance of what we are
attempting to do.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
South Carolina (Mr. Rice) of the Budget Committee.
Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. President, can we talk? The
government is partially shut down. The Nation's debt ceiling is
looming.
President Obama and Harry Reid have drawn a hard line. They have
proclaimed over and over again, no negotiation. They insist the debt
limit must be raised at current levels of spending. No negotiation.
They're adamant that the status quo must be preserved. And why not?
Here is the status quo: 7.3 percent unemployment 4 years after the
recession has ended; 15 percent unemployment for those under 25; 50
percent of recent college graduates unemployed or underemployed;
household income down 10 percent in the last 5 years. It has fallen
every year since the President has been in office, and it continues to
decline. Continued economic stagnation 4 years after the recession has
ended; continued record deficit spending; Social Security and Medicare
on a path to insolvency.
Why would the Republicans want to discuss these fundamental problems?
Why would we want to alter that course?
By any measure, the President's policies are failing miserably:
He is failing our seniors. Their safety nets, Social Security and
Medicare, are headed for bankruptcy, but he won't negotiate.
[[Page H6374]]
He is failing our middle class through higher taxes, higher energy
costs, higher insurance bills on one hand, and on the other hand, a
continued decline in household income. They're getting squeezed from
both sides, but he won't negotiate.
He is failing our youth, the millennial generation, by piling
mountains of debt on our children and our grandchildren, but he won't
negotiate. He is failing our youth and millennial generation through
his job-killing policies of more regulation, more taxes, and more
government.
Mr. President, our youth wants to work, and they're counting on us,
but the President won't negotiate. Remember, my friends, that the
Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for only 2
years; but out of that came ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, the two biggest
expansions of government and killers of jobs to come out of Washington
in 50 years.
I didn't want the government to shut down--nobody did--but we cannot
continue to run head-on into failure. If we are to change course, the
Republicans can't do it on their own. The President and Harry Reid in
the Senate will have to participate.
Mr. Reid, we are asking once again for a conference.
Mr. President, it's way past time to soften your hard-line stance on
no negotiation.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct all
remarks to the Chair and not to another in the second person.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from South
Carolina, who just spoke, I don't know what he is talking about.
We have been negotiating. This temporary spending measure that we're
talking about, Harry Reid negotiated it with Speaker Boehner. It's at
your levels, your sequester levels. Do you think I like that? I can't
stand it, but I don't want to shut the government down.
The bottom line was the Speaker said that, in exchange for that,
there would be no extraneous materials attached to that CR. He wasn't
able to deliver on his promise because of some people in your
conference. It's that simple.
The gentleman is on the Budget Committee. I would think that, in
being on the Budget Committee, you would want to go to conference--you
worked on a budget; the Senate worked on a budget--to work out those
spending differences. We have tried 19 times to get you to go to
conference, and you refused to negotiate with the Senate on each of
those occasions.
Every time the President negotiates, unfortunately, your leadership
can't deliver on the deals. So we have been negotiating, negotiating,
negotiating. We still want to negotiate, but, please, the gentleman
gave no reason why we should shut down this government, why the
Republicans should have shut down this government, and he has given no
reason why we should default on our financial obligations. We ought to
pass a short-term spending bill to reopen the government, and we ought
to pass a clean debt ceiling bill so we don't default on our financial
obligations and ruin our economy.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members of an
essential rule of decorum in the House. Under clause 1 of rule XVII,
Members are to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other
Members in the second person. Directing remarks through the Chair helps
to reduce personal confrontation between Members and fosters an
atmosphere of mutual and institutional respect.
The Chair appreciates the attention of the Members to this matter.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I associate
myself with his remarks. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership
in trying to keep the government open.
Mr. Speaker, this is--what?--the eighth day of the Republican
shutdown of government. Small businesses cannot get loans to expand;
veterans face uncertainty about their benefits; tuition assistance and
the rest. Millions of women and children will go without the nutrition
programs that they desperately need.
The shutdown could be over in hours if Republicans would stop being
the party of ``no'' and just take ``yes'' for an answer.
So in case you don't know, I have some very good news for you:
Democrats have not only been willing to negotiate; Democrats have
already stated that they are ready to cooperate.
For example, I have good news. Perhaps you missed the fact that 200
Democratic Members of the House have signed a letter saying that
they're willing to accept the Republican number of $986 billion even
though, as the gentleman said, we don't like this number--we don't
think it's adequate--but the fact is we don't like shutting down the
government more.
So, in order to open up government, 200 Members have signed the
letter, and five additional Members have made public statements of
their willingness to support the Republican number. There's space in
this letter for the signatures of maybe just 17 Republicans to sign,
but they don't have to sign a letter. Many of them have made public
statements, which we respect and honor as their public statements, that
they would vote for the Republican number of $986 billion.
The Speaker negotiated with Senator Reid. Senator Reid accepted the
Republican House number. The President of the United States accepted
the Republican House number. The Democrats in the House accepted the
Republican House number. The only people not accepting the Republican
House number are the Republicans in the House.
So, when the leadership of the Republican Party--Speaker Boehner, in
particular--go around saying it can't pass, that the votes are not
there, does that mean he does not trust the word of his own Members who
have said that they will vote for the $986 billion? Let's find out.
Let's bring the bill to the floor.
That is what we are saying: just bring it to the floor. It has passed
the Senate. The President stands ready to sign a number we don't like,
but prefer it over shutting down government. We don't like it. We want
to open the doors of government, and we are willing to use the key of
the Republican number to do so.
Last week, Democrats went a step further. In both public and private
discussions, Speaker Boehner said that he doesn't want to go to
conference on the budget even though he asked for regular order in
March. In early March, Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner said they
wanted regular order. That's a message to the President that Congress
should work its will. That was good news to us. That means: you pass a
bill in the House; you pass a bill in the Senate; you go to conference
to reconcile your differences. Perhaps the Speaker didn't think that
the Senate would pass a budget, but they did in a matter of days--
practically hours--after the House passed its budget.
But what happened to regular order? It blew out the window. After
saying, We want regular order, no longer did the Republicans want to
take ``yes'' for an answer. And why? Well, some of this is explained
under the Speaker's own statement. Speaker Boehner said, Under rules--
listen to that word ``rules.'' Under rules, if you appoint conferees
and after 20 legislative days there is no agreement, the minority has
the right to offer motions to instruct, which become politically
motivated bombs to throw up on the House floor.
So to be frank with you, we are following what I would describe as
regular order. What I would describe as regular order is not ``under
rules.'' ``Under rules'' are the rules of the House.
The Speaker--as awesome as the power of the Speaker is, and I
understand that--does not have the power to just decide what regular
order is, and if you don't want to honor regular order, just say you're
not going to honor it, but don't redefine it in order to keep
government shut down.
So, in listening to the Speaker's not wanting to shut government down
at first and then after it was shut down wanting to open it, the House
Democrats took a step unprecedented by any minority party in the
Congress of the United States. The House Democratic minority said, We
will surrender. We will relinquish our right to motions to instruct--an
insider term, actually--
[[Page H6375]]
placing conditions on how it would go to the conference table.
{time} 1600
So we said to the Speaker, don't worry about that. If that's
important to you, if you want to shut down government because you're
afraid of a motion to instruct, we'll allay your fears. Fear no more,
Mr. Speaker. We will not offer these motions.
As an example, we didn't offer the motion on the first night, which
was our right to do, when this bill was introduced as all of you will
agree.
So we have said, we have made that claim. This, as I said, is
unprecedented, but is a necessary move to end the Tea Party
stranglehold on our government and restore basic services on which
millions of people rely.
They didn't take ``yes'' for an answer. Two hundred signatures.
Mr. Speaker, I will submit this letter for the Record--200
signatures. It's a beautiful sight, because I want to tell you
something: it's about cooperation.
None of us likes this number. All of us want to open up government.
That's why we signed it. I want to thank Congressman Tim Bishop,
Congressman Patrick and Congressman Keith Ellison for producing this
result.
So we've said, yes, we're giving you the votes on something we don't
like. We've said we won't do motions to instruct. Please take ``yes''
for an answer.
If you insist on being the party of ``no,'' then don't hide behind
something and say who won't negotiate. We cooperated. We gave you what
you wanted.
Now here we are today. Republicans are offering yet another motion to
keep the government shut down. Some people call it, in the press, the
``supercommittee.'' Others call it the ``Ted Cruz committee.'' Whatever
you call it, I'd like to know who writes this stuff. This is so
ridiculous a proposal. It's so ridiculous a proposal.
How about we go to the budget table and see how we can reduce the
deficit? produce growth for our country?
But all we're going to do is cut our investments in education,
investments in making the future better. We're going to make seniors
suffer more while we do not touch revenue, and we will not allow any
discussion of closing special interest loopholes. That's how they want
us to go to the table.
You must be kidding.
As I said, who writes this stuff?
Sometimes there is an expression that people use. Flippantly, they'll
say, ``Who do you think you are?'' when you say something. Remember
that from your childhood when somebody said, ``Who do you think you
are?''
I think we have to take that sentence very seriously, with an
emphasis on ``think.'' That would be interesting.
Who do we think we are?
Do we think that we are a party that is responsible, all of us--a
Congress that is responsible--that wants to do the right thing for the
American people, that knows that we have to come here to cooperate with
each other to get something done in a bipartisan way?
To my fellow colleagues on the Republican side--I hope that's
allowed, Mr. Speaker. They are Members of the body--do you think you
have come here to make sure that people know that you can do this just
because you're doing it?
It's just a waste, a total waste of time, and we don't have time to
waste. In fact, we could be spending our time in such a more important
way--working in a bipartisan way on entrepreneurship, on creating
growth for our country, on investing in the education of our people,
which, by the way, brings more money to the Treasury than any other
initiative you can name.
Early childhood, K-12, higher education, lifetime learning. You want
to reduce the deficit?
Invest in education.
You want to increase the deficit?
Cut education.
But let's sit down and talk about that. The path to get there is one
that says, say yes to 986. We did, your number. It says accept our
offer. We won't offer any instruction to the committee, but don't
continue to be the Tea Party of ``no.''
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Speaker--is that allowed, Mr. Speaker? I
hope the Speaker will give us a vote so we can see where this Congress
stands on the serious responsibility that we have and that the
Republicans will even accept what they are asking us to accept.
This rule should be voted down. This commission is a joke whether you
call it the Ted Cruz commission or the super--super in what way?
Certainly not super in meeting the needs of the American people.
To recap, A, we are giving you 200 votes for your number. Take
``yes'' for an answer.
B, the Speaker doesn't want any conditions or discussion or anything
else on the floor about the budget. We are willing to accept that.
Take ``yes'' for an answer.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Boehner,
Speaker, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Boehner: Enough is enough.
Today marks the fifth day that the federal government has
been shutdown. Please consider how deeply unfair this is to
the citizens we represent.
The solution to this crisis is a simple piece of
legislation that funds the government at levels that have
already passed both chambers of Congress.
At this point, to attach defunding or delaying the
Affordable Care Act to legislation needed to reopen the
government is to put our economy at risk in order to advance
a political agenda.
We demand a vote on a clean continuing resolution
immediately so that government functioning can resume and
Americans can move on with their lives.
The games have to stop.
Best Regards,
Tim Bishop; Patrick E. Murphy; Nancy Pelosi, Democratic
Leader; Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip; James E.
Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader, Xavier Becerra,
Chair, Democratic Caucus; Joseph Crowley, Vice Chair,
Democratic Caucus; Nita M. Lowey, Ranking Member,
Committee on Appropriations; Chris Van Hollen, Ranking
Member, Committee on the Budget; Robert E. Andrews;
Karen Bass; Joyce Beatty; Ami Bera, Jr.; Sanford
Bishop, Jr.; Earl Blumenauer; Suzanne Bonamici;
Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Robert A. Brady; Bruce L.
Braley; Corrine Brown; Julia Brownley; Cheri Bustos;
G.K. Butterfield; Lois Capps; Tony Cardenas; Andre
Carson.
Joaquin Castro; Judy N. Chu; David N. Cicilline; Yvette
D. Clarke; Wm. Lacy Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; Steve Cohen;
Gerald E. Connolly; John Conyers, Jr., Jim Costa; Joe
Courtney; Henry Cuellar; Elijah E. Cummings; Susan A.
Davis; Danny K. Davis; Peter A. DeFazio; Diana DeGette;
John K. Delaney; Susan DelBene; Thoedore E. Deutch;
John Dingell; Lloyd Doggett; Keith Ellison; Eliot L.
Engel.
William Enyart; Ana Eshoo; Elizabeth Esty; Sam Farr;
Chaka Fattah; Bill Foster; Lois Frankel; Marcia L.
Fudge; Tulsi Gabbard; Pete Gallego; John Garamendi; Joe
Garcia; Alan Grayson; Gene Green; Al Green; Raul
Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Janice Hahn; Colleen
Hanabusa; Alcee Hastings; Denny Heck; Brian Higgins;
James A. Himes; Ruben Hinojosa; Rush Holt; Mike Honda;
Steve Horsford.
Jared Huffman; Steve Israel; Sheila Jackson Lee; Hakeem
Jeffries; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson; Marcy Kaptur; Bill
Keating; Robin Kelly; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Dan
Kildee; Derek Kilmer; Ann Kirkpatrick; Ann McLane
Kuster; James Langevin; Rick Larsen; John Larson;
Barbara Lee; Sander M. Levin; John Lewis; Daniel
Lipinski; David Loebsack; Alan S. Lowenthal; Michelle
Lujan Grisham; Stephen Lynch; Daniel Maffei; Carolyn B.
Maloney; Sean Patrick Maloney.
Doris O. Matsui; Carolyn McCarthy; Betty McCollum; Jim
McDermott; James P. McGovern; Jerry McNerney; Gregory
Meeks; Grace Meng; Michael H. Michaud; George Miller;
Gwen Moore; James P. Moran; Jerrold Nadler; Grace
Napolitano; Richard Neal; Gloria Negrete McLeod;
Richard Nolan; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Beto O'Rourke;
William L. Owens; Frank Pallone; Bill Pascrell; Ed
Pastor; Donald Payne; Ed Perlmutter; Gary Peters; Pedro
R. Pierluisi.
Mark Pocan; Jared Polis; David Price; Mike Quigley; Nick
J. Rahall; Charles Rangel; Cedric Richmond; C.A. Dutch
Ruppersberger; Bobby L. Rush; Tim Ryan; Linda T.
Sanchez; John P. Sarbanes; Janice Schakowsky; Adam
Schiff; Brad Schneider; Allyson Y. Schwartz; Robert C.
Scott; Jose Serrano; Terri Sewell; Carol Shea-Porter;
Brad Sherman; Albio Sires; Louise Slaughter; Adam
Smith; Jackie Speier; Eric Swalwell; Mark Takano.
Dina Titus; Paul Tonko; Niki Tsongas; Juan Vargas; Marc
Veasey; Filemon Vela; Tim Walz; Debbie Wasserman
Schultz; Maxine Waters; Mel Watt;
[[Page H6376]]
Henry Waxman; Peter Welch; Frederica Wilson; John
Yarmuth; Pete Visclosky; Matthew Cartwright; David
Scott; Zoe Lofgren; Nydia M. Velazquez; John Carney;
Ben Ray Lujan; Michael F. Doyle; Donna F. Edwards;
Eddie Bernice Johnson.
Scott H. Peters; Chellie Pingree; Gregorio Kilili Camacho
Sablan; Kurt Schrader; Rosa L. DeLauro; Bennie G.
Thompson; Mike Thompson; John Tierney; Kyrsten Sinema;
Lucille Roybal-Allard; Kathy Castor; Tammy Duckworth;
Collin C. Peterson; Donna M. Christensen; Ron Barber;
Michael E. Capuano; Raul Ruiz; Loretta Sanchez.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the minority leader
for her comments today and thank her for coming to the floor.
At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado
Springs, Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services
Committee.
Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for his work on the Rules Committee
and for bringing H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act, and
I rise in support of this act.
Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that Federal employees who have been
deemed essential will have no disruption in their pay. That's an
excellent step in the right direction, and I wholeheartedly support
that concept.
Just on Saturday, the House unanimously--every single Republican and
every single Democrat--supported H.R. 3223, and that said that everyone
who is a Federal employee will get paid eventually, at the end of this
slowdown that we're in right now. So this is a step in the right
direction.
But I want to urge that we take up a bill that I introduced
yesterday, H.R. 3271, which goes a step further and says there is no
distinction between the essential and non-essential Federal worker. All
Federal workers are to be brought back immediately and given back pay
and put on a regular pay schedule.
We are going to be reimbursing these people for back pay sooner or
later anyway. That's what the bill Saturday accomplished that we all
supported here in the House, but this would reassure everyone that they
can go to work immediately.
There are people who are going to be having a tough time making house
and car payments, and these are people with important jobs.
In my district, in Colorado Springs, there are a lot of defense civil
workers, and they are supporting the warfighters. The Pentagon is
supposed to be bringing all of them back, and many of them are coming
back, but not every single one. So I want them to have the assurance
that they will get paid immediately on being reinstated and that they
will come back to work immediately.
So I think that it would be in the interest of our Federal workforce
to take up the bill that I've introduced, H.R. 3271, and bring all
civilian furloughed and Federal workers back immediately, with back
pay.
But this is a great bill. I do support it, H.J. Res. 89. I thank the
Rules Committee for bringing it out.
There has been, unfortunately, some gamesmanship we've seen with the
National Park Service. I think that that's unfortunate. Shutting down
the World War II Memorial when veterans are in their eighties and
nineties, coming to Washington, maybe for the last visit that they can,
and they're being told they can't enter the memorial.
So let's don't have any gamesmanship. Let's bring everyone back to
work.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to end the games, I have a better idea. Just
open up the government. End the Republican shutdown.
It's really simple. We could have an up-or-down vote to open up
government today, and all the Federal workers would be taken care of,
and all the monuments would be reopened. We wouldn't be having all this
controversy. We can get serious about negotiating a long-term spending
bill. It's a better way.
So join with us and support a clean continuing resolution.
Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
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. I thank my dear friend from Massachusetts.
As I begin, I express my great affection and respect for my colleague
from Texas, who is my dear friend.
Mr. Speaker, I think we are here to be ashamed of ourselves. We're
wasting the taxpayers' time, the taxpayers' money, and we're wasting
the business and the time of the House.
We are taking up a bill to require that Members of Congress sit down
and talk about deficit reduction and raising the debt limit. The last
time I checked, we didn't need a law to do that. It's already our job.
We have a conference that we can call at any time between the House and
the Senate, which would enable us then to get to the serious business
in handling this matter under the regular order. We don't do it. I
don't know why.
The President says he is not going to negotiate with a gun at his
head. Frankly, I wouldn't either, and I don't think anybody else in
this place would. Beyond that, he also is not going to negotiate the
full faith and credit of the United States, which is one of the
questions at issue.
So one of the problems we seem to have with our Republican friends is
that their Tea Party fringe is so ideologically hell-bent in getting
their way that they're finding that they're too extreme to get it.
Now, we Democrats have shown a willingness to cooperate and to
compromise. In fact, as the minority leader observed, we have asked
Speaker Boehner to convene a budget conference all year, but to no
avail.
Two hundred Democrats, including myself, sent a letter to Speaker
Boehner on Saturday, saying we'd support an extension of sequester-
level spending through November 15. Democrats don't want the sequester
to begin with, but the interest of compromise and keeping government
open says that we're going to show good faith to my Republican
colleagues.
And what is my Republican colleagues' response?
No. Resurrect the failed supercommittee. They have apparently read
the Peter Principle, which says, when you can't think of anything else
to do, appoint a committee, and they will obfuscate the matter further.
Mr. Speaker, it's time to put an end to these asinine antics and
maneuverings. It's time to pass the Senate continuing resolution. It's
time to show the Americans and the rest of the world that a great
institution, created by an enormously wise group of men who made the
United States Constitution, is an institution that is not beyond hope
of redemption and that it can work together.
We offered to work together with my Republican friends and
colleagues. We hope that they will do this.
I would simply observe that we are engaged here in another curious
practice also. We're going to have it so that we're going to pay
Federal workers for doing nothing. Imagine that.
My Republican colleagues, over the years, during my career here, have
always been complaining about ``welfare queens'' who would ride to the
welfare office to get their pension checks. Well, here we are going to
convert a bunch of Federal employees to ``welfare queens'' by paying
them while they do not work. The whole thing is silly, and the American
people feel so.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Dean of the House has
spoken. I gather, from his comments, that he would not like to be
appointed on the committee, and I'm disappointed. I was rather hopeful
that the minority leader would see that he would be exactly the kind of
commonsense person that could represent the party, and so I'd hope that
the gentleman would reconsider that.
At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules
Committee.
Ms. FOXX. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying
legislation.
We've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle they
only need us to take up one bill. Well, what about all those bills
we've sent over to the Senate, including four appropriations bills that
the Senate won't take up to vote on?
It seems to me that they ought to be doing that if they want to show
some good faith effort.
[[Page H6377]]
Today, as we have every day since October 1, the House of
Representatives is taking yet another bipartisan step forward to
resolve our differences with the United States Senate and reopen the
Federal Government for the American people.
Even prior to October 1, House Republicans took numerous reasonable
steps toward compromise. We voted four times on separate proposals to
fund the entire government. With each vote, we sought to lay the
groundwork for bipartisan compromise.
Our final two full-funding proposals simply addressed the fundamental
unfairness in ObamaCare, the fact that American families won't get the
same year to prepare for ObamaCare that the President decided to give
to businesses and the fact that Members of Congress will get a subsidy
to pay ObamaCare premiums that the rest of America will not.
Every vote from the House of Representatives has had at least some
Democrat support. Not one Senate vote has been bipartisan.
While we've moved to the middle, Senate Democrats still refuse to
budge. They won't even send any Senators to sit down and talk with
House Republicans about a bipartisan solution to reopen government.
{time} 1615
One noteworthy area, though, where there seems to be great
opportunity for us to move forward with our Democrat colleagues is on
the matter of Federal employee pay. One of this rule's underlying bills
will ensure timely pay for Federal employees who have continued to work
through this shutdown. Those who are defending our borders, our food
supply, and our Capitol, should be paid on time. It's my hope that both
sides will come together and support this rule and the underlying
Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act.
Mr. Speaker, we don't expect to agree on everything with our Democrat
colleagues. The House appointed a team on September 30 to meet with the
Senate and find common ground to fund the government. When our team
gathered on the morning of October 1, no one from the Senate showed up.
Every day since, the Senate has refused to be part of any discussions
with the House on how to move forward. That refusal is inexcusable.
That's why the House will be considering another bill today, the
Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act, to bring
Senate Democrats to the table. Once the Senators have come to the
table, we can start building on areas where we should have common
ground and reach a solution that benefits all of the American people.
But it starts with a talk.
Both the rule and the underlying bills have my support, and I urge
the same from my colleagues.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues there's an easy way to
solve all of this--reopen the government, raise the debt ceiling, and
negotiate a new budget. Our minority leader has already said it on the
floor. It's our willingness to cooperate.
It's not that complicated. You can save all this misery that Federal
workers are now enduring by reopening the government right now. This is
not that hard to do, and it's at your number. It's at Republican
levels. That is a compromise on our part. We loathe those sequester
numbers that Republicans insisted on enshrining--those are horrible for
our economy--but to keep the government open, we're going to swallow
that so we have time to work out a longer-term deal.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his time.
I am glad that the minority leader got on the floor of the House and
spoke common sense and indicated two things. Right now, there are 200
Members who would be willing to vote for a clean CR that would open
this House, right now. We believe a number of Republicans would make it
a bipartisan vote, and we'd be able to open the government.
The Republicans are playing a game of Legos. They are taking that big
red box and opening it up and throwing the Legos on the ground and are
trying to construct a government. Well, that's a kids' game--and it's a
good game--but we cannot play with the lives of the American people.
Just a few minutes ago, we talked about restoring Head Start. We know
that that bill is going nowhere. We know that the sequester is
continuing to undermine Head Start seats across America--57,000 of
them. In fact, it's an empty chair across America, where little babies
cannot go to a Head Start program. That's what the Republicans are
trying to do. They're trying to tell Marlen Rosa that her 3-year-old
son, Hector, couldn't go to Head Start.
And what is their answer? Another supercommittee--a committee that
maybe will be playing Legos itself because the last supercommittee--of
course, we respect all of our Members--was not the solution to our
problem.
I tell you what the solution is, Mr. Speaker. It is to vote on the
clean bill, open the government, let the FAA be in operation, let the
Justice Department be in operation.
In the meeting that I just came from, I learned 90 courts are vacant.
Issues dealing with rape and domestic violence are not being attended
to. Public defenders are not being resourced and are being laid off.
Hundreds of lawyers are not in the Department of Justice. The American
Bar Association says there is no justice.
I tell you, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is not get a
supercommittee, but get a supercommitment to America.
Vote for a clean bill, and vote for the debt ceiling.
Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to the rule and the
underlying legisltion.
I oppose this rule because it is not a serious effort to end the
government shutdown engineered by House Republicans by cherry-picking
some programs and now adding a smoke and mirrors effort to replace the
negotiation of the Budget bills passed by both the House and the
Senate.
Both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid have made it
crystal clear that they will not accept this game-playing and now the
American people are saying the same thing.
A piecemeal strategy now being pursued by House Republicans is not an
honest or serious option to reopen the government and will not end the
impacts of this shutdown that extend across our country.
A consequence of partial funding of the entire Federal government one
piece at a time instead of through a clean CR is the denial of burial
assistance to the families of four troops who were killed by an IED in
southern Afghanistan.
The majority leadership of the House has America facing a government
at war and a government shutdown at the same time.
The majority of the House has found a way to intentional inflicted
wounds on the American public--not by accident, but as a political
strategy to get what they cannot do through the regular legislative
process.
Mr. Speaker, today the Washington Post Editorial Board said it best:
What have House Republicans managed to accomplish in a week
of government shutdown? Damage the livelihood of millions of
Americans? Check. Government secretaries, food-truck
operators, cleaners who work in motels near national parks:
They're all hurting. Waste billions of taxpayer dollars?
Check. It costs a lot to shut agencies, Web sites and parks,
and it will cost a lot to reopen them. Meanwhile, the House
has voted to pay the salaries, eventually, of hundred of
thousands of employees whom it has ordered not to work.
That's an odd way to manage an enterprise. Interfere with key
government operations? Check. Rattle the markets, slow an
economy in recovery, interrupt potentially lifesaving
research at the National Institutes of Health? Check, check
and check. Derail the hated Obamacare? Ch--Oh, no, wait a
minute. That was the GOP's ostensible purpose for this
travesty of misgovernment, but the online insurance markets
created by that law opened on schedule last week and continue
to operate.
The House Republicans' continued refusal to take up and vote on the
clean CR passed by the Senate over a week ago, and which the President
has stated publicly on several occasions he would sign is ignoring the
easy solution to this impasse.
Now faced with strong public backlash--more than 70% of Americans
disapproving of the government shutdown engineered by the House
Republicans, the majority is trying to extricate themselves from this
debacle by bringing to the floor and passing ``mini-CRs.''
The House majority should know that the American public knows and
very well understands what is happening. This is legislative theater at
its worst--noise and thunder signifying nothing.
Mr. Speaker, these ploys are a cynical waste of time giving false
hope to innocent Americans who depend on the services provided by these
programs. But House Republicans know they have no chance whatsoever
[[Page H6378]]
of becoming law. The Senate will not pass them and the President would
veto these piece-meal measures if they made it to his desk.
All we are doing is wasting time when we should be helping people.
We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can keep
our promises to our veterans, to our elderly, to our children, parents
and young people as well as the 800,000 Federal workers that our
government is needed, compassionate, strong and effective.
We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund
our engineers and technicians who maintain all of our critical military
equipment to keep our troops safe and take care of national security
infrastructure.
We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund
the services needed by those who rely upon our full faith and credit as
well as our word that this nation will not forget its fallen heroes.
For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and urge my Republican
colleagues to rescue the American people from this situation and end
the disruption in the lives of 800,000 dedicated workers who take pride
in the greatest jobs in the world: serving the American people.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we heard from one of
the brightest voices of the Republican Party, a member of our
Republican leadership, Virginia Foxx.
At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Woodall), a member of the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding me the time.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say I saw my chairman get on his feet when the
gentleman from Michigan began to speak. It's not often that the dean of
the House comes down to speak. It's a treat for me, too. I've been here
2\1/2\ years, but I've been watching the process a lot longer than
that. I do think there's a lot that we can learn from history and a lot
that we can learn, as Chris Matthews put it on his show the other day,
from when politics worked.
There is no shortage of shrill voices in Washington, D.C., and when I
get back home to the folks in the suburbs of metro Atlanta, rarely do I
hear somebody say, Rob, I wish there were more angry people in
Washington. I wish there were more folks pounding their fists and
yelling and screaming, because I really think that's how solutions can
be brought about.
That's not how solutions are brought about anywhere. It's not how
they're brought about in business. It's not how they're brought about
in politics. It's not how they're brought about in kindergartens around
the country.
I have a chart here, Mr. Speaker, that says that the Democrat Speaker
of the House, Tip O'Neill, who presided over some of the most trying
times in our Nation and some of the biggest deals in our Nation, was
often in conflict with the President of a different party. While Tip
O'Neill was Speaker of the House, the government shut down 12 times.
I say that, Mr. Speaker, not to say that a government shutdown is
okay. It's not. I didn't want it to happen. It doesn't need to happen.
I'm glad we're bringing more bills to the floor to reopen the
government--we are already more than 50 percent of the way there with
the bills that have come to the floor. But it is happening, and it's
not happening because Republican this and Republican that.
I commented earlier to some of my Democratic friends about what great
party discipline they have displayed in never talking about a
government shutdown but in always making sure it's a ``Republican
government shutdown.'' I suppose you get points for that in terms of
party unity, but it's just not true; nor has it ever been true in the
history of our Republic that when legitimate policy differences come
about, driven by our constituents back home, that the best way forward
to solve those is to make sure you demonize the other guy and make sure
folks know who to blame for it.
In these 12 times that the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip
O'Neill, was leading this institution--the people's House--and the
government shut down, it wasn't because Tip O'Neill was a bad man. It
wasn't because he lost control of some liberal faction within his
party. It was because the House of Representatives, the closest voice
to the American people in our Republic, had legitimate policy
differences with the President of the United States, and that's where
we sit today.
What's surprising is not that we have legitimate policy differences
with the President of the United States. What's surprising is that we
bring a bill to the floor to fund Head Start, and that becomes
complicated. What's surprising is that we bring a bill to the floor to
make sure that our men and women are getting paid, and that creates the
controversy. What's surprising is we bring a bill to the floor to fund
nuclear security across the country, and that's what brings
controversy.
There is so much that we agree on, and I am certain we're going to
find the pathway forward; but I am equally certain that that pathway
forward is not going to be found more quickly in depending on how much
we can embarrass and marginalize our political opponents. It's going to
be found when we agree that there is more that unites us than divides
us, and it's okay that we have some serious policy differences.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman is actually the one who appointed me as the
rules designee to the Budget Committee, and I'm grateful to him for
that because it really gives me an opportunity to express what, for my
constituents, is commonsense budget reform, Mr. Speaker. They know you
just can't keep spending and spending and spending and never have to
pay the bills. The bills have to get paid.
But I would say that the funding level that the United States Senate
has agreed on is absolutely in no way a compromise. It's the law of the
land. The law of the land, if this Congress were to dissolve itself
tomorrow, is that for fiscal year 2014 we're only going to be able to
spend $967 billion. The Senate wants to spend $986 billion. The law of
the land is not going to let them spend that much. That's just the law
of the land.
Now, we don't have to like it. We can try to change that, but to
characterize that as somehow moving to the middle is to misrepresent,
Mr. Speaker, what the facts of our budget are.
As my colleague from North Carolina said so well, the House has
adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it. So we moved to the
middle and adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it. So we moved
further to the middle, adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it.
Then we said, Let's just sit down and talk about it to find that
pathway forward.
My friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, are talking a
lot about a budget conference. I suspect we'll continue to hear that. I
even read about it in the National Journal--apparently, that message is
being sold well--but as my friends on both sides of the aisle know, a
budget conference has absolutely no force of law whatsoever. Zero. We
can conference a budget until we're blue in the face, Mr. Speaker, and
we will never change one penny of Federal spending.
Now that's different from the conference that this House moved to go
to with the Senate. The conference that this House moved to have with
the Senate--where we could actually change the law, where we could fund
the government, where we could deal with the debt ceiling, where we
could focus on priorities that each one of us has for our families back
home--the conference this House moved to create, Mr. Speaker, can
change the law.
Let's do something that matters. Let's do it today.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I served as an aide here on Capitol Hill when Tip
O'Neill was Speaker of the House. I think he is one of the greatest
Speakers that ever served in the United States House of
Representatives. He was a friend of mine as well.
I will tell you that Speaker O'Neill would never go on national TV
and threaten to default on the debt to this Nation. He would never,
ever act in a way that might bring this economy to ruin. He put country
before political party.
I would also say that Speaker O'Neill understood the importance of
working in a bipartisan way. He would be disgusted with the way this
House is being
[[Page H6379]]
run today. The bottom line is he'd be scratching his head right now,
wondering why we just don't resolve this in a very simple way.
There were 200 Democrats who have signed a letter saying, We will
cooperate with the Republicans to pass a clean continuing resolution at
Republican levels, and we know that there are 20 Republicans in the
House who publicly said they would support such a move. That's the
majority. We could open up the government in a matter of minutes. In
the Senate, over a dozen Republican Senators voted for cloture on a
clean continuing resolution. That is bipartisanship. Accept it. This is
the way this House should be run.
So I would just point that out to my colleagues that we're going
through all this rigamarole for I don't know what when we could end
this Republican shutdown right now by bringing a clean continuing
resolution at Republican levels to the House floor. It would pass in a
bipartisan way, and I predict that there will even be more than 20
Republicans that would support it. They want a way out of this.
Let's open the government. Let us not use the debt ceiling in the
threatening manner in which it's being used by the Republican
leadership here. We should never--I don't care what your political
ideology is--default on our financial obligations. That is economic
ruin for this country, and I think my colleagues on the other side of
the aisle know that. We should never use that in such a political way.
Let's work together and appoint budget conferees and go to negotiate
a budget conference so we can have some parameters in terms of numbers
we can work with.
I listened to some of my colleagues talking on the other side--even
those who serve on the Budget Committee--and you wonder why we should
have a Budget Committee if the Budget Committee doesn't mean anything.
I have a lot more respect for the people that serve on that committee.
As this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee).
{time} 1630
Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Also, let me just associate myself with the gentleman from
Massachusetts' comments with regard to Speaker O'Neill. I, too, was a
staffer during that period when the great Speaker, Mr. O'Neill, was
Speaker, and there is no way that he would have allowed this hostage-
taking to occur.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Again, I just
have to say, we've seen this 8 days, unfortunately, and it is a Tea
Party Republican government shutdown. We've seen $2.4 billion in lost
economic activity; and so, yes, this hostage-taking, it continues.
Hostage-taking really is a deplorable tactic. The Tea Party
Republicans continue to want to deny millions of Americans health
care--and, yes, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, which
the Supreme Court has upheld. That's why the shutdown continues, and
the public knows it.
Yet, instead of bringing up a budget bill to open up the government
or pass a debt limit increase to pay our bills, the House has taken up
two more last-minute bills to distract from their Tea Party Republican
shutdown. This most recent bill establishes a supercommittee to make
recommendations on spending and changes.
I want to remind my colleagues, this is the same proposal--or very
similar--that got us into this devastating sequester in the first
place. We've been there; we've done that. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr.
Speaker.
Now, as a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I can
tell you that both the House and Senate have passed budget resolutions.
Democrats have been trying to work out our budget differences for 6
months, but Republicans continue to block these efforts. The American
people deserve a functioning government.
The public understands that we can open up the government. And I have
to say, the Democrats did not want the funding level of the Senate
budget bill, but we are compromising to get this government open.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentlewoman has
expired.
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
Ms. LEE of California. It's also important to recognize, again, as an
appropriator and as a member of the Budget Committee, I hear and see
each and every day, whenever we're in committee, the tactics and the
discussion with regard to cuts to Head Start and the women and children
nutrition assistance program--all of those programs that just very
recently the Republican Tea Party Members have started to say that they
support. So let's see what happens. I hope that they do support this
when we get to these budget negotiations.
It's time that we shut down this shutdown. We need to reject this
rule. Let's have an up-or-down vote to open up this government and let
the chips fall where they may.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that there is a lot of dialogue on the
floor today about opening up the government. Yet this body has passed
bill after bill after bill--whether it's the intelligence community,
whether it's Head Start, whether it's NIH--making sure that we are
going through a deliberative process. Repeatedly, you are seeing where
our friends on the other side vote ``no,'' and when it gets to the
other body, even though it's a passed piece of legislation, the Senate,
our friends over there, ignore the bills. I kind of wonder what we're
really trying to aim at, whether we're really just trying to score
political points or whether we can begin working together. That's what
House Republicans are here to do: to set aside our differences, to try
and fund these issues, to try and deal with the President.
Earlier in the week, our great young Speaker, John Boehner, went to
the White House. He was asked to come to the White House, and really
all he was there to be told by the President was: I won't negotiate. I
won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. Then, as Mr. Boehner tells the
story, he got that message, so he came back to work. Here we are,
trying to send ideas out about working together.
The working group intentionally was an open-ended opportunity for
Members of Congress--10 on the House side, 10 on the Senate side--to
work together with an opportunity, as a working group, to try and
overcome this bypass. That's what we're trying to do. I think we're
going to be faithful to it. I think we're going to pass this here
today, and then we're going to see what the Senate will do again--I'm
sure, once again, just another piece of log over in their fireplace for
the Senate majority leader to burn down. I am hopeful here today that
we have common sense, and I think we will pass this.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?
Mr. SESSIONS. I would advise the gentleman, at this time, I do not
have any further speakers. I thank the gentleman for asking.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes
remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat
the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will
allow the House to vote on the clean Senate continuing resolution so
that we can send it to the President for his signature today.
Mr. 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
gentleman from Massachusetts?
There was no objection.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we bring this debate to a close, I have
the dueling emotions of being angry and being very sad--angry that we
are putting the American people through this trauma. This is totally
unnecessary. This is a manufactured crisis.
When my colleagues talk about the fact that Democrats aren't willing
to negotiate, let me just refer to some of
[[Page H6380]]
the recent headlines: ``Nineteen Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate
with Republicans''; that's according to the National Journal.
``Republicans Spent Year Blocking Budget Conference''; that was in the
Huffington Post. ``Boehner Tells GOP He is Through Negotiating with
Obama''; that was in The Hill newspaper. I mean, those are the
headlines about my friends' actions during these recent weeks.
The bottom line is that what we're doing today really is sad because
I think it diminishes this institution. We ought to be solving
problems. We ought to be finding ways to lift people up. We ought to be
trying to debate ways to create more jobs and opportunity in this
country. We ought to get the government running. We ought to deal with
the debt ceiling, not politicize it, and we ought to work on a long-
term negotiation so we have a long-term spending bill that makes sense
for this country, and we're not doing that.
We're coming up with a committee today that does nothing. You pass
this bill, the government still shuts down. You pass this bill, we're
still headed for a default on our obligations on October 17. This does
nothing. It does nothing. It is sad because it is beneath this great
House of Representatives. So many incredible things have happened on
this floor, and yet this is so trivial. It is so meaningless at a time
of such a great crisis.
I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is
a crisis that my friends have brought on themselves. There is nothing
that says that we should be in shutdown today other than the fact that
my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to shut the
government down.
Now they're saying they care about the monuments and they care about
our senior citizens and our veterans, but they're the ones who shut the
government down. They say they don't want to default on our financial
obligations, yet we heard on ``This Week'' with George Stephanopoulos
that the Speaker of the House is prepared to basically see this country
default on our debt. That's what he said.
I mean, I am shocked by that kind of talk. I don't care what party
you're in, where you come from ideologically. We all should at least
agree that we ought to pay our bills, that if we don't, it will do
great damage to our economy, and it will hurt your constituents just as
much as mine. We could do so much better. We could do so much better
than this.
I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say
they want a vote on a clean continuing resolution to vote with us on
some of these procedural motions. Start giving us some votes on these
procedural motions, because it appears that your leadership will not
give you the right to an up-or-down vote. Notwithstanding all of the
talk about a transparent process, an open process, you're not going to
get that vote unless you force it.
Here is the other sad thing. My friends on the other side of the
aisle began this Congress by talking about regular order and a
transparent, open process. Of all the stuff we've been voting on these
last few days, nobody has seen it. Even the committee chairman who
oversees these bills doesn't even come to the Rules Committee to
testify. We don't know what we're voting on here.
We can do better. Reject this rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous
question.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.
I appreciate my dear friend, my colleague, from Worcester,
Massachusetts. I will describe it to him real fast.
Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is open up all the employees
that are home at the FAA. That's it. We're going to bring them back to
work; pay them; get it done, all the employees at the FAA.
Secondly, we're trying to form a working group. We're trying to work
around the process that has gotten bogged up today, with an idea from
our Speaker, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, and
our whip, Kevin McCarthy, and a couple of people who are in the
Republican leadership who are saying let's find another way around the
logjam that we've got. So we came up with a good idea and said let's go
to a working group. Let's actually get 10 Members of the Senate and 10
Members of the House. Let's meet. Let's meet very quickly. As a matter
of fact, the resolution says that, within 1 day, they've got to be
selected; within 1 day after that, they have to meet. Let's put them to
work. Let's put the Members to work on this on a bipartisan, bicameral
basis. That is what this is about. It is really pretty simple.
Mr. Speaker, this is not really rocket science right now. We're
engaged in how we put one foot in front of the other, and Republicans
have been doing this for 3 weeks. We're meeting at the Rules Committee.
We're taking testimony. We are listening to the people who come to the
committee.
We have very vigorous, detailed debates where Members, Republicans
and Democrats, come to the Rules Committee from the Appropriations
Committee. As a matter of fact, we've seen some star witnesses in this
House--stars, good people, great ideas--trying to push that we're going
to work together. We're going to do this together. We can do this
together. Not all the bills were agreed to, but a bunch of them have
been on a bipartisan basis.
So you never know when you throw up a good idea whether somebody is
going to take you up on it or not. We have had a couple where that has
worked; and we, as Republicans, are going to stay after it. We're the
ones willing to negotiate.
Now, there was a discussion about us showing up at the World War II
Memorial. Yup, sure did. I did that myself, too. The reason we went
down there is that there are men and women who served in the military
during World War II who, at the last years of their lives, are coming
up in what are called Honor Flights, where they come up here and meet
together as people who were comrades in arms for the United States of
America, who fought the Axis of Evil, the Germans, the Japanese, and
others. They wanted to come just about 2 miles from here down to the
World War II Memorial, and it was locked. It was bolted up and locked.
So a couple of colleagues, my fellow Texans, went down there last week
and found out--the park ranger was there. Well, who's allowed to get
in? First Amendment protesters. First Amendment protesters are the only
ones allowed in--well, and Members of Congress. So these two colleagues
of mine took bolt cutters, opened it up, and it has been open ever
since.
That's what Republicans are trying to do. We are trying to do that
not just for the World War II Memorial; we are trying to do that for
this government. We are trying to work on commonsense ideas. We are
asking for this House of Representatives to be with us today.
I support this rule. I support the underlying legislation.
The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:
An Amendment to H. Res. 373 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts
At the end of the resolution, add the following new
sections:
Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the
joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing
appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes,
with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto,
shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the pending
question shall be, without intervention of any point of
order, whether the House shall recede from its amendment and
concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be
considered as read. The question shall be debatable for one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the question of
receding from the House amendment and concurring in the
Senate amendment without intervening motion or demand for
division of the question.
Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the
consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in section 5 of
this resolution.
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 Democratic minority 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
[[Page H6381]]
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.''
The Republican majority may 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 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. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, 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.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. 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.
____________________