[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 139 (Tuesday, October 8, 2013)]
[House]
[Pages H6381-H6383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of
the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
The Clerk read as follows:
Whereas the BBC News, on October 1, 2013 in England,
published the following: ``For most of the world, a
government shutdown is very bad news--the result of
revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the middle of its
ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has continued to pay
its bills and workers' wages. That leaders of one of the most
powerful nations on earth willingly provoked a crisis that
suspends public services and decreases economic growth is
astonishing to many.'';
Whereas the state-run Xinhua news service, on October 2,
2013 in China, published the following: ``With no political
unity to redress its policy mistake, a dysfunctional
Washington is now overspending the confidence in its
leadership.'';
Whereas The News of Mexico, on September 25, 2013 in
Mexico, published the following: ``They squabble over the
inconsequential accomplishment of a 10-week funding
extension. It isn't serious, but it certainly isn't funny.'';
Whereas the Australian, on October 1, 2013 in Australia,
published the following: ``The irresponsible way in which
Congress . . . played the politics of partisan petulance and
obstruction . . . does them little credit. Neither does it
say much for the budgetary processes in the world's largest
economy.'';
Whereas the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, on October 2,
2013 in Germany, published the following: ``The main actors
in this dispute, which brings together many factors, both
ideological and political, took a huge risk and, unhindered,
proceeded to validate everyone who ever accused the political
establishment in Washington of being rotten to the core . . .
The public is left wondering how things could have been
allowed to get to this point and why there is so much poison
in the system.'';
Whereas the Suddeutsche Zeitung, on October 2, 2013 in
Germany, published the following: ``What has already been
apparent in America for a few years now is the self-
destruction of one of the world's oldest democracies. And the
great tragedy here is that this work of destruction isn't
being wrought by enemies of democracy, greedy lobbyists or
sinister major party donors. America's democracy is being
broken by the very people who are supposed to carry and
preserve it . . . the politicians . . . At the moment,
Washington is fighting over the budget and nobody knows if
the country will still be solvent in three weeks . . . What
is clear, though, is that America is already politically
bankrupt.'';
Whereas the Washington Post, on September 30, 2013, quoted
Justice Malala, a political commentator in South Africa as
saying the following: ``They tell us, `You guys are not being
fiscally responsible' . . . And now we see that they are
running their country a little like a banana republic . . .
there is a lot of sniggering going on.'';
Whereas the headline of the New York Daily News, the
fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United
States, on October 1, 2013, read: ``House of Turds'', and the
bylines stated: ``D.C. cess-pols shut down government'' and
``They get paid while nation suffers'';
Whereas these reports call into question the dignity of
the House; and
Whereas the resulting reduction in the public's perception
of the House's dignity has culminated in a 7% Congressional
approval rating in the most recent Economist/YouGov poll:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House--
(1) without seeking to effect a change in the rules or
standing orders of the House or their interpretation; and
(2) without prescribing a special order of business for
the House--
that a government shutdown is a mark upon the dignity of the
House and that the House would be willing to pass a ``clean''
continuing appropriations resolution to end it.
{time} 1645
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to
present argument on why the resolution is privileged under rule IX to
take precedence over other questions?
Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I do
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the dignity of the
House has been called into question. You have heard the text of the
resolution, but I think that some points bear highlighting.
The BBC News has reported that ``leaders of one of the most powerful
nations on Earth''--by the way, that is still us--``willingly provoked
a crisis that suspends public services.''
A leading Chinese news service stated:
A dysfunctional Washington is now overspending the
confidence in its leadership.
A German newspaper stated:
The main actors in this dispute took a huge risk and
proceeded to validate everyone who ever accused the political
establishment in Washington of being rotten to the core. The
public is left wondering how things could have been allowed
to get to this point and why there is so much poison in the
system.
Another German newspaper said:
What has already been apparent in America for a few years
now is the self-destruction of one of the world's oldest
democracies. And the great tragedy here is that this work of
destruction isn't being wrought by enemies of democracy,
greedy lobbyists, or sinister major party donors. America's
democracy is being broken by the very people who are supposed
to carry and preserve it--the politicians. What is clear,
though, is that America is already politically bankrupt.
The headline of the New York Daily News, the fourth most widely
circulated daily newspaper in the United States, on the first day of
the government shutdown read this way----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair has heard the reading of the resolution.
Does the gentleman have an argument to present as to why it qualifies
as a matter of privilege under rule IX?
Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I do, and I was about to get to it.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you.
As I just indicated, the headline of the New York Daily News, the
fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States, on
the first day of the government shutdown read this way: ``House of
Turds.''
[[Page H6382]]
The bylines stated: ``D.C. cess-pools shut down government,'' and
``They get paid while the Nation suffers.''
Just today, a new poll came out that demonstrated as follows:
A national poll asked the following questions:
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or witches?
Congress, 32 percent; witches, 46 percent.
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or
hemorrhoids? Congress, 31 percent; hemorrhoids, 53 percent.
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or dog poop?
Congress, 40 percent; dog poop, 47 percent.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair would again ask the gentleman from Florida to address
whether or not this resolution is privileged under rule IX.
Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I am explaining why it is privileged under rule IX.
May I continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed so long as the
gentleman confines his remarks to whether or not the resolution is
privileged under rule IX. Should the gentleman fail to continue along
that path, pursuant to the Chair's guidance, the gentleman will no
longer be recognized, and the Chair will be prepared to rule on the
question.
The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the questions before the House on
this resolution is whether the dignity of the House has been offended.
I am demonstrating vividly that the dignity of the House has been
offended in support of this resolution.
May I continue without interruption?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may continue under the
previous guidance issued by the Chair.
Proceed.
Mr. GRAYSON. Good.
The current polling indicates:
What do you have a higher opinion of, Americans: Congress
or toenail fungus? Congress, 41 percent; toenail fungus, 44
percent.
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or
cockroaches? Congress, 42 percent; cockroaches, 44 percent.
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or potholes?
Congress, 36 percent; potholes, 47 percent.
And finally----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
Once again, the Chair requests the gentleman from Florida to confine
his remarks to whether or not the matter is privileged under rule IX.
Should the gentleman proceed in any other manner, the Chair will be
prepared to rule on the question.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, that is exactly what I have been doing. I
would ask the Chair to allow me to continue without further
interruption.
May I continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed so long as his
comments are confined to the procedural issue of whether or not the
issue is privileged under rule IX.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I want to repeat: one of the questions to
make that determination is whether the dignity of the House has been
offended.
As I indicated, there is one final point to make here before I get
into further argument, which is this: the American public is now of the
following opinion:
What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or zombies?
Congress, 37 percent; zombies, 43 percent.
Now, clearly, statements such as these and others cited in the
resolution call into question the dignity of the House. These
statements are not from a single editorial or merely one passer-by.
These statements are being expressed around the Nation and across the
globe.
They have contributed to a Congressional approval rating plummeting
to 7 percent--that is 7 percent--in the latest Economist/YouGov poll,
and they must be addressed by this body.
Thankfully, rule IX of the rules of the House of Representatives
provides Members a mechanism through which to address those times when
the dignity of the House has been harmed and called into question. It
allows for questions of privilege.
Specifically, rule IX reads as follows:
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and
integrity of its proceedings.
I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that these are questions squarely within
the dignity of the House of Representatives.
Further, rule IX provides that:
A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of
the House, shall have precedence of all other questions
except motions to adjourn.
I have offered a resolution as a question of the privileges of the
House, and I am here today to secure a vote on that resolution.
Mr. Speaker, you should find the obvious, which is that the dignity
of the House has been called into question and that no part of the
resolution that I have offered goes beyond the scope of a question of
privilege--such as attempting to legislate--so that a vote must be
allowed on this measure.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, the vote that should be allowed would be
on the following resolution:
Resolved, That it is the sense of the House--
(1) without seeking to effect a change in the rules or
standing orders of the House or their interpretation; and
(2) without prescribing a special order of business for the
House--that a government shutdown is
--and this is obvious at this point--
a mark upon the dignity of the House and that the House would
be willing to pass a ``clean'' continuing appropriations
resolution to end it.
That is right--``a mark upon the dignity of the House and that the
House would be willing to pass a `clean' continuing appropriations
resolution to end it.''
What then is a satisfactory question of privilege?
Well, from the plain text of rule IX, and from existing precedent, a
satisfactory resolution must demonstrate that the dignity of the House
has been called into question. It has been called into question to such
a degree that I wanted to show you the cover from the Daily News, that
I was prevented from doing so, because to show it to you--just to show
it to you--would somehow be considered to be offensive to the dignity
of this House.
And the resolved clause of the resolution may not diverge into
affecting the legislative actions of this body.
I argue, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution satisfies both accounts.
I have found no precedent in the annotated House Rules and Manual or
Hind's or Cannon's or Deschler's Precedents that would allow the Chair
to rule against the resolution before us today. In fact, one would
question whether this entire body--including the Parliamentarian--has
been politicized unnecessarily if you do rule against that today.
Not once do the precedents address a resolution that outlines a
litany of condemnations against Congress from media sources around the
world and here at home, as opposed to responding to a single source of
criticism. Not once do the precedents rule on a resolution citing
Congressional approval ratings below 10 percent in conjunction with
persistent reporting against the dignity of the House.
If the first hurdle to be crossed today is that the dignity of the
House has to be called into question, then, Mr. Speaker, you are
required to rule in favor of this resolution raising a question of the
privileges of the House.
If ``dignity'' means what the dictionary says it means--``the state
or quality of being worthy of honor or respect''--then surely the honor
and respect of this House has been called into question.
When only 7 out of 100 Americans approve of what we do--the lowest
approval rating ever--then surely our dignity has been diminished and
is actively being called into question.
If we are to be called ``obstructionists'' and practicers of
``partisan petulance;'' if we are to be called an establishment that is
``rotten to the core;'' and if we are leaving Americans wondering why
there is ``so much poison in the system,'' then surely our dignity as a
body has been diminished.
If we are accused of ``willingly provoking crises that suspend public
services and decrease economic growth,'' then surely our dignity as a
body has been diminished.
If we cause international media outlets to refer to us as
``politically bankrupt'' and responsible for ``breaking America's
democracy,'' then our dignity as a body, as a House, is being called
into question.
[[Page H6383]]
{time} 1700
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has
heard enough and is prepared to rule.
Mr. GRAYSON. Well, the Chair has not heard my arguments.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from Florida
that he is not recognized and that the Chair is prepared to rule on the
question.
Mr. GRAYSON. Well, excuse me, but I have a point of parliamentary
order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Hearing argument on a question of order is
within the Chair's discretion. The Chair will once again advise the
gentleman from Florida that the Chair is ready to rule on the question.
Mr. GRAYSON. I would remind the Chair that the Chair actually agreed
to hear my argument. Having done so, the Chair needs to hear my full
argument.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the
question of whether the resolution offered by the gentleman from
Florida constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under
rule IX.
Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I have to say, Mr. Chair, that in doing so, you,
yourself, at this point----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized.
The resolution alleges that a lapse in appropriations impairs the
dignity of the House. It further expresses a sense of the House
concerning action it might take on an appropriation measure. The
gentleman from Florida casts this proposal as a statement.
As the Chair ruled on recent occasions such as October 2 and October
3, 2002; March 11, 2008; and December 13, 2011--in each case consistent
with a principle enunciated by Speaker Gillett in his landmark ruling
of May 6, 1921--a resolution expressing a legislative sentiment
ordinarily does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the
House under rule IX.
The precedent of March 11, 2008, is particularly illustrative. On
that occasion, a resolution alleged that legislative inaction had
brought discredit upon the House, and declared that the House should
consider a motion to concur in a specified Senate amendment. The Chair
held that the resolution did not present a question affecting the
rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity or the
integrity of its proceedings as required under rule IX.
These precedents are annotated in sections 702 and 706 of the House
Rules and Manual. The principle upon which they stand was articulated
by the Chair on January 24, 1996, as follows:
To rule that a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX may be raised by allegations of perceived
discredit brought upon the House by legislative action or
inaction, would permit any Member to allege an impact on the
dignity of the House based upon virtually any legislative
action or inaction.
The Chair would not distinguish between those precedents addressing
resolutions that called for specific legislative action and a
resolution that merely provided a statement about such action. Both
express a legislative sentiment and are properly initiated through the
introduction of a resolution via the hopper.
For these reasons, the resolution offered by the gentleman from
Florida does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House
under rule IX.
Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to explain why the
Chair is wrong and to finish my argument.
Mr. SESSIONS. Objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
____________________