[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17086-17087]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   NOTICE OF INTENTION TO OFFER RESOLUTION RAISING A QUESTION OF THE 
                        PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule 
IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as 
a question of the privileges of the House.
  The form of my resolution is as follows:

       Whereas on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated 
     as President of the United States, and the outstanding public 
     debt of the United States stood at $10.627 trillion;
       Whereas on January 20, 2009, in the President's Inaugural 
     Address, he stated, ``[T]hose of us who manage the public's 
     dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad 
     habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only 
     then can we restore the vital trust between a people and 
     their government.'';
       Whereas on February 17, 2009, the President signed into 
     public law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
     of 2009;
       Whereas the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 
     included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of 
     revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787 
     billion;
       Whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the American 
     Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will cost an additional 
     $300 billion;
       Whereas on February 26, 2009, the President unveiled his 
     budget blueprint for FY 2010;
       Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes the 
     eleven highest annual deficits in U.S. history;
       Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes to 
     increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by FY 2019, more 
     than doubling it from current levels;
       Whereas on March 11, 2009, the President signed into public 
     law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009;
       Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 constitutes 
     nine of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009 which had 
     not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year;
       Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.1 
     billion more than the request of President Bush;
       Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.0 
     billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution 
     for FY 2009;
       Whereas on April 1, 2009, the House considered H. Con. Res. 
     85, Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010;
       Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 
     2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes the six highest annual 
     deficits in U.S. history;
       Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 
     2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes to increase the national debt 
     to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than 
     compared to the level on January 20, 2009;
       Whereas Congressional Republicans produced an alternative 
     budget proposal for FY 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less 
     than the Congressional Democrats' budget over 10 years;
       Whereas the Republican Study Committee produced an 
     alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which improves the 
     budget outlook in every single year, balances the budget by 
     FY 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion 
     compared to the President"s budget;
       Whereas on April 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public 
     criticism, the President convened the first cabinet meeting 
     of his Administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a 
     collective $100 million in the next 90 days;
       Whereas the challenge to cut a collective $100 million 
     represents just 1/40,000 of the Federal budget;
       Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding Troubled Asset 
     Relief Program, or TARP, funds to banks stood at $197.6 
     billion;
       Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to 
     AIG stood at $69.8 billion;
       Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to 
     domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units 
     stood at $80 billion;

[[Page 17087]]

       Whereas on June 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of 
     the United States was $11.409 trillion;
       Whereas on June 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the 
     outstanding public debt of the United States came to 
     $37,236.88;
       Whereas according to a New York Times/CBS News survey, 
     three-fifths of Americans (60 percent) do not think the 
     President has developed a clear plan for dealing with the 
     current budget deficit (New York Times/CBS News, Conducted 
     June 12-16, 2009, Survey of 895 Adults Nationwide);
       Whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing 
     with runaway Federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal 
     restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process 
     in the House of Representatives;
       Whereas before assuming control of the House of 
     Representatives in January 2007, Congressional Democrats were 
     committed to an open and transparent appropriations process;
       Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats 
     entitled ``Democratic Declaration: Honest Leadership and Open 
     Government,'' page 2 states, ``Our goal is to restore 
     accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of 
     government.'';
       Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats 
     entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' page 29 states, 
     ``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure 
     that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full 
     amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer 
     its alternatives, including a substitute.'';
       Whereas on November 21, 2006, The San Francisco Chronicle 
     reported, ``Speaker Pelosi pledged to restore `minority 
     rights' - including the right of Republicans to offer 
     amendments to bills on the floor . . . The principle of 
     civility and respect for minority participation in this House 
     is something that we promised the American people, she said. 
     `It's the right thing to do.''' (``Pelosi's All Smiles 
     through a Rough House Transition,'' The San Francisco 
     Chronicle, November 21, 2006);
       Whereas on December 6, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated, 
     ``[We] promised the American people that we would have the 
     most honest and open government and we will.'';
       Whereas on December 17, 2006, The Washington Post reported, 
     ``After a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but 
     crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, Pelosi 
     is determined to try to return the House to what it was in an 
     earlier era - `where you debated ideas and listened to each 
     others arguments.''' (``Pelosi's House Diplomacy,'' The 
     Washington Post, December 17, 2006);
       Whereas on December 5, 2006, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer 
     stated, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that 
     gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability 
     to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.'' 
     (``Hoyer Says Dems' Plans Unruffled by Approps Logjam,'' 
     CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006);
       Whereas during debate on June 14, 2005, in the 
     Congressional Record on page H4410, Chairwoman Louise M. 
     Slaughter of the House Rules Committee stated, ``If we want 
     to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and 
     thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open 
     rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already 
     restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the 
     exception.'';
       Whereas since January 2007, there has been a failure to 
     commit to an open and transparent process in the House of 
     Representatives;
       Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64 
     total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than 
     in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control;
       Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10 
     total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than 
     in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control;
       Whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68, in 
     the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than in the 
     previous Congress, 9.22, under Republican control;
       Whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent 
     process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with 
     runaway Federal spending reached its pinnacle in the House's 
     handling of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;
       Whereas H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 contains $64.4 
     billion in discretionary spending, 11.6 percent more than 
     enacted in FY 2009;
       Whereas on June 11, 2009, the House Rules Committee issued 
     an announcement stating that amendments for H.R. 2847, the 
     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 must be pre-printed in the 
     Congressional Record by the close of business on June 15, 
     2009;
       Whereas both Republicans and Democrats filed 127 amendments 
     in the Congressional Record for consideration on the House 
     floor;
       Whereas on June 15, 2009, the House Rules Committee 
     reported H. Res. 544, a rule with a pre-printing requirement 
     and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate;
       Whereas on June 16, 2009, the House proceeded with one hour 
     of general debate, or one minute to vet each $1.07 billion in 
     H.R. 2847, in the Committee of the Whole;
       Whereas after one hour of general debate the House 
     proceeded with amendment debate;
       Whereas after just 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one 
     minute to vet each $3.02 billion in H.R. 2847, a motion that 
     the Committee rise was offered by Congressional Democrats;
       Whereas the House agreed on a motion that the Committee 
     rise by a recorded vote of 179 Ayes to 124 Noes, with all 
     votes in the affirmative being cast by Democrats;
       Whereas afterwards, the House Rules Committee convened a 
     special, untelevised meeting to dispense with further 
     proceedings on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;
       Whereas on June 17, 2009, the House Rules Committee 
     reported H. Res. 552, a new and restrictive structured rule 
     for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related 
     Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;
       Whereas every House Republican and 27 House Democrats voted 
     against agreeing on H. Res. 552;
       Whereas H. Res. 552 made in order just 23 amendments, with 
     a possibility for 10 more amendments, out of the 127 
     amendments originally filed;
       Whereas H. Res. 552 severely curtailed pro forma amendments 
     for the purposes of debate;
       Whereas the actions of Congressional Democrats to curtail 
     debate and the number of amendments offered to H.R. 2847, the 
     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act, 2010 effectively ended the process to 
     deal with runaway Federal spending in a positive and 
     responsible manner;
       Whereas Congressional Democrats continue to curtail debate 
     and the number of amendments offered to appropriations bills;
       Whereas on June 18, 2009, the House Rules Committee 
     reported H. Res. 559, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 
     2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010;
       Whereas H. Res. 559 made in order just one amendment out of 
     the 20 amendments originally filed;
       Whereas on June 23, 2009, the House Rules Committee 
     reported H. Res. 573, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 
     2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 
     2010;
       Whereas H. Res. 573 made in order just 9 amendments, with a 
     possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 91 amendments 
     originally filed;
       Whereas on June 24, 2009, the House Rules Committee 
     reported H. Res. 578, a restrictive structured rule for H.R. 
     2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and 
     Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;
       Whereas H. Res. 578 made in order just 8 amendments, with a 
     possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 105 amendments 
     originally filed; and
       Whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being 
     visited upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That--
       (1) the House of Representatives recommit itself to fiscal 
     restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway 
     Federal spending;
       (2) the House of Representatives return to its best 
     traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process 
     without a pre-printing requirement; and
       (3) the House Rules Committee shall report out open rules 
     for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder 
     of the 111th Congress.

                              {time}  1600

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under rule IX, a resolution offered from the 
floor by a Member other than the majority leader or the minority leader 
as a question of the privileges of the House has immediate precedence 
only at a time designated by the Chair within 2 legislative days after 
the resolution is properly noticed.
  Pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the 
gentleman from Georgia will appear in the Record at this point.
  The Chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution 
constitutes a question of privilege. That determination will be made at 
the time designated for consideration of the resolution.

                          ____________________