[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18192-18194]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of 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 gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, submitted an 
     amendment to the Committee on Rules to H.R. 3170, the 
     Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act;
       Whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have protected 
     the free speech rights of broadcasters and American citizens 
     by prohibiting funds made available in the Act from being 
     used to implement the Fairness Doctrine and certain broadcast 
     localism regulations,
       Whereas a similar amendment was adopted by the House in 
     2007 during consideration of H.R. 2829, the Financial 
     Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2008 by a 
     vote of 309 yeas and 115 nays, and became law, but the 
     Democratic leadership allowed the provision to expire;
       Whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all 
     applicable Rules of the House for amendments to 
     appropriations measures and would have been in order under an 
     open amendment process; but regrettably the House Democratic 
     leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the 
     opportunity for free speech on this Floor, and
       Whereas the Speaker, Mrs. Pelosi, the Democratic 
     leadership, and the chairman of the Committee on 
     Appropriations, Mr. Obey, prevented the House from voting on 
     the amendment by excluding it from the list of amendments 
     made in order under the rule for the bill: Now, therefore, be 
     it
       Resolved, That H. Res. 644, the rule to accompany H.R. 
     3170, be amended to allow the gentleman from Oregon's 
     amendment be considered and voted on in the House.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Oregon wish to 
present argument on why the resolution is privileged for immediate 
consideration?
  Mr. WALDEN. Yes, Madam Speaker, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate that, Madam Speaker. Rule IX is intended to 
allow a Member to raise questions which, and I quote, ``those affecting 
the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the 
integrity of its proceedings; and those affecting the rights of 
Members, individually, in their representative capacity.''
  So I pose the question, What is more fundamental to the rights of 
Members of this House than the ability to represent their constituents 
and affect legislation brought to this floor?
  The Democratic majority, under Speaker Pelosi, has unilaterally ended 
a 220-year tradition of allowing any Member to amend a spending bill. 
When my constituents sent me to Congress, they didn't send me here to 
just push the buttons using this card in a voting terminal. They wanted 
me to exercise all of the abilities granted to a Member of Congress. 
And the rule which this House passed yesterday by only a handful of 
votes, after arm twisting by the majority, denies me and every other 
Member the opportunity to fully represent their constituents.

[[Page 18193]]

  If that does not ``affect the rights of this House,'' if that does 
not affect its ``dignity and the integrity of its proceedings,'' if 
that does not affect my rights as a Representative, I don't know what 
does.
  For 220 years, we went along in this House with the opportunity to 
offer amendments. And sure, there were instances along the way where 
both parties probably restricted amendments that could be offered on 
appropriations bills, but not very often.
  This is unprecedented and historic in terms of the gagging of Members 
on both sides of the aisle. We had them on the floor yesterday trying 
to offer an amendment, a Democrat, and he too was turned down and 
upset. So I'm sure the Chair can find some technical reason why my 
resolution to protect free speech rights on the public's airwaves may 
not be in order.
  All we were trying to do is offer an amendment that had been offered 
up in 2007 and approved by over 300 Members of this House. When it was 
allowed to be considered and voted upon, it was approved by over 300 
Members to protect the free speech rights of broadcasters, the citizens 
of this country as well. And instead, what we have now operating, I 
believe, affects the very rights of this House collectively, affects 
the dignity and integrity of its proceedings and affects the rights of 
its Members as described under rule IX individually in their 
representative capacity.
  That is why I brought this privileged resolution to the floor, 
because I believe, as a citizen of this country and a Member of this 
great institution, that our rights have been diminished, and that 
indeed the integrity of this very House is on the line.
  In fact, when you go to the Speaker's Web site, at least I think it 
is still up, she pledged an open debate and an opportunity for Members 
of Congress to be able to come to the floor and offer amendments, much 
like the chairwoman has done over time, and relishes that, as I do. It 
is part of what we do here, or what we were sent to do here.
  It is pretty hard to offer up alternatives to spending bills to 
reduce deficits and to put ideas into law when the Speaker's Rules 
Committee acts and shuts down our very opportunity to even bring 
amendment up for debate.

                              {time}  1015

  Whether it passes or not will be up to the collective votes of this 
body. But we know that if we can never bring them up for debate, there 
will never be a vote. Now, maybe that's convenient to those who don't 
like to vote on difficult issues, or stand up for the free speech 
rights of broadcasters, whether they be religious broadcasters or those 
on the right or the left on talk radio, which is what my amendment 
would have sought to protect in the future.
  But I really believe that rule IX is intended to allow Members to 
raise questions affecting the rights of the House collectively, to 
discuss its safety, and that's not at issue here, but its dignity is. 
The integrity of its proceedings are. Those rights, these are 
fundamental to each of us, regardless of the label behind our name that 
designates our party.
  This is the one time we've had in this institution, to come forward 
with our ideas on how to control the bureaucracy, to offer an amendment 
that controls it. It's the only time I, as an individual, have that 
opportunity in the appropriations process, because I'm not a member of 
that committee, to represent my constituents. That's why I believe, 
under rule IX, my representative capacity is diminished, and that of 
many other Members in this Chamber, many who are watching right now. 
The public needs to understand this as well, that something has changed 
here, and it's not for the good. And I think it reflects badly on our 
proceedings. And I think it injures the integrity of this institution, 
let alone it's dignity. And that's why I make this parliamentary 
argument, that under rule IX, under rule IX, Members, it talks about 
collectively affecting the House.
  Tell me, when Members of the minority or majority come before the 
Rules Committee and seek--well, first of all, have to even go to the 
Rules Committee. That didn't use to occur on appropriations bills, did 
it? It didn't used to occur. Only rarely, maybe once or twice in a 
year.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair must remind the gentleman to 
confine his remarks to his parliamentary question.
  Mr. WALDEN. I appreciate the gentlelady's counsel and I will attempt 
to do that. I was trying to do that here, and certainly I'm arguing in 
favor of the rules of this House being observed; that's why I argue 
about the integrity of its proceedings.
  In my view, proceedings have been shattered. Members of both parties 
are denied the opportunity, as our predecessors were allowed to have, 
to come to this floor and offer up amendments during the appropriations 
process. So I think my privileged resolution should be made in order, 
because I think my rights have been affected, and not in a good way. 
The rights of other Members are affected. I had more than one person on 
my amendment. And so individually, our representative capacity has been 
diminished. The voices I'm trying to represent are not allowed to be 
considered if I can't get my privileged resolution to be considered. 
All it did was ask for a vote on my amendment, that it be made in 
order, so that we could vote on it on the rule, which, oh, by the way, 
at this point, the way this process has been conducted, not only has 
the rule been passed, but also the bill has been passed. So it's kind 
of ironic now we'd have this argument about whether my privileged 
resolution was in order, which would have allowed me, had it been 
secured, it would have allowed me to have some additional 
representative capacity and be able to have a vote on the amendment or 
a vote on whether I could offer the amendment. I guess that's what 
would have occurred.
  So I posit this point: That under rule IX, we are allowed to raise 
questions about issues that affect the rights of the House 
collectively. I can't think of something that affects the House more 
collectively than our inability to offer amendments. And so I think our 
integrity is at issue here, these proceedings. I think Americans have 
come to understand, bills are rammed through here without the 
opportunity to be read. We've got a 1,026-page bill in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee that I can't imagine anybody has read yet.
  So, Madam Speaker, I'll conclude; that I hope you'll rule in my favor 
because I know, in your heart of hearts, you're a woman who believes in 
fairness, and you believe in the integrity of these proceedings, and 
you believe firmly and fervently in protecting the rights of Members, 
both individually and collectively, and that you, in no way, would want 
to diminish the capacity for yourself, when you're not in the chair, 
Members of this body, and for Members who will follow us. So I plead 
with you to do the right thing and allow a vote on my privileged 
resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  In evaluating the resolution offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
under the standards of rule IX, the Chair must be mindful of a 
fundamental principle illuminated by annotations of precedent in 
section 706 of the House Rules and Manual. The basic principle is that 
a question of the privileges of the House may not be invoked to 
prescribe a special order of business for the House.
  The Chair finds that the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Oregon, by proposing directly to amend House Resolution 644, prescribes 
a special order of business. Under a long and well-settled line of 
precedent presently culminating in the ruling of July 9, 2009, such a 
resolution cannot qualify as a question of the privileges of the House.
  The Chair therefore holds that the resolution is not privileged under 
rule IX for consideration ahead of other business. Instead, the 
resolution may be submitted through the hopper in the regular course.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is, Shall the decision of the 
Chair stand as the judgment of the House?

[[Page 18194]]




                            Motion to Table

  Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the ruling 
of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALDEN. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion that the appeal be laid on the 
table will be followed by 5-minute votes on:
  ordering the previous question on House Resolution 653; and
  adopting House Resolution 653, if ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 238, 
nays 174, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 573]

                               YEAS--238

     Abercrombie
     Adler (NJ)
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boccieri
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Bright
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Childers
     Chu
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Dahlkemper
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Driehaus
     Edwards (MD)
     Edwards (TX)
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Engel
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Foster
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Giffords
     Gonzalez
     Gordon (TN)
     Grayson
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Griffith
     Grijalva
     Hall (NY)
     Halvorson
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Herseth Sandlin
     Higgins
     Hill
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kilroy
     Kind
     Kirkpatrick (AZ)
     Kissell
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maffei
     Maloney
     Markey (CO)
     Markey (MA)
     Marshall
     Massa
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McMahon
     McNerney
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy (NY)
     Murtha
     Nadler (NY)
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nye
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Perriello
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis (CO)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schauer
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Space
     Speier
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Teague
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Titus
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--174

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Bartlett
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Broun (GA)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Cao
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Castle
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     Fallin
     Flake
     Fleming
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gohmert
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Guthrie
     Hall (TX)
     Harper
     Hastings (WA)
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hoekstra
     Hunter
     Inglis
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan (OH)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Kosmas
     Kratovil
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lee (NY)
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Minnick
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Olson
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Rodriguez
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Wamp
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Ackerman
     Barrett (SC)
     Cantor
     Eshoo
     Graves
     Gutierrez
     Hinojosa
     Kildee
     Lucas
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     Miller, Gary
     Murphy, Patrick
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Schakowsky
     Sutton
     Taylor
     Wasserman Schultz
     Westmoreland
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes 
remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1045

  Messrs. DAVIS of Illinois and PERRIELLO changed their vote from 
``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. HINOJOSA. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 573, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yea.''

                          ____________________