[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4975-4988]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PREVENTION ACT OF 2011

  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 194, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1255) to prevent a shutdown of the government of the 
United States, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1255

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Act of 2011''.

     SEC. 2. FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL 
                   YEAR 2011.

       (a) Deadline for Consideration of Legislation Funding the 
     Government for the Remainder of Fiscal Year 2011.--If the 
     House has not received a message from the Senate before April 
     6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for 
     the appropriations for the departments and agencies of the 
     Government for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the 
     provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 
     2011, are hereby enacted into law.
       (b) Publication of Act.--In publishing this Act in slip 
     form and in the United States Statutes at Large pursuant to 
     section 112 of title 1, United States Code, the Archivist of 
     the United States shall include after the date of approval, 
     if applicable, an appendix setting forth the text of the bill 
     referred to in subsection (a).

[[Page 4976]]



     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS TO MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 
                   AND THE PRESIDENT.

       (a) Treatment of Members During a Government Shutdown.--The 
     Secretary of the Senate and the Chief Administrative Officer 
     of the House, respectively, shall not disburse to each Member 
     or Delegate the amount of his or her salary for each day 
     that--
       (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
     for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
     to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
     resolution; or
       (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
     meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
       (b) Treatment of the President During a Government 
     Shutdown.--The President shall not receive a disbursement of 
     basic pay for any period in which--
       (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
     for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
     to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
     resolution; or
       (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
     meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 194, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) and the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my leader, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, as we debate the future course of government spending, 
we need to be honest with the people of this country about the current 
fiscal state of affairs.
  America averages now trillion-dollar deficits. We borrow nearly 40 
cents of every dollar we spend. Given the fiscal cloud that hangs over 
our country, it is reckless to assume we can live pain-free forever. 
Sooner or later, something has to give.
  To give families and business confidence that their future won't be 
plagued by inflation, higher taxes and higher interest rates, our 
majority vowed to move forcefully to cut spending. We made clear that 
only by putting Federal spending on a sustainable trajectory could we 
create the conditions necessary for growth and job creation.
  During our 3 months in the majority, we have delivered on our 
promise. Six weeks ago, after 47 hours of debate, we passed H.R. 1 to 
fund the government for the remainder of the fiscal year and save 
taxpayers $61 billion relative to current spending. In a more open 
process than the House had seen in 4 years, we allowed the other party 
to offer countless amendments. And over the past month, we have passed 
two continuing resolutions that have cut $10 billion in spending. All 
along, Mr. Speaker, we've practically begged President Obama and Senate 
Democrats to get serious and come to the table with a legitimate 
proposal. But we got nothing in return. No legislation. No credible 
plan to cut spending.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to underline the fact that we do not want a 
government shutdown. Yet as Senate Democrats refuse to pass a bill, 
that unsettling prospect now looms ever larger, which is why they must 
act.
  Today, we are bringing a bill to the floor that makes clear that 
continued inaction on the part of the Senate Democratic majority is 
simply unacceptable.
  Finally, this bill also ensures that going forward, should there ever 
be a government shutdown, that Members of Congress and the President 
will not get paid. If we can't do our job, why should we get paid?
  Mr. Speaker, funding the government at the levels passed by House 
Republicans might not be what Senator Reid wants, but surely even he 
would agree that it's a better alternative than shutting down the 
government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Mr. Speaker, to begin this debate, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  April fools, America. This is a joke, America. This is not real, 
America. As a matter of fact, Mr. Woodall of Georgia says it's not 
real. It's not going to pass the Senate. He made that very clear. The 
majority leader just said if the Senate won't take what we give them, 
we're going to shut down the government. That's what he just said. And 
that's what I believe to be the case.
  The last time the government shut down was not when we had a 
Republican President and a Democratic Congress but when we had a 
Democratic President and a Republican Congress. They shut down the 
government in 1995 and 1996. They shut down the government over 
Christmas, as a matter of fact, the Grinch who stole the government's 
operations for almost 3 weeks. We're about to do it again.
  The gentleman from Georgia, who has been here now a few months, was 
10 years old when I came to the Congress of the United States. He 
mentioned something about the debt, this $14 trillion of debt. Well, 
I've only been here, I tell my friend, 30 years, but during the course 
of those 30 years, Republican Presidents have signed bills spending 
$4.8 trillion in deficit spending. During the course of the Clinton 
administration, we had a surplus, as the gentleman probably knows. Now 
he will say, presumably, because we had a Republican Congress. But, of 
course, the Republicans not only took the Congress but they took the 
Presidency in 2001, and they ran up 2\1/2\ trillion dollars of deficit 
and increased the national debt by 115 percent, notwithstanding the 
fact that they inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus.
  And now they pass this April fools joke on America that the gentleman 
who is one of the cosponsors says won't pass the Senate. We know it 
won't pass the Senate. But they pretend in their language what is 
clearly contrary to the Constitution, because they say if it doesn't 
pass, the provisions of H.R. 1, the bill they have sent to the Senate, 
passed by the House on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into law. 
In other words, we're going to deem it passed.
  Let me tell you what Eric Cantor said about deeming it passed:
  ``Malfeasant manner. Did not discharge the duties of their office.''
  Then Speaker Boehner said this about these deeming pieces of 
legislation, which this is. He said it was a scheme and plot that set a 
precedent and was, quote, one of the most outrageous things that he had 
seen since he had been in Congress and erroneously claimed that it had 
never happened in American history. In fact, it had happened before. 
This has never happened, where the House of Representatives took the 
position if you don't pass what we want, ours goes into law anyway. I'm 
sure our Tea Party friends are shocked, because they will find nowhere 
in the Constitution, my friends, does that provide for.

                              {time}  1300

  Furthermore, Mike Pence denounced deem and pass as, quote, trampling 
on the traditional rules of the House and Senate and even on the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  Michelle Bachmann, who apparently may be a candidate for President, 
said this, that deem and pass, quote, ignored the Constitution and 
warranted the impeachment of the House Speaker. Quote, there should be 
people that are calling for impeachment off of something like this.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.
  Mr. HOYER. This resolution says, contrary to the Constitution, if the 
Senate doesn't act, this bill becomes law. Nobody on your side surely 
believes that that can happen. Nobody believes that that joke that we 
are trying to play on the American people on April Fool's Day will be 
believed by any of them.
  And, my friends, do not tell me about your concern about the deficit, 
because the deficit during my period of time, except for the last 2 
years, trying to deal with the deep depression in which the last 
administration left this economy--don't try to tell me that we are

[[Page 4977]]

responsible for the debt, the $14 trillion of debt. Surely my friend 
knows that's not the case. And if my friend doesn't know it, I would be 
glad to set up a time when we can debate that issue in any forum he 
chooses because the facts belie his representation.
  My friends, reject this bill. Reject this bill because it is a fraud 
on the American public. Reject this bill because it's an attempt to 
shift blame from the House of Representatives passing a bill that can, 
in fact, pass; not to say to the Senate, Our way or no way, and we will 
shut down the government, because that's what this bill says.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to say to my 
friend from Maryland, about whom I say regularly back home has a great 
reputation for fair dealings, that I am tremendously disappointed by 
that characterization of the bill.
  Mr. HOYER. If the gentleman will yield, I thank the gentleman for his 
observation and regret that he felt it was a mischaracterization 
because I thought it was accurate. Thank you very much.
  Mr. WOODALL. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack), the bill's sponsor, to set the 
record straight on what the bill actually does.
  Mr. WOMACK. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Yes, there has been a lot of conversation in Washington about the 
prospect of a government shutdown. And while I realize there are some 
in this Congress who might prefer that option, I am not one of them; 
and let me just add, our leader is not one of them. Frankly, we think 
it's irresponsible. Our constituents did not send us to Washington to 
shut down the government. They sent us here to make it more accountable 
to the people, and that is precisely what House Republicans have been 
doing.
  Examine the facts. When the curtain came up on this Congress, we were 
already 3 months into this fiscal year with no budget and on a 
temporary spending plan that went through early March. This House went 
to work crafting legislation that would fund the government for the 
rest of this fiscal year while delivering on our pledge to cut 
spending. The response from the Senate? Not so fast.
  So we kept government operational with a 2-week continuing resolution 
in hopes that the Senate would realize the sense of urgency that 
accompanies our fiscal situation. And in that 2-week span of time, the 
response? Not interested.
  Again, this House went to work crafting another temporary measure 
that funds government through next week. My friends, patience is 
wearing thin, not just my patience and the patience of my colleagues, 
but the patience of Americans. In our collective opinion, time's up.
  Mr. Speaker, we all agree that we have some bigger fish to fry. 
Pressures on the statutory limit on debt and, more importantly, the 
2012 budget loom very large right now for this country. Instead of 
focusing on these issues critical to our struggling economy, here we 
are, mired in partisan gamesmanship over funding the government for the 
remainder of this year. Did we come here to fish or did we come here to 
cut bait? This bill simply puts the clock in action on this process.
  I am hopeful my colleagues will agree that the time is now to move 
beyond 2011 so that we can turn our attention to the bigger challenges 
of transforming this institution and restoring fiscal sanity. That is 
what the people sent us here to do; and every day we fail to do this 
work, the people lose.
  We have been called extreme. H.R. 1, which passed in the early 
morning hours on this floor on February 19, cuts on an annualized basis 
$100 billion in Federal spending. That's one-sixteenth of the deficit. 
Is that extreme? I don't think so.
  Mr. Speaker, it's unfortunate that people across America trying to 
find jobs, trying to pay their mortgages, and trying to have the funds 
to put their kids through college are victimized by this flawed 
political process. Instead of removing the uncertainty for small 
business and job creators by cutting spending and shrinking the size 
and reach of government, we are playing games with the future of our 
Nation.
  If this is our best, our best falls short of the expectation of those 
we represent. We can do better. We should do better. And if all we can 
show for our work is a shutdown of the government, we will have failed 
our constituency and should not be paid.
  The gamesmanship going on right now is gambling with America's 
future, and it's hard to make progress when you are playing on House 
money. H.R. 1255 forces Members to have skin in the game. And if passed 
by both Chambers and signed by the President, we will have the proper 
motivation to set aside the rhetoric and actually accomplish something 
that is good for America: a climate for job creation, not a government 
shutdown.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill so we can do the people's 
work.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Let's do a quick review of the year. It's been 13 weeks since the 
Republicans took over the majority. Leading up to that point, we heard 
a mantra, ``Where are the jobs?'' So you might expect that on day one 
of the 112th Congress, they would bring a jobs bill to the floor. But 
no. What the Republican majority did with great fanfare was to conduct 
a reading of the Constitution and, as if our oath of office wasn't 
enough, also implemented a new House rule which required legislation to 
be accompanied by a ``statement of constitutional authority.'' In fact, 
my fellow colleague from South Carolina, Joe Wilson, read aloud Article 
I, section 7. What does it say?
  ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and 
the Senate, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the 
President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if 
not he shall return it . . .''
  Ladies and gentlemen, we all learn in grade school how a bill becomes 
a law, but we'll get back to that in a moment.
  So 13 weeks ago when the Republicans took the majority, up to that 
point all we heard from them was ``Where are the jobs?'' So, then, what 
was the first bill we were asked to vote on? The first bill was to 
repeal the health care law.
  Democratic policies created more jobs in the last year than the Bush 
administration created in 8 years. Since health reform became law, 1.1 
million private sector jobs have been created.

                              {time}  1310

  One-fifth of those new jobs, over 200,000, have been in the health 
care industry. So, repeal of the health care law would end jobs, not 
create jobs.
  Then surely, at some point in the last 13 weeks, the Republican 
majority would have brought to this floor a jobs bill. Three months and 
no jobs bill. In fact, we've passed three bills that will destroy more 
than 1 million jobs, which brings us to this moment, the so-called 
Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011, and article I, section 7 of 
the United States Constitution. I've read it, but I want to repeat a 
certain portion of it:
  ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and 
the Senate shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the 
President of the United States.''
  But the bill before us today, not a jobs bill, says that if the 
Senate doesn't act prior to the expiration of the continuing 
resolution, that H.R. 1, a budget bill passed only by the House, will 
become the law of the land.
  It's very simple. That is unconstitutional. We do not have a 
unicameral legislative body.
  Then what did they cite on the statement of the constitutional 
authority that must accompany each bill? There are a lot of words that 
only a parliamentary expert could understand.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The time of the gentleman has 
expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield myself an additional minute.
  But if you ask my daughter's eighth grade class that visited us here 
earlier this week, they will tell you that

[[Page 4978]]

that's not how things work under our Constitution.
  But don't listen to me or the eighth graders at Dent Middle School. 
Listen to what some of your colleagues in the other body had to say. So 
our colleagues in the other body had made it very clear. Senator Coats 
of Indiana: ``My reaction to that is ultimately the whole body, 
including the executive branch, has to sign on here or we're just 
whistling in the wind.''
  Senator Alexander of Tennessee: ``To be the law of the land, a bill 
has to pass the Senate and be signed by the President.''
  One of our own, the Appropriations Subcommittee Chair, Representative 
Mike Simpson, after laughing out loud, said, ``If we can do that, can't 
we just deem the budget balanced?''
  Madam Speaker, I know it's April 1, so maybe that's the point. I ask 
my colleagues on the other side to let's quit this joke and get 
serious.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a very serious reform-minded freshman, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Rokita).
  Mr. ROKITA. Madam Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of this bill, and 
urge my colleagues to support it. I've worked tirelessly with my 
colleagues to pass a continuing resolution that saves taxpayers money 
and keeps the government running, while the other body, as we continue 
to hear, has done nothing but complain.
  Are they blind? Are they deaf? Do they not see, do they not hear what 
the rest of the people in this country see and here in terms of this 
country's financial crisis, in terms of this country's debt, in terms 
of what we're doing to our children and grandchildren by continuing to 
do nothing?
  Madam Speaker, we've waited 41 days for them to send us a funding 
bill, and we've got nothing. At least the Members who will be voting 
for this bill, who will be voting in favor of this bill, are showing 
leadership, are showing the American people that we care about the 
future of this country and that we do care about jobs.
  Show me one country on this globe that can grow its economy, that can 
grow jobs while having the boot of government on the neck of its 
people, on the neck of its businesses all the time. And just like the 
overregulation we do right now through the Federal Government, that 
debt boot, that debt burden is doing the same thing to job creation.
  This is a jobs bill. Get government out of the way and watch this 
country lead the world again.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Madam Speaker, once again, instead of working to create 
jobs, grow the economy, reduce the deficit and strengthen the middle 
class, the majority is spending its time engaged in ideological 
lawlessness disrespectful of the U.S. Constitution, and all because of 
their political base and to benefit their political base.
  This bizarre attempt to deem and pass into law their reckless budget 
is not only hypocritical and blatantly unconstitutional; where is the 
statement of the constitutionality of this legislation?
  I'll ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, read the 
Constitution. It calls into question whether the Speaker and the 
Republican leadership understand how our representative democracy 
works, and that includes the author of this legislation.
  The House cannot simply close their eyes, pretend that the Senate and 
the President have passed and signed the bill into law. It does not 
work that way. When a bill actually passes the Senate, the Senate has 
actually passed the bill. And when the President picks up a pen and 
puts his name on it, and not a second before, that bill has been signed 
into law. No amount of magical thinking can change these simple facts.
  Even notwithstanding the gall of the Republicans' unconstitutional 
plan, the very attempt to pass a deem and pass act flies in the face of 
all of the pearl-clutching we heard from the majority in 2010.
  Then, when a simpler version of deem and pass came up during the 
health care debate, one that did not fly in the face of the 
Constitution and attempt to speak for the Senate and President, the 
current Speaker called it one of the most dangerous, outrageous things 
he had ever seen in a Congress. Majority Leader Cantor offered a 
privilege resolution putting the Republicans on record as against any 
sort of deem and pass mechanism. A year later the story has changed.
  No, most of all this is a diversion from the reckless cuts the 
majority has proposed, the slashes to Head Start, Pell Grants, Meals on 
Wheels, veterans, job training, medical research, all cuts that hurt 
middle class and working families.
  We are still waiting for the Republicans to cut the special interest 
waste, like the oil company subsidies and the tax loopholes for the 
richest people in the Nation. And what about those tax subsidies to 
those multinational corporations that take their jobs overseas?
  You're not starting there to cut the deficit. No, it's working 
families and their children that you're going after.
  You are taxing the patience of the American people. And you know 
what? You're taxing the memory of our Founding Fathers who educated 
us--and children in grade school today--on how a bill becomes a law.
  The Republican majority is playing a dangerous game. If they do not 
get what they want, they will shut the government down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentlewoman an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. DeLAURO. You're playing fast and loose with the lives of the 
American people, their kids, their families and with American 
businesses. No matter what those damaging effects are, because of 
ideological reasons and political base, and electoral votes, you are 
willing to put the United States and its people, above all, working 
families, middle class families and their children and our economy, at 
risk.
  Please read the Constitution. Understand how this democracy works, 
and take this bill and do away with it.

                              {time}  1320

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very pleased to yield 3 
minutes to my good friend, a freshman Member, the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Nunnelee).
  Mr. NUNNELEE. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this bill as a cosponsor.
  It has been over 40 days, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate 
has failed to act on a spending plan. If our government shuts down, our 
troops won't get paid. Now, they will still be serving this great 
Nation, but without pay. We need to ensure there are no political 
burdens that affect our troops while they are at war. As the Department 
of Defense has indicated, a funding lapse does impact their military's 
operational readiness.
  The American people cannot wait; Congress cannot wait while the 
Democrats in the Senate continue to play politics. We have given them 
ample time to put forth a reasonable plan, yet the majority leader in 
the Senate is not serious about spending reform.
  While the Democrats have been cheering for a government shutdown, 
Republicans have passed the largest spending cut in American history, 
and our actions are having results. Just this morning it was announced 
that the unemployment rate is at a 2-year low. Americans are going back 
to work because of our efforts.
  Meanwhile, what has happened this week? The Senate Democrats have 
spent the week diverting attention, trying to figure out how to spin to 
reporters. And today, while the shutdown is imminent, they have gone 
home.
  The cuts that the American people want are not extreme. They are 
necessary. When we are borrowing 42 cents out of every dollar, when our 
children and grandchildren's future is in jeopardy, these cuts are far 
from extreme. It is time for the Senate to act. Our goal is to cut 
spending, not to shut down the government.
  Back in Mississippi we have a saying: Lead, follow, or get out of the 
way. Mr.

[[Page 4979]]

Reid, today you are in the way. So I challenge you today to lead by 
passing a plan of your own, to follow by adopting the plan that we have 
already passed. But if you can't do either of those, get out of the way 
and allow the Senate to act.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN. Madam Speaker, this morning several dozen students from 
Key Elementary School came to visit the office, and they wanted to know 
what we were doing. They were all excited to be up on Capitol Hill. So 
I explained: Well, this afternoon we are debating a bill. It has been 
introduced by what we call the freshmen, the new Members of the House. 
The bill says that if the Senate doesn't agree with a big bill that the 
House has passed, if the Senate doesn't agree next week, then this bill 
would deem it passed, in fact, deem it enacted. Well, they were all 
kind of shocked because that is not what they learned in civics class.
  They learned that a bill has to be passed by the House and then 
passed by the Senate, and then it goes into conference. And then, if 
the President agrees to sign it, then it can become law. But not this 
bill. So I was at a loss, of course, to explain how it was 
constitutional. They were kind of surprised that this is what the House 
was doing.
  They wanted to know, Well, what is the bill that they want to be 
enacted? And I said, Well, it's a bill that I don't really agree with 
and a lot of the Members don't agree with. In fact, the Senate doesn't 
agree with it. Because while we have a lot of people unemployed, this 
would make apparently about 700,000 more people unemployed according to 
even Republican economists. So they were even further amazed by that. 
It also would eliminate a lot of regulations that have been passed by 
the House through a lot of deliberation, but it just says those 
regulations wouldn't take effect. So it is a very controversial bill.
  Now, I was also able to tell them that I did suggest to the Rules 
Committee yesterday, although the majority rejected it, that there is 
something we could do today; and that is to say that if we put our 
staff out on the street without pay, hard-working employees who get a 
fraction of what we get paid, and we put another million Federal 
employees out on the street unpaid, then the Congress shouldn't get 
paid, either. The Senate did in fact pass that unanimously, including 
the Republican Leader Senator McConnell obviously.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentleman another 30 seconds.
  Mr. MORAN. So at least today we could put ourselves on record that we 
are not going to put people out on the street while we continue to get 
paid, because we get paid from a different authorization, as does the 
President. Now, this is legislation we could get passed. Since the 
Senate has agreed, it could go to the President right away. I know the 
President would sign it. That is what we should be doing today, not 
something that even a 10-year-old understands is unconstitutional.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to a 
gentleman from your home State, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Kinzinger).
  Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois. Madam Speaker, this is unbelievable. We 
are in a mess. We are in a fiscal mess, and we continually are still 
throwing barbs and saying, Well, it's not our fault. Yeah, we've been 
in charge of the House for 4 years and we've had the Presidency for 2 
years, but it is not our fault; and we don't want to do anything to fix 
it.
  So in fact here, last year when our friends on the other side of the 
aisle had all the majority, they failed to do the most basic thing that 
you ought to do when you run something: you pass a budget. No budget 
was passed because the November elections were coming up. You didn't 
want to make the tough choices that would hurt you in reelection, and 
you didn't want to have to go through that route, so you didn't pass a 
budget. You passed a continuing resolution.
  Guess what, the American people in November spoke. They said the 
Federal Government is entirely too big, and the big bloated 
bureaucratic government is crowding out the free market.
  And so what happened? We were sent here to Washington, D.C. to 
control the size of the Federal Government, and we are doing exactly 
that. We passed a significant budget cut to just a small part of the 
budget. We are not even talking about the 2012 budget year. That is 
coming up. But our friends on the other side of the aisle don't even 
want to show us where they are at. They can't cut spending. They can't 
do it. They don't want to say no to people. The American people and the 
children are asking us to say ``yes'' to the future.
  I'm a military pilot. That's what I do as a Reservist. I have friends 
wondering if we are going to get paid. I say, Ask Harry Reid. I don't 
know. We have tried to make sure that you continue to get paid through 
this.
  I have a friend, Tim Normand, who runs SDL Technology Partners back 
home. And as he is sending kids to college and as he is building his 
small business, he doesn't know if he can trust in the faith of what 
this government is going to be in the future because our friends on the 
other side of the aisle don't want to do anything to begin to rein in 
this out-of-control government. We do. Pass this bill.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. I thank my friend from South Carolina.
  Madam Speaker, there was some good news today, finally, that 214,000 
Americans went to work last month. That is not nearly good enough. 
There is a lot more work to do. One of the ways to do that work is to 
come to a responsible agreement on the Federal budget. I am hopeful 
there will be such an agreement next week that sensibly reduces 
spending but protects education; that leaves to another day fights over 
whether to repeal health care. We believe we shouldn't; the other side 
believes we should. Whether or not to defund planned parenthood. We 
believe we shouldn't; most of the other side believes that we should.
  Leave those discussions to another day and keep the government 
functioning, because the taxpayers will keep paying taxes even if there 
is a government shutdown. They pay even if they don't get the services.
  So what are we doing this afternoon? What we are doing this afternoon 
is looking at a bill that on its face is unconstitutional. And the 
reason we are looking at this bill is so that Members of the majority 
side, who probably won't vote for the budget compromise next week, can 
say they did something. Well, doing something that is unconstitutional 
is wrong.
  As Mr. Clyburn read, article I, section 7 says: ``Every bill which 
shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, 
before it become a law, be presented to the President.''

                              {time}  1330

  Article I, section 5 of the Constitution says, ``Each House may 
determine the rules of its proceedings.''
  ``Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.''
  What is wrong with this bill is that one House, our House, is 
determining the rules of the other House's, the Senate's, proceedings. 
You can't do that. It is a pretty simple concept.
  I have heard all the convoluted arguments on the other side. I have 
heard all the twisted rationalizations. It comes down to this: If this 
afternoon the Senate passed a budget that our friends on the majority 
side don't like and said, if our friends on the majority side don't 
pass that budget in a week it becomes law, they wouldn't agree to that, 
because they would know that it is unconstitutional. This is the same 
thing.
  It is ironic that with great fanfare on the first week of this 
session, after running a campaign saying they would produce jobs, what 
the majority produced was a reading of the Constitution on this floor. 
I thought it was appropriate. I thought it was actually moving and the 
right thing to do.

[[Page 4980]]

  The wrong thing to do is to ignore what we read the first week. 
``Each House may determine the rules of its proceeding.'' We can't 
determine the rules of proceeding for the Senate. They can't determine 
the rules of proceeding for us.
  This is a bad bill. Vote ``no.''
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend the gentlelady from Kansas (Ms. Jenkins).
  Ms. JENKINS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for 
yielding.
  Do you all remember the story about an old man of great faith whose 
town was about to be flooded? The town was being evacuated and the 
water was already covering the road. The old man sat on his porch 
calmly, unafraid. A car pulled up to the house, the water almost too 
deep to drive in. The driver yelled, ``Get in. We'll take you to 
safety.'' The old man shook his head and said, ``Go on. I have faith in 
God. He will save me.'' So the car moved on.
  A short time later, the water had risen so high that it covered the 
porch, so the old man simply went upstairs. A boat floated up to the 
house and the people yelled, ``Get in, we'll take you to safety.'' The 
old man said again, ``Go on. I have faith in God. He will save me.'' So 
the boat went on.
  Hours later, the water had risen so that it almost covered the entire 
house. The old man was now on his roof, when a rescue helicopter came 
by. They called, ``Get in. We'll take you to safety.'' But the old man 
refused, saying, ``Go on. I have faith in God. He will save me.'' So 
the helicopter left.
  So the water rose so high that the old man drowned. He went to 
heaven, of course, and when he arrived he asked God, ``I had faith in 
you to save me. Why didn't you?'' God answered, ``I sent you a car, a 
boat and a helicopter. What more do you want from me?''
  I hope my Democrat colleagues in the other Chamber and this President 
understand that this bill is their helicopter. You had a chance to 
propose and pass a budget for 2011 last year when you all had 
unfettered power in Washington. You have had over a month now to 
address H.R. 1, a bill that cut a mere $100 billion from our budget. 
Today we are giving you a third chance to avoid a government shutdown.
  Please grab onto this lifeline and work with us to prevent a 
government shutdown that could have international consequences. Vote 
``yes'' on H.R. 1255.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Owens).
  Mr. OWENS. Thank you, Mr. Clyburn.
  When I heard that this bill was coming forward, I had an opportunity 
to reflect on the fact that I have been having conversations with my 
constituents, and in each case I have posed to them how we are 
proceeding here in Congress and asked them if in fact they could accept 
a small across-the-board percentage decrease for FY 11. Invariably, 
each and every one said yes.
  I have been on record for many months as suggesting that we can solve 
this problem, walk away from the ideology that is dividing us and 
simply reduce spending by 2 percent, which I think, if one does the 
math, gets us to the position that our friends on the other side of the 
aisle would like us to adopt.
  It is clear to me after practicing law for more than 30 years, part 
of which was as a JAG officer in the United States Air Force, that 
clearly this is an unconstitutional piece of legislation and is nothing 
more than spinning in the wind.
  I had the opportunity the other day when I saw the makeup of this 
bill to write to the Speaker, Mr. Boehner, along with 27 other 
cosigners, and ask that S. 388 be separated from this legislation. This 
legislation is not moving forward, and if in fact we do see a 
government shutdown, we in Congress should share the pain. We have that 
responsibility, that obligation, and we must lead by example.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to 
one of my fellow freshmen, the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Griffin).
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I thank my good friend for yielding me time.
  Madam Speaker, I commend my fellow Member for introducing the 
Government Shutdown Prevention Act, and I strongly support its passage.
  I would like to say real quickly that what we have seen here in the 
last few minutes is a colossal waste of time. You had a bunch of folks 
saying, Madam Speaker, that this is unconstitutional. I just want to 
clarify so we can move past that and my colleagues can focus their 
arguments where it matters.
  We intend for this bill, like all other bills, to pass the House, to 
pass the Senate, and be signed by the President. I too am a JAG officer 
from the Army, and I think that the JAG officer, Madam Speaker, from 
the Air Force would understand that this is a constitutional bill, like 
the other bills that we introduce here.
  Now, why are we here today? Forty-one days ago this House passed a 
$100 billion spending cut from the President's 2011 budget. That bill 
kept the government operating. We did our job here. Now, there is 
another House down on the other side of the Capitol and we are here 
because they have refused to do their job. Forty-one days later, zero 
bills.
  We have heard some suggestions here today that maybe we ought to do 
across-the-board cuts. I suggest that if they have got any friends on 
the Senate side, that they go down there and see if they will propose a 
bill with some kind of cuts, because so far it is zero, zero bills from 
the Senate on this.
  Senator Harry Reid thinks our plan goes ``too far.'' We have heard a 
lot of people using the word ``extreme,'' because that is a scary word. 
Let me tell you, the only thing extreme around here is the national 
debt. Do you want to see extreme? That is extreme.
  Senator Harry Reid believes that shutting down the government is 
perfectly acceptable. In fact, we have seen with the pollsters and the 
pundits and Howard Dean and others that they want to shut down the 
government. Well, I don't want to shut down the government. I want to 
cut spending.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas. I don't want the government shut down. I 
want spending cut. I have a question of what a shutdown would do to our 
Armed Forces, the airmen and the soldiers in Arkansas that are in my 
district.
  Senator Reid has failed to come up with a credible plan of his own. 
They can't cut just a few billion dollars, even though we have a GAO 
report that indicates $100 billion to $200 billion could be saved by 
getting rid of duplicative programs. If the Senate is unwilling to make 
the small cuts, how in the world are we ever going to be able to make 
the bold decisions?
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the Democratic 
Leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

                              {time}  1340

  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for his 
leadership in this debate this afternoon. I have been listening to it 
very intently. I heard the debate on the rule this morning and then the 
debate this afternoon.
  Some questions have arisen. First, I want to state a fact. The fact 
is that every single one of us in this body as our first act raises our 
right hand to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. 
The bill that we have on the floor before us does violence to those 
provisions in the Constitution that describe how to pass a bill--not by 
one House deeming it, but, as our distinguished assistant leader, Mr. 
Clyburn, described his daughter's schoolchildren in her class could 
tell you that you pass one House, you pass another House, it's signed 
by the President. But that seems to be missed by the makers of this 
resolution today.
  Again, Mr. Clyburn talked about the constitutional authority to bring 
this bill to the floor. It's truly a mystery how you can take an oath 
of office to

[[Page 4981]]

defend the Constitution of the United States, bring a bill to the floor 
in violence of that, and justify it constitutionally.
  I've heard the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. 
Dreier, say that we have some visiting parliamentarians here who are 
watching this debate to see if Congress can get its job done. Please 
don't pay attention to this. What you see on the floor today is no 
example of democracy in action. It's silly. The Republican leadership 
is asking its members to make a silly vote. And it's time for us to 
stop that silliness and get serious about the creation of jobs, get 
serious about not shutting down government, abnegating our 
responsibilities and shutting down government.
  I've heard Mr. Hoyer earlier today talk about how we got here in 
terms of this budget deficit. We all know that we must reduce the 
deficit. That's why, during the Clinton years, as Mr. Hoyer said, we 
reversed the first Bush's deficit. We came out in a trajectory of 
fiscal responsibility, going into surplus. The last five Clinton 
budgets were in surplus or in balance. But because of tax cuts for the 
rich, two unpaid-for wars, and a prescription drug bill that gave away 
the store to the pharmaceutical industry, we came back into deficit--
the biggest swing in fiscal irresponsibility in our country's history. 
And now we've had to deal with that. And what's the answer that the 
Bush administration gave us? Tax cuts for the rich. That's how you 
create jobs. We didn't. That's how you reduce the deficit. We grew it.
  I think it's important when we're talking about the deficit--which we 
all agree must be cut--and we talk about jobs to note that in the first 
year of the Obama administration more jobs were created in the private 
sector than in the 8 years of the Bush administration. Tax cuts for the 
rich did not produce jobs. Cuts in initiatives to educate our people 
and keep us healthy and safe, those cuts did not create jobs.
  So here we are today, at the end of a week, wasting the public's time 
on a notion--not even an idea; on a notion--that does not rise to the 
level of a credible idea that one House can deem a bill the law of the 
land.
  I also heard on the floor of the House a call for Senator Reid, the 
leader in the Senate, to take up H.R. 1. He did. It failed. Not even 
the Republicans all voted for it in the United States Senate. Three 
Republican Senators voted against H.R. 1 in the Senate. Perhaps you 
don't know the date, but it did happen.
  It's stunning to hear this debate that talks about visiting 
parliamentarians seeing an example of good government in action. No. 
Wrong.
  So what could be the explanation for this? Mr. Clyburn suggested it 
could be April Fool's and at end of this debate the gentleman will 
withdraw the amendment, apologize for wasting the public's time, and 
say that this is only an April Fool's joke. Because that's the only 
thing that it complies with. It does not comply or conform with 
honoring the Constitution. It does not create jobs. It does not reduce 
the deficit, and it does not have the support of the Democrats in the 
House of Representatives.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to remind 
the gentlelady that Article I, section 7 says all bills for raising 
revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives. We failed to 
do that in the last Congress, and that's why the gentleman stands here 
today with this bill, proudly.
  With that, I yield 2 minutes to a very good freshman colleague, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Landry).
  Mr. LANDRY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia.
  Madam Speaker, when I was first elected, I declined my health care 
benefits because I don't believe we can fix a system we were not a part 
of. I declined my retirement benefits because our Social Security 
system is broken.
  I support this bill because if the American people have to endure a 
government shutdown which is the result of a failure of the Senate 
Democrats, then none of us, including the President, should expect the 
American people to continue our pay until we fix this budget mess. The 
funding for the Federal Government is 182 days old. Democrats on the 
Senate have failed to pass a budget for 182 days--182 days. That's an 
entire school year. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle: 
What would you think if your child's teacher did nothing for the entire 
school year?
  Our Constitution authorizes Congress to be the power of the purse. It 
is our job to set a responsible and affordable budget for the Federal 
Government each year. If we can't do our job, we should not be paid.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for the Democrats in the Senate to do their 
job.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I thank my good friend from South Carolina.
  David Frishberg wrote, in 1975, ``I'm Just a Bill.'' This has been 
utilized. I utilized it yesterday. My friend from Georgia (Mr. Woodall) 
utilized it again today. I shan't go into all of it, but I would 
encourage the American public to understand that my friends know how a 
bill becomes the law.
  H.R. 1, the measure that we have been talking about, really did pass 
the House of Representatives and it went over to the United States 
Senate and it was rejected. The President also said that he would veto 
H.R. 1 if it reached his desk. So what we're doing here is symbolism. 
My friends on the other side are entitled easily to message anything 
they wish to address their base, but don't bring it to the American 
public under the aegis of this is something serious. It is not. It is 
absurd. It is a complete waste of time. And, even more importantly, as 
has been said by many, and I believe everybody on the other side 
understands, it's unconstitutional.
  It also has not gone unnoticed that my friends who advocated rightly 
that there should be transparency, in addition to being transparency, 
that measures should be allowed to be read before they're utilized. The 
leadership of the House of Representatives held a press conference 
before any Member of the House of Representatives saw Mr. Womack and 
Mr. Woodall's bill. Knowing this, then, I guess what must be happening 
here is we are wasting our time on patently unconstitutional measures.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I won't go into all the details about the 
need to address jobs, but I do know this: Steny Hoyer said earlier what 
all of us in America know, and when we were children we celebrated a 
lot--a lot of us--and it was April Fool's. We played jokes on people. 
But, listen, the American people are not fools and they're not foolish 
enough to believe this absolutely foolish unconstitutional measure.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very proud to yield 30 
seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. We're here because the Democratic majority last year did 
not do their job, did not give us a budget, did not do proper 
appropriations, and now the Senate has had the same problem. So I 
applaud anybody's efforts in trying to move the ball down the road so 
that we can appropriate. I just wish the Senate would do their job now 
and take care of it. But for a bill to say provisions that pass the 
House are hereby enacted into law violates my conscience and the 
Constitution. I cannot vote for it.

                              {time}  1350

  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time I have 
left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from South Carolina has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Georgia has 11 minutes remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to yield 2 
minutes to one of my freshman colleagues,

[[Page 4982]]

the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Schweikert).
  Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank the gentleman for the time.
  It has been fascinating. I accept that I'm a freshman, and I know 
it's April Fool's Day, but it's been funny hearing the discussion about 
how this isn't constitutional.
  Now, let me see. I'll walk through this.
  It's a piece of legislation with a trigger mechanism in it. Okay. I 
know the other side does not like that trigger, but it still would 
require the Senate to pass it and the President to sign it. It was fun 
seeing something from my childhood, from the 1970s, of how a bill 
becomes a law. If I remember correctly, that's still how a bill becomes 
a law.
  The most important thing going on here is not the gamesmanship about, 
``Oh, it's April Fool's Day. Let's try to demagogue this piece of 
legislation.'' What's important here is that the American people know 
we're taking the job seriously and giving the Senate another chance to 
step up and do their job. We're sitting here--how many weeks after we 
passed H.R. 1?--and we're still doing this dance. At some point, the 
American people have to expect us to do our job. And if we don't do our 
job, not a single one of us here or in the administration or in the 
Senate deserves a paycheck.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
  Mr. ANDREWS. Madam Speaker, I think that we need to reiterate that we 
just had a very principled statement from the gentleman from Texas, and 
I think we have a chance to rise above the normal partisanship.
  The gentleman from Texas on the majority side just said he agrees 
with the proposition that the bill is unconstitutional, and I would 
urge Members, Madam Speaker, to listen to that example of principle. We 
don't agree on all things, but we should all rise to honor our oath of 
office and to oppose this bill based purely upon constitutional 
grounds.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to a good 
friend and mentor, the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Broun.
  Mr. BROUN of Georgia. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, when a patient is bleeding to death on an operating 
table, we as doctors do everything that we can to save that patient's 
life. We don't just walk away, and we certainly don't call it quits. 
Well, that's what the Democrats want to do. They want to call it quits 
on our spending crisis, and the worst part is that they're doing it for 
their own political gains.
  Democrats in Congress are intentionally plotting this government 
shutdown, and they hatched their plan months ago, I believe. If they'd 
wanted to, Democrats could have passed a long-term continuing 
resolution during the lame duck session without making any spending 
cuts at all. Instead, they passed a short-term spending bill so that 
they could play the shutdown card right now.
  The Democrats' political game of wedging conservatives between 
unacceptable cuts and a government shutdown is an insult to the gravity 
of the problem. It's an insult to American families who are struggling 
to make ends meet. It's an insult to all of the American people who are 
out of work, and it's an insult to us--to the Members of Congress who 
are serious about trying to put this country on a road to economic 
recovery.
  It's pitiful that the Democrats have wasted so much time stalling 
over these minimal cuts in their own self-interest while our country is 
financially bleeding to death. We should be focused on trying to revive 
our economy rather than bickering about $61 billion when we already 
borrow almost $60 billion per week.
  Madam Speaker, since the Democrats refuse to stop their political 
games and get to work, those over in the Senate particularly, I urge my 
colleagues to pass the Government Shutdown Prevention Act so that we 
can do our jobs and start trying to heal our economy and create jobs in 
America.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).
  Mr. WELCH. I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, there is no stronger supporter of H.R. 1 than Mr. 
Gohmert from Texas, and he made a very simple, very elegant, very 
eloquent statement of principle about adhering to the Constitution.
  This legislation has to be interpreted by its own words, not by what 
people say is in it. What it explicitly says is that, if the House has 
not received a message from the Senate before April 6 stating that it 
has passed a measure providing for the appropriation for the 
departments and agencies of government for the remainder of the fiscal 
year--and this is the language of your legislation--the provisions of 
H.R. 1, as passed by law on February 19, 2011, are hereby enacted into 
law.
  That's absurd. It's a pretend bill that says, if the House acts and 
the Senate doesn't, our action becomes law. It's absurd. It says, if 
the House acts and if the Senate doesn't and if the President doesn't 
sign this piece of legislation, it's law. That's the document that 
you've presented to this body to vote on.
  Now, Mr. Gohmert took the higher road here. Instead of taking out his 
frustration with the United States Senate at the expense of the 
Constitution, he stood up for the Constitution. That's what each and 
every one of us has the opportunity to do. All of us have had 
frustration with the other body because they sit on bills and kill 
them. In the eyes of the beholder, it's a good or bad bill, but it does 
not entitle us to essentially pretend that the Constitution doesn't 
apply to the legislation that we have to consider.
  Also, if we have the political and practical problem of moving ahead 
on a piece of legislation in the House, is it right for us, in effect, 
to mislead the people who sent us here by suggesting that we're passing 
a law that has any impact when we know it has absolutely no impact? Is 
that a fair, appropriate or honorable thing for a Democrat or a 
Republican to do?
  I urge us to vote ``no'' on this legislation.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to answer my 
friend from Vermont's question, which is that it is not an appropriate 
thing to mislead the American people, so I'll just read one more time:
  Having passed the House, having passed the Senate, and be signed by 
the President.
  That's the regular order.
  I'll say to my friend that I'm sorry we didn't have time to finish 
our discussion yesterday in the Rules Committee. I really am sorry that 
we were called away by votes.
  With that, I would like to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend, a 
freshman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Barletta).
  Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you.
  Madam Speaker, I came here to be a responsible Representative and to 
fight for my constituents. I didn't come here to shut down the 
government. My district has the highest unemployment in the State. 
People are hurting. They look at the reckless spending in Washington, 
and they get angry. It's just this simple: They don't spend money they 
don't have. So why does Washington?
  This bill prevents Members of Congress and the President from getting 
paid if the government shuts down. I get it. The American people get 
it. Why doesn't Washington get it? It's something any business owner or 
logical individual anywhere in America can understand: If you don't 
work, you don't get paid.
  Maybe this just makes too much sense for Washington.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. My friends, I think one of the truly edifying experiences 
we had in the opening days of Congress was that we read the 
Constitution, and I think one of us had the great good fortune to read 
article I, section 7: ``Every bill which shall have passed the House of 
Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be

[[Page 4983]]

presented to the President of the United States.'' That's how a bill 
becomes a law.
  Now, this is how Eric Cantor on 3/30/2011 said a bill becomes a law: 
``The Senate's gotta''--this is just a transcription. I didn't do that. 
I just assume it's a Southern thing. ``The Senate's gotta act prior to 
the expiration of the CR. If it does not act,'' meaning if the Senate 
does not do something, ``H.R. 1 becomes the law of the land.''

                              {time}  1400

  That's not true. That's not constitutional. That's not fitting of 
this body.
  Now, it is, however, consistent with how the majority party has been 
governing around here. They've passed rules that they have ignored. For 
example, on January 5, they had members of their caucus take the oath 
in front of a television set. On February 9, they failed to provide 
constitutional authority for a bill despite that it was one of their 
rules. On March 13, they failed to get a three-fifths majority for 
passage of a bill that raised tax rates, despite the fact that it was 
part of the rules. On March 17, they failed to make a bill available 
within 72 hours, despite the fact that it was part of the rules. And 
just March 30, they failed to include an offset for a new government 
program.
  The rules are not a big thing for them to follow because this is why 
it's hard. It's a big book. So I brought you this, ``House Mouse, 
Senate Mouse,'' which is sold in the gift shop to teach children how to 
understand the Constitution, and permit me to read:
  ``It's the floor of each Chamber of the Senate and House where each 
Senator and each Congress mouse gets to vote on the bill, and if enough 
do, if enough do, this President signs it if he likes to.''
  Well, the Senate mice haven't passed this yet. Perhaps if these were 
the rules that the Republicans had to follow--it's a much thinner book 
and it rhymes--maybe you'd get it right, but this is not the 
Constitution.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will remind all persons in the 
gallery that they are here as guests of the House and that any 
manifestation of approval or disapproval of proceedings is in violation 
of the rules of the House.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and 
I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Madam Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 6\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from South Carolina has 2 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. CLYBURN. Who has the right to close?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has the right to 
close.
  Mr. CLYBURN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I have often referred to this palatial Hall as our 
Nation's classroom. It is the reason I feel that we should not just 
stand here to enunciate precepts; but as elected leaders, we ought to 
lead by example. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think it's important for 
us, when we bring legislation to this floor, that we demonstrate to 
those young children in classrooms all across America that we will not 
fly in the face of that Constitution that all of us have sworn to 
uphold.
  I believe that it's a good thing to want to move a measure, but we 
ought not do so while violating the Constitution of the United States. 
And I think it's a good reason that the Senate rejected H.R. 1, because 
all of the economists who evaluated that piece of legislation made it 
very clear that, to them, it would destroy 700,000 jobs. That bill, 
H.R. 1, is a job-killer. Also, that bill, H.R. 1, will say to little 
preschool children in Head Start, we are terminating your educational 
experience by at least 200,000 so you would no longer have an 
educational experience.
  Madam Speaker, I think it's laudatory for us to put our hands on the 
Constitution, swear to uphold it; but I think that what is most 
important is for each and every one of us to lead by example instead of 
enunciating precepts or empty gestures.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We have had a lot of talk on the floor today about children. We've 
been reading children's stories and been shown children's books. I've 
been harkened back to my own childhood in the 1970s and ``Schoolhouse 
Rock''; and for folks who have not seen the ``Schoolhouse Rock,'' 
there's an entire DVD now. It's advanced. I recommend that you pick a 
copy up for the young people in your life because it really is a 
fantastic beginning step about what it is that we're all about here, 
what it is that we're all about.
  The Preamble is in that ``Schoolhouse Rock'' category. No more kings 
is in that ``Schoolhouse Rock'' category. And what they talk about is 
what does it mean for us to be Americans; and what it means is that 
folks elect their Representatives and they send them to Washington, 
D.C., and they say get your business done, get your business done. 
That's what we're trying to do with this resolution here today, get our 
business done.
  I just want to read from the bill. It saddens me. I'm so thrilled 
that so many Americans watch what we do here on the House floor to hold 
us accountable, and I'm so saddened by all the misinformation that's 
circulated. I read here directly from the bill:
  ``If the House has not received a message from the Senate before 
April 6, 2011, stating that it has passed a measure providing for the 
appropriations for the Departments and agencies of the Government for 
the remainder of fiscal year 2011, the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed 
by the House, are hereby enacted into law.''
  This bill that we send to the Senate, for the Senate to pass, and the 
President to sign, those provisions are hereby enacted into law. Now, I 
just want to study that a little bit closer. If the House has not 
received a message from the Senate stating that the Senate has passed a 
measure providing for the appropriations of the United States 
Government.
  Folks may be wondering, Madam Speaker, why is it that we're doing 
that now? Wasn't that supposed to be done last September? Yes, it was. 
It didn't get done. Should that have gotten done last December? Yes, it 
should have, but it didn't get done. So we're here today to get it 
done.
  Forty-one days ago we passed a bill to fund the government. This 
entire body worked its will in a process that was as open as this House 
has ever seen: Democrats and Republicans working together, Republicans 
winning amendments, Democrats winning amendments, Democrats losing 
amendments, Republicans losing amendments. It made me proud to be a 
Representative and to serve in this body. It was the best work product 
this House could put together. We sent it over to the Senate 41 days 
ago. The Senate defeated it, fair enough. Folks don't have to agree 
with me. Fair enough. What they do have to do is they have to act. They 
defeated our bill, H.R. 1. They defeated a Democrat bill. Then they've 
done nothing.
  I got a call earlier today. I held up a board just like this talking 
about what the Senate had done. Well, there's nothing on this sheet of 
paper, folks. Golly, you held up the wrong sign. The answer is, no, 
it's the right sign. Nothing, nothing have we received from the United 
States Senate. It's the same on both sides, blank. How in the world are 
we supposed to fund this government with nothing from the United States 
Senate?
  This bill does two things and two things only, Madam Speaker. It 
says, Senate act. You don't have to act like us, act like Democrats, 
just act. Act. Do something, send us something, begin the process, make 
it available. Act.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia has 3\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.

[[Page 4984]]


  Mr. WOODALL. In that case, I would be delighted to yield to the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just have a question. Do you really 
believe that what you're doing is constitutional?
  Mr. WOODALL. Absolutely. I appreciate your asking. I appreciate your 
asking because having had my motives impugned throughout the day, and I 
know with the collegial relationship that you and I have in the Rules 
Committee, you know for a fact I wouldn't be here otherwise. I wouldn't 
be here otherwise.
  Now, I'm no scholar of House activities. I know we have passed bills 
in this House that have incorporated things by reference before, and 
I'm sure we will do it again, not outside the process. To suggest--and 
you appreciate this, I say to my friend from Florida--to receive 
constitutional instruction from the team that brought us ObamaCare is 
troubling at the most basic levels.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Will the gentleman yield again for yet 
another question?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Do you have any precedent for the 
constitutionality of this particular measure? And I urge you based on 
what you just said, there have been measures that were deemed, but that 
was when they were agreed upon, but there is no authority anywhere for 
us to pass a law requiring of the United States Senate to undertake to 
do something, and I appreciate my colleague yielding.

                              {time}  1410

  Mr. WOODALL. Reclaiming my time, I will say that this is a unique 
procedure and these are unique times.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Unique and unconstitutional.
  Mr. WOODALL. But I will just say to you that in 1999, a Republican 
Congress, a Democratic President, enacted the foreign relations 
authorization bill, by reference, in an appropriations bill. That's 
what we're doing today.
  Folks, if you don't like it, call your Senate colleagues and get them 
to act. This is where we need to be. We need action from the Senate. 
Call your Senate colleagues. I've called them. I need you to call them, 
too. We need to move this ball forward.
  If the government shuts down, our military men and women don't get 
paid, Madam Speaker. If the government shuts down, our USDA inspectors 
go home and beef and chicken leave our shelves in the grocery stores. 
This isn't play time, going back to our children references. This is 
serious business. Folks sent us here to do serious things.
  And I could not be happier, Madam Speaker, then, for the second 
provision in this bill to say if you don't work, you don't get paid. 
It's a basic premise in this Republic, no pay for no work. I'm very 
proud of the work that we have done, and I implore my colleagues to 
contact their Senators and get them to do something. Something.
  This is what we have from the Senate so far, Madam Speaker. We 
deserve better. The American people deserve better. And, dadgum it, the 
Senate can do better.
  Ms. JACKSON LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to H.R. 1255, the ``Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.''
  As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I reject H.R. 1255 on 
its face. H.R. 1255 seeks to commit a multitude of constitutional law 
violations and set aside the U.S. Constitution on a wholesale level. 
The Constitution is the veritable law of the land that we all took an 
oath to uphold. H.R. 1255 is an unfounded attempt to use the non-
statutory ``deeming resolution'' or ``deem and pass'' procedure to 
unconstitutionally achieve the $61 billion in budget cuts that the 
Majority of this chamber failed to get passed in the Senate in the form 
of H.R. 1.
  This legislation unconstitutionally states that if the House has not 
received any message from the Senate providing for the Appropriations 
of Government for fiscal year 2011 before April 6, 2011, then H.R. 1 
would be deemed as passed by the Senate, signed by the President and 
enacted into law.
  H.R. 1255 also prohibits the CAO of the House and the Secretary of 
the Senate from disbursing salary payments for Members of Congress, and 
also prohibits the President from receiving his salary. It states that 
the President and Members cannot be disbursed a salary for every day 
that there is a lapse in appropriations, or if the debt ceiling 
prevents Federal expenditures. However, because H.R. 1255 already would 
deem H.R. 1 passed, no funding gap could exist, while hitting the debt 
ceiling would by definition prevent Federal expenditures like Member 
salaries.
  This legislation would have absolutely no practical effect. Since the 
Senate would have to pass it and President would have to sign it, this 
bill is nothing but a talking point for the Tea Party wing of the 
Republicans. This bill would not have any effect on current, serious 
negotiations to keep the government operating. The Member Salary 
portion of the bill would also have no effect since H.R. 1255 already 
would deem H.R. 1 passed.
  This legislation is unconstitutional. The Majority would make history 
by deeming that the Senate passed a bill which was considered on the 
Senate floor and failed. The Majority would also make history by 
deeming that the President would have signed a bill which he promised 
to veto, should it reach his desk. After opening Congress with a 
reading of the Constitution, the Republicans are breaking their pledge 
again.
  This legislation exposes extraordinary hypocrisy from the House 
Republican Leadership. In the 111th Congress, while Republicans 
promised never to use the ``deem and pass'' process, it only took a few 
weeks for them to break another pledge to the American people. During 
the 111th Congress, then-Minority Leader and now-Speaker John Boehner 
called deem and pass a ``scheme and plot'' that set a precedent that 
was ``one of the most outrageous things [he] had seen since [he] had 
been in Congress''--and, erroneously claimed it had ``never happened in 
American history.'' Now-Majority Leader Eric Cantor has previously 
offered a privileged resolution on `deem and pass' putting Republicans 
on record as considering this process a ``malfeasant manner'' and those 
who might support it as having ``discharged the duties of their 
offices.''
  This legislation is a waste of the American people's time and a 
distraction from Democrats' serious efforts to keep the government from 
shutting down. Instead of passing this hypocritical, unconstitutional, 
meaningless bill, the GOP Leadership ought to spend more time at the 
negotiating table trying to reach a compromise agreement to keep the 
Government running.
  I am an ardent supporter of working in a bipartisan manner to pass 
fiscally responsible legislation which properly funds the Federal 
Government through fiscal year 2011 and maintains important programs 
that are vital to our economic recovery. So, I urge my colleagues to 
join me in opposing this bill and supporting true bipartisan 
appropriations legislation to keep the Federal Government operational 
through fiscal year 2011, so that we may address and solve the 
important issues facing the American people.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam Speaker, generations of our nation's children 
have learned about civics and our American form of government in 
elementary school--and through iconic television programs like PBS' 
Schoolhouse Rock, where a singing Bill explains to his youthful 
audience the process by which, if he's lucky, he can become a law.
  To this day, countless Americans still recall how the hopeful Bill 
gets stuck in committee before making it to the House floor, then has 
to start all over again in the Senate and even get signed by the 
President before finally becoming a law.
  Today, the Republican majority wants to defund public television and 
pass legislation saying that an action taken by a single chamber of 
Congress can become law.
  Our old friend Bill is distraught. After all these years, was he just 
getting a runaround? Were those pesky steps in the Senate and the White 
House really necessary? What is he going to tell the kids? How could he 
possibly have gotten it so wrong?
  Madam Speaker, fortunately for us, and for the school children of 
America, Bill did not have it wrong. Article I, Section 7 of the 
Constitution clearly states: ``Every Bill which shall have passed the 
House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, 
be presented to the President of the United States.''
  Madam Speaker, the clock is ticking. The nation is waiting. The time 
for gimmicks and distractions and game playing is over. We have serious 
work to do. Let's move past this foolishness and negotiate a 
responsible continuing resolution for the American people.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I would like to 
submit the following letter:


[[Page 4985]]


                                         House of Representatives,


                            Committee on House Administration,

                                   Washington, DC, March 31, 2011.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker of the House, U.S. House of Representatives, The 
         Capitol, Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: I write to formally notify you that 
     the Committee on House Administration hereby waives further 
     committee consideration of H.R. 1255, the Government Shutdown 
     Prevention Act of 2011, in order that the legislation may 
     proceed expeditiously to the House floor for consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                Daniel E. Lungren,
                                                         Chairman.

  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, either this is April Fool's Day or the 
Republicans are trying to fool the House of Representatives and the 
country by attempting to pass this legislation.
  There is no truth in labeling whatsoever in H.R. 1255, the 
``Government Shutdown Prevention Act of 2011.'' It will prevent no such 
thing. It will accomplish no such thing.
  Section 2 of the bill says that if the House has not received a 
message from the Senate stating, by next Wednesday, April 6, that the 
Senate has passed a spending bill for the balance of this fiscal year, 
then ``the provisions of H.R. 1, as passed by the House on February 19, 
2011, are hereby enacted into law.''
  Who are the authors of this bill kidding?
  The House passed H.R. 1. It lies defeated on the Senate floor, 
unloved and unwanted.
  The Senate voted against H.R. 1, 44-56. It did not even get 50 votes, 
much less 60.
  So what, exactly, is the point of this exercise today? It is 
obviously not to enact H.R. 1, because that is futile.
  With the vote on this bill today, we will in effect be passing H.R. 1 
a second time.
  This is getting to be a pattern. Instead of finding bipartisan 
solutions to our pressing national problems, this Republican House 
seems stuck on a pointless partisan treadmill.
  H.R. 1 contained five amendments to defund the Affordable Care Act.
  Yesterday, the Energy and Commerce Committee passed five bills to 
remove funding for public health and doctor training programs under the 
Affordable Care Act.
  The majority passed 9 amendments in H.R. 1 that stop EPA from 
implementing climate change and pollution rules. And next week, we will 
vote on another bill doing the same thing.
  The majority passed an amendment to H.R. 1 that keeps the American 
people from the benefits of an open and free Internet. Next week, we 
will pass this again.
  The majority defunded all of public broadcasting in H.R. 1, and then 
defunded NPR on the House floor a couple weeks later.
  On this April Fool's Day, do you want to know the truth about all 
this frantic legislative activity?
  After three months on the job, we have not created one job--because 
of one simple fact.
  In three months, the Republican leadership has not passed one major 
bill of any consequence that has been enacted into law.
  That is the simple truth. They have failed to enact anything of 
consequence.
  And so with that shameful record, they come to the floor today with 
an illusion, a joke, a diversion, a cover-up for their failure.
  The Republicans have the votes to pass a bill that says their 
spending cuts and ideological amendments are hereby enacted if we pass 
this bill.
  But we are not enacting this bill, because under Article I, Section 7 
of the Constitution of the United States, this bill has to go to the 
Senate and be passed in identical form and then signed by the 
President.
  Madam Speaker, this is April Fool's Day, and this is a bill for 
fools.
  But the American people will not be fooled.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Madam Speaker, what holiday is this, again? Is it April 
Fool's--or is it Groundhog Day?
  This bill, whether it's labeled H.R. 1 or H.R. 1255, is a distinct 
attack on the quality of life for women and their families in this 
country.
  While the proposed cuts would be devastating to Americans as a whole, 
this bill would change the daily lives of women for the worse--and 
American women should understand.
  Yet the Majority insists on ignoring the Constitution in order to 
ravage programs and policies that disproportionately impact women.
  Today, I released a report documenting how this bill impacts women 
from birth to old age, every single step of the way.
  The report shows that this bill cuts industries that 
disproportionately employ women and attacks programs that women depend 
on, such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
  This bill zeros out Title X funding, so that obtaining primary care 
and preventive screenings becomes far more difficult for many women.
  This bill cuts childcare programs and afterschool programs so that 
women are forced to choose between working--and supporting their 
families--or providing child care at home.
  We cannot stand by as this Majority attacks women from all sides.
  We must fight against this assault on American women and their 
families.
  I voted no on H.R. 1, and I urge a no vote ``on'' H.R. 1255.
  Mr. WOODALL. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 194, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


                           Motion to Recommit

  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at 
the desk.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. I am.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Walz of Minnesota moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1255 
     to the Committee on House Administration with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON PAY DURING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN.

       (a) In General.--Members of Congress and the President 
     shall not receive basic pay for any period in which--
       (1) there is more than a 24-hour lapse in appropriations 
     for any Federal agency or department as a result of a failure 
     to enact a regular appropriations bill or continuing 
     resolution; or
       (2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or 
     meet obligations because the public debt limit under section 
     3101 of title 31, United States Code, has been reached.
       (b) Retroactive Pay Prohibited.--No pay forfeited in 
     accordance with subsection (a) may be paid retroactively.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Minnesota is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  To stand here in this hallowed place as a Representative, as all of 
my colleagues, all 435 of us, the incredible privilege and honor to 
represent the hardworking Americans across this country. In southern 
Minnesota, the chance to see genuine folks out working hard, doing the 
things that they built this country and made us the greatest nation on 
Earth, and one of those things is a very basic premise, the American 
work ethic. The idea that you should work hard and do your best and be 
compensated at the end of the day and feel good and a sense of 
accomplishment in what you did.
  We have an opportunity. The American people did send us here, as you 
heard on both sides of the aisle, to do a very simple thing--to get the 
work done and move this country forward. The debate is that there are 
differences in how to do that. That's the strength of this land. It's 
democracy. But there is one very strong principle that we can 
reinforce, that work ethic, that if you do not get your job done, you 
certainly should not be paid. No middle of the night, no if it passes 
and goes this way. Very simply, the easiest of things to do: If this 
Congress after being here 4 months--and I don't care where you put the 
blame--can't get this done by next week and the government shuts down, 
there will be no chance of a single paycheck going and no retroactive 
pay. That's the least we owe those hardworking folks. That's the least 
that we can do here.
  I want to be very clear. I understand the majority is having a 
problem. They've got a debate happening inside their caucus if 
compromise is a virtue or a vice. They will work that out and decide, 
because that's what this debate today was about: Where do we compromise 
for the good of the American public? I come down on the side of 
compromise.
  But with that being said, if we don't get our work done--and I will 
do everything in my power to ensure we do not

[[Page 4986]]

shut this government down--the repercussions are catastrophic for 
Americans, and not just macroeconomically. Our seniors aren't going to 
get their checks. We're going to see medical care slowed down to our 
veterans. We're going to hear from and we have heard from our military 
commanders that it stresses the readiness of this nation. Our Federal 
workers and even the hardworking staff here will not receive a 
paycheck.
  How do you go home, to Georgia, to Alabama, to Minnesota, look 
somebody in the eye and say, We failed because we bickered again but, 
dang, I'm going to take home that check.
  So I tell my colleagues, especially the new Members, if you're a 
freshman in here, you came with an optimism that should not be able to 
be beaten out of you. Regardless if you disagree with us with every 
fiber of your being, the very simple principle that if we can't get 
this done, let's put skin in the game. No if it goes to the Senate and 
gets passed; no if it's not constitutional.
  I offer you the rarest of opportunities today, the first time you've 
had this chance. If you vote ``yes'' on this motion to recommit, it 
goes to the President today and becomes law of the land, and no one 
here will be paid. You can look your constituents in the eye and 
whoever you blame for it, you can say, I'm not getting a paycheck till 
we fix this.
  So I want to be very clear. This is an opportunity, a rare 
opportunity. You can vote however you want and decide however you want 
to balance the budget, but do not allow to play games. It is the bright 
lights of day, the board is going to come up, and you're going to have 
the opportunity. Not what's in the underlying bill. That doesn't stop 
from retroactive pay. And that has to pass the Senate. Mitch McConnell 
and every Republican already voted for my motion to recommit. So you 
have the chance to say, all right, I disagree with the Democrats on 
everything in this bill, but I'm not going to go back to Georgia and 
tell someone I'm picking up a paycheck and then trying to explain, but 
I voted for it really, but it was a motion to recommit that I didn't 
agree with and all of this. Nothing. Simple. Seventy-five words. Half 
page. Don't do your job, don't get paid. No work, no pay. It is very, 
very simple.
  I yield to my colleague from Virginia.
  Mr. MORAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  So the point is the law as it stands today is, we shut the government 
down, a million Federal employees don't get paid, our staff doesn't get 
paid, but we get paid. All the gentleman wants to say is treat 
ourselves like we would treat others. If our staff is going to be out 
on the street, we ought to be out there with them.
  The other point the gentleman makes is, if we vote for this 
recommittal, the Senate has already approved it, and it goes right to 
the President. It gets signed into law. We've done something 
constructive. The alternative is to send something over to the Senate 
and the Senate's going to laugh at it. You know this H.R. 1255 isn't 
going to get passed. This would be passed. This becomes law. It's the 
right thing to do.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Here's your rare opportunity. If you don't do 
this and you say, ``But I'm going to vote for the underlying bill,'' 
the gentleman from Georgia said himself, Mr. Woodall, that it would 
probably not pass the Senate. This is done. There's no more going 
anywhere. It's going to be done.
  I know optimism abounds on April 1. I believe today the Twins are 
going to win the World Series. I believe that in all my heart. But I 
wouldn't take the bet or the chance on it. If you want to go back to 
each of your congressional districts and say, I stand with you to do 
what's right on the American work ethic. If we don't get done next 
week, we don't get paid.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks 
to the Chair.
  Mr. WOODALL. I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, Madam 
Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia is recognized for 
5 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I don't know where to begin. The misrepresentation, 
after misrepresentation, after misrepresentation. I don't impugn 
anyone's motives. I admire the passion. But if you really believe with 
no work, no pay--and I wish we still had that board up there--if you 
really believe it, all this time we've been spending talking about the 
Constitution, don't you think we ought to do that in a constitutional 
way?
  I do. Because if we say it, we ought to mean it, and we ought to 
stand by our conviction.
  Madam Speaker, to speak to these constitutional issues, I now yield 
to my chairman, the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding.
  I heard the eloquent plea of our friends from the other side of the 
aisle. Let me just read to you a message I received from the White 
House about this bill, with the words that the gentleman has presented 
on the floor.

                              {time}  1420

  ``Unfortunately, S.B. 388''--which are the words the gentleman puts 
in his motion to recommit--``is patently unconstitutional, both as 
applied to Congress in violation of the 27th Amendment and to the 
President in violation of the compensation clause of Article II.''
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. No, I will not yield.
  So if one wants to, by this bill, have some pressure exerted on the 
House, the Senate, and the President, it would be in the language 
closer to that that's contained in the underlying bill----
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia controls the 
time.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Upon which you can make an 
argument it is constitutional because it does not vary the pay given to 
either the President or the Congress, which----
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Will the gentleman from Georgia yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. I would like to let my chairman finish.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, I believe regular 
order is to not interrupt one at the time that they are making the 
argument. Maybe it is because it is difficult to hear the words of the 
White House about the unconstitutionality of that which the gentleman 
brings to the floor.
  If anyone wants us to act in vain, it is the gentleman on the other 
side who has presented this motion to recommit because it is, under any 
view, any view, unconstitutional. It violates the very terms of the 
Constitution with respect to the President and with respect to Members 
of Congress. So if you want to exert any influence on Members, if you 
believe this is the way to do it, you would accept the language that's 
in the underlying bill which does not attack directly the words of the 
Constitution.
  I do not find it funny. I find it tragic that on this floor--we just 
heard the great arguments from the other side of the aisle about 
observing the Constitution. And then they come to the floor and give us 
something which the White House says in its email to me is ``patently 
unconstitutional,'' not may be unconstitutional, not perhaps 
unconstitutional, not arguably unconstitutional, but ``patently 
unconstitutional.''
  So the gentleman has presented us the kind of, I guess, shell game we 
talk about where it looks good when it's presented to you but, by 
sleight of hand, it makes sure that it has no impact whatsoever.
  The gentleman says, well, it will go right to the President. That is 
not true. This is not the bill sent over to us. It's the same language, 
so it does not go right to the President, number one. Number two, 
unless the President is sending me misinformation via his

[[Page 4987]]

messenger, the President's position is it's patently unconstitutional. 
The DOJ's position, his Department of Justice says that it is patently 
unconstitutional.
  So I guess the gentleman is arguing to us, send it to the President 
so that he may commit a patently unconstitutional act.
  Now, I may have disagreements with the President, but I have no 
evidence whatsoever that the President is waiting with bated breath 
over at the White House for us to send something to him so that he can 
do an unconstitutional act. Perhaps the gentleman believes that is the 
position he wants to put the President in. And even though I have great 
disagreement with this President, frankly, I don't think that is an 
appropriate thing to do.
  So I would argue to my colleagues, reject this unanimously, because 
it is really something which doesn't pass the truth in labeling act; 
and more than that, it violates the Constitution on its very words. 
It's almost an attempt to directly violate the Constitution. You 
couldn't have written it better to violate the Constitution, but 
somehow the gentleman has achieved that high honor.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I would say that I may be a freshman, but 
I know it cannot be said any better than that.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WALZ of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and 
nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 188, 
nays 237, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 223]

                               YEAS--188

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--237

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Amash
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Chaffetz
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais
     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Farenthold
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Gonzalez
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Hanna
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McClintock
     McCotter
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paul
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe (TX)
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Ribble
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Miller, George
     Smith (WA)
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1448

  Messrs. BARROW, ROTHMAN of New Jersey, BLUMENAUER, NADLER, Ms. 
RICHARDSON, Messrs. PASCRELL, MEEKS, RUSH, and Ms. KAPTUR changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. WOODALL. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 221, 
noes 202, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 224]

                               AYES--221

     Adams
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Austria
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Barletta
     Bartlett
     Bass (NH)
     Benishek
     Berg
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Black
     Blackburn
     Bonner
     Bono Mack
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brooks
     Broun (GA)
     Buchanan
     Bucshon
     Buerkle
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp
     Canseco
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Cassidy
     Chabot
     Coble
     Coffman (CO)
     Cole
     Conaway
     Cravaack
     Crawford
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Denham
     Dent
     DesJarlais

[[Page 4988]]


     Diaz-Balart
     Dold
     Dreier
     Duffy
     Duncan (SC)
     Duncan (TN)
     Ellmers
     Emerson
     Fincher
     Fitzpatrick
     Flake
     Fleischmann
     Fleming
     Flores
     Forbes
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gardner
     Garrett
     Gerlach
     Gibbs
     Gibson
     Gingrey (GA)
     Goodlatte
     Gosar
     Gowdy
     Granger
     Graves (GA)
     Graves (MO)
     Griffin (AR)
     Griffith (VA)
     Grimm
     Guinta
     Guthrie
     Hall
     Harper
     Harris
     Hartzler
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Heck
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herrera Beutler
     Huelskamp
     Huizenga (MI)
     Hultgren
     Hunter
     Hurt
     Issa
     Jenkins
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson (OH)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Kelly
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kinzinger (IL)
     Kline
     Labrador
     Lamborn
     Lance
     Landry
     Lankford
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Latta
     Lewis (CA)
     LoBiondo
     Long
     Lucas
     Luetkemeyer
     Lummis
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marino
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul
     McHenry
     McKeon
     McKinley
     McMorris Rodgers
     Meehan
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mulvaney
     Murphy (PA)
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Noem
     Nugent
     Nunes
     Nunnelee
     Olson
     Palazzo
     Paulsen
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pompeo
     Posey
     Price (GA)
     Quayle
     Reed
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renacci
     Rigell
     Rivera
     Roby
     Roe (TN)
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rokita
     Rooney
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross (FL)
     Royce
     Runyan
     Ryan (WI)
     Scalise
     Schilling
     Schmidt
     Schock
     Schweikert
     Scott (SC)
     Scott, Austin
     Sessions
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Southerland
     Stearns
     Stivers
     Stutzman
     Sullivan
     Terry
     Thompson (PA)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tipton
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden
     Walsh (IL)
     Webster
     West
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (SC)
     Wittman
     Wolf
     Womack
     Woodall
     Yoder
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)
     Young (IN)

                               NOES--202

     Ackerman
     Altmire
     Amash
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bass (CA)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown (FL)
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson (IN)
     Castor (FL)
     Chaffetz
     Chandler
     Chu
     Cicilline
     Clarke (MI)
     Clarke (NY)
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Connolly (VA)
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Critz
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly (IN)
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Fudge
     Garamendi
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hanabusa
     Hanna
     Hastings (FL)
     Heinrich
     Higgins
     Himes
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson Lee (TX)
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones
     Kaptur
     Keating
     Kildee
     Kind
     Kissell
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee (CA)
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lujan
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McClintock
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     Meeks
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran
     Murphy (CT)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor (AZ)
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peters
     Peterson
     Pingree (ME)
     Poe (TX)
     Polis
     Price (NC)
     Quigley
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Ribble
     Richardson
     Richmond
     Rohrabacher
     Ross (AR)
     Rothman (NJ)
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrader
     Schwartz
     Scott (VA)
     Scott, David
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sewell
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Slaughter
     Speier
     Stark
     Sutton
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Tonko
     Towns
     Tsongas
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch
     Wilson (FL)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Yarmuth

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Farenthold
       

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Barton (TX)
     Campbell
     Frelinghuysen
     Giffords
     Green, Gene
     Miller, George
     Smith (WA)
     Visclosky

                              {time}  1455

  Mr. WU changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 224, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``no.''

                          ____________________