[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15426-15436]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 89, EXCEPTED EMPLOYEES' PAY 
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014; PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
 OF H.R. 3273, DEFICIT REDUCTION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH WORKING GROUP ACT 
   OF 2013; AND PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.J. RES. 90, FEDERAL 
   AVIATION ADMINISTRATION CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS RESOLUTION, 2014

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 373 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 373

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 89) making appropriations for the salaries and related 
     expenses of certain Federal employees during a lapse in 
     funding authority for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       Sec. 2.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3273) to 
     establish a bicameral working group on deficit reduction and 
     economic growth. All points of order against consideration of 
     the bill are waived. The bill shall be considered as read. 
     All points of order against provisions in the bill are 
     waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered 
     on the bill and on any amendment thereto to final passage 
     without intervening motion except: (1) 40 minutes of debate 
     equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Rules; and (2) one motion 
     to recommit.
       Sec. 3. (a) In the engrossment of H.J. Res. 89, the Clerk 
     shall--
       (1) add the text of H.R. 3273, as passed by the House, as 
     new matter at the end of H.J. Res. 89;
       (2) conform the title of H.J. Res. 89 to reflect the 
     addition of the text of H.R. 3273, as passed by the House, to 
     the engrossment;
       (3) assign appropriate designations to provisions within 
     the engrossment; and
       (4) conform cross-references and provisions for short 
     titles within the engrossment.
       (b) Upon the addition of the text of H.R. 3273, as passed 
     by the House, to the engrossment of H.J. Res. 89, H.R. 3273 
     shall be laid on the table.
       Sec. 4.  Upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. 
     Res. 90) making continuing appropriations for the Federal 
     Aviation Administration for fiscal year 2014, and for other 
     purposes. All points of order against consideration of the 
     joint resolution are waived. The joint resolution shall be 
     considered as read. All points of order against provisions in 
     the joint resolution are waived. The previous question shall 
     be considered as ordered on the joint resolution and on any 
     amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) 40 minutes of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Appropriations; and (2) one motion to recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 1 
hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Worcester, 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as 
I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time 
yielded is for the purpose of debate only.


                             General Leave

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. House Resolution 373 provides for a closed rule for 
consideration of H.R. 3273, the Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth 
Working Group Act of 2013; H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay 
Fairness Act of 2013; and H.J. Res. 90, the Flight Safety Act of 2013.
  Mr. Speaker, today this body will consider three important pieces of 
legislation designed to address the current government shutdown and the 
looming debt limit. The first of these bills would appropriate the 
funds necessary to pay essential Federal employees who have been 
continuing to work during the shutdown. These men and women have earned 
their paychecks and deserve for us to act on their legislation to 
ensure that they are paid on time.
  Secondly, we will consider legislation to fully fund the FAA in order 
to ensure that our Nation's commerce and air travel continues 
uninterrupted and safely. There are many, many workers of the FAA who 
need to come back to work to ensure the safety and to ensure that 
millions of American passengers in the air are not put at risk due to a 
continued government shutdown.
  Finally, we will consider legislation to establish a bicameral, 
bipartisan Working Group on Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth. This 
working group would consist of 10 Members of the House and 10 Members 
of the Senate, representing six from the majority and four from the 
minority of both Chambers. These Members would be appointed no less 
than one day after the enactment of this legislation, and would each 
meet on the subsequent calendar day until an agreement is reached on 
the overall discretionary levels for fiscal year 2014; changes to the 
discretionary debt limit; and reforms to direct spending programs.
  For nearly a month now, Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have asked 
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats to sit down and 
negotiate with House Republicans. Bill after bill from House 
Republicans and this body have gone to the United States Senate only to 
be batted down or to be revised and to come back without addressing the 
significant problems that our country faces today.
  So what we are trying to do is to find another avenue, and that is to 
have the House of Representatives and the United States Senate and 
their appointees be able to meet together in a working group to resolve 
these issues. What do I envision? I envision a TV would be in the room. 
The American people could take part in these discussions and see how 
much progress can be made between Senate Republicans and Senate 
Democrats and House Republicans and House Democrats on these important 
issues, and hold those Members accountable for exactly the same thing 
that we're trying to do, and that is to get this government back opened 
up with an agreement about how we are going to fund this government.
  So, today, we ask once again if the Senate is willing to join us not 
only as we work towards ending this government shutdown but on how we 
are going to address our government's debt and put our Nation back to 
work on the pathway to prosperity. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on the rule and ``yes'' on the underlying legislation.

[[Page 15427]]

  I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1530

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions), my good friend, for granting me the customary 30 
minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, my Republican friends are devolving into self-parody. 
The solution to this unnecessary and manufactured crisis is simple, and 
it hasn't changed for months:
  Step one, pass a clean, short-term continuing resolution at 
Republican sequester levels to reopen the government;
  Step two, pass a clean debt ceiling bill so that the United States 
will not default for the first time in history and so we don't send the 
economy into a tailspin;
  Step three, finally agree to go to conference on the budget so we can 
sit down and talk about our priorities.
  Let me go over that once more just in case there's any confusion on 
the other side of the aisle: reopen the government; raise the debt 
ceiling; and negotiate on the budget.
  That has been what the White House and Democrats in Congress have 
been asking for over and over and over and over again. It's what we're 
asking for today, and it's what we will ask for tomorrow.
  By contrast, the list of House Republican demands changes every 10 
minutes: repeal ObamaCare, defund ObamaCare, delay ObamaCare, stage a 
non-filibuster filibuster, ask for the entire Romney economic platform 
in order to raise the debt ceiling, yell at park rangers, fund this 
part of the government, fund that part of the government, pay 
furloughed employees, pay essential employees, hold a conference 
meeting, hold a press conference, rinse and repeat.
  Enough, Mr. Speaker. Enough.
  Here we are again with yet another convoluted, cockamamie legislative 
effort that is going absolutely nowhere. We have yet another ``message 
bill'' that is designed to win today's news cycle but that gets us no 
closer to resolving this crisis.
  Today's effort is particularly pathetic, Mr. Speaker. Instead of 
actually solving the problem and letting the American people get on 
with their lives, the bill before us today would create that most 
cherished and beloved Washington institution, a committee--not just any 
committee, no, but another supercommittee. It's Supercommittee 2: The 
Wrath of Cruz.
  We have before us a bill that was dreamed up--Lord knows when--
floated in the press at 10 o'clock this morning, distributed as 
legislative language at 11:30 this morning, in the Rules Committee at 
12:30, and on the floor at 3:20. Forget the 3-day rule, Mr. Speaker. 
This contraption barely even followed the 3-hour rule.
  And the Superdupercommittee Part 2--pardon me, the ``bicameral 
working group on deficit reduction and economic growth''--that is 
created by this bill doesn't come with any instructions. There is no 
time line. There is no deadline. It doesn't reopen the government. It 
doesn't prevent a default. It doesn't do much of anything.
  It's unclear whether coffee and pastries will be provided at the 
Superdupercommittee Part 2 working group. Maybe we need another bill to 
do that.
  This is just another press release. Mr. Speaker, we do not need 
another committee to do the job that we were elected to do. Let me 
remind my colleagues that we have this thing called the Budget 
Committee, and the Republicans made a big deal about the fact that we 
passed a budget in the House and the Senate didn't pass a budget in the 
Senate. Then the Senate did pass a budget. What you're supposed to do 
is then go to conference and work out your differences and come up with 
a final product. For 6 months we have been pleading with the Speaker of 
the House and the Republican leadership to appoint conferees to 
negotiate a budget agreement. That's the way it's supposed to work. The 
Senate does something, we do something, and we negotiate the 
differences. For 6 months the Republicans have refused to appoint 
conferees, and now they're saying we need this kind of vague committee 
that has no instructions, that has no time line. It doesn't do anything 
to stop the government shutdown. It doesn't do anything to stop the 
government default on our financial obligations.
  This is no way to run a railroad, let alone the United States House 
of Representatives. So I would urge the Republican leadership to start 
caring a little less about winning today's news cycle and a little more 
about the American people, who sent us here and who expect us to do our 
jobs.
  Open the government. Raise the debt ceiling. Negotiate on the budget. 
It is really not that complicated.
  In the meantime, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this closed 
rule, reject the underlying legislation, and reject the politics of 
manufactured crises.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, hot off the press this afternoon from Politico, which is 
not exactly a right-wing newspaper, it says:

       Obama calls Boehner. Reiterates he won't negotiate.

  So the President evidently today, as reported by Politico, called Mr. 
Boehner to repeat: I'm not going to negotiate on bills to reopen the 
government or to raise the debt ceiling. That's what's being reported.
  Mr. Speaker, this is, I think, a bad precedent. Where I'm from in 
Dallas, Texas, leaders lead. Leaders lead by trying to do what's in the 
best interest of everybody, not running to crisis after crisis after 
crisis, not negotiating, not agreeing to meet with people, not agreeing 
to do things to help resolution. Leaders present ideas, opportunities, 
options. They're the ones that stay at the table, and they're the last 
ones to leave when everybody else gets frustrated.
  I think what's important to note is this President is simply 
different than every other President we've ever had. What he is doing 
is giving up not only his legitimate moral authority to lead, but what 
he's doing is saying, I recognize what could happen if we're 
unsuccessful. I think, as Speaker Boehner said yesterday, the 
President's senior adviser said he would sooner see the government go 
into default than to meet with and negotiate with the Republicans. That 
is not what leaders should be doing, and I would suggest to you that 
this President stands on the shoulders of other Presidents for 230-plus 
years who have given their very best to the benefit of others. They 
have looked at Republicans, they have looked at Democrats, they've 
looked at House Members, they've looked at Senate Members, and realized 
they had to negotiate. That was one of the key things I remember as a 
young man about Ronald Reagan's negotiating with Tip O'Neill, inviting 
Tip O'Neill down to the White House, their being good with each other, 
talking about how they could make progress with each other.
  We are evidently past that. This President even has the audacity to 
call the Speaker and say, I'm not going to negotiate with you. That is 
not good leadership, and the American people are seeing it.
  The House of Representatives, we're not going to get our nose out of 
joint. We're going to stay at work. It is true that we bring this bill 
up, and we'll probably be here tomorrow and the next day with new ways 
to negotiate. Today, we're here on the floor just as we were yesterday, 
just as we were on Saturday, talking about constructive, creative, 
bipartisan issues to fund this government and to make sure we can get 
moving.
  The NIH should have been open already. We should have had lots of 
government agencies as a result of what we are doing, including Head 
Start. We should have these activities, even if it's one by one, to 
open up. Today, we're on the floor to say, We ought to pay those 
government employees who have been working when Tuesday rolls around. 
They should get paid. We should have people at the FAA come back to 
work and open that agency back up. That's what House Republicans are 
doing. We recognize this President will not negotiate, but we're going 
to offer ourselves

[[Page 15428]]

up. I think the American people see what House Republicans are 
attempting to do.
  I am very proud of not only what our Speaker is doing but of our 
majority leader, Eric Cantor, and our whip, Kevin McCarthy. They are 
attempting to move forward ideas that sustain this body to where we can 
look people straight in the eye and where we can accomplish things on 
behalf of the American people.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume
  Mr. Speaker, we are in this predicament because the Republicans shut 
the government down. It is that simple.
  You own this shutdown whether you like it or not.
  The gentleman quoted Politico. Let me read from Politico. It says:

       President Barack Obama opened the door to a short-term debt 
     ceiling increase in order to avoid going over the fiscal 
     cliff and allowed negotiations between the White House and 
     Congress on a long-term deal.

  That doesn't sound like someone who doesn't want to negotiate. I'd 
prefer a long-term deal because I'm tired of this crisis by crisis by 
crisis, but this President has gone out of his way to negotiate over 
and over and over again.
  I will just point out another thing for my colleagues. Senate 
Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Boehner negotiated a deal on 
this short-term continuing resolution to keep the government going. 
Speaker Boehner admitted that this week with George Stephanopoulos on 
Sunday, that they negotiated a short-term spending deal to keep the 
government open at the Republican sequester levels. The deal was that, 
in return for the Republican numbers, the Speaker wouldn't attach any 
extraneous materials to that short-term continuing resolution.
  Obviously, that is a deal that the Speaker did not keep in large part 
because of a group in his conference who kind of represents, I guess, 
the Ted Cruz wing of the party who said that wasn't enough. They wanted 
to shut the government down, and they're willing to default on paying 
our bills for the first time in history. That is, in my opinion, 
unconscionable.
  Let's not talk about who wants to negotiate here. Democrats have 
negotiated going to your level on the short-term continuing resolution. 
The President has been willing to negotiate time and time again. Every 
time he gets close to an agreement, the Speaker can't deliver. He's 
going to continue to try, but don't say he's not trying to negotiate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are advised to address all remarks 
to the Chair and not to others in the second person.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), the distinguished ranking member of the 
Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank my friend for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, it is really getting more and more difficult for us to 
get out here and act as though we're really having a serious debate 
about something, and I just want to start off by saying that I don't 
want anybody in the country to forget--as they're trying to do things 
with a Federal Government that's shut down as the VA service centers 
did, and their phones are now inoperative as we've all learned to our 
great dismay--the deceased soldiers and their families have not been 
able to be compensated in any way to make it possible for them to pay 
for funerals or even go to them. I'm sure that will be something we're 
going to come up and deal with as they're doing with this part-time 
``let's build ourselves a new government.''
  Don't forget that this was about health care. That's all there is to 
it. Service people can't get the benefits that they need. Nobody can 
get anything from the government. Mortgages are on hold because 
Republicans didn't like health care.
  If you would have asked them why in the world do you object to 30 
million Americans who have not been able to afford health insurance 
having an opportunity to get it, they don't give you any answer. It's 
more obfuscation. If we talk about negotiations, let me tell you the 
negotiation that is really critical that is not taking place at all, 
and we're doing an example of that right now.
  There is no negotiation in the committee process. The only committee 
that has been putting anything up to the floor of the House has been 
the Rules Committee. Somebody writes a bill in the afternoon, and 
either that evening or early the next day, the Rules Committee goes in, 
and it goes right to the floor. There is no amendment chance, there's 
no discussion chance, and we don't know what they're doing. The 
discussion and the amendments and the negotiation, yes, that's supposed 
to go on between the two parties in the committees, and it is nowhere 
to be seen and hasn't been for ages.
  We've been down this road before, again with the supercommittee idea, 
which was such a glaring disaster and only ended up in sequestration, 
and the whole idea of sequestration was so, with all of that, none of 
us ever thought we'd get there, but now we're pretending that's what it 
is. Now it's, Let's have another supercommittee. I will tell you that 
was so awful, and it set us back so much in this country not only with 
scientific research and national security and public safety being 
compromised, but now they want to do it again.
  I think it's just another delaying tactic because I'm persuaded 
today, as I stand here, that the Republican Party in this House does 
not want to open the government. The opportunities they've had over and 
over again have been absolutely quashed. There's a lot of talk in the 
media about, Oh, if only I had a chance to vote for a clean resolution, 
I would do it in just a moment. Well, let me tell you that it has been 
turned down twice before in the House of Representatives on the rule 
when we got to the part about the previous question. We always say just 
vote ``no'' and you will then have your opportunity to vote on the 
clean bill from the Senate, which already passed there, and would go 
directly to the President. We never got a single Republican vote. Draw 
your own conclusions about the 25 Republicans who stated if only they 
were given that opportunity.

                              {time}  1545

  Now the sequestration, as my colleague has pointed out, we accepted 
as part of a deal on our behalf between Speaker Boehner and Senator 
Reid. As awful as it is--and most of us did not like that--nonetheless, 
for the short-term CR, we were willing to take it, but now the 
majority, again, refuses to let us vote on a CR which was agreed on.
  This irresponsible governance has continued in the days since the 
majority shut the government down; and over this last week--or last 
several weeks, actually--the majority has abandoned any semblance of 
regular order and just turned the Rules Committee, as I've said, into 
the committee of jurisdiction.
  Now, where does all this come from? I think most Americans were 
surprised. Let me express my concern.
  I recall that, just after Senator Obama was elected President in 
2008, we all heard about the great dinner that took place on inaugural 
night, declaring, among Republican elected officials, that they would 
not allow Senator Obama--now President Obama--to get anything done. 
Well, we thought after 4 years, maybe that was over with, and we did 
get the health care bill passed.
  Now we learned on Sunday morning that that is taking place again, 
which again says, you know, I'm not sure that this party could put the 
government back into business or not because they would have to get the 
permission, apparently, from the Heritage Foundation's Heritage Action 
for America, former Attorney General Edwin Meese, and David Koch, 
because they wanted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and they 
engineered this whole thing. That appeared on Sunday. This is Tuesday. 
Not a single refutation has taken place.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 1 minute.

[[Page 15429]]


  Ms. SLAUGHTER. So it's time for this game to come to an end, but it 
won't because it's not part of the plan. I am really tired, on behalf 
of the American people, of watching them being fooled; and I think that 
we are more than disgusted and tired with the process by which this 
legislation comes to us. The four of us on the Rules Committee are 
calling for you to open up this process so that the other members of 
our party--as well as yours who, I am confident, know nothing more 
about these bills than we do--have an opportunity to really do our jobs 
as we were sent here to do.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the 
gentlewoman from New York, the ranking member of the committee. Just 
before we came down to the floor, we had a very, very nice committee 
meeting where she was able to not only articulate that, but was joined 
by her other colleagues. I did offer words of assurance to them about 
not only how we need to move forward but also how the committee needed 
to get slightly better in our time frames, and we're going to attempt 
to do that.
  The gentlewoman recognizes that what we are doing is bringing bills 
as quickly as we can, including the FAA, opening up the FAA again, and 
how important that is. So she recognized the importance of what we are 
attempting to do.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Rice) of the Budget Committee.
  Mr. RICE of South Carolina. Mr. President, can we talk? The 
government is partially shut down. The Nation's debt ceiling is 
looming.
  President Obama and Harry Reid have drawn a hard line. They have 
proclaimed over and over again, no negotiation. They insist the debt 
limit must be raised at current levels of spending. No negotiation. 
They're adamant that the status quo must be preserved. And why not?
  Here is the status quo: 7.3 percent unemployment 4 years after the 
recession has ended; 15 percent unemployment for those under 25; 50 
percent of recent college graduates unemployed or underemployed; 
household income down 10 percent in the last 5 years. It has fallen 
every year since the President has been in office, and it continues to 
decline. Continued economic stagnation 4 years after the recession has 
ended; continued record deficit spending; Social Security and Medicare 
on a path to insolvency.
  Why would the Republicans want to discuss these fundamental problems? 
Why would we want to alter that course?
  By any measure, the President's policies are failing miserably:
  He is failing our seniors. Their safety nets, Social Security and 
Medicare, are headed for bankruptcy, but he won't negotiate.
  He is failing our middle class through higher taxes, higher energy 
costs, higher insurance bills on one hand, and on the other hand, a 
continued decline in household income. They're getting squeezed from 
both sides, but he won't negotiate.
  He is failing our youth, the millennial generation, by piling 
mountains of debt on our children and our grandchildren, but he won't 
negotiate. He is failing our youth and millennial generation through 
his job-killing policies of more regulation, more taxes, and more 
government.
  Mr. President, our youth wants to work, and they're counting on us, 
but the President won't negotiate. Remember, my friends, that the 
Democrats held the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for only 2 
years; but out of that came ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank, the two biggest 
expansions of government and killers of jobs to come out of Washington 
in 50 years.
  I didn't want the government to shut down--nobody did--but we cannot 
continue to run head-on into failure. If we are to change course, the 
Republicans can't do it on their own. The President and Harry Reid in 
the Senate will have to participate.
  Mr. Reid, we are asking once again for a conference.
  Mr. President, it's way past time to soften your hard-line stance on 
no negotiation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are again reminded to direct all 
remarks to the Chair and not to another in the second person.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the gentleman from South 
Carolina, who just spoke, I don't know what he is talking about.
  We have been negotiating. This temporary spending measure that we're 
talking about, Harry Reid negotiated it with Speaker Boehner. It's at 
your levels, your sequester levels. Do you think I like that? I can't 
stand it, but I don't want to shut the government down.
  The bottom line was the Speaker said that, in exchange for that, 
there would be no extraneous materials attached to that CR. He wasn't 
able to deliver on his promise because of some people in your 
conference. It's that simple.
  The gentleman is on the Budget Committee. I would think that, in 
being on the Budget Committee, you would want to go to conference--you 
worked on a budget; the Senate worked on a budget--to work out those 
spending differences. We have tried 19 times to get you to go to 
conference, and you refused to negotiate with the Senate on each of 
those occasions.
  Every time the President negotiates, unfortunately, your leadership 
can't deliver on the deals. So we have been negotiating, negotiating, 
negotiating. We still want to negotiate, but, please, the gentleman 
gave no reason why we should shut down this government, why the 
Republicans should have shut down this government, and he has given no 
reason why we should default on our financial obligations. We ought to 
pass a short-term spending bill to reopen the government, and we ought 
to pass a clean debt ceiling bill so we don't default on our financial 
obligations and ruin our economy.
  At this point, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would remind all Members of an 
essential rule of decorum in the House. Under clause 1 of rule XVII, 
Members are to direct their remarks to the Chair and not to other 
Members in the second person. Directing remarks through the Chair helps 
to reduce personal confrontation between Members and fosters an 
atmosphere of mutual and institutional respect.
  The Chair appreciates the attention of the Members to this matter.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I associate 
myself with his remarks. I thank him for his extraordinary leadership 
in trying to keep the government open.
  Mr. Speaker, this is--what?--the eighth day of the Republican 
shutdown of government. Small businesses cannot get loans to expand; 
veterans face uncertainty about their benefits; tuition assistance and 
the rest. Millions of women and children will go without the nutrition 
programs that they desperately need.
  The shutdown could be over in hours if Republicans would stop being 
the party of ``no'' and just take ``yes'' for an answer.
  So in case you don't know, I have some very good news for you: 
Democrats have not only been willing to negotiate; Democrats have 
already stated that they are ready to cooperate.
  For example, I have good news. Perhaps you missed the fact that 200 
Democratic Members of the House have signed a letter saying that 
they're willing to accept the Republican number of $986 billion even 
though, as the gentleman said, we don't like this number--we don't 
think it's adequate--but the fact is we don't like shutting down the 
government more.
  So, in order to open up government, 200 Members have signed the 
letter, and five additional Members have made public statements of 
their willingness to support the Republican number. There's space in 
this letter for the signatures of maybe just 17 Republicans to sign, 
but they don't have to sign a letter. Many of them have made public 
statements, which we respect and

[[Page 15430]]

honor as their public statements, that they would vote for the 
Republican number of $986 billion.
  The Speaker negotiated with Senator Reid. Senator Reid accepted the 
Republican House number. The President of the United States accepted 
the Republican House number. The Democrats in the House accepted the 
Republican House number. The only people not accepting the Republican 
House number are the Republicans in the House.
  So, when the leadership of the Republican Party--Speaker Boehner, in 
particular--go around saying it can't pass, that the votes are not 
there, does that mean he does not trust the word of his own Members who 
have said that they will vote for the $986 billion? Let's find out. 
Let's bring the bill to the floor.
  That is what we are saying: just bring it to the floor. It has passed 
the Senate. The President stands ready to sign a number we don't like, 
but prefer it over shutting down government. We don't like it. We want 
to open the doors of government, and we are willing to use the key of 
the Republican number to do so.
  Last week, Democrats went a step further. In both public and private 
discussions, Speaker Boehner said that he doesn't want to go to 
conference on the budget even though he asked for regular order in 
March. In early March, Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner said they 
wanted regular order. That's a message to the President that Congress 
should work its will. That was good news to us. That means: you pass a 
bill in the House; you pass a bill in the Senate; you go to conference 
to reconcile your differences. Perhaps the Speaker didn't think that 
the Senate would pass a budget, but they did in a matter of days--
practically hours--after the House passed its budget.
  But what happened to regular order? It blew out the window. After 
saying, We want regular order, no longer did the Republicans want to 
take ``yes'' for an answer. And why? Well, some of this is explained 
under the Speaker's own statement. Speaker Boehner said, Under rules--
listen to that word ``rules.'' Under rules, if you appoint conferees 
and after 20 legislative days there is no agreement, the minority has 
the right to offer motions to instruct, which become politically 
motivated bombs to throw up on the House floor.
  So to be frank with you, we are following what I would describe as 
regular order. What I would describe as regular order is not ``under 
rules.'' ``Under rules'' are the rules of the House.
  The Speaker--as awesome as the power of the Speaker is, and I 
understand that--does not have the power to just decide what regular 
order is, and if you don't want to honor regular order, just say you're 
not going to honor it, but don't redefine it in order to keep 
government shut down.
  So, in listening to the Speaker's not wanting to shut government down 
at first and then after it was shut down wanting to open it, the House 
Democrats took a step unprecedented by any minority party in the 
Congress of the United States. The House Democratic minority said, We 
will surrender. We will relinquish our right to motions to instruct--an 
insider term, actually--placing conditions on how it would go to the 
conference table.

                              {time}  1600

  So we said to the Speaker, don't worry about that. If that's 
important to you, if you want to shut down government because you're 
afraid of a motion to instruct, we'll allay your fears. Fear no more, 
Mr. Speaker. We will not offer these motions.
  As an example, we didn't offer the motion on the first night, which 
was our right to do, when this bill was introduced as all of you will 
agree.
  So we have said, we have made that claim. This, as I said, is 
unprecedented, but is a necessary move to end the Tea Party 
stranglehold on our government and restore basic services on which 
millions of people rely.
  They didn't take ``yes'' for an answer. Two hundred signatures.
  Mr. Speaker, I will submit this letter for the Record--200 
signatures. It's a beautiful sight, because I want to tell you 
something: it's about cooperation.
  None of us likes this number. All of us want to open up government. 
That's why we signed it. I want to thank Congressman Tim Bishop, 
Congressman Patrick and Congressman Keith Ellison for producing this 
result.
  So we've said, yes, we're giving you the votes on something we don't 
like. We've said we won't do motions to instruct. Please take ``yes'' 
for an answer.
  If you insist on being the party of ``no,'' then don't hide behind 
something and say who won't negotiate. We cooperated. We gave you what 
you wanted.
  Now here we are today. Republicans are offering yet another motion to 
keep the government shut down. Some people call it, in the press, the 
``supercommittee.'' Others call it the ``Ted Cruz committee.'' Whatever 
you call it, I'd like to know who writes this stuff. This is so 
ridiculous a proposal. It's so ridiculous a proposal.
  How about we go to the budget table and see how we can reduce the 
deficit? produce growth for our country?
  But all we're going to do is cut our investments in education, 
investments in making the future better. We're going to make seniors 
suffer more while we do not touch revenue, and we will not allow any 
discussion of closing special interest loopholes. That's how they want 
us to go to the table.
  You must be kidding.
  As I said, who writes this stuff?
  Sometimes there is an expression that people use. Flippantly, they'll 
say, ``Who do you think you are?'' when you say something. Remember 
that from your childhood when somebody said, ``Who do you think you 
are?''
  I think we have to take that sentence very seriously, with an 
emphasis on ``think.'' That would be interesting.
  Who do we think we are?
  Do we think that we are a party that is responsible, all of us--a 
Congress that is responsible--that wants to do the right thing for the 
American people, that knows that we have to come here to cooperate with 
each other to get something done in a bipartisan way?
  To my fellow colleagues on the Republican side--I hope that's 
allowed, Mr. Speaker. They are Members of the body--do you think you 
have come here to make sure that people know that you can do this just 
because you're doing it?
  It's just a waste, a total waste of time, and we don't have time to 
waste. In fact, we could be spending our time in such a more important 
way--working in a bipartisan way on entrepreneurship, on creating 
growth for our country, on investing in the education of our people, 
which, by the way, brings more money to the Treasury than any other 
initiative you can name.
  Early childhood, K-12, higher education, lifetime learning. You want 
to reduce the deficit?
  Invest in education.
  You want to increase the deficit?
  Cut education.
  But let's sit down and talk about that. The path to get there is one 
that says, say yes to 986. We did, your number. It says accept our 
offer. We won't offer any instruction to the committee, but don't 
continue to be the Tea Party of ``no.''
  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Speaker--is that allowed, Mr. Speaker? I 
hope the Speaker will give us a vote so we can see where this Congress 
stands on the serious responsibility that we have and that the 
Republicans will even accept what they are asking us to accept.
  This rule should be voted down. This commission is a joke whether you 
call it the Ted Cruz commission or the super--super in what way? 
Certainly not super in meeting the needs of the American people.
  To recap, A, we are giving you 200 votes for your number. Take 
``yes'' for an answer.
  B, the Speaker doesn't want any conditions or discussion or anything 
else on the floor about the budget. We are willing to accept that.
  Take ``yes'' for an answer.
  I ask for a ``no'' vote on the rule.


[[Page 15431]]


                                    Congress of the United States,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Boehner,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Boehner: Enough is enough.
       Today marks the fifth day that the federal government has 
     been shutdown. Please consider how deeply unfair this is to 
     the citizens we represent.
       The solution to this crisis is a simple piece of 
     legislation that funds the government at levels that have 
     already passed both chambers of Congress.
       At this point, to attach defunding or delaying the 
     Affordable Care Act to legislation needed to reopen the 
     government is to put our economy at risk in order to advance 
     a political agenda.
       We demand a vote on a clean continuing resolution 
     immediately so that government functioning can resume and 
     Americans can move on with their lives.
       The games have to stop.
           Best Regards,
         Tim Bishop; Patrick E. Murphy; Nancy Pelosi, Democratic 
           Leader; Steny H. Hoyer, Democratic Whip; James E. 
           Clyburn, Assistant Democratic Leader; Xavier Becerra, 
           Chair, Democratic Caucus; Joseph Crowley, Vice Chair, 
           Democratic Caucus; Nita M. Lowey, Ranking Member, 
           Committee on Appropriations; Chris Van Hollen, Ranking 
           Member, Committee on the Budget; Robert E. Andrews; 
           Karen Bass; Joyce Beatty; Ami Bera, Jr.; Sanford 
           Bishop, Jr.; Earl Blumenauer; Suzanne Bonamici; 
           Madeleine Z. Bordallo; Robert A. Brady; Bruce L. 
           Braley; Corrine Brown; Julia Brownley; Cheri Bustos; 
           G.K. Butterfield; Lois Capps; Tony Cardenas; Andre 
           Carson.
         Joaquin Castro; Judy N. Chu; David N. Cicilline; Yvette 
           D. Clarke; Wm. Lacy Clay; Emanuel Cleaver; Steve Cohen; 
           Gerald E. Connolly; John Conyers, Jr., Jim Costa; Joe 
           Courtney; Henry Cuellar; Elijah E. Cummings; Susan A. 
           Davis; Danny K. Davis; Peter A. DeFazio; Diana DeGette; 
           John K. Delaney; Susan DelBene; Thoedore E. Deutch; 
           John Dingell; Lloyd Doggett; Keith Ellison; Eliot L. 
           Engel.
         William Enyart; Anna Eshoo; Elizabeth Esty; Sam Farr; 
           Chaka Fattah; Bill Foster; Lois Frankel; Marcia L. 
           Fudge; Tulsi Gabbard; Pete Gallego; John Garamendi; Joe 
           Garcia; Alan Grayson; Gene Green; Al Green; Raul 
           Grijalva; Luis Gutierrez; Janice Hahn; Colleen 
           Hanabusa; Alcee Hastings; Denny Heck; Brian Higgins; 
           James A. Himes; Ruben Hinojosa; Rush Holt; Mike Honda; 
           Steve Horsford.
         Jared Huffman; Steve Israel; Sheila Jackson Lee; Hakeem 
           Jeffries; Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson; Marcy Kaptur; Bill 
           Keating; Robin Kelly; Joseph P. Kennedy, III; Dan 
           Kildee; Derek Kilmer; Ann Kirkpatrick; Ann McLane 
           Kuster; James Langevin; Rick Larsen; John Larson; 
           Barbara Lee; Sander M. Levin; John Lewis; Daniel 
           Lipinski; David Loebsack; Alan S. Lowenthal; Michelle 
           Lujan Grisham; Stephen Lynch; Daniel Maffei; Carolyn B. 
           Maloney; Sean Patrick Maloney.
         Doris O. Matsui; Carolyn McCarthy; Betty McCollum; Jim 
           McDermott; James P. McGovern; Jerry McNerney; Gregory 
           Meeks; Grace Meng; Michael H. Michaud; George Miller; 
           Gwen Moore; James P. Moran; Jerrold Nadler; Grace 
           Napolitano; Richard Neal; Gloria Negrete McLeod; 
           Richard Nolan; Eleanor Holmes Norton; Beto O'Rourke; 
           William L. Owens; Frank Pallone; Bill Pascrell; Ed 
           Pastor; Donald Payne; Ed Perlmutter; Gary Peters; Pedro 
           R. Pierluisi.
         Mark Pocan; Jared Polis; David Price; Mike Quigley; Nick 
           J. Rahall; Charles Rangel; Cedric Richmond; C.A. Dutch 
           Ruppersberger; Bobby L. Rush; Tim Ryan; Linda T. 
           Sanchez; John P. Sarbanes; Janice Schakowsky; Adam 
           Schiff; Brad Schneider; Allyson Y. Schwartz; Robert C. 
           Scott; Jose Serrano; Terri Sewell; Carol Shea-Porter; 
           Brad Sherman; Albio Sires; Louise Slaughter; Adam 
           Smith; Jackie Speier; Eric Swalwell; Mark Takano.
         Dina Titus; Paul Tonko; Niki Tsongas; Juan Vargas; Marc 
           Veasey; Filemon Vela; Tim Walz; Debbie Wasserman 
           Schultz; Maxine Waters; Mel Watt; Henry Waxman; Peter 
           Welch; Frederica Wilson; John Yarmuth; Pete Visclosky; 
           Matthew Cartwright; David Scott; Zoe Lofgren; Nydia M. 
           Velazquez; John Carney; Ben Ray Lujan; Michael F. 
           Doyle; Donna F. Edwards; Eddie Bernice Johnson.
         Scott H. Peters; Chellie Pingree; Gregorio Kilili Camacho 
           Sablan; Kurt Schrader; Rosa L. DeLauro; Bennie G. 
           Thompson; Mike Thompson; John Tierney; Kyrsten Sinema; 
           Lucille Roybal-Allard; Kathy Castor; Tammy Duckworth; 
           Collin C. Peterson; Donna M. Christensen; Ron Barber; 
           Michael E. Capuano; Raul Ruiz; Loretta Sanchez.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to acknowledge the minority leader 
for her comments today and thank her for coming to the floor.
  At this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado 
Springs, Colorado (Mr. Lamborn), a member of the Armed Services 
Committee.
  Mr. LAMBORN. I thank the chairman for his work on the Rules Committee 
and for bringing H.J. Res. 89, the Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act, and 
I rise in support of this act.
  Mr. Speaker, this will ensure that Federal employees who have been 
deemed essential will have no disruption in their pay. That's an 
excellent step in the right direction, and I wholeheartedly support 
that concept.
  Just on Saturday, the House unanimously--every single Republican and 
every single Democrat--supported H.R. 3223, and that said that everyone 
who is a Federal employee will get paid eventually, at the end of this 
slowdown that we're in right now. So this is a step in the right 
direction.
  But I want to urge that we take up a bill that I introduced 
yesterday, H.R. 3271, which goes a step further and says there is no 
distinction between the essential and non-essential Federal worker. All 
Federal workers are to be brought back immediately and given back pay 
and put on a regular pay schedule.
  We are going to be reimbursing these people for back pay sooner or 
later anyway. That's what the bill Saturday accomplished that we all 
supported here in the House, but this would reassure everyone that they 
can go to work immediately.
  There are people who are going to be having a tough time making house 
and car payments, and these are people with important jobs.
  In my district, in Colorado Springs, there are a lot of defense civil 
workers, and they are supporting the warfighters. The Pentagon is 
supposed to be bringing all of them back, and many of them are coming 
back, but not every single one. So I want them to have the assurance 
that they will get paid immediately on being reinstated and that they 
will come back to work immediately.
  So I think that it would be in the interest of our Federal workforce 
to take up the bill that I've introduced, H.R. 3271, and bring all 
civilian furloughed and Federal workers back immediately, with back 
pay.
  But this is a great bill. I do support it, H.J. Res. 89. I thank the 
Rules Committee for bringing it out.
  There has been, unfortunately, some gamesmanship we've seen with the 
National Park Service. I think that that's unfortunate. Shutting down 
the World War II Memorial when veterans are in their eighties and 
nineties, coming to Washington, maybe for the last visit that they can, 
and they're being told they can't enter the memorial.
  So let's don't have any gamesmanship. Let's bring everyone back to 
work.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to end the games, I have a better idea. Just 
open up the government. End the Republican shutdown.
  It's really simple. We could have an up-or-down vote to open up 
government today, and all the Federal workers would be taken care of, 
and all the monuments would be reopened. We wouldn't be having all this 
controversy. We can get serious about negotiating a long-term spending 
bill. It's a better way.
  So join with us and support a clean continuing resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the Dean of the House.
  Mr. DINGELL. I thank my dear friend from Massachusetts.
  As I begin, I express my great affection and respect for my colleague 
from Texas, who is my dear friend.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we are here to be ashamed of ourselves. We're 
wasting the taxpayers' time, the taxpayers' money, and we're wasting 
the business and the time of the House.
  We are taking up a bill to require that Members of Congress sit down 
and talk about deficit reduction and raising

[[Page 15432]]

the debt limit. The last time I checked, we didn't need a law to do 
that. It's already our job. We have a conference that we can call at 
any time between the House and the Senate, which would enable us then 
to get to the serious business in handling this matter under the 
regular order. We don't do it. I don't know why.
  The President says he is not going to negotiate with a gun at his 
head. Frankly, I wouldn't either, and I don't think anybody else in 
this place would. Beyond that, he also is not going to negotiate the 
full faith and credit of the United States, which is one of the 
questions at issue.
  So one of the problems we seem to have with our Republican friends is 
that their Tea Party fringe is so ideologically hell-bent in getting 
their way that they're finding that they're too extreme to get it.
  Now, we Democrats have shown a willingness to cooperate and to 
compromise. In fact, as the minority leader observed, we have asked 
Speaker Boehner to convene a budget conference all year, but to no 
avail.
  Two hundred Democrats, including myself, sent a letter to Speaker 
Boehner on Saturday, saying we'd support an extension of sequester-
level spending through November 15. Democrats don't want the sequester 
to begin with, but the interest of compromise and keeping government 
open says that we're going to show good faith to my Republican 
colleagues.
  And what is my Republican colleagues' response?
  No. Resurrect the failed supercommittee. They have apparently read 
the Peter Principle, which says, when you can't think of anything else 
to do, appoint a committee, and they will obfuscate the matter further.
  Mr. Speaker, it's time to put an end to these asinine antics and 
maneuverings. It's time to pass the Senate continuing resolution. It's 
time to show the Americans and the rest of the world that a great 
institution, created by an enormously wise group of men who made the 
United States Constitution, is an institution that is not beyond hope 
of redemption and that it can work together.
  We offered to work together with my Republican friends and 
colleagues. We hope that they will do this.
  I would simply observe that we are engaged here in another curious 
practice also. We're going to have it so that we're going to pay 
Federal workers for doing nothing. Imagine that.
  My Republican colleagues, over the years, during my career here, have 
always been complaining about ``welfare queens'' who would ride to the 
welfare office to get their pension checks. Well, here we are going to 
convert a bunch of Federal employees to ``welfare queens'' by paying 
them while they do not work. The whole thing is silly, and the American 
people feel so.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished Dean of the House has 
spoken. I gather, from his comments, that he would not like to be 
appointed on the committee, and I'm disappointed. I was rather hopeful 
that the minority leader would see that he would be exactly the kind of 
commonsense person that could represent the party, and so I'd hope that 
the gentleman would reconsider that.
  At this time, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Grandfather 
Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), the vice chairman of the Rules 
Committee.
  Ms. FOXX. I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support this rule and the underlying 
legislation.
  We've heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle they 
only need us to take up one bill. Well, what about all those bills 
we've sent over to the Senate, including four appropriations bills that 
the Senate won't take up to vote on?
  It seems to me that they ought to be doing that if they want to show 
some good faith effort.
  Today, as we have every day since October 1, the House of 
Representatives is taking yet another bipartisan step forward to 
resolve our differences with the United States Senate and reopen the 
Federal Government for the American people.
  Even prior to October 1, House Republicans took numerous reasonable 
steps toward compromise. We voted four times on separate proposals to 
fund the entire government. With each vote, we sought to lay the 
groundwork for bipartisan compromise.
  Our final two full-funding proposals simply addressed the fundamental 
unfairness in ObamaCare, the fact that American families won't get the 
same year to prepare for ObamaCare that the President decided to give 
to businesses and the fact that Members of Congress will get a subsidy 
to pay ObamaCare premiums that the rest of America will not.
  Every vote from the House of Representatives has had at least some 
Democrat support. Not one Senate vote has been bipartisan.
  While we've moved to the middle, Senate Democrats still refuse to 
budge. They won't even send any Senators to sit down and talk with 
House Republicans about a bipartisan solution to reopen government.

                              {time}  1615

  One noteworthy area, though, where there seems to be great 
opportunity for us to move forward with our Democrat colleagues is on 
the matter of Federal employee pay. One of this rule's underlying bills 
will ensure timely pay for Federal employees who have continued to work 
through this shutdown. Those who are defending our borders, our food 
supply, and our Capitol, should be paid on time. It's my hope that both 
sides will come together and support this rule and the underlying 
Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act.
  Mr. Speaker, we don't expect to agree on everything with our Democrat 
colleagues. The House appointed a team on September 30 to meet with the 
Senate and find common ground to fund the government. When our team 
gathered on the morning of October 1, no one from the Senate showed up. 
Every day since, the Senate has refused to be part of any discussions 
with the House on how to move forward. That refusal is inexcusable.
  That's why the House will be considering another bill today, the 
Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act, to bring 
Senate Democrats to the table. Once the Senators have come to the 
table, we can start building on areas where we should have common 
ground and reach a solution that benefits all of the American people. 
But it starts with a talk.
  Both the rule and the underlying bills have my support, and I urge 
the same from my colleagues.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just remind my colleagues there's an easy way to 
solve all of this--reopen the government, raise the debt ceiling, and 
negotiate a new budget. Our minority leader has already said it on the 
floor. It's our willingness to cooperate.
  It's not that complicated. You can save all this misery that Federal 
workers are now enduring by reopening the government right now. This is 
not that hard to do, and it's at your number. It's at Republican 
levels. That is a compromise on our part. We loathe those sequester 
numbers that Republicans insisted on enshrining--those are horrible for 
our economy--but to keep the government open, we're going to swallow 
that so we have time to work out a longer-term deal.
  I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his time.
  I am glad that the minority leader got on the floor of the House and 
spoke common sense and indicated two things. Right now, there are 200 
Members who would be willing to vote for a clean CR that would open 
this House, right now. We believe a number of Republicans would make it 
a bipartisan vote, and we'd be able to open the government.
  The Republicans are playing a game of Legos. They are taking that big 
red box and opening it up and throwing the Legos on the ground and are 
trying to construct a government. Well, that's a kids' game--and it's a 
good game--but we cannot play with the lives of the American people.
  Just a few minutes ago, we talked about restoring Head Start. We know

[[Page 15433]]

that that bill is going nowhere. We know that the sequester is 
continuing to undermine Head Start seats across America--57,000 of 
them. In fact, it's an empty chair across America, where little babies 
cannot go to a Head Start program. That's what the Republicans are 
trying to do. They're trying to tell Marlen Rosa that her 3-year-old 
son, Hector, couldn't go to Head Start.
  And what is their answer? Another supercommittee--a committee that 
maybe will be playing Legos itself because the last supercommittee--of 
course, we respect all of our Members--was not the solution to our 
problem.
  I tell you what the solution is, Mr. Speaker. It is to vote on the 
clean bill, open the government, let the FAA be in operation, let the 
Justice Department be in operation.
  In the meeting that I just came from, I learned 90 courts are vacant. 
Issues dealing with rape and domestic violence are not being attended 
to. Public defenders are not being resourced and are being laid off. 
Hundreds of lawyers are not in the Department of Justice. The American 
Bar Association says there is no justice.
  I tell you, Mr. Speaker, all we have to do is not get a 
supercommittee, but get a supercommitment to America.
  Vote for a clean bill, and vote for the debt ceiling.
  Mr. Speaker, I again rise in strong opposition to the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  I oppose this rule because it is not a serious effort to end the 
government shutdown engineered by House Republicans by cherry-picking 
some programs and now adding a smoke and mirrors effort to replace the 
negotiation of the Budget bills passed by both the House and the 
Senate.
  Both President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Reid have made it 
crystal clear that they will not accept this game-playing and now the 
American people are saying the same thing.
  A piecemeal strategy now being pursued by House Republicans is not an 
honest or serious option to reopen the government and will not end the 
impacts of this shutdown that extend across our country.
  A consequence of partial funding of the entire Federal government one 
piece at a time instead of through a clean CR is the denial of burial 
assistance to the families of four troops who were killed by an IED in 
southern Afghanistan.
  The majority leadership of the House has America facing a government 
at war and a government shutdown at the same time.
  The majority of the House has found a way to intentionally inflict 
wounds on the American public--not by accident, but as a political 
strategy to get what they cannot do through the regular legislative 
process.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Washington Post Editorial Board said it best:

       What have House Republicans managed to accomplish in a week 
     of government shutdown? Damage the livelihood of millions of 
     Americans? Check. Government secretaries, food-truck 
     operators, cleaners who work in motels near national parks: 
     They're all hurting. Waste billions of taxpayer dollars? 
     Check. It costs a lot to shut agencies, Web sites and parks, 
     and it will cost a lot to reopen them. Meanwhile, the House 
     has voted to pay the salaries, eventually, of hundred of 
     thousands of employees whom it has ordered not to work. 
     That's an odd way to manage an enterprise. Interfere with key 
     government operations? Check. Rattle the markets, slow an 
     economy in recovery, interrupt potentially lifesaving 
     research at the National Institutes of Health? Check, check 
     and check. Derail the hated Obamacare? Ch--Oh, no, wait a 
     minute. That was the GOP's ostensible purpose for this 
     travesty of misgovernment, but the online insurance markets 
     created by that law opened on schedule last week and continue 
     to operate.

  The House Republicans' continued refusal to take up and vote on the 
clean CR passed by the Senate over a week ago, and which the President 
has stated publicly on several occasions he would sign is ignoring the 
easy solution to this impasse.
  Now faced with strong public backlash--more than 70% of Americans 
disapproving of the government shutdown engineered by the House 
Republicans, the majority is trying to extricate themselves from this 
debacle by bringing to the floor and passing ``mini-CRs.''
  The House majority should know that the American public knows and 
very well understands what is happening. This is legislative theater at 
its worst--noise and thunder signifying nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, these ploys are a cynical waste of time giving false 
hope to innocent Americans who depend on the services provided by these 
programs. But House Republicans know they have no chance whatsoever of 
becoming law. The Senate will not pass them and the President would 
veto these piece-meal measures if they made it to his desk.
  All we are doing is wasting time when we should be helping people.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can keep 
our promises to our veterans, to our elderly, to our children, parents 
and young people as well as the 800,000 Federal workers that our 
government is needed, compassionate, strong and effective.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund 
our engineers and technicians who maintain all of our critical military 
equipment to keep our troops safe and take care of national security 
infrastructure.
  We need to pass the clean CR approved by the Senate so we can fund 
the services needed by those who rely upon our full faith and credit as 
well as our word that this nation will not forget its fallen heroes.
  For these reasons and more, I oppose this rule and urge my Republican 
colleagues to rescue the American people from this situation and end 
the disruption in the lives of 800,000 dedicated workers who take pride 
in the greatest jobs in the world: serving the American people.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago, we heard from one of 
the brightest voices of the Republican Party, a member of our 
Republican leadership, Virginia Foxx.
  At this time, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall), a member of the Budget Committee and the Rules Committee.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have to say I saw my chairman get on his feet when the 
gentleman from Michigan began to speak. It's not often that the dean of 
the House comes down to speak. It's a treat for me, too. I've been here 
2\1/2\ years, but I've been watching the process a lot longer than 
that. I do think there's a lot that we can learn from history and a lot 
that we can learn, as Chris Matthews put it on his show the other day, 
from when politics worked.
  There is no shortage of shrill voices in Washington, D.C., and when I 
get back home to the folks in the suburbs of metro Atlanta, rarely do I 
hear somebody say, Rob, I wish there were more angry people in 
Washington. I wish there were more folks pounding their fists and 
yelling and screaming, because I really think that's how solutions can 
be brought about.
  That's not how solutions are brought about anywhere. It's not how 
they're brought about in business. It's not how they're brought about 
in politics. It's not how they're brought about in kindergartens around 
the country.
  I have a chart here, Mr. Speaker, that says that the Democrat Speaker 
of the House, Tip O'Neill, who presided over some of the most trying 
times in our Nation and some of the biggest deals in our Nation, was 
often in conflict with the President of a different party. While Tip 
O'Neill was Speaker of the House, the government shut down 12 times.
  I say that, Mr. Speaker, not to say that a government shutdown is 
okay. It's not. I didn't want it to happen. It doesn't need to happen. 
I'm glad we're bringing more bills to the floor to reopen the 
government--we are already more than 50 percent of the way there with 
the bills that have come to the floor. But it is happening, and it's 
not happening because Republican this and Republican that.
  I commented earlier to some of my Democratic friends about what great 
party discipline they have displayed in never talking about a 
government shutdown but in always making sure it's a ``Republican 
government shutdown.'' I suppose you get points for that in terms of 
party unity, but it's just not true; nor has it ever been true in the 
history of our Republic that when legitimate policy differences come 
about, driven by our constituents back home, that the best way forward 
to solve those is to make sure you demonize the other guy and make sure 
folks know who to blame for it.
  In these 12 times that the Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip 
O'Neill, was leading this institution--the people's House--and the 
government shut down, it wasn't because Tip O'Neill was a bad man. It 
wasn't because he lost control of some liberal

[[Page 15434]]

faction within his party. It was because the House of Representatives, 
the closest voice to the American people in our Republic, had 
legitimate policy differences with the President of the United States, 
and that's where we sit today.
  What's surprising is not that we have legitimate policy differences 
with the President of the United States. What's surprising is that we 
bring a bill to the floor to fund Head Start, and that becomes 
complicated. What's surprising is that we bring a bill to the floor to 
make sure that our men and women are getting paid, and that creates the 
controversy. What's surprising is we bring a bill to the floor to fund 
nuclear security across the country, and that's what brings 
controversy.
  There is so much that we agree on, and I am certain we're going to 
find the pathway forward; but I am equally certain that that pathway 
forward is not going to be found more quickly in depending on how much 
we can embarrass and marginalize our political opponents. It's going to 
be found when we agree that there is more that unites us than divides 
us, and it's okay that we have some serious policy differences.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank my chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, the chairman is actually the one who appointed me as the 
rules designee to the Budget Committee, and I'm grateful to him for 
that because it really gives me an opportunity to express what, for my 
constituents, is commonsense budget reform, Mr. Speaker. They know you 
just can't keep spending and spending and spending and never have to 
pay the bills. The bills have to get paid.
  But I would say that the funding level that the United States Senate 
has agreed on is absolutely in no way a compromise. It's the law of the 
land. The law of the land, if this Congress were to dissolve itself 
tomorrow, is that for fiscal year 2014 we're only going to be able to 
spend $967 billion. The Senate wants to spend $986 billion. The law of 
the land is not going to let them spend that much. That's just the law 
of the land.
  Now, we don't have to like it. We can try to change that, but to 
characterize that as somehow moving to the middle is to misrepresent, 
Mr. Speaker, what the facts of our budget are.
  As my colleague from North Carolina said so well, the House has 
adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it. So we moved to the 
middle and adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it. So we moved 
further to the middle, adopted a position, and the Senate rejected it. 
Then we said, Let's just sit down and talk about it to find that 
pathway forward.
  My friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, are talking a 
lot about a budget conference. I suspect we'll continue to hear that. I 
even read about it in the National Journal--apparently, that message is 
being sold well--but as my friends on both sides of the aisle know, a 
budget conference has absolutely no force of law whatsoever. Zero. We 
can conference a budget until we're blue in the face, Mr. Speaker, and 
we will never change one penny of Federal spending.
  Now that's different from the conference that this House moved to go 
to with the Senate. The conference that this House moved to have with 
the Senate--where we could actually change the law, where we could fund 
the government, where we could deal with the debt ceiling, where we 
could focus on priorities that each one of us has for our families back 
home--the conference this House moved to create, Mr. Speaker, can 
change the law.
  Let's do something that matters. Let's do it today.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I served as an aide here on Capitol Hill when Tip 
O'Neill was Speaker of the House. I think he is one of the greatest 
Speakers that ever served in the United States House of 
Representatives. He was a friend of mine as well.
  I will tell you that Speaker O'Neill would never go on national TV 
and threaten to default on the debt to this Nation. He would never, 
ever act in a way that might bring this economy to ruin. He put country 
before political party.
  I would also say that Speaker O'Neill understood the importance of 
working in a bipartisan way. He would be disgusted with the way this 
House is being run today. The bottom line is he'd be scratching his 
head right now, wondering why we just don't resolve this in a very 
simple way.
  There were 200 Democrats who have signed a letter saying, We will 
cooperate with the Republicans to pass a clean continuing resolution at 
Republican levels, and we know that there are 20 Republicans in the 
House who publicly said they would support such a move. That's the 
majority. We could open up the government in a matter of minutes. In 
the Senate, over a dozen Republican Senators voted for cloture on a 
clean continuing resolution. That is bipartisanship. Accept it. This is 
the way this House should be run.
  So I would just point that out to my colleagues that we're going 
through all this rigamarole for I don't know what when we could end 
this Republican shutdown right now by bringing a clean continuing 
resolution at Republican levels to the House floor. It would pass in a 
bipartisan way, and I predict that there will even be more than 20 
Republicans that would support it. They want a way out of this.
  Let's open the government. Let us not use the debt ceiling in the 
threatening manner in which it's being used by the Republican 
leadership here. We should never--I don't care what your political 
ideology is--default on our financial obligations. That is economic 
ruin for this country, and I think my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle know that. We should never use that in such a political way.
  Let's work together and appoint budget conferees and go to negotiate 
a budget conference so we can have some parameters in terms of numbers 
we can work with.
  I listened to some of my colleagues talking on the other side--even 
those who serve on the Budget Committee--and you wonder why we should 
have a Budget Committee if the Budget Committee doesn't mean anything. 
I have a lot more respect for the people that serve on that committee.
  As this time, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Lee).

                              {time}  1630

  Ms. LEE of California. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Also, let me just associate myself with the gentleman from 
Massachusetts' comments with regard to Speaker O'Neill. I, too, was a 
staffer during that period when the great Speaker, Mr. O'Neill, was 
Speaker, and there is no way that he would have allowed this hostage-
taking to occur.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule. Again, I just 
have to say, we've seen this 8 days, unfortunately, and it is a Tea 
Party Republican government shutdown. We've seen $2.4 billion in lost 
economic activity; and so, yes, this hostage-taking, it continues.
  Hostage-taking really is a deplorable tactic. The Tea Party 
Republicans continue to want to deny millions of Americans health 
care--and, yes, the Affordable Care Act is the law of the land, which 
the Supreme Court has upheld. That's why the shutdown continues, and 
the public knows it.
  Yet, instead of bringing up a budget bill to open up the government 
or pass a debt limit increase to pay our bills, the House has taken up 
two more last-minute bills to distract from their Tea Party Republican 
shutdown. This most recent bill establishes a supercommittee to make 
recommendations on spending and changes.
  I want to remind my colleagues, this is the same proposal--or very 
similar--that got us into this devastating sequester in the first 
place. We've been there; we've done that. Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Now, as a member of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, I can 
tell you that both the House and Senate have passed budget resolutions. 
Democrats have been trying to work out our

[[Page 15435]]

budget differences for 6 months, but Republicans continue to block 
these efforts. The American people deserve a functioning government.
  The public understands that we can open up the government. And I have 
to say, the Democrats did not want the funding level of the Senate 
budget bill, but we are compromising to get this government open.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Womack). The time of the gentlewoman has 
expired.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I yield the gentlelady an additional 30 seconds.
  Ms. LEE of California. It's also important to recognize, again, as an 
appropriator and as a member of the Budget Committee, I hear and see 
each and every day, whenever we're in committee, the tactics and the 
discussion with regard to cuts to Head Start and the women and children 
nutrition assistance program--all of those programs that just very 
recently the Republican Tea Party Members have started to say that they 
support. So let's see what happens. I hope that they do support this 
when we get to these budget negotiations.
  It's time that we shut down this shutdown. We need to reject this 
rule. Let's have an up-or-down vote to open up this government and let 
the chips fall where they may.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that there is a lot of dialogue on the 
floor today about opening up the government. Yet this body has passed 
bill after bill after bill--whether it's the intelligence community, 
whether it's Head Start, whether it's NIH--making sure that we are 
going through a deliberative process. Repeatedly, you are seeing where 
our friends on the other side vote ``no,'' and when it gets to the 
other body, even though it's a passed piece of legislation, the Senate, 
our friends over there, ignore the bills. I kind of wonder what we're 
really trying to aim at, whether we're really just trying to score 
political points or whether we can begin working together. That's what 
House Republicans are here to do: to set aside our differences, to try 
and fund these issues, to try and deal with the President.
  Earlier in the week, our great young Speaker, John Boehner, went to 
the White House. He was asked to come to the White House, and really 
all he was there to be told by the President was: I won't negotiate. I 
won't negotiate. I won't negotiate. Then, as Mr. Boehner tells the 
story, he got that message, so he came back to work. Here we are, 
trying to send ideas out about working together.
  The working group intentionally was an open-ended opportunity for 
Members of Congress--10 on the House side, 10 on the Senate side--to 
work together with an opportunity, as a working group, to try and 
overcome this bypass. That's what we're trying to do. I think we're 
going to be faithful to it. I think we're going to pass this here 
today, and then we're going to see what the Senate will do again--I'm 
sure, once again, just another piece of log over in their fireplace for 
the Senate majority leader to burn down. I am hopeful here today that 
we have common sense, and I think we will pass this.
  I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask the gentleman how many more speakers he has?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I would advise the gentleman, at this time, I do not 
have any further speakers. I thank the gentleman for asking.
  Mr. McGOVERN. May I inquire as to how much time I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 4 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I am going to urge that we defeat the previous question. If we defeat 
the previous question, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will 
allow the House to vote on the clean Senate continuing resolution so 
that we can send it to the President for his signature today.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the 
amendment in the Record, along with extraneous material, immediately 
prior to the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, as we bring this debate to a close, I have 
the dueling emotions of being angry and being very sad--angry that we 
are putting the American people through this trauma. This is totally 
unnecessary. This is a manufactured crisis.
  When my colleagues talk about the fact that Democrats aren't willing 
to negotiate, let me just refer to some of the recent headlines: 
``Nineteen Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate with Republicans''; 
that's according to the National Journal. ``Republicans Spent Year 
Blocking Budget Conference''; that was in the Huffington Post. 
``Boehner Tells GOP He is Through Negotiating with Obama''; that was in 
The Hill newspaper. I mean, those are the headlines about my friends' 
actions during these recent weeks.
  The bottom line is that what we're doing today really is sad because 
I think it diminishes this institution. We ought to be solving 
problems. We ought to be finding ways to lift people up. We ought to be 
trying to debate ways to create more jobs and opportunity in this 
country. We ought to get the government running. We ought to deal with 
the debt ceiling, not politicize it, and we ought to work on a long-
term negotiation so we have a long-term spending bill that makes sense 
for this country, and we're not doing that.
  We're coming up with a committee today that does nothing. You pass 
this bill, the government still shuts down. You pass this bill, we're 
still headed for a default on our obligations on October 17. This does 
nothing. It does nothing. It is sad because it is beneath this great 
House of Representatives. So many incredible things have happened on 
this floor, and yet this is so trivial. It is so meaningless at a time 
of such a great crisis.
  I would say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that this is 
a crisis that my friends have brought on themselves. There is nothing 
that says that we should be in shutdown today other than the fact that 
my friends on the other side of the aisle decided to shut the 
government down.
  Now they're saying they care about the monuments and they care about 
our senior citizens and our veterans, but they're the ones who shut the 
government down. They say they don't want to default on our financial 
obligations, yet we heard on ``This Week'' with George Stephanopoulos 
that the Speaker of the House is prepared to basically see this country 
default on our debt. That's what he said.
  I mean, I am shocked by that kind of talk. I don't care what party 
you're in, where you come from ideologically. We all should at least 
agree that we ought to pay our bills, that if we don't, it will do 
great damage to our economy, and it will hurt your constituents just as 
much as mine. We could do so much better. We could do so much better 
than this.
  I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who say 
they want a vote on a clean continuing resolution to vote with us on 
some of these procedural motions. Start giving us some votes on these 
procedural motions, because it appears that your leadership will not 
give you the right to an up-or-down vote. Notwithstanding all of the 
talk about a transparent process, an open process, you're not going to 
get that vote unless you force it.
  Here is the other sad thing. My friends on the other side of the 
aisle began this Congress by talking about regular order and a 
transparent, open process. Of all the stuff we've been voting on these 
last few days, nobody has seen it. Even the committee chairman who 
oversees these bills doesn't even come to the Rules Committee to 
testify. We don't know what we're voting on here.
  We can do better. Reject this rule. Vote ``no'' on the previous 
question.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I yield myself the balance of my time.

[[Page 15436]]

  I appreciate my dear friend, my colleague, from Worcester, 
Massachusetts. I will describe it to him real fast.
  Mr. Speaker, what we're trying to do is open up all the employees 
that are home at the FAA. That's it. We're going to bring them back to 
work; pay them; get it done, all the employees at the FAA.
  Secondly, we're trying to form a working group. We're trying to work 
around the process that has gotten bogged up today, with an idea from 
our Speaker, John Boehner, and our Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, and 
our whip, Kevin McCarthy, and a couple of people who are in the 
Republican leadership who are saying let's find another way around the 
logjam that we've got. So we came up with a good idea and said let's go 
to a working group. Let's actually get 10 Members of the Senate and 10 
Members of the House. Let's meet. Let's meet very quickly. As a matter 
of fact, the resolution says that, within 1 day, they've got to be 
selected; within 1 day after that, they have to meet. Let's put them to 
work. Let's put the Members to work on this on a bipartisan, bicameral 
basis. That is what this is about. It is really pretty simple.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not really rocket science right now. We're 
engaged in how we put one foot in front of the other, and Republicans 
have been doing this for 3 weeks. We're meeting at the Rules Committee. 
We're taking testimony. We are listening to the people who come to the 
committee.
  We have very vigorous, detailed debates where Members, Republicans 
and Democrats, come to the Rules Committee from the Appropriations 
Committee. As a matter of fact, we've seen some star witnesses in this 
House--stars, good people, great ideas--trying to push that we're going 
to work together. We're going to do this together. We can do this 
together. Not all the bills were agreed to, but a bunch of them have 
been on a bipartisan basis.
  So you never know when you throw up a good idea whether somebody is 
going to take you up on it or not. We have had a couple where that has 
worked; and we, as Republicans, are going to stay after it. We're the 
ones willing to negotiate.
  Now, there was a discussion about us showing up at the World War II 
Memorial. Yup, sure did. I did that myself, too. The reason we went 
down there is that there are men and women who served in the military 
during World War II who, at the last years of their lives, are coming 
up in what are called Honor Flights, where they come up here and meet 
together as people who were comrades in arms for the United States of 
America, who fought the Axis of Evil, the Germans, the Japanese, and 
others. They wanted to come just about 2 miles from here down to the 
World War II Memorial, and it was locked. It was bolted up and locked. 
So a couple of colleagues, my fellow Texans, went down there last week 
and found out--the park ranger was there. Well, who's allowed to get 
in? First Amendment protesters. First Amendment protesters are the only 
ones allowed in--well, and Members of Congress. So these two colleagues 
of mine took bolt cutters, opened it up, and it has been open ever 
since.
  That's what Republicans are trying to do. We are trying to do that 
not just for the World War II Memorial; we are trying to do that for 
this government. We are trying to work on commonsense ideas. We are 
asking for this House of Representatives to be with us today.
  I support this rule. I support the underlying legislation.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows:

  An Amendment to H. Res. 373 Offered by Mr. McGovern of Massachusetts

       At the end of the resolution, add the following new 
     sections:
       Sec. 5. Immediately upon adoption of this resolution the 
     joint resolution (H.J. Res. 59) making continuing 
     appropriations for fiscal year 2014, and for other purposes, 
     with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, 
     shall be taken from the Speaker's table and the pending 
     question shall be, without intervention of any point of 
     order, whether the House shall recede from its amendment and 
     concur in the Senate amendment. The Senate amendment shall be 
     considered as read. The question shall be debatable for one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
     member of the Committee on Appropriations. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the question of 
     receding from the House amendment and concurring in the 
     Senate amendment without intervening motion or demand for 
     division of the question.
       Sec. 6. Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
     consideration of H.J. Res. 59 as specified in section 5 of 
     this resolution.
                                  ____


        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Republican majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the Democratic minority to offer an alternative plan. It is a 
     vote about what the House should be debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives (VI, 308-311), describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       The Republican majority may say ``the vote on the previous 
     question is simply a vote on whether to proceed to an 
     immediate vote on adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no 
     substantive legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' 
     But that is not what they have always said. Listen to the 
     Republican Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in 
     the United States House of Representatives, (6th edition, 
     page 135). Here's how the Republicans describe the previous 
     question vote in their own manual: ``Although it is generally 
     not possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule. . . . When the 
     motion for the previous question is defeated, control of the 
     time passes to the Member who led the opposition to ordering 
     the previous question. That Member, because he then controls 
     the time, may offer an amendment to the rule, or yield for 
     the purpose of amendment.''
       In Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of 
     Representatives, the subchapter titled ``Amending Special 
     Rules'' states: ``a refusal to order the previous question on 
     such a rule [a special rule reported from the Committee on 
     Rules] opens the resolution to amendment and further 
     debate.'' (Chapter 21, section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: 
     ``Upon rejection of the motion for the previous question on a 
     resolution reported from the Committee on Rules, control 
     shifts to the Member leading the opposition to the previous 
     question, who may offer a proper amendment or motion and who 
     controls the time for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Republican 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further 
proceedings on this question will be postponed.

                          ____________________