[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15436-15439]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           RAISING A QUESTION OF THE PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE

  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of 
the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the resolution.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Whereas the BBC News, on October 1, 2013 in England, 
     published the following: ``For

[[Page 15437]]

     most of the world, a government shutdown is very bad news--
     the result of revolution, invasion or disaster. Even in the 
     middle of its ongoing civil war, the Syrian government has 
     continued to pay its bills and workers' wages. That leaders 
     of one of the most powerful nations on earth willingly 
     provoked a crisis that suspends public services and decreases 
     economic growth is astonishing to many.'';
        Whereas the state-run Xinhua news service, on October 2, 
     2013 in China, published the following: ``With no political 
     unity to redress its policy mistake, a dysfunctional 
     Washington is now overspending the confidence in its 
     leadership.'';
        Whereas The News of Mexico, on September 25, 2013 in 
     Mexico, published the following: ``They squabble over the 
     inconsequential accomplishment of a 10-week funding 
     extension. It isn't serious, but it certainly isn't funny.'';
        Whereas the Australian, on October 1, 2013 in Australia, 
     published the following: ``The irresponsible way in which 
     Congress . . . played the politics of partisan petulance and 
     obstruction . . . does them little credit. Neither does it 
     say much for the budgetary processes in the world's largest 
     economy.'';
       Whereas the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, on October 2, 
     2013 in Germany, published the following: ``The main actors 
     in this dispute, which brings together many factors, both 
     ideological and political, took a huge risk and, unhindered, 
     proceeded to validate everyone who ever accused the political 
     establishment in Washington of being rotten to the core . . . 
     The public is left wondering how things could have been 
     allowed to get to this point and why there is so much poison 
     in the system.'';
        Whereas the Suddeutsche Zeitung, on October 2, 2013 in 
     Germany, published the following: ``What has already been 
     apparent in America for a few years now is the self-
     destruction of one of the world's oldest democracies. And the 
     great tragedy here is that this work of destruction isn't 
     being wrought by enemies of democracy, greedy lobbyists or 
     sinister major party donors. America's democracy is being 
     broken by the very people who are supposed to carry and 
     preserve it . . . the politicians . . . At the moment, 
     Washington is fighting over the budget and nobody knows if 
     the country will still be solvent in three weeks . . . What 
     is clear, though, is that America is already politically 
     bankrupt.'';
        Whereas the Washington Post, on September 30, 2013, quoted 
     Justice Malala, a political commentator in South Africa as 
     saying the following: ``They tell us, `You guys are not being 
     fiscally responsible' . . . And now we see that they are 
     running their country a little like a banana republic . . . 
     there is a lot of sniggering going on.'';
        Whereas the headline of the New York Daily News, the 
     fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United 
     States, on October 1, 2013, read: ``House of Turds'', and the 
     bylines stated: ``D.C. cess-pols shut down government'' and 
     ``They get paid while nation suffers'';
        Whereas these reports call into question the dignity of 
     the House; and
        Whereas the resulting reduction in the public's perception 
     of the House's dignity has culminated in a 7% Congressional 
     approval rating in the most recent Economist/YouGov poll: 
     Now, therefore, be it
       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House--
       (1) without seeking to effect a change in the rules or 
     standing orders of the House or their interpretation; and
        (2) without prescribing a special order of business for 
     the House--

     that a government shutdown is a mark upon the dignity of the 
     House and that the House would be willing to pass a ``clean'' 
     continuing appropriations resolution to end it.

                              {time}  1645

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Florida wish to 
present argument on why the resolution is privileged under rule IX to 
take precedence over other questions?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I do.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the dignity of the 
House has been called into question. You have heard the text of the 
resolution, but I think that some points bear highlighting.
  The BBC News has reported that ``leaders of one of the most powerful 
nations on Earth''--by the way, that is still us--``willingly provoked 
a crisis that suspends public services.''
  A leading Chinese news service stated:

       A dysfunctional Washington is now overspending the 
     confidence in its leadership.

  A German newspaper stated:

       The main actors in this dispute took a huge risk and 
     proceeded to validate everyone who ever accused the political 
     establishment in Washington of being rotten to the core. The 
     public is left wondering how things could have been allowed 
     to get to this point and why there is so much poison in the 
     system.

  Another German newspaper said:

       What has already been apparent in America for a few years 
     now is the self-destruction of one of the world's oldest 
     democracies. And the great tragedy here is that this work of 
     destruction isn't being wrought by enemies of democracy, 
     greedy lobbyists, or sinister major party donors. America's 
     democracy is being broken by the very people who are supposed 
     to carry and preserve it--the politicians. What is clear, 
     though, is that America is already politically bankrupt.

  The headline of the New York Daily News, the fourth most widely 
circulated daily newspaper in the United States, on the first day of 
the government shutdown read this way----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair has heard the reading of the resolution.
  Does the gentleman have an argument to present as to why it qualifies 
as a matter of privilege under rule IX?
  Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I do, and I was about to get to it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you.
  As I just indicated, the headline of the New York Daily News, the 
fourth most widely circulated daily newspaper in the United States, on 
the first day of the government shutdown read this way: ``House of 
Turds.''
  The bylines stated: ``D.C. cess-pools shut down government,'' and 
``They get paid while the Nation suffers.''
  Just today, a new poll came out that demonstrated as follows:

       A national poll asked the following questions:
       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or witches? 
     Congress, 32 percent; witches, 46 percent.
       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or 
     hemorrhoids? Congress, 31 percent; hemorrhoids, 53 percent.
       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or dog poop? 
     Congress, 40 percent; dog poop, 47 percent.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  The Chair would again ask the gentleman from Florida to address 
whether or not this resolution is privileged under rule IX.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Yes, I am explaining why it is privileged under rule IX.
  May I continue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed so long as the 
gentleman confines his remarks to whether or not the resolution is 
privileged under rule IX. Should the gentleman fail to continue along 
that path, pursuant to the Chair's guidance, the gentleman will no 
longer be recognized, and the Chair will be prepared to rule on the 
question.
  The gentleman may proceed.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chairman, one of the questions before the House on 
this resolution is whether the dignity of the House has been offended. 
I am demonstrating vividly that the dignity of the House has been 
offended in support of this resolution.
  May I continue without interruption?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may continue under the 
previous guidance issued by the Chair.
  Proceed.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Good.
  The current polling indicates:

       What do you have a higher opinion of, Americans: Congress 
     or toenail fungus? Congress, 41 percent; toenail fungus, 44 
     percent.
       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or 
     cockroaches? Congress, 42 percent; cockroaches, 44 percent.
       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or potholes? 
     Congress, 36 percent; potholes, 47 percent.
       And finally----

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
  Once again, the Chair requests the gentleman from Florida to confine 
his remarks to whether or not the matter is privileged under rule IX. 
Should the gentleman proceed in any other manner, the Chair will be 
prepared to rule on the question.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, that is exactly what I have been doing. I 
would ask the Chair to allow me to continue without further 
interruption.
  May I continue?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may proceed so long as his 
comments are confined to the procedural issue of whether or not the 
issue is privileged under rule IX.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Chair, I want to repeat: one of the questions to 
make

[[Page 15438]]

that determination is whether the dignity of the House has been 
offended.
  As I indicated, there is one final point to make here before I get 
into further argument, which is this: the American public is now of the 
following opinion:

       What do you have a higher opinion of, Congress or zombies? 
     Congress, 37 percent; zombies, 43 percent.

  Now, clearly, statements such as these and others cited in the 
resolution call into question the dignity of the House. These 
statements are not from a single editorial or merely one passer-by. 
These statements are being expressed around the Nation and across the 
globe.
  They have contributed to a Congressional approval rating plummeting 
to 7 percent--that is 7 percent--in the latest Economist/YouGov poll, 
and they must be addressed by this body.
  Thankfully, rule IX of the rules of the House of Representatives 
provides Members a mechanism through which to address those times when 
the dignity of the House has been harmed and called into question. It 
allows for questions of privilege.
  Specifically, rule IX reads as follows:

       Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the 
     rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and 
     integrity of its proceedings.

  I submit to you, Mr. Chair, that these are questions squarely within 
the dignity of the House of Representatives.
  Further, rule IX provides that:

       A resolution reported as a question of the privileges of 
     the House, shall have precedence of all other questions 
     except motions to adjourn.

  I have offered a resolution as a question of the privileges of the 
House, and I am here today to secure a vote on that resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, you should find the obvious, which is that the dignity 
of the House has been called into question and that no part of the 
resolution that I have offered goes beyond the scope of a question of 
privilege--such as attempting to legislate--so that a vote must be 
allowed on this measure.
  For the record, Mr. Speaker, the vote that should be allowed would be 
on the following resolution:

       Resolved, That it is the sense of the House--
       (1) without seeking to effect a change in the rules or 
     standing orders of the House or their interpretation; and
       (2) without prescribing a special order of business for the 
     House--that a government shutdown is

  --and this is obvious at this point--

     a mark upon the dignity of the House and that the House would 
     be willing to pass a ``clean'' continuing appropriations 
     resolution to end it.

  That is right--``a mark upon the dignity of the House and that the 
House would be willing to pass a `clean' continuing appropriations 
resolution to end it.''
  What then is a satisfactory question of privilege?
  Well, from the plain text of rule IX, and from existing precedent, a 
satisfactory resolution must demonstrate that the dignity of the House 
has been called into question. It has been called into question to such 
a degree that I wanted to show you the cover from the Daily News, that 
I was prevented from doing so, because to show it to you--just to show 
it to you--would somehow be considered to be offensive to the dignity 
of this House.
  And the resolved clause of the resolution may not diverge into 
affecting the legislative actions of this body.
  I argue, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution satisfies both accounts.
  I have found no precedent in the annotated House Rules and Manual or 
Hind's or Cannon's or Deschler's Precedents that would allow the Chair 
to rule against the resolution before us today. In fact, one would 
question whether this entire body--including the Parliamentarian--has 
been politicized unnecessarily if you do rule against that today.
  Not once do the precedents address a resolution that outlines a 
litany of condemnations against Congress from media sources around the 
world and here at home, as opposed to responding to a single source of 
criticism. Not once do the precedents rule on a resolution citing 
Congressional approval ratings below 10 percent in conjunction with 
persistent reporting against the dignity of the House.
  If the first hurdle to be crossed today is that the dignity of the 
House has to be called into question, then, Mr. Speaker, you are 
required to rule in favor of this resolution raising a question of the 
privileges of the House.
  If ``dignity'' means what the dictionary says it means--``the state 
or quality of being worthy of honor or respect''--then surely the honor 
and respect of this House has been called into question.
  When only 7 out of 100 Americans approve of what we do--the lowest 
approval rating ever--then surely our dignity has been diminished and 
is actively being called into question.
  If we are to be called ``obstructionists'' and practicers of 
``partisan petulance;'' if we are to be called an establishment that is 
``rotten to the core;'' and if we are leaving Americans wondering why 
there is ``so much poison in the system,'' then surely our dignity as a 
body has been diminished.
  If we are accused of ``willingly provoking crises that suspend public 
services and decrease economic growth,'' then surely our dignity as a 
body has been diminished.
  If we cause international media outlets to refer to us as 
``politically bankrupt'' and responsible for ``breaking America's 
democracy,'' then our dignity as a body, as a House, is being called 
into question.

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend. The Chair has 
heard enough and is prepared to rule.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Well, the Chair has not heard my arguments.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair advises the gentleman from Florida 
that he is not recognized and that the Chair is prepared to rule on the 
question.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Well, excuse me, but I have a point of parliamentary 
order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Hearing argument on a question of order is 
within the Chair's discretion. The Chair will once again advise the 
gentleman from Florida that the Chair is ready to rule on the question.
  Mr. GRAYSON. I would remind the Chair that the Chair actually agreed 
to hear my argument. Having done so, the Chair needs to hear my full 
argument.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule on the 
question of whether the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Florida constitutes a question of the privileges of the House under 
rule IX.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Well, I have to say, Mr. Chair, that in doing so, you, 
yourself, at this point----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not recognized.
  The resolution alleges that a lapse in appropriations impairs the 
dignity of the House. It further expresses a sense of the House 
concerning action it might take on an appropriation measure. The 
gentleman from Florida casts this proposal as a statement.
  As the Chair ruled on recent occasions such as October 2 and October 
3, 2002; March 11, 2008; and December 13, 2011--in each case consistent 
with a principle enunciated by Speaker Gillett in his landmark ruling 
of May 6, 1921--a resolution expressing a legislative sentiment 
ordinarily does not give rise to a question of the privileges of the 
House under rule IX.
  The precedent of March 11, 2008, is particularly illustrative. On 
that occasion, a resolution alleged that legislative inaction had 
brought discredit upon the House, and declared that the House should 
consider a motion to concur in a specified Senate amendment. The Chair 
held that the resolution did not present a question affecting the 
rights of the House collectively, its safety, its dignity or the 
integrity of its proceedings as required under rule IX.
  These precedents are annotated in sections 702 and 706 of the House 
Rules and Manual. The principle upon which they stand was articulated 
by the Chair on January 24, 1996, as follows:

       To rule that a question of the privileges of the House 
     under rule IX may be raised by allegations of perceived 
     discredit brought upon the House by legislative action or 
     inaction, would permit any Member to allege an impact on the 
     dignity of the House based upon virtually any legislative 
     action or inaction.


[[Page 15439]]


  The Chair would not distinguish between those precedents addressing 
resolutions that called for specific legislative action and a 
resolution that merely provided a statement about such action. Both 
express a legislative sentiment and are properly initiated through the 
introduction of a resolution via the hopper.
  For these reasons, the resolution offered by the gentleman from 
Florida does not constitute a question of the privileges of the House 
under rule IX.
  Mr. GRAYSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to explain why the 
Chair is wrong and to finish my argument.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.

                          ____________________