Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I do, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, rule IX regarding questions of the

privilege of the House states that questions of privilege shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings. The integrity of its proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, clearly, the unprecedented actions that have been taken by the Democrats in charge have disenfranchised every single Member of this House. Appropriations bills have been, by tradition and previously by rule, brought to the floor under what's called an ``open rule,'' which means that every single Member of the House has an opportunity to affect the bill, to represent his or her constituents.

Each of us represents basically the same number of folks, 650,000, 675,000. When Members are not allowed to bring amendments to the floor on the spending of their constituents' tax money, that disenfranchises those Members. That is an affront to the House. It presents an indignity to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the closed rule that was passed recently, yesterday, resulted in more closed rules on appropriations bills in this House of Representatives by this leadership, by these Democrats in charge, more than any in the history, not of this decade, not of this century, but in the history of this Republic. Mr. Speaker, in the history of this Republic.

Now, I know my friend from California says that this is not the way we want things to operate, but, Mr. Speaker, they control the process. They control the process. They control this tyranny. Mr. Speaker, it is indeed tyranny. It's tyranny by the majority. It's what de Tocqueville warned about over 150 years ago when he said that the majority can indeed shut down the rights of the minority. And that's exactly what is happening, which is why this resolution ought to be a privileged resolution, because what it directs the Rules Committee to do is to return to regular order; return to a process that allows each and every one of us to represent our constituents; return to a process that Mr. Obey, then in the minority on the Appropriations Committee, said, ``We have gotten so far from the regular order that I fear that if this continues, the House will not have the capacity to return to the precedents and procedures of the House that have given true meaning to the term `representative democracy.' The reason we have stuck to regular order as long as we have in this Institution is to protect the rights of every Member to participate. And when we lose those rights, we lose the right to be called the greatest deliberative body in the world.''

Mr. Speaker, the tyranny of this majority, the tyranny of the folks in charge right now, have resulted in an affront on this House. Those actions, these actions have clearly violated the integrity of our proceedings. Therefore, I believe that this resolution qualifies as a privileged resolution of this House.

I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, America has been the light of liberty and a beacon of hope to the world for centuries, truly centuries. We are the greatest Nation the world has ever known. We have provided more hope and more opportunity and more liberty and more freedom for more individuals than any nation in the history of mankind.

But today, July 9, 2009, folks in my district and folks across this land are not just concerned; they are fearful. They are afraid that the very Nation that they know and love and that has been the greatest Nation in the history of the world is slipping away from them--in so many ways, so many ways.

Mr. Speaker, we all just got back to Washington from a week many of us spent at home over the July 4 break, and I heard people come up to me and tell me that they were concerned and worried and fearful about the amount of spending and the amount of borrowing and the amount of taxing coming out of Washington. They say Washington is out of control. Mr. Speaker, they are right. They are absolutely right. The deficit this year, $1.8 trillion; four times the largest previous deficit. Four times.

Borrowing. We are borrowing 50 cents of every single dollar we are spending. Mr. Speaker, it is out of control. Taxing, raising taxes on every single American. I don't care what the President tells you, Mr. Speaker, it is not true. They are raising taxes on every single American.

Now the solution, one of the solutions, is to allow this deliberative body, this greatest deliberative body in the history of the world the opportunity to allow the Representatives in this body to work their will, to say I believe I am going to represent my constituents in this way and offer this amendment on this bill and thereby allow the House to make a decision.

We are in appropriations season, Mr. Speaker. It is a time when we decide how to spend Americans' hard-earned money, the money that they send to Washington. During that season in the past, the House has allowed appropriations bills to come to the floor under what is called an open rule which means that everybody gets the opportunity to amend the appropriations bill. They get the opportunity to offer an amendment in the House, and the House gets to vote on the amendment.

There have been amendments offered on recent bills that have not been allowed. In fact, this is the most repressive majority in the history of the Republic if you use the number of closed rules, not allowing amendments to come to the floor.

This, Mr. Speaker, this is the most repressive majority ever in the history of this Republic.

An amendment that was offered but not allowed to the bill we voted on today would have prohibited funding for any new international organization for the purposes that would tax American energy companies from abroad. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Speaker and the Democrats in charge want American energy companies to be taxed by foreign governments.

An amendment that wasn't allowed would have reduced the spending 15 percent on this bill to 2009 levels, a savings of $17 billion. That amendment, Mr. Speaker, was not allowed. I can only assume that the Speaker and the Democrats in charge want to increase spending by $17 billion over 2009 levels.

An amendment that wasn't allowed, an amendment to prevent U.S. funds from being used to pay the legal expenses of United Nations employees who have been charged with malfeasance, not allowed. Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that the Speaker of the House and the Democrats in charge want the American taxpayers to pay the legal expenses for United Nations employees who are charged with malfeasance.

Mr. Speaker, an amendment that wasn't allowed would have prohibited assistance to members of foreign terrorist organizations. Mr. Speaker, the only thing I am left to conclude and the American people are left to conclude is that this Speaker and the Democrats in charge want the American taxpayer to provide assistance to members of foreign terrorist organizations.

Mr. Speaker, this isn't the way the House is supposed to be run. It is not the way that the House has been run for the last 233 years. It is not the way that the American people learned about democracy, that their Representatives would be allowed to represent them actively and aggressively so that people had the opportunity to represent their constituents equally with every other Member.

Mr. Speaker, right now in this Chamber we have tyranny from the majority, tyranny that is not allowing the voice of the people to be heard. Mr. Speaker, I demand that this Chamber, that these Members of this House of Representatives make certain that the rules are appropriately followed and end the tyranny of the majority in this Chamber now.

Thank you so much, Dr. Burgess, for your leadership on this issue and so many others. And I want to thank you for your participation we had at the event at George Washington University and really the wonderful perspective that you bring as a physician to the table.

In my previous life, I was an orthopedic surgeon. I spent 20-plus years practicing orthopedic surgery in the Atlanta area.

As we move forward with health care reform, it's clear that something is coming. And I get asked by folks: What kinds of things don't we want? What kinds of things can they do to us that would be bad? And I would suggest, Dr. Burgess and colleagues, three things that would be a death knell for quality health care in the United States.

The first is ceding the definition of quality to the Federal Government. If we say as a society that we are going to allow the bureaucrats, nonmedical individuals, to decide what quality health care is, as has been proposed by the President through his Comparative Effectiveness Research Council and others with the list of programs that you've heard Mr. Shadegg describe just a moment ago, then that would be a death knell for American medicine. Quality truly is only known by compassionate, caring physicians and patients and their families who know what is best for them because there is no way that the government can define what's best for each and every individual.

The second death knell for quality health care I believe to be any mandate, any individual or employer mandate. If individuals are required to purchase health insurance, that's a death knell. If employers are required to provide health insurance, that's a death knell. Why? Well, it's a mandate, which is a bad idea. But more importantly, when we here in Washington mandate something, what we do is define what we are mandating, and in this instance we would demand what qualified as health insurance or health coverage.

Dr. Burgess, you well know that this Congress would define something that doesn't include all sorts of robust things already out there in the marketplace like health savings accounts, medical savings accounts, high-deductible catastrophic plans, some cafeteria plans. They wouldn't only be unavailable, they'd be illegal. This Congress would make them illegal. So the notion that if you like what you have, you can keep it is just folly. It's power fiction.

And the final death knell to the quality of American health care I believe to be any government-run program, any government takeover of any portion of our health care system beyond where it already is, the public option as it's described, which is a euphemism for a government takeover. And why is that? Well, I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, and really folks across this land, to think about your health care principles. What are your health care principles? What do you believe ought to be foremost in any bill that we produce? I've got six of them. They're accessibility, we ought to have accessibility to the health care system for all Americans; affordability, it ought to be affordable. It ought not to have the costs rise more than they should; quality, we need to have the highest quality of health care; responsiveness and innovation, we need a system that's responsive and innovative; and then choices, we need choices.

Those are my six: accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, and choices. I would suggest to my colleagues that none of those, in fact, I would suggest that none of the principles that any American could come up with, are improved by the intervention of the Federal Government. None of them are improved by more government control. None of them are improved by an administration that believes that a health czar is what we need as opposed to the highest quality of medicine.

There are wonderful solutions, and I know we will be talking about them this evening.

I want to commend my colleague from Texas, Dr. Burgess, for his leadership on this issue and can only hope that as we move forward, we are allowed to have an open and a vibrant discussion so that the Congress of the United States can have the benefit of the wonderful experience of people on both sides of the aisle as we move forward to solve this remarkable challenge in the area of health care.

I appreciate my friend from Arizona's comparing it to auto insurance because that's what you oftentimes hear. You hear folks say, well, we require folks to have automobile insurance, why shouldn't we require them to have health insurance? And you allude to the fact that mandatory automobile insurance doesn't result in everybody having automobile insurance.

It doesn't work. That's why you don't do it for health insurance.

But more importantly, if one mandated health coverage, then we, again, cede the definition of what that coverage would be to the Federal Government. And ceding the definition of what automobile insurance is is one thing; ceding the definition of quality health care, something so personal to each and every one of us and our families, I would suggest is a step in the wrong direction.

You said that 48 States mandate auto insurance, two States don't, but the two States that don't have a higher level of insured motorists?

So the moral of the story is?

Mandates don't work.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)(1) of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated

as President of the United States, and the outstanding public

debt of the United States stood at $10.627 trillion;

Whereas on January 20, 2009, in the President's Inaugural

Address, he stated, ``[T]hose of us who manage the public's

dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad

habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only

then can we restore the vital trust between a people and

their government.'';

Whereas on February 17, 2009, the President signed into

public law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009;

Whereas the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of

revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787

billion;

Whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will cost an additional

$300 billion;

Whereas on February 26, 2009, the President unveiled his

budget blueprint for FY 2010;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes the

eleven highest annual deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes to

increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by FY 2019, more

than doubling it from current levels;

Whereas on March 11, 2009, the President signed into public

law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 constitutes

nine of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009 which had

not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.1

billion more than the request of President Bush;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.0

billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution

for FY 2009;

Whereas on April 1, 2009, the House considered H. Con. Res.

85, Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes the six highest annual

deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes to increase the national debt

to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than

compared to the level on January 20, 2009;

Whereas Congressional Republicans produced an alternative

budget proposal for FY 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less

than the Congressional Democrats' budget over 10 years;

Whereas the Republican Study Committee produced an

alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which improves the

budget outlook in every single year, balances the budget by

FY 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion

compared to the President"s budget;

Whereas on April 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public

criticism, the President convened the first cabinet meeting

of his Administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a

collective $100 million in the next 90 days;

Whereas the challenge to cut a collective $100 million

represents just 1/40,000 of the Federal budget;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding Troubled Asset

Relief Program, or TARP, funds to banks stood at $197.6

billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

AIG stood at $69.8 billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units

stood at $80 billion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of

the United States was $11.409 trillion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the

outstanding public debt of the United States came to

$37,236.88;

Whereas according to a New York Times/CBS News survey,

three-fifths of Americans (60 percent) do not think the

President has developed a clear plan for dealing with the

current budget deficit (New York Times/CBS News, Conducted

June 12-16, 2009, Survey of 895 Adults Nationwide);

Whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing

with runaway Federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal

restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process

in the House of Representatives;

Whereas before assuming control of the House of

Representatives in January 2007, Congressional Democrats were

committed to an open and transparent appropriations process;

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``Democratic Declaration: Honest Leadership and Open

Government,'' page 2 states, ``Our goal is to restore

accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of

government.'';

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' page 29 states,

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.'';

Whereas on November 21, 2006, The San Francisco Chronicle

reported, ``Speaker Pelosi pledged to restore `minority

rights' - including the right of Republicans to offer

amendments to bills on the floor . . . The principle of

civility and respect for minority participation in this House

is something that we promised the American people, she said.

`It's the right thing to do.' '' (``Pelosi's All Smiles

through a Rough House Transition,'' The San Francisco

Chronicle, November 21, 2006);

Whereas on December 6, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated,

``[We] promised the American people that we would have the

most honest and open government and we will.'';

Whereas on December 17, 2006, The Washington Post reported,

``After a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but

crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, Pelosi

is determined to try to return the House to what it was in an

earlier era - `where you debated ideas and listened to each

others arguments.' '' (``Pelosi's House Diplomacy,'' The

Washington Post, December 17, 2006);

Whereas on December 5, 2006, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

stated, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that

gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability

to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

(``Hoyer Says Dems' Plans Unruffled by Approps Logjam,''

CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006);

Whereas during debate on June 14, 2005, in the

Congressional Record on page H4410, Chairwoman Louise M.

Slaughter of the House Rules Committee stated, ``If we want

to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and

thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open

rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already

restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the

exception.'';

Whereas since January 2007, there has been a failure to

commit to an open and transparent process in the House of

Representatives;

Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68, in

the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than in the

previous Congress, 9.22, under Republican control;

Whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent

process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with

runaway Federal spending reached its pinnacle in the House's

handling of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 contains $64.4

billion in discretionary spending, 11.6 percent more than

enacted in FY 2009;

Whereas on June 11, 2009, the House Rules Committee issued

an announcement stating that amendments for H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 must be pre-printed in the

Congressional Record by the close of business on June 15,

2009;

Whereas both Republicans and Democrats filed 127 amendments

in the Congressional Record for consideration on the House

floor;

Whereas on June 15, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 544, a rule with a pre-printing requirement

and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, the House proceeded with one hour

of general debate, or one minute to vet each $1.07 billion in

H.R. 2847, in the Committee of the Whole;

Whereas after one hour of general debate the House

proceeded with amendment debate;

Whereas after just 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one

minute to vet each $3.02 billion in H.R. 2847, a motion that

the Committee rise was offered by Congressional Democrats;

Whereas the House agreed on a motion that the Committee

rise by a recorded vote of 179 Ayes to 124 Noes, with all

votes in the affirmative being cast by Democrats;

Whereas afterwards, the House Rules Committee convened a

special, untelevised meeting to dispense with further

proceedings on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas on June 17, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 552, a new and restrictive structured rule

for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas every House Republican and 27 House Democrats voted

against agreeing on H. Res. 552;

Whereas H. Res. 552 made in order just 23 amendments, with

a possibility for 10 more amendments, out of the 127

amendments originally filed;

Whereas H. Res. 552 severely curtailed pro forma amendments

for the purposes of debate;

Whereas the actions of Congressional Democrats to curtail

debate and the number of amendments offered to H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 effectively ended the process to

deal with runaway Federal spending in a positive and

responsible manner;

Whereas Congressional Democrats continue to curtail debate

and the number of amendments offered to appropriations bills;

Whereas on June 18, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 559, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H. Res. 559 made in order just one amendment out of

the 20 amendments originally filed;

Whereas on June 23, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 573, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2892, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,

2010;

Whereas H. Res. 573 made in order just 9 amendments, with a

possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 91 amendments

originally filed;

Whereas on June 24, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 578, a restrictive structured rule for H.R.

2996, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H. Res. 578 made in order just 8 amendments, with a

possibility for 5 more amendments, out of the 105 amendments

originally filed; and

Whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being

visited upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives recommit itself to fiscal

restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway

Federal spending;

(2) the House of Representatives return to its best

traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process

without a pre-printing requirement; and

(3) the House Rules Committee shall report out open rules

for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder

of the 111th Congress.

Madam Speaker, this would be humorous if it weren't so doggone sad.

This national energy tax bill will impose a massive tax that even the President's own aides have admitted would cost $2 trillion to taxpayers.

The President himself boasted about the enormous cost saying, ``under my plan of cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

Indeed, this plan would increase taxes on American families by $3,100 and raise their energy bill by $1,500 a year. This national energy tax will force many businesses to outsource jobs overseas or close their doors altogether, which will cost over a million jobs annually.

Amazingly, it will have little or no impact on the environment. Many experts believe the environment will be adversely affected since many companies will be forced overseas where emission and environmental standards are minimal or nonexistent.

Hundreds of groups such as the NFIB, the U.S. Chamber, and the National Association of Manufacturers oppose this

legislation. Tax and government watchdog groups, including the National Taxpayer Union, Americans for Tax Reform, and Citizens Against Government Waste, oppose this legislation.

This bill is bad for the environment and bad for the American people. Just vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, unanimous consent request.

Madam Speaker, it's been estimated, with great accuracy, that between 2.3 million and 2.7 million jobs will be lost each year with this bill. I would ask unanimous consent that the House rise for a moment of silence to recognize those who will lose their jobs because of this bill.

I thank the Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I rise to a question of privileges of the House and offer the resolution previously noticed.

I do, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, questions of privileges of the House come to floor by virtue of rule IX of the House of Representatives which states, in part, questions of privileges shall be first those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity and the integrity of its proceedings. Integrity of its proceedings, Madam Speaker.

The Commerce, Science, Justice, Appropriations bill that was outlined in the resolution that has just been read--clearly, the actions taken by the Democrats in charge, clearly have disenfranchised every single Member of this House, limiting their ability to effectively represent their constituents.

Madam Speaker, these actions, these actions by the Democrats in charge have violated, I believe, and I believe that the Members of the House would concur, have violated the integrity of our proceedings, and therefore I believe that this resolution constitutes a privileged resolution.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)1 of rule IX, I hereby notify the House of my intention to offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the House.

The form of my resolution is as follows:

Whereas on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was inaugurated

as President of the United States, and the outstanding public

debt of the United States stood at $10.627 trillion;

Whereas on January 20, 2009, in the President's Inaugural

Address, he stated, ``[T]hose of us who manage the public's

dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad

habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only

then can we restore the vital trust between a people and

their government.'';

Whereas on February 17, 2009, the President signed into

public law H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

of 2009;

Whereas the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

included $575 billion of new spending and $212 billion of

revenue reductions for a total deficit impact of $787

billion;

Whereas the borrowing necessary to finance the American

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will cost an additional

$300 billion;

Whereas on February 26, 2009, the President unveiled his

budget blueprint for FY 2010;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes the

eleven highest annual deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the President's budget for FY 2010 proposes to

increase the national debt to $23.1 trillion by FY 2019, more

than doubling it from current levels;

Whereas on March 11, 2009, the President signed into public

law H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 constitutes

nine of the twelve appropriations bills for FY 2009 which had

not been enacted before the start of the fiscal year;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.1

billion more than the request of President Bush;

Whereas the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 spends $19.0

billion more than simply extending the continuing resolution

for FY 2009;

Whereas on April 1, 2009, the House considered H. Con. Res.

85, Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY 2010;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes the six highest annual

deficits in U.S. history;

Whereas the Congressional Democrats' budget proposal for FY

2010, H. Con. Res. 85, proposes to increase the national debt

to $17.1 trillion over five years, $5.3 trillion more than

compared to the level on January 20, 2009;

Whereas Congressional Republicans produced an alternative

budget proposal for FY 2010 which spends $4.8 trillion less

than the Congressional Democrats' budget over 10 years;

Whereas the Republican Study Committee proposed an

alternative budget proposal for FY 2010 which improves the

budget outlook in every single year, balances the budget by

FY 2019, and cuts the national debt by more than $6 trillion

compared to the President's budget;

Whereas on April 20, 2009, attempting to respond to public

criticism, the President convened the first cabinet meeting

of his Administration and challenged his cabinet to cut a

collective $100 million in the next 90 days;

Whereas the challenge to cut a collective $100 million

represents just 1/40,000 of the Federal budget;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding Troubled Asset

Relief Program, or TARP, funds to banks stood at $197.6

billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

AIG stood at $69.8 billion;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, total outstanding TARP funds to

domestic automotive manufacturers and their finance units

stood at $80 billion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, the outstanding public debt of

the United States was $11.409 trillion;

Whereas on June 19, 2009, each citizen's share of the

outstanding public debt of the United States came to

$37,236.88;

Whereas according to a New York Times/CBS News survey,

three-fifths of Americans (60 percent) do not think the

President has developed a clear plan for dealing with the

current budget deficit;

Whereas the best means to develop a clear plan for dealing

with runaway Federal spending is a real commitment to fiscal

restraint and an open and transparent appropriations process

in the House of Representatives;

Whereas before assuming control of the House of

Representatives in January 2007, Congressional Democrats were

committed to an open and transparent appropriations process;

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``Democratic Declaration: Honest Leadership and Open

Government,'' page 2 states, ``Our goal is to restore

accountability, honesty and openness at all levels of

government.'';

Whereas according to a document by Congressional Democrats

entitled ``A New Direction for America,'' page 29 states,

``Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure

that allows open, full, and fair debate consisting of a full

amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer

its alternatives, including a substitute.'';

Whereas on November 21, 2006, The San Francisco Chronicle

reported, ``Speaker Pelosi pledged to restore `minority

rights'--including the right of Republicans to offer

amendments to bills on the floor . . . The principles of

civility and respect for minority participation in this House

is something that we promised the American people, she said.

`It's the right thing to do.' '' (The San Francisco

Chronicle, November 21, 2006);

Whereas on December 6, 2006, Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated,

``[We] promised the American people that we would have the

most honest and open government and we will.'';

Whereas on December 17, 2006, The Washington Post reported,

``After a decade of bitter partisanship that has all but

crippled efforts to deal with major national problems, Pelosi

is determined to try to return the House to what it was in an

earlier era--`where you debated ideas and listened to each

others arguments.' '' (The Washington Post, December 17,

2006);

Whereas on December 5, 2006, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

stated, ``We intend to have a Rules Committee . . . that

gives opposition voices and alternative proposals the ability

to be heard and considered on the floor of the House.''

(CongressDaily PM, December 5, 2006);

Whereas during debate on June 14, 2005, in the

Congressional Record on page H4410, Chairwoman Louise M.

Slaughter of the House Rules Committee stated, ``If we want

to foster democracy in this body, we should take the time and

thoughtfulness to debate all major legislation under an open

rule, not just appropriations bills, which are already

restricted. An open process should be the norm and not the

exception.'';

Whereas since January 2007, there has been a failure to

commit to an open and transparent process in the House of

Representatives;

Whereas more bills were considered under closed rules, 64

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 49, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer bills were considered under open rules, 10

total, in the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than

in the previous Congress, 22, under Republican control;

Whereas fewer amendments were allowed per bill, 7.68, in

the 110th Congress under Democratic control, than in the

previous Congress, 9.22, under Republican control;

Whereas the failure to commit to an open and transparent

process in order to develop a clear plan for dealing with

runaway Federal spending reached its pinnacle in the House's

handling of H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 contains $64.4

billion in discretionary spending, 11.6 percent more than

enacted in FY 2009;

Whereas on June 11, 2009, the House Rules Committee issued

an announcement stating that amendments for H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 must be pre-printed in the

Congressional Record by the close of business on June 15,

2009;

Whereas both Republicans and Democrats filed 127 amendments

in the Congressional Record for consideration on the House

floor;

Whereas on June 15, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 544, a rule with a pre-printing requirement

and unlimited pro forma amendments for purposes of debate;

Whereas on June 16, 2009, the House proceeded with one hour

of general debate, or one minute to vet each $1.07 billion in

H.R. 2847, in the Committee of the Whole;

Whereas after one hour of general debate the House

proceeded with amendment debate;

Whereas after just 22 minutes of amendment debate, or one

minute to vet each $3.02 billion in H.R. 2847, a motion that

the Committee rise was offered by Congressional Democrats;

Whereas the House agreed on a motion that the Committee

rise by a recorded vote of 179 Ayes to 124 Noes, with all

votes in the affirmative being cast by Democrats;

Whereas afterwards, the House Rules Committee convened a

special, untelevised meeting to dispense with further

proceedings on H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas on June 17, 2009, the House Rules Committee

reported H. Res. 552, a new and restrictive structured rule

for H.R. 2847, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010;

Whereas every House Republican and 27 House Democrats voted

against agreeing on H. Res. 552;

Whereas H. Res. 552 made in order just 23 amendments, with

a possibility for 10 more amendments, out of the 127

amendments originally filed;

Whereas H. Res. 552 severely curtailed pro forma amendments

for the purposes of debate;

Whereas the actions of Congressional Democrats to curtail

debate and the number of amendments offered to H.R. 2847, the

Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Appropriations Act, 2010 effectively ended the process to

deal with runaway Federal spending in a positive and

responsible manner; and

Whereas the actions taken have resulted in indignity being

visited upon the House of Representatives: Now, therefore, be

it

Resolved, That--

(1) the House of Representatives recommit itself to fiscal

restraint and develop a clear plan for dealing with runaway

Federal spending;

(2) the House of Representatives return to its best

traditions of an open and transparent appropriations process

without a pre-printing requirement; and

(3) the House Rules Committee shall report out open rules

for all general appropriations bills throughout the remainder

of the 111th Congress.

Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I move that the vote on the amendments be divided.

Madam Speaker, I move that the amendments be divided.

Parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, isn't it true that rules routinely provide for a separate vote to be allowed when the Committee rises on amendments being offered in the Committee of the Whole?

Further parliamentary inquiry.

Madam Speaker, if a Member voted ``no'' on one amendment and ``yes'' on another amendment and wanted the opportunity to have a separate vote on those two amendments, my understanding is that the ruling of the Chair and the rule prohibits a separate vote on those two amendments; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

If I desired a vote on two separate amendments, is there a way under the rule for that to be accomplished?

Further inquiry, Madam Speaker.

It is my understanding that this type of rule has never been utilized before. Is the Speaker aware of that?

I thank the Speaker.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that because the vote in the Committee of the Whole was within the margin of the number of Delegates that there are in the House, the Committee has now risen and we're in the Whole House and the vote that we are about to have will be the same amendment; is that correct?

I thank the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move that we reconsider the vote just held.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment made in order by the rule at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment that says that we ought to take $100 million, we ought to adopt the President's challenge to the departments, and we ought to save, remove, $100 million from the Department of Justice in this bill.

On April 20 the President held his first Cabinet meeting, and he charged the members of his Cabinet with finding $100 million out of their departments in savings. This was to try to live up to his promise of going through the budget line by line.

It's important, Mr. Chairman, to put $100 million in context: A $100 million reduction in the President's budget would be 1/40,000th of the Federal budget, 1/7,830th of the size of the ``nonstimulus'' bill adopted earlier this year, 1/1,845th of this year's budget deficit reduced. It would be the amount that the Federal Government spends every 13 minutes. Mr. Chairman, $100 million is what the government spends every 13 minutes.

Don't you think we could find $100 million, what we spend every 13 minutes, as savings? It's the equivalent of a family that earns $40,000 cutting a dollar out of their budget.

Mr. Chairman, in the context of this bill, it's even more striking. From fiscal year 2008 numbers to this proposal here on the table, a 24.2 percent increase, that's a $13 billion increase, and $100 million is less than 1 percent.

Mr. Chairman, it just makes sense, while the American people are struggling, while the American people are tightening their belts, while they're clamoring for us to be fiscally responsible and not spend any more of their money, to save $100 million, find $100 million. Can't we do just that?

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, carefully crafted? Carefully crafted? A 24.2 percent increase, $13 billion increase, carefully crafted?

I never suggested that these programs weren't important. What I suggested, Mr. Chairman, was that out of the entire budget of the Department of Justice, can we not save a penny on a dollar? Can we not save a penny on a dollar when the American people are struggling across this land to find pennies that the Federal Government is stealing from them? Can we not just save a penny on a dollar? It's a simple thing to do, Mr. Chairman.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield to my friend from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Chairman, again, I think it's important to appreciate that in the context of this overall bill, in the context of this portion of the appropriations process that's gone from $51 billion in 2008 to $64 billion this year, that's a 24.2 percent increase, a $13 billion increase. Can we not find $100 million? In fact, that's what the President asked, to find $100 million in savings. It wasn't too much for the President to ask.

Let's help out this administration in their minimal attempts to provide fiscal responsibility, minimal attempts. I urge my colleagues to support an amendment that all it's asking for is saving less than one penny out of every dollar.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk made in order under the rule.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is again another very simple amendment. It would reduce the total appropriations in this bill by $644,150,000.

Now, you might ask Mr. Chairman, how did I come up with that number? Well, that is 1 percent of the bill. That is right, $644,150,000 is 1 percent of the bill.

So what this amendment asks is, is this Congress responsible enough to be able to decrease the amount of spending in this bill by 1 percent, a penny out of every dollar?

Now, that is not 1 percent of last year, Mr. Chairman. That is 1 percent off the proposed, and the proposed is an 11.6 percent increase over last year. That means we would go from an 11.6 percent increase to a 10.6 percent increase.

Mr. Chairman, do you think we can handle that? Do you think we can handle that?

There are a lot of numbers out there across this land. I don't know if you have been paying attention. Outstanding public debt as of today, $11.4 trillion. Outstanding public debt per American citizen, $37,231.22. Average increase in our national debt every single day because of the money spent by this Congress and this administration, $3.82 billion a day--a day, Mr. Chairman.

The country's gross domestic product fell by 6.1 percent in the first quarter. The President's budget proposes the 11th-highest annual deficits in United States history. The unemployment rate out there is 9.4 percent, Mr. Chairman. That is higher than the administration assured the Nation it would be if we did nothing--if we did nothing when the non-stimulus bill was passed, 9.4 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the Federal tax revenues in this Nation dropped 34 percent in April 2009 compared to 1 year ago--34 percent. Mr. Chairman, one might be able to just extrapolate that the American people are tightening their belts by 34 percent. Do you think this Congress can tighten its belt by 1 percent?

A penny out of every dollar, that is all we are asking. And it is not going across-the-board. It is not that meat ax that my friend from West Virginia talks about. It is allowing the department itself to figure out how to save a penny out of every dollar that it spends. We ought to be able to do that, Mr. Chairman.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's comments, but let's be honest. A cut? A cut? The amount of money spent last year in this area of the budget, $57.7 billion-- $57.7 billion. The amount in this bill to spend, an 11.6 percent increase, remember, Mr. Chairman, $64.4 billion. My amendment, what would we spend? $63.8 billion.

Remember, Mr. Chairman, last year we spent $57.7. This year it is 63.8 under this amendment. 57.7, 63.8--that's a cut? Mr. Chairman, a penny out of every dollar.

This definition of a cut is like when our teenage son had an allowance each week of $1, and he came and said, Dad, you think I could have $2 a week? I said, No, but we could probably make it $1.50 a week. He said thank you very much. But under this definition, that would be a 50-cent cut. That would be a 50 percent cut.

Mr. Chairman, let's be serious. $57 billion last year, $64 billion this year. Do you think we can find a penny on the dollar and move it to $63.8 billion? Are we that irresponsible that we can't do that?

There is 9.4 percent unemployment across this land. People are having a difficult time putting food on the table, wondering whether they are going to be able to cover their health care costs, wondering whether or not they are going to be able to send their kids to school. The United States is in danger of losing its Triple A credit rating due to the accumulation of over $1 trillion in debt.

Mr. Chairman, when are we going to start? When is this fiscal responsibility out of this crowd going to start?

A penny out of every dollar. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that is a minimal amount, a reasonable amount, an amount that the American people look at their folks here in Washington, their representatives here in Washington, and say, Why on Earth can't you find that? Why can't you find it?

We ought to be able to do this. In fact, not doing this is morally reprehensible. Not doing this is irresponsible.

Not doing this is an abrogation of our duty. Not doing this is a woeful lack of leadership.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I want to thank my friend from Virginia for his leadership on this issue and his attempts to promote fiscal responsibility and raise some significant concerns just in general about this piece of legislation.

The fact of the matter is that the rule that was adopted by this House to consider this bill in fact waives rules that are supposed to keep us fiscally responsible. So it waives rules that say that you have to have appropriate information about earmarks, and it waives rules to say that the PAYGO rule, that things have to be paid for, that we're not going to drive the Nation further into debt and deficit with the adoption of this.

Now, waiving a rule means that you don't follow it. And we don't follow it to such a huge degree in the area of earmarks that I have here the list of earmarks. And they go on, Mr. Chairman, for page after page after page after page in what I think is probably about six font. So it's pretty small. And there are thousands of them, literally thousands.

The question becomes whether or not anybody in Washington is listening to the concerns of the American people. And their concern that I hear every weekend when I go home and every day when I talk to my constituents and folks from around this land is that they don't believe that Washington is being fiscally responsible. They see bailout after bailout, they see expenditure after expenditure, they see bill after bill of more money going out the door and not money coming in, more things being done to depress the economy than to improve the economy.

And so, Mr. Chairman, it is with great concern that I believe we are launching into this appropriation season, having started the process by setting the precedent that thousands and thousands of earmarks are appropriate and that we are not going to worry about whether or not we pay for the bill itself.

So I think that we all ought to listen to our constituents and take pause and think about the issues with which we're dealing here and attempt to be more responsible with the hard-earned taxpayer money.

I thank my good friend from Virginia.

I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to commend my friend from Illinois for offering this amendment and just to point out a couple items as it relates to these issues. The Census is slated in this bill to receive $7.1 billion. So I think that the gentleman from Illinois has picked an appropriate, responsible amount out of that $7.1 billion to be used for a study that ought to be performed to demonstrate the importance of what ought not really be called the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. It ought to be called the Colombia Fair Trade Agreement.

As the gentleman stated with great eloquence, the lack of enacting the Colombia FTA by this majority is actually harming American companies. That's right, Mr. Chairman. We're harming American jobs and American companies by not acting on something that both executive branches have already agreed to.

So this is a wise amendment, an appropriate amendment, an appropriate area of study that ought to be done. I wonder if the chairman of the subcommittee would be willing to respond to a question.

To my friend from West Virginia, I wonder, if this amendment passes, is my friend from West Virginia able to commit to doing all that he can to make certain that this amendment remains in the final work product as it comes through the conference process?

I will yield to my friend from West Virginia.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, that really is where the rub is, is that there appears to be no significant resolve on the part of the majority party to actually determine what the level of harm is to the American economy and American businesses without adoption of the Colombia Fair Trade Agreement.

I appreciate my friend from West Virginia for agreeing to accept the amendment. But it is with little comfort because, as you heard, Mr. Chairman, there is little or no commitment to making certain that this stays in this bill as it moves through the process. As you know, Mr. Chairman, this is the first step in this appropriations process, and we're early in the amendment process. But it seems to me that this amendment is of significant import, and also significant knowledge would be gained from this study to give Members of this body appropriate information with which to be able to make decisions as they move forward and decide for themselves whether or not to push their leadership, the Speaker and the leadership on the Democrat side, to, in fact, adopt the Colombia Fair Trade Agreement.

So I want to commend my friend from Illinois for the work that he's done and for the important amendment that he brings to the floor. I urge support of the amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the gentleman from Illinois was on his feet

prior to the gentleman asking that the Committee do rise.

I thank the Chair.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 37: Page 78, line 17, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $1)''.

Page 78, line 17, after the second dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $1)''.

Offered By: Mr. Price of Georgia

Amendment No. 95: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: