Chris Van Hollen

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

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

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I'm just trying to understand how it is that in this House there was a rule that was written that would deny the majority an opportunity to vote?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I want to be heard, Mr. Speaker. I asked a question related to the point of order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, if we really want to keep the National Institutes of Health open, if we really want to make sure we keep the national parks open, if we really want to help our veterans, there's a very easy way to do it right now; and that's for the Speaker of this House to allow the Members of this House to have a vote, to have a vote on the very simple proposition: Are we going to keep the entire Federal Government operating now? Because that would pass if in the people's House we were given that opportunity. So we have a very simple question, Mr. Speaker: Why is the majority afraid of democracy? Why are they afraid of allowing this House to work its will? Because if we had a vote, we could make sure the entire government was kept open. I mentioned earlier that I have the privilege of representing the congressional district that's home to the National Institutes of Health. These are scientists doing important work. They're not Republican scientists or Democratic scientists, but they're all smart people. I've heard from them and they've said: Are you kidding? We're not going to be fooled by this piecemeal approach. They understand if you want to help NIH, you vote to send the bill to make sure the government stays open. And, by the way, they all have kids. They want to keep the Department of Education open as well. And they want to keep not just the National Institutes of Health open, but the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Why is the Speaker not allowing a vote in this House? I think we all know the answer. Here's what The Washington Post said just the other day: ``House Republicans Hope to Use Cruz's Plan B''--that's Senator Cruz. Here's what it says: Adopting a strategy first suggested by Senator Ted Cruz, House Republicans are pushing a new approach that would break up the Federal spending bills. Once again, Senator Cruz is in charge of this House, and you have a reckless minority blocking a vote of the majority, a majority of Republicans and Democrats. Now, earlier today we learned that the Republicans in this House went so far as to change the standing rules of the House to force this through in an undemocratic way. The rules of the House, when you have a situation like this, would allow any one of our Members to get up and move and ask the House to vote on the bill that would keep the whole government open. That's the standing rules. But our Republican colleagues changed the rules. It says only a Republican Member--in fact, only the majority leader can bring that up and allow us to vote. That's not a democracy. This is the same approach we're hearing from our colleagues when it comes to paying our bills on time. They want to fund a little piece of government at one time. They don't want to pay all our bills. They say let's pay China first. Let's not pay Medicare doctors. Let's not pay our troops in the field. Let's not pay all our bills; let's just pay some of our bills. Let's pretend we're going to cherry-pick different pieces of government to keep open so the rest of it can shut down and die on the vine. Well, my constituents are not fooled. My constituents who work at NIH are not fooled. They don't want to be used as pawns in this game. And they understand full well that we could get this done tonight, that we could keep the whole government open now, and all that needs to happen is the Speaker to let us vote. If the Speaker and our Republican colleagues want to vote to keep the entire government shut down, go for it. Do it in the light of day. Let the American people see that that's what you want to do. But for goodness sakes, explain to the American people why you won't allow a vote to keep the government open right now. That's all we're asking for. That's all we're asking for, Republicans and Democrats to come together and have a vote. The gentleman mentioned that, well, the House had voted on this, but they also indicated that they had added these attachments, like shutting down affordable care for all Americans. Let's have a clean, simple vote, just like we should also have a vote to pay our bills on time for goodness sakes. We have stood by for months trying to have a negotiation on the budget. At every turn, we've been blocked. The Speaker didn't allow us to appoint budget conferees, budget negotiators. In the Senate, we were blocked. So what did we do? They ran out the clock, ran the country up against the wall and said: You know what? We want it our way or the highway. We want you to shut down the Affordable Care Act or we're going to shut down government. We want you to pay China first or not pay our troops, or guess what? We're going to collapse the economy. Mr. Speaker, I just ask that we vote ``yes'' on this to keep the government funded now, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to be further heard because, as I understand what the ruling was, it was because this measure before the House is limited to one little tiny sliver of the government, that a motion to keep the entire government open is not in order. Is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Yes. My argument is that our government is a whole. And the question is: How can you say that it would be totally irrelevant to the purpose of funding government operations to offer a motion that would keep all the government operations open now? How can that be?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the standing rules of the House, particularly standing rule XXII, clause 4, which reads: When the stage of disagreement has been reached on a bill or resolution with House or Senate amendments, a motion to dispose of any amendment shall be privileged. My question, Mr. Speaker, is: Haven't we now reached that state of disagreement as defined by rule XXII, clause 4?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, it seems pretty clear that we have taken the normal rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, and substitute in its place a provision that says, ``only the Republican leader can make a decision--''

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, what is it that changed the normal rules of the House with respect to the ability of any Member, including myself or any Member on the other side, to offer a resolution calling up the CR passed by the Senate and asked that it be sent to the White House immediately? Why is that standing rule of the House not in operation right now?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, just so I understand the response, under the rules of the House, you indicated that the standing rules of the House have been put aside in favor of H. Res. 368; is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that section 2 of that new rule says that any motion pursuant to the standing rule, clause 4 of rule XXII, may now only be offered by the Republican leader or the designee of the Republican leader; is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, the rule that has now been placed over the House in substitute for the standing rules of the House gives only the majority leader or his designee the ability to move up and ask for a vote on the clean Senate bill that would go to the White House; is that correct?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I move to take from the Speaker's table H.J. Res. 59 with the House amendment to the Senate amendment thereto, to recede from the House amendment and concur in the Senate amendment.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, when you say prior appropriate approval, do you mean approval from the Republican leader and the Democratic leader?

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, further parliamentary inquiry.