Jim Sensenbrenner: “I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. I have listened very carefully to the arguments…”

“I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding me this time. I have listened very carefully to the arguments that have been advanced by the speakers on the other side--my friend and neighbor, the gentlewoman from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Speier), and the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky). None of them address the question before the House. The question before the House is whether or not to consider this bill. It's not about jobs-- although they're important. It's not about the merits of the bill-- which we will debate later should the House vote to consider this bill. It's about whether there are unfunded mandates in the bill. The gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) read the CBO statement of February 28, 2011: ``H.R. 358 contains no intergovernmental or private sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on State, local, or tribal governments.'' That's what the CBO said, and that has not been rebutted either by the proposer of the point of order, my colleague from Wisconsin (Ms. Moore), or those who have spoken on behalf of this. Now, if we're to follow the rules and say, okay, if there's an unfunded mandate, we ought to waive it--which the resolution does--then we've all got to vote ``yes'' on consideration, because there are no unfunded mandates and nobody has claimed that there are any unfunded mandates.…”