[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 26, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H203-H206]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 54, CONGRESSIONAL GOLD MEDAL 
                        ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2005

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 42 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

[[Page H204]]

                               H. Res. 42

       Resolved,  That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 54) to amend title 31, United States Code, to 
     provide reasonable standards for congressional gold medals, 
     and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
     be dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the 
     bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Financial Services. After general debate the 
     bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute 
     rule. The bill shall be considered as read. No amendment to 
     the bill shall be in order except those printed in the report 
     of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in 
     the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are 
     waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the 
     House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill 
     and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that section 2 of 
the resolution be stricken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 
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.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally 
divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Financial Services. It provides that the bill shall be 
considered as read for the purpose of amendment and makes in order only 
those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying 
this resolution. It provides that the amendments made in order may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and 
controlled by the proponent and an opponent. These amendments shall not 
be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. 
The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in 
the report. Finally, it provides for one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce this fair, structured rule for 
H.R. 54, the Congressional Gold Medal Enhancement Act of 2005. This 
legislation builds on important reforms that my good friend, the former 
Governor and now Member of Congress, the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. 
Castle) has made to the Commemorative Gold Coin program almost a decade 
ago.
  Today, we have the opportunity to bring these same improvements to 
the Congressional Gold Medal program and ensure that the original 
intent and prestige of the Congressional Gold Medal program as the 
Nation's highest civilian award and the most distinguished award given 
by Congress is preserved.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 54 will improve the Congressional Gold Medal 
program by limiting the number of medals awarded by Congress to no more 
than two in any calendar year. It would also ensure that the tradition 
of only awarding these medals to living or recently deceased 
individuals for their meritorious service continues, as was originally 
intended by the program.
  The proud tradition of this unique honor began when the first 
Congressional Gold Medal was authorized in 1776 and presented to George 
Washington in 1790. The tradition of only awarding these medals for 
military service continued until 1858 when Congress awarded Dr. 
Frederick Rose, an assistant surgeon in the British Navy, with a medal 
for the kindness that he showed to sick American naval personnel.

                              {time}  1030

  With Dr. Rose's receipt of the gold medal, Congress also created the 
Medal of Honor as the first permanent military decoration. The creation 
of the esteemed Medal of Honor allowed Congress to begin using the gold 
medal exclusively to recognize individuals that have performed an 
achievement that has an impact on American history and culture that 
will be recognized for generations to come.
  Over the years since its inception, without strict rules governing 
how it was awarded, this venerable program has acquired a small 
problem. By a slow process, as currently administered, it has grown 
much larger than it was originally intended. From 1776, when Congress 
established the award, to 1904, Congress approved only 47 medals. In 
the last 100 years, Congress has awarded almost twice as many, 86 
medals, including 20 in the past decade alone. In the 1990s, Congress 
faced this same problem of proliferation within the Commemorative Coins 
Program, which has grown out of control and was costing taxpayers far 
more than ever envisioned when that program began.
  In order to maintain sound fiscal discipline and the prestige of the 
Congressional Gold Medal Program, we are here today to approve the 
commonsense reforms by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), our 
chairman, and supported by the Committee on Financial Services 
chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley). Many of these reforms 
simply codify what is already an existing practice in the House 
Committee on Financial Services and the Senate Banking Committee.
  By adopting this legislation, Congress will be able to move more 
effectively and efficiently to manage the Congressional Gold Medal 
Program while maintaining the prestige and the purpose for which it was 
originally created.
  I support this rule and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume; and I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions), for yielding me the time.
  It is a new year, Mr. Speaker, a new Congress and new Presidential 
term. We have heard new commitments to work across party lines and 
calls for civility and camaraderie in the halls of the Capitol. We have 
heard the President speak of a more civilized Washington and a 
bipartisan approach to the legislative process.
  Then and now Congress starts its work. The rhetoric starts; reality 
sets in. We are not even 2 full weeks into the House legislative 
calendar, and it is starting to sound like the same old song and dance.
  Any way we look at it, Mr. Speaker, process or policy, the House is 
off to a bad start. It is the first day of normal legislative business 
in the 109th Congress, and the House is already considering a 
restrictive rule for a bill that has not gone through proper House 
procedures.
  New Congress Members just coming from parliamentary procedure 
training session must be doing a double-take. They just spent a week in 
a refresher course on how a bill becomes a law. Then, all of the 
sudden, that process has not been followed on one of their first votes. 
I guess I was confused, too, and what I can say to them is, Welcome to 
Washington.
  The proponents of the underlying legislation will try to argue that 
it is not a new bill because it was first introduced in the 108th 
Congress. While that might be true, the Committee on Financial Services 
did not act on the bill in the 108th Congress, and it has not acted on 
it in this year.
  I ask, why is the full House considering a relatively controversial 
piece of legislation without any committee action? Why the rush? Why 
set such a precedent for the 109th Congress' beginning?
  The Committee on Financial Services, the committee of jurisdiction 
for the underlying legislation, will not

[[Page H205]]

even organize itself until next week, let alone hold a hearing or 
markup on my good friend's, and he is my good friend, the gentleman 
from Delaware's bill.
  Think about it this way: the first bill that the House is considering 
in the 109th Congress under normal rules actually makes it harder to 
pass legislation and create laws honoring our country's greatest 
heroes. Just like Social Security, some of my Republican friends are 
trying to create a problem where one does not exist.
  As the gentleman from Texas already noted, the rule does make in 
order two amendments offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  The first Crowley amendment increases the total number of medals of 
honor to be permitted awarded from four to six per Congress. The second 
Crowley amendment provides for an equitable distribution of gold medals 
between the majority and the minority.
  While I intend to support both of these amendments, and certainly 
appreciate them being made in order, the Committee on Rules failed to 
make in order a third Crowley amendment which would have maintained the 
status quo. That amendment would have ensured that worthy groups or 
individuals and organizations remain eligible to receive the 
Congressional Medal of Honor.
  The Committee on Rules also rejected along a party-line vote an 
amendment to the rule which would have made it open to all germane 
amendments.
  If the underlying legislation were to become law, President and Nancy 
Reagan never would have received the medal because they received it as 
a couple. Neither would Dr. Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King, 
Joseph DeLaine and Harry and Eliza Briggs, Billy and Ruth Graham, 
President and Betty Ford, the Navajo Code Talkers or the American Red 
Cross, just to name a few.
  Can anyone in this body honestly suggest that the individuals 
aforementioned and organizations are unworthy of this institution's top 
award? Is there an epidemic of distributing too many Congressional 
Medals of Honor to unworthy recipients that somehow or another has 
escaped at least me in knowing about them?
  Mr. Speaker, I am not worried about Congress going on a spree to 
award the Medal of Honor to unworthy recipients. The rules applied by 
the Committee on Financial Services to even consider a bill awarding 
the Congressional Medal of Honor are so stringent that the integrity 
and prestige of the award will always be protected.
  On the contrary, if today is any indication, perhaps we ought to be 
just a bit more concerned about the integrity of procedure in the House 
of Representatives than about the integrity of a system that is 
dependent upon bipartisan cooperation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I appreciate the comments from the gentleman from Florida, my good 
friend from the Committee on Rules, and would like to ask him at this 
time if he would like to consume the time. At this time, I may have one 
additional speaker, but do not at this time and would wish that the 
gentleman would consume his time. Then I would expect to close. I would 
like to ask the gentleman if he would like to do that.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. If the gentleman would yield, I appreciate 
my good friend's good suggestion, and I am prepared to begin yielding 
time to colleagues who are present to begin speaking.
  Mr. Speaker, with that understanding, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida and ranking member, and the gentleman 
representing the Committee on Rules on the Republican side and also the 
author of this legislation.
  I rise to oppose the rule and the underlying legislation for some of 
the very reasons that my good friend and colleague from Florida has 
enunciated.
  I also raise another question, that this body is the people's House 
and the people represent a wide diversity of America, heroes and 
sheroes, little unknown to many of us until they rise and shine.
  It is interesting that this legislation would come without going to 
the full committee in this session to be able to have the oversight of 
the committee structure, and then to be reminded of the fact that we 
took great joy and pleasure in honoring both President Reagan and Mrs. 
Reagan, Dr. King and Mrs. King, and of course, legislation that I 
proposed to acknowledge the Columbia Seven that tragically lost their 
lives on our behalf as astronauts and heroes in space.
  All right. I recognize that judgment is necessary, but this 
legislation does not speak to judgment. It speaks to denial, and it 
denies the Congress its authoritative right to make decisions on who 
has represented America in the most honorable way to deserve a 
Congressional Gold Medal.
  The legislation that I have has over 320-plus sponsors out of 435 and 
growing. Individual Members acquiesced and affirmed the fact that these 
individuals were worthy of a Congressional Gold Medal.
  I agree, as well, that the Committee on Financial Services has put in 
place a very effective, very effective oversight of this process.
  Let me thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) for his 
insight in his amendments that would expand the numbers for the 
congressional session and also bifurcate or equalize the numbers for 
each party.
  I, too, believe that there should be restraint in judgment, but I 
believe as well that America has her heroes and sheroes and who are we 
in 2005 to predict what might happen in 2010 or 2015 or 2020 where 
there may be a multitude of heroes who Americans believe are deserving 
of this worthy award.
  I am disappointed and saddened that this could not be a bipartisan 
process. I, for one, believe that we should overwhelmingly vote against 
the rule and overwhelmingly vote against this intrusion into the 
objective and the precise and the bipartisan decisions that have been 
made on Ronald Reagan and Mrs. Reagan, the President of the United 
States; Dr. King and Mrs. King, very surely representatives of the 
human and American spirit.
  I would ask my colleagues to reconsider this legislation and most 
specifically because it violated, if you will, the precise rules that 
we adhere to, oversight by committees, the Committee on Rules' 
involvement in an open rule, and the bipartisan spirit in which we 
honor our heroes and sheroes, whether dead or alive.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to defeat the overly 
restrictive rule that has been reported out of Committee relating to 
H.R. 54. Despite my disappointment and dismay at not only the criteria 
of this rule but the nature of the underlying legislation, I am pleased 
that two amendments offered by my colleague from New York, Mr. Crowley 
were made in order.
  The central amendment that would have made this legislation palatable 
at the very least and not so disrespectful to the heroes that we strive 
to honor with the congressional gold medal has been effectively blocked 
by partisan stubbornness. If the import of this legislation is good, 
why not allow the representatives of this august body to openly debate 
it before the American people? Are we so ashamed of its true 
legislative intent that we feel the need to hide behind obstructionist 
rules? I say that legislation with bona fide purpose should have 
nothing to fear--at the very least should it fear honest and open 
debate.
  The underlying legislation that is before this House seeks to 
``provide reasonable standards for congressional gold medals'' but will 
essentially limit the bestowal of honor to American icons. One of the 
main reasons that the medal is bestowed is to make the highest 
expression of national appreciation for distinguished achievements and 
contributions. HR 54 will summarily restrict this goal and prevent many 
honored heroes from receiving proper recognition.
  Blocking debate on a provision that is utterly unreasonable is 
disrespectful to the constituents that Members seek to honor with the 
congressional gold medal.
  Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and I urge my colleagues to defeat 
it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am privileged to announce 
that we have no further speakers, and I would say to my good friend, 
the gentleman from Texas, we yield back the balance of our time.

[[Page H206]]

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have a bill which the gentleman from Delaware 
(Mr. Castle) has brought to the floor, which we believe is a good bill, 
supported by the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Oxley). I urge my 
colleagues to support this rule, as well as the Oxley manager's 
amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________