[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.
____________________