[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H49-H55]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boucher). The gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Price) is recognized for 60 minutes.


 =========================== NOTE =========================== 

  
  January 4, 2007--On Page H49 the following appeared: The SPEAKER 
pro tempore (Mr. Boucher). Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2007, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: The SPEAKER pro 
tempore (Mr. Boucher). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.


 ========================= END NOTE ========================= 

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate once again the 
opportunity to come to the floor of the House, and I am pleased to do 
it on the first day of the 110th Congress. It is an exciting day, a 
historic day.
  I want to thank the leadership for allowing me the opportunity to 
host an hour of the Official Truth Squad. We started this 2 years ago, 
and did so because there were many of us who were concerned about the 
fact that on the floor of the House oftentimes the words that were 
spoken and the presentations made oftentimes bore little resemblance to 
the truth. So we began 2 years ago to institute the Official Truth 
Squad, to try to come to the floor like this every so often and try to 
do it at least once a week to bring light to issues of concern to the 
American people.
  Today is no different. This is a historic day, the first day of the 
110th Congress. It was an exciting day. The first day is always 
exciting. It is full of families and celebration and children on the 
floor of the House sharing the remarkable experiences of Members being 
sworn in, oftentimes new Members, of which we have today, Mr. Speaker, 
as you know, over 50 new Members in the House of Representatives. So it 
is an important occasion.
  We heard a lot of discussion leading up to today, and that discussion 
was culminated in November by a vote by the American people, and the 
American people voted and changed the majorities in the House of 
Representatives. And in terms of the American people's decision, it was 
the right decision for them because it was the decision that they made 
at the polls. It was important for us, it is important for all of us to 
appreciate that, yes, they did, the American people spoke.
  I think one of the things that they said is that they want a 
different process here. They were tired of some of the things that had 
gone on here in the past, so they spoke and said a different process is 
needed.
  Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, as 
you well know, talked as we led up to the November elections about the 
need for civility in Congress, which we believe wholeheartedly, about 
the need for openness, which is imperative for us to have in our system 
of government, openness, and then fiscal responsibility, kind of three 
tenets that they brought to the American people. I would concur with 
each and every one of those.
  I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that those principles by the now-
majority party ought to last longer than one day of speeches. So we 
have some concerns about what has occurred and some disappointments 
already, and we would like to share some of those with the American 
people as we are presenting things to the House of Representatives this 
evening.
  Now, in pointing these out, the purpose is not to say how good it was 
when we were in the majority, because it can always be better. As many 
of us talked in the election process, the campaign process, we talked 
about the kinds of improvements that we would like to see. The purpose 
is to shed light on both word and deed, and it is important, because 
what folks say and what they do, it is important for the American 
people to know that those two things are the same.
  In our system of government, we have elections where people go to the 
polls and vote. They vote based on a lot of things, but probably most 
importantly they base their vote on the fact that they believe that the 
person that they voted for and what they said they were going to do was 
in fact what they were going to do. So when individuals say things that 
they are going to do once they get into office and then they break 
those promises, then it is important for people to be held accountable. 
The American people do that time and again.
  It is also important as a Member of now the minority party for us to 
hold the majority party accountable. One of the responsibilities we 
have in our dynamic form of government is to hold them accountable, and 
we do this as a matter of principle. It is a matter of principle, and 
we believe it is a matter of principle that elected officials ought to 
be held accountable for not just what they say, but also what they do.
  To that end, I would like to share, Mr. Speaker, some quotes. We are 
going to talk a fair amount tonight about what individuals have said in 
the past, oftentimes the recent past, and what we have some concerns 
with in terms of their action.
  This first quote is from the ``Declaration on Honest Leadership and 
Open Government,'' which was one of the Democrat Party's publications 
that they had prior to the election. The quote there is from the now-
Speaker. It says: ``Our goal is to restore accountability, honesty and 
openness at all levels of government.'' It is a noble goal. It is a 
noble goal. We would agree with that. It is just important that when 
one says that that is your goal and that is your purpose that, in fact, 
you comply with that.
  The Washington Post on December 17, 2006, said Speaker 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 other's arguments.'' 
Where you debated ideas and listened to each other's arguments. That is 
important as we go through the process of what is of concern to many of 
us here in the House of Representatives about how the process is 
already being implemented.
  This is a quote from July of 2005 from Representative Rahm Emanuel, 
now the chairman of the Democrat Caucus, and he voiced some frustration 
about the inability to have either an amendment or a vote on the floor. 
He said, ``Let us have an up and down vote. Don't be scared. Don't hide 
behind some little rule. Come on out here. Put it on the table and let 
us have a vote. So don't hide behind the rule. If this is what you want 
to do, let us have an up and down vote.''
  It is important to remember that the purpose of that was to say that 
every Member of the House of Representatives ought to have the 
opportunity to in fact offer amendments and have their opportunity for 
people to say, yes, I agree with you and your amendment or your bill, 
or, no, I don't.
  Here is a quote from Representative Steny Hoyer, now the majority 
leader, in October of 2005. The one that I would like to highlight here 
is a quote where he said these provisions are an outrage, talking about 
the rules that were in place: ``These provisions are an outrage and 
this process is an outrage. As one Member of this body complained, once 
again the vast majority of Americans are having their representatives 
in Congress gagged by the closed rule committee.''

                              {time}  2100

  Now, we will talk a fair amount this evening about what a closed rule 
is and why Representative Hoyer in October 2005 would have made that 
comment, saying that the representatives were being in effect 
disenfranchised in the House of Representatives.

[[Page H50]]

  This quote comes from our now Speaker, Speaker Pelosi, who, in a 
letter to then-Speaker Denny Hastert in October of 2006 said, and this 
is an important quote, because this is one of those promises that were 
made prior to the election and that I believe affected individuals all 
across this Nation and what they were going to do when they went to the 
polls in November.
  This, again, is from now-Speaker Pelosi to then-Speaker Hastert. And 
what this says is, ``More than two years ago, I first sent you 
Democratic proposals to restore civility to the Congress. I reiterate 
my support for these proposals today. We must restore bipartisanship to 
the administration of the House, reestablish regular order for 
considering legislation,'' and we will talk about what that means, 
``and ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the 
minority.'' Restore the rights of the minority, whichever party is in 
the minority. ``The voice of every American has a right to be heard.''
  We would certainly concur with that. And, again, we will point out 
some of the concerns and disappointments that many of us have about the 
process that we have already seen in place today.
  This quote here, Mr. Speaker, is from a Washington Post article of 
January 2, 2007, 2 days ago. And it says, ``As they prepare to take 
control of Congress this week and face up to the campaign pledges to 
restore bipartisanship and openness, Democrats are planning to largely 
sideline Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking. Instead of 
allowing Republicans to fully participate in deliberations as promised 
after the Democrats victory in the November 7 midterm elections, 
Democrats now say they will use House rules to prevent the opposition 
from offering alternative measures.''
  And so we think it is important for people to be held accountable for 
what they say and what they do. We also think it is important, Mr. 
Speaker, as a matter of principle for people to do what they say they 
are going to do, especially elected officials.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I place into the Record an article which appeared in 
The Washington Post on January 2 that included this quote, in addition 
to that an editorial which appeared in the Washington Post yesterday 
entitled, ``A Fairer House, But Not Quite Yet.''

                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 2, 2007]

  Democrats To Start Without GOP Input: Quick Passage of First Bills 
                                 Sought

                (By Lyndsey Layton and Juliet Eilperin)

       As they prepare to take control of Congress this week and 
     face up to campaign pledges to restore bipartisanship and 
     openness, Democrats are planning to largely sideline 
     Republicans from the first burst of lawmaking.
       House Democrats intend to pass a raft of popular measures 
     as part of their well-publicized plan for the first 100 
     hours. They include tightening ethics rules for lawmakers, 
     raising the minimum wage, allowing more research on stem 
     cells and cutting interest rates on student loans.
       But instead of allowing Republicans to fully participate in 
     deliberations, as promised after the Democratic victory in 
     the Nov. 7 midterm elections, Democrats now say they will use 
     House rules to prevent the opposition from offering 
     alternative measures, assuring speedy passage of the bills 
     and allowing their party to trumpet early victories.
       Nancy Pelosi, the Californian who will become House 
     speaker, and Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, who will become 
     majority leader, finalized the strategy over the holiday 
     recess in a flurry of conference calls and meetings with 
     other party leaders. A few Democrats, worried that the party 
     would be criticized for reneging on an important pledge, 
     argued unsuccessfully that they should grant the Republicans 
     greater latitude when the Congress convenes on Thursday.
       The episode illustrates the dilemma facing the new party in 
     power. The Democrats must demonstrate that they can break 
     legislative gridlock and govern after 12 years in the 
     minority, while honoring their pledge to make the 110th 
     Congress a civil era in which Democrats and Republicans work 
     together to solve the nation's problems. Yet in attempting to 
     pass laws key to their prospects for winning reelection and 
     expanding their majority, the Democrats may have to resort to 
     some of the same tough tactics Republicans used the past 
     several years.
       Democratic leaders say they are torn between giving 
     Republicans a say in legislation and shutting them out to 
     prevent them from derailing Democratic bills.
       ``There is a going to be a tension there,'' said Rep. Chris 
     Van Hollen (Md.), the new chairman of the Democratic 
     Congressional Campaign Committee. ``My sense is there's going 
     to be a testing period to gauge to what extent the 
     Republicans want to join us in a constructive effort or 
     whether they intend to be disruptive. It's going to be a work 
     in progress.''
       House Republicans have begun to complain that Democrats are 
     backing away from their promise to work cooperatively. They 
     are working on their own strategy for the first 100 hours, 
     and part of it is built on the idea that they might be able 
     to break the Democrats' slender majority by wooing away 
     some conservative Democrats.
       Democrats intend to introduce their first bills within 
     hours of taking the oath of office on Thursday. The first 
     legislation will focus on the behavior of lawmakers, banning 
     travel on corporate jets and gifts from lobbyists and 
     requiring lawmakers to attach their names to special spending 
     directives and to certify that such earmarks would not 
     financially benefit the lawmaker or the lawmaker's spouse. 
     That bill is aimed at bringing legislative transparency that 
     Democrats said was lacking under Republican rule.
       Democratic leaders said they are not going to allow 
     Republican input into the ethics package and other early 
     legislation, because several of the bills have already been 
     debated and dissected, including the proposal to raise the 
     minimum wage, which passed the House Appropriations Committee 
     in the 109th Congress, said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for 
     Pelosi.
       ``We've talked about these things for more than a year,'' 
     he said. ``The members and the public know what we're voting 
     on. So in the first 100 hours, we're going to pass these 
     bills.''
       But because the details of the Democratic proposals have 
     not been released, some language could be new. Daly said 
     Democrats are still committed to sharing power with the 
     minority down the line. ``The test is not the first 100 
     hours,'' he said. ``The test is the first 6 months or the 
     first year. We will do what we promised to do.''
       For clues about how the Democrats will operate, the 
     spotlight is on the House, where the new 16-seat majority 
     will hold absolute power over the way the chamber operates. 
     Most of the early legislative action is expected to stem from 
     the House.
       ``It's in the nature of the House of Representatives for 
     the majority party to be dominant and control the agenda and 
     limit as much as possible the influence of the minority,'' 
     said Ross K. Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers 
     University. ``It's almost counter to the essence of the place 
     for the majority and minority to share responsibility for 
     legislation.''
       In the Senate, by contrast, the Democrats will have less 
     control over business because of their razor-thin 51-to-49-
     seat margin and because individual senators wield substantial 
     power. Senate Democrats will allow Republicans to make 
     amendments to all their initiatives, starting with the first 
     measure--ethics and lobbying reform, said Jim Manley, 
     spokesman for the incoming majority leader, Harry M. Reid (D-
     Nev.).
       Those same Democrats, who campaigned on a pledge of more 
     openness in government, will kick off the new Congress with a 
     closed meeting of all senators in the Capitol. Manley said 
     the point of the meeting is to figure out ways both parties 
     can work together.
       In the House, Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), who will chair 
     the Rules Committee, said she intends to bring openness to a 
     committee that used to meet in the middle of the night. In 
     the new Congress, the panel--which sets the terms of debate 
     on the House floor--will convene at 10 a.m. before a roomful 
     of reporters.
       ``It's going to be open,'' Slaughter said of the process. 
     ``Everybody will have an opportunity to participate.''
       At the same time, she added, the majority would grant 
     Republicans every possible chance to alter legislation once 
     it reaches the floor. ``We intend to allow some of their 
     amendments, not all of them,'' Slaughter said.
       For several reasons, House Democrats are assiduously trying 
     to avoid some of the heavy-handed tactics they resented under 
     GOP rule. They say they want to prove to voters they are 
     setting a new tone on Capitol Hill. But they are also 
     convinced that Republicans lost the midterms in part because 
     they were perceived as arrogant and divisive.
       ``We're going to make an impression one way or the other,'' 
     said one Democratic leadership aide. ``If it's not positive, 
     we'll be out in 2 years.''
       House Republicans say their strategy will be to offer 
     alternative bills that would be attractive to the 
     conservative ``Blue Dog'' Democrats, with an eye toward 
     fracturing the Democratic coalition. They hope to force some 
     tough votes for Democrats from conservative districts who 
     will soon begin campaigning for 2008 reelection and will have 
     to defend their records.
       ``We'll capitalize on every opportunity we have,'' said one 
     GOP leadership aide, adding that Republicans were preparing 
     alternatives to the Democrats' plans to raise the minimum 
     wage, reduce the interest on student loans, and reduce the 
     profits of big oil and energy companies.
       Several Blue Dog Democrats said they do not think 
     Republicans can pick up much support from their group.
       ``If they've got ideas that will make our legislation 
     better, we ought to consider that,'' said Rep. Allen Boyd Jr. 
     (D-Fla.), leader of the Blue Dogs. ``But if their idea is to 
     try to split a group off to gain power, that's what they've 
     been doing for the past 6 years, and it's all wrong.''
       To keep her sometimes-fractious coalition together, Pelosi 
     has been distributing the

[[Page H51]]

     spoils of victory across the ideological spectrum, trying to 
     make sure that no group within the Democratic Party feels 
     alienated.
       Blue Dogs picked up some plum committee assignments, with 
     Jim Matheson (Utah) landing a spot on Energy and Commerce and 
     A.B. ``Ben'' Chandler (Ky.) getting an Appropriations seat. 
     At the same time, members of Black and Hispanic caucuses 
     obtained spots on these panels, as Ciro Rodriguez (Tex.) was 
     given a seat on Appropriations and Artur Davis (Ala.) took 
     the place of Democrat William J. Jefferson (La.) on Ways and 
     Means.
       Democrats acknowledge that if they appear too extreme in 
     blocking the opposing party, their party is sure to come 
     under fire from the Republicans, who are already charging 
     they are being left out of the legislative process.
       ``If you're talking about 100 hours, you're talking about 
     no obstruction whatsoever, no amendments offered other than 
     those approved by the majority,'' said Rutgers's Baker. ``I 
     would like to think after 100 hours are over, the Democrats 
     will adhere to their promise to make the system a little more 
     equitable. But experience tells me it's really going to be 
     casting against type.''
       ``The temptations to rule the roost with an iron hand are 
     very, very strong,'' he added. ``It would take a majority 
     party of uncommon sensitivity and a firm sense of its own 
     agenda to open up the process in any significant degree to 
     minority. But hope springs eternal.''
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Jan. 3, 2007]

                   A Fairer House: But Not Quite Yet

       The new Democratic House majority has an ambitious plan for 
     its first 100 hours in power, from increasing the minimum 
     wage to strengthening ethics rules to having the federal 
     government negotiate prescription drug prices. Unfortunately, 
     its plans don't include getting those provisions passed in 
     the democratic fashion that the Democrats promised to adhere 
     to once in the majority. When Republicans took over in 1995, 
     they at least went through the motions of putting their 
     ``Contract With America'' proposals through the normal 
     committee process. Democrats under Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-
     Calif.) have decided not to bother with that, nor to let 
     Republicans offer amendments on the floor, nor even to put a 
     GOP alternative up for a vote. This is exactly the kind of 
     high-handed mistreatment that Democrats complained about, 
     justifiably, when they were in the minority.
       Democrats offer various rationales for their about-face. 
     They say the streamlined process is necessary because they've 
     pledged to accomplish so much in their first 100 legislative 
     hours. But what makes living up to that self-imposed 
     deadline--which will stretch on for weeks, in any event--more 
     important than living up to their promise of procedural 
     fairness? And why, even if that deadline is sacrosanct, 
     couldn't Republicans at least be offered an opportunity to 
     offer alternatives on the floor?
       Democrats also argue that their proposals have been fully 
     vetted and debated, but in fact many of them involve complex 
     policy choices and some are new proposals. Democrats howled 
     when Republicans moved unilaterally to change the rules 
     governing the operations of the House ethics committee; why 
     is it different for them to move unilaterally to change 
     ethics rules? Questions such as whether the minimum wage 
     increase should be combined with tax breaks for small 
     businesses and whether the federal government should be the 
     only party negotiating Medicare prescription prices ought to 
     be put up for discussion and a vote. If that causes a 
     fracture in the Democratic caucus, so be it.
       Republicans, who were only too happy to strong-arm and 
     ignore Democrats when the GOP was in the majority, are now, 
     of course, moaning about being abused. In a nice bit of 
     political theater, they plan to offer Ms. Pelosi's own 
     ``Minority Bill of Rights'' from 2004, which would provide 
     for, among other things, ``open, full and fair debate 
     consisting of a full amendment process.''
       Democrats say that they'll adhere to their previous 
     promises once their first flurry of business is finished. We 
     look forward to that. But if they don't reconsider, they will 
     set an unfortunate precedent that fairness will be offered on 
     sufferance, when the majority finds it convenient, and not as 
     a matter of principle. That would not be a good start for the 
     110th Congress.

  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased tonight to be joined in our discussion 
about truthfulness and our discussion about keeping promises and our 
discussion about the rules process by a couple of my colleagues, and 
others may join. And I would like to ask first for a comment or two 
from Congressman McHenry from North Carolina.
  Congressman McHenry is an individual that came to Congress with me 
after the 2004 election, and has shown just great perspective and great 
work ethic in making certain that he understands and appreciates all of 
the nuances of the House and, as a matter of fact, has championed 
ethics reform in this House. And so I thank you so much for joining us 
tonight for the Official Truth Squad and look forward to your comments 
on the ethics that we have seen so far and also on the minority bill of 
rights that we have co-authored together.
  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Congressman Price. I appreciate your 
leadership, friendship, and support in our first term in Congress and 
as we begin our second. And I appreciate you pulling together the 
Official Truth Squad and taking this from an idea and actually making 
it into reality. After all, that is what this legislative process and 
indeed this House of Representatives is all about, is taking an idea, a 
powerful idea and making it happen for the American people.
  To that end, the Official Truth Squad is here to make sure that the 
American people know what happens here in these hallowed halls of 
Congress. And I think it is important, what you point out today from 
the Democrat leaders' words and actions on their opening day and the 
lead-up to taking control of this new Congress. It is indeed a new day 
here, and the American people know that. And I think what the American 
people see is that the Democrats worked very hard in the campaign and 
were rewarded by taking control of this wonderful Congress of us, the 
people's House, and they campaigned on a number of things. But one of 
the key tenants and key principles upon which they ran their campaigns 
and the rhetoric they used during the campaign was about openness, 
honesty, and fairness.
  This openness idea, it is a wonderful thing to talk about and I think 
it is something that I stand for and I know my colleague from Georgia 
does as well, and we have worked very hard during our times in public 
service to provide this for the American people. But it was their 
number one tenant in the campaign, their number one principle, 
openness.
  Well, on the opening day of Congress, we were hoping as the new 
minority that this new Democrat majority would ensure openness and 
fairness. And that is why Congressman Price and I, along with some of 
my other colleagues, joined together to offer the minority bill of 
rights. And what the minority bill of rights is, in essence, is what 
all fifth graders in America are taught: It is the legislative process 
that, when you file a bill in this House, it goes to committee or 
subcommittee, and it is heard, it is debated, it is amended, it is 
crafted, and there is compromise in the process. All sides, Democrats, 
Republicans, conservatives, moderates, liberals, they are all heard. 
And then it comes to this House floor, where it again goes through that 
very same process of compromise and input. Well, that is what the 
minority bill of rights is all about. And what we offered as the 
minority bill of rights and what we offered here on the House floor 
today with our two procedural votes today, was ensuring that these 
principles, which then minority leader Nancy Pelosi, now Speaker 
Pelosi, advocated just 3 years ago.
  So what we offered was, in fact, the Pelosi minority bill of rights. 
It is not simply a Republican idea, it is actually the minority leader, 
now the Speaker, her ideas on the way this place should be governed. 
And when we offered it here on the floor, it was flatly rejected. So it 
became clear here on the opening day, the opening hours of this new 
Democrat majority, the campaign on openness, that they really advocated 
closed process and they only want their ideas, their few ideas heard. 
They don't want any input or any dissenting opinion.
  The bottom line is that Speaker Pelosi thinks that Minority Leader 
Pelosi was wrong. I think some people call that hypocrisy, some call it 
ironic to campaign on that. I think it is ridiculous on the opening day 
of Congress, after a new majority is elected on openness, that they 
cram down the throats of all the Members of this House a closed rule 
that does not allow for input, does not allow for amendment, doesn't 
allow for full, open, and fair debate, on their opening day of their 
first act as a majority. That is what is so egregious about what we saw 
here on the House floor.
  In fact, this type of abuse has never happened before in the history 
of the U.S. House of Representatives, the idea that you put a rule out, 
a rule forward that closes off debate on an unknown bill. We can't even 
see the text of the bills that they are offering in their 100-hour 
proposal. They have closed it off from minority view. Simply because I 
have an ``R'' beside my name, they believe that I am not able to view 
it.

[[Page H52]]

  Well, I have got news for them. I have got news for this new Democrat 
majority. 140 million Americans voted for a Republican for U.S. 
Congress. They are not simply silencing a Member of Congress from North 
Carolina or a Member of Congress from Georgia; they are silencing the 
constituents who elected me. That is not fair. That is not openness. 
That is not a new way of operating. In fact, it is a very old way of 
operating that the Democrats used when they were in the majority 
before.
  So I think that we should set aside the first day and be hopeful for 
a second day and a new beginning. We like second chances as Americans. 
Let's give the Democrats a second chance for true openness, input, and 
dialogue in a bipartisanship basis; not simply use it as a rhetorical 
device during the campaign, but to actually govern that way, to 
actually do it, make sure it happens here on this House floor, not for 
us as Members of Congress, but for our constituents and for the 
American people.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments so much, because 
they really bring into focus and clarity exactly what happened today.
  As I mentioned before, the purpose of this is not to say to folks, 
well, it was better when we were in the majority. The purpose is to say 
the promises that were made to the American people and decisions that 
the American people made upon those promises are not being followed. 
They are not being followed. And when they are not being followed, what 
that means when it comes to rules, it means that the individuals who 
represent those 140 million people are not allowed a voice, which means 
in essence that those 140 million people have no voice in the House of 
Representatives as it relates to the rules that have been put in place.
  I also think it is important to talk about the fact that it never 
happened before. There is kind of this general sense by some that this 
is just business as usual. Well, it is not business as usual. And one 
of my colleagues who knows better than most, who understands and 
appreciates that, is my good friend from Georgia, fellow colleague from 
Georgia, Congressman Gingrey, who is a former member of the Rules 
Committee, who I think has a wonderful perspective on the rule that 
will enact bills in place on this floor of the House without any review 
by committee, any review by anybody other than potentially, I guess the 
Speaker, and that may be it.
  So, I am so pleased that you joined us this evening to talk about 
what is a closed rule within a closed rule and to talk about the bills 
and the consequences of that for the American people. I welcome my good 
friend, Congressman Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank my colleague from Georgia (Dr. Price) for 
yielding, and I thank my friend from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), the 
two co-authors of the minority bill of rights. I am a proud co-sponsor 
of that, and I am proud of their ethics in regard to that.
  And also, Mr. Speaker, let it be known to our colleagues that this 
Official Truth Squad of the former freshman Members, now sophomore 
Members, this is not something they just dreamed up tonight. This is 
something that they have been doing for the entire 109th Congress and 
putting some sunshine out there on a lot of these issues and shining 
that light of day, and this is, of course, part of a continuing 
process.
  Dr. Price and Mr. McHenry are exactly right; I was enjoying very much 
being on that select powerful, powerful Rules Committee, and had that 
opportunity to go home and tell the folks back home that I am a member 
of the powerful Rules Committee. And as a member, many times I had an 
opportunity to hear the minority, the current chairman, Ms. Slaughter, 
the vice chairman, Mr. McGovern, the senior members, Mr. Hastings and 
Ms. Matsui, talk about the process and talk about this idea, the 
appalling idea of a closed rule as Congressman Price points out, and 
what they are doing in this rules of the House package that they are 
sort of forcing upon us in asking us to vote on with much less than 24-
hour notice.
  Just listen to some of the quotes of the former four minority members 
of the Rules Committee who are now running the show and driving this 
package that contains not one significant piece of legislation, but 
five pieces of legislation, including the minimum wage bill, the stem 
cell research bill, which indeed is truly life and death issues, the 9/
11 Commission Report, completing the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. I mean, these are not naming of post offices, Mr. Speaker 
and my colleagues. We all know that and we know the significance. But 
listen to what my colleagues would say and did say many times in regard 
to one piece of legislation.
  First of all, let me quote Ms. Slaughter: ``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, Mr. Speaker, not just 
appropriations bills which are already restricted. An open process 
should be the norm and not the exception.'' This is from the 
Congressional Record of June 14, 2005.

                              {time}  2115

  Listen to what my good friend, Mr. McGovern, had to say on September 
28, 2006: ``If the Republican leadership does not agree with the 
bipartisan substitute, then they should defeat it on the House floor 
after a full and open debate. Instead, they cower behind procedural 
tricks, parliamentary sleight of hand and closed rules. No wonder the 
American people are disgusted with Congress. If my Republican friends 
want this trend of closed rules, of no amendments, of no democracy in 
the House to continue, then by all means vote for this rule. Just go 
along to get along. But if you believe, as I do, that the monopoly on 
good ideas is not held by a few members of the leadership in a closed 
room, then vote 'no.' Have the guts to vote `no.' ''
  That was Representative Jim McGovern.
  Listen to what our good friend, a senior member on the Rules 
Committee, Mr. Alcee Hastings, had to say on September 28, 2006: ``I 
have said it before: the way the majority runs the House is shameful. 
It is hypocritical, it is un-American, it is undemocratic, and it 
happens every single day that we have a closed rule, and in other 
circumstances as well.'' He goes on to say ``closed rules are an 
affront to our democracy. We should stop it now. My outrage and the 
outrage of all on this side is as much about process as it is about 
policy. Pure partisan politics never produces sound public policy.'' 
Congressional Record, July 12, 2005.
  Finally, the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Matsui: ``The American 
people want to hear practical, well-thought ideas from their elected 
representatives. Today we could have had that honest, engaged and 
realistic debate. These proposals and ideas deserve to come to the 
floor. They deserve to be debated, and they deserve a vote. 
Unfortunately, under the rule reported out, this will not happen. 
Instead, we will have a gripping session that yields no results. 
Congress is part of this government. In fulfillment of its 
responsibilities, this House should reject this rule and bring real 
policy to the floor.'' Congressional Record, June 15, 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on, but I think you get my drift. They are 
doing exactly what they railed against us about. The righteous 
indignation that we heard on a continuing basis in the Rules Committee, 
and here they come with the rules of the House, and they include in it 
five pieces of legislation with no rule whatsoever. What do we get? A 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's quotes are quite 
illuminating about the rhetoric that the Democrat Members used versus 
their actions on opening day. Your expertise on the Rules Committee is 
quite prescient.
  There are three additional quotes that come to mind from earlier 
today. In the new Speaker's speech today, her rather elaborate speech 
today about the agenda for this new Congress, she said three things 
that are of importance to what we are talking about here. She said 
first, respect for every voice. That is what their new majority is 
about. And it is also to work for all of America. And, finally, it is 
for common ground for the common good.
  Those are wonderful things and wonderful ideals that this House 
should live up to. But as my colleague from Georgia said, it shouldn't 
be simply a speech. It shouldn't simply be rhetoric; it should be 
reality. It should be the practice of this House to seek common ground 
to work for all of America, even

[[Page H53]]

those that didn't vote for the Democrat majority, all of America, and 
respect every voice, even if you have an ``R'' beside your name, 
respect for every idea that comes out of this place so that we can do 
what is best and right for America. It is not simply about process.
  I think my colleague from Georgia said that very well. It is not 
about process. It is about the effects that that process have on public 
policy and the outcomes. If you rig the process, which I think there 
are countries around the world that rig their voting process, that is 
not true democracy. Fairness and openness, that is what brings about 
the best result for all of America. It is not about a Democrat idea or 
a Republican idea; it is about doing what is right on a bipartisan 
basis for the American people.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments, and I appreciate 
the comments of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
  I think it is appropriate now to ask my good friend, the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx), to make some comments about civility. 
Congresswoman Foxx is a dear friend and has had great concern about the 
level of discourse in this House of Representatives, has participated 
actively in the Official Truth Squad. I know you had some comments that 
you wanted to make about the level of civility and the importance of 
that in this House.
  Ms. FOXX. I want to thank you, Congressman Price, for bringing the 
Truth Squad back. It is unfortunate that we had to do it on the first 
day of session, but it was necessary to do that. As some folks know who 
may have seen us in the 109th Congress, and you know to me it seems 
like it was only yesterday we were here. It does not seem like a while 
ago.
  We began the Official Truth Squad because our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle were constantly saying things that we knew were not 
true, and we felt that somebody needed to respond to them. It fell to a 
group of primarily freshmen Members to form the Truth Squad, although 
we had great help from some of our colleagues, some of whom are here 
tonight, to talk about the truth.
  Unfortunately, a lot of what our colleagues said in the 109th 
Congress, some of those things that were not true were believed by the 
American people, and they believed a lot of the things that they said 
that were not true about the economy, about things that were happening 
in the government; but they believed them on their promises of what 
they said they would do.
  They offered to make changes, and we know that there were some 
Republicans who didn't do all that they should have done, not just in 
the last Congress but in others. And so the American people have held 
our feet to the fire on this. I think we came back here, though, with a 
very positive spirit and we all came in today knowing it was going to 
be a very historic day, but we were going to celebrate the very 
positive day that we have here.

  All of us are very grateful for the wonderful opportunity to serve in 
the Congress of the United States, and we came here with the idea that 
we were going to solve problems that all Americans face. We see that 
happening in our communities every day. We see Democrats and 
Republicans working together side by side in many different ways.
  I marvel every time I go to a parade or to some fair or some event 
that is put on by a community and how the people have worked together 
to do that, very often without any support from any government body 
because they put aside political differences for the good of the 
community. That is obviously what we Republicans want to be happening 
in the 110th Congress.
  We believe that the American people are united in their desire for 
peace and national security. They want solutions to problems, not 
partisan bickering that only creates deadlocks and no solutions.
  Again, the people in our communities do that every day, and so we 
looked forward to the goal and the promise of the new majority to 
restore the House to civility, to restore open debate so that ideas can 
be examined, always reviewed and respected. And as Leader Boehner said 
today in his speech, ``May the best idea win.''
  We are here to debate ideas. We want to put the best ideas out there 
and know that if we put our good ideas out there and get them up for a 
vote, many times they are going to win; and many times we are going to 
vote for the ideas that the Democrats bring up. But we should be united 
in a common goal, although they are different perspectives. All Members 
agree they should be able to voice their opinions on behalf of their 
constituents and the constituents that sent them here to represent 
them.
  We are going to hold the Democrats accountable to their promises, 
just as the Truth Squad during the 109th Congress came in and brought 
in the facts. And we are not going to compromise our ideals or 
principles, but we are going to do everything we can to make America 
better.
  We want open debate on legislation. We want Members to be able to 
voice their concerns, their opinions, offer amendments in 
subcommittees, full committee and in consideration of any legislation 
on the floor. There should be plenty of time to review legislation and 
every Member should be allowed the opportunity to participate. After 
all, this is the people's House. It doesn't belong to the Members of 
Congress; it does belong to the American people. We are here not for a 
lifetime but temporarily to serve the people who sent us here.
  As we are reminded again today, this House has been here for a long 
time and will be here for a long time to come. We want to make sure 
that it is strengthened and not weakened in what we do.
  I don't believe there was a direct mandate in this last election. 
Folks lost races and won races for lots of different reasons; but I do 
believe the American people want change in the way we operate.
  As I said the other day in our conference, as I have heard the 
rhetoric and seen the actions of our Democratic colleagues, the North 
Carolina State motto just kept going over and over in my head. The 
North Carolina State motto is ``esse quam videri'' which means: to be 
rather than to seem.
  What we want to make sure is that our Democratic colleagues don't try 
to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people by seeming rather 
than being. And what we have seen on the first day is the seeming 
rather than the being.
  So we want to do what I think the American people want us to do, to 
find solutions to the problems we face. We don't think that is going to 
be done behind closed doors and legislation ramrodded through here 
because of the majority. We don't want Members stripped of the ability 
to address the House with their ideas, principles and amendments. Those 
things don't affect us individually as much as they affect our 
constituents.
  So I am going to remind our colleagues over and over and over again 
of the North Carolina State motto and say to them we hold you to the 
principles of doing what you said you were going to do and being rather 
than seeming.
  Again, I want to thank my colleague from Georgia for organizing the 
Truth Squad in the 110th Congress, and I look forward to working with 
you, although I hope we are not going to have to be here too many 
nights a week.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina and 
the wonderful words and focus that you bring to the need for civility 
and appropriateness in terms of word and deed on the floor of the House 
and in actions throughout our careers as elected officials.
  I am so pleased to be joined by another good friend and colleague 
from Tennessee, Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn, who has participated 
actively in the Official Truth Squad. I guess I share the gentlewoman 
from North Carolina's lament in having to be here on the first day 
because there is some straightening out in terms of bringing truth to 
the issue that has occurred even on this first day. We welcome you and 
look forward to your comments as they relate to the issues that have 
already occurred in this 110th Congress.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his work on 
this issue and for his work on the Truth Squad.
  Today is a historic day, as my colleagues have mentioned. I commend 
my colleagues from both sides of the

[[Page H54]]

aisle on their collegiality and their tone as we have approached this 
day, and have recognized the historic importance and the significance 
of the first female taking the position of Speaker of this wonderful 
body which is the people's House.
  You know, as the gentleman was saying, it is so important that we 
note, we are not here to complain. We are not here to gripe. What we 
are here to do is to highlight for our constituents some of the content 
of a rules package that seems to be hastily pulled together that did 
not go through the committee process, that didn't have hearings, and 
was brought to the floor for a vote.
  I think it is important that our constituents know, because we have a 
lot of new Members of this body, and those voters that voted in the 
elections this fall did not go to the ballot box voting to have a 
government that was going to be carried out in the shadows. They went 
to the ballot boxes saying we want government that is more accountable. 
We want government that is more open. We want government that is more 
responsive to the needs of our constituents. We want government that is 
going to work more effectively and more efficiently for the American 
people.

                              {time}  2130

  And the very first vote that is taken on the rules package presented 
in the people's House today is a vote that would eliminate recorded 
votes in the Rules Committee.
  Now, in my great State of Tennessee, we have had this discussion, and 
in our general assembly in the great State of Tennessee, we have had 
this debate, and people said over and over again we want those votes 
recorded. We want sunshine. We want openness. And that is something 
that needs to be highlighted with our constituents. They need to 
realize the format that they are wanting to push forward would deny the 
minority the opportunity to hear, have their amendments heard in the 
Rules Committee. Dr. Gingrey has highlighted some of the provisions, 
and he does such a wonderful job with our Rules Committee and the 
concerns that we have with the format that would go before the Rules 
Committee that would deny recording some of these votes, which means 
there is less accountability. So it is our responsibility to come and 
highlight those things.
  You know another thing that the people did not vote for this November 
was to raise their taxes. They did not go to the poll and vote saying, 
``Representatives, we want you to make it easier to raise the taxes on 
us.'' And one of the things that we find with the PAYGO rules is that 
it is basically pay as you go on a spending spree. Even the Concord 
Coalition has estimated that this 100 hours would cost $800 billion 
over 10 years if everything was funded. That is $80 billion a year for 
10 years, $80 billion a year additional, additional, new spending.
  Now, I can tell you one thing for certain. I don't know a lot, but 
one thing I do know is that the people of the Seventh District of 
Tennessee do not want to be forking over another $80 billion a year.
  What they did vote for this November was to see government spending 
reduced, and that is where they want our emphasis to be. And it is 
important that we spell this out for our constituents, for the American 
people, for them to know what is transpiring as we come into the 110th 
Congress.
  Words are important and it is important that we provide the 
clarification that is there and that is needed. And as I have viewed 
the package that we have debated some today and will debate tomorrow, I 
have come to realize that one of the things our colleagues across the 
aisle, the Democrats, have said is they want to go back to the way 
things were. I even said maybe Barbara Streisand's ``The Way We Were'' 
should be their theme song because that is how they want to go back to 
doing business where it is closed. This is what people voted against 
with the revolution in 1994. They voted then for more openness.
  This past November, people thought they were going to see more action 
and more openness, and the first votes that are being taken are closing 
that process and are excluding people, excluding representatives of as 
many as 140 million Americans from participation in that process.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I wanted to 
highlight the new rule for the Rules Committee, which says that votes 
don't have to be recorded, and I appreciate so much your bringing that 
up because nobody at home, none of my constituents, believe that any 
Member of Congress ought to be able to come here and vote and not have 
their constituents be able to look and see what they have done.
  And, in fact, part of this rules package that I think breaks a number 
of promises that were made by our friends in the majority as they ran 
up to the election, part of this package says that those votes don't 
have to be recorded. And I would be happy to yield to you, but for the 
life of me, I can't think of a reason that one would want to do that.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. If the gentleman would yield and also yield to Dr. 
Gingrey, who is on the Rules Committee, but having served in a State 
legislative body, that is one of the things that our constituents who 
were tuned into watching so closely would say, how in the world can you 
represent me and then not tell me how you voted and try to keep that a 
secret? I am having a difficult time finding words to say how egregious 
that is and how offensive it is to our constituents.
  Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding and 
giving me an opportunity to talk about that a little bit because at the 
beginning of my remarks, I talked about the powerful Rules Committee. 
And, Mr. Speaker, it is a powerful Rules Committee in that you decide 
how long you can talk on an issue. That is, you limit the time of 
debate. You have the power to make amendments in order to give a Member 
on either side of the aisle, majority or minority, an opportunity to 
come and talk about their amendment on the floor. They may get beat 
434-1, but they have that opportunity.
  As an all powerful member of the Rules Committee, as Representative 
Price was just saying, all of a sudden, in this rules package, they are 
saying that one of these all powerful members can make these votes, can 
set this time of debate, can deny the amendment opportunity for Members 
on either side of the aisle and then not take a public vote, not take a 
roll call vote, and not go home and face their constituents, these all 
powerful members of the Rules Committee, not answer to their 
constituents for why they denied maybe a Member of their own party a 
good idea to debate on the House floor, their body.
  And I am going to tell you the rhetorical question Dr. Price asked, 
was why would this new majority do this? I can offer a suggestion. They 
now, of course, have nine members. The four that were in the minority 
are now the majority including the chairman of the Rules Committee and 
the vice chairman of the Rules Committee, but they also have an 
additional five seats, which they are filling with some of their newly 
elected freshmen Democrats who can go home in these marginal districts, 
these red Bush districts, if you will, and say that I am an all 
powerful member of the Rules Committee, re-elect me, but yet not have 
to answer for these difficult votes that they took probably in 
opposition to what their constituents would want them to do.
  So I thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain the 
rhetorical question of why they might want to do that.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. And if the gentleman would yield, if my memory is 
correct, in 1995, when Speaker Gingrich and the House Republicans set 
the rules, that was at the time that they started recording those 
votes; is that not correct?
  Mr. GINGREY. I think the gentlewoman from Tennessee is absolutely 
correct on that.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. And before that, the votes were not recorded and it 
was the process. That is why I say we are returning to the way we were, 
the way they were. And it is different from the way business was 
conducted from 1995 until now. And I think that is an important 
distinction for our constituents who have stopped us on the campaign 
trail and stopped us as we have prepared to come in and take our solemn 
oath of office today and have said we want to be certain that this 
Congress is going to function in an open,

[[Page H55]]

accountable manner. We want to know what is happening in the people's 
House, and it is your charge to keep with us to keep us informed.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman and I thank my good 
friend from Georgia for his answer to my rhetorical question, because 
the answer was the only thing that can be possible as a reason to do it 
is politics. That is it. That is the only thing that can be possible. 
There can be no good reason, from a process standpoint, for this House 
of Representatives not to record those votes. So I appreciate so much 
your enlightening me and helping me understand why that would have been 
done.

  I do know that constituents at home are tired, are tired of decisions 
that are made up here in Washington based solely on politics. And, in 
fact, I would suggest to my friends on the other side of the aisle who 
now find themselves in the majority that decisions like that and being 
held accountable for those decisions make it so that lives in 
majorities can sometimes be very, very short.
  So I appreciate your comments and appreciate your input and would be 
happy to yield if either of you had anything else to comment regarding 
the rules.
  If not, I do want to comment a little bit about the process and about 
why discussion of the process is important. My good friends know and 
most Americans know we live in the longest surviving democracy ever in 
the history of man, ever in the history of man. And there is a reason 
for that. I think people can conjecture about why that is the case, but 
I think one of the reasons for that is that we as a Nation have 
respected the process by which we develop policy. And the reason it is 
important is because everybody that is an elected official, is a 
representative of the people, has an opportunity to have input into the 
process, and that process itself not only produces the best product 
because as you have more people involved who represent more diverse 
areas, I think you get a better product, but what it does do is it 
ensures that people trust the outcome.
  They trust the outcome of not just elections, but they trust the 
outcome of the process of legislation. And when that process gets 
truncated or gets cut down or is closed, we use that term ``closed 
rule'' here, when the American people hear about a closed rule, what 
that means is that it does not allow your representative at home to be 
able to offer amendments, be able to have input into what the ultimate 
work product is, what the ultimate bill, what the ultimate law is.
  So, Mr. Speaker, many individuals across this Nation who went to the 
polls and voted in November have elected people who because of changes 
in these rules today will not be able to have input into very, very 
important issues like 9/11 Commission recommendations and whether or 
not they are adopted; like stem cell research and whether that goes 
forward paid for with Federal taxpayer money; minimum wage, an 
important issue, but it ought to be debated, ought to have opportunity 
for amendment; and then something that is near and dear to my heart as 
a physician in my former life along with Dr. Gingrey and my other 
colleagues is the issue of prescription drugs and the Medicare part D 
prescription drug program. An extremely complex issue. Extremely 
complex issue.
  And today, what the majority party did was say that we will bring 
within the next week to the floor of this House a bill that has never 
been discussed in committee. It has never had a hearing. It has never 
had anybody in this body be able to offer an amendment officially and 
have folks vote on it and say ``yes'' or ``no,'' they believe that that 
is the case, that has never been through that process that results in 
the best work product that is available for a bill and for ultimately a 
law. And from the rumors that we hear, and we only hear rumors because 
we don't have the legislative language, because we do not know what is 
going to be in that bill, but from the rumors that we hear, the result 
of that bill will be a decrease in the kinds of medications that are 
available to the American people.
  That may go into effect, Mr. Speaker, if the majority party goes 
forward with the rule that they adopted today. That may go into effect 
without anybody in this House of Representatives ever having an 
opportunity to affect that outcome.

                              {time}  2145

  Some on the majority side would say, well, it has been talked about 
for a long time. It was voted on, the Medicare prescription drug 
program was voted on in 2003, got a lot of hearings then. There were a 
lot of people that talked about it and voiced their opinion on it at 
that time.
  That is true, Mr. Speaker, but what hasn't happened is that every 
single freshman Member of this House was duly elected in their 
districts and has a right, a right, under our system of government to 
have input into a bill that comes out of the House of Representatives. 
Every single freshman will have no input into that bill or into the 
bill as it relates to minimum wage, as it relates to stem cell research 
or anything else that was included in the rules package today. Never.
  That has never been done, as my colleagues said before, never been 
done in the history, in the history of this Nation, to have that kind 
of substantive legislation dealt with in a way that does not allow that 
kind of input.
  Mr. Speaker, that kind of rule, that kind of process, which is 
difficult to get your arms around, but that kind of process, I would 
suggest to you, is an abuse of majority power. Our job, on the minority 
side, is to hold people accountable for their actions and for their 
decisions.
  It is important that the American people understand and appreciate 
that these decisions that were made on the very first day, which, by 
and large, are procedural issues, that are difficult to get folks 
interested in, but they not only set the tone for this Congress, but 
they set the rules under which we make major decisions that will affect 
the American people as it relates to their income, as it relates to 
their security, and as it relates to their health. Nothing, nothing 
could be more important.
  Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a historic day. But it is also a day of 
concern. It is a day of concern, because what goes on here is extremely 
important. Within these walls we can effect change that will benefit 
citizens all across our Nation. We can also effect change that will 
harm citizens all across our Nation. If we work together, we will do 
much more of the former and very little of the latter.
  Let me close by just saying, Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the 
challenges that we face in this Nation are huge. They are immense. But 
they are not Republican challenges, and they are not Democrat 
challenges. They are American challenges.
  If we work together as a body of elected representatives from all 
across this wonderful and glorious Nation, we will come up with the 
best product, the best legislation, the best laws that will result in 
the most amount of benefit to our citizens all across this Nation. So I 
challenge, I challenge my Democrat colleagues to fulfill the promises 
that they made on the election, during the election campaign, to 
fulfill the promises that they made, to fulfill the promises that they 
made when they talked to citizens in their districts all across this 
Nation about openness and about civility and about fiscal 
responsibility. That challenge, that challenge making certain that you 
fulfill those promises is what will ring true to the American people.
  I appreciate once again, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to come to the 
floor tonight.

                          ____________________