[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 1 (Thursday, January 4, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H6-H39]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           RULES OF THE HOUSE

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 
5) and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                               H. Res. 5

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order to consider in the House the resolution (H. 
     Res. 6) adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives 
     for the One Hundred Tenth Congress. The resolution shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the resolution to its adoption without 
     intervening motion or demand for division of the question 
     except as specified in sections 2 through 4 of this 
     resolution.

[[Page H7]]

       Sec. 2. The question of adopting the resolution shall be 
     divided among five parts, to wit: each of its five titles. 
     The portion of the divided question comprising title I shall 
     be debatable for 30 minutes, equally divided and controlled 
     by the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
     designees. The portion of the divided question comprising 
     title II shall be debatable for 60 minutes, equally divided 
     and controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader 
     or their designees. The portion of the divided question 
     comprising title III shall be debatable for 60 minutes, 
     equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and the 
     minority leader or their designees. The portion of the 
     divided question comprising title IV shall be debatable for 
     60 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the majority 
     leader and the minority leader or their designees. The 
     portion of the divided question comprising title V shall be 
     debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by 
     the majority leader and the minority leader or their 
     designees. Each portion of the divided question shall be 
     disposed of in the order stated.
       Sec. 3. Pending the question of adopting the final portion 
     of the divided question, it shall be in order to move that 
     the House commit the resolution to a select committee with or 
     without instructions. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the motion to commit to its adoption 
     without intervening motion.
       Sec. 4. During consideration of House Resolution 6 pursuant 
     to this resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the 
     previous question, the Chair may postpone further 
     consideration of the resolution to a time designated by the 
     Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hoyer). The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the minority leader or his designee, 
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.
  The resolution that I am calling up on this historic day, H. Res. 5, 
provides for the consideration of a rules package, H. Res. 6, that we 
hope will begin to return this Chamber to its rightful place as the 
home of democracy and deliberation in our great Nation.
  The resolution we are now debating will allow the House to consider 
and vote on the Democratic rules package in five separate parts. The 
first title contains the rules package our Republican colleagues 
adopted in the 109th Congress, while the second through fifth titles 
contain amendments that will begin a reformation of this body that is 
long overdue.
  I also include for the Record at this time a detailed summary of the 
changes H. Res. 6 will make to the standing House rules of the 109th 
Congress.

  Summary of House Rules Package, Opening Day of the 110th Congress, 
   Prepared by the Rules Committee, Louise M. Slaughter, Chairwoman-
                               Designate

                TITLE I--ADOPTION OF 109TH RULES PACKAGE

       This title adopts the standing rules that were in effect in 
     the 109th Congress. The subsequent adoption of the amendments 
     contained in Titles II-V will then make certain changes to 
     these rules.

                        TITLE II--ETHICS REFORMS


                      ending the K street project

       (Rule XXIII--Code of Official Conduct) Prohibits Members 
     from threatening official retaliation against private firms 
     that hire employees who do not share the Member's partisan 
     political affiliation.


                           lobbyist gift ban

       (Rule XXV, cl. 5(a)) Prohibits Members and employees from 
     accepting gifts from a registered lobbyist, from an agent of 
     a foreign principal, or an entity that employs or retains 
     these lobbyists and agents. Under the current gift rule, 
     Members and employees may accept gifts valued less than $50 
     (and a total of $100 per calendar year) from these lobbyists 
     and agents. The current gift ban exemptions in cl. 5(a)(3) 
     still apply.
       (Rule XXV, cl. 5(a)) Adds language clarifying that for the 
     purposes of the gift rule, a ticket to a sporting event is 
     valued either at the face value of a ticket, or at the cost 
     of the ticket to the general public when (1) the ticket does 
     not have a face value or (2) when the face value of the 
     ticket does not reflect its economic value.


               Lobbyist Travel Restrictions/One-Day Trips

       (Rule XXV, cl. 5(b)) Prohibits Members and employees from 
     accepting travel reimbursements from a registered lobbyist, 
     from an agent of a foreign country, or from an entity that 
     employs or retains these lobbyists and agents. (Current 
     rules already prohibit lobbyists and agents of foreign 
     principals from reimbursing travel).
       A new subsection to this rule clarifies that colleges and 
     universities are not subject to this prohibition. Another 
     subsection allows entities that employ lobbyists to reimburse 
     Member and employee travel to one-day events (e.g. 
     conventions, meetings). In general, travel to a one-day event 
     includes an overnight stay, although the Ethics Committee may 
     allow two-night stays in certain cases. These new 
     restrictions take effect on March 1, 2007.
       (Rule XXV, new cl. 5(c)) Adds new language stating that 
     except in the case of trips sponsored by colleges and 
     universities, lobbyists may only play a de minimis role in 
     Member travel to one-day events that can be reimbursed by 
     entities that employ lobbyists.


      new travel authorization and public disclosure requirements

       (Rule XXV, new cl. 5(d)) Adds language stating that prior 
     to accepting reimbursed travel, Members and employees will be 
     required to obtain a certification from the entity paying for 
     the trip declaring that, except as permitted for universities 
     and one-day travel, lobbyists did not plan, organize, 
     request, arrange, or finance the travel. Members and 
     employees will be required to submit this certification to 
     the Ethics Committee and receive approval from the Ethics 
     Committee before taking the trip. These new requirements take 
     effect on March 1, 2007.
       In connection with this new prior authorization 
     requirement, this new rule requires Members and employees to 
     submit their certifications, advance authorizations, and 
     other travel disclosure materials to the Clerk of the House 
     within 15 days after the travel is completed. The Clerk of 
     the House must make this information available to the public 
     as soon as possible. (Current rules allow 30 days for the 
     submission of travel disclosures).
       (Rule XXV, new cl. 5(i)) Requires the Ethics Committee to 
     develop new standards for what constitutes a reasonable 
     expense by a private group for Member travel. The Ethics 
     Committee must also develop a new standard for determining 
     that the travel has a valid connection to Members' official 
     duties. In addition, it requires the Ethics Committee to 
     develop a process for the submission and approval of the 
     prior authorization requirements created in new cl. 5(d).


                           corporate jet ban

       (Rule XXIII--Code of Official Conduct) Prohibits Members 
     from using official, personal, or campaign funds to pay for 
     the use of privately owned airplanes. (Members will still be 
     able to charter commercially available airplanes.)


                            Ethics Training

       (Rule XI, cl. 3) Requires the Ethics Committee to offer 
     annual ethics training to Members and appropriate employees. 
     New employees must receive this training within 60 days of 
     beginning work in the House and other employees must certify 
     they take the course each year.


                         Committee Name Changes

       (Rule X, cl. 1) Changes the names of the following House 
     committees: 1) the Committee on Education and the Workforce 
     becomes the ``Committee on Education and Labor,'' 2) the 
     Committee on International Relations becomes the ``Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs,'' 3) the Committee on Resources becomes 
     the ``Committee on Natural Resources,'' 4) the Committee on 
     Government Reform becomes the ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform,'' and 5) the Committee on Science becomes 
     the ``Committee on Science and Technology.''

                          TITLE III--CIVILITY


                           Holding Votes Open

       (Rule XX, cl. 2) Prohibits the Speaker from holding votes 
     open for longer than the scheduled time for the sole purpose 
     of changing the outcome of the vote.


                          Conference Procedure

       (Rule XXII, new cl. 12) Requires House conferees to insist 
     that conference committees operate in an open and fair manner 
     and that House conferees sign the final conference papers at 
     one time and in one place.
       (Rule XXII, new cl. 13) Prohibits the consideration of a 
     conference report that has been altered after the time it was 
     signed by conferees.

                    TITLE IV--FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY


                         Fiscal Responsibility

       (Rule XXI, new cl. 7) Prohibits the House from considering 
     budget resolutions or amendments to budget resolutions that 
     contain reconciliation instructions increasing the budget 
     deficit.
       (Rule XXI, new cl. 8) Applies Budget Act rules against 
     bills that have not been reported by committees.
       (Rule XXI, new cl. 10) Prohibits the consideration of any 
     legislation proposing direct spending or revenue changes that 
     would increase the budget deficit within a five-year or a 
     ten-year time frame (``Pay-as-You-Go'' point of order).


                             Earmark Reform

       (Rule XXI, new cl. 9) Requires committees of jurisdiction 
     and conference committees to publish lists of the earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits contained 
     in all reported bills, unreported bills, manager's 
     amendments, and conference reports that come to the House 
     floor. These lists will be electronically available to the 
     public either through committee prints or printing in the 
     Congressional Record. In the case of a reported bill, the 
     single list contemplated by the rule may cross-reference 
     other parts of the report. If a measure does not contain any 
     earmarks, committees must publish a statement to this effect. 
     A Member

[[Page H8]]

     may make a point of order (similar to the unfunded mandates 
     point of order) against the consideration of any special rule 
     that waives this requirement.
       This new clause defines an earmark as any Member-requested 
     project that is targeted to a specific place and falls 
     outside a formula-driven or competitive award process. 
     Limited tax and tariff benefits are revenue provisions that 
     would benefit 10 or fewer persons.
       (Rule XXIII--Code of Official Conduct) Prohibits trading 
     earmarks for votes and requires Members to disclose their 
     earmark requests and certify that they and their spouses have 
     no personal financial interest in the request.

                         TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS

       (Rule X, cl. 4) Gives the Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform authority to adopt a rule allowing 
     Committee Members and staff to conduct depositions in the 
     course of Committee investigations.
       (Rule XIII, cl. 3) Shields Rules Committee reports from a 
     point of order if they are filed without a complete list of 
     record votes taken during the consideration of a special 
     rule. This provision allows the Rules Committee to publish 
     recorded votes taken during Committee hearings in committee 
     reports and/or through other means such as the Internet.
       Makes a number of technical changes to the standing House 
     rules.
       Allows for the consideration of several pieces of 
     legislation that are part of the ``First 100 Hours'' agenda 
     if special rules for those provisions are not separately 
     reported.
       Continues the budget ``deeming'' resolution from the 2nd 
     Session of the 109th Congress until such time as a conference 
     report establishing a budget for the fiscal year 2008 is 
     adopted.
       Renews the standing order approved during the 109th 
     Congress that prohibits registered lobbyists from using the 
     Members' exercise facilities.

  Mr. Speaker, I consider it to be a great honor to have a chance to 
address our House on the first day of the 110th Congress. That is what 
serving as a Representative in this body is, an honor.
  There are only 435 Members of Congress chosen from a population of 
over 300 million. Our neighbors send us here to represent their 
interests and defend their needs in Washington. What they give us is 
their trust and the precious opportunity to improve the lives of 
millions here in America, and in many cases around the world. I can't 
think why anyone would want to squander that opportunity, Mr. Speaker; 
and yet this body's previous leadership seemed too often to do just 
that.
  It should come as no surprise that just a few short weeks ago a 
national poll found that only 11 percent of American voters gave the 
outgoing Congress either a good or an excellent review. What was worse, 
fully 74 percent thought that most of us here are more focused on 
advancing our careers than we are on helping our fellow citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, the history of the last several years has borne these 
opinions out. On the first day of the 109th Congress, we debated a new 
rules package, just as we are doing today. My fellow Democrats and I 
spoke out against that package from the beginning because we saw what 
it represented, a retreat from ethical conduct and an abandonment of 
our real responsibilities. It rendered the Ethics Committee totally 
powerless to meaningfully enforce the ethical standards of the House. 
While its most egregious elements were abandoned, it did its job, 
helping to pave the way to a Congress where unethical conduct would 
soon find a new home.
  By the time Democratic leaders from both the House and Senate joined 
me to unveil our Honest Leadership and Open Government Act 1 year ago, 
a great deal of damage had already been done. We had already seen a 
Medicare bill that sold out America's seniors to the bottom lines of 
the drug companies. We had seen an energy bill that did nothing to make 
our Nation's energy supply more stable, but that made the balance books 
of billion-dollar corporations solid as a rock, even though the CEOs of 
some of those companies have admitted they did not want those tax cuts.
  We had seen our homeland defenses imperiled and a war effort 
undermined by huge contracts given not to the best and the brightest, 
but to the most well-connected. Real, meaningful oversight of those 
contracts never seemed to make it to the agenda. In one of the most 
embarrassing series of revelations in our Nation's history, we had seen 
top legislators bought and sold for their allegiance, traded for gifts, 
trips, and parties, all worth so much less than the faith the American 
people had freely given to them and which they had, by the end, lost.
  But as I said at the time, the lobbyists who gave those gifts and 
paid for those trips and hosted those parties, those lobbyists could 
only knock on the doors of Congress. Members of Congress, the ones 
inside, were the ones who let them in.
  The culture of the last Congress came to be defined by a phrase now 
common to America throughout the country: it was a ``culture of 
corruption.'' Two months ago, the American people decided they had paid 
nearly enough for that kind of leadership. They had sacrificed enough 
peace of mind, lost enough hope, had their well-being imperiled far too 
many times. They stated loud and clear that they were ready for a new 
culture to take hold in Washington, a culture of commitment.
  That is what my fellow Democrats and I are pledging to bring to this 
body today, a commitment to the citizens who elected us, a commitment 
to their needs, a commitment to their security, and a commitment to 
their future. It may seem like a tall order, but we are already well on 
the way. We have a new set of leaders here, Democrats who understand 
the value of trust that has been placed in them.
  Together we are going to usher in nothing less than a new way of 
doing business in the House. While the necessary cultural shift is 
already under way, a new legislative framework is needed as well. We 
need rules in the House that will keep the body focused on the well-
being of the American people, in other words, keep us focused on our 
job; and that is the framework that we begin to lay out today.
  The political process by which bills are written and voted on often 
seems arcane. It certainly receives little of the focus given to so 
much else that goes on in Washington. Yet it is at the very heart of 
what we do here. A broken political process undermines the Democratic 
principles the House was built on, and it serves as a gateway to a 
corrupted Congress.
  By contrast, a responsible process acts as a powerful check against 
the abuses and misuses of power so common in recent years. In so many 
ways our Founding Fathers were visionaries. The rules that Thomas 
Jefferson first wrote down two centuries ago provide for order and 
discipline in the House. They provide for transparency and 
accountability. If they are followed, corruption will be exposed before 
it has a chance to take root.
  Democrats are going to follow the long-established rules of the 
House, instead of treating them as impediments to be avoided. We are 
going to allow Members to read bills before voting on them and prevent 
them from being altered at the last minute.
  We are not going to hold open votes for hours on end while arms are 
twisted and favors are traded. We are going to conduct business 
whenever possible during normal hours, instead of in the dead of night. 
We are going to be open about the schedule we keep. In short, we are 
going to restore basic civility to this body, and never again will any 
Member of the Congress have to fight to find out where the conference 
to which he or she has been appointed is meeting.
  But we are going to do more. While the rules package of the 109th 
Congress effectively embraced corrupt practices, this package stamps 
them out. Today and tomorrow we are introducing a series of critical 
new rules, legislation that will help guarantee that the unethical 
practices of the past will have no place in our future.
  Gifts and lobbyist-sponsored travel are banned by this rules package. 
They have been used to grant select groups of people unfettered access 
to Members of Congress. They have no place in this new Congress. The 
rules package will finally shed light on an earmarking process that has 
greased the wheels of corrupt House machinery. It requires the full 
disclosure of earmarks on all bills and conference reports before 
Members are asked to vote on them.
  If a Member is convinced that a project is worth a Federal earmark, 
they should have no problem attaching their name to that funding if the 
project is sound and they have nothing to hide. This package will make 
real fiscal responsibility a fundamental principle of the House, not a 
rhetorical one. It will prohibit the consideration of any legislation 
that would increase budget deficits without offsets.

[[Page H9]]

  Democrats are joined by so many Republicans in believing that it is 
immoral to pass on the question of debt to our children and 
grandchildren.

                              {time}  1500

  Enough is enough. No more deficit spending.
  Mr. Speaker, and my friends on both sides of the aisle, I know I am 
joined by my fellow Democrats as well as many Republicans when I say 
that I want a Congress that America can be proud of again.
  I am tired of having to tell my grandchildren and school children in 
my district that what they have learned in school about the ideals and 
practices of a democracy isn't true anymore, and what they have learned 
about how a bill is passed no longer stands here.
  It is long past time that this House started living up to those ideas 
and practices; that they started putting honesty, and integrity, 
transparency and accountability ahead of everything else.
  We must rededicate the People's House to the needs of its citizens. 
We must return the keys of the government and this democracy to the 
citizens whom they belong.
  This body was created to serve as the battleground of ideas, not of 
checkbooks or back-room deals or deceptions. It was created to serve 
the people of the United States.
  Today, the men and women of America have given us a very special 
gift. We have the ability to leave our mark on the future of our 
Nation. It is the only gift Members of Congress should ask for, and one 
we must cherish for the good of all. Let us begin.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Small Business as contained in House 
Rule X, clause 1(p). The Committee's jurisdiction includes the Small 
Business Administration and its programs, as well as small business 
matters related to the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. Its jurisdiction under House Rule X, clause 1(p) also 
includes other programs and initiatives that address small businesses 
outside of the confines of those Acts.
  This reaffirmation of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Small 
Business will enable the House to ensure that it is properly 
considering the consequences of its actions related to small business.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designee of the Republican 
leader.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, we have spent a great deal of time this 
afternoon focusing on the fact that we have the first female Speaker of 
the United States House of Representatives in our Nation's history. And 
I think it is also very important for us to note today that we have the 
first female Chair of the House Rules Committee in my good friend, Ms. 
Slaughter, and I would like everyone to join in extending 
congratulations to Ms. Slaughter.
  Now, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that I look forward to working in a 
bipartisan way in the spirit that was outlined by Speaker Pelosi, and 
I, of course, will treat the new Chair of the Rules Committee with the 
dignity that she deserves.
  I will say, Mr. Speaker, that I do rise with mixed emotions today. I 
was very proud to join with you as we came down the center aisle 
escorting the new Speaker of the House, my fellow Californian. And I am 
very pleased that we have the first woman, the first Californian, and 
the first Italian American as Speaker of the House of Representatives.
  I have mixed emotions because, while I am very, very proud of Speaker 
Pelosi, and the new Rules Chair, Ms. Slaughter, and others who are 
assuming leadership positions, I also am very disappointed.
  I am disappointed as I look at this package that we are about to 
consider, because I do join with you, Mr. Speaker pro tempore, the 
distinguished majority leader, and Speaker Pelosi, as we have discussed 
privately and publicly, in our quest, and I think Speaker Pelosi put it 
extraordinarily well, focusing on the priorities that we have. We are, 
first and foremost, Americans. We are here to do the people's business 
and they sent a very strong message last November, and I believe we 
have an opportunity to do just that.
  I will say that I remember very well the opening days of the 104th 
Congress, 12 years ago. I remember the very heady feeling that came 
from knowing that, for the first time, at that juncture, in almost half 
a century, we Republicans were in the majority of the House of 
Representatives, and we were going to do all that we had promised the 
American people.
  We were that optimistic, quite frankly, because we didn't know any 
better. None of us had ever served in the majority and we were 
blissfully unaware of the pressures and problems associated with trying 
to govern this institution.
  During the 109th Congress, the Democratic Caucus, many of whom 
actually served in the majority before 1995, made a lot of promises 
about how they would run this place if they ever achieved the majority 
again. Of course, they, unlike Republicans in 1994, had the experience 
of having run this place, having served in the majority. And I have a 
great deal of admiration for my colleagues, because they know exactly 
what they are facing. Knowing that, knowing exactly what they would 
face in the majority, they made a commitment to minority rights, should 
they regain the majority.
  And that, Mr. Speaker, is why I said I am disappointed. The 
resolutions before us bear very little resemblance to the rhetoric on 
this floor and on the campaign trail. The much ballyhooed commitment to 
minority rights is virtually nonexistent in the measures before us 
today. They undermine minority rights that were constantly guaranteed 
when we were in the majority. The rights of the minority are 
undermined. Their promises are for a delivery date at some later point, 
if we agree to be cooperative, according to one Member on the other 
side of the aisle. And we have, as an IOU now, a wink and a nod and a 
gentle ``trust us.''
  Mr. Speaker, trust is something that is in short supply in this 
House, and the actions of the incoming majority are, based on the 
package that has been brought before us early last evening, certainly 
less than 24 hours before we are considering it here on the House 
floor, are not doing a lot to bolster our reserves when it comes to the 
issue of trust. Despite an oft repeated commitment to provide Members 
with, as I said, at least 24 hours to review legislation before voting 
on the floor, we received this package at 6:15 last night, 6:15 only 
after that package was delivered to our friends up in the press 
gallery.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, despite Speaker Pelosi's principle that we need to 
return to regular order for legislation, including a full committee 
process of hearings and markups and, I quote Ms. Pelosi here when she 
said we need an ``open, full and fair debate consisting of a full 
amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its 
alternatives, including a substitute.''
  Now, we, in spite of that great directive that came forward, we have 
a rules package that actually self-executes closed rules for bills that 
haven't even been introduced, and won't even be going through the 
committee process. The section of the package that includes those 
closed rules is debatable for just 10 minutes. This is the polar 
opposite, the polar opposite of how the Republicans opened the 104th 
Congress, when our priorities were considered in regular order and 
under an open amendment process.
  Mr. Speaker, also providing a stark contrast is the fact that we put 
in place, from day one, a guaranteed bite at the apple for the minority 
in the form of a motion to recommit. We felt so strongly about the fact 
that when we were in the minority we were denied that chance. So that 
is why at the beginning of the 104th Congress we put into place that 
guarantee for the minority.
  But I must remind my Democratic colleagues on the Rules Committee 
that, time and time again, they have made clear their view that the 
motion to recommit is an insufficient opportunity to articulate their 
alternative. That argument was propounded constantly as we were dealing 
with public policy questions. So you can imagine how surprised I was 
when the Speaker recently replied to a reporter's question about 
Republican alternatives to

[[Page H10]]

the Democratic priorities by saying, ``They'll have a motion to 
recommit.''
  Even worse than five closed rules, Mr. Speaker, is the rollback of 
one of the most essential elements of transparency that Republicans put 
into place back at the beginning of the 104th Congress; that is, the 
right to know how a member of a committee votes on legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, this rules package exempts the Committee on Rules from 
the requirement to publish the votes of its members on its committee 
reports, something required of every other committee except the Ethics 
Committee.
  Now, in my 12 years as a member of the Rules Committee majority, we 
took more than 1,300 votes in committee, every single one of which was 
accurately reported in the committee's report.
  Mr. Speaker, at best, this is a solution in search of a problem. At 
worst, it is an attempt to shield the Rules Committee from the public 
scrutiny of its actions.
  We were told by the distinguished Chair of the Rules Committee that 
ethics reform and rules reform were not just election year issues for 
Democrats. Now, Mr. Speaker, sadly, this document says something quite 
different than that. Promises were made, and they are not being kept. 
That is the thing that I find to be most troubling. We intend to 
explain the many inconsistencies for the record and as the debate moves 
forward.
  At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to work with our democratic 
colleagues. Even with this treatment of minority rights, we stand here 
determined to work in a bipartisan way to confront the challenges that 
we all know face this country. Unfortunately, this rules package shuts 
us out from the start. It is my hope that the promises made will, 
indeed, be kept. But, Mr. Speaker, this package does not inspire a 
great deal of hope in that they in any way will.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I rise with a great deal of disappointment and a 
great deal of concern about the first actions that we are taking here.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself about 30 
seconds, 45 perhaps, just to respond for a moment, to remind my friend 
that what we are voting on is the Republican package of the last term. 
If it was so bad, we thought it was pretty bad then as well, but we 
will have time to debate all these things. We will have open debate. 
And what we have said about fairness is what we are dedicated to do.


                             General Leave

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the next speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which 
to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 5 and H. Res. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clyburn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased, for the purpose of debate 
only, to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, on this historic day, the sun is shining 
brightly in Washington outside and today, finally it is shining inside 
this great Capitol building.
  Normally, a New Year's resolution is a list you write for yourself. 
But the ethics package that we Democrats are now adopting was written 
by the American people at the ballot box in November. This January 
resolution is possible only because of the November revolution by 
voters who were, quite frankly, revolted by what they saw going on here 
in Washington.
  Under Democratic leadership, ``Spring Cleaning'' is getting an early 
start here in January. We ban lobbyists-sponsored junkets and gifts and 
the use of corporate jets from jet-setting lobbyists like the tobacco 
company that even took one Member of Congress on a special flight to 
his criminal arraignment.
  In Congress, an earmark too often is a secret means for a Member to 
funnel Federal dollars to special projects. Some are worthwhile, some 
are dubious.
  When I talk about earmarks to my rancher friends down in Texas, they 
have a different earmark in mind. It is the mark you put on an ear of 
your cattle to identify them. By their very nature, earmarks are 
public, designed to identify ownership. I think we need some of that 
Texas thinking here in Washington. If earmarks can identify a steer, we 
are now able, through this new package, to know who is ``steering'' 
earmarks of federal tax dollars to some unworthy cause.
  Ethics reform, of course, is not an end in and of itself. The goal of 
reform is to improve the substance of the work that we do here. It is 
to ensure that the priorities in Washington are genuinely the 
priorities of hard working families in San Marcos, Bastrop, Kyle, and 
many other communities across our country.
  Because fiscal security is national security, we are also working to 
cut the ballooning federal deficit with pay-as-you-go budgeting; 
barring new spending provisions or tax changes that would increase our 
soaring national debt.
  Our reforms seek to curb the cost of corruption. It is a cost that 
has been borne in the pocketbooks of our seniors who pay too much for 
drugs because of a drug bill that was designed by the pharmaceutical 
manufacturers, instead of designed to help those who needed help most.
  It is the cost of corruption that is reflected in no-bid contracts in 
Iraq and in the aftermath of the Hurricane Katrina debacle. And it is 
reflected in the price that the jobless, the homeless, and the hopeless 
are paying for the corruption within this administration.
  Mr. Speaker, accountability, so long lacking from this administration 
and the House leadership begins today.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to my very distinguished colleague on the Rules Committee, Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart from Florida.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank my dear friend, and, Mr. 
Speaker, I was very pleased that my friend and dear chairman of the 
Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter, pointed out as she spoke, I heard her 
speak that most of the ethics package was precisely the one that we had 
proposed last year. What is very disturbing, however, and really 
disappointing, Mr. Speaker, are a number of the items that have been 
included that Mr. Dreier referred to previously.
  It is extremely disappointing to see that one of the great 
advancements of this Congress over the last two centuries, which has 
been to bring a transparency to our votes, because you know, Mr. 
Speaker, it used to be even on the floor of the House votes would take 
place that were not roll call votes, they were not noted for the record 
and, thus, for the people; yet we moved forward and we changed that. 
And also in committee, votes had to be recorded. That has been one of 
the great advancements in the last two centuries in this Congress.
  And to see in the Committee on Rules, that I love so much, where we 
now in this rules package are faced with such a reversal of that 
progress and that great advancement of openness and transparency on the 
record, the requirement that the people will be able to see how the 
members of that committee vote, that has been eliminated, is being 
eliminated in this package, that is extremely disturbing. And everyone, 
Mr. Speaker, who loves this Congress should be saddened by what our 
friends on the other side of the aisle have included, specifically what 
I have just mentioned, that great reversal of progress in the rules 
package that has been brought forward today.
  So in the hope that that will be remedied and that our friends on the 
other side of the aisle will realize how sad that is, I rise today with 
great disappointment.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield 
2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor), one of our 
brilliant freshmen and a new member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to offer, along with my 
distinguished fellow Floridian, and the new rules chairwoman, Ms. 
Slaughter, an ethics champion in her own right, this legislation 
extending the rules of the 109th Congress, with ethics reforms to

[[Page H11]]

follow in the 110th Congress. These rules will serve as a baseline for 
the rules of the 110th Congress, and then we shall add the needed 
ethics reforms, fiscal responsibility reforms, and rules on civility.
  After recent tumultuous events, we can all agree that our neighbors 
back home expect the highest ethical standards from the Members of 
Congress, the people's House. This rules package includes some of the 
very good rules changes made in the 109th Congress, including the end 
of proxy voting in committees and the emergency power granted to the 
Speaker to recess the House and convene in another location in the case 
of a terrorist incident. But our Democratic package goes further, 
instituting ethics reforms that prohibit Members from accepting gifts 
from registered lobbyists, restricting Members' travel on corporate 
airplanes, and offering ethics training to Members and staff.
  I come to the House from local government; and like many of my 
reform-minded freshmen colleagues, I championed ethics reform on the 
local level, particularly in the Tampa Bay area, where it was needed in 
the inner workings of county government. Well, it is needed here in the 
Halls of Congress now more than ever.
  The new rules will include a fair and open process for the Congress: 
no holding open votes to change the outcome and clear guidelines for 
the operation of conference committees and final conference committee 
reports. Provisions for more stringent fiscal responsibility and pay-
as-you-go budgeting requirements ultimately will aid our neighbors back 
home in reducing their own debt load while the Federal Government 
begins to do its part to ease the financial crunch so many of us feel 
across the country.
  The proposed transparency in the earmark process and the additional 
requirement that Members certify that neither their spouses nor their 
relatives will have any personal financial interest in an earmark 
request will show and assure our neighbors back home that Congress is 
indeed operating in a way that best serves the needs and interests of 
every American.
  I am humble and proud to be part of this new historic Congress and am 
glad to stand in support of the ethics reform package led by Ms. Pelosi 
for high ethical standards in government.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I want to first congratulate Ms. Castor and 
certainly welcome her to the Rules Committee and look forward to 
serving with her.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. DREIER. I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  My parliamentary inquiry is, may I ask of the Chair exactly what it 
is we are debating and considering at this point. The Chair of the 
Rules Committee stood up and said, after I gave my opening remarks, 
that we were in the midst of a debate on the last year's rules package. 
I was wondering if the Chair might enlighten us as to exactly what it 
is that we are considering.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Clyburn). Pending is House Resolution 5, 
proposing a special order of business for consideration of House 
Resolution 6, adopting the Rules of the House for the One Hundred Tenth 
Congress.
  Mr. DREIER. For the consideration of the rules package for the 110th 
Congress, am I correct?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. DREIER. Thank you very much for that clarification, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to the 
very distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding, 
and I want to commend the ranking member of the Rules Committee and the 
former chairman for his comments because I think they bring some truth 
and veracity to this discussion.
  I am truly pleased to join my colleagues here who are interested in 
good government, responsive government, but accountable government. And 
as a matter of principle, as a matter of principle we believe it is 
imperative that elected officials be held accountable for what they say 
and what they do.
  Now, while on the campaign trail, Democrats made the promise over and 
over again that they wanted to have the most open and fair government 
in history. In fact, the new Speaker said herself, ``More than 2 years 
ago, I first sent Speaker Hastert proposals to restore civility in 
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 ensure the rights of the 
minority, whichever party is in the minority. The voice of every 
American has the right to be heard.''
  And she is right. But far from regular order is what we are dealing 
with here. There are a couple of items I want to present. We have heard 
that these issues to be dealt with over the next 100 hours of debate 
have already been vetted, already been through committee. In fact, the 
freshmen, who are at least 39-strong Democrats, have not had any 
opportunity. So there is no regular order there.
  We also note that in the rules package under Democrat control, the 
Rules Committee would become anything but transparent, being that the 
votes that are required or will take place in the Rules Committee will 
not be available to the public. I do not think that is what the 
American people voted on when they voted in November.
  A minority bill of rights is what we will propose in our previous 
question amendment motion, and it is that kind of common sense and that 
kind of accountability and fairness that Americans expect and that we 
are asking for. Hearings, amendments to bills, 24 hours' notice, it is 
that kind of thing we need because it is that process that ensures that 
the House will work for all Americans to decrease taxes and to make 
certain our security is maintained in solving the health care 
challenges that we have.
  Mr. Speaker, it appears that promises made on the campaign trail are 
going to be promises broken in the majority.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I am pleased 
to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. I appreciate the gentlewoman's courtesy in permitting 
me to speak on this.
  I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, that we are acting quickly in this 
Congress on the unfinished business from the last Congress. In short 
order we will be dealing with things like implementing the 9/11 
Commission recommendations, we will have a clean, up-or-down vote on 
the minimum wage unchanged after 10 years, and we will be able to deal 
with promoting stem cell research and cutting interest rates on student 
loans. Again, this is getting past the unfinished business left over 
from the last Congress.
  I am pleased that today, unlike how we started the last Congress, we 
are not beginning by watering down the ethics rules or making it more 
difficult for the minority.
  I believe very strongly in the commitment that our caucus has made. 
Our leadership has articulated that we are not going to treat the 
Republican minority the way that we were treated. I think it is going 
to be very important, Mr. Speaker, that we deal with the spirit with 
which these rules are enforced. And I am absolutely certain that you 
will find that the people on the Democratic side of the aisle are going 
to make sure that the spirit is enforced to make sure that voting 
machines are not kept open for hours in the middle of the night; making 
sure that our commitment to have functioning conference committees, 
where Republicans will be invited to attend conference committees, know 
when they are there, be able to sign off on them, and not have things 
parachuted in in the middle of the night in back rooms that nobody had 
seen; There will be no effort to have the notorious K Street Project 
turn the business lobby into a partisan tool.
  Most important, I am interested in our progress to maintain and 
enhance civil discourse on this floor. I look forward to a bipartisan 
effort on an ethics panel that would be independent enforcement and 
that issue will be reported back to Congress by March 15. I am 
interested in working on a bipartisan basis to establish this 
independent mechanism for ethics oversight.
  The rules we are adopting today and that we will be refining are an 
important first step to realize the promise of

[[Page H12]]

the new Congress. Most important will be the spirit. And I, for one, 
pledge myself to work with Rules Committee members on both sides of the 
aisle to make sure that that spirit is maintained.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 
minutes to the very distinguished gentleman from Cherryville, North 
Carolina (Mr. McHenry).
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from 
California for that warm introduction.
  Today was a historic day for the House of Representatives: A new 
Speaker, a new majority, and, in their words, a new time in Washington. 
To use the new Speaker's words, this is about respect for every voice, 
to work for every American, to seek common ground for the common good.
  Those are high words and high values that we should seek here in the 
House of Representatives that all Americans desire in their government. 
And as a key part of what the Democrats campaigned on in the 2006 
election, one of the key tenets was open and honest bipartisan 
governance. But their first act on this House floor is to push down the 
throats of this institution a closed rule that closes off debate, that 
disallows dissenting voices, that simply waves off that open, fair, and 
honest process.
  To that end, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question. 
And if we defeat the previous question, I will be able to offer this 
minority bill of rights, the Pelosi minority bill of rights. To use the 
words of the new Speaker, the minority bill of rights includes 
guidelines for bipartisan administration of the House and for the 
regular Democratic order for legislation. The principles are fair and 
will provide for the full and open debate that the American people 
expect and deserve. Now, those are not my words. Those are the words of 
the new Speaker. Then-Minority Leader Pelosi wrote those words in June 
of 2004.
  Now, while the new Speaker and I may not agree on much in terms of 
policy, tax policy, or the policy on national defense, I think we have 
the same values when it comes to fair and open and honest legislative 
debate. And to that end I sought to outline her principles and put them 
into the minority bill of rights. So let us defeat the previous 
question so that we can vote on this minority bill of rights, the 
Pelosi bill of rights.

                              {time}  1530

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 5, to provide for the rules 
package of the 110th Congress. I am proud that the first act of this 
new Congress is to pass long-overdue ethics and lobbying reform.
  Today, we end the era of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, when the levers 
of government were used less to help American families and more to 
reward monied special interests. Today, we take a major step to 
restoring Americans' trust in the legislative branch of government.
  We will ban gifts from lobbyists, trips funded by lobbyists, and the 
use of company planes. We will shut down the K Street Project. We will 
force Members of Congress to take responsibility for their earmarks. 
And we will ban arm-twisting for votes.
  The need for reform is obvious. The alliance between the previous 
leadership and K Street lobbyists came at a disastrous cost for 
democracy, decency, and the public interest. The best example is the 
industry-written Medicare D prescription drug bill passed in the middle 
of the night. The majority leadership held the vote open for 3 hours as 
they twisted arms and levied threats. Thousands of Maine seniors can 
see today that the program was designed to serve the insurance and 
pharmaceutical interests more than the people on Medicare.
  I am pleased that the ethics package includes reforms that 
Congressmen David Obey, Barney Frank, David Price, and I introduced 1 
year ago. I thank Chairwoman Slaughter and Speaker Pelosi for 
incorporating our ideas, simple ideas, like ensuring that we all have 
time to read bills before they are voted on.
  H. Res. 6 will restore the people's voice to the people's House. 
Every American family will benefit by legislation that is advanced in 
an open and transparent manner, rather than written by lobbyists behind 
closed doors.
  I urge the adoption of this resolution and the entire Democratic 
rules and ethics reform package.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
is remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The gentleman from California 
has 14\1/2\ minutes remaining and the gentlelady from New York has 11 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this juncture I am very pleased to 
yield 2 minutes to a very, very hardworking Member of the House, the 
Chair of the Republican Study Committee, the gentleman from Dallas (Mr. 
Hensarling).
  Mr. HENSARLING. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today, and, unfortunately, I have to oppose 
this particular rules package.
  I listened very carefully to our new Speaker when she spoke of 
fairness, and yet I see that the minority is not being given the 
opportunity to offer amendments to this particular package when it 
comes to the floor. We are being asked to vote on things we don't even 
know what they are about, something that, Madam Speaker, your party 
complained of when you were in the minority.
  But I specifically am disturbed by what I see in supposedly the 
fiscal responsibility portion that this rule package would allow. I 
heard our new Speaker talk about how important it was to bring PAYGO to 
the floor of the House; and I agree, it is a great concept.
  Unfortunately, what is being offered, where the minority doesn't have 
an opportunity to amend, is really false advertising, because what we 
have, Madam Speaker, is, number one, this concept called baseline 
budgeting, where these programs are going to grow automatically in what 
we call discretionary spending, and yet this PAYGO doesn't apply to 
this. Anything that the majority writes into the budget resolution 
again is exempted from PAYGO. All of the entitlement spending, a 
majority of the spending, which could bankrupt our children and our 
grandchildren, once again is exempt.
  What is covered, Madam Speaker? It is hard to find. But anything that 
is, then the majority has 5 to 10 years apparently to put off the 
costs, and somehow we are supposed to be convinced in 5 to 10 years 
they are actually going to pay for it.
  Again, this is false advertising. This isn't PAYGO; this is TAXGO. 
All this is is a subterfuge to make sure that hardworking American 
families are denied the tax relief that the Republicans and President 
Bush brought, the tax relief that created 6 million new jobs, that 
created the highest rate of homeownership in the history of our 
country, that helped deficits fall, that ensured that real wages came 
up. That is why we need to oppose this rule, Madam Speaker.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me 
time.
  Madam Speaker, this is a historic day in this House: the first woman 
ever elected Speaker; the first woman, Louise Slaughter, to be chairman 
of the powerful Rules Committee. In addition to that, Ms. Slaughter and 
Speaker Pelosi have put together a package that is indeed a historic, 
comprehensive ethics package that deserves the support of each and 
every Member of this body.
  In the last Congress, we saw egregious abuses of power by Members of 
Congress and lobbyists. These abuses tarnished the image of this great 
institution and caused Americans to lose faith with their government. 
In the face of these scandals, America had its midterm election and the 
American people decided decisively to put a new party in charge here in 
the House of Representatives. They sent a message loud and clear that 
it was time to clean up the Congress, and in fact exit polls showed 
that nearly 92 percent of the voters were concerned with the ethical 
cloud hanging over Washington.

[[Page H13]]

  What did they ask for? They asked for honest leadership and open 
government, and this package presented today by Ms. Slaughter, Ms. 
Pelosi and the leadership is the most significant, comprehensive ethics 
reform that has ever been presented on the first day of an opening of 
this Congress.
  This is a rules package that cuts the ties to the old culture of 
corruption and in its place creates a new culture of disclosure, of 
accountability, and of oversight. Starting today, there will be no more 
lobbyist-funded junkets or vacations; starting today, no more corporate 
jets, where Members of Congress can be flown to their indictment 
arraignment; starting today, no more lobbyist-paid gifts; beginning 
today, no more K Street Projects. All of this is over with the passage 
of this package.
  I have heard the other side say they had no idea what this party was 
going to come up with for a rules package. We have been talking for 
quite some time about the efforts to reform this institution, to get 
transparency in earmarks, to have an institution where lobbyists can't 
fund vacations. Now if a Member wants to take a trip, it has to be 
approved in advance by the Ethics Committee.
  As a matter of fact, nearly every public interest group in America 
that has been fighting for reform over the last decade has stepped up 
to the plate to say this package is the most significant reform of 
ethics rules that we have had in a generation.
  So the time has come for Democrats and Republicans to join together 
to pass this comprehensive ethics reform package, because the American 
people demanded it in the last election, and Speaker Pelosi and the new 
leadership in this House are delivering on that request.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the very distinguished gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), a hardworking former member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. GINGREY. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, the former 
chairman of the Rules Committee, my colleague from California, and also 
congratulate the new chairman of the Rules Committee, our friend from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter).
  I just want to point out to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the 
gentleman that just spoke, this ethics reform package, which we are not 
opposed to in the totality of it, but many, if not most of these 
provisions, Madam Speaker, were a part of H.R. 4975, the Republican 
ethics reform package which we passed in this House in May of this past 
year with only eight, count them, Madam Speaker, eight votes from the 
other side. There was total opposition to everything that we wanted to 
do in regard to ethics reform.
  I will remind my colleagues in regard to the so-called K Street 
Project, that very provision, that is, Members not being able to put 
pressure on companies in regard to hiring practices, in regard to 
granting of any legislative favors, was part of that package. But yet 
our colleagues in the majority party now want to come forward and say 
``the K Street Project.''
  Now, where is the sense of fairness and fair play and bipartisanship 
in sticking it in the eye of the new minority, when we tried to change 
that very thing that they voted against?
  I would say furthermore in regard to this overall package of rules, 
what is this business about not holding a vote open for the sole 
purpose of changing a vote? If that is in fact a good policy, not being 
able to do that, and I tend to agree with the new majority that we 
shouldn't be able to break people's arms with favors for earmarks or 
special committee assignments which may not be appropriate, then why 
use the word ``sole?'' Putting in ``sole purpose'' would allow them or 
anybody to lock a Member in the bathroom and say we are holding the 
vote open because they are stuck in traffic. So I would suggest let's 
eliminate ``sole'' and say for the purpose of pressuring a Member to 
change their vote against their will.
  Last and not least, and maybe the chairman of the Rules Committee, 
Ms. Slaughter, can address this point of this unbelievable idea that 
members of the Rules Committee, the new members, maybe to protect the 
freshman members, are not allowed to have a roll call vote in the light 
of day.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson), and we welcome you 
home.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding time.
  I am awfully proud to be standing here again in the midst of this 
distinguished body representing the people of the 22nd Congressional 
District of Texas.
  A wave of change rushed across America since I left office, a wave 
that carried me back here to Washington, D.C., and I couldn't be 
prouder to vote today on the very first day of the 110th Congress to 
reform the rules and code of ethics by which this body operates; rules 
that were abused and tore Texas and this country apart, and a code of 
ethics that was disregarded and caused the American people to lose 
confidence in us, their representatives. We can't afford to wait 
another day to restore the trust and hope to those who sent us here to 
represent them.
  It is not about moving to the left or to the right, but about moving 
this country forward. And now is the time to start working together by 
reaching across the aisle that we allow to divide us. It is time to 
conduct the people's business openly and honestly in the light of day.
  I urge all of you, my distinguished colleagues, to join together in 
supporting these vital reforms. This is the first step toward restoring 
pride in our democracy, and that means restoring fiscal responsibility. 
Passing our massive debt on to our kids and grandkids is not a legacy 
we want to leave. Those who elect us are our employers, and we must be 
diligent in spending their hard-earned money which they entrust to us.
  The number of earmarks alone increased nearly 400 percent and 
spending doubled over the last decade. We must all make an effort, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, to trim the fat from the budget. We 
can once again have a balanced budget, fund important initiatives and 
be diligent in our oversight of agencies of government, all without 
raising taxes.
  I am proud to cast one of my first votes in the 110th Congress in 
favor of pay-as-you-go rules and aggressive reform of the earmark 
process so that we can return to a government truly of, by, and for the 
people.
  I am honored to be back in this Chamber. I am proud that this 
Congress is starting off on the right foot with the best interests of 
every American on our minds, and I am proud to ask all of my colleagues 
to support this significant package of rules, H. Res. 5 and 6.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to our very distinguished chief deputy whip, my good friend from 
Richmond (Mr. Cantor).
  Mr. CANTOR. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to congratulate the 
gentlelady from California on her election as Speaker and look forward 
to serving with her.
  I just ran into a reporter on the outside of the Chamber who asked me 
about the tone of debate and what I thought the tone would be going 
forward. I agree with Leader Boehner when he spoke in this Chamber just 
a little bit earlier about the fact that we can debate, we can differ 
in a nice way, and I think that is what the American people expect.

                              {time}  1545

  But they also expect rigorous debate here on the floor of the House. 
I am asking my colleagues to reject the previous question. Because if 
we look at the message from this election, the American people spoke 
out: They want change. They want us to change the way that Washington 
does business. And in fact, a little less than 2 years ago, then 
Minority Leader Pelosi saw fit to send a letter to the former Speaker 
Hastert spelling out the way that she thought this House should run, 
how we should change, a prescription to correct the so-called ills that 
my friend from Massachusetts mentioned earlier of the 109th Congress. 
So if we defeat the previous question, we in the House will be allowed 
to bring up what has been called the minority bill of rights, and this 
again was the recipe for change that then minority Leader Pelosi saw 
fit that was the

[[Page H14]]

right prescription for the ills that affected this institution or 
allegedly affected this institution.
  So it just doesn't make sense for us to be here today and somehow in 
spirit of bipartisanship, transparency, civility, to be going back on 
that pledge to honor the rights of all Americans so that we can have an 
open debate in this House. It doesn't make sense to follow the adage, 
``Do as I say, not as I do.''
  So I would urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question, allow 
there to be light, allow there to be transparency, not just after we 
pass the first 100 hours of this Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  I understand your pain, I understand the hurt, and I understand that 
you are not really sure that we are going to be fair and honest. But if 
you look back on the 40 years here before, and I remember on the Rules 
Committee, that when a bill was coming up to rules, always the chairman 
and the ranking member came together. They worked together on 
everything. If it was an oversight committee, I recall that both the 
chair and the ranking member signed the subpoenas. There was such a 
series of cooperation we have never, as far as I know, dealt with 
retribution or underhandedness or hatefulness.
  We know we have an awful lot of work to do. We have got a country to 
save; we have got a reputation to try to get back in the world; we have 
got the worst deficit we have ever seen; and, we have got to do 
something about a war. Let me pledge to you, we have no time for 
vindication or revenge, and it would be so nice if all the Members in 
this vote for a change would roll in the same direction.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond that 
I never used the words ``pain,'' I never said ``hurt.'' I said 
``disappointment.'' I said disappointment, Madam Speaker, because I am 
very disappointed.
  I will tell you this: I am prepared at this moment to take my three 
Republican colleagues and go right upstairs to the Rules Committee and 
go to work at this moment so that we don't have closed rules in the 
opening day rules package for consideration of measures that have not 
gone through the committee process and have not had any opportunity to 
even have our amendments denied in the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. I simply want to say there is no point going up to 
Rules. The Rules Committee has not been constituted yet. This is being 
brought under privileged communication.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, we are prepared at this moment, Madam 
Speaker, we will send a resolution right now so the Rules Committee can 
begin meeting upstairs.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Nebraska (Mr. 
Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Madam Speaker, I too am deeply disappointed today. I think 
part of the message from the electorate was that they want us to work 
together, that they want us to cooperate for the greater good. And, 
yes, that people were, at least in Nebraska, very upset with the 
examples of those who violated the public's trust.
  We need to work together on an ethics plan. I am pleased that in this 
rule there are ethics measures that, by the way, the Republicans helped 
put together many months ago in reaction to the ethics violations we 
have seen from some of our colleagues.
  So, as the people want us to work together in a partnership and not 
in partisanship, what we received was a partisan slap across the face. 
It is the mismatch between words and actions of which we are speaking 
today.
  I have had a bill that was incorporated into the ethics package that 
we passed last May that the Democrats almost en banc opposed because it 
wasn't tough enough. The reality is that the package in today's rule, 
which we had no participation in, is, in many ways, weaker. And one of 
the examples is the fact that, as I worked on with our Speaker, that if 
you have violated the rules of this House and the public trust and you 
took money, you found $90,000 of cold hard cash or you took limousines 
or whatever the violations were, that you shouldn't be able to leave in 
the public disgust with the benefits of public service, i.e., a 
pension. That was in the ethics package passed months ago but isn't in 
this one. So this is a weaker package.
  Now, I too wish I would have had the opportunity to take the bill 
that I have introduced today and did last year and work with our 
friends on the other side, but, in the partisan slap, have been denied 
the ability to do so.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I will 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney), one of 
the freshmen of which we are so proud.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Madam Speaker, I am very honored to be part of the 
historic 110th Congress.
  It is entirely appropriate that the incoming Congress is making 
ethics reform one of its first acts. This issue is personally important 
to me and to all of Californians.
  We need to provide Congress with a fresh start and improve the 
strained relations that exist between voters and elected officials. 
Members of Congress should be held in the highest regard by the people 
they represent, and the ethics changes will help repair years of 
damage. We must reestablish positive relationships with everyone we 
serve, and end this period of mistrust in our government.
  Traveling throughout our State of California, I heard from many 
people who simply want to believe and trust in their elected officials, 
and today we are sending the message that we feel the same way.
  I am confident also that this will be the first of very many steps 
that will take back trust and civility in Congress, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to vote for the ethics package.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time 
we have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The gentleman from California 
has 6 minutes; the gentlewoman from New York, 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I will yield an additional minute to the 
gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina who would like to be 
recognized.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
yielding, again, to restate what is very important about this coming 
vote on the previous question.
  If we defeat the previous question, we can then have an honest vote 
on the Pelosi minority bill of rights package. It is a very important 
thing for us to have an open, bipartisanship debate on opening day of 
this new Congress, for the new majority to be able to say clearly to 
the American people that their rhetoric is becoming reality on the 
opening day of this Congress. For if they do not do that and they do 
ram down the throats of all Members here on this floor this previous 
question, then all people will be locked out from offering debates on 
this House floor; and, from the Republican side, 140 million Americans 
who voted for our side of the aisle, their voices will be stifled in 
this process.
  So, Madam Speaker, I encourage all Members, both Republicans and 
Democrats to come together, defeat this previous vote, and then we can 
move on to an open, fair debate on the minority bill of rights, the 
Pelosi minority bill of rights. That is a fair thing to do.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I am 
pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina, the 
chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Spratt.
  Mr. SPRATT. Madam Speaker, the package before us will be modified 
tomorrow to include provisions that reinstate a practice that was 
followed throughout the 1990s in the budget process called pay-as-you-
go.
  Pay-as-you-go was first instituted in 1991 as part of the Budget 
Enforcement Act when President Bush, the first President Bush, was the 
President of this country. Pay-as-you-go simply provides that if you 
want to cut taxes when you have a deficit, you can't make the deficit 
worse; you have got to offset those tax cuts either with entitlement 
cuts in an equivalent amount or with tax increases elsewhere in the Tax 
Code. And, if you want to enhance an entitlement, you have to pay for 
it with an identified revenue stream.
  Our friends across the aisle are trying to imply that this PAYGO rule 
is a sham. I will simply say to you that our

[[Page H15]]

PAYGO rule is the art of the possible; it is what we can do at the 
present moment, and that is we can amend the rules of the House today 
and tomorrow to include two new PAYGO rules which we have provided for 
and which have been published.
  There is some dispute as to whether or not the baseline against which 
to measure increases and decreases is going to be something that we can 
manipulate in the Budget Committee. I would simply invite everybody to 
read the language of the rule, and they will see that in this 
particular case, the Committee on the Budget is bound to turn to the 
Congressional Budget Office, which is traditional practice, and to use 
the recent baseline estimates supplied by the CBO consistent with 
section 257 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1985. That is what the rule 
provides. We go to CBO for the baseline, we determine whether or not 
the extent to which there will be an increase in spending or decrease 
in revenues. It is a CBO function based upon the latest baseline. And 
any other construction of this is a false construction.
  Now, some may say this is just a rule of the House, it can be waived 
by the Rules Committee because, as the other side well knows, points of 
order of this kind traditionally have been mowed down by the Rules 
Committee. But this is the best we can do with a rule of the House. We 
can later come back and make a statutory change, but it will be good to 
know if our opponents on the other side who support such a change.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, may I inquire of the distinguished Chair 
of the Rules Committee now, are there any further speakers on the 
majority side?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. There are not. And I will reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Madam Speaker, I am actually very enthused and excited about the 
great new opportunity that lies ahead for every single one of us. We 
have heard speeches today from our distinguished Republican leader, and 
we are all very proud that my fellow Californian has become the first 
woman to preside over the greatest deliberative body known to man. And, 
as I said earlier, I am particularly proud of the fact that I am being 
succeeded by the distinguished chairwoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter), as the first woman to chair the Rules Committee.

                              {time}  1600

  I am enthused about the challenges that lie ahead, and I am very 
encouraged by the words that we heard from our new Speaker about the 
need for civility, about the need for us to make sure that we recognize 
that we are first and foremost Americans, and that the message from 
last November's election was a very clear one. It was a message that we 
should come together, work together, Democrats and Republicans alike, 
to solve the challenges that we face so that we can in fact do the 
people's business.
  We are very proud of the accomplishments that we have had over the 
past 12 years, and I believe we can work with the new majority to build 
on those successes, the successes of ensuring that we have an economy 
that is second to none, an unemployment rate that is at near-record 
lows at 4.5 percent, strong domestic product growth, more Americans 
working than ever before in our Nation's history, more Americans owning 
their own homes, and more minority Americans owning their own homes.
  I also am particularly proud of the fact that working together, Madam 
Speaker, we have been able to ensure that since that tragic day of 
September 11, 2001, we have not faced another attack on our soil.
  The fact that we have not faced another attack is not an accident. It 
is because of good public policy and the leadership that we have had. 
Now we do have a change in leadership here in this institution, and 
there have been a wide range of promises that were made by Members who 
formerly served in the majority and now are coming back to majority 
status. As members of the minority, they talked about the need for 
enhanced minority rights. And I believe many of those things are very, 
very important. I believed them before, and I believe them now.
  One of the things that I think is very important is for us to have an 
opportunity for consideration of measures here on the House floor that 
allow for a greater opportunity for Member participation. The thing 
that troubles me most is if we don't defeat this previous question and 
then defeat this rule that allows us to move forward, we will be 
proceeding with a package that will bring forward five closed rules, 
preventing the Rules Committee from having an opportunity to in any way 
consider the chance to bring forward amendments.
  Never before, never before in our Nation's history have we seen an 
opening day Rules Committee that would allow for the consideration of 
five closed rules in the opening-day package. And one of the things, of 
course, that was discussed widely by our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle which we have strongly supported is the notion of 
transparency, accountability, and disclosure.
  One of the most troubling aspects of this measure is that we would 
move to prevent the Record from showing the votes that are cast in the 
Rules Committee.
  We were very proud that we eliminated proxy voting when we came to 
majority status. Why? Because we wanted Members to show up to work, and 
we wanted the American people to see their work product.
  Well, unfortunately, the American people understand what it means to 
show up to work. They understand what it means for greater disclosure 
and accountability and transparency. We heard the opening remarks 
during this rule debate on letting the sunshine in. The sun is shining 
outside today, and it is going to shine in. Under this provision, we 
see a prevention for the opportunity for the sun to shine in the Rules 
Committee, and I find it very troubling.
  Madam Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the 
previous question so we can amend this rule to make in order to 
consider the Speaker's minority bill of rights as was outlined on May 
25, 2006, in her document ``New House Principles: A Congress For All 
Americans.'' We need to give the new majority an opportunity to live up 
to those commitments that were made.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of my 
amendment and extraneous materials in the Record immediately prior to 
the vote on the previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in 
the Record a jurisdictional memorandum of understanding between the 
chairmen-designate from the Committee on Transportation and the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from New York?
  There was no objection.

Memorandum of Understanding Between the Committee on Transportation and 
         Infrastructure and the Committee on Homeland Security

                            January 4, 2007.

       On January 4, 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives 
     adopted H. Res. 5, establishing the Rules of the House for 
     the 109th Congress. Section 2(a) established the Committee on 
     Homeland Security as a standing committee of the House of 
     Representatives with specific legislative jurisdiction under 
     House Rule X. A legislative history to accompany the changes 
     to House Rule X was inserted in the Congressional Record on 
     January 4, 2005.
       The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the 
     Committee on Homeland Security (hereinafter ``Committees'') 
     jointly agree to the January 4, 2005 legislative history as 
     the authoritative source of legislative history of section 
     2(a) of H. Res. 5 with the following two clarifications.
       First, with regard to the Federal Emergency Management 
     Agency's, FEMA, emergency preparedness and response programs, 
     the Committee on Homeland Security has jurisdiction over the 
     Department of Homeland Security's responsibilities with 
     regard to emergency preparedness and collective response only 
     as they relate to terrorism. However, in light of the federal 
     emergency management reforms that were enacted as title VI of 
     Public Law 109-295, a bill amending FEMA's all-hazards 
     emergency preparedness programs that necessarily addresses 
     FEMA's terrorism preparedness programs would be referred to 
     the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure; in 
     addition, the Committee on Homeland Security would have a

[[Page H16]]

     jurisdictional interest in such bill. Nothing in this 
     Memorandum of Understanding affects the jurisdiction of the 
     Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the Robert 
     T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and 
     the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974.
       Second, with regard to port security, the Committee on 
     Homeland Security has jurisdiction over port security, and 
     some Coast Guard responsibilities in that area fall within 
     the jurisdiction of both Committees. A bill addressing the 
     activities, programs, assets, and personnel of the Coast 
     Guard as they relate to port security and non-port security 
     missions would be referred to the Committee on Transportation 
     and Infrastructure; in addition, the Committee on Homeland 
     Security would have a jurisdictional interest in such bill.
       This Memorandum of Understanding between the Committee on 
     Transportation and Infrastructure and the Committee on 
     Homeland Security provides further clarification to the 
     January 4, 2005 legislative history of the jurisdiction of 
     the Committees only with regard to these two specific issues. 
     The Memorandum does not address any other issues and does not 
     affect the jurisdiction of other committees.
     James L. Oberstar,
       Chairman-designate, Committee on Transportation & 
     Infrastructure.
     Bennie G. Thompson,
       Chairman-designate, Committee on Homeland Security.

  The material previously referred to by Mr. Dreier is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 5 Offered by Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. McHenry 
              of North Carolina, and Mr. Price of Georgia

  At the end of the resolution, add the following:

       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the further amendments in section 6 shall be 
     considered as adopted.
       Sec. 6. The amendments referred to in section 5 is as 
     follows:
       Strike section 503.
       At the end of title III, insert the following new sections:

     ``SEC. 304. BIPARTISAN ADMINISTRATION OF HOUSE OF 
                   REPRESENTATIVES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Rules of the House of 
     Representatives are amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

                              ``RULE XXIX


                  ``bipartisan administration of house

       ``1. (a) The elected leadership of the majority and 
     minority parties shall engage in regular consultations with 
     each other to discuss scheduling, administration, and 
     operations of the House.
       ``(b) The chair and ranking minority member of each 
     committee, as well as their staffs, shall have regular 
     meetings with each other.
       ``2. The House should have a predictable, professional, 
     family-friendly schedule that allows the legislative process 
     to proceed in a manner that ensures timely and deliberate 
     dispensation of the work of the Congress.''.
       ``(b) Allocation of Committee Expenses.--Clause 6 of rule X 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(f) Of the amount provided to a committee under a primary 
     expense resolution or a supplemental expense resolution under 
     this clause, or during an interim funding period described in 
     clause 7, one-third of such amount, or such greater 
     percentage as may be agreed to by the chair and ranking 
     minority member of the committee, shall be paid at the 
     direction of the ranking minority member.''.

     ``SEC. 305. REGULAR ORDER FOR LEGISLATION.

                               ``RULE XXX


                    ``REGULAR ORDER FOR LEGISLATION

       ``1. Legislation shall be developed following full hearings 
     and open subcommittee and committee markups, with appropriate 
     referrals to other committees. Members should have at least 
     24 hours to examine any legislation before its consideration 
     at the subcommittee level.
       ``2. Legislation shall generally come to the floor under a 
     procedure that allows open, full, and fair debate 
     consisting of a full amendment process that grants the 
     minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a 
     substitute.
       ``3. Members shall have at least 24 hours to examine bill 
     and conference report text prior to floor consideration. 
     Rules governing floor debate must be reported before 10 p.m. 
     for any legislation to be considered the following day.
       ``4. Floor votes shall be completed within 15 minutes, with 
     the customary 2-minute extension to accommodate Members' 
     ability to get to the House Chamber to cast their votes. No 
     vote shall be held open in order to manipulate the outcome.
       ``5. Conference committees shall hold regular meetings (at 
     least weekly) of all conference committee Members. All 
     managers appointed to a conference committee shall be 
     informed of the schedule of conference committee activities 
     in a timely manner, and given ample opportunity for input and 
     debate as decisions are made toward final language for the 
     conference report.
       ``6. The Suspension Calendar shall be restricted to non-
     controversial legislation, and the ratio of legislation on 
     the Calendar which is sponsored by members of the minority 
     party shall be the same as the ratio of the number of members 
     of the party to the membership of the whole House.''.
                                  ____


 (The information contained herein was provided by Democratic Minority 
  on multiple occasions throughout the 109th Congress. Only political 
                     affiliation has been changed.)

        The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

       This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous 
     question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote. 
     A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote 
     against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow 
     the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an 
     alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be 
     debating.
       Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of 
     Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the 
     previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or 
     control the consideration of the subject before the House 
     being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous 
     question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the 
     subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling 
     of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the 
     House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes 
     the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to 
     offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the 
     majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated 
     the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to 
     a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to 
     recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said: 
     ``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman 
     from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to 
     yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first 
     recognition.''
       Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic 
     majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is 
     simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on 
     adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive 
     legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is 
     not what they have always said. Listen to the Republican 
     Leadership Manual on the Legislative Process in the United 
     States House of Representatives (6th edition, page 135). 
     Here's how the Republicans describe the previous question 
     vote in their own manual: Although it is generally not 
     possible to amend the rule because the majority Member 
     controlling the time will not yield for the purpose of 
     offering an amendment, the same result may be achieved by 
     voting down the previous question on the rule . . . . When 
     the motion for the previous question is defeated, control of 
     the time passes to the Member who led the opposition to 
     ordering the previous question. That Member, because he then 
     controls the time, may offer a amendment to the rule, or 
     yield for the purpose of amendment.''
       Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives, 
     the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a 
     refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a 
     special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the 
     resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21, 
     section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the 
     motion for the previous question on a resolution reported 
     from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member 
     leading the opposition to the previous question, who may 
     offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time 
     for debate thereon.''
       Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does 
     have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only 
     available tools for those who oppose the Democratic 
     majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the 
     opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, 
and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 222, 
nays 197, not voting 16, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 3]

                               YEAS--222

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley

[[Page H17]]


     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--197

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gilchrest
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Bean
     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Capuano
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Inslee
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Lamborn
     Lynch
     Nadler
     Rahall
     Ryan (OH)
     Shea-Porter


                      Swearing in of Members-Elect

  The SPEAKER (during the vote). Will the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Gohmert), the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers) kindly come to the well of the House and take the 
oath of office.
  Messrs. Gohmert, Moran of Kansas, and Rogers of Michigan appeared at 
the bar of the House and took the oath of office, as follows:
  Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will support and defend the 
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; 
that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or 
purpose of evasion; and that you will, well and faithfully, discharge 
the duties of the office on which you are about to enter, so help you 
God.
  The SPEAKER. Congratulations.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. AKIN changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California and Mr. PRICE of North Carolina 
changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was unavoidably 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Mr. INSLEE. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor during 
today's vote on the previous question that would allow for floor 
consideration of a Minority Rules Package.
  Had I been present, I would have voted to support the previous 
question.
  Stated against:
  Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was inadvertently 
detained.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''
  Mr. GERLACH. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 3, I was unable to make 
it to the floor in time to vote.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''


                 Motion to Commit Offered by Mr. Dreier

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Eshoo). The Clerk will report the motion 
to commit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. Dreier moves to commit the resolution (H. Res. 5) to a 
     select committee composed of the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader with instructions to report back the same to 
     the House forthwith with only the following amendment:
       At the end of the resolution, add the following:
       Sec. 5. Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
     resolution, the further amendment in section 6 shall be 
     considered as adopted.
       Sec. 6. The amendment referred to in section 5 is as 
     follows:
       At the end of title IV, add the following new section:

             Sec. 406. Keeping Americans' Tax Dollars Safe.

       At the end of clause 6(c) of rule XIII, strike the period, 
     insert a semicolon, and insert the following:
       ``(3) A rule or order waiving the requirement of clause 10 
     of rule XX; or,
       ``(4) A rule or order waiving the applicability of clause 
     5(b) or (c) of rule XXI.''

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion to commit be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  Mr. DREIER. I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued to read the motion to commit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to commit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to commit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 199, 
nays 232, not voting 3, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 4]

                               YEAS--199

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)

[[Page H18]]


     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--232

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Saxton

                              {time}  1650

  Mr. OBEY, Mr. ELLSWORTH and Ms. SLAUGHTER changed their vote from 
``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to commit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott of Virginia). The question is on 
the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 235, 
nays 195, not voting 4, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 5]

                               YEAS--235

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--195

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter

[[Page H19]]


     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     McCrery
     Rogers (KY)

                              {time}  1710

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the resolution just adopted, I 
call up House Resolution 6 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 6

       Resolved,


        Title I. Adoption of Rules of One Hundred Ninth Congress

       Sec. 101. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, are 
     adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Tenth Congress.


                            Title II. Ethics

       Sec. 201. That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth 
     Congress, together with such amendments thereto in this 
     resolution as may otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred 
     Tenth Congress, with the following amendments:

     SEC. 202. ENDING THE K-STREET PROJECT.

       Rule XXIII is amended by redesignating clause 14 as clause 
     15, and by inserting after clause 13 the following new 
     clause:
       ``14. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not, 
     with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan 
     political affiliation an employment decision or employment 
     practice of any private entity--
       ``(a) take or withhold, or offer or threaten to take or 
     withhold, an official act; or
       ``(b) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the 
     official act of another.''.

     SEC. 203. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.

       (a) Clause 5(a)(1)(A) of rule XXV is amended by inserting 
     ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from 
     a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or from 
     a private entity that retains or employs registered lobbyists 
     or agents of a foreign principal except as provided in 
     subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Clause 5(a)(1)(B) of rule XXV is amended by inserting 
     ``not prohibited by subdivision (A)(ii)'' after the 
     parenthetical.

     SEC. 204. VALUATION OF TICKETS TO SPORTING AND ENTERTAINMENT 
                   EVENTS.

       Clause 5(a)(1)(B) of rule XXV is further amended by 
     inserting ``(i)'' after ``(8)'' and adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ii) A gift of a ticket to a sporting or entertainment 
     event shall be valued at the face value of the ticket or, in 
     the case of a ticket without a face value, at the highest 
     cost of a ticket with a face value for the event. The price 
     printed on a ticket to an event shall be deemed its face 
     value only if it also is the price at which the issuer offers 
     that ticket for sale to the public.''.

     SEC. 205. RESTRICTION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.

       (a) Prohibition.--Clause 5(b)(1) of rule XXV is amended--
       (1) in subdivision (A), by striking ``from a private 
     source'' and all that follows through ``prohibited by this 
     clause'' and inserting ``for necessary transportation, 
     lodging, and related expenses for travel to a meeting, 
     speaking engagement, factfinding trip, or similar event in 
     connection with his duties as an officeholder shall be 
     considered as a reimbursement to the House and not a gift 
     prohibited by this clause when it is from a private source 
     other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal or a private entity that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal (except 
     as provided in subdivision (C))''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
       ``(C) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
     of the House for any purpose described in subdivision (A) 
     also shall be considered as a reimbursement to the House and 
     not a gift prohibited by this clause (without regard to 
     whether the source retains or employs registered lobbyists or 
     agents of a foreign principal) if it is, under regulations 
     prescribed by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     to implement this provision--
       ``(i) directly from an institution of higher education 
     within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965; or
       ``(ii) provided only for attendance at or participation in 
     a one-day event (exclusive of travel time and an overnight 
     stay).
       ``Regulations prescribed to implement this provision may 
     permit a two-night stay when determined by the committee on a 
     case-by-case basis to be practically required to participate 
     in the one-day event.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 206. LOBBYIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPATION IN 
                   CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.

       (a) In General.--Clause 5 of rule XXV is further amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs 
     (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively, and by inserting after 
     paragraph (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (8), a 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
     of the House may not accept a reimbursement (including 
     payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or related 
     expenses for a trip on which the traveler is accompanied on 
     any segment by a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal.
       ``(B) Subdivision (A) does not apply to a trip for which 
     the source of reimbursement is an institution of higher 
     education within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not accept a reimbursement 
     (including payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or 
     related expenses under the exception in paragraph 
     (b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause for a trip that is financed in 
     whole or in part by a private entity that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal unless 
     any involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal in the planning, organization, request, or 
     arrangement of the trip is de minimis under rules prescribed 
     by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 
     implement paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause.
       ``(3) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not accept a reimbursement 
     (including payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or 
     related expenses for a trip (other than a trip permitted 
     under paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause) if such trip is in 
     any part planned, organized, requested, or arranged by a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.''
       ``(d) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House shall, before accepting travel 
     otherwise permissible under paragraph (b)(1) of this clause 
     from any private source--
       ``(1) provide to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct before such trip a written certification signed by 
     the source or (in the case of a corporate person) by an 
     officer of the source--
       ``(A) that the trip will not be financed in any part by a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal;
       ``(B) that the source either--
       ``(i) does not retain or employ registered lobbyists or 
     agents of a foreign principal; or
       ``(ii) is an institution of higher education within the 
     meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 
     or
       ``(iii) certifies that the trip meets the requirements 
     specified in rules prescribed by the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct to implement paragraph (b)(1)(C)(ii) of 
     this clause and specifically details the extent of any 
     involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal in the planning, organization, request, or 
     arrangement of the trip considered to qualify as de minimis 
     under such rules;
       ``(C) that the source will not accept from another source 
     any funds earmarked directly or indirectly for the purpose of 
     financing any aspect of the trip;
       ``(D) that the traveler will not be accompanied on any 
     segment of the trip by a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal (except in the case of a trip for which the 
     source of reimbursement is an institution of higher education 
     within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965); and
       ``(E) that (except as permitted in paragraph (b)(1)(C) of 
     this clause) the trip will not in any part be planned, 
     organized, requested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or 
     agent of a foreign principal; and
       ``(2) after the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     has promulgated the regulations mandated in paragraph 
     (i)(1)(8) of this clause, obtain the prior approval of the 
     committee for such trip.''.
       (b) Conforming Changes in Cross-References.--Clause 5 of 
     rule XXV is further amended by--
       (1) in clause 5(a)(3)(E), striking ``paragraph (c)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (e)(3)''; and
       (2) in clause 5(e)(2) (as redesignated), striking 
     ``paragraph (d)'' and inserting ``paragraph (f)'' .

[[Page H20]]

       (c) Timeliness of Information.--Clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii) of 
     rule XXV is amended by striking ``30 days'' and inserting 
     ``15 days''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV is 
     amended by striking ``of expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed''.
       (e) Public Availability.--Clause 5(b)(5) of rule XXV is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) The Clerk of the House shall make all advance 
     authorizations, certifications, and disclosures filed 
     pursuant to this paragraph available for public inspection as 
     soon as possible after they are received.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 207. FURTHER LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL.

       Rule XXIII is further amended by redesignating clause 15 
     (as earlier redesignated) as clause 16, and by inserting 
     after clause 14 the following new clause:
       ``15. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may 
     not use personal funds, official funds, or campaign funds for 
     a flight on a non-governmental airplane that is not licensed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for 
     compensation or hire.
       ``(b) In this clause, the term `campaign funds' includes 
     funds of any political committee under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971, without regard to whether the committee 
     is an authorized committee of the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner involved under such Act.''.

     SEC. 208. EXPENSES FOR OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL.

       Clause 5 of rule XXV is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i)(1) Not later than 45 days after the date of adoption 
     of this paragraph and at annual intervals thereafter, the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall develop and 
     revise, as necessary--
       ``(A) guidelines on judging the reasonableness of an 
     expense or expenditure for purposes of this clause, including 
     the factors that tend to establish--
       ``(i) a connection between a trip and official duties;
       ``(ii) the reasonableness of an amount spent by a sponsor;
       ``(iii) a relationship between an event and an officially 
     connected purpose; and
       ``(iv) a direct and immediate relationship between a source 
     of funding and an event; and
       ``(B) regulations describing the information it will 
     require individuals subject to this clause to submit to the 
     committee in order to obtain the prior approval of the 
     committee for any travel covered by this clause, including 
     any required certifications.
       ``(2) In developing and revising guidelines under paragraph 
     (1 )(A), the committee shall take into account the maximum 
     per diem rates for official Government travel published 
     annually by the General Services Administration, the 
     Department of State, and the Department of Defense.''.

     SEC. 209. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE.

       Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV is further amended--
       (a) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subdivision (E);
       (b) by redesignating subdivision (F) as subdivision (G); 
     and
       (c) by inserting after subdivision (E) the following new 
     subdivision:
       ``(F) a description of meetings and events attended; and''.

     SEC. 210. CLERICAL CORRECTION.

       Clause 5(f)(1) of rule XXV (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``are'' and inserting ``is''.

     SEC. 211. ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND 
                   EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE.

       (a) Training Program.--Clause 3(a) of rule XI is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(6)(A) The committee shall offer annual ethics training 
     to each Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and 
     employee of the House. Such training shall--
       ``(i) involve the classes of employees for whom the 
     committee determines such training to be appropriate; and
       ``(ii) include such knowledge of the Code of Official 
     Conduct and related House rules as may be determined 
     appropriate by the committee.
       ``(B)(i) A new officer or employee of the House shall 
     receive training under this paragraph not later than 60 days 
     after beginning service to the House.
       ``(ii) Not later than January 31 of each year, each officer 
     and employee of the House shall file a certification with the 
     committee that the officer or employee attended ethics 
     training in the last year as established by this 
     subparagraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 212. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.

       (a) Clause 1 (e) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Education and the Workforce'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Education and Labor''.
       (b) Clause 3(d) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Education and the Workforce'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Education and Labor''.

     SEC. 213. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

       (a) Clause 1 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) redesignating the existing paragraphs (h) through (m), 
     as paragraphs (m), (i), (V), (h), (k), and (l), respectively 
     (inserting paragraph (h), as redesignated, after paragraph 
     (g)); and
       (2) in paragraph (h), as redesignated, striking ``Committee 
     on International Relations'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs''.
       (b) Clause 3 of rule X is amended by--
       (1)redesignating the existing paragraphs (b) through (i) as 
     paragraphs (c), (e), (d), (i), (g), (f), (b) and (h), 
     respectively (inserting paragraph (b), as redesignated, after 
     paragraph (a); inserting paragraph (d), as redesignated, 
     after paragraph (c); and inserting paragraph (f), as 
     redesignated, after paragraph (e)); and
       (2) in paragraph (f), as redesignated, striking ``Committee 
     on International Relations'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs''.
       (c) Clause 11 (a)(1)(C) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on International Relations'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Foreign Affairs''.
       (d) Clause 2(d) of rule XII is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on International Relations'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Foreign Affairs''.

     SEC. 214. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES.

       (a) Clause 1 (I) of rule X (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``Committee on Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Natural Resources''.
       (b) Clause 3(h) of rule X (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``Committee on Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Natural Resources''.

     SEC. 215. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Clause 1 of rule X is further amended by--
       (1) inserting paragraph (m) (as earlier redesignated), 
     after paragraph (I) (as earlier redesignated); and
       (2) in paragraph (m) (as earlier redesignated), striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform''.
       (b) Clause 2 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) in paragraph (d)(1), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and Government 
     Reform''; and
       (2) in paragraph (d)(2), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''.
       (c) Clause 3 of rule X is further amended by--
       (1) inserting paragraph (i) (as earlier redesignated) after 
     paragraph (h) (as earlier redesignated); and
       (2) in paragraph (i), (as earlier redesignated), striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform''.
       (d) Clause 4 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) in paragraph (c)(1), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''; and
       (2) in paragraph (c)(2), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''.
       (e) Clause 5(d)(2) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform''.
       (f) Clause 4 of rule XV is amended by striking ``Committee 
     on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform''.

     SEC. 216. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Clause 1 (o) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Science'' and inserting ``Committee on Science 
     and Technology''.
       (b) Clause 3(k) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Science'' and inserting ``Committee on Science 
     and Technology''.

     SEC. 217. SEPARATE ORDER: NUMBERING OF BILLS.

       In the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the first 10 numbers for 
     bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) shall be reserved for 
     assignment by the Speaker to such bills as she may designate.


                          Title III. Civility

       Sec. 301. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together 
     with such amendments thereto in this resolution as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     with the following amendments:

     SEC. 302. PROPER CONDUCT OF VOTES.

       Clause 2(a) of rule XX is amended by inserting after the 
     second sentence the following sentence: ``A record vote by 
     electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose 
     of reversing the outcome of such vote.''.

     SEC. 303. FULL AND OPEN DEBATE IN CONFERENCE.

       In rule XXII--
       (a) clause 12(a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(3) In conducting conferences with the Senate, managers 
     on the part of the House should endeavor to ensure--
       ``(A) that meetings for the resolution of differences 
     between the two Houses occur

[[Page H21]]

     only under circumstances in which every manager on the part 
     of the House has notice of the meeting and a reasonable 
     opportunity to attend;
       ``(B) that all provisions on which the two Houses disagree 
     are considered as open to discussion at any meeting of a 
     conference committee; and
       ``(C) that papers reflecting a conference agreement are 
     held inviolate to change without renewal of the opportunity 
     of all managers on the part of the House to reconsider their 
     decisions to sign or not to sign the agreement.
       ``(4) Managers on the part of the House shall be provided a 
     unitary time and place with access to at least one complete 
     copy of the final conference agreement for the purpose of 
     recording their approval (or not) of the final conference 
     agreement by placing their signatures (or not) on the sheets 
     prepared to accompany the conference report and joint 
     explanatory statement of the managers.''.
       (b) add the following new clause at the end:
       ``13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
     report the text of which differs in any way, other than 
     clerical, from the text that reflects the action of the 
     conferees on all of the differences between the two Houses, 
     as recorded by their placement of their signatures (or not) 
     on the sheets prepared to accompany the conference report and 
     joint explanatory statement of the managers.''.


                    Title IV. Fiscal Responsibility

       Sec. 401. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together 
     with such amendments thereto in this resolution as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     with the following amendments:

     SEC. 402. RECONCILIATION.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``7. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a 
     conference report thereon that contains reconciliation 
     directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 that specify changes in law reducing the surplus 
     or increasing the deficit for either the period comprising 
     the current fiscal year and the five fiscal years 
     beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following 
     calendar year or the period comprising the current fiscal 
     year and the ten fiscal years beginning with the fiscal 
     year that ends in the following calendar year. In 
     determining whether reconciliation directives specify 
     changes in law reducing the surplus or increasing the 
     deficit, the sum of the directives for each reconciliation 
     bill (under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act of 
     1974) envisioned by that measure shall be evaluated.

     SEC. 403. APPLYING POINTS OF ORDER UNDER BUDGET ACT TO BILLS 
                   AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED UNDER SPECIAL 
                   RULES.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``8. With respect to measures considered pursuant to a 
     special order of business, points of order under title III of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall operate without 
     regard to whether the measure concerned has been reported 
     from committee. Such points of order shall operate with 
     respect to (as the case may be)--
       ``(a) the form of a measure recommended by the reporting 
     committee where the statute uses the term ``as reported'' (in 
     the case of a measure that has been so reported);
       ``(b) the form of the measure made in order as an original 
     bill or joint resolution for the purpose of amendment; or
       ``(c) the form of the measure on which the previous 
     question is ordered directly to passage.''.

     SEC. 404. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.

       (a) Point of Order against Congressional Earmarks.--Rule 
     XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--
       ``(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill 
     or in the report (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the 
     committee for each respective item included in such list) or 
     a statement that the proposition contains no congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
       ``(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a 
     committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial 
     referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited 
     tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill (and 
     the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
     who submitted a request to the committee for each respective 
     item included in such list) or a statement that the 
     proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record prior to its consideration;
       ``(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution to be 
     offered at the outset of its consideration for amendment by a 
     member of a committee of initial referral as designated in a 
     report of the Committee on Rules to accompany a resolution 
     prescribing a special order of business unless the proponent 
     has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amendment (and 
     the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
     who submitted a request to the proponent for each respective 
     item included in such list) or a statement that the 
     proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record prior to its consideration; or
       ``(4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint 
     resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by 
     the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the 
     part of the Senate includes a list of congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the 
     conference report or joint statement (and the name of any 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator who 
     submitted a request to the House or Senate committees of 
     jurisdiction for each respective item included in such list) 
     or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
       ``(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition 
     of a point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put 
     the question of consideration with respect to the rule or 
     order that waives the application of paragraph (a). The 
     question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10 
     minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided 
     without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
       ``(c) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (a) may be based only on the 
     failure of a report, submission to the Congressional Record, 
     or joint explanatory statement to include a list required by 
     paragraph (a) or a statement that the proposition contains no 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits.
       ``(d) For the purpose of this clause, the term 
     `congressional earmark' means a provision or report language 
     included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, 
     Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or 
     recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
     authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 
     a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a 
     specific State, locality or Congressional district, other 
     than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive award process.
       ``(e) For the purpose of this clause, the term `limited tax 
     benefit' means--
       ``(1) any revenue-losing provision that--
       ``(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, and
       ``(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision; or
       ``(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(f) For the purpose of this clause, the term `limited 
     tariff benefit' means a provision modifying the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that 
     benefits 10 or fewer entities.
       (b) Related Amendment to Code of Official Conduct.--Rule 
     XXIII is amended--
       (a) by redesignating clause 16 (as earlier redesignated) as 
     clause 18; and
       (b) by inserting after clause 15 the following new clauses:
       ``16. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not 
     condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a 
     congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited 
     tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an 
     accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution (including an accompanying joint explanatory 
     statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this 
     clause and clause 17, the terms `congressional earmark,' 
     `limited tax benefit,' and `limited tariff benefit' shall 
     have the meanings given them in clause 9 of rule XXI.
       ``17. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who 
     requests a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a 
     limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an 
     accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution (or an accompanying joint statement of 
     managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, 
     including--
       ``(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner;
       ``(2) in the case of a congressional earmark, the name and 
     address of the intended recipient or, if there is no 
     specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the 
     activity;
       ``(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, 
     identification of the individual or entities reasonably 
     anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner;
       ``(4) the purpose of such congressional earmark or limited 
     tax or tariff benefit; and
       ``(5) a certification that the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner or spouse has no financial interest in 
     such congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.

[[Page H22]]

       ``(b) Each committee shall maintain the information 
     transmitted under paragraph (a), and the written disclosures 
     for any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits included in any measure reported by 
     the committee or conference report filed by the chairman of 
     the committee or any subcommittee thereof shall be open for 
     public inspection.''.

     SEC. 405. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``10. It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions 
     of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have 
     the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the 
     surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal 
     year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year 
     that ends in the following calendar year or the period 
     comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years 
     beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following 
     calendar year. The effect of such measure on the deficit or 
     surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget relative to--
       (a) the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the 
     Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (b) after the beginning of a new calendar year and before 
     consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional 
     Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.


                         Title V. Miscellaneous

       Sec. 501. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together 
     with such amendments thereto in this resolution as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     with the following amendments:

     SEC. 502. DEPOSITION AUTHORITY.

       Clause 4(c) of rule X is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(3)(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     may adopt a rule authorizing and regulating the taking of 
     depositions by a member or counsel of the committee, 
     including pursuant to subpoena under clause 2(m) of rule XI 
     (which hereby is made applicable for such purpose).
       ``(B) A rule adopted by the committee pursuant to this 
     subparagraph--
       ``(i) may provide that a deponent be directed to subscribe 
     an oath or affirmation before a person authorized by law to 
     administer the same; and
       ``(ii) shall ensure that the minority members and staff of 
     the committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect 
     to notice of and a reasonable opportunity to participate in 
     any proceeding conducted thereunder.
       ``(C) Information secured pursuant to the authority 
     described in subdivision (A) shall retain the character of 
     discovery until offered for admission in evidence before the 
     committee, at which time any proper objection shall be 
     timely.''.

     SEC. 503. RECORD VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE ON RULES.

       The second sentence of clause 3(b) of rule XIII is amended 
     by inserting ``a report by the Committee on Rules on a rule, 
     joint rule, or the order of business or to'' after ``to''.

     SEC. 504. CHANGES TO REFLECT INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY REFORM.

       Clause 11 of rule X is amended by--
       (a) in paragraph (b)(1)(A), striking ``Director of Central 
     Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence'';
       (b) in paragraph (b)(1)(A), striking ``Foreign'';
       (c) in paragraph (b)(1)(D)(i), striking ``Director of 
     Central Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence'';
       (d) in paragraph (b)(1)(D)(i), striking ``Foreign'';
       (e) in paragraph (c)(2), inserting ``the Director of 
     National Intelligence,'' before ``the Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency'';
       (f) in paragraph (e)(2), striking ``Central'' and inserting 
     ``National''; and
       (g) in paragraph (i), striking subparagraphs (1) through 
     (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) The activities of the Director of National 
     Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence.
       ``(2) The activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.
       ``(3) The activities of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
       ``(4) The activities of the National Security Agency.
       ``(5) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of other agencies and subdivisions of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(6) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of the Department of State.
       ``(7) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(8) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of all other departments and agencies of the executive 
     branch.''.

     SEC. 505. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES.

       (a) Clause 12(b) of rule I is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) To suspend the business of the House when notified 
     of an imminent threat to its safety, the Speaker may declare 
     an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair.''
       ``(2) To suspend the business of the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union when notified of an imminent 
     threat to its safety, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may declare an emergency recess subject to the call of 
     the Chair.''.
       (b) Clause 6(b) of rule XIII is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Pending the consideration of a report by the 
     Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of 
     business, the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House 
     adjourn but may not entertain any other dilatory motion until 
     the report shall have been disposed of.''.
       (c) Clause 1(b) of rule XV is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Pending a motion that the House suspend the rules, 
     the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn 
     but may not entertain any other motion until the vote is 
     taken on the suspension.''.
       (d) In clause 2(e) of rule XV, subparagraph (1) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) If a motion prevails to discharge the Committee on 
     Rules from consideration of a resolution, the House shall 
     immediately consider the resolution, pending which the 
     Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn but 
     may not entertain any other dilatory motion until the 
     resolution has been disposed of. If the resolution is 
     adopted, the House shall immediately proceed to its 
     execution.''.

     SEC. 506. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 9/11 SELECT PANEL.

       Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
     House a resolution to enhance intelligence oversight 
     authority. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit which may not 
     contain instructions.

     SEC. 507. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1) to provide 
     for the implementation of the recommendations of the National 
     Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. All 
     points of order against the bill and against its 
     consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill to final passage without intervening motion except: 
     (1) three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 1 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 508. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase 
     in the Federal minimum wage. All points of order against the 
     bill and against its consideration are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 2 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 509. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: STEM CELL.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to amend the 
     Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem 
     cell research. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 3 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 510. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to amend 
     part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower 
     covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare 
     beneficiaries. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall

[[Page H23]]

     be considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 4 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 511. SEPARATE ORDERS.

       (a) Budget Matters.--(1) During the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress, references in section 306 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to a resolution shall be construed in the 
     House of Representatives as references to a joint resolution.
       (2) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, in the case of a 
     reported bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to a 
     special order of business, a point of order under section 303 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be determined 
     on the basis of the text made in order as an original bill or 
     joint resolution for the purpose of amendment or to the text 
     on which the previous question is ordered directly to 
     passage, as the case may be.
       (3) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, a provision in a 
     bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a 
     conference report thereon, that establishes prospectively for 
     a Federal office or position a specified or minimum level of 
     compensation to be funded by annual discretionary 
     appropriations shall not be considered as providing new 
     entitlement authority under section 401 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974.
       (4)(A) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, pending the 
     adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2008, the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 376 
     of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House, 
     shall have force and effect in the House as though the One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress has adopted such a concurrent 
     resolution.
       (B) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget (when 
     elected) shall submit for printing in the Congressional 
     Record--
       (i) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to accompany the concurrent 
     resolution described in subparagraph (A), which shall be 
     considered to be such allocations under a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; and
       (ii) ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations,'' 
     which shall be considered to be the programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts referred to in section 401(b) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth 
     Congress, as adopted by the House.
       (5)(A) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, except as 
     provided in subsection (C), a motion that the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in 
     order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (B) If a point of order under subsection (A) is sustained, 
     the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the 
     bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under 
     section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?''. 
     Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an 
     opponent but shall be decided without intervening motion.
       (C) Subsection (A) shall not apply--
       (i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
       (ii) after disposition of a question under subsection (B) 
     on a given bill.
       (D) If a question under subsection (B) is decided in the 
     negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
       (i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes 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; and
       (ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     their designees, for the purpose of debate.
       (b) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of 
     rule X, during the One Hundred Tenth Congress--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees; and
       (3) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may 
     have not more than six subcommittees.
       (c) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress--
       (1) The House of Representatives may not provide access to 
     any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to 
     Members and former Members, officers and former officers of 
     the House of Representatives, and their spouses to any former 
     Member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist 
     registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any 
     successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined 
     in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' includes a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the question 
shall be divided among each of the five titles of House Resolution 6. 
The previous question is ordered on each portion of the divided 
question, except as specified in sections 2 through 4 of House 
Resolution 5.
  The portion of the divided question comprising title I is now 
debatable for 30 minutes.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Boehner) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  First, Mr. Speaker, let me say, this is truly a proud and historic 
moment for this institution, the people's House in our Nation. Today, 
for the first time in our history, the Members of this great body have 
elected a woman, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), to serve 
as our Speaker. I want to offer my heartfelt congratulations to Speaker 
Pelosi, as well as her husband Paul, and her children and all of her 
family.
  Last November 7, the American people delivered a resounding message 
that was heard in every corner of this Nation. They want change and a 
new direction in our Nation. Today, as we open this new 110th Congress, 
with hope and great optimism, we will take the first steps in offering 
the voters precisely that by changing the way business is done in 
Washington.
  As we open this new chapter in American history, we will seek to 
elevate results over rhetoric and put progress before partisanship as 
we affirm our commitment to transparency, accountability, and civility.
  Mr. Speaker, this rules package includes sweeping ethics reforms that 
begin to address some of the most egregious transgressions of the 
recent past. Among other things, we will ban gifts, including meals and 
tickets, from lobbyists and the organizations that employ them. We will 
ban lobbyists and the organizations that employ them from financing 
travel for Members or their staffs, except for one-day travel to visit 
a site, attend a forum, participate in a panel, or give a speech, all 
obviously in the pursuance of the Members' duties. We will require 
Members and staff to obtain preapproval from the Ethics Committee for 
permitted travel; and, Mr. Speaker, we will end the K Street Project, a 
practice that brought shame on this House when some Members promised 
access in return for patronage hiring.
  Now let me say, very frankly, as importantly as these rules changes 
are, they alone will not ensure the integrity of this institution. 
Rather, the Members of this House will ensure the integrity of this 
institution when we conduct ourselves with integrity and hold 
accountable those who fail to abide by these rules and the highest 
ethical standards.

                              {time}  1715

  Thus during the next 2 years, we have an obligation, each and every 
one of us, to ensure that the Ethics Committee does the job that it was 
constituted to perform. The implementation of rules, while vital, must 
be followed by effective, real enforcement.
  Through this rules package, Mr. Speaker, we also signal our sincere 
intent to foster an environment in which civility, consensus, and 
compromise are nurtured. The American people are tired of partisanship. 
They are rightfully demanding progress on the critical priorities that 
face our Nation. Surely we will disagree on many issues, but that does 
not require us to be disagreeable, and we surely can disagree without 
impugning or questioning the motives, the character of our colleagues.
  In addition, Mr. Speaker, this rules package restores fiscal 
discipline by reinstating the budget rules that helped us produce 
record budget surpluses in the 1990s and which previously were 
supported on a bipartisan basis.
  Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot continue on our current fiscal course. 
In the last 72 months, our Nation has turned a projected 10-year budget 
surplus of $5.6 trillion into a deficit of

[[Page H24]]

more than $3 trillion. It is, in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, immoral of 
this generation of Americans to force our children and grandchildren to 
pay our bills. Our current course threatens our economic as well as our 
national security. Pay-as-you-go budget rules will help us restore the 
fiscal discipline that the American people demand. These measures 
represent the foundation of our mission and the basis for the good work 
we will do together as one body with the best interests of those we 
serve at heart.
  Mr. Speaker, we have a profound responsibility to fulfill and make 
hard choices. However, we also share an extraordinary opportunity that 
is distinctive in the American experience, to heal a deeply divided 
Nation, to conquer national doubt and restore public confidence in the 
United States Congress. I look forward, Mr. Speaker, to working with 
each and every one in this body in our pursuit of that progress.
  In conclusion, let me leave you with the words of our 35th President, 
John Kennedy, who said this: ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or 
the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us not seek to fix the 
blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility for the 
future.''
  Mr. Speaker, let us now embrace our responsibility and fulfill the 
trust that the American people have placed in us to lead, to govern 
effectively, and to make the greatest Nation on Earth even greater. I 
urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask unanimous consent that the 
remaining time allocated to me be controlled by Mr. Hastings of 
Florida, a member of the Rules Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Scott of Virginia). Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from Maryland?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to begin by extending my compliments to my very good 
friend from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader, Mr. Hoyer. In 
fact, Mr. Hoyer just quoted John F. Kennedy and I believe that he was 
right on target in focusing on that brilliant quote of President 
Kennedy's where he said that we should not seek the Republican answer, 
we should not seek the Democratic answer, we should seek the right 
answer. I was struck with that, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that we 
should join in strong support of this resolution, of support of this 
title; and I am going to urge my colleagues to join in voting in 
support of this title which uses the rules base of the 109th Congress 
as the basis for which these proposed changes are being offered.
  But I think it is very important for us to note that if we are going 
to, in fact, seek the right answer as opposed to the Republican answer 
or the Democratic answer, we need to do that by vigorously pursuing the 
deliberative process about which we all speak. And I know that during 
the past several years, my very distinguished colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle raised concerns about a lack of deliberation that 
existed in this House and the fact that more amendments could have been 
made in order. I will acknowledge that we could have made more 
amendments in order. That was clearly an option there. But as my 
friend, having served in the majority, knows very well, there are 
challenges that need to be addressed when you are in the majority, 
challenges of managing this institution. I see him sitting there very 
comfortably and I am glad that he is comfortable at this point, but I 
know full well that he, Mr. Speaker, is going to face many management 
challenges in the days and weeks and months ahead.
  But during the past couple of years, what we have heard is a 
commitment to minority rights made by those who were formerly in the 
majority, who were in the minority at that time and are now back in the 
majority. And so I would argue that the words of President Kennedy can 
best be implemented if we in fact do increase the level of 
deliberation, and that is why as we look at the proposed changes that 
we are going to be considering, I have to say that when it comes to the 
actual management, I am concerned. I am concerned about the prospect 
of, for the first time in the history of this institution, taking 
prospectively five closed rules and placing that in the opening-day 
rules package.
  Similarly, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the prospect of taking 
this issue of transparency, accountability, and disclosure about which 
we on both sides of the aisle regularly talk because we are here to 
represent all of the American people, the notion of now saying again 
for the first time in the history of this great institution that we are 
going to create an opportunity whereby we will not have accountability 
and transparency in our very important deliberations that will take 
place in the Rules Committee.
  And so again I would say in response to the brilliant words of 
President John F. Kennedy, as outlined by our distinguished majority 
leader, Mr. Hoyer, that we do seek the right answer; and I believe that 
the best way to seek the right answer is through enhanced deliberation, 
and we have a chance to do that.
  Now, I will when it comes to this vote urge my colleagues to vote in 
favor of title I. Title I, as you know, Mr. Speaker, simply provides a 
chance to use the opening rules package of the 109th Congress, and I 
think that that is a correct thing for us to do; and I hope the 
Democrats and Republicans alike, and the majority leader has just 
called for support of title I and I will urge the colleagues on our 
side of the aisle to join so that again we will be coming together and 
I think having the right answer on that.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the majority leader for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, House rules allowing for cosponsors have yet to be 
adopted. Therefore, I would submit this list of cosponsors for House 
Resolution 6 for the Record.

       Pursuant to clause 7 of Rule XII of the Rules of the House 
     of Representatives, the following sponsors are hereby added 
     to H. Res. 6.
       Louise Slaughter, David Obey, John Spratt, Zach Space, 
     Chris Carney, Baron Hill, Heath Shuler, Steny Hoyer, James 
     Clyburn, Rahm Emanuel, John Larson, Xavier Becerra, Chris Van 
     Hollen, Rosa DeLauro, George Miller, Jim McGovern, Alcee 
     Hastings, Doris Matsui, Kathy Castor, Betty Sutton, Peter 
     Welch.

       Gary Ackerman, Tom Allen, Jason Altmire, Rob Andrews, 
     Michael Arcuri, Joe Baca, Brian Baird, Tammy Baldwin, Melissa 
     Bean, Shelley Berkley, Howard Berman, Marion Berry, Tim 
     Bishop, Earl Blumenauer, Madeleine Bordallo, Leonard Boswell, 
     Nancy Boyda, Robert Brady, Bruce Braley.
       G.K. Butterfield, Lois Capps, Mike Capuano, Dennis Cardoza, 
     Russ Carnahan, Ben Chandler, Donna Christensen, Yvette 
     Clarke, Emanuel Cleaver, Steve Cohen, John Conyers, Jim 
     Cooper, Joe Courtney, Joe Crowley, Henry Cuellar, Elijah 
     Cummings, Susan Davis, Danny Davis, Artur Davis, Lincoln 
     Davis.
       Peter DeFazio, Diana DeGette, Bill Delahunt, Norm Dicks, 
     John Dingell, Lloyd Doggett, Joe Donnelly, Mike Doyle, Keith 
     Ellison, Brad Ellsworth, Anna Eshoo, Bob Etheridge, Eni 
     Faleomavaega, Sam Farr, Chaka Fattah, Bob Filner, Barney 
     Frank, Gabby Giffords, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bart Gordon.
       Al Green, Gene Green, Raul Grijalva, John Hall, Phil Hare, 
     Jane Harman, Stephanie Herseth, Brian Higgins, Maurice 
     Hinchey, Mazie Hirono, Paul Hodes, Tim Holden, Michael Honda, 
     Darlene Hooley, Jay Inslee, Steve Israel, Jesse Jackson, 
     Sheila Jackson-Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Hank Johnson.
       Steve Kagen, Marcy Kaptur, Patrick Kennedy, Dale Kildee, 
     Ron Kind, Ron Klein, Dennis Kucinich, Nick Lampson, Jim 
     Langevin, Tom Lantos, Richard Larsen, Barbara Lee, Sander 
     Levin, John Lewis, Dan Lipinski, Dave Loebsack, Zoe Lofgren, 
     Stephen Lynch, Tim Mahoney, Carolyn Maloney.
       Ed Markey, Carolyn McCarthy, Betty McCollum, Jim McDermott, 
     Mike McIntyre, Jerry McNerney, Mike McNulty, Martin Meehan, 
     Kendrick Meek, Michael Michaud, Juanita Millender-McDonald, 
     Harry Mitchell, Dennis Moore, Jim Moran, Chris Murphy, 
     Patrick Murphy, Jerry Nadler, Grace Napolitano, Eleanor 
     Holmes Norton, James Oberstar.
       John Olver, Frank Pallone, Bill Pascrell, Ed Pastor, Donald 
     Payne, Ed Perlmutter, Collin Peterson, Earl Pomeroy, David 
     Price, Nick Rahall, Charlie Rangel, Silvestre Reyes, Ciro 
     Rodriguez, Mike Ross, Steve Rothman, Lucille Roybal-Allard, 
     Dutch Ruppersberger, Bobby Rush, Tim Ryan, John Salazar.
       Linda Sanchez, John Sarbanes, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Schiff, 
     Allyson

[[Page H25]]

     Schwartz, David Scott, Jose Serrano, Joe Sestak, Carol Shea-
     Porter, Brad Sherman, Albio Sires, Ike Skelton, Adam Smith, 
     Vic Snyder, Hilda Solis, Pete Stark, Ellen Tauscher, Bennie 
     Thompson, Mike Thompson, John Tierney.
       Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Mark Udall, Tom Udall, Nydia 
     Velazquez, Tim Walz, Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Maxine Waters, 
     Diane Watson, Henry Waxman, Anthony Weiner, Robert Wexler, 
     Charlie Wilson, Lynn Woolsey, David Wu, Al Wynn, John 
     Yarmuth, Rush Holt, Bobby Scott.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I enjoyed listening to my colleague and good friend, and he is my 
good friend, former chairman of the Rules Committee, speak about closed 
rules. Since he is the master of closed rules, I know he knows of what 
he speaks.
  Title I of our rules package is, or at least should be, the least 
controversial part, as the ranking member has said, of what we are 
going to discuss over the next few hours. Title I is very simply the 
rules of the 109th Congress. We are taking the Republican rules from 
the last Congress and using this as our base. The changes we will make 
to improve on the previous Congress's rules will come later and will be 
discussed by the members of the Rules Committee. This section of the 
House rules package makes it clearer that the former chairperson of the 
Rules Committee, my friend from California, was being just a bit 
disingenuous when he said the other day that, and I quote him, we have 
not received even a draft, unquote, of the Democrats' rules. Of course 
he had, Mr. Speaker. They were the rules of the House that he helped 
draft as Chair of the Rules Committee 2 years ago. All we have done is 
taken the old House rules and improved them to make the House a more 
ethical, more democratic, more open institution.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Of course I will yield to my friend.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I really am very hesitant 
to interrupt the brilliance of my good friend from Fort Lauderdale.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Now that you have.
  Mr. DREIER. Now that I have interrupted it, I just couldn't hesitate 
to interrupt when I heard that I somehow had a draft by virtue of 
knowing what the rules package that was put into place for the 
operation of the 109th Congress was? That was all we had. We had 
nothing whatsoever beyond the rules of the House and that is it.
  I thank my friend for yielding.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Well, you helped make those rules, my good 
friend. Perhaps you didn't utilize the fact that you did as a draft. 
But in either event, I take it that I have made my point and you have 
made yours.
  Frankly, Mr. Speaker, many of the changes to House rules that our 
Republican colleagues did make in 1995 and subsequently, in my opinion, 
were good ones and some of them we have kept. Proxy voting in 
committees was eliminated. That was an excellent reform. We have kept 
it. It is in our rules package. You gave the Speaker emergency power to 
recess the House and convene in another place in case of a terrorist 
incident. That was a good reform, and it is in the package that we have 
offered. You prohibited public works projects being named for serving 
Members of Congress. That always kind of bothered me, and I am glad 
that you got rid of it, and it was a good reform and it is in our 
package.
  So, Mr. Speaker, title I, I think, is pretty straightforward. I think 
we should all be able to agree on it, and the distinguished ranking 
member of the Rules Committee has indicated he agrees. They are the 
Republican rules of last Congress that today's majority agrees with, 
draft or no draft. We will get to the changes later. But title I are 
the rules that today's minority wrote 2 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to my good friend from Pasco, 
I would simply like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the Record 
at this point a copy of the draft that we received that is dated 
January 2, 2007. The time stamp on that is 5:45 p.m. I was informed 
that we had it last night at 6:10 p.m., and it had already been 
circulated to those in the press gallery by that point.
  I would be happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I am glad my friend yields. You do agree 
that the rules that you wrote are the rules that are being adopted in 
this section that we are talking about?
  Mr. DREIER. The section that we are talking about right now is simply 
implementation----
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Can I get a yes or no?
  Mr. DREIER. It is simply implementation of the rules that have 
existed for the 109th Congress. I clearly was talking about the rules 
for the 110th Congress. In fact, if the gentleman was here when I had 
an exchange with the distinguished new Chair of the Rules Committee 
when she tried to argue that we somehow were debating the rules for the 
109th Congress, the Chair confirmed the fact that we are in fact 
considering in toto the package for the 110th Congress using as base 
text the 109th.
  What I have here and if I am able to gain unanimous consent for this, 
Mr. Speaker, to include in the Record, is the draft which uses the 
109th base text and has the proposed changes, the different titles for 
the proposed changes for the rules of the 110th Congress.
  I would ask unanimous consent to include this draft with the date and 
the time on it showing that it did not fall within the 24-hour 
notification period of time that my friends have consistently insisted 
on.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I object, and I reserve the right to object.
  Mr. DREIER. The gentleman objects to my including the draft?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I reserve the right to object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserves the right to object 
and is recognized under his reservation.

                              {time}  1730

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I just wish to share with Mr. Dreier in the 
spirit of bipartisanship that mincing words with reference to whether 
or not you knew that this portion of the draft of the 109th rules are 
those of the 110th actually don't even get to the level of substance 
that we ought be dealing with, with something as important as the 
rules.
  You know the rules. I agree with you that that draft that you are 
talking about came from the 109th; but all I am suggesting to you is 
that you are not surprised by anything in title I, because you 
participated in writing it and, therefore, I think that the record 
should reflect that, notwithstanding the fact.
  Now, I assure you, having served on the Rules Committee with you with 
distinction and respecting you greatly, that you can reasonably expect 
that you are not only going to have 24 hours notice, you are going to 
have a lot of notice regarding a lot of measures that we were never 
accorded. And, toward that end, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I will 
not object to your offer.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the simple point that I am trying to make is 
that we all know what the rules for the 109th Congress were. We have 
lived under those rules for the last 2 years. Yes, I was proud to have 
crafted those, working with my colleagues on this side of the aisle, 
and we passed those at the beginning of the Congress and we are going 
to have a chance in just a few minutes to vote on those again.
  The point is, it is not the rules of the 109th Congress that we 
didn't have a draft of. We did not have a draft until January 3 at 5:45 
p.m., which clearly did not comply with that 24-hour requirement that 
has been put forward. And that is the only point that I am trying to 
make.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman 
has made his point.
  Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). Is there 
objection to the request of the gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.

                       January 3, 2007--4:45 p.m.

                               H. Res. 6

       Resolved,

[[Page H26]]

        TITLE I. ADOPTION OF RULES OF ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

       Sec. 101. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, are 
     adopted as the Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Tenth Congress.

                            TITLE II. ETHICS

       Sec. 201. That the Rules of the House of Representatives of 
     the One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable 
     provisions of law or concurrent resolution that constituted 
     rules of the House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth 
     Congress, together with such amendments thereto in this 
     resolution as may otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives of the One Hundred 
     Tenth Congress, with the following amendments:

     SEC. 202. ENDING THE K-STREET PROJECT.

       Rule XXIII is amended by redesignating clause 14 as clause 
     15, and by inserting after clause 13 the following new 
     clause:
       ``14. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not, 
     with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan 
     political affiliation an employment decision or employment 
     practice of any private entity--
       ``(a) take or withhold, or offer or threaten to take or 
     withhold, an official act; or
       ``(b) influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the 
     official act of another.''.

     SEC. 203. BAN ON GIFTS FROM LOBBYISTS.

       (a) Clause 5(a)(1)(A) of rule XXV is amended by inserting 
     ``(i)'' after ``(A)'' and adding at the end the following:
       ``(ii) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not knowingly accept a gift from 
     a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal or from 
     a private entity that retains or employs registered lobbyists 
     or agents of a foreign principal except as provided in 
     subparagraph (3) of this paragraph.''.
       (b) Clause 5(a)(1)(B) of rule XXV is amended by inserting 
     ``not prohibited by subdivision (A)(ii)'' after the 
     parenthetical.

     SEC. 204. VALUATION OF TICKETS TO SPORTING AND ENTERTAINMENT 
                   EVENTS.

       Clause 5(a)(1)(B) of rule XXV is further amended by 
     inserting ``(i)'' after ``(B)'' and adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(ii) A gift of a ticket to a sporting or entertainment 
     event shall be valued at the face value of the ticket or, in 
     the case of a ticket without a face value, at the highest 
     cost of a ticket with a face value for the event. The price 
     printed on a ticket to an event shall be deemed its face 
     value only if it also is the price at which the issuer offers 
     that ticket for sale to the public.''.

     SEC. 205. RESTRICTION OF PRIVATELY FUNDED TRAVEL.

       (a) Prohibition.--Clause 5(b)(1) of rule XXV is amended--
       (1) in subdivision (A), by striking ``from a private 
     source'' and all that follows through ``prohibited by this 
     clause'' and inserting ``for necessary transportation, 
     lodging, and related expenses for travel to a meeting, 
     speaking engagement, factfinding trip, or similar event in 
     connection with his duties as an officeholder shall be 
     considered as a reimbursement to the House and not a gift 
     prohibited by this clause when it is from a private source 
     other than a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal or a private entity that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal (except 
     as provided in subdivision (C))''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subdivision:
       ``(C) A reimbursement (including payment in kind) to a 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
     of the House for any purpose described in subdivision (A) 
     also shall be considered as a reimbursement to the House and 
     not a gift prohibited by this clause (without regard to 
     whether the source retains or employs registered lobbyists or 
     agents of a foreign principal) if it is, under regulations 
     prescribed by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     to implement this provision--
       ``(i) directly from an institution of higher education 
     within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965; or
       ``(ii) provided only for attendance at or participation in 
     a one-day event (exclusive of travel time and an overnight 
     stay).
       ``Regulations prescribed to implement this provision may 
     permit a two-night stay when determined by the committee on a 
     case-by-case basis to be practically required to participate 
     in the one-day event.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 206. LOBBYIST ORGANIZATIONS AND PARTICIPATION IN 
                   CONGRESSIONAL TRAVEL.

       (a) In General.--Clause 5 of rule XXV is further amended by 
     redesignating paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs 
     (e), (f), (g), and (h), respectively, and by inserting after 
     paragraph (b) the following:
       ``(c)(1)(A) Except as provided in subdivision (B), a 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee 
     of the House may not accept a reimbursement (including 
     payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or related 
     expenses for a trip on which the traveler is accompanied on 
     any segment by a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal.
       ``(B) Subdivision (A) does not apply to a trip for which 
     the source of reimbursement is an institution of higher 
     education within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965.
       ``(2) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not accept a reimbursement 
     (including payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or 
     related expenses under the exception in paragraph 
     (b)(1)(C)(ii) of this clause for a trip that is financed in 
     whole or in part by a private entity that retains or employs 
     registered lobbyists or agents of a foreign principal unless 
     any involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal in the planning, organization, request, or 
     arrangement of the trip is de minimis under rules prescribed 
     by the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to 
     implement paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause.
       ``(3) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House may not accept a reimbursement 
     (including payment in kind) for transportation, lodging, or 
     related expenses for a trip (other than a trip permitted 
     under paragraph (b)(1)(C) of this clause) if such trip is in 
     any part planned, organized, requested, or arranged by a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal.''
       ``(d) A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, 
     or employee of the House shall, before accepting travel 
     otherwise permissible under paragraph (b)(1) of this clause 
     from any private source--
       ``(1) provide to the Committee on Standards of Official 
     Conduct before such trip a written certification signed by 
     the source or (in the case of a corporate person) by an 
     officer of the source--
       ``(A) that the trip will not be financed in any part by a 
     registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign principal;
       ``(B) that the source either--
       ``(i) does not retain or employ registered lobbyists or 
     agents of a foreign principal; or
       ``(ii) is an institution of higher education within the 
     meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act of 1965; 
     or
       ``(iii) certifies that the trip meets the requirements 
     specified in rules prescribed by the Committee on Standards 
     of Official Conduct to implement paragraph (b)(1)(C)(ii) of 
     this clause and specifically details the extent of any 
     involvement of a registered lobbyist or agent of a foreign 
     principal in the planning, organization, request, or 
     arrangement of the trip considered to qualify as de minimis 
     under such rules;
       ``(C) that the source will not accept from another source 
     any funds earmarked directly or indirectly for the purpose of 
     financing any aspect of the trip;
       ``(D) that the traveler will not be accompanied on any 
     segment of the trip by a registered lobbyist or agent of a 
     foreign principal (except in the case of a trip for which the 
     source of reimbursement is an institution of higher education 
     within the meaning of section 101 of the Higher Education Act 
     of 1965); and
       ``(E) that (except as permitted in paragraph (b)(1)(C) of 
     this clause) the trip will not in any part be planned, 
     organized, requested, or arranged by a registered lobbyist or 
     agent of a foreign principal; and
       ``(2) after the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct 
     has promulgated the regulations mandated in paragraph 
     (i)(1)(B) of this clause, obtain the prior approval of the 
     committee for such trip.''.
       (b) Conforming Changes in Cross-References.--Clause 5 of 
     rule XXV is further amended by--
       (1) in clause 5(a)(3)(E), striking ``paragraph (c)(3)'' and 
     inserting ``paragraph (e)(3)''; and
       (2) in clause 5(e)(2) (as redesignated), striking 
     ``paragraph (d)'' and inserting ``paragraph (f)''.
       (c) Timeliness of Information.--Clause 5(b)(1)(A)(ii) of 
     rule XXV is amended by striking ``30 days'' and inserting 
     ``15 days''.
       (d) Conforming Amendment.--Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV is 
     amended by striking ``of expenses reimbursed or to be 
     reimbursed''.
       (e) Public Availability.--Clause 5(b)(5) of rule XXV is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(5) The Clerk of the House shall make all advance 
     authorizations, certifications, and disclosures filed 
     pursuant to this paragraph available for public inspection as 
     soon as possible after they are received.''.
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 207. FURTHER LIMITATION ON THE USE OF FUNDS FOR TRAVEL.

       Rule XXIII is further amended by redesignating clause 15 
     (as earlier redesignated) as clause 16, and by inserting 
     after clause 14 the following new clause:
       ``15. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may 
     not use personal funds, official funds, or campaign funds for 
     a flight on a non-governmental airplane that is not licensed 
     by the Federal Aviation Administration to operate for 
     compensation or hire.
       ``(b) In this clause, the term `campaign funds' includes 
     funds of any political committee under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971, without regard to whether the committee 
     is an authorized committee of the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner involved under such Act.''.

     SEC. 208. EXPENSES FOR OFFICIALLY CONNECTED TRAVEL.

       Clause 5 of rule XXV is further amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(i)(1) Not later than 45 days after the date of adoption 
     of this paragraph and at annual intervals thereafter, the 
     Committee on Standards of Official Conduct shall develop and 
     revise, as necessary--

[[Page H27]]

       ``(A) guidelines on judging the reasonableness of an 
     expense or expenditure for purposes of this clause, including 
     the factors that tend to establish--
       ``(i) a connection between a trip and official duties;
       ``(ii) the reasonableness of an amount spent by a sponsor;
       ``(iii) a relationship between an event and an officially 
     connected purpose; and
       ``(iv) a direct and immediate relationship between a source 
     of funding and an event; and
       ``(B) regulations describing the information it will 
     require individuals subject to this clause to submit to the 
     committee in order to obtain the prior approval of the 
     committee for any travel covered by this clause, including 
     any required certifications.
       ``(2) In developing and revising guidelines under paragraph 
     (1)(A), the committee shall take into account the maximum per 
     diem rates for official Government travel published annually 
     by the General Services Administration, the Department of 
     State, and the Department of Defense.''.

     SEC. 209. ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE.

       Clause 5(b)(3) of rule XXV is further amended--
       (a) by striking ``and'' after the semicolon at the end of 
     subdivision (E);
       (b) by redesignating subdivision (F) as subdivision (G); 
     and
       (c) by inserting after subdivision (E) the following new 
     subdivision:
       ``(F) a description of meetings and events attended; and''.

     SEC. 210. CLERICAL CORRECTION.

       Clause 5(f)(1) of rule XXV (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``are'' and inserting ``is''.

     SEC. 211. ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING FOR MEMBERS, OFFICERS AND 
                   EMPLOYEES OF THE HOUSE.

       (a) Training Program.--Clause 3(a) of rule XI is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(6)(A) The committee shall offer annual ethics training 
     to each Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, and 
     employee of the House. Such training shall--
       ``(i) involve the classes of employees for whom the 
     committee determines such training to be appropriate; and
       ``(ii) include such knowledge of the Code of Official 
     Conduct and related House rules as may be determined 
     appropriate by the committee.
       ``(B)(i) A new officer or employee of the House shall 
     receive training under this paragraph not later than 60 days 
     after beginning service to the House.
       ``(ii) Not later than January 31 of each year, each officer 
     and employee of the House shall file a certification with the 
     committee that the officer or employee attended ethics 
     training in the last year as established by this 
     subparagraph.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) 
     shall take effect on March 1, 2007.

     SEC. 212. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR.

       (a) Clause 1(e) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Education and the Workforce'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Education and Labor''.
       (b) Clause 3(d) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Education and the Workforce'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Education and Labor''.

     SEC. 213. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS.

       (a) Clause 1 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) redesignating the existing paragraphs (h) through (m), 
     as paragraphs (m), (i), (j), (h), (k), and (l), respectively 
     (inserting paragraph (h), as redesignated, after paragraph 
     (g)); and
       (2) in paragraph (h), as redesignated, striking ``Committee 
     on International Relations'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs''.
       (b) Clause 3 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) redesignating the existing paragraphs (b) through (i) 
     as paragraphs (c), (e), (d), (i), (g), (f), (b) and (h), 
     respectively (inserting paragraph (b), as redesignated, after 
     paragraph (a); inserting paragraph (d), as redesignated, 
     after paragraph (c); and inserting paragraph (f), as 
     redesignated, after paragraph (e)); and
       (2) in paragraph (f), as redesignated, striking ``Committee 
     on International Relations'' and inserting ``Committee on 
     Foreign Affairs''.
       (c) Clause 11(a)(1)(C) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on International Relations'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Foreign Affairs''.
       (d) Clause 2(d) of rule XII is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on International Relations'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Foreign Affairs''.

     SEC. 214. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES.

       (a) Clause 1(l) of rule X (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``Committee on Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Natural Resources''.
       (b) Clause 3(h) of rule X (as earlier redesignated) is 
     amended by striking ``Committee on Resources'' and inserting 
     ``Committee on Natural Resources''.

     SEC. 215. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT 
                   REFORM.

       (a) Clause 1 of rule X is further amended by--
       (1) inserting paragraph (m) (as earlier redesignated), 
     after paragraph (l) (as earlier redesignated); and
       (2) in paragraph (m) (as earlier redesignated), striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform''.
       (b) Clause 2 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) in paragraph (d)(1), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''; and
       (2) in paragraph (d)(2), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''.
       (c) Clause 3 of rule X is further amended by--
       (1) inserting paragraph (i) (as earlier redesignated) after 
     paragraph (h) (as earlier redesignated); and
       (2) in paragraph (i), (as earlier redesignated), striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Government Reform''.
       (d) Clause 4 of rule X is amended by--
       (1) in paragraph (c)(1), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''; and
       (2) in paragraph (c)(2), striking ``Committee on Government 
     Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight and 
     Government Reform''.
       (e) Clause 5(d)(2) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee 
     on Oversight and Govemment Reform''.
       (f) Clause 4 of rule XV is amended by striking ``Committee 
     on Government Reform'' and inserting ``Committee on Oversight 
     and Government Reform''.

     SEC. 216. DESIGNATING COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY.

       (a) Clause 1(o) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Science'' and inserting ``Committee on Science 
     and Technology''.
       (b) Clause 3(k) of rule X is amended by striking 
     ``Committee on Science'' and inserting ``Committee on Science 
     and Technology''.

     SEC. 217. SEPARATE ORDER: NUMBERING OF BILLS

       In the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the first 10 numbers for 
     bills (H.R. 1 through H.R. 10) shall be reserved for 
     assignment by the Speaker to such bills as she may designate.

                          TITLE III. CIVILITY

       Sec. 301. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together 
     with such amendments thereto in this resolution as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     with the following amendments:

     SEC. 302. PROPER CONDUCT OF VOTES.

       Clause 2(a) of rule XX is amended by inserting after the 
     second sentence the following sentence: ``A record vote by 
     electronic device shall not be held open for the sole purpose 
     of reversing the outcome of such vote.''.

     SEC. 303. FULL AND OPEN DEBATE IN CONFERENCE.

       In rule XXII--
       (a) clause 12(a) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraphs:
       ``(3) In conducting conferences with the Senate, managers 
     on the part of the House should endeavor to ensure--
       ``(A) that meetings for the resolution of differences 
     between the two Houses occur only under circumstances in 
     which every manager on the part of the House has notice of 
     the meeting and a reasonable opportunity to attend;
       ``(B) that all provisions on which the two Houses disagree 
     are considered as open to discussion at any meeting of a 
     conference committee; and
       ``(C) that papers reflecting a conference agreement are 
     held inviolate to change without renewal of the opportunity 
     of all managers on the part of the House to reconsider their 
     decisions to sign or not to sign the agreement.
       ``(4) Managers on the part of the House shall be provided a 
     unitary time and place with access to at least one complete 
     copy of the final conference agreement for the purpose of 
     recording their approval (or not) of the final conference 
     agreement by placing their signatures (or not) on the sheets 
     prepared to accompany the conference report and joint 
     explanatory statement of the managers.''.
       (b) add the following new clause at the end:
       ``13. It shall not be in order to consider a conference 
     report the text of which differs in any way, other than 
     clerical, from the text that reflects the action of the 
     conferees on all of the differences between the two Houses, 
     as recorded by their placement of their signatures (or not) 
     on the sheets prepared to accompany the conference report and 
     joint explanatory statement of the managers.''.

                    TITLE IV. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

       Sec. 401. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the 
     House at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together 
     with such amendments thereto in this resolution as may 
     otherwise have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the 
     House of Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, 
     with the following amendments:

[[Page H28]]

     SEC. 402. RECONCILIATION.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``7. It shall not be in order to consider a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget, or an amendment thereto, or a 
     conference report thereon that contains reconciliation 
     directives under section 310 of the Congressional Budget Act 
     of 1974 that specify changes in law reducing the surplus or 
     increasing the deficit for either the period comprising the 
     current fiscal year and the five fiscal years beginning with 
     the fiscal year that ends in the following calendar year or 
     the period comprising the current fiscal year and the ten 
     fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the 
     following calendar year. In determining whether 
     reconciliation directives specify changes in law reducing the 
     surplus or increasing the deficit, the sum of the directives 
     for each reconciliation bill (under section 310 of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974) envisioned by that measure 
     shall be evaluated.

     SEC. 403. APPLYING POINTS OF ORDER UNDER BUDGET ACT TO BILLS 
                   AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS CONSIDERED UNDER SPECIAL 
                   RULES.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``8. With respect to measures considered pursuant to a 
     special order of business, points of order under title III of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall operate without 
     regard to whether the measure concerned has been reported 
     from committee. Such points of order shall operate with 
     respect to (as the case may be)--
       ``(a) the form of a measure recommended by the reporting 
     committee where the statute uses the term ``as reported'' (in 
     the case of a measure that has been so reported);
       ``(b) the form of the measure made in order as an original 
     bill or joint resolution for the purpose of amendment; or
       ``(c) the form of the measure on which the previous 
     question is ordered directly to passage.'' .

     SEC. 404. CONGRESSIONAL EARMARK REFORM.

       (a) Point of Order against Congressional Earmarks.--Rule 
     XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new clause:
       ``9. (a) It shall not be in order to consider--
       ``(1) a bill or joint resolution reported by a committee 
     unless the report includes a list of congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill 
     or in the report (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner who submitted a request to the 
     committee for each respective item included in such list) or 
     a statement that the proposition contains no congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits;
       ``(2) a bill or joint resolution not reported by a 
     committee unless the chairman of each committee of initial 
     referral has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited 
     tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill (and 
     the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
     who submitted a request to the committee for each respective 
     item included in such list) or a statement that the 
     proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record prior to its consideration;
       ``(3) an amendment to a bill or joint resolution to be 
     offered at the outset of its consideration for amendment by a 
     member of a committee of initial referral as designated in a 
     report of the Committee on Rules to accompany a resolution 
     prescribing a special order of business unless the proponent 
     has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the amendment (and 
     the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner 
     who submitted a request to the proponent for each respective 
     item included in such list) or a statement that the 
     proposition contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax 
     benefits, or limited tariff benefits to be printed in the 
     Congressional Record prior to its consideration; or
       ``(4) a conference report to accompany a bill or joint 
     resolution unless the joint explanatory statement prepared by 
     the managers on the part of the House and the managers on the 
     part of the Senate includes a list of congressional earmarks, 
     limited tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the 
     conference report or joint statement (and the name of any 
     Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, or Senator who 
     submitted a request to the House or Senate committees of 
     jurisdiction for each respective item included in such list) 
     or a statement that the proposition contains no congressional 
     earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits.
       ``(b) It shall not be in order to consider a rule or order 
     that waives the application of paragraph (a). As disposition 
     of a point of order under this paragraph, the Chair shall put 
     the question of consideration with respect to the rule or 
     order that waives the application of paragraph (a). The 
     question of consideration shall be debatable for 10 minutes 
     by the Member initiating the point of order and for 10 
     minutes by an opponent, but shall otherwise be decided 
     without intervening motion except one that the House adjourn.
       ``(c) In order to be cognizable by the Chair, a point of 
     order raised under paragraph (a) may be based only on the 
     failure of a report, submission to the Congressional Record, 
     or joint explanatory statement to include a list required by 
     paragraph (a) or a statement that the proposition contains no 
     congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited 
     tariff benefits.
       ``(d) For the purpose of this clause, the term 
     `congressional earmark' means a provision or report language 
     included primarily at the request of a Member, Delegate, 
     Resident Commissioner, or Senator providing, authorizing or 
     recommending a specific amount of discretionary budget 
     authority, credit authority, or other spending authority for 
     a contract, loan, loan guarantee, grant, loan authority, or 
     other expenditure with or to an entity, or targeted to a 
     specific State, locality or Congressional district, other 
     than through a statutory or administrative formula-driven or 
     competitive award process.
       ``(e) For the purpose of this clause, the term `limited tax 
     benefit' means--
       ``(1) any revenue-losing provision that--
       ``(A) provides a Federal tax deduction, credit, exclusion, 
     or preference to 10 or fewer beneficiaries under the Internal 
     Revenue Code of 1986, and
       ``(B) contains eligibility criteria that are not uniform in 
     application with respect to potential beneficiaries of such 
     provision; or
       ``(2) any Federal tax provision which provides one 
     beneficiary temporary or permanent transition relief from a 
     change to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
       ``(f) For the purpose of this clause, the term 'limited 
     tariff benefit' means a provision modifying the Harmonized 
     Tariff Schedule of the United States in a manner that 
     benefits 10 or fewer entities.
       (b) Related Amendment to Code of Official Conduct.--Rule 
     XXIII is amended--
       (a) by redesignating clause 16 (as earlier redesignated) as 
     clause 18; and
       (b) by inserting after clause 15 the following new clauses:
       ``16. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner may not 
     condition the inclusion of language to provide funding for a 
     congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a limited 
     tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an 
     accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution (including an accompanying joint explanatory 
     statement of managers) on any vote cast by another Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner. For purposes of this 
     clause and clause 17, the terms `congressional earmark,' 
     `limited tax benefit,' and `limited tariff benefit' shall 
     have the meanings given them in clause 9 of rule XXI.
       ``17. (a) A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who 
     requests a congressional earmark, a limited tax benefit, or a 
     limited tariff benefit in any bill or joint resolution (or an 
     accompanying report) or in any conference report on a bill or 
     joint resolution (or an accompanying joint statement of 
     managers) shall provide a written statement to the chairman 
     and ranking minority member of the committee of jurisdiction, 
     including--
       ``(1) the name of the Member, Delegate, or Resident 
     Commissioner;
       ``(2) in the case of a congressional earmark, the name and 
     address of the intended recipient or, if there is no 
     specifically intended recipient, the intended location of the 
     activity;
       ``(3) in the case of a limited tax or tariff benefit, 
     identification of the individual or entities reasonably 
     anticipated to benefit, to the extent known to the Member, 
     Delegate, or Resident Commissioner;
       ``(4) the purpose of such congressional earmark or limited 
     tax or tariff benefit; and
       ``(5) a certification that the Member, Delegate, or 
     Resident Commissioner or spouse has no financial interest in 
     such congressional earmark or limited tax or tariff benefit.
       ``(b) Each committee shall maintain the information 
     transmitted under paragraph (a), and the written disclosures 
     for any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or 
     limited tariff benefits included in any measure reported by 
     the committee or conference report filed by the chairman of 
     the committee or any subcommittee thereof shall be open for 
     public inspection.''.

     SEC.405. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER.

       Rule XXI is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     clause:
       ``10. It shall not be in order to consider any bill, joint 
     resolution, amendment, or conference report if the provisions 
     of such measure affecting direct spending and revenues have 
     the net effect of increasing the deficit or reducing the 
     surplus for either the period comprising the current fiscal 
     year and the five fiscal years beginning with the fiscal year 
     that ends in the following calendar year or the period 
     comprising the current fiscal year and the ten fiscal years 
     beginning with the fiscal year that ends in the following 
     calendar year. The effect of such measure on the deficit or 
     surplus shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by 
     the Committee on the Budget relative to--
       (a) the most recent baseline estimates supplied by the 
     Congressional Budget Office consistent with section 257 of 
     the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     used in considering a concurrent resolution on the budget; or
       (b) after the beginning of a new calendar year and before 
     consideration of a concurrent resolution on the budget, the 
     most recent baseline estimates supplied by the Congressional 
     Budget Office consistent with section 257 of the Balanced 
     Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.''.

                         TITLE V. MISCELLANEOUS

       Sec. 501. The Rules of the House of Representatives of the 
     One Hundred Ninth Congress, including applicable provisions 
     of law

[[Page H29]]

     or concurrent resolution that constituted rules of the House 
     at the end of the One Hundred Ninth Congress, together with 
     such amendments thereto in this resolution as may otherwise 
     have been adopted, are adopted as the Rules of the House of 
     Representatives of the One Hundred Tenth Congress, with the 
     following amendments:

     SEC. 502. DEPOSITION AUTHORITY.

       Clause 4(c) of rule X is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(3)(A) The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 
     may adopt a rule authorizing and regulating the taking of 
     depositions by a member or counsel of the committee, 
     including pursuant to subpoena under clause 2(m) of rule XI 
     (which hereby is made applicable for such purpose),
       ``(B) A rule adopted by the committee pursuant to this 
     subparagraph--
       ``(i) may provide that a deponent be directed to subscribe 
     an oath or affirmation before a person authorized by law to 
     administer the same; and
       ``(ii) shall ensure that the minority members and staff of 
     the committee are accorded equitable treatment with respect 
     to notice of and a reasonable opportunity to participate in 
     any proceeding conducted thereunder.
       ``(C) Information secured pursuant to the authority 
     described in subdivision (A) shall retain the character of 
     discovery until offered for admission in evidence before the 
     committee, at which time any proper objection shall be 
     timely.''.

     SEC. 503. RECORD VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE ON RULES.

       The second sentence of clause 3(b) of rule XIII is amended 
     by inserting ``a report by the Committee on Rules on a rule, 
     joint rule, or the order of business or to'' after ``to''.

     SEC. 504. CHANGES TO REFLECT INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY REFORM.

       Clause 11 of rule X is amended by--
       (a) in paragraph (b)(1)(A), striking ``Director of Central 
     Intelligence''; and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence'';
       (b) in paragraph (b)(1)(A), striking ``Foreign'';
       (c) in paragraph (b)(1)(D)(i), striking ``Director of 
     Central Intelligence'' and inserting ``Director of National 
     Intelligence'';
       (d) in paragraph (b)(1)(D)(i), striking ``Foreign'';
       (e) in paragraph (c)(2), inserting ``the Director of 
     National Intelligence,'' before ``the Director of the Central 
     Intelligence Agency'';
       (f) in paragraph (e)(2), striking ``Central'' and inserting 
     ``National''; and
       (g) in paragraph (i), striking subparagraphs (1) through 
     (6) and inserting in lieu thereof the following:
       ``(1) The activities of the Director of National 
     Intelligence and the Office of the Director of National 
     Intelligence.
       ``(2) The activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.
       ``(3) The activities of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
       ``(4) The activities of the National Security Agency.
       ``(5) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of other agencies and subdivisions of the Department of 
     Defense.
       ``(6) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of the Department of State.
       ``(7) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
       ``(8) The intelligence and intelligence-related activities 
     of all other departments and agencies of the executive 
     branch.''.

     SEC. 505. TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING CHANGES.

       (a) Clause 12(b) of rule I is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) To suspend the business of the House when notified 
     of an imminent threat to its safety, the Speaker may declare 
     an emergency recess subject to the call of the Chair.''
       ``(2) To suspend the business of the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union when notified of an imminent 
     threat to its safety, the Chairman of the Committee of the 
     Whole may declare an emergency recess subject to the call of 
     the Chair.''.
       (b) Clause 6(b) of rule XIII is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Pending the consideration of a report by the 
     Committee on Rules on a rule, joint rule, or the order of 
     business, the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House 
     adjourn but may not entertain any other dilatory motion until 
     the report shall have been disposed of.''.
       (c) Clause 1(b) of rule XV is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Pending a motion that the House suspend the rules, 
     the Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn 
     but may not entertain any other motion until the vote is 
     taken on the suspension.''.
       (d) In clause 2(e) of rule XV, subparagraph (1) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(1) If a motion prevails to discharge the Committee on 
     Rules from consideration of a resolution, the House shall 
     immediately consider the resolution, pending which the 
     Speaker may entertain one motion that the House adjourn but 
     may not entertain any other dilatory motion until the 
     resolution has been disposed of. If the resolution is 
     adopted, the House shall immediately proceed to its 
     execution.''.

     SEC. 506. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 9/11 SELECT PANEL.

       Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
     without intervention of any point of order to consider in the 
     House a resolution to enhance intelligence oversight 
     authority. The resolution shall be considered as read. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the 
     resolution to final adoption without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and controlled 
     by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit shich may not 
     contain instructions.

     SEC. 507. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: 9/11 RECOMMENDATIONS.

       (1) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 1) to provide 
     for the implementation of the recommendations of the National 
     Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. All 
     points of order against the bill and against its 
     consideration are waived. The bill shall be considered as 
     read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
     the bill to final passage without intervening motion except; 
     (1) three hours of debate equally divided and controlled by 
     the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or their 
     designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 1 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 508. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: MINIMUM WAGE.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 2) to amend the 
     Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to provide for an increase 
     in the Federal minimum wage. All points of order against the 
     bill and against its consideration are waived. The bill shall 
     be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and the 
     Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 2 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 509. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: STEM CELL.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3) to amend the 
     Public Health Service Act to provide for human embryonic stem 
     cell research. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 3 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 510. SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS: PRESCRIPTION DRUGS.

       (a) Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
     order to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 4) to amend 
     part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to require 
     the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower 
     covered part D drug prices on behalf of Medicare 
     beneficiaries. All points of order against the bill and 
     against its consideration are waived. The bill shall be 
     considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 
     as ordered on the bill to final passage without intervening 
     motion except: (1) three hours of debate equally divided and 
     controlled by the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader or 
     their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.
       (b) During consideration of H.R. 4 pursuant to this 
     resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
     question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the 
     bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

     SEC. 511. SEPARATE ORDERS.

       (a) Budget Matters.--(1) During the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress, references in section 306 of the Congressional 
     Budget Act of 1974 to a resolution shall be construed in the 
     House of Representatives as references to a joint resolution.
       (2) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, in the case of a 
     reported bill or joint resolution considered pursuant to a 
     special order of business, a point of order under section 303 
     of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 shall be determined 
     on the basis of the text made in order as an original bill or 
     joint resolution for the purpose of amendment or to the text 
     on which the previous question is ordered directly to 
     passage, as the case may be.
       (3) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, a provision in a 
     bill or joint resolution, or in an amendment thereto or a 
     conference report thereon, that establishes prospectively for 
     a Federal office or position a specified or minimum level of 
     compensation to be funded by annual 
     discretionary appropriations shall not be considered as 
     providing new entitlement authority under section 401 of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (4)(A) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, pending the 
     adoption of a concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
     year 2008,

[[Page H30]]

     the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One 
     Hundred Ninth Congress, as adopted by the House, shall have 
     force and effect in the House as though the One Hundred Tenth 
     Congress has adopted such a concurrent resolution.
       (B) The chairman of the Committee on the Budget (when 
     elected) shall submit for printing in the Congressional 
     Record--
       (i) the allocations contemplated by section 302(a) of the 
     Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to accompany the concurrent 
     resolution described in subparagraph (A), which shall be 
     considered to be such allocations under a concurrent 
     resolution on the budget; and
       (ii) ``Accounts Identified for Advance Appropriations,'' 
     which shall be considered to be the programs, projects, 
     activities, or accounts referred to in section 401(b) of 
     House Concurrent Resolution 376 of the One Hundred Ninth 
     Congress, as adopted by the House.
       (5)(A) During the One Hundred Tenth Congress, except as 
     provided in subsection (C), a motion that the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report a bill to the House shall not be in 
     order if the bill, as amended, exceeds an applicable 
     allocation of new budget authority under section 302(b) of 
     the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as estimated by the 
     Committee on the Budget.
       (B) If a point of order under subsection (A) is sustained, 
     the Chair shall put the question: ``Shall the Committee of 
     the Whole rise and report the bill to the House with such 
     amendments as may have been adopted notwithstanding that the 
     bill exceeds its allocation of new budget authority under 
     section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974?''. 
     Such question shall be debatable for 10 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by a proponent of the question and an 
     opponent but shall be decided without intervening motion.
       (C) Subsection (A) shall not apply--
       (i) to a motion offered under clause 2(d) of rule XXI; or
       (ii) after disposition of a question under subsection (B) 
     on a given bill.
       (D) If a question under subsection (B) is decided in the 
     negative, no further amendment shall be in order except--
       (i) one proper amendment, which shall be debatable for 10 
     minutes 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; and
       (ii) pro forma amendments, if offered by the chairman or 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or 
     their designees, for the purpose of debate.
       (b) Certain Subcommittees.--Notwithstanding clause 5(d) of 
     rule X, during the One Hundred Tenth Congress--
       (1) the Committee on Armed Services may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees;
       (2) the Committee on Foreign Affairs may have not more than 
     seven subcommittees; and
       (3) the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure may 
     have not more than six subcommittees.
       (c) Exercise Facilities for Former Members.--During the One 
     Hundred Tenth Congress--
       (1) The House of Representatives may not provide access to 
     any exercise facility which is made available exclusively to 
     Members and former Members, officers and former officers of 
     the House of Representatives, and their spouses to any former 
     Member, former officer, or spouse who is a lobbyist 
     registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 or any 
     successor statute or agent of a foreign principal as defined 
     in clause 5 of rule XXV. For purposes of this section, the 
     term ``Member of the House of Representatives'' includes a 
     Delegate or Resident Commissioner to the Congress.
       (2) The Committee on House Administration shall promulgate 
     regulations to carry out this subsection.

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Pasco, Washington.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I 
will say right up front I intend to support title I and the rules 
package, and I take literally what the gentleman, my friend from 
Florida, talked about what we can expect from the Rules Committee when 
we restructure, hopefully next week, as to the timing and so forth of 
the business that we take up.
  But I want to talk about one issue that is not addressed in the 
proposed changes for the 110th that is in the 109th package, and that 
is, the requirement to have recorded votes in the Rules Committee.
  What the provision in the bill and the proposed changes say is that 
the Rules members now will comply as the Ethics Committee does. I was 
the chairman of the Ethics Committee in the last Congress and the 
ranking member in this Congress, and we have recorded votes in those 
committees, but we have the option of making them public or not.
  Under the proposed rules packages, for the life of me, I cannot 
understand why that needs to be extended to the Rules Committee. It is 
obvious for the Committee on Official Standards, it is obvious there. 
But why it is in the Rules Committee is beyond what I can understand. 
Now, I do understand one of the reasons is that if there are errors, 
then you would certainly want to be able to correct those errors.
  My first term was the 104th Congress, and that is when we made some 
major changes in voting. Since that time, there have been 1,304 
recorded votes in the Rules Committee; the number of errors in the 
rules report in those 12 years is zero. And I think one of the reasons 
why is because this is a committee of only 13. There are nine Democrats 
and there are four Republicans in this Congress. It was the reverse in 
the last Congress. As a matter of fact, I would suggest that you could 
probably, on most of those votes, predict what the outcome is going to 
be.
  So why, for the life of me, we would want to take the transparency of 
the Rules Committee away from public knowledge is absolutely beyond me. 
It just simply doesn't make any sense.
  So I enthusiastically support adopting the rules of the 109th 
Congress. It would be my wish that that would be the rules for the 
110th Congress, but we are going to debate that later and we will see 
what happens. But, again, why we want to take transparency out of votes 
in the Rules Committee, and I understand there will be new members on 
your side, why they won't want to stand the transparency for their 
constituency is beyond me.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the 
distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Committee.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, some of us that have big huge 
districts use our airplanes to fly around the district to get to 
meetings just like some people use their automobiles, and there is 
concern amongst the few of us that do this about a provision in here. 
So, Mr. Hastings, could you clarify for me that it is not the intent of 
section 207 of House Resolution 6 to prohibit a Member to use his or 
her own airplane; specifically, that is not intended to apply to the 
use of the Members' representational allowance to reimburse a Member 
for mileage on his or her own airplane?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I want to assure my colleagues that this is 
not the intent of this provision. It is not intended to apply to a 
Member who is using her or his own airplane, whether or not it is on 
his personal campaign or official business. Specifically, it is not 
intended to apply to the use of the Members' representational allowance 
to reimburse a Member for mileage on his or her own airplane. We will 
work closely with the Ethics Committee and the Committees on House 
Administration to ensure that this is how these committees will 
interpret the rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, 
I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida, my 
good friend, Kathy Castor, who is the first new Member to speak in the 
110th Congress.
  Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank my fellow Floridian very much. And I 
am proud to stand here with many other new Members who are very reform-
minded, and let me assure you we are ready to chart the new direction 
for America.
  The election is over, and it is time for us to keep our commitment 
for honest leadership and open government rules changes. During this 
first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, all of us in this Congress must 
work together to pass key measures affecting the everyday lives of all 
Americans. We will begin by adopting the rules of the 109th Congress. 
This is the baseline proposal that is before us now. But then we shall 
continue on, on other proposals to clean up Washington, to sever 
unethical ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. We will start by 
banning travel and gifts from lobbyists, requiring full transparency to 
end the abuse of special interest earmarks, and ending the abusive 
processes that have undermined democracy in this House. These measures 
are the first steps to ensure that the Congress upholds the highest 
ethical standards.
  Americans have paid the cost of corruption in Washington with 
skyrocketing prices at the pump, spiraling drug costs, and the waste 
and fraud of

[[Page H31]]

no bid contracts in the Gulf and Iraq. No more. Reform is a top 
priority for this House because reform is a top priority for the 
American people.
  As our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this 
critical election, the Democrats are offering an aggressive reform 
package to restore the public trust. So, let's begin.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that we can, in fact, join in a 
bipartisan way in supporting implementation of title I of this 
provision. And I believe that it is great that my friend from Florida 
(Mr. Hastings) began heaping praise on the many accomplishments of the 
104th Congress when we implemented things like an end to proxy voting, 
term limits on committee chairmen, and the other items which we have 
which go on and on and on, increased transparency and accountability 
and disclosure.
  I will say that, as I have said, I am very, very troubled and 
saddened by the inconsistency when it comes to the issue of 
transparency and disclosure in light of the discussion that Mr. 
Hastings of Pasco, Washington and I have had about closing down 
transparency in the Rules Committee now.
  My friend from Florida mentioned the fact that I may be the champion 
of closed rules. I will admit that as chairman of the Rules Committee, 
I did bring more than a few closed rules here, primarily on bills that 
related to tax issues, which was done under the Democratic majorities 
of the past and I suspect will be done in the future as well. But I 
will say this: Never before, never before have I, as chairman of the 
Rules Committee, prevented the Rules Committee from having an 
opportunity to deliberate and including in an opening day rules package 
five closed rules. I am concerned as we move forward with that. We will 
have that debate later on. But I look forward to urging my colleagues 
to join in support of title I.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very pleased 
to yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Florida, 
who is my neighbor, Mr. Ron Klein, who I believe is speaking for the 
first time.
  Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida 
and my new friend from California. My name is Ron Klein, and today I am 
proudly sworn in as all of us were in the new Congress, and I represent 
Florida's 22nd district. I believe I can speak on behalf of all my 
fellow freshmen colleagues today in saying that we are all truly 
honored to be here to represent the value of America's families.
  It is time to bring a new direction to Washington and promote 
honesty, integrity, and real leadership in the United States Congress. 
That is why we have introduced an ethics reform package that will 
restore the public's trust and confidence in Congress. Those of us who 
were just recently on the campaign trail heard that frequently, and we 
know we need to do something about it.
  One of these reforms has been introduced by my colleague, Zack Space 
from Ohio's 18 district, and it is a measure banning Members of 
Congress and their staff from accepting gifts from lobbyists. This bill 
will also put a stop to the common but inappropriate practice of 
allowing Members of Congress to use money from their campaign coffers 
to pay for corporate jets for travel purposes.

                              {time}  1745

  Letting special interests run the Congress is simply not right, and 
we have a responsibility to put a stop to this unscrupulous practice.
  Simply put, it is time to return Congress to the people's House, not 
the auction house. I congratulate Speaker Pelosi, and all of the 
Members of Congress who were sworn in today, and I ask all Members to 
join us in these new policy changes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 5, the previous 
question is ordered on the portion of the divided question comprising 
title I.
  The question is on that portion of the divided question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 426, 
nays 0, not voting 8, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 6]

                               YEAS--426

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler

[[Page H32]]


     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Davis (KY)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Maloney (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCrery
     Norwood

                              {time}  1811

  Mr. KING of Iowa changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So that portion of the divided question was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McCAUL of Texas. Madam Speaker, on Rollcall No. 6 with family in 
town I was given insufficient notice of the vote. Had I been present, I 
would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Frank of Massachusetts). The portion of 
the divided question comprising title II is now debatable for 60 
minutes.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, it may seem like the November elections took place ages 
ago, but the sentiments that created new majorities in the House and 
Senate are still strong.
  The American people spoke loud and clear on November 7. Together, 
Republicans and Democrats and independents from across this great 
Nation voted for change. They voted to end the cycle of corruption, pay 
to play, and junkets.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, the new Democratic majority is fulfilling the 
pledge we made to the voters. We are going to clean up Washington, D.C. 
We are going to give the people their House back.
  Two years ago my friends on the other side of the aisle brought 
forward a rules package that, in my opinion, did not go nearly far 
enough in upholding the highest ethical standards. Today we offer a 
package that is based on real change. Members of Congress are elected 
to serve the American people, not their own individual private 
interests. And I am proud to say that today, this House of 
Representatives will enact a reform package that ends the culture of 
corruption once and for all. The days of the K Street project are over. 
No longer will Members of this House be able to dictate to any private 
entity the hiring or firing of anyone based on their political 
affiliation.
  This rules package prohibits Members of Congress from traveling on 
corporate jets. My constituents in Massachusetts don't have the 
opportunity to get cheap travel on corporate jets and neither should 
Members of Congress.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. Speaker, this rules package also changes the way Members of 
Congress and staff can travel for official business. I strongly believe 
that overseas trips and other travel can be important tools to helping 
Members of Congress understand complex domestic and international 
issues.
  But the days of lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets will be relics of the 
past. The actions this package takes are simple and straightforward: no 
more junkets, no more gifts from lobbyists, no more travel on corporate 
jets.
  This rules package is comprehensive, and it is historic. We are going 
to change the way this place is run, and we are going to change the way 
people look at the Congress. The American people don't want to pick up 
their morning newspapers and read about golf junkets to St. Andrews. 
They don't want to hear stories about how their Congressman or 
Congresswoman was wined and dined with $100 steak dinners.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not complicated. These are commonsense items 
that should have been dealt with years ago. The time has come to do 
what is right, to hold Members of this House to the highest ethical 
standards.
  With the election of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, the first 
woman Speaker in the history of the United States, Democrats are 
ushering in a new era and putting an end to the culture of corruption. 
We are changing the tone in Washington, and we are changing the way we 
conduct business.
  Now, I know full well that the ethical problems of the past were not 
limited to one side of the aisle, and the solutions to those problems 
can and should come from both Democrats and Republicans. I know that 
many of my Republican friends agree that change is needed, and they 
wish that their leadership in the past would have moved forward on some 
of these changes. I look forward to working closely with them in the 
weeks and the months ahead.
  Mr. Speaker, the American people demand, and they deserve, a higher 
standard of conduct from their elected officials. Today, we are raising 
the bar for how Members of the 110th Congress will carry out their 
duties and do their jobs.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this package. Once again, I think 
we will have an opportunity for bipartisanship. The issue of ethics and 
lobbying reform is something that we believe is very, very important. 
As I sit here today, I am reminded of the fact that 1 year ago this 
month, Speaker Hastert and I stood right upstairs in the press gallery 
and unveiled a package for lobbying and ethics reform, which was 
maligned by many of our colleagues, unfortunately.
  But I will say that I am very pleased with the fact that we were 
ultimately able to pass out of the House our measure, which did a 
number of things that I am happy to see are incorporated in this 
provision that is coming forward from the new majority.
  The thing that troubles me most, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this 
was done in a unilateral way. We are all very proud of the fact that we 
have a working, strong, vibrant bipartisan Ethics Committee. It would 
have been great if we could have had the Ethics Committee come forward 
with these recommendations.
  There has been no consultation whatsoever between the majority and 
the minority, although I will say, again, I congratulate those Members 
of the new majority for including, including many of the items that 
were either incorporated in H.R. 4975, which was our lobbying and 
disclosure act that we passed out of the House last year, and some of 
the provisions that Speaker Hastert and I outlined a year ago this 
month: free clearance of travel, a ban on travel and an end to gifts. 
An end to the K Street Project. These are all very important reforms 
that I do think are essential.
  I will say this, Mr. Speaker, as I listen to my very good friend from 
Massachusetts, and I congratulate him on his new position in the 
majority on the Rules Committee, what happens between today and March 1 
of this year? Well, let us see, we have the month of January and the 
month of February, and, guess what, under this package, the status quo 
in the 110th Congress, under the Democratic majority, remains in place 
without any kind of reform or change.
  So I have got to ask rhetorically, anyone who wants to answer as to 
why we are waiting until March 1 before we see any kind of 
implementation here. They want to see guidelines put forward, maybe by 
the Ethics Committee. If that is what they would like to do, why don't 
we impose an immediate ban until they come up with recommended 
guidelines?
  So I will say that as I listen to these proposals, they are 
interesting, I am very pleased that they have incorporated them. I 
don't believe they go far enough. In a few minutes, my colleagues, Mr. 
Kirk and Mr. Shadegg, will be talking about concern on the pension 
issue, which unfortunately has been left out of this, but I do believe 
that by and large this is a measure that is going to be worthy of 
bipartisan support, and I am going to urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my good friend from California, whom 
I have a lot of respect for, there is a big difference between what his 
leadership proposed in terms of higher ethical standards and what is 
being proposed here today. I have got to say to the gentleman that we 
include a little bit more than just banning lobbyists from the locker 
rooms. They are banned

[[Page H33]]

from the locker rooms in this bill, but there is a heck of a lot more.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield? If you will recall, we passed 
H.R. 4975.
  Mr. McGOVERN. I am in the middle of my statement. I would also say to 
the gentleman that his party has been in control for 12 years, and 
there has been ample opportunity to change the status quo. The 
gentleman's party not only embraced the status quo, but we saw a 
proliferation of the culture of corruption, and that is what this is a 
response to. In answer to the gentleman's question as to this March 1 
deadline, that is to give the Committee on Standards of Official 
Conduct ample time to put the rules and regulations and the disclosure 
requirements into place so that this can be an effective change.
  So this is real historic change. We are going to end the culture of 
corruption in this Congress today. I am glad that the gentleman has 
said that he is going to support it. I hope that this is a bipartisan 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes, for the purpose of debate, to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Space).
  Mr. SPACE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask you to support this 
historic rules package. The winds of change have brought me here. I 
don't think it is too much to say that my very presence before you 
constitutes a message to this body, a message sent from the good people 
of Ohio's 18th District. By these presence, I wish to deliver this 
message on behalf of my constituents.
  The message is that the legislative process is broken. Rather than 
serving the needs of working families, this Congress has shown through 
past actions a preference for serving interests of the privileged few. 
Nowhere has this been more clear than in the influence wielded by 
lobbyists. The influence of lobbyists has compromised the reputation 
and even the health of this body.
  In order to restore the integrity to this Chamber and restore 
America's faith in its elected officials, we must undertake substantial 
ethics reform. Our actions today will not only enhance the most 
fundamental principles of a democratic society; they will remind our 
constituents that we are a body of the people and not above the people.
  The package before you will breach the circle of deceit between 
lobbyists, their wealthy clients, and this body. It represents long 
overdue real ethics reform. It bans House Members and their employees 
from accepting gifts from lobbyists and the organizations that hire 
them. It prohibits lobbyists from paying for or organizing Member 
travel, and it eliminates the all-too-common practice of legislative 
jet-setting. In short, the ethics package is the first step toward 
restoring integrity and beginning the process necessary to restore 
faith in our system of government.
  Coming from a district whose previous Congressman became mired, and 
then consumed, by scandal, my fellow district residents and I 
understand all too intimately the perils associated with weak and 
loosely monitored ethics regulations.
  We have suffered the frustration, disappointment, and anger 
associated with betrayal. We have suffered from not having a Member of 
Congress available to attend to the needs of the citizens of our 
district. But we are not alone. Other districts have suffered similar 
letdowns. That is inexcusable, and it is unconscionable.
  At a moment in time when our Nation needs truly heroic leadership, as 
the challenges of the changing world continue to grow, this body has 
failed to step up and lead. The institution of Congress has failed to 
make clear its commitment to the principles of democracy; and it has 
frustrated, disappointed, and angered the American public.
  The winds of change have, indeed, blown many among us into this 
Chamber, and there is much work to do.
  We cannot begin our work in good faith without this declaration today 
that we are of, and not above, the American people. The time to act is 
now. We have an extraordinary burden to prove to those who have given 
us this honor. We must make clear to them that we are representing 
their interests, not bartering legislative favors in order to gain 
gifts and trips.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this important ethics 
reform package.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Omaha, Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Thank you, I appreciate this opportunity.
  Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Ohio, the new Member who just 
spoke, I appreciate and respect his point of view. I will add, though, 
that the disgust, the frustration with the ethics violation, the 
disregard for the public's trust in this body because of a few of our 
colleagues isn't relegated to one side of the aisle or the other, nor 
one district or the other.
  I think all of us in this institution today that took the oath of 
office are disgusted by the past; and that is why this body that last 
May passed a comprehensive ethics bill, which mostly was incorporated 
in this one, ironically, I think, it is fairly humorous, that most of 
our colleagues on the other side voted against it because it was not 
good enough, yet substantially similar to the one that is brought 
forward without our input into the process today.
  Now I stand here today saying this isn't good enough. We could have 
done a better job of tightening down with lobbyists and gifts. Frankly, 
I don't know how to interpret the plane part, but I am concerned about 
establishing the public trust when someone accepts bribes.
  In our package that was voted against by a lot of our colleagues from 
the other side of the aisle that are pounding their chests today, in 
that was saying that you cannot receive the fruits that you earned 
during your tenure in this office if you have violated the public's 
trust.
  That is not part of the bill that stands before us today. If you have 
accepted a bribe, you are convicted of a felony and are sitting in 
jail, you should not be able to accept the part of the government-
funded pension or other government-funded benefits that you earned 
while you were here. You just simply cannot do that.
  My folks back in Nebraska think that is absolutely absurd. I just 
wish we had a process in place where we could have worked in a 
partnership to improve this bill, to make it better. But we didn't have 
that opportunity, and I don't have the opportunity on behalf of my 
Nebraskans, who feel that it is absurd that you have cash in a freezer, 
that you can accept bribes like we had in a California or in an Ohio 
district, and still accept your pension. I think it is absurd that we 
don't have that opportunity today.
  Frankly, the fact that those folks that voted against a comprehensive 
ethics reform package introduced one without Republican input to 
improve the bill smacks of partisanship to me. I thought we were going 
to clear the decks of that and start working together for the public 
good, and it just doesn't seem like it is happening today.
  That is a poor start for civility in this body.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just educate the gentleman that the change that he is asking 
for requires a statutory change. Today we are dealing with the House 
rules. I will assure the gentleman and his constituents in Nebraska and 
people all over the United States who agree with him that we will have 
the opportunity to do that. We will go through House Administration and 
you will have the opportunity to do that. We will hopefully have a 
unanimous vote on that.

                              {time}  1830

  I am also happy to hear the gentleman and others on the other side of 
the aisle all of a sudden speak in favor of ethics reform and real 
change and ending the culture of corruption in this House. It is 
amazing what an election will do.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Sutton), a new member of the Rules Committee.
  Ms. SUTTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the rules package.
  Trust is a fragile thing. It is difficult to win, but easy to lose. 
It finds its hold on promises kept and honesty sustained and 
unquestionable integrity.
  As the representative of the 13th District of Ohio, I am honored to 
rise on

[[Page H34]]

this historic day to speak for the first time on the floor of the 
people's House.
  And in so rising, I am proud that I do so to keep the faith with the 
people who sent me here to serve.
  With our actions today, on this first day of the reform Congress, we 
begin to fulfill the awesome responsibility entrusted to us by the 
American people.
  We have heard the call for change and it shall be heeded. Today, we 
sever the links between those who would buy influence on Capitol Hill 
and those who would willingly sell it.
  We act to clean up the corruption which has eroded the public trust 
and resulted in far too many policies that benefit the well connected 
and the privileged few, at the expense of the greater good.
  Title II of our rules package does just this. We end the K Street 
Project, which took peddling of access and influence to soaring new 
heights. We act to eradicate the cronyism and corruption. We cut off 
the gifts, the perks and travel wielded by special interests. We take 
the darkest inner workings of government and sanitize them with the 
light of day.
  We will work to adopt this set of anti-corruption reforms to 
dismantle the dark corridors and backrooms and avenues to abuse that 
have allowed corruption to grow and flourish.
  We will beat back the culture and abuses that have hurt the American 
people, both in policy and in spirit.
  Today, we heed the call to put a halt to the corruption that has 
tarnished this House.
  Trust is a fragile, sacred thing. And we, in the new 110th Congress, 
will protect it with all the power of our office.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me, again, say that we look forward to 
supporting this package, much of which, the items that the gentlewoman 
just outlined, were included in H.R. 4975, which passed this House last 
May with strong bipartisan support.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from 
Highland Park, Illinois (Mr. Kirk).
  Mr. KIRK. Mr. Speaker, this House needs more ethics reforms, rather 
than less. And the package before the House makes a positive step, but 
falls short in several key areas.
  The most important ethics reform that is missing from this package 
concerns taxpayer-funded pensions for Members of Congress convicted of 
a felony. Under current law, both Congressmen Traficant of the 
Democratic Party and Cunningham of the Republican Party would still be 
eligible to collect a taxpayer-funded pension, even after being 
indicted and convicted beyond a shadow of a doubt by a jury of their 
peers of a felony.
  Stopping taxpayer funded pensions for lawmakers who break the law is 
not a new issue. My home State of Illinois, a State not known for its 
clean government, in that State, we, at least, kill pensions for 
lawmakers who break the law, and we have done so for 30 years.
  Ten years ago, Speaker Pelosi voted for H.R. 4011. That would have 
killed pensions for Congressmen for a conviction on any one of 21 
separate felonies. She was right then, and it would be right now to 
terminate taxpayer-funded pensions for lawbreakers.
  Mr. Speaker, Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman and I joined to 
support these very reforms in the last Congress. And we, at least, 
passed limited reforms and allowed the Senate at least to consider 
them.
  But today, the 100 hours fails to take up this issue. None of these 
pension killing reforms are in the package or are currently scheduled.
  I take what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) says very 
seriously, that he has made a commitment to bring up legislation to 
kill pensions for Members of Congress convicted of a felony.
  I have introduced legislation, H.R. 14, to do exactly that, modeled 
after the legislation supported by former Speaker Hastert as well as 
Speaker Pelosi. These are commonsense reforms, already part of the law 
of the land in the land of Lincoln, and long ago should be part of the 
ethics reforms of this House.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Kirk) by saying I know I am from Massachusetts, and you 
may think I have a funny accent and you have trouble understanding me. 
But let me repeat what I said before. In order to make the changes on 
the pension issue that he is asking for, which we all support, it 
requires a statutory change. And I think the staff over there will help 
clarify that. We are all for that.
  In H.R. 4011, which Ms. Pelosi supported that you mentioned was a 
statute. We are going to do that.
  Let me just say one other thing to the gentleman. You keep on 
referring to your ethics reform package as if it was some kind of this 
monumental change and reform.
  You didn't ban the K Street Project, which has really resulted in so 
much outrage across the country. You had a temporary suspension on the 
issue of travel, and you had no ban on lobbyists' gifts.
  This is real reform. We are going to end the culture of corruption.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of debate only 2 
minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Gillibrand).
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. Speaker, the honorable Member from my 
neighboring district, I am honored to be here. My new colleagues, thank 
you for the opportunity to speak on such an important issue.
  The voters of my district and this Nation were very clear about this 
past election. They want change. They want real ethics reform, and they 
want our country to be placed in a new direction. This is what we are 
here to do today. We are going to restore the ethics and integrity back 
to Congress.
  I am honored to be here today to have the opportunity to help do that 
restoration and take an important step to end the influence and 
corruption in Congress that special interests have over the legislative 
process.
  The honest leadership package that we are voting on today and 
tomorrow specifically addresses the concerns that the American people 
have had about the legislative process and about our elected leaders. 
This legislation will end the practice of privately funded trips from 
lobbyists. If I take an official trip, my congressional budget will pay 
for it. If I take a vacation, I will pay for it. That is how it should 
be for everyone.
  I also pledge to my constituents, and will vote as part of this 
legislation, to never accept any gifts from lobbyists, nor will my 
staff.
  My job, and all of our jobs, is to represent the citizens of our 
districts. And this is the only group that I will be answerable to.
  I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of ending the 
culture of corruption and providing the environment where we can get 
back to what is most important, working for the people of the United 
States.
  Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this very 
important issue to the constituents of my 20th Congressional District 
of New York.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just, before yielding to the 
gentleman from Marietta, say very quickly again, the legislation that 
passed the House, H.R. 4975, specifically banned the K Street Project. 
Look at the language. It is virtually identical. We focused on the 
issue of lobbyist travel and gifts. And I believe that we can come 
together in a bipartisan way. We want to work in a civil tone, as was 
outlined by Speaker Pelosi today.
  Mr. Speaker, with that I am happy to yield 3 minutes to my very good 
friend, former member of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from 
Marietta, Dr. Gingrey.
  Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I was surprised when reading title II of 
this resolution, as it looks conspicuously like the ethics package 
passed by the Republican majority last Congress; the ethics package 
that only eight Democrats voted to support. I suspect today more than 
eight Democrats will finally agree with the Republicans that meaningful 
ethics reform is a priority of the American people.
  In fact, the most obvious change in the Democratic package is the 
overly partisan and adversarial tone, adding headlines like ``Ending 
the K Street Project'' to language that was included in the Republican 
legislation. And for what purpose other than a partisan poke in the 
minority's eye?
  Democrats campaigned on the promise of a more open and inclusive 
government, assuring us of their bipartisan intentions. Well, today, on 
the first day of the 110th, that promise has

[[Page H35]]

been broken. Indeed, it has been smashed.
  Additionally, as the focus of title II is on fostering a spirit of 
civility, I find it particularly troubling that the Democrats have 
decided to allow only 10 minutes of debate, 5 minutes on each side, on 
title V of this resolution, which we will take up tomorrow.
  During this brief 10 minutes of debate, we will dramatically change 
the way the Rules Committee does business and outline the process by 
which five bills, including stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission 
recommendation, and minimum wage legislation will be considered. That 
is not even 2 minutes per proposal.
  So this is hardly, Mr. Speaker, the tone of civility my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle are promising to foster in the 110th 
Congress.
  The American people and the Members of this body expect more from the 
Democrats. Their false promises of bringing a new age of bipartisanship 
and transparency to the halls of this Congress have clearly not 
materialized, despite the insistence on this by my former colleague, 
Mr. McGovern, while a minority member of the Rules Committee who 
stated, on September 28, 2006, while discussing the Electronic 
Surveillance Modernization Act, and I quote, ``If my Republican friends 
want that trend of closed rules and no amendments, of no democracy in 
the House to continue, then, by all means, vote for this. 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.'' End quote.
  Mr. Speaker, I know why the Democratic leadership is trying to limit 
debate on these liberal bills, but the American people deserve to have 
a voice in this process, the voice of their elected representatives. 
Today, it is clear we have been denied that voice.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just say, respond to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. 
Gingrey), who I am going to miss on the Rules Committee, if he thinks 
that the Republican reform package was meaningful reform, I will lend 
you my bifocals so you can read it more carefully. What ended up 
happening, what you ended up enacting essentially, after 12 years in 
the majority, was banning lobbyists from the locker room. That is all 
that became law.
  You controlled the House of Representatives. You controlled the 
Congress. And you controlled the United States Senate, and that is 
basically all that you did.
  So I would just say to the gentleman, if he wants to vote ``no'' on 
this, he can go right ahead and vote ``no'' on it. But that is 
defending the status quo.
  I think the American people made it very clear during the last 
election that they are sick of the culture of corruption; that they 
want a ban on lobbyists' gifts; that they want an end to the K Street 
Project. They want a ban on Members using corporate jets to fly around 
the country. And so if you want to vote for the status quo, vote ``no'' 
on this. If you want to vote for real meaningful change, vote ``yes.''
  Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, thank you to the gentleman from Massachusetts 
for yielding time.
  Dear colleagues, it is my great privilege to rise today for the first 
time as the Representative for New Hampshire's Second District. It is 
humbling to serve with so many men and women I have admired for so long 
and to stand in this Chamber, hallowed by American history as the 
people's House.
  But while today is dedicated, in part, to celebration, there is no 
time to waste in fixing the ills that have plagued this House in recent 
years.
  Traveling across my State of New Hampshire this fall, I heard one 
clear, consistent message from voters--from Democrats, Independents and 
Republicans. We are fed up with the mess in Washington. Go down there 
and fix it.
  Mr. Speaker, while most Americans see Congress as somewhat distant 
from their lives, they probably couldn't rattle off the names of 
Congressional leadership, for example, or quote bill numbers, they do 
understand with absolute clarity when Members of Congress are working 
for them or when Members of Congress are working for themselves.

                              {time}  1845

  Now, the Democratic ethics reform package is much needed and it is 
long overdue. While some in this body may bristle at its stringency, 
and some are now heard to complain, apparently, that it doesn't go far 
enough, as a new Member, I can tell you that it is only logical and 
only just to make these changes to the House rules, starting today and 
starting now.
  We must ban gifts and travel from lobbyists, we must put a stop to 
the pernicious K Street Project, we must reform the way we spend 
taxpayers' money and the way we write and pass the bills meant to 
protect taxpayers' interests.
  I strongly support the adoption of the Democratic rules package. I 
urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes.''
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
congratulate the gentleman from New Hampshire. We welcome him here. 
Unfortunately, this package doesn't start today and start now. It 
starts March 1 of 2007, 2 months from now.
  I also want to say to my very good friend from Massachusetts once 
again that if you look at the package that we passed in May of last 
year, it is a package that enjoyed bipartisan support. It is one of 
which we are very proud. And I believe that if you look at the fact 
that we did go beyond preventing registered lobbyists from coming onto 
the House floor and the gym, we are doing many of those same things 
here. It has been done before.
  And that is why we are proud to be here in support of this effort, 
which, again, some of us believe does not go far enough and there are 
some problems with it, but we do believe it is a positive step. Why? 
Because it is a reaffirmation of what Speaker Hastert led us to last 
year.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to yield 4 minutes to my good 
friend from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).
  Mr. SHADEGG. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to 
express my concern about the tone of this debate. Let me make it clear: 
I compliment my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Ethics 
reform is needed here, and today you are making a good first step. But 
please listen carefully to those of us on this side of the aisle who 
will vote with you for this package when we implore you to go further 
and when we take some credit for the efforts of the past.
  It is true that we passed as a law through this House, sadly the 
Senate did not follow suit, a bill that corrected many of these things. 
Your bill, in some respects, goes further, but some of us are concerned 
that it needs to go even further. And it is not because we are 
revisionists.
  I have campaigned in this body and out of this body throughout my 
career for reform. I believe it is not enough just to do so-called 
lobbyist reform. We must direct our ethics reform at the Members of 
this institution. And one way to do that is a way that was recognized 
by our new Speaker a decade ago, and that is to say that the Hiss Act, 
passed clear back in 1954, which said a Member of Congress who was 
convicted of bribery would lose his or her pension, should be 
reinstituted, because it was repealed in 1961.
  Over a year ago, watching what I was disappointed in in the criminal 
conduct of some Members of this body, I introduced a bill with 57 
cosponsors saying that any Member, any Member, Republican, Democrat or 
otherwise, convicted of bribery in connection with their office ought 
to, at an absolute minimum, lose their pension. And I believe that is 
the standard we owe the American people, and no less.
  My colleague says this is just a rules package, but this is your 
first hundred hours. There is no rule that says you could not have 
brought a statute, and I implore the gentleman and tell him that I will 
join with him, as will my colleague from Illinois and my colleague from 
Nebraska, each of whom had introduced bills a year ago or more seeking 
to prohibit Members from collecting a taxpayer-funded pension when they 
have, as the gentleman from Massachusetts pointed out, used this office 
not as one of public trust but one of public abuse to benefit 
themselves.

[[Page H36]]

  There is no time for delay. Pass a reform now punishing Members who 
misuse their office. Take away their pensions and do it now.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I will commit to the gentleman from Arizona that we are going to 
enter into that exchange, and I look forward to having that statute on 
the floor where he can speak in favor of it and we can speak in favor 
of it too.
  Let me also, Mr. Speaker, correct the record. The distinguished 
former chairman of the Rules Committee said none of this ethics reform 
takes place for 4 months. That is true on the travel, and I clarified 
that earlier as to why that is the case, so we had time to implement 
the rules and regulations of disclosure. But everything else, I will 
assure him, takes place immediately.
  So once this ethics package passes, I would urge my colleague from 
California not to go out to dinner with any of his lobbyist friends 
because he might be breaking the law.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield for purposes of debate only 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mahoney).
  Mr. MAHONEY of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today representing 
Florida's 16th District and a voice in support of title II of the rules 
of the House relating to ethics reform in the House of Representatives.
  Today, Democrats, and I hope with the support of our Republican 
colleagues, will pass an aggressive reform package that keeps our 
promise to the American people and reforms how we do business here in 
Washington. These ethics reforms mark an end to a tragic era in 
American history where the pursuit of power has cost us the faith of 
the American people.
  We are here today to rebuild America's trust and make a promise that 
never again will special interest trump the interest of this great 
Nation. As Americans communicated on election day, they want political 
debate and they want the ability to choose. They are not interested in 
monopolies by either party on political power.
  As we move forward, we can only solve the key challenges facing this 
great Nation by reestablishing the credibility, our credibility, to the 
American people. Under the new House leadership, the era of special 
interest politics will end and hardworking families, not lobbyists, 
will have a voice in Congress again.
  I urge my colleagues to support these important changes to the House 
ethics rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 14\1/2\ 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts has 9\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time it is my privilege to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Sarbanes).
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address 
the body and speak to the issue of finance, ethics, and other reform 
that is before the body; and I do it in support of those you have 
already heard today, many of whom represent the outrage, as has been 
mentioned, of their constituencies because of situations that were 
faced by those that they ran against. It is an opportunity that we had 
to send a clear and positive message to the American people that what 
they called for in this past election is going to be carried out.
  The exit polls all across this country reflected that the number one 
issue, the number one issue on which the voters cast their vote in the 
election of 2006 was concern about ethics and reforming ethics. We owe 
it to the American people, we owe it to all those in this body, and I 
sincerely recognize that everyone in this body is committed to this. We 
owe it to all of those to articulate and enact a rules package that 
incorporates this significant reform.
  It is a privilege and an honor for me to stand in support of this 
package and in support of the ethics reforms being called for by the 
American people.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
say that I do congratulate my colleagues. I want to begin by saying as 
a Californian that I am very proud of the fact that California has 
provided the first female Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
Similarly, I have congratulated our colleague, Ms. Slaughter, who will 
be the first woman to chair the Rules Committee in our Nation's 
history.
  This has been a historic day and I believe a very exciting day for 
us. I am pleased that we have been able to do a number of things 
already in a bipartisan way, and I think this issue of ethics and 
lobbying reform, building on the reforms that we passed in the 109th 
Congress, utilizing those very positive provisions, is exactly what we 
are about to vote on here in just a few minutes; and I think that it is 
a time when we can be civil.
  And I will say to all of my friends on both sides of the aisle, the 
American people want us to deal with these problems, and I will 
reaffirm my commitment to my colleagues on the Rules Committee that I 
will continue to strive to comport myself in the most dignified way 
possible in dealing with my colleagues, and I urge support of this very 
important measure.
  I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my colleague from 
California (Mr. Dreier) that I appreciate his words of cooperation and 
bipartisanship, and I do hope, and it is my belief, that you will see a 
change in terms of more outreach across the aisle and more respect, 
quite frankly, for the opinions of every single Member of this House.
  I agree this is a historic day. This is not only a historic day 
because we have elected the first woman Speaker of the House in the 
history of the United States of America, but this is also a historic 
day for what we are about to vote on. We are about to change the way we 
do business here in Washington. We are responding to what the American 
people made very clear on election day, that they are tired of the 
ethical lapses of their leaders in government; that they want an end to 
the culture of corruption; that they want a government that has high 
ethical standards; that they want Members of Congress to adhere to 
those high ethical standards and, if they do not, that they will be 
held accountable. So what we are doing today in this ethics package, I 
think, is also an important moment in our history.
  What we are doing is we are doing what is right. We are holding the 
Members of this House to the very highest ethical standards. And I want 
to say to my colleague from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) that I agree with him 
on the pension issue. So do, I think, everybody on our side of the 
aisle. And we are going to address that and we are going to hopefully 
get a unanimous vote on that issue, because he is right on that issue. 
But, again, we are not dealing with that. That requires a statutory 
change, and today we are dealing with the House rules.
  Mr. Speaker, what we are doing here today, I will remind my 
colleagues again, is very important. We are ending gifts by lobbyists 
to Members of Congress, we are banning the use of corporate jets for 
Members of Congress for a minimal price so that they can take a 
corporate jet and fly anywhere in this country. No one else can do 
that, yet that has been a practice by too many Members in this 
Congress. That will be banned.
  We will end the lobbyist-sponsored golf junkets. They will be relics 
of the past. This is a new day. This is a day where ethics and where 
integrity are going to hold a very, very high place. We are going to 
end the culture of corruption with this vote, and I urge my colleagues 
on both sides of the aisle to vote ``yes'' on that.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
Title II of H.R. 6, the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 
110th Congress. With the adoption of this title, we begin to make good 
on our pledge to ``drain the swamp'' and end the ``culture of 
corruption'' that pervaded the 109th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, it is critically important that we adopt the ethics 
rules contained in Title II because Americans are paying for the cost 
of corruption in Washington with skyrocketing prices at the pump, 
spiraling drug costs, and the waste, fraud and no-bid contracts in the 
Gulf Coast and Iraq, for Administration cronies like Halliburton.
  Ethics and legal scandals plagued the Republican Congress--from the 
resignation of Reps. Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham to

[[Page H37]]

the admission of illegal or improper conduct by Reps. Bob Ney and Mark 
Foley.
  The cozy relationship between Congress and special interests we saw 
during the 109th resulted in serious lobbying scandals, such as those 
involving Republican super lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In this scandal, a 
former congressman pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit fraud--
accepting all-expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland and accepting 
meals, sports and concert tickets, while providing legislative favors 
for Abramoff's clients.
  But that is not all. Under the previous Republican leadership of the 
House, lobbyists were permitted to write legislation, 15-minute votes 
were held open for hours, and entirely new legislation was sneaked into 
signed conference reports in the dead of night.
  The American people registered their disgust at this sordid way of 
running the Congress last November and voted for reform. Democrats 
picked up 30 seats held by Republicans and exits polls indicated that 
74 percent of voters cited corruption as an extremely important or a 
very important issue in their choice at the polls.
  Ending the culture of corruption and delivering ethics reform is one 
of the top priorities of the new majority of House Democrats. That is 
why as our first responsibility in fulfilling the mandate of this 
critical election, Democrats are offering an aggressive ethics reform 
package. We seek to end the excesses we witnessed under the Republican 
leadership and to restore the public's trust in the Congress of the 
United States.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend Chairman Slaughter and the members of the 
Rules Committee for their excellent work in preparing this ethics 
reform package. The reforms contained in the package are tough but not 
nearly too tough for persons elected to represent the interests of the 
600,000 constituents in their congressional districts. Indeed, similar 
bipartisan lobbying and government reform proposals were debated and 
passed by the House and Senate in 2006 but the Congress failed to 
reconcile the two versions.
  Mr. Speaker, I support each element of the ethics reform package, 
which bans gifts from lobbyists; bans lobbyist financed trips and 
travel; requires pre-approval and certification for travel financed by 
outside groups; prohibits use of corporate aircraft; ends the notorious 
K Street Project; and mandates ethics training for all House employees.


                       bans gifts from lobbyists

  Members of Congress are paid enough by the taxpayers to afford to pay 
for their own meals. Lobbyists can make their case by providing Members 
of Congress accurate, reliable, and persuasive information. Thus, it is 
appropriate that the House rules should ban gifts, including meals and 
tickets, from lobbyists and the organizations that employ them, and 
require that tickets to sporting and other events given to Members and 
staff by non-lobbyists are valued at market price.


                          bans lobbyist travel

  Another reform that I support is the ban on lobbyists and the 
organizations that employ them from financing travel for Members or 
staff, except for one-day travel to visit a site, attend a forum, 
participate in a panel, or give a speech. As the scandal involving Jack 
Abramoff revealed, lobbyist financed travel led to serious abuse. The 
new rules do not ban such travel altogether but directs the Committee 
on Standards of Official Conduct to develop guidelines for minimal 
lobbyist involvement for one-day/one-night travel. It should be noted, 
however, that travel provided by a private university is not to be 
affected by anything in the rules package.


requires certification and pre-approval for travel paid for by outside 
                                 groups

  I also support the travel certification and pre-approval provisions. 
The new ethics rules require sponsors of all other permitted travel to 
certify that they have abided by all restrictions on lobbyist 
involvement and requires Members and staff to obtain pre-approval from 
the ethics committee for travel to ensure trips are connected to 
official duties, the amount spent is limited to reasonable expenses, 
and the destination is related to the purpose of the trip. The rules 
require the full disclosure of all travel within 15 days after the 
trip. Travel provisions take effect beginning on March 1, 2007.


                    prohibits use of company planes

  Next, the new rules prohibit the use of official, personal or 
campaign funds to pay for the use of non-commercial, corporate jets. 
This provision does not apply to charter plane services or to airplanes 
owned by Members.


                       ends the k street project

  Clarifies that no Member can take or withhold an official act, or 
influence, or offer or threaten to influence, the official act of 
another with the intent to influence on the basis of partisan political 
affiliation an employment decision or employment practice of any 
private entity.


                        mandates ethics training

  Finally, and effective March 1, 2007, the new rules require the 
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct to offer annual ethics 
training to members, delegates, the resident commissioner, officers and 
employees of the House. This training would be required to involve the 
classes of employees deemed appropriate by the committee and must 
include the aspects of the Code of Official Conduct and related House 
rules deemed appropriate.
  The required training is to be provided to new officers or employees 
within 60 days of their employment, and each officer or employee is to 
file a certification with the committee by January 31 certifying that 
they have attended training in the past year.


                               Conclusion

  Mr. Speaker, it is wholly fitting and proper that the Members of this 
House, along with all of the American people, paid fitting tribute to 
the late President Gerald R. ``Jerry'' Ford, a former leader in this 
House, who did so much to heal our Nation in the aftermath of 
Watergate. Upon assuming the presidency, President Ford assured the 
Nation: ``My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over.'' 
By his words and deeds, President Ford helped turn the country back on 
the right track. He will be forever remembered for his integrity, good 
character, and commitment to the national interest.
  This House today faces a similar challenge. To restore public 
confidence in this institution we must commit ourselves to being the 
most honest, most ethical, most responsive Congress in history. We can 
end the nightmare of the last 6 years by putting the needs of the 
American people before those of the lobbyists and special interests. To 
do that, we must start by adopting Title II of H.R. 6, the ethics 
reforms to the Rules of the House of Representatives for the 110th 
Congress.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Honest 
Leadership and Open Government rules package currently before the 
House.
  Reform of the way this House conducts its business is not an option. 
It is an absolute necessity. A recent poll found that only 37 percent 
of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job. Does anyone here 
doubt that the ethical scandals and procedural abuses of recent years 
are a major factor for this low public approval rating? In 2006 alone, 
four Members of the House resigned their seats under a cloud. Two of 
these former Members have already been convicted for unethical and 
illegal ties to lobbyists.
  I do not believe that these specific abuses represent the majority of 
Members, but I do believe it is the responsibility of the Majority 
party to set out strong rules that can begin to regain the trust of the 
American people in their institution of Congress.
  For many years now, our constituents have been bombarded by media 
reports of cozy relationships between Congress and special interests 
lobbyists. They are incensed by news reports of Members accepting all-
expense-paid trips to play golf in Scotland, the flagrant abuse of 
House rules to hold I5-minute votes open for hours for the sole purpose 
of affecting the outcome, the widening Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal, 
and the lack of accountability and transparency in how congressional 
earmarks are awarded.
  I mentioned that our constituents learned about these abuses from the 
media, in their morning newspapers and on the nightly news. Too often 
in recent years, it is also from the media that rank-and-file Members 
of Congress have learned about special interest provisions that were 
secretly inserted into legislation in the dead of night and brought up 
for a vote before Members had an opportunity to read what they were 
being asked to vote on. This form of secret legislating has got to 
stop, and it will stop under this reform package.
  The reform package before the House will also curb a large number of 
the other abuses that have come to light. These reforms will ban gifts 
from lobbyists, expand and tighten the restrictions on congressional 
travel paid for by outside groups, prohibit travel on corporate jets, 
and require greater public disclosure of targeted special interest 
legislation. The reforms will also prohibit the practice of holding 
votes open for the sole purpose of affecting the outcome.
  There are many other needed reforms contained here, but the one I 
want to single out is the provision that restores pay-as-you-go 
budgeting. Pay-as-you-go budgeting simply means that Congress will not 
consider any legislation to boost entitlement spending or cut taxes 
unless it is fully paid for. Before they were abandoned in 2002, the 
pay-as-you-go rules helped to turn record deficits into record 
surpluses in the 1990s. Since abandoning pay-as-you-go, the cumulative 
deficit for the past four years has totaled over $1.36 trillion. We 
simply cannot continue to pile up more and more debt and pass it along 
to our children and grandchildren.
  For all these reasons, I urge all my colleagues to join me in voting 
for the House rules reform package before the House.
  Mr. SIRES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6.

[[Page H38]]

  Throughout history, there has been an ongoing struggle to put the 
people's interest ahead of special interests. With this legislation, we 
put an end to this age-old struggle. The 110th Congress has been given 
a mandate by the people and make sure their's are the voices that are 
heard.
  To do this, we must ban gifts and meals from lobbyists and the 
organizations that they represent. We must ban lobbyists from planning, 
organizing, financing and participating in travel for Members or staff. 
We must protect the American taxpayer by requiring full disclosure of 
earmarks so that they know how their money is being spent. We must 
ensure that the business of the people is completed in a fair and open 
way.
  As we start the 110th Congress, we must govern our own chamber in a 
manner that represents the interests of our constituents. This is why I 
proudly rise in support of this measure and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my deep 
disappointment in the rules package we are considering today.
  The message from the American public last fall was ``we want 
Republicans and Democrats to work together.'' We all had high 
expectations for a ``new way of doing business in Washington.''
  This past week during the Nation's remembrance of former President 
Gerald Ford, we were all reminded of the way Republicans and Democrats 
were able to find common ground to solve the country's problems. There 
was a time when the two parties could come together in the national 
interest.
  Where, Mr. Speaker, did all of those grand and high-minded promises 
of bipartisanship go? I hope this is not a precedent for how the House 
will operate during the rest of the 110th Congress. Our constituents 
expect us to work together and get things done for the good of the 
country.
  Included in this rules package are a number of ethics reforms, but 
they do not go far enough. We must have tougher and stronger ethics 
reform.
  Today, there are Members serving in the House who have contributed to 
the American public's loss of confidence in this body. One Member was 
found to have $90,000 in cash in his freezer; another Member of the 
Appropriations Committee established separate entities that were 
recipients of appropriation funds. Yet, this rules package and the 
ethics reforms in it do nothing to punish such behavior.
  We must adopt tougher and stronger measures if we are going to regain 
the trust of the American public. In my District, Nebraskans sent a 
clear message that said if Members take bribes and abuse the public's 
trust, they should not be protected and should not be allowed to reap 
the benefits of their House service such as a pension paid for by the 
taxpayers. Under this new Congressional leadership, Nebraska's voice 
will not be heard. I won't be allowed to even offer an amendment to be 
denied by the Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I am introducing today legislation that I introduced 
last year--to deny pension benefits to any Member or government 
official who is convicted of a crime that violates the public trust. 
Because of the lack of a fair and open process in this House, I have 
been denied the opportunity to offer this legislation as an amendment.
  This is not what American voters wanted to see after last fall's 
election. We are being denied the chance to work together. We need to 
restore the public's confidence in this House and one way to do that is 
to work together to solve the problems facing this Nation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1900

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to House Resolution 
5, the previous question is ordered on the portion of the divided 
question comprising title II.
  The question is on that portion of the divided question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 430, 
nays 1, not voting 4, as follows:

                              [Roll No. 7]

                               YEAS--430

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Butterfield
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Carter
     Castle
     Castor
     Chabot
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cohen
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Fallin
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hall (TX)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hobson
     Hodes
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jindal
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Jordan
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Lynch
     Mack
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCollum (MN)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murphy, Tim
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sali
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schmidt
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Sestak
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuler
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sutton
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wamp
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (OH)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NAYS--1

       
     Burton (IN)
       

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (SC)
     Buyer
     Davis, Lincoln
     Norwood

                              {time}  1929

  So that portion of the divided question was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

[[Page H39]]

  Stated for:
  Mr. LINCOLN DAVIS of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 7, had I 
been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNulty). Pursuant to section 4 of House 
Resolution 5, further proceedings will be postponed.


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

  
  January 4, 2007--On Page H39 the following appeared: Speaker, on 
rollcall No. 7, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
  
  The online version should be corrected to read: Note to printer 
move text here: The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McNULTY). Pursuant to 
section 4 of House Resolution 5, further proceedings will be 
postponed.


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


                          ____________________