[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 =========================
____________________